INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information C om pany 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 O rd er N u m b e r 9 4 0 6 5 5 2 T h e r e la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n g ro u p e m p o w e r m e n t a n d se lf-d ir e c te d le a r n in g in s e le c te d sm a ll g ro u p s in M ich ig a n Singh, P a d m a B., Ph.D. Michigan State University, 1993 UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROUP EMPOWERMENT AND SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING IN SELECTED SMALL GROUPS IN MICHIGAN By Padma B. Singh A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural and Extension Education 1993 ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROUP EMPOWERMENT AND SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING IN SELECTED SMALL GROUPS IN MICHIGAN By PADMA B. SINGH Identification of the relationship between group empowerment and self-directed learning is the central objective of this study. The setting of the research is small groups. The respondents were members of eight existing community groups. A total of 81 members from the groups participated in the study. The instrument for data collection was a self­ administered mailed questionnaire. The instrument consisted of 20 items to measure group empowerment as perceived by the respondents, 12 items to measure perceived self-directed learning, and seven items related to general characteristics of the respondents. Findings revealed that group members who perceived their group as being more empowering tended to perceive themselves as being more self-directed. Furthermore, groups which were rated high in empowerment also had a higher proportion of self-directed members. The study indicates that group members who perceived themselves as being more self-directed tended to perceive their group as being more empowering. Findings also showed that there is a variation in the perception of group members regarding group empowerment and individual self-directed learning. Findings revealed that members with longer group membership see their group as empowering and see themselves as self-directed. However, age, gender and level of education were not related to the perceptions of group empowerment or self-directed learning. This study suggests that the group processes that empower individuals within the group can also facilitate individuals to move from low self-directedness to high selfdirectedness. The study also implies that the enhancement of competencies to be self-directed learners tends to help the groups become more empowering. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT May people have contributed to the successful completion of my doctoral program. This brief acknowledgement is not adequate to express my gratitude to those who have made this study possible. I am particularly indebted to Dr. S. Joseph Levine, my major professor, for sacrificing much of his time to help me complete this dissertation and for supporting me through graduate assistantship. His constant guidance, supervision, and assistance throughout my doctoral program spurred me on to this endeavor. I am also deeply grateful to other members of my committee: Dr. George Axinn, Dr. Carroll Wamhoff, and Dr. Paul Roberts for their ideas and suggestions. Dr. Roberts is also appreciated for providing graduate assistantship during spring 1992. I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Michael Doyle for providing graduate assistantship in critical juncture of time. My academic program at MSU would not have been completed within a set time-frame without the generous support of various individuals and institutions. In this regard, I would like to express my appreciation to: Dr. N iv Scrimshaw, Harvard Center for Population Studies for availing United Nations University fellowship; Dr. Carroll Wamhoff, Department of Agricultural and Extension Education, MSU for providing graduate fellowship; and to the Office of International Students and Scholars (OISS) for providing emergency tuition award. My gratitude is expressed to Mr. Les H. Schick, County Extension Director, Jackson county; Mr. Rob Anderson Regional Representative Michigan Farm Bureau, central region; and Mr. Frank Louws, President, the Bible Study Group at MSU for approving to conduct this study in their respective areas and for generously providing the list of respondents. Also, I express my appreciation to: the members of Michigan Farm Bureau County Boards, central region; members of 4-H Council; members of Cooperative Extension Service Programming Board; and to the members of Soil conservation District Board from Jackson county for participating in the field research. I would like to extend my appreciation to Dr. Murari Suvedi for facilitating my transfer from Cornell as well as for helping me to have a graduate assistantship during Fall, 1992. I would like to thank professors and colleagues at the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education for helping me in the validation of the instrument. I would like to extend my thanks to friends and families at East Lansing for making my stay enjoyable. At the last not the least, my deep appreciation goes to my wife Indira, daughter Pragya, and my family at home for their steadfast encouragement, moral support and understanding without which this academic sojourn would not have come to an end. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES, LIST OF FIGURES...................................... CHAPTER I ............................................ XII 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................ The P r o b l e m .................................... Conceptual Framework ............................ Empowerment ................................ Self-Directed Learning ...................... Key Concepts.................................... Definitions of Terms Goals and Research Questions.................... Importance of S t u d y ............................ A s s u m p t i o n s .................................... 1 1 5 5 3 13 13 15 16 18 CHAPTER II 19 .................................. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................... E m p o w e r m e n t .................................... Empowerment Defined ........................ Empowerment: the Process .................. O v e r v i e w .................................. Small G r o u p s .................................... Group D e v e l o p m e n t .............................. Group G r o w t h .............................. Individual Growth . . . . . . Self-Directed Learning .......... Process Perspective .................. . . . Personalty Perspective .................... Research Trends in Self-directed Learning . . O v e r v i e w .................................. 19 19 19 21 26 27 31 36 38 40 41 43 45 46 CHAPTER I I I .......................................... 48 METHODOLOGY................ .......................... 48 Nature of the S t u d y ............................. ■ 4 8 Sampling Procedure .............................. 49 P o p u l a t i o n ................................ 49 vii S a m p l e .................................... Instrumentation ................................ Group Empowerment......................... . Self-directed Learning .................... Demographic Characteristics ................ Data C o l l e c t i o n ................................ Validity and Reliability . . . . . V a l i d i t y .................................. P r e t e s t i n g ................................ Analysis and Presentation of Results ............ 50 52 53 56 57 59 61 61 62 68 CHAPTER I V .......................................... 70 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF D A T A General Description of the Respondents .......... Age G e n d e r .................................... Educational Background . . . . . Years of Membership........................ Variation in the Level of Perceived Group Empowerment................................ Variation in the Level of Self-directed Learning . Relationship between Group Empowerment and Self­ directed Learning.......................... Relationship between Demographic Characteristics and Empowerment .......................... Relationship between Demographic Characteristics and Self-Directedness in Learning .......... Regression Analysis ............................ 70 70 70 71 72 73 91 93 CHAPTER V ............................................ 96 74 79 82 89 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 96 S u m m a r y ........................................ 96 C o n c l u s i o n s .......................................104 Conclusion # 1 ...............................104 Conclusion # 2 . . . . . 106 Conclusion # 3 ...............................106 Conclusion # 4 ...............................108 Conclusion # 5 ...............................109 Conclusion # 6 ........................... . 110 Implications .................................... Ill Implication # 1 .............................Ill Implication # 2 ...............................112 Implication # 3 ................ 113 113 Recommendations ................................ Recommendation / I .......... 113 Recommendation # 2 ...........................113 Recommendation # 3 ....................... . 114 Recommendation # 4 .................. 114 Recemmendation # 5 .............................115 viii Recommendation # 6 ...........................115 Recommendation # 7 ...........................116 BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................117 APPENDIX A Group Process Opionnaire ...................... 124 B Cover Letter ................................. 128 C Letter from MFB Regional Representative . . . . 129 D Letter from County Extension Director...........13 0 E Reminder Letter ............................... F Approval Letter from UCRIHS.....................13 2 131 G Item-total Correlation Coefficients for Empowerment Items...................... 133 H Item-total Correlation Coefficients for SDL Items............................................134 I Correlation between Empowerment and SDLItems. . 135 ix LIST OP TABLES Table Page 1. Sample Distribution According to the Groups 2. Item-total Correlation Coefficients for Group Empowerment........................ 64 Item-Total Correlation Coefficients for SelfDirected L e a r n i n g ............................ 66 4. Croanbach' alpha ............................... 68 5. Distribution of Respondents According to Age Category .................................. 71 6. Distribution of Respondents According to Gender 72 7. Distribution of Respondents According to Level of E d u c a t i o n .................................... 73 Distribution of Respondents according to Years of Membership.................................... 74 Distribution of Respondents according to the Perceived Level of Group Empowerment .......... 75 10. Level of Perceived Group Empowerment Across Groups 77 11. One-way Analysis of Variance of Group Empowerment 78 12. Distribution of Respondents according to the Levels of Self-directedness in Learning . . . . 79 Level of Self-Directedness in Learning across Groups .............................. . . . . . 80 14. Weighted SDL Scores across Groups 81 15. Correlation between Total Group Empowerment Score and Total Self-Directed Learning Score ........ 3. 8. 9. 13. x . . ............ 52 82 16. Correlation between Individual Measures of Empowerment and total Self-Directed Learning Score 84 17. Correlation between Measures of Self-Directed Learning and Total Group Empowerment Scores . . 86 Correlation Coefficients of Age and Years of Membership with Empowerment .................. 89 T-test comparing Gender with respect to Empowerment ................................ 90 One-way Analysis of Variance of the levels of Education with respect to Empowerment ........ 91 Correlation Coefficients of Age and Years of Membership with respect to Self-directed Learning 92 One-way Analysis of Variance of Levels of Education with respect to Self-directed Learning 92 T-test comparing Gender with respect to SelfDirected Learning ............................ 93 Multiple Regression of a set of Variables with Self-Directed Learning ...................... 94 Multiple regression of a Set of Variables with respect to Group Empowerment .................. 95 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. xi LIST OP FIGURES Figures Page 1. The Experiential Learning Model ............... 2. Process of Enacting Empowerment 3. The Tubbs Model of Small Group Interaction . . . xii ............... 12 22 30 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem The construct of empowerment is emerging as the new force in organizational life (Vogt, Murrell, 1990). Empowerment realizes and reconceptualizes the relationship among tasks, work, achievements, and connectedness. Along with theories of the growth of self and personality, empowerment has helped to clarify how an individual attains a sense of worthiness and well-being. During the 1950's and 1960's, this theme of individual well-being was embodied in the literature on motivation and self-actualization, as well as in a humanistic model of existence. Today this theme of individual well-being is expressed by the term empowerment. Empowerment means different things to different people. Some view empowerment as the redistribution of power from the "haves" to "havenots", and thus regard it as a phenomenon of a zero-sum game. Recent literature on empowerment (Vogt and Murrell, 1990; Chavez, 1990; Schwerin, 1990; Margot, 1989) suggests that: empowerment means growth, not a distribution of power; the growth of power is a dynamic, liberating force that frees energy to use or to generate more power; empowerment is facilitative in its nature and its implementation; and empowerment leads 1 2 individuals as well social groups or organizations toward the path of self- efficacy. categories of empowerment: Murrell (1985) identifies two (1) self-empowerment, the ability to empower oneself, and (2) interactive empowerment, the process of creating power with others. The setting of interactive empowerment can be dyad, small group, organization, community, or society. Empowerment through interaction in a small group setting is the focus of this study. Small groups are characterized by the face-to-face interaction among members who may join or leave the group without affecting the overall character of the group. Various development agencies conceive of groups as vehicles of change. These groups, also referred to as teams or networks, are the institutions of our time. Whatever the stated purpose, the function of most networks is mutual support and enrichment, empowerment of the individual, and cooperation to effect change (Dean, 1984). Naisbitt (1982) contends that some networks have a long life evolving into a stable, ongoing organization. Other networks remain open and fluid, and some may dissolve with members forming or joining new networks. The attempt to use small groups for community improvement has many starting points. The focal idea is that residents in a community should be helped to act collectively to solve some problem which affects the lives of all of them. In planning and undertaking such a task, 3 the residents achieve tangible results, and if the process is skillfully handled, they also learn how to attack other problems, being motivated by their feelings of success in their initial efforts. The association or organizational structure which they have developed to cope with the problem continues to remain intact. They also use the knowledge of themselves and of their community, and the method of attack which they have learned in dealing with the first problem again and again. These interventions however, do not lead to the same end results in all situations. This may be partly attributed to the models of helping relationships which influence the process of development. These models are the: moral model, medical model, enrichment model, and empowerment model (Sleeter, 1981). The "moral model" blames the victim by viewing the person as responsible for both their own problems and solutions. The "medical model" and the "enrichment model" are both models of benevolent helping relationships in which experts with power and knowledge help those who presumably lack these resources. The fourth model, the "empowerment model" views the person as a victim of problems created by society, but also as a potentially active solver of his/her own problems. Various scholars (Dunst and Trivette, 1984; Hughes, 1987; Kramer, 1989) advocate empowerment strategies that capitalize on peoples' abilities to understand their own needs and that build on the energy, networks, and strengths people have. The 4 benevolent helping relationship models, although implemented with good intentions and producing some good positive results, tend to reinforce the status quo and perpetuate dependency. Cummins (1986) has made similar arguments for empowering learners. According to Cummins, empowering education programs work with learners and their home communities to build upon what they have to offer; disabling programs ignore and attempt to eradicate the knowledge and strengths that the learners bring, and replace them with the knowledge and strength of the dominant society. This, in Paulo Freire's view, is indoctrination. An empowerment approach places emphasis on autonomy in the decision-making process of organized communities, local self-reliance, and experiential learning (Freidman, 1992). If interventions geared toward community education do not facilitate individual growth but instead reinforce the status quo, then educators have to reexamine their intervention strategies so as to facilitate individual as well as community development. In this light, it is imperative to know if the interaction within a group is facilitating or hindering individual growth. What are the situations in which individual growth is facilitated or restricted? learning take place in group interaction? it induce self-directedness in learning? Does If it does, does 5 Conceptual Framework The purpose of this conceptual framework is to establish a conceptual base for understanding the relationship between the two major concepts of the study: empowerment and self-directed learning. These two concepts are central to this study and it is essential to present them clearly. Empowerment This study conceives of empowerment as an interactive process based on a synergistic, not a zero-sum, assumption of power. This implies that one individual can influence or affect the behavior of an other individual so that the interaction between them produces more power or influence for both of them. In fact, all individuals engaged in working together have the potential to empower one another, so that the net result is an increase in power for all those involved. Most experts define power as the ability to control or change another's behavior. The reference to power in the context of this study, however, is the ability of an individual to control his/her own life situation. This is well reflected in the concept of empowerment presented by Edgar Boon (1989) stated as "providing adult learners with the knowledge that will give them control of their world." The process of empowerment encapsules two types of behavior: empowered behavior and empowering behavior. Empowered behavior is the behavior demonstrated by individuals who are empowered. Empowering behavior is the behavior of an institution or persons that is designed to help others grow toward a state of empowerment. In this study, empowering behavior in small groups is referred to as measures of group empowerment. These are: ® Opportunity for group members to make decisions; ® Opportunity for group members to reflect on ideas; • Atmosphere that promotes willingness to learn; ® Mutual support between group members; • Involvement of members in group activities; • Collegiality between group members; • Valuing of group members' experiences; « Facilitative leadership; ® Valuing of individualized differences of group members; ® Atmosphere that promotes trust among group members. Actions of empowering behavior can often determine empowered behavior. These actions can be conceived of on a continuum from highly disabling behaviors to highly empowering behaviors. For example, an opportunity for group members to make decisions can be highly empowering if there is ample opportunity for members to make decisions. Or, this may be highly disabling if opportunity to make decisions does not exist. Empowered behavior constitutes personal development involving increasing self-insight and recognition and acceptance of one's complex, ever-changing dynamics; increased understanding of one's world and how it works; and increased capacity for taking responsibility for oneself, coupled with the increased competence in undertaking social obligations. In this study, the framework for analyzing empowering behavior and empowered behavior has been adapted from a model of force field analysis described by Axinn (1988). The roots of this model are embedded in the field theory of Lewin (1935). Lewin's field theory conceives groups in terms of their orientation toward goals. A group is seen as occupying a position in its subjectively salient environment or "life space". Within these life spaces, a group (or individual) locomotes, or changes its position. The direction of movement during its goal seeking activity reflects the existence of two opposing forces: forces of change and continuity. Referring to these forces, Axinn (1988) contends, "there are various forces pushing in the direction of change, and countervailing forces pushing in the direction of continuity. At any particular point in time, things are as they are because the forces in one direction balance the force in the other. The future situation will be different from the present situation to the extent that there are either increases in the forces of 8 change; decreases in the forces of continuity; or some combination of the two which results in a different balance." From the force field perspective, empowering behaviors correspond to the forces of change and disabling behaviors correspond to the forces of continuity. If the magnitude of the forces of change is greater than that of the forces of continuity, the direction of movement of the individuals in the group will be toward selfdirectedness manifested by interdependent relationships rather than dependent relationships. Self-Directed Learning There is no unified view of self-directed learning. It is viewed through two perspectives: a process perspective and a personality perspective. Self-directed learning with a process perspective is seen as an instructional process which identifies the skills individual to engage in and abilities the process. The needed by an personality perspective envisions self-directed learning as a unified concept which focuses on an individual's motivation to pursue learning throughout life rather than on the ability of an individual to engage in episodes of self-instruction (Oddi, 1987). The broader perspective that considers skills and abilities as needed for self-directed learning is the view of this study. the same time, it includes theview At that intrinsic motivation is needed for self-directedness in 9 learning. The direction of movement toward self-directed learning entails a relationship between group empowerment and self-directed learning. The roots of this relationship are embedded in learning theories that have been presented by Knowles (1975), and Kolb, Rubin, and McIntyre (1971). Some of the characteristics of Knowles' theory state that adults: 1. Learn when what they are learning is relevant to them. 2. Learn best when the climate or atmosphere for learning is nonjudgemental and supportive. 3. Learn when they are committed (i.e. to the learning , to their own growth, to the organization, to others). 4. Learn when they understand the personal context of new learning (Where I am now? Where am I going? How will I get there? 5. Learn when all of their senses are stimulated. 6. Learn best when they are active (i.e. when they discuss, influence, or participate). 7. Learn when they receive constructive feedback, be that feedback reflective or evaluative in nature. 8. Learn at their own pace. Again, the principle of individual difference is reinforced. The tenets of learning forwarded by Malcolm Knowles correspond to the group interaction processes that empower individuals and groups (Margot, 1989; Levingston, 1991, Vogt and Murrell, 1990; Catalano and Della, 1991). In 10 characterizing the theory of andragogy, Knowles (1975) assumes that with the development of self- concept, learners move from dependence in childhood to self-directedness in adulthood. Another learning theory that relates the empowerment process to self-directed learning is the theory of experiential learning (Kolb, Rubin, and McIntyre, 1971). Experiential learning theory provides a model of learning and adaptation processes consistent with the structure of human cognition and the stages of human growth and development. A particularly useful perspective on experiential learning is that of Kolb, Rubin, and McIntyre (1971), who conceptualize learning as a cyclical process of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation (Figure 1). However, they note that different people learn differently. When people who have different learning strengths come together, they not only learn more, but they gain an appreciation of the experience of others and of the benefits of reciprocity. More specifically, there are two dimensions to the learning process. The first dimension represents the concrete experiencing of events at one end and abstract conceptualization at the other. The other dimension has active experimentation at one extreme and reflective observation at the other. Thus, in the process of learning, one moves in varying degrees from actor to observer, from 11 specific involvement to general analytic detachment. cited by Kolb, Rubin, and Osland, As (1991), many cognitive psychologists (Bruner, 1960, 1966; Harvey, Hunt, and Shroeder, 1961) have identified the concrete/ abstract dimension as a primary dimension on which cognitive growth and learning occurs. The active/reflective dimension is the other dimension of cognitive growth and learning. As growth occurs, thought becomes more reflective and internalized (Kolb, Rubin, and Osland, 1991) and there is intrinsic motivation toward selfdirectedness in learning (Oddi, 1987). Levine (1991), in describing the characteristics of adult learners, states that the adult learner is motivated from within himself/herself. This framework of experiential learning allows for individual differences in styles of adaptation to the world. It encompasses the adaptive concepts such as creativity, decision-making, problem-solving, and attitude change (Kolb, Rubin, and Osland, 1991). The relevance of the theory of experiential learning to empowerment is evident. This theory suggests that individuals respond differently to the learning situation because of different learning styles. It implies that there can be differential impact on individual growth even when individuals are exposed to the same learning situation. 12 |-------------- Concrete experience ----------Active experimentaton ------------ Reflective observation Abstract conceptualization ------ Figure 1. The Experiential Learning Model Learning theories suggest that empowering forces within the group enhance education and development of self. Vogt and Murrell (1990) assert that with the development of self there is higher commitment (to people, institutions, projects, experiences) and commitment, in turn, connects the individuals with others that bring a sense of selffulfillment. Thus, intrinsic motivation toward learning moves individuals toward self-directedness. Furthermore, in an empowered group, members contribute their experiences and expertise while working together as a team to produce their best work. This has a synergistic effect on individual and group growth. And, when there is maturity in the individuals, they tend to be self-directed. Overview. The foregoing discussion has attempted to establish the conceptual base for understanding the relationship between empowerment and self-directed learning. The process of empowerment is viewed as empowering behavior and empowered behavior. Actions of empowering behavior can 13 often determine empowered behavior. Force-field analysis is used as a model to analyze empowering behavior and empowered behavior. Empowering behavior is the force of change while disabling (disempowering) behavior is the force of continuity. If the magnitude of empowering behavior is greater than the disabling behavior, then the direction of movement of the individuals in a group will be toward selfdirectedness. As suggested by the learning theories, empowering behavior induces individual growth, which in turn, develops intrinsic motivation within individuals to be self-directed in learning. Key Concepts Definitions of Terms Empowerment. It is an interactive process of providing knowledge to individuals so that they can have control over their world with increased individual and collective efficacy. Implicit in this definition is the notion that knowledge is power. In this study empowerment is conceived of as a group phenomenon. The respondents were asked to express their perception about the group empowerment process. Group. A group is defined as the collection of individuals with the following attributes: * face to face interaction; 14 • interactions are repetitive/frequent; • some form of structure; • set of goals toward which actions are directed; • set of functions; • roles and norms; Interaction. It is a process by which human beings confront common areas of concern, engage in meaningfully related dialogue, actively search for solutions to mutual problems, and cope with these solutions purposefully (Lippitt, 1982). Individual Growth. The ways by which a person learns, and grows as a consequence of analyzed life experiences; with positive interaction in internal and external environments, and of participation in planned educational, training, and developmental activities of either a formal or informal nature (Lippitt, 1982). Group Growth. The increasing capacity of the group to act as a functional whole, including integration of emotion, rational thought, and action. It includes increasing shares of responsibility and leadership (Hay and Apps, 1981) 15 Community Problem. A social or economic concern that exists in the community. Initially, the concern may or may not be recognized as a problem by all citizens of the community. The criteria for including or excluding a community problem is, in general, whether or not the solution will benefit the whole community (Hay and Apps, 1981). Participation. It is the involvement of the learners in group discussion, reflection, decision-making, and task functions. Self-Directed Learning. Self-directed learning is defined as a process in which individuals take the initiative in designing learning experiences, diagnosing needs, locating resources, and evaluating learning (Knowles, 1975). In this study, self-directed learning is a personal phenomenon. Respondents were asked to express their feelings about their own self-directedness as members of the group. Goals and Research Questions Three goals were defined in this study. First, it sought to know to what extent participation of individuals in group interaction can enhance individual growth. following research guestions emanated from this goal: The 16 1. Does individual perception vary with rerspect to the levels of group empowerment? 2. Is there any variation in perceived self-directed learning among individuals in the group. Secondly, this study sought to identify the demographic variables related to group empowerment and self-directed learning. The following research questions were formulated to address this goal: 3. What is the relationship between group empowerment and demographic characteristics of group members? 4. Does self-directed learning relate to the demographic characteristic of group members? Thirdly, it attempted to find out if learning takes place in small group interaction. The following research question emanated from this goal: 5. Is there any relationship between group empowerment and self-directed learning? Importance of Study Group action has been considered one of the accelerators of extension education. How the dynamics within the group affects development of individuals is a matter of growing concern. The inquiry into this phenomenon is yet in rudimentary stages. This study attempts to advance knowledge in this direction. 17 The information generated through this study could provide guidelines for development practitioners/extension educators in designing community development programs. In making the programs self-sustaining, development practioners/extension educators need to be aware of the forces that facilitate individual development and those that hinder it. This study could provide this insight. This study could also define guidelines for facilitating group interaction that could lead to the development of individuals. Development practioners/extension educators can adopt instructional strategies that would facilitate learning from high dependency to low dependency. This study can be instrumental in program evaluation. Instruments developed by this study can be adopted for evaluating development programs. There is no coherent instrument that measures individual empowerment within small groups. Previous studies are based on limited indicators of empowerment. This study has explored previous studies and has come up with a valid instrument which can be used in future research to measure individual empowerment in small groups. This study has interwoven fragmented concepts that relate to empowerment and self-directedness in learning in a more coherent way. It has thus added a new theoretical dimension in the field of andragogy. Assumptions It was assumed that individuals react differently even when they are exposed to the same learning situation. It was assumed that the respondents could read and write, so the opinions expressed represent their own. Characteristics of late respondents and non­ respondents do not differ significantly. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter explores the literature pertaining to the concept of empowerment vis a vis small groups. The primary objective for reviewing literature was to be current with the research in the field of empowerment through group interaction. Another objective of the review was to identify different indicators that measure the concepts under study, thus, the development of an instrument was based on the review of literature. The review is centered around empowerment and its measures, group development stages, individual growth, and self-directed learning. Empowerment Empowerment Defined By simple definition to empower means to enable, to allow or to permit. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary treats "empower" and "enable" as synonyms (Webster, 1977) which mean "to provide with the means or opportunity." Empowerment has been defined in different ways. Ashcroft (1987) defines it as "bringing into a state of belief in one's ability/ capability to act with effect." Her definition stresses the individual's power to achieve his or her own goals. Chavez (1990) defines empowerment as a process of recognizing one's own strength, using their 19 20 inherent strength to set one's own agenda and subsequently make constructive changes to improve one's life. In the same vein, Schwerin (199 0) defines empowerment as the process of gaining mastery over one's self and one's environment in order to fulfill human needs. He conceives of self-esteem, political efficacy, perceived competence, and locus of control as the measures of empowerment. Others (Lazarie, 1990; Putman, 1991 and Schatz, 1990) also relegate development of self as the core of empowerment. Margot (1989) contends that empowerment is dependent on three psychological processes: the development of group identification, stratum consciousness, and self and collective efficacy. Together these changes have been described as developing a sense of critical consciousness. Referring to teacher empowerment, Margot suggests that changes in a teacher's attitudes, beliefs, self esteem, perceptions, and work environment are crucial ingredients of successful teacher empowerment. Bhasin, in her report on a training program for women development workers about empowerment, stressed the importance of group reflection to increase the understanding of observations and experiences (Kroenenburg, 1986). One research project focusing on the empowerment of teachers explored the complexity of the relationship in a group supervision model and confirmed involvement, collegiality, 21 and reflection as the measures of empowerment (Catalano, Della, 1991). Empowerment: the Process Although empowerment has been defined as "giving power to", "creating power within", and "enabling", there is no definitive meaning. However, there seems to be unanimity among scholars that empowerment is a process rather than an end. In this light, the empowerment process model developed by Vogt and Murrell (1990) seems to be appealing. Their model suggests that the heart of enacting empowerment is a trilogy of education and development, enhanced relationships, and transformation (Vogt, Murrell, 1990). This is depicted in figure 2. 22 Educating and developing Self Enhancing relationships Dyads, groups Transformation Figure 2. Process of Enacting Empowerment Educating and developing self involves exposing the individual to the learning conditions. These conditions are characterized by open communication, mutual trust, and enhanced participation. This renders an empowered self which in turn brings about commitment (to people, institutions, projects, experiences). turn connects the individual of personal worth And, commitment in with others and with a sense that brings a sense of self-fulfillment. In an empowered group, committed individuals contribute their experiences and expertise by working together as teams to produce their best work. This has a synergistic effect on individual and group growth. And when there is maturity 23 in the individuals, they tend to move toward selfdirectedness in learning. The communication process (face-to-face) is open to asking and listening, and encourages everyone's input. Such a communication system creates opportunities for each person to reflect and to receive feedback that fosters growth. The National Commission on Resources for Youth (1982) outlined the "hows" of empowerment as being: ® individualized, experiential learning ® developmental sequencing of youth participation activities ® opportunities for decision-making and power-sharing • adult-youth partnerships (willingness to learn from each other) • opportunities for reflection and evaluation • involvement of youth as change agents in their communities. A National collegium of practioners engaged in school reform activities examined reflection and notation in communications in the school renewal network and found that the use of reflective, deliberative dialogue enhanced participant empowerment. Analysis of participant exchanges further suggested that the network stimulated reflection and deliberative thought (Levingston, 1991) . Davis (1990), however, through observing the empowerment process voices a caution: it necessitates self­ 24 discipline. He contends that empowerment methodology can encourage increased individual self-assertion and provide the opportunity for fuller development of humanity with reduced use of violence. The power to be is the basic level of power and is succeeded by the phase of self-affirmation, with its call for survival with esteem. When self- affirmation is confronted by opposition, it becomes selfassertion. Self-assertion, when blocked over time, is replaced by aggression, which can occur in varying situations." Vogt and Murrell (1990) suggest interventions for empowering individuals as follows: • extending decision making to the wider group ® openness and willingness to connect • willingness to give, receive, and request feedback « enabling to be active participants ® delegation of responsibility, power, work • recognizing and valuing individual differences • listening actively to others • ensuring individuals' right to disagree and be different ® establishing information sharing as a norm ® cultivating a trustful and trustworthy atmosphere • recognition of and respect for people's needs and feelings • willingness to share self with others The empowering interventions put forward by Vogt and Murrell correspond to the facilitative relationships 25 envisioned by Carl Rogers (1969). Some of these characteristics are: 1. recognition of the need to establish a facilitative environment 2. acceptance of the system in terms of its current status 3. acceptance of each individual and the degree of selfknowledge he or she presently possesses 4. empathetic understanding, taking the time to concentrate on each person's unique circumstances 5. willingness to operate in terms of one's feelings 6. readiness to give and receive feedback, thus conveying the relevance of each person's input and the importance of open communication for growth 7. recognition of the growth potential of these behaviors within a group setting Although Rogers defined these behavioral characteristics for counselors and leaders of growth groups, it is apparent that they would be useful in creating environments conducive to empowering others in whatever setting they are adopted. Roger's classic Freedom to Learn (1969) was among the earlier applications of empowerment to education. method was applied to a wide Roger's variety of groups, cconsisting of deffering ages and different purposes. Some of his guidelines for the facilitation of learning (p. 164- 166) were that: the facilitator, through trust, helped to create 26 the learning experience; the facilitator relied on the desire of the learners to implement projects which had meaning to them; the facilitator accepted the intellectual content and emotional attitudes of the participants; the facilitator became a participant learner, sharing without imposing, and alert to the expressions of deep or strong feelings toward others. Overview In light of the preceding literature, it is apparent that empowerment leads individuals toward fuller development of self. This can be referred to as the psychological growth of the individuals. In a group situation, through interaction, there are enhanced relationships which stimulate group growth. The roots of empowerment are embedded in learning theories. Conditions of learning also induce empowerment, but due to individual differences in learning styles, individuals respond differently to learning situations and empowering processes, for that matter. The literature suggests the following as some of the measures that empower individuals: • Opportunities for group members to make decisions; • Opportunities for group members to reflect on ideas; • Atmosphere that promotes willingness to learn; • Mutual support between group members; • Involvement of members in group activities; 27 • Collegiality between group members; • Valuing of group members' experiences; • Facilitative leadership; ® Valuing the individualized differences of group members; « Atmosphere that promotes trust among group members. In a learning situation, an educator, by assuming the role of a mere facilitator, can stimulate the process of empowerment. Small Groups When a set of regularly interacting people possess a common identity or purpose and shared behavioral expectations or norms, it tends to engage in a relatively stable pattern of interaction that sociologists call structure. Thus, small groups are not simply small collections of individuals. They must possess distinctive qualities in order to be called groups. Crosbie (1975) seems to have captured the essence of sociological conceptions by defining small groups as "a collection of people who meet more or less regularly in face-to-face interaction, who possess a common identity or exclusiveness of purpose, and who share a set of standards governing their activities." It is not clear at what point a collection of people becomes too large to merit being called a small group. Nixon (1979) suggests that social units possessing 28 the qualities proposed by Crosbie which designate small groups tend to range from two to twenty members- Increased size tends to limit the possibility that a given set of people will be able to interact regularly in a direct and meaningful face-to-face manner. In most relationships which are sustained in groups with more than twelve to fifteen members, the group becomes so complex that it tends to split into subgroups (Rice, 1976). Theodore Mills has identified six models that are useful in studying and analyzing small groups, each offering a different perspective of small group processes (Lippit, 1982:203). These models are: The quasi-mechanical model which assumes that a group is like a machine; all behavioral acts in a group are seen as functions that can be categorized. The organic model assumes that groups are like biological organisms; that is, they have a period of formation (birth), a life cycle, and eventually a death. The conflict model assumes that a small group is a context of endless aggression and discord. All members of the group have to face the conflict of being truly independent versus conforming to some extent, to the group's norms and expectations. The equilibrium model assumes that a small group, as well as its members have a need to maintain some sort of balance. Conflicts between group members, for example, tend 29 to be followed by attempts to smooth over hard feelings and to return to a state of interpersonal harmony. The structural/functional model shifts the emphasis from group survival to group growth. This model assumes that the existence of group agents help the group adapt to new information. Thus, growth and development are attained by the group's responding to feedback from earlier performances. Referring to Stewart L. Tubbs, Lippitt (1982:2 04) presents a model based on general systems thinking. The model referred to as Tubbs model (Figure 3), identifies three variables such as relevant background factors, internal influences, and consequences. 30 Internal influences Relevant back­ ground factors Consequences personality Physical environment solutions sex group size interperso­ nal relation age status and power health leadership attitudes group norms values communication improved information flow risk taking language behavior interperso­ nal growth self-disclosure interaction roles decision styles conflicts Figure 3. The Tubbs Model of Small Group Interaction Relevant background factors refer to attributes within the individual participants which exist prior to the group's formation and which will endure in some modified form after the group no longer exists. These background factors, such as personality, attitudes,and values, influence the group's functioning, and vice versa. Internal influences include the type of group, the style of leadership used, the language behavior, interaction role, and decision style employed by the group. Consequences of small group 31 interaction will obviously vary with the background of the participants as well as with the nature of internal influences. Consequences may include solutions to problems, interpersonal relationships among group members, the amount and quality of information sharing, and the amount of the interpersonal growth of the participants. Group Development Most group theorists agree that groups develop through various stages although they differ on the number, length, and sequence of development stages. Group developmental stages have been identified even in extremely short-lived (45- minute) groups (Bales and Strodbeck, 1951). Likewise, developmental stages are found in longer-term groups in more natural settings according to the reviews by Tuckman (1965) and Lacoursiere (1980). Lundgren and Knight (1978) hypothesized a five-stage development sequence, but settled for a three stage model based on the frequent occurrence of significant variations in group development indices over time, but not on the comparison of expected and observed trends. Tuckman (1965) presented a model of group development in which four development phases are proposed " as a conceptualization of changes in group behavior in both social and task realms, across all group setting over time." Phase one (forming) is characterized by testing, dependency,and orientation. Group leaders are sought for 32 guidance and approval. The group members begin to become task oriented; to identify the task, its boundaries, and ramifications. The second phase in this development is referred to as "storming." Here group members are polarized over various issues. Intragroup conflicts provoke members' hostilities, thus showing their individuality and resistance toward group conformity. "Norming" is the third stage in this sequence, and is characterized by development of the group's cohesiveness. Once members begin to accept the group and its individuals, new group norms are established. The group approaches its task in an open and accepting manner. In the final phase, "performing", group members are able to carry out the task at hand. Since subjective relationships between members have been worked through and established, role structure is no longer an issue. Group members can freely explore and adopt new roles and behaviors which will enhance the group, the task, and themselves. Bennis and Shepard (1956) see small groups as dealing with the fundamental problems of authority, power, intimacy and love, and theorize that progressing groups move from stages of dependence through stages of interdependence. The initial stage of group's development is marked by dependence on strong group members and leaders. in a The second major stage group's development, interdependence, is characterized by "personal relations". Each phase has three subphases. 33 Within the first phase of dependence, Bennis and Shepard distinguish three subphases; namely, "Dependencyflight”, "Counterdependency-flight", and "Resolutioncatharsis". of the three. The first two subphases are the longest lasting The first subphase "Dependency-flight" is characterized by self- oriented behavior, anxiety, and superficiality, with member leaders being assertive or aggressive. In the second subphase, "Counterdependency-flight," distrust and ambivalence are emotional themes, and attacking and complaining are behavior modes. Feedback should intensify in emotionality, be even more negative, and agreement with both positive and negative feedback should decrease as more data become available from interactions. group Tuckman's first two stages, "Forming" and "Storming", particularly the latter, characterized by infighting, hostility, as well as emotionality as well as derogation and negativity lead to the same expectations about feedback described above. The third subphase, "Resolution/catharsis," marks the end of the stormy period. The group emerges from this phase with each member accepting his/her full share of responsibilities for what happens in the group. The next major phase in Bennis and Shepard's theory, "Interdependence," has as its first subphase "Enchantmentflight," which is characterized by pairing, attended humor 34 and laughter, and a high level of interaction. In Tuckman's model, this is a time of harmony, and of mutual acceptance. With high interaction, members will say more to and about one another. Thus, feedback should be more frequent. With the next subphase of "Disenchantment-flight," distrust and suspicion prevail, while disparagement and criticism of the group are voiced. With this phase, the theories of Tuckman and Lacousierie differ sharply from those of Bennis and Shepard. Neither Tuckman nor Lacoursiere recognize a negative phase at this point in group development. In all formulations, groups progress from the stage of intragroup conflict or dissatisfaction, through a period of norming (harmony) or resolution into a phase of performing or production. There is, however, a consensus among these three authors about the last phase of group development. For all three authors, this is the time for performing, production, or work. Tuckman speaks of the "emergence of solutions" and of insight, sharing, and disclosing; Lacoursiere speaks of task orientation and accomplishment accompanied by positive feelings; Bennis and Shepard speak of consensual validation, characterized by acceptance and understanding, where group members are open, disclosing, and reality oriented. Boyd (1983), conceiving of a group as a social system confirms the notion of group development. group He projects a as moving from the identity phase of the social 35 system to one characterized by the manifestation of intimacy. Boyd corroborates with Davie's (1971) thesis, that groups go through phases analogous to the Ego State Developmental Paradigm presented by Erickson. Individuals (personality system) bring into the group not only the resolution of ego stages through which they have passed, but also the phase-specific crisis that they are now — time of group's existence— George Charrier a group goes through at the concerned with. (Lippitt, 1982:203) has suggested that a process of growth similar to the maturation process of individuals. The first step is called the polite stage: the members of the group are getting acquainted, sharing values, and establishing the basis for a group structure. The group members need to be liked. The second step are is characterized by thequestion "why we here?" During this phase, the members define the objectives and goals of the group. The third step consists of a bid for power: individuals attempt to influence other group members by attempting to change each other's ideas, values, or opinions. This phase is characterized by competition for attention, recognition, and influence. The fourth step is cooperative: the group members are constructive, open-minded, actively listening, and cognizant 36 that others have a right to different value systems. It is the beginning of team action. The fifth and final step is one of unity, high spirits, mutual acceptance, and maximum cohesiveness. Group Growth Group growth can be defined and examined in a number of different ways. Thelen (1954), for example, suggests that three types of changes can be used to assess the productivity of group activity: (1) the amount of change in the group itself, (2) the amount of influence the group has on other groups, (3) the affect members have on other groups because of their involvement in the particular group under study. This study focusses only on aspects of change within the group itself. Schien (1969) and Bennett (1973) mention the following considerations in evaluating change or growth within a group: (1) clarity of group goals, participation by all members, with feelings, (3) the ways the group deals (4) the ways problems are diagnosed, extent to which leadership is shared, made, (2) (6) how decisions are (7) the extent of trust among group members, creativity and growth in the group, (5) the (8) (9) communication among group members, and (10) the balance of emotion and rationality. Pfeiffer and Jones (1971) measure group growth in terms of group climate, data flow, goal formation, and control. 37 Krayer (1988) refers to group development as group maturity and conceives of it as a continuous variable that can be used to describe the state of the group as it progresses from immaturity to maturity. According to Hersey and Blanchard (1982), maturity has two components: ability and willingness. experience. Ability refers to knowledge, skill, and Compared with immature groups, groups at a high maturity level can perform their tasks without much direction from others. Willingness refers to motivation, confidence, and commitment. Unlike immature groups, groups at a high maturity have self-confidence and a healthy selfconcept, and do not need extensive encouragement in order to work on a task. Hersey and Blanchard's theory posits that an immature, zero-history group is highly dependent upon its leader, who must emphasize the task and deemphasize the development of socio-emotional relationships. Members of such groups are generally unable and unwilling to take responsibility for a task. Leaders of established groups that have moved to a highly mature state need not emphasize either the task or the socio-emotional relationships. Members of this type of group are both able and willing to take responsibility for a task. Krayer found the following hypotheses tenable in a class room situation. 1. The hypotheses were: Mature groups voluntarily meet significantly more often than immature groups. 38 2. Members of mature groups are significantly more satisfied with their groups than members of immature groups. 3. Members of mature groups are significantly more disposed to work with their groups again in the future than members 4. of immature groups. Members of mature groups are significantly more disposed to engage in non-task related activities with their groups than members of immature groups. 5. Mature groups score significantly higher on project performance evaluations than immature groups. Individual Growth The terms growth and maturity are used interchangeably throughout this section for the sake of the ease of reviewing the literature. There is an intricate balance between individual maturity and group maturity. Individual maturity is referred to as Psychological maturity (Blank et al., 1988; Hersey and Blanchard, 1969). Group maturity is the manifestation of psychological maturity. Psychological maturity has been defined in terms of three dimensions; relative independence, ability to take responsibility, and achievement motivation (Hersey and Blanchard, 1969). Relative independence follows from Argyris's (1962, 1964) notion that as individuals mature over time they move from passive to increasingly active 39 states. Thus, they become less dependent on others and become relatively more independent. The extent to which a person acts independently, is able and willing to take responsibility, and desires to achieve has obvious implications for managers and organizations (Blank, Weitzel, Blau, and Green, 1988). Blank et al. (19 88) report that there are three sources of maturity rating are self-raring, a manager, and a peer rating. Despite arguments for and against each of these rating, they maintain a self-rating provides the most intimate perception of a person's psychological maturity. Overview of Small groups Small group is meant by primary or face-to-face group. It must consist of more than one individual, and it must not contain more members than can sustain continuous and close personal relationships. Groups are dynamic in nature. pass through successive stages. They The stage of development, however depends on the nature of group interaction. As a result of group interaction, individual as well as group growth is influenced. Measures of individual growth as suggested by review of literature are: self-awareness, sense of personal worth, concern for self-development, interdependence, depth of involvement, future involvement, self-direction, appreciation of others, ability to take responsibility, achievement motivation, and willingness 40 to socialize. Likewise, group growth is a measure of group climate, information sharing, and goal formation so as to perform more effectively in terms of team work and problem solving. Self-Directed Learning Since the early 1970s, an emerging focus of adult education research has been the area of self-directed learning. Studies growing out of Tough's (1979) work on learning projects have provided extensive descriptive evidence that the vast majority of adults engage in deliberate learning activities over the course of a given year and that an extremely high percentage of these are planned by the individual learners themselves. However, there is conceptual ambiguity surrounding self-directed learning. As cited by Oddi (1987), various terms are used for to address the concepts: self education (Dickinson and Clark, 1975; Smith, 1976; Snedden, 1930); independent study or independent learning (Jourard, 1967; Moore, 1972); self­ teaching (Tough, 1966) ; self-instruction (Johnstone and Rivera, 1965); autonomous learning (Houle, 1962,; Miller, 1964; Moore, 1976; Smith, 1976); self-initiated learning (Penland, 1979); and andragogical learning (Knowles, 1975). Long and Ashford (197 6) further imply that self-directed learning and self-actualization are synonymous terms. 41 Kasworm (1983), perhaps, most clearly articulates the ambiguity surrounding self-directed learning, when she notes that self-directed learning is conceived as a belief system reflecting and evolving from a process of self-initiated learning activity; or as an ideal state of the mature self­ actualized learner. The literature reveals that there are two perspectives in self-directed learning: process perspective and personality perspective. Process Perspective Process perspective is the dominant perspective which views self-directed learning as a process. Griffin (1978) describes five streams of self-directed learning, four of which view self-directed learning as process: the group learning stream espoused by Knowles; the learning project stream described by Tough; the individualized instruction stream as exemplified by programmed instruction and similar independent study techniques; and non- traditional institutional arrangement stream which include approaches to learning such as correspondence study (Oddi, 1987). Grounding on process perspective, Knowles (1975) defines self-directed learning as a process wherein learners assume responsibility for planning, conducting, and evaluating their own learning. As cited by Oodi, numerous writers (Brockett, 1983; Cheren, 1983; Guglielmino, 1978; Haverkamp, 198 3; Long and Ashford, 197 6; Moeker and Spear, 42 1982; Skager, 1978) adopt definitions similar to that of Knowles. A conception of self-directed learning as a process had led to efforts to identify skills and abilities needed by the individuals to engage in the process. There is considerable variation among writers as to which skills are most important. Knowles (1975) and Guglielmino (1978) cite setting personal goals for learning, identifying learning resources, and evaluating the success of learning as important skills. Smith (1982) includes the ability to chart one's own learning style, use intuition, and lead discussion groups as the needed skills for self-directed learning. Furthermore, Knowles (197 5) and Tough (1979) have outlined the following competencies needed by adults to carry out self-directed learning: 1. The ability to relate to peer collaboratively, to diagnose their own learning needs, to translate needs to objective, to identify resources,and to evaluate (Knowles, 1975). 2. The adults need competence in diagnosing needed help, selecting resources, gaining the desired help, analyzing and planning the entire project, and evaluating the project (Tough, 1979) Caffarella and 0 'Donnell (1987) consider there are still numerous questions that need to be explored relating to the issue of competencies in self-directed learning. 43 These are: how do adults acquire these competencies? Do they become proficient in them as a result of such factors as family influence, formal schooling, work experience and trial and error? Personalty Perspective Oddi has made a significant contribution in viewing self-directedness in learning as personality construct (Caffarella and O'Donnell, 1987). She conceives self- directed learning as an attribute of personality which motivates the individual to continue learning through any number of methodologies rather than confining the concept to the mode of instruction. This broader framework suggests investigating entire conceptualization of what comes first: the skills to learn or motivation to learn; and, what is the role of skills in relation to the broad view of self­ directed learning as a personality construct? In the same vein, Cropley (1976), discussing learning throughout the life span, says learning is not restricted to a narrow process of acquiring knowledge; rather, it is concerned with motivation and personal growth in the cognitive, affective, and ethical domains. A unified concept of self-directed learning is enhanced, therefore, by considering a broad conception which focuses on individual's motivation to pursue learning throughout life rather than on 44 the ability of an individual to engage in episodes of selfinstruction. The self-directed learner has long been recognized as the humanistic ideal, the self-actualized person (Elias and Merriam, 1980). Humanistic ideal suggests that maturity brings intrinsic motivation to learn (Oddi, 1987). Both self- actualization and intrinsic motivation view share a common assumption: the salient feature of ongoing involvement in learning activities lies in the learner's personality. An early Houle study (1961) illustrates the essence of self-directed learning as an attribute of personality in his description of outstanding continuing learners who approach life with an air of openness and as inquiring mind. Skager (1979) holds the view that essential feature of self-directed learner's behavior is a willingness to initiate and maintain systematic learning on their own initiative. Gibbons et al. (1980) identify higher level psychological needs as the source of self-directed learning behavior. Furthermore, they analyzed the content of 20 biographies of individuals who had become well-known authorities in an area of endeavor without formal training beyond high school. It was found that these individuals tended to share a number of similar characteristics apparently related to self-directedness such as: primary 45 experience in the area of expertise, industriousness, perseverance, curiosity, self-discipline, and creativity. Research Trends in Self-directed Learning More recently, research has moved away from the descriptive learning projects approach toward methodologies that have attempted to build a theoretical framework to understand self-directed learning (Brockett, 1985). First branch of the research stream is the qualitative approach adopted by Gibbons et al. (1980) and Quiroz (1987). Gibbons et al. analyzed the content of biographies of 20 well-known authorities and came up with the characteristics of self­ directed learners. Quiroz interviewed 17 Michigan farmers and explored their perceptions about self-directed learner. Her findings corroborated with the eight factors of Self Directed Learners Readiness Scale (SDLRS) developed by Guglielmino (1978). These factors are: love of learning, self concept, tolerance of risk, creativity, view of learning, initiative, self- understanding, and acceptance of responsibility for one's own learning (Brockett, 1985). Second branch relates to the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods like the Brookfield study (1981). Brookfield conducted a semi-structured interview with 25 adults who were recognized as authorities in a wide range of vocational areas. A third branch of self-directed learning research has consisted of quantitatively oriented studies 46 that have examined the relationship between selfdirectedness and a wide range of psychosocial and educational variables. Since the development of SDLRS by Guglielmino (1977), as cited by Brockett (1985), various studies have found evidence that learner's perceptions of self-directedness are related to such factors as creativity (Torrance and Mourad, 1978), self-concept (Sabbaghian, 1978) , actual involvement in learning project activity (Hassan, 1981), and motivational orientation (Reynolds, 1984). Overview of Self-directed Learning Despite dominant perspective to treat self-directed learning as a process, there has been constant effort to view this concept from holistic perspective. Self-directed learning as a process focuses on the skills and abilities needed to be self- directed learner and conceives it as an instructional process. The skills and abilities suggested by review of literature are: setting goals; identifying resources; evaluating success; chart one's own learning style; lead group discussion; relate to peer collaboratively; diagnose learning needs; and gain desired help. The personality perspective is oriented toward the study of the motivational, cognitive, and affective characteristics or personalities of self-directed learners. It conceives intrinsic motivation as the source of self­ directed learning. The characteristics of self-directed learner as identified by review of literature are: love of learning; self-concept as an effective learner; tolerance of risk; creativity, view of learning as a life long process; initiative; self-understanding; and acceptance of responsibility for one's own learning. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The major purpose of this chapter is to describe the procedures used in conducting this research. Attention has been given to both the procedural aspects and to an explanation of the rationale that has been used as a basis for the collection and analysis of data. This chapter is divided into five sections and provides an overview of the methods and procedures used in the study. The first section describes the nature of the study, the second section provides the rationale for sampling, and the third section outlines the process of instrumentation and measures taken to ensure validity and reliability. The fourth and fifth sections deal with the data collection and data analysis procedures respectively. Nature of the Study This study includes a combination of descriptive and analytical research. According to Issac and Michael (1975:6), descriptive research aims at describing systematically a situation or area of interest factually and accurately. Going a step further, Wimmer and Dominick (1987:102) note that descriptive research describes what exists at a given moment without any attempt to explain or make predictions about the results. 48 Comparing that with 49 analytical research, Issac and Michael posit that analytical research describes and explains why the situation exists. This study, however, tends to rely on the features of both descriptive and analytical research in order to provide adequate information for better understanding the problems examined through the study. Sampling Procedure Population Identification of the population is critical in the research process. types According to Rossi (1983), there are two of populations: the target population and the survey population. The target population is the collection of elements that a researcher would like to study. The survey population is the population that is actually sampled and from which data may be obtained. Babbie (1989:169) defines the target population as the theoretically specified aggregation of survey elements to which researchers wish to generalize the results of their research. Similarly, he defines the survey population as the aggregation of elements from which the survey sample is actually selected (Babbie, 1989:170) . Members of the small groups which met the criteria set by the study were the potential target population. The criteria set by the study were as follows: 1) small group size (5-25), 2) face- to- face interaction, 3) voluntary 50 membership, 4) frequent/repetitive interaction, 5) adults, 6) some form of structure, 7) set of functions, 8) roles and norms. Various small groups engaged in community development activities in Michigan were sought and contacted to participate in the study. The Michigan Farm Bureau County Board, the County 4-H Council, the Cooperative Extension Service Programming Board, and the Soil Conservation District County Boards, were selected for this study. Thus, the survey population constituted of the members of these groups. Sample Babbie (1983:142) defines sampling as "selecting a given number of subjects from a defined population." The concept of sampling involves "taking a portion of the population, making observations on this smaller group, and then generalizing the findings to the parent population, or the larger population from which the sample was drawn" (Ary et al., 1990:169). It was particularly difficult to gather a list of all those in the survey population and to select the sample by simple random sampling. Moreover, the individuals for this study constitute a cluster insofar as they were alike with respect to the group criteria set by the study. therefore, adopted cluster sampling. This study, Cluster sampling is a 51 form of probability sampling where the unit chosen is not an individual but a group of individuals who are together (Ary et al., 1990). Ary et al. (1990:175) state that "it is essential that the clusters actually included in the study be chosen at random from a population of clusters and once a cluster is selected, all the members of the cluster must be included in the sample." In determining the sample from the Michigan Farm Bureau County Board members, regional clusters were considered. Two regions were selected randomly. central region. One of the two was the Considering the willingness of the central region representative to cooperate with this study, only the central region, consisting of the five groups of Ingham, Eaton, Clinton, Genesee, and Shiwassee counties, was retained for the study. Counties were considered as the cluster for selecting the County 4-H Council, the Cooperative Extension Service Advisory Committee Programming Board, and the Soil Conservation District. Jackson county was selected randomly which yielded three additional groups to be studied. All members of the eight selected groups were considered as the sample for this study. To maintain the confidentiality of the groups' identity, analysis and presentation of the results was done by assigning a letter designation to each group. Hereafter, the groups are 52 referred to as group A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H. Table 1 shows total group size and a response rate for each group. Table 1. Sample Distribution According to the Groups Groups Total members Responses Number Percent A 16 8 (50.00) B 18 13 (72.22) C 15 10 (66.67) D 19 14 (73.68) E 16 12 (75.00) F 15 10 (66.67) G 14 10 (71.43) H 5 4 (80.00) Total 118 81 (68.86) instrumentation The development of the survey instrument was based primarily on the review of literature. Various indicators to measure the concepts under consideration were identified through the review of literature. The literature revealed that there are three possible sources for rating individual growth. One is the individual, the another is a manager/leader, and the third is a peer rating (Blank et al., 1988). According to Blank et al., self-rating provides the most intimate perception of a person's psychological 53 maturity. In this study, self-rating by the respondents was the source for measuring individual growth in terms of level of empowerment and self-directed learning. Group Empowerment Group empowerment was one of the two major variables of this study and was measured These items were through the use of 20-items. designed to assess therespondents' perceptions of how empowered their group was. Respondents were asked to express their level of agreement to the statements that represent the measures of empowerment The review identified of through literature the suggested review the of literature. following as the measures of group empowerment: ® Opportunities for group members to make decisions; • Opportunities for group members to reflect on ideas; • Atmosphere that promotes willingness to learn; • Mutual support between group members; • Involvement of members in group activities; • Collegiality between group members; • Valuing of group members' experiences; • Facilitative leadership; • Valuing of individualized differences of group members; • Atmosphere that promotes trust among group members. 54 For each measure, two question items were constructed. Likert- type scale was used in these items. A The term "Likert scale" is associated with a question format that is frequently used in survey questionnaires. Likert scales consist of a number of statements in respect to a topic, to which respondents could strongly agree, agree, be neutral, disagree or strongly disagree. According to Wimmer and Dominick (1987:58), the Likert scale is the most commonly used in social research, because it allows for the weighing of each subject's responses. Subsequently, these can be added to produce a single score for the item as well as for the scale. Thus, the individual scores in this study were aggregated to form a group score. The items representing the measures of empowerment are as follows: •Opportunity for group members to make decisions; 1. Decisions in this group are influenced by all members 2. There is opportunity for members to influence decisions • Opportunity for group members to reflect on ideas 1. Members in this group are encouraged to reflect on the group's activities 2. Reflection is an important activity in this group • Atmosphere to promote willingness to learn 1. Members in this group show a willingness to learn 2. In this group, members like to learn from each other 55 • Mutual support between group members 1. Members in this group support each other 2. Mutual support among members is important in this group • Involvement of members in group activities 1. Members of this group are encouraged to become involved in the work of the group 2. Involvement of the members is important in this activity • Collegiality between group members 1. Working together is important in this group 2. Members of this group seem to enjoy working with each other • Valuing of group members' experiences 1. This group values ideas from members who have had extensive experience 2. The experience of the group members is important for the operation of the group • Facilitative leadership 1. Being a facilitator is important for the leader of this group 2. The leader of this group works hard to be a facilitator • Valuing of individual differences among members 1. Individual differences are valued in this group 2. Recognition of individual differences is a characteristic of this group • Atmosphere of promoting trust among group members 1. An important characteristic of this group is trust 2. Trust is very important in this group Two different types of scores were derived from the empowerment section of the instrument. First, an individual score measuring the respondent's perception of group 56 empowerment was computed by summing up the scores of the items responded to by the respondent. Second, a group score measuring the level of group empowerment was obtained by computing the mean of individual scores for each group. Self-directed Learning The second major variable of this study that was included in the instrument was self-directed learning. These items on the instrument attempted to measure the individual's view of his/her own self-directedness. This is shown as the level of agreement expressed by the respondents regarding a set of twelve measures of self-directed learning. The items representing these twelve measures were adapted from Caffarella and Caffarella (1986). one item for each of the twelve measures. There was The items were constructed using a Likert-type scale that was the same as the one used for the empowerment items. The measures are: 1. ability to realistically diagnose learning needs 2. ability to relate with others 3. initiative to use available resources 4. ability to identify the need to know 5. ability to identify the resources 6. ability to actually put to use new ways to learn 7. ability to draw knowledge and skill fromthe 8. ability to select best ways to learn 9. renewal of desire to learn resources 57 10. ability to evaluate learning 11. ability to relate to others in collaborative ways 12. ability to deal with personal issues The responses for each item were summed up to get an aggregate score for self-directed learning. Demographic Characteristics Several authors, including Thomas and Fink (1963), Salter (1958), Hare (1962), Archer (1974), and Campbell (1976) suggest that certain group traits or personal characteristics are related to individual or group growth resulting from group activities. Group size, group age, frequency of meeting, years of membership, educational attainment, age of respondents, and gender were the demographic characteristics considered for this study Group Size. group. This is the total number of members in the Group size determines group interaction. Too large a group tends to limit the possibility for group members to interact regularly in a direct and meaningful face-to-face manner. Group Age. This is the total number of years of the group's operation. Group age refers to group maturity. Groups of varying age might be in different developmental 58 stages and thereby might have differential influence on their members. Years of Membership. This is the total number of years/months the person has been a member of the group. Years of membership indicates the involvement of members in the group's activities. Frequency of Meeting. meets. This indicates how often the group A higher frequency of meetings creates opportunities for more interaction among group members. Educational Attainment. This is the educational background of the respondents expressed in six categories ranging from less than degree. a high school degree to a graduate Education enables individuals to acquire the knowledge, attitude, and skills needed to participate effectively in the community development process. Effective participation may be the vehicle for individual growth. Age. This is the chronological age of the respondents. Age gives some indication of the maturity of the individuals. Gender. This is the role associated with the sex of respondents. Contemporary feminist literature suggests that 59 women are disadvantaged and that there is discrimination between men and women in various spheres of social life. This sexual inequality might be manifested in small groups. Michigan State University's Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects reviewed and approved the questionnaire. This insured that personal rights would not be violated by using this instrument (Appendix F). Data Collection A self-administered mail questionnaire was used for data collection. Dillman's (1978) recommendation for the total design method in survey design, distribution, and collection of data possible. was followed and personalized as much as The questionnaire package included the cover letter directed to each respondent (appendix B); a letter from the Michigan Farm Bureau Regional Representative (Appendix C) or the Jackson County Cooperative Extension Director (Appendix D); the questionnaire (Appendix A); and a self-addressed, stamped envelope. The cover letter introduced the researcher and explained the purpose of the study. confidentiality of the responses. It assured complete An identification number was assigned to each questionnaire in order to facilitate the follow up procedure. The reason for this was explained to the respondent through the cover letter. The first mailing was made on March 10, 1993. By March 19, 1993, 35 60 percent of the questionnaires had been completed and returned. Each of the completed questionnaires was checked for proper completion and logged into a computer data file. This procedure was followed for each questionnaire as it was received. The first follow-up package was sent on March 24 to those whose questionnaires had not been received. The follow-up package included a reminder letter (Appendix E), another copy of the questionnaire, and another selfaddressed stamped envelope. By April 7, 67 percent of the questionnaires had been returned and found to be useable. On April 8 and 9, 20 percent of the nonrespondents were contacted by telephone reminding them of the questionnaire and urging them to complete the questionnaire as early as possible. Three questionnaires were returned by the Post Office as not deliverable. By April 16, a total of 81 completed questionnaires had been received yielding a response rate of 70.43 percent. Regarding an acceptable response rate, Babbie (1983:242) states, " I feel that a response rate of 50 percent is adequate for analysis and reporting. A response of 60 percent is good. response of 70 percent is very good." And a In light of Babbie's statement and because of time constraints, it was decided not to accept any additional questionnaires since a 70 percent response rate had been achieved. 61 Early respondents and late respondents were compared with respect to demographic characteristics and the relationship between empowerment and self-directed learning. No significant difference was found between them. Thus, as assumed by the study, it was inferred that the respondents represented an unbiased sample of all who had received the questionnaire. Validity and Reliability Validity Validity is concerned with the extent to which an instrument measures what one thinks it is measuring (Ary, et al., 1990:256). Essentially, this means that the relationship between concept and indicator is as close as intended. In ensuring the validity of the instrument, a combination of the use of a panel of experts, related literature, and an empirical approach was adopted. In measuring group empowerment, indicators were identified according to the review of literature. Two items were developed for each indicator. In measuring self-directed learning, the Self-Directed Learning Competencies Self-Appraisal Form (SDLCSAF), developed by Caffarella and Caffarella (1986), was adapted with slight modification. A panel of experts from the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education, comprising of both professors and 62 graduate students, was presented with the indicators of the constructs and the corresponding items for each indicator. They were asked to comment on the instrument in terms of: ® clarity of wording; • impressiveness of questionnaire to motivate people to answer; • relatedness of indicators to the construct; • relatedness of items to the indicators; ® general comments. The instrument was revised based on the comments from the panel of experts. The revised instrument was pretested. Pretesting Pretesting of the instrument was done with a group of students at Michigan State University involved in on-campus Bible study groups. 12 and met weekly. The size of these groups ranged from 5A list of group members was obtained through the President of the group. A total of 32 members was randomly selected from the Bible study groups to participate in pretesting. In all, 24 people participated in pretesting during January, 1993. Pretesting was done to ensure the internal consistency of the instrument and to assess the reliability of the instrument.. Item analysis, an internal validation of the instrument, examines the extent to which the composite index is related to the questionnaire items included in the index 63 (Babbie, 1983). Item analysis typically yields three statistics for each item: (1) an item discrimination index, (2) the number/percentage of respondents marking each choice on an item, and (3) the item mean and standard deviation. The item discrimination index shows the extent to which each item discriminates among the respondents in the same way the total score does (Ary, et al., 1990). An item-total correlation of 0.25 was considered as a cut-off point for selecting individual items, as recommended by Ary et al. (1990). Table 2 shows item-total correlation for empowerment while pre-testing the instrument. 64 Table 2. Item-total Correlation Coefficients for Group Empowerment. Measures of Empowerment 1. Opportunities for group members for decision making. • Decisions in this group are influenced by all members (item #1 in questionnaire). • There is opportunity for members to influence decisions (item # 18). 2. Opportunities for group members to reflect on ideas. ® Members in this group are encouraged to reflect on group's activities (item #3). • Reflection is an important activity in this group (item # 11). 3. Collegiality between group members. • Working together is important in this group. • Members of this group enjoy working with each other (item # 15). 4. Atmosphere to promote willingness to learn from each other • Members of this group show willingness to learn from each other (item # 6) . « In this group, members like to learn from each other (item #20). 5. Atmosphere to promote trust among group members ® An important characteristic of this group is trust (item # 8). • Trust is very important in this group (item # 16). 6. Involvement of members in group activities ® Members of this group are encouraged to become involved in the work of the group (item # 9). • Involvement of members is important in this group (item # 16). Corr. Coeff, 0.4124 0.4779 0.4741 0.5030 0.3639 0.3 284 0.4732 0.6666 0.4578 0.5666 0.5004 0.4709 65 Table 2 (cont'd) Measures of Empowerment 7 . Valuing of experience of group members ® This group values ideas from members who have had extensive experience (item # 12) . • The experience of the group members is important for this group (item # 23) . 8. Valuing of individual differences among members • Individual differences are valued in this group (item # 28). • Recognitiion of individual differences is a characteristic of this group (item # 32). 9 . Facilitative leadership « Being a facilitator is important for the leader of this group (item # 22). • The leader of this group works hard to be a facilitator (item # 30). 10. Mutual support between group members • Members of this group support each other (item # 13). • Mutual support among members is important in this group (item # 18). Corr. Coeff. 0.4874 0.4950 0.6551 0.5453 0.4130 0.6337 0.6562 0.6617 As shown in Table 2, all group empowerment items showed an item-total correlation higher than 0.25. Table 3 shows item-total correlation for self-directed learning instrument. 66 Table 3. Item-Total Correlation Coefficients for Self Directed Learning Measures of Self-Directed Learning Corr. Coeff. 1 . Ability to realistically diagnose learning 0.8003 needs 2 . Ability to relate with others 0.5163 3 . Initiative to use available resources 0.6148 4. Ability to identify the need to know 0.6053 5. Ability to identify the resources 0.6010 6 . Ability to actually put to use new ways to learn 0.7444 7 . Ability to draw knowledge and skill from the resources 0.7250 8. Ability to select best ways to learn 0.8121 9 . Renewal of desire to learn 0.7352 10 . Ability to evaluate learning 0.6321 11 . Ability to relate to others in collaborative ways 0.6184 12 . Ability to deal with personal issues 0.6988 As shown in Table 3, all the items of self-directed learning showed an item-total correlation coefficient higher than 0.25. The other statistic considered in the item analysis was standard deviation. Items in which the respondents were spread out among the response categories were preferred over the items on which the response categories were clustered in one or two categories (Ary et al., 1990). 67 While the item analysis is an important step of instrument validation, it is scarcely a sufficient test. If the instrument adequately measures a given variable, it should successfully predict other indicators of that variable (Babbie, 1983). This is the construct validity of the instrument. The construct-related approach for validity is important because it focuses attention on the role of theory in test construction and the need to formulate hypotheses that can be investigated as part of the validation process. The hypothesized relationship between empowerment and self­ directed learning was investigated as part of the construct validation process. A moderate correlation between group empowerment and self-directed learning indicated the test of construct validity. This process was repeated in the analysis of the main survey. Reliability. Reliability refers to the extent to which the instrument yields the same results in repeated tests. The more consistent the results of the instrument, the higher the reliability of the instrument will be. was used Cronbach's alpha to assess the homogeneity measure of reliability. Cronbach's alpha is used when measures have multiple scored items, such as a Likert-type scale (Ary et al., (1990). An alpha of 0.70 was set as an acceptable level of reliability. 68 Table 4 shows Croanbach's alpha for the group empowerment and the self-directed learning items. Table 4. Croanbach' alphaItems Alpha Empowerment 0.8874 Self-directed learning 0.9201 As shown in Table 4, both sets of items had an alpha higher than 0.70. Thus, both set of items were within the acceptable limit of reliability. Item analysis was also done in the final survey. It revealed higher internal consistency and reliability (Appendix G and H). Analysis and Presentation of Results The statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS pc+) was used to analyze the data. Data were analyzed and organized according to the research questions of the study. However, general descriptions of demographic characteristics preceded other results. Descriptive statistics were used to present the demographic characteristics of the respondents and the participating groups. In order to analyze the level of variation in group empowerment and self-directed learning, descriptive statistics were used. One-way analysis of 69 variance was used to see the differences among the groups in terms of group empowerment. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to examine the relationship between the respondents' perceptions of group empowerment and self-directed learning. This relationship was analyzed in four steps: between composite scores of empowerment and composite scores of self-directed learning; between measures of empowerment and composite scores of self-directed learning; between measures of self-directed learning and composite scores of empowerment and between measures of empowerment and self­ directed learning. One-way analysis of variance was used to see if the level of empowerment and self-directed learning varied with the level of education. In the same way, a t-test was used to see if the level of empowerment and self-directed learning varied with gender. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to analyze the relationship between age of respondents and empowerment; years of membership and empowerment; age of respondents and self-directed learning; and years of membership and self-directed learning. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA This chapter presents the findings of the study. Attention is given to the analysis and interpretation of data in accordance with the research questions set in chapter I. The findings are presented in the following order: 1. General description of the respondents. 2. Variation in the level 3. Variation in the level of empowerment. of self-directedness in learning. 4. Relationship between group empowerment and selfdirectedness in learning. 5. Relationship of demographic characteristics with both Group empowerment and self-directedness in learning. General Description of the Respondents Age The mean age of respondents was 41.66 years with a standard deviation of 13.93 ranging from 21 to 75 years. The respondents were further categorized into the following age groups: 1. youngest through 29 years; 2. 30 through 39 years; 3. 40 through 49 years; 70 4. 50 through 59 years; 5. 60 through 69 years; and 6. over 7 0 years. Table 5 shows the distribution of respondents according to age category. Table 5. Distribution of Respondents According to Age Category Age Category Number Percent youngest through 29 10 (12.3) 30 through 39 30 (37.0) 40 through 49 22 (27.2) 50 through 59 6 (7.4) 60 through 69 9 (11.1) Over 70 4 (4.9) Total 81 (100.0) As shown in Table 5, greatest proportion of respondents, 76.5 percent, was below the age of 50 There were four respondents above the age of 70. Gender The distribution of respondents according to gender is shown in table 6. 71 72 Table 6. Distribution of Respondents According to Gender Gender Number Percent Male 55 (67.9) Female 26 (32.1) Total 81 (100.0) As presented in Table 6, approximately one-third of the respondents were females. This shows a predominance of males in farm-related groups. Educational Background Respondents were asked to indicate their educational background in terms of the following levels: 1. less than high school; 2. high school degree; 3. some college study; 4. college degree; 5. graduate study; 6. graduate degree. The educational backgrounds of the respondents are shown in Table 7. 73 Table 7. Distribution of Respondents According to Level of Education Level of Education Frequency Percent High school degree 20 (24.70) Some college study 32 (39.50) College degree 17 (20.99) Graduate study 7 (8.64) Graduate degree 5 (6.17) Total 81 (100.00) As shown in Table 7, the greatest proportion of respondents, 75 percent, had exposure to a college education. Only one-fourth of the respondents held high school degrees. None of the respondents had less than a high school education. This suggests that the respondents were able to comprehend the questionnaire, and that the responses reflected their own views. Years of Membership Years of membership relates to the number of years the respondents were involved with a group. Table 8 depicts the distribution of respondents according to their years of membership. 74 Table 8. Distribution of Respondents according to Years of Membership Years of membership Number Percent 1 to 5 years 51 (63.00) 6 to 10 years 20 (24.70) 11 to 15 years 1 (1.20) 16 to 20 years 3 (3.70) more than 20 years 6 (7.40) Total 81 (100.00) Mean 6.56 years Standard deviation Range 1-44 8.23 As shown in Table 8, the greatest proportion of respondents, 63 percent, were involved less than five years in their groups. About one-fourth of the respondents held the membership between 6 to 10 years. On an average, the respondents remained members of their groups for 6.56 years with the standard deviation of 8.23 and a range of 1-44 years. Variation in the Level of Perceived Group Empowerment In order to assess the variation in the level of perceived group empowerment, Composite Empowerment Scores were computed by adding each respondent's response for each of the twenty statements. Since each item received a score of 1 to 5, a minimum possible Empowerment Score could be 20 75 and a maximum possible Empowerment Score could be 100. Then higher the empowerment Score, the higher the level of group empowerment was perceived by the respondent. These data are shown in Table 9. Table 9. Distribution of Respondents according to the Perceived Level of Group Empowerment Level of Empowerment Mean Emp. Score Low <64 9 (11.10) Medium 64-91 64 (79.00) High >91 8 (9.90) 81 (100.00) Frequency Total Mean S. D. 79.14 13.00 Percent Range 27-99 As shown in Table 9, the mean score was 79.14 with a standard deviation of 13. Respondents whose scores fell one standard deviation or more above the mean were considered to perceive their group in the "high" level of empowerment range, those with one standard deviation or more below the mean were considered to perceive their group in the "low" level of empowerment range. And those whose Empowerment Scores fell in between were considered to be in the "medium" level of empowerment. Cut- off Empowerment Scores for the medium and high levels were 64 and 92. The greater majority of respondents, 79 percent, perceived that the level of empowerment in their group was medium. 76 The pattern of variation across the groups was also analyzed. The majority of respondents in all the groups felt that the level of empowerment in their groups was medium. However, there was some variation in the pattern as shown in Table 10. None of the respondents in group E, C, nor group A felt that the level of empowerment in their groups was low. Conversely, none of the respondents in group B, H, nor the group G considered that the level of empowerment in their groups was high. 77 Table 10. Level of Perceived Group Empowerment Across Groups Level of Group empowerment Groups Low N % Medium N % High N % 2 (25.0) A (n=8) - - 6 (75.0) B (n=13) 2 (15.4) 11 (84.6) 9 (90.0) 1 (10.0) 10 (71.4) 2 (14.3) 9 (75.0) 3 (25.0) — C (n=10) D (n=14) 2 (14.3) E (n=12) F (n=10) 1 (10.0) 9 (90.0) G (n=10) 2 (20.0) 8 (80.0) H (n=4) 2 (50.0) 2 (50.0) - Total (n=81) 9 (11.1) 64 (79.0) 8 — (9.9) The foregoing analysis of variation in group empowerment focuses on the variations of individual perceptions of group empowerment. It was also necessary to know where the groups' perceptions stood regarding the levels of group empowerment. A group mean of the individual composite scores was taken as the basis for ranking the groups in terms of levels of group empowerment. The mean Group Empowerment Scores can be seen as differing from one another. Are the differences among the mean Group Empowerment Scores great enough to be statistically significant, or is it likely that they occurred by chance? To answer these questions, as shown in Table 11, a one-way analysis of variance was done. A multiple range test with 78 Tukey procedure was used to identify the groups which differed significantly from each other. The groups were ranked on the basis of their mean group empowerment score. Table 11. One-way Analysis of Variance of Group Empowerment Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups 7 3423.32 489.0453 3.5452 0.0025 Within Croups 9932.17 137.95 Groups D F B C 72 Multiple Range Test: Tukey procedure Group Mean H H 57. 5 G 72.5 D 76.6 F 78.3 B 81.4 * C 83 .0 * E 84.9 * A 86.3 * G E A * Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at .05 level Findings revealed that the group A was the most empowering of all the groups and that the group H was the least empowering. 79 Variation in the Level of Self-Directed Learning A similar procedure, as was used in assessing the level of empowerment, was followed in analyzing variation in the level of self-directedness in learning. Table 12 shows the distribution of respondents according to the levels of selfdirectedness in learning (SDL). Table 12. Distribution of Respondents according to the Levels of Self-directedness in Learning Level of SDL SDL Score Number Percent Low <35 13 (16.0) Medium 35-52.4 55 (67.9) High >52.4 13 (16.0) Total 81 Mean S.D. 43.78 8.61 (lOO'Toj Range 18-60 As shown in Table 12, the mean Self-Directed Learning Score (SDLS) was 43.78 with standard deviation of 8.61 ranging from 18 to 60. Cut-off SDL Scores for the medium and high levels were 35 and 52.4. Findings showed that about two-thirds of the respondents considered themselves in the medium level of self-directedness in learning. Variation in the levels of self-directedness in learning across groups was also assessed. Table 13. This is shown in 80 Table 13. Level of Self-Directedness in Learning across Groups Level of Self-directed Learning across Groups Groups Low N % Medium N % A (n=8) 2 (25.0) 2 B (n=13) (15.4) 9 C (n=10) 2 - D (n=14) 2 E (n=12) High N (25.0) (69.2) % 4 (50.0) 2 (15.4) 10 (100.0) - - (14.3) 11 (78.6) 1 (7.1) - - 10 (83.3) 2 (16.7) F (n=10) 1 (10.0) 6 (60.0) 3 (30.0) G (n=10) 5 (50.0) 4 (40.0) 1 (10.0) H (n=4) 1 (25.0) 3 (75.0) - - Total (n=81) 13 (16.0) 55 (69.90) 13 (16.0) - Table 13 shows that the greatest proportion of respondents in the group A, 50.0 percent, felt their level of self-directedness in learning was high. On the contrary, 50 percent of the respondents, from the group G felt that their level of self-directedness in learning was low. The majority of respondents in other groups expressed the feeling that their level of self-directedness in learning was medium. Ranking the groups to know their standing of the groups in terms of the percentage of respondents with relatively higher levels of Self-Directed learning was done by taking the weighted percentage total for each group. A low level of Self-Directed learning was assigned a weight of 1, a 81 medium level- 2, and the high level was assigned a weight of 3. Then, the percentage in each cell in Table 13 was multiplied to get the total weighted scores as shown in Table 14. Since the percentage in each cell could vary from 0 to 100, the possible weighted total scores, vary from 100 to 300. thus, could The higher the weighted score, the higher the standing of the group was in terms of respondents with relatively higher levels of self-directed learning. Table 14. Weighted SDL Scores across Groups Groups Weighted SDL Scores G 160. 0 H 175. 0 B 190. 0 D 192.8 C 200. 0 E 216. 0 F 220. 0 A 225. 0 As shown in Table 14, the group A stands first followed by the group F, then the group E, C, D, B, H, and the group G. 82 Relationship between Group Empowerment and Self-Directed Learning Identification of the possible relationship between empowerment and self-directedness in learning v/as the central objective of the study. A Pearson product-moment correlation was done to see the relationship between these two variables. In interpreting the correlation coefficient, descriptors proposed by Davis (1971) were followed. This is the most commonly used convention for describing measures of association. The kinds of descriptors of correlation coefficients (whether positive or negative) are as follows: Coefficient Descriptors 0.7 0 or higher very strong association 0.50 to 0.69 substantial association 0.30 to 0.49 moderate association 0.10 to 0.29 low association 0.01 to .09 negligible association The relationship was analyzed in four stages. In the first stage, Empowerment Scores were correlated with the Self-Directed Learning Scores as shown in Table 15. Table 15. Correlation between Total Group Empowerment Score and Total Self-Directed Learning Score Corr. Coeff Total Empowerment Score ** significant at .001 level 0.63 21** 83 A correlation coefficient of 0.6321, significant at 0.001 level, was obtained. This revealed that there is a substantial association between group empowerment and selfdirectedness in learning. In the second stage, individual item scores of group empowerment were correlated with the total Self-Directed Learning Scores in order to identify the indicators that have relatively higher association with self-directedness in learning. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients are shown in Table 16. 84 Table 16. Correlation between Individual Measures of Empowerment and total Self-Directed Learning Score Measures of Empowerment 1. Opportunities for group members for decision making. ® Decisions in this group are influenced by all members (item #1 in questionnaire). • There is opportunity for members to influence decisions (item # 18). 2. Opportunities for group members to reflect on ideas. • Members in this group are encouraged to reflect on group's activities (item #3). • Reflection is an important activity in this group (item # 11). 3. Collegiality between group members. • Working together is important in this group. ® Members of this group enjoy working with each other (item # 15). 4. Atmosphere to promote willingness to learn from each other • Members of this group show willingness to learn from each other (item # 6). • In this group, members like to learn from each other (item #20). 5. Atmosphere to promote trust among group members • An important characteristic of this group is trust (item # 8). • Trust is very important in this group (item # 16). 6. Involvement of members in group activities ® Members of this group are encouraged to become involved in the work of the group (item # 9). ® Involvement of members is important in this group (item # 16). Corr. Coeff. 0.4145** 0.4934** 0.4313** 0.3110* 0.4642** 0.4028** 0.4251** 0.5591** 0.3930** 0.3884** 0.4513** 0.4771** 85 Table 2 (cont/d)_________________________________________ Measures of Empowerment Corr. Coeff. 7. Valuing of experience of group members • This group values ideas from members who have had extensive experience (item # 12). • The experience of the group members is important for this group (item # 23) . 8. Valuing of individual differences among members ® Individual differences are valued in this group (item #28). « Recognitiion of individual differences is a characteristic of this group (item # 32). 9. Facilitative leadership ® Being a facilitator is important for the leader of this group (item # 22). ® The leader of this group works hard to be a facilitator (item # 30). 10. Mutual support between group members ® Members of this group support each other (item # 13). ® Mutual support among members is _______important in this group (item # 18). * sig. at 0.01 level; ** sig. at 0.001 level 0.3890** 0.5339** 0.5584** 0.3454** 0.5859** 0.3469** 0.4251** 0.3733** Findings reveal that there is a moderate to substantial association between all 2 0 individual items of empowerment and self-directedness in learning. Willingness to learn from each other, valuing of individual differences, and facilitative leadership seemed to have substantial associations. All items were significant at the 0.001 level of significance. 86 In the third stage, a correlation was made between the 12 measures of self-directed learning and the total Group Empowerment Scores. All the items of self-directed learning showed moderate to substantial association with group empowerment. This is shown in Table 17. Table 17. Correlation between Measures of Self-Directed Learning and Total Group Empowerment Scores Measures of Self-directed Learning 1. Corr. Coeff. Ability to realistically diagnose learning needs 0.4889** 2 . Ability to relate with others 0.5669** 3 . Initiative to use available resources 0.3751** 4. Ability to identify the need to know 0.5627** 5. Ability to identify the resources 0.3897** 6. Ability to actually put to use new ways of learning 0.5945** 7. Ability to draw knowledge and skills from the resources 0.5319** 8. Ability to select the best ways to learn 0.5718** 9. Renewal of desire to learn 0.4583** 10 . Ability to evaluate learning 0.4597** 11 . Ability to relate to others in collaborative 0.4391** way 12 . Ability to deal with personal issues 0.5353** ** significant at .001 level As shown in Table 17, all the measures were significant at the 0.001 level of significance. Six of the twelve 87 measures showed substantial associations with group empowerment. • These measures were: ability to relate to others who may be able to help learn new things; • ability to identify what one needs to know; • ability to actually put to use new ways of learning; • ability to draw knowledge and skill from the resources; ® ability to select best ways of learning; and ® becoming effective in dealing with personal issues that block learning. The other six showed moderate associations. Correlations were observed between the items of empowerment and the items of self-directedness in learning (Appendix I). Items of self-directedness in learning reflect the competencies needed to be a self-directed learner. The purpose of delineating the correlations among individual items is to identify the competencies which have relatively higher correlation with different measures of empowerment. Opportunity for decision-making, involvement in group activities, and facilitative leadership seemed to bear a substantial relationship with the ability of relating to others (item # 4). The ability to identify what one needs to know (item # 10) showed a substantial relationship of members in group activities. with the involvement The ability to actually put 88 to use new ways of learning (item # 17) had a substantial relationship with valuing of individual differences. It showed a moderate association with the rest of the items of empowerment. The ability to draw knowledge and skill from the resources (item # 21) had a substantial relationship with facilitative leadership and the willingness to learn from each other. Likewise, the ability to select the best ways to learn (item # 24) had a substantial relationship with facilitative leadership and the willingness to learn from each other. Competencies in dealing with personal issues (item # 27) was found to have a substantial relationship with the willingness to learn from each other and the valuing of individual differences. Based on the magnitude of the correlation observed among different items of empowerment and self-directedness in learning, the following measures of empowerment seem to have a relatively higher contribution toward self-directedness in learning. These are: • facilitative leadership; • willingness to learn from each other; • valuing of individual differences; • involvement in group activities; ® opportunity for decision-making 89 Relationship between Demographic Characteristics and Empowerment Age, years of membership with the group, level of education, and gender were the demographic characteristics of the respondents studied. Group characteristics such as group size (Table 1), group age, and frequency of meeting, did not show much variation. Therefore, these variables were not included in the delineation of relationships with other variables. The fourth research question sought to identify the possible relationship between group empowerment and demographic characteristics of respondents. Table 18 shows the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between group empowerment and the demographic characteristics of age and years of membership. Table 18. Correlation Coefficients of Age and Years of Membership with Empowerment Characteristics Correlation Coefficient Age 0.1284 Years of membership 0.2339* * significant at 0.05 level Findings show that age and years of membership have low positive associations with empowerment. However, the relationship between years of membership and group 90 empowerment is significant at 0.05 level. This indicates that the members with longer period of involvement with the group see the group as more empowering. A t-test was done to see if males and females differed in the perception of the level of empowerment in the group as shown in Table 19. Table 19. T-test comparing Gender with respect to Empowerment Group Mean SD t value DF 2-tail prob. Male (55) 80.28 13 .70 1.13 79 0. 262 Female (26) 76.92 11.52 Results indicated that there is no significant difference between males and females with regard to the level of empowerment (p>.05). A One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was done to see if group empowerment differed with levels of education. Table 20 shows a one-way analysis of variance of the levels of education with respect to empowerment. 91 Table 20. One-way Analysis of Variance of the levels of Education with respect to Empowerment Source D. F Between groups 4 Sum of squares MS F ratio F prob. 224.26 56.06 0.3161 0.87 177.34 Within groups 74 1312.93 Total 78 13347.19 Results revealed that there is no significant, difference between the levels of education and group empowerment, indicating that the respondents with a low level of education did not differ from the respondents with higher levels of education. Thus, the implication is that the level of education bears no relationship with group empowerment. Relationship between Demographic Characteristics and SelfDirectedness in Learning Age, level of education, years of membership, and gender were analyzed in terms of their relationship with self-directedness in learning. The fourth research question sought to find out the relationship between demographic characteristics and self-directedness in learning. A Pearson product-moment correlation was used to analyze the relationship of self-directedness in learning with age and years of membership, as shown in Table 21. 92 Table 21. Correlation Coefficients of Age and Years of Membership with respect to Self-directed Learning Characteristics Correlation coefficients Age 0.0392 Years of membership 0.3141* * significant at .01 level Results indicated that there is negligible association between the ages of the respondents and self-directedness in learning. However, years of membership showed moderate association, significant at the 0.01 level of significance. The seventh research question sought to know if self­ directed learning differed with respect to the level of education and gender. A One-way Analysis of Variance was done to see if self-directedness in learning differed with levels of education, as shown in Table 22. Table 22. One-way Analysis of Variance of Levels of Education with respect to Self-directed Learning Source DF Sum of square MS F P Between groups 4 124.85 31.21 0.4031 0.81 Within groups 75 5807.64 77 .43 Total 79 5932.49 93 Table 22 shows that there is no significant difference in self-directed learning with respect to levels of education (p>0.05). A t-test was done to see if males and females differed in self-directedness in learning. Table 23 shows the results of the t-test. Table 23. T-test comparing Gender with respect to SelfDirected Learning Group prob. Mean SD T-value* DF 2-tail Male (55) 44. 16 8 .20 0.742 78 0.755 Female (26) 43 .48 9.36 * pooled variance estimate As shown in Table 23, there is no significant difference between males and females in terms of selfdirectedness in learning (p> 0.05). Regression Analysis The foregoing analysis revealed that empowerment and years of membership bear substantial and moderate relationships with self-directedness in learning, respectively. If there is confounding effect between these variables, the real effect would be obscured. Therefore, in order to see the effect of one variable controlling the other, a regression analysis was done treating self- 94 directedness in learning as a dependent variable, and empowerment, age, level of education, gender, and years of membership as independent ones. This regression analysis is shown in Table 24. Table 24. Multiple Regression of a set of Variables with Self-Directed Learning Variables B SE B Beta T Sig T Empowerment 0.418 0. 063 0. 586 6. 503 0. 000 Gender 0.113 1. 655 0. 006 0.068 0. 946 Level of educ. 0.147 0. 693 -0.019 -0.212 0.832 Age o .063 -0.143 -1.418 0.160 0.108 0.238 2 .324 0.023 -0.089 Years in group 0. 250 Multiple R R square Adjusted R square Standard error 0.665 0.443 0.405 6.726 As shown in Table 24, empowerment and years of membership, when compared with self-directedness in learning, have a significant relationship, as the probability is less than 0.05. Theother level of education, and gender, bear variables of age, nosignificant relationship. A regression analysis was also done treating group empowerment as a dependent variable and self-directed learning, age, education, years of membership, and gender as independent variables. Table 25 shows the multiple 95 regression of a set of variables with respect to group empowerment. Table 25. Multiple regression of a Set of Variables with respect to Group Empowerment Variables B Beta T Sig T Self-dir. learning 1.119 0.738 6.385 0. 000 Gender -1.777 -0.059 -0.548 0. 587 Level of education -2.792 -0.210 -0.1.989 0.0564 0.063 0. 058 0.428 0. 671 Years of membership -0.125 -0.094 -0.681 0.051 3 .807 0. 005 Age (Constant) 40.119 Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error 0.785 0. 616 0.563 8.989 As shown in Table 25, only self-directed learning and yearsin group are significantly related to empowerment. rest of the variables do not bear any significant relationship with group empowerment. This result is consistent with the foregoing analyses such as: correlational analyses, analysis of variance, and t-test analysis. The CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Three goals were defined for this study. The first goal was to find out to what extent can the participation of individuals in group interaction enhance their own growth. Secondly, it sought to identify the demographic characteristics that relate to group empowerment and self­ directed learning. Thirdly, it sought to find out if learning takes place in group interaction. The following research questions emanated from these goals: 1. Does individual perception vary with respect to the level of group empowerment? 2. Is there any variation in the perceived level of self­ directed learning? 3. What is the relationship between group empowerment and demographics? 4. Does self-directed learning relate to the demographic characteristics of group members? 5. Is there any relationship between group empowerment and self-directed learning? This was a descriptive study. The target population for this study was the members of small groups which have the following attributes: • group size 5-25; 96 97 • face-to-face interaction; • frequent/repetitive interactions; • some form of structure; • set of goals; • set of functions; and • norms and roles Members of the Michigan Farm Bureau County Boards, members of the 4-H Council, members of the Cooperartive Extension Service County Advisory Committee Programming Board, and members of the Soil Conservation District Board were the survey population for this study. groups participated in the study. In all, eight The MFB County Boards from the Central Region consisting of Ingham county, Eaton county, Clinton county, Genesee county, and Swiawassee county constituted five of the eight groups. The other three groups were the Programming Board, 4- H Council, and the SCD Board from Jackson county. The method of cluster sampling was used to select the sample for this study from the eight groups' group members. As suggested by the procedure of cluster sampling, the Central Region and Jackson county were selected randomly and all the members of these rarudomly selected groups were included in the study. The sample size was 118. A total of 81 group members responded to the survey instrument and participated in the study. In order to maintain confidentiality in the analysis and presentation of the 98 results, the groups are arbitrarily referred to as groups A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H. The instrument for data collection was a self­ administered mailed questionnaire. The instrument included 20-items to measure perceived group empowerment, 12-items to measure perceived self-directed learning and seven questions regarding demographic information. The items for group empowerment were developed according to the review of literature. Altogether, ten indicators of group empowerment were identified. indicator. Two items were developed for each The self-directed learning items were adapted and modified from the instrument developed by Caffarella and Caffarella. These two sets of items were mixed in the questionnaire in order to get an unbiased response. The group empowerment and self-directed learning items were constructed on a 5-point Likert-type scale. All the items were in the form of statements to which the responses could vary from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Consultation was done with both the professors and the graduate students at the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at Michigan State University to validate the instrument. After incorporating their comments, the instrument was pre-tested with members of the Michigan State University Bible Study Group. participated in pre-testing. A total of 24 members An analysis of the group empowerment items yielded a reliability coefficient, 99 Croanbach's alpha, of 0.89. directed learning items. This was 0.92 for the self­ An alpha of 0.70 was set as an acceptable reliability coefficient. Item-total correlation coefficients for each of the group empowerment and self­ directed learning items were higher than 0.25. An item- total correlation coefficient of 0.25 was considered a basis for selecting the items. The items which had .item-total correlation coefficients lower than 0.25 were supposed to be discarded. Frequency distribution, descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation, and range, Pearson product-moment correlation, t-test, one-way analysis of variance, and regression analysis were used to analyze and interpret the results. An SPSS pc+ computer program was used to analyze the data. Findings show that a greater proportion of the respondents, 76.5 percent, were below the age of 50. The mean age of the respondents was 41.6 years with a standard deviation of 13.93 ranging from 21 years to 75 years. the total respondents, 32.1 percent were women. Of A greater proportion, 75 percent, had exposure to a college education, and 15 percent had pursued graduate studies. The average involvement of the respondents with the group was 6.5 years with a standard deviation of 8.23. However, a greater proportion, 63 percent, were involved less than five years. 100 The first research question of this study was directed toward the variation in the levels of group empowerment. Group empowerment was delineated into three levels: high, medium and low. The respondents, whose empowerment scores fell one standard deviation above the mean empowerment score, were considered to perceive their group in the high level of empowerment range. The respondents, whose empowerment scores fell one standard deviation below the mean empowerment score were considered to perceive their group in the low level of empowerment range. And, those whose scores fell in between were considered to perceive their group in the medium range. The greatest majority of respondents, 79 percent, perceived that the empowerment in their group was medium. The. groups were ranked on the basis of mean group empowerment scores. Group A had the highest mean group empowerment score and group H had the lowest mean group empowerment score. A one-way analysis of variance with a Tukey multiple range test showed that the mean group empowerment score of group H was significantly different from the mean group empowerment scores of groups A, B, C, and E. The second research question asked about the extent of variation in the levels of self-directed learning among group members. About two-thirds of the respondents considered themselves in the medium level of selfdirectedness in learning. To know their standing in terms 101 of the proportion of respondents with relatively higher levels of self-directed learning, the groups were ranked. Group A ranked highest, followed by group F, then groups E, B, D, H, and G. The third research question of the study sought to identify the possible relationship between group empowerment and demographic characteristics of the respondents (age, gender, years in group, and level of education). A Pearson product-moment correlation was done to find the relationship between group empowerment with the age of respondents, and with years in their group. A t-test was done to determine whether males and females differed in their perceptions of group empowerment. A one-way analysis of variance was done to see if perceived group empowerment varied with the level of education. Age, gender, and level of education were not significantly related to group empowerment. However, there was a low but significant relationship between years in a group and group empowerment. The fourth research question seeked to identify the relationship between self-directed learning and demographic characteristics. A Pearson product-moment correlation was conducted to find the relationship of self-directed learning with the age of respondents and with years in a group. A t- test was done to see if males and females differed in their perceptions of self-directed learning. A one-way analysis of variance was done to see if perceived self-directed 102 learning varied with levels of education. Age, gender, and level of education were not significantly related to self­ directed learning. However, there was a moderate relationship between self-directed learning and years in a group, significant at the 0.01 level. The fifth research question sought to identify the possible relationship between group empowerment and self­ directed learning. A Pearson product-moment correlation was used to analyze the relationship in four stages. In the first stage, composite empowerment scores were correlated with the composite self-directed learning scores. correlation coefficient of 0.6321 was obtained. significant at the 0.001 level. A This was This suggested a substantial relationship between group empowerment and self­ directed learning. In the second stage, 20 individual items of group empowerment were correlated with the composite scores of self-directed learning. from 0.311 to 0.5859. The correlation coefficients varied All items were significant at 0.01 or higher levels of significance. This indicated moderate to substantial association between the individual items of empowerment and self-directed learning. showed The items which substantial association were: willingness to learn from each other, valuing of individual differences, and facilitative leadership. 103 In the third stage, 12 individual items of selfdirected learning were correlated with the composite scores of group empowerment. from 0.3751 to 0.5945. the 0.001 level. The correlation coefficients varied All the items were significant at This indicated a moderate to substantial association between individual items of self-directed learning and group empowerment. The items which showed substantial association were: ability to relate to others who may be able to help learn new things; ability to identify what one needs to know; ability to actually put to use new ways of learning; ability to draw knowledge and skill from the resources available; ability to select the best ways to learn; and becoming effective in dealing with personal issues that block learning. In the fourth stage, a correlation was done between individual items of group empowerment and individual items of self-directed learning. A moderate to substantial association was observed among different pairs of items. The foregoing analysis of association and difference was confined only to the two variables in question. It did not take into consideration the effect of other variables. Therefore, in order to see the relationship of a set of independent variables in relationship to each other and to a dependent variable, a regression analysis was done. In the first place, group empowerment, age of respondent, level of education, gender, and years of membership were treated as 104 independent variables, whereas self-directed learning was treated as a dependent one. Regression analysis between the set of independent variables and the dependent variable showed that only group empowerment and years of membership had a significant relationship with self-directed learning. Likewise, a regression analysis was done between self­ directed learning, age, levels of education, gender, and years of membership as the independent variable and group empowerment as the dependent variable. The analysis showed that self-directed learning and years of membership showed a significant relationship with group empowerment. Conclusions This section presents the conclusions based on the findings of this study. Conclusions also reflect the judgement of the researcher about the findings. Each finding is supplemented with a conclusion. Conclusion # 1 As revealed by the findings of this study, group members who perceive their group as being more empowering tend to perceive themselves as more self-directed. This finding reflects individual perceptions of group empowerment and self-directed learning. The nature of the group determines the character of its impact on the development of its members. The values of the 105 group, the stability of values, the group atmosphere, and the nature of conformity demanded by the group determine whether a group is likely to have a positive or negative impact upon the growth and behavior of its members. This finding is in consistent with the view expressed by Likert (1991) as he states "if the values of the group are seen by the members as having merit, if the group is warm, supportive, and full of understanding, the group's influence on the development of its member will be positive." The groups that place high value on empowerment tend to create a supportive environment for the growth of individuals. This individual growth culminates in self-directedness among members. The extent to which an individual accepts and internalizes the group's values v/ill shape his/her perception of the groups. Furthermore, individual perceptions will also be affected by the matching of group and individual values. When individual values match with the group's values, the individual will perceive the group more positively. Therefore, it is important for a group facilitator to have a thorough understanding of the individual members' value systems. This will help to devise strategies to move the group process ahead while keeping consistent with the group's values. 106 Conclusion # 2 Groups which are high in empowerment also have a higher proportion of self-directed members. This reflects group characteristics rather than individual perceptions. When the group has self-directed members, the relationship of the members within the group is that of inter-dependence. The contribution of each member is equally important for the group's growth. In a dependent group, task functions are leader oriented and the group may disintegrate in the absence of an active leader. However, in an inter-dependent group, all the members have developed leadership qualities that ensure the sustainability of the group in an adverse situation. Sustainability of groups has been a concern in development programs based on group approach. Groups are formed with much enthusiasm, but may wither away in due course without accomplishing their tasks. Thus, many resource are wasted in the mobilization of groups. The findings of this study suggest that if the group empowers its members, there is a possibility that the group can be a sustaining group. Therefore, for the sustainability of groups it is important to empower the members. Conclusion # 3 Group members who perceive themselves as more self­ directed tend to perceive their group as more empowering. 107 This finding reflects members' individual perceptions about group empowerment and their own self-directedness. This finding indicates that an empowered group can be formed by developing skills and abilities among the members toward self-directed learning. Self-directed learning is not only a possession of skills or competencies, but it also constitutes the personality attributes of learners as explicated by the personality perspective of self-directed learning. The personality perspective of self-directed learning focuses on an individual's motivation to purse learning throughout life, rather than on the ability of an individual to engage in the episodes of self-instruction (Oddi, 1987). Oddi further asserts that the focus of self­ directed learning should be on the study of the motivational, cognitive, and affective characteristics or personalities of learners. Brookfield (1986) stresses that self-directed learning can be facilitated. Therefore, it is important for a group facilitator to take into account the motivation of group members to engage in group activities, their learning styles, and psychological attributes, along with the enhancement of competencies to be self-directed learners. By facilitating self-directed learning, a group's empowerment process will be enhanced. further bolster self-directed learning. This will, in turn, Thus, there will be 108 a spiralling-type group development and a dynamic group will be formed. Conclusion # 4 Findings of this study show that there is a variation in the perception of group members regarding group empowerment and individual self-directed learning. Some view the group as more empowering while others see it as less empowering. Likewise, some members perceive themselves as more self-directed while some do not feel that they have the ability and skills to be self-directed learners. This indicates a differential impact of group on individual growth and development. Berne (1963) hypothesizes that each member has a different mental picture of the group, based on his/ her personal feelings. leads to a perceptual variation among members. This The variation in perceptions instigates an individual to behave differently. This finding, thus, suggests that the group should not be considered a homogenous conglomeration of individuals. For example, members may be in different hierarchies of needs fulfillment. Cartwright and Zander (1960) state that individuals join groups to fulfill their certain needs such as needs for autonomy, recognition, fair evaluations and the like. They further assert that the more it appears to the individual that he/she may obtain prestige within a group, the more he/she will be attracted to the 109 group. Since individuals are guided by different needs and group cannot satisfy all the varying needs of the individuals, the individuals in the group will be in different stages of need satisfaction. to a perceptual variation. It will again lead Therefore, it is important for the group facilitator to understand the unique differences of the group's members. Conclusion # 5 Findings of this study show that members with longer group membership see their group as empowering and see themselves as self-directed. Based on this finding, it can be concluded that if the group is empowering, it can possibly hold members for a longer period of time. At the same time, self-directed members stay longer in the group. It is important for a group to have members having longer periods of involvement in group activities. If the member turnover is high, then the movement of the group toward maturity will be slow or even stagnated. The forces restraining the growth and development of the group might prevail over the forces that enhance the development of the group, because newer members are characterized by having self-oriented behavior, anxiety, and high dependency on the leader. There is no emergence of solutions, insight, sharing and disclosure (Tuckman (1965). In contrast to immature groups, the groups which hold members for a longer 110 period of time are characterized by high level of interaction and interdependence. When the groups are interactive and interdependent, their stability and viability can be ensured. Therefore, in order to maintain stability, viability, and effectiveness of groups, it is important for when the group to be effective, it is important for the group to empower its member and to facilitate self-directed learning. Members may drop-out if they feel that the group is not empowering. Conclusion # 6 Findings revealed that age, gender and level of education are not related to perceptions of group empowerment or individual self-directedness. With regards to the relationship between level of education and self­ directed learning, this study contradicts the Brockett study (1985). Brockett reports that a significant positive relationship exists between previous formal education and current readiness for self-directed learning. However, he recognizes the limitations of his study as homogeneity of the sample in terms of previous education. The sample of the present study is heterogenous in terms of levels of education. This could be one of the possible reasons for the contradiction. This study corroborates the findings of Brockett's study (1985) that chronological age does not appear to be linked with self-directedness. Ill The development programs are sometimes implemented through different groups like women's groups, youth groups, elderly groups, etc, on the assumption that heterogeneity in a group will inhibit the growth of its members- This study indicates that it is not necessary to segregate the groups on the basis of age, gender or education to enhance individual growth and development. However, there are other socio-cultural, socio-economic, and socio-political aspects which have profound impact on group growth. Therefore, this conclusion should be cautiously interpreted to imply only to the variables studied. Implications Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, the following implications have been drawn: Implication # l Since groups are different in terms of empowerment and self-directed learning, they should be treated differently. This implies designing or implementing development programs involving groups. As a facilitator of the group, a development worker or educator should be able to assess the group in terms of group empowerment processes and abilities and skills for self-directedness. If the group has a low level of empowerment, program strategies should be designed to maximize the interaction of the members within the group. 112 The members from the group with higher levels of empowerment can initiate interaction themselves in formal or informal settings. Implication # 2 Since there is a relationship between group empowerment and self-directed learning, it may be possible to effect one through the manipulation of the other. All ten indicators of group empowerment are positively related to self-directed learning. By manipulating any of these indicators, it may be possible to effect self-directed learning. Likewise, there are twelve indicators of self­ directed learning positively related to group empowerment. Thus, by enhancing or impeding the development of skills and abilities leading to self-directed leaning, group empowerment could be affected. Implication # 3 The way content focus of a group is dealt with can effect the degree of empowerment or self-directed learning. The focus of a group's activity may be simply transmission of information, or it may be development. If the focus is merely a transmission of information, the level of group empowerment or individual self-directedness may be low. Conversely, if the focus is developmental it may be possible 113 to induce higher levels of group empowerment or individual self-directed learning. Reeommendations This section presents recommendations for future research. These recommendations are expounded upon as implied by the study. Recommendation # 1 A longitudinal study of similar nature can be helpful in establishing the causal relationship between group empowerment and self-directed learning. examined the groups at one point in time. establish the causal relationship. This study has And this does not However, the findings of this study suggest that there could be a causal relationship between group empowerment and self-directed learning. A longitudinal study, therefore, will help to understand possible causal relationships between these variables. Recommendation # 2 A similar study employing the combination of data collection techniques such as observation, personal interview, peer rating, expert rating or group discussion etc. can be supplemented with a self-administered mailed questionnaire. This study adopted only a self-administered mailed questionnaire. Although this is the most widely used 114 method of data collection in the social sciences, the selfreport may reveal a lack of clear introspection and the judgements may not reflect an individual's behavior. Furthermore, this method does not allow further probing to have a clear understanding of the phenomenon. Therefore, a combination of data collection technigues will allow for the answering of many questions that are not addressed a priori. Recommendation # 3 In order to have an indepth understanding of the phenomenon, a study comprising of failed groups would be helpful. Some groups are formed but disintegrate without accomplishing the set goals. why the groups have failed. It is important to understand This study suggests that the empowering groups hold members for a longer time. self-directed members stay longer in the group. Also, Thus, by comparing failed groups and successful groups, it may be possible to see if empowerment and self- directed learning aspects have any relationship with failure. Recommendation # 4 This study focuses on groups that are aligned with government supported programs and initiated by government agencies. Government policies might influence the modus operandi of these groups. Therefore, a study involving groups aligned with non-governmental organizations or people 115 initiated groups could be helpful for understanding whether empowerment and self-directed learning have any relationship with the affiliation and initiation of groups. Recommendation # 5 A similar study can be conducted taking social class, wealth, and cultural aspects into consideration to see whether these variables have any relationship with empowerment and self-directed learning. Socio-economic and cultural factors play important roles in establishing values and determining behavioral pattern. Therefore, in replicating this study in cross-cultural settings, it is recommended that socio-economic and cultural aspects of the society should be taken into account. Recommendation # 6 Individuals may be members of different groups simultaneously. It may be possible for member to feel empowered in one group while not empowered in another group. At the same time, an individual may feel confident performing one task while may be dependent on others to perform another task. Therefore, a study to account for self-directedness in a multi-group membership situation could be conducted. 116 Recommendation # 7 Organizations could be examined using the same methodology as the groups. Organizations are characterized by defined lines of command and criteria for recruiting members. Empowering organizations may possibly be more effective in accomplishing their objectives because members of such organizations have intrinsic motivation for being independent. Therefore, in order to have a better understanding of the relationship between empowerment processes in the organization and organizational effectiveness, the methodology of this study could be adopted. BIBLIOGRAPHY Archer, D., 1974. Power in Groups: Self Concept Changes in Powerful and Powerless Group. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Vol 10, No. 2, pp. 208-219. Argris, C. 1962. Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Argris, c. 1964. Integrating the Individual and Organization. New York: John Wiley. Ary, Donald; Jacobs Lucy Chester; and Razaveih Asghar, 1990. Introduction to Research in Education. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Orlando, Florida. Aschcroft, L., 1987. Diffusing Empowering: What and Why. Language Arts. 64,pp. 142-156. Axinn, George, H., 1988. International Technical Interventions in Agriculture and rural Development: Some Basic Trends, Issues and Questions. Agriculture and Human Values. V.5, No.1 and 2, Winter-Spring. Babbie, Earl, 1983. Survey Research Methods. Wardsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California. Babbie, Earl, 1989. The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California. Berne, Eric, 1963. The structure and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups. J. B. Lippincott company, Philadelphia. Blank, Warren; Weitzel John; Blau, Gary; and Green S. T., 1988. A Measure of Psychological Maturity. Group and Organizational Studies. Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 225-238. Brockett, R. G., 1985. The Relationship between SelfDirected Learning Readiness and Life Satisfaction among Older Adults. Adults Education Quarterly. 35, 210-219. Brookfield, S. 1986. Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Brookfield, S., 1981. Independent Adult Learning. Studies in Adult Education. 13, 15-27. 117 118 Caffarella, R. M., and O'Donnell, J. M., 1987. Self-Directed Adult Learning: A Critical Paradigm Revisited. Adult Education Quarterly. Vol. 37, Number 4, 199- 211. Caffarella, R. S., and Caffarella, E. P., 1986. SelfDirectedness and Learning Contracts in Adult Education. Adult Education Quarterly. 36, 226-234. Campbell, M. D. Jr., 1976. An Exploratory Study of the Relationship between Adult Educator Functions and Growth in Community Problem Solving. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin. Cartwright, Dorwin and Zander, Alvin, 19 60. Group Dynamics Research and Theory (eds.). Harper and Row, Publishers, Incorporated. Catalano, Anthony; and Tillie Della, 1991. Power and Involvement in Preservice Teacher Education. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, April 37. Chavez, Marie, 1991 cited by Schatz, Mona-Strutsaker; Jenkins Lowell in Foster Care and the Empowerment Process. Fostering Families, Colarado State University, Ft. Collins, Department of Social Work. Cropley, A. J., 1976. Some Psychological Reflections on Lifelong Education. In R. H. Dave (ed.), Foundations of Lifelong Education. Oxford, England:Pergamon Press, pp. 186-234. Cumins, J., 1986. Empowering Minority students: A Framework for Intervention. Harvard Educational Review. 56, 1836. Davis, Robert E., 1990. Power Redesigned: Identification and Methodology for constructive Power. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Southern Association of counselor Education and Supervision, Norfolk, VA, Nov. 1-4 . Davis, 1971. Elementary Survey Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ., Prentice- Hall. Dean, Lillian F., 1984. A Networking Approach to Groundwater Education in West Oakland County, Michigan, the Environmental Professional. Vol 6, pp.167-171. 119 Dunst, C. J. , and Trivette, C. M., 1987. Enabling and Empowering Families: Conceptual and Intervention Issues. Psychological Review. 56. 18-36. Edgar Boone J., 1989. Philosophical Foundations of Extension. In Donald J. Blackburn (ed.), Foundations and Changing Practices in Extension, University of Guelph. Elias, J. L., and Merriam, S., 1980. Philosophical Foundations of Adult Education. Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger. Friedman, John 1992. Empowerment The Politics of Alternative Development. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA. Gibbons, M., Bailey A., Comeau, P., Schmuck, J., Seymour, S., and Wallace D., 1980. Towards a Theory of SelfDirected Learning: A Study of Experts without Formal Training. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 20 (2), 41-56. Griffin, V. 1978. Self-Directed Adult Learners and Learning, Learning 2(1), 6-8. Guglielmino, L. M., 1978. Development of the Self-directed Learning Readiness Scale (Doctoral Dissertation. University of Georgia, 1977), Dissertation Abstract International. 38, 6467A. Hare, A. P., 1962. Handbook of Small Group Research. New York: The Free Press. Hassan, A. M., 1986. An Investigation of the Learning Projects among Adults of High and Low Readiness for Self-direction in Learning (Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State University). Dissertation Abstracts International. 42, 3838 A. Hay, Glona; and Apps Jerold, 1981. The Role of Adult Educators in Promoting Growth in Rural Community Problem-Solving Groups, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K., 1969. Life Cycle Theory of Leadership. Training and Development Journal, 15, pp. 26-34. Hersey, P., and Blanchard, K., 1982. Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 120 Houle, C. 0., 1961. The Inquiring Mind. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Hughes, R. Jr., 1987. Empowering Rural Families and Communities. Family Relations. 36, 396-401. Issac, S., and Michael, W., 1975. Handbook in Research and Evaluation. San Diego, CA: Edits Publishing. Kasworm, C. E., 1983. Towards a Paradigm of Developmental Level of Self-Directed Learning. Paper Presented at the American Education Research conference, Montreal, Canada. Knowles, M. S., 1975. Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for Learners and Teachers. Chicago, Follett Publishing Company. Kolb, D., Rubin, I., and McIntyre, J., 1971. Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall. Kolb, David A., Rubin Irwin M., and Osland Joyce S., 1991. The Organizational Behavior Reader. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc. Kramer, J. M., 1989. The American Health Deficit: Hazards of being Minority and Poor. Paper Presented at the Green Bay Colloquium on Ethnicity and Public Policy, Green Bay, Wisconsin. krayer Karl J., 1988. Exploring group Maturity in the Classroom Difference in behavioral, Affective, and Performance Outcomes between Mature and Immature Groups. Small groups Behavior. Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 259272. Kronenburg, J. B. M., 1986. Empowerment of the Poor: A Comparative Analysis of Two Development Endeavors in Kenya. Royal Tropical Institute Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Lazarie, Marceline M., 1990. Empowerment, Gender Content, and Field Education, Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Denver. Levine, S. Joseph, 1991. Effective Teaching: A set of papers focusing on the teaching of technical information to adult, department of Agricultural and Extension Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 121 Levingston, Carol C. , 1991. Examining the Evidence: Reflections and Notation in Network Communication. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, April 37. Lewin, Kurt, 1935. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper and Row. Likert, Rensis, 1991. The Nature of Highly Effective Groups in Kolb, R., Rubin I., and Osland J. (eds.) The Organizational Behavior Reader. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey Lippitt, Gordon L., 1982. Organizational Renewal A Holistic Approach to Organizational Development. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Long, H. B., and Agyekum, S. K., 1984. Multitrait-MultiMethod Validation of Guglielmino's Self-directed Learning Readiness Scale. Proceeding of the Twentyfifth Annual Adult Education Research Conference, 194198. Margot, Guiteirrez Lorraine, 1989. Ethnic Consciousness, Consciousness Raising and the Empowerment Process of Latinos. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Murrell, Kenneth L., 1985. The Development of Theory of Empowerment: Rethinking Power for Organization Development. Organization Development Journal. 3(2), 34-38. Naisbitt, J., 1982. Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming our Lives. Warner Books, NY. National Commission on Resources for Youth, 1982. Youth Empowerment: A Training Guide. National Commission on Resources for Youth, Inc., Boston, MA. Oddi, Lory F., 1987. Perspectives on Self-Directed Learning. Adult Education Quarterly. Volume 38 (1), pp. 21-31. Putman, Anthony 0., 1991. Empowerment : In Search of Viable Paradigm. Performance-Improvement Quarterly. Vol. 4 (4), pp. 4-11. Quiroz, Consuelo, 1987. The Self-Directed Learning Process in a Selected Organic Farmers in Michigan. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 122 Rogers, Carl 1965. Freedom to Learn. Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill. Rossi, P. H., Wright, J. D., and Anderson, A. B., 1983. Handbook of Survey Research. New York: Academic Press. Sabbaghian, 2. S., 1978. Adult Self-Directedness and SelfConcept: An Exploration of Relationships (Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State University). Dissertation Abstracts International. 40,3701A. Salter, P. E., 1958. Contrasting Correlates of Group Size. Sociometrv. Vol.21, pp.129-139. Schatz, Mona-Struhsaker; and Jenkins Lowell, 1991. Foster Care and the Empowerment Process: Fostering Families. Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Department of Social Work. Schwerin, Edward William, 1990. Mediation and Empowerment: Citizen Participation in Conflict Resolution. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Hawaii. Sleeter, Christine E., 1991. Empowerment through Multicultural Education. State University of New York Press, Albany. Smith, R. M . , 1982. Learning how to Learn. Chicago: Follett Publishing Company. Thomas, E. J., and Fink, C. F., 1963. Effects of Group Size. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 60, No.4, pp. 271-384. Tough, A. M. 1979. The Adult's Learning Projects (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Torrance, E. P. and Mourad, S., 1978. Some Creativity and Style of Learning and Thinking Correlates of Guglielmino7s Self Directed Learning Readiness Scale. Psychological Reports. 43, 1167-1171. Vogt, Judith F. and Murrell, Kenneth L., 1990. Empowerment in Organizations: How to Spark Exceptional Performance. Pfeiffer and Company, 8517 Production Avenue, San Diego, California. Webster, Merriam, 1977. Webster7s New Collegiate Dictionary. G. and C. Merriam Co., Springfield, MA. 123 Wimmer, R. D. and Dominick, J. R. 1988. Mass Media Research: An Introduction. Belmont, California: Wadsworth. Appendix A Group Process Opinionaire Direction Answer each question based on your experience as a member of the County Farm Bureau Board. Questions in part I can be answered by circling the item that best describes your opinion. Some questions in part II can be answered by checking the category that best describes your situation, while some require a written response. Example: 1 Statements I feel proud to be the part of this group Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 Strongly Agree 4 5 1 4 2 3 5 Example 2. Which of the following categories best describes your residence status? [ ] urban [ ] suburban [ ] rural Example 3. How long have your been residing in this county? yrs_____month s 124 125 Part I Please indicate your opinion for each statement in terms of how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Consider the groups in terms of County Farm Bureau Board. Circle a number from 1 to 5 on the scale to the right of each statement. Statements Strongly D isagree 1 2 3 4 Strongly A gree 5 ' 1. D ecisions in this group are influenced by all mem bers. 1 2 3 4 5 2. M y participation in this group has helped me to m ore realistically d iag n o se my ow n learning needs. 1 2 3 4 5 3 . M em bers in this group are encouraged to reflect on the g ro u p ’s activities. 1 2 3 4 5 4. M y participation in this group has assisted me in re latin g to o th e rs w ho m ay be able to help me learn new things. 1 2 3 4 5 5. W orking together is im portant in this group. 1 2 3 4 5 6 . M em bers o f this group show a willingness to learn from each other. 1 2 3 4 5 7. M y participation in this group has helped me to take the in itiativ e to u se a v a ila b le re so u rc e s that may help me learn new things. 1 2 3 4 5 8. A n im portant characteristic o f this group is trust. 1 2 3 4 5 9 . M em bers o f this group are encouraged to becom e involved in the w ork o f the group. 1 2 3 4 5 10. M y participation in this group has increased my ability to identify w h a t I need to know . 1 2 3 4 5 11. Reflection is an im portant activity in this group. 1 2 3 4 5 12. T h is group values ideas from m em bers w ho have had extensive experience. 1 2 3 4 5 13. M em bers in this group support each other. 1 2 3 4 5 14. M y participation in this group has provided me the ability to id en tify re so u rc e s that may help me learn new things. 1 2 3 4 5 15. M em bers o f this group seem to enjoy working with each other. 1 2 3 4 5 16. T ru st is very im portant in this group. 1 2 3 4 5 17. M y participation in this group has provided me the ability to actually p u t to u se new w ays for me to leam . 1 2 3 4 5 126 S trongly D isagree 1 2 Statem ents 3 4 Strongly A gree 5 18. M utual support am ong m em bers is im portant in this group. 1 2 3 4 5 19. T h ere is opportunity for m em bers o f this group to influence decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 20. In this group m em bers like to learn from each other. 1 2 3 4 5 2 1. M y participation in this group has provided me the ability to d ra w know ledge an d skill fro m th e reso u rces around m e. 1 2 3 4 5 22. Being a facilitator is im portant for the leader o f this group. 1 2 3 4 5 2 3. T he experience o f the group m em bers is im portant for the operation o f the group. 1 2 3 4 5 24. M y participation in this group has helped me to select th e b est w ays to learn. 1 2 3 4 5 25. M y participation in this group has given me insight into how to relate to others in a co llab o rativ e way to help with my learning. 1 2 3 4 5 26. Involvem ent o f the m em bers is im portant for this group. 1 2 3 4 5 27. M y participation in this group has helped me becom e m ore effective in dealing with personttl Issues that may block m y learning. 1 2 3 4 5 28. Individual differences are valued in this group. 1 2 3 4 5 29. M y participation in this group has renew ed m y d esire to learn. 1 2 3 4 5 30. T he leader o f this group w orks hard to be a facilitator. 1 2 3 4 5 31. M y participation in this group has provided me ability to ev alu ate m y ow n learning. 1 2 3 4 5 32. R ecognition o f individual differences is a characteristic o f this group. 1 2 3 4 5 Please turn over 127 Part II 1. H ow m any m em ber? are in your group?________________ 2. H ow long has your group been functioning?_________ yrs___________m onths 3. H ow long have you been a m em ber o f this group?___________ yrs_________ m onths 4. H ow often does your group m eet (w eekly?, m onthly?, e t c .) ____________________ 5. W hich o f the follow ing best describes your educational background? [ [ [ [ [ [ ] ] ] ] ] ] Less than high school degree High school degree Som e college C ollege degree G raduate study G raduate degree 6. W hat is your a g e ? ___________ 7. W hat is your gender? [ ] M ale [ ] Female T hanks for y o u r participation Please return your com pleted questionnaire in the enclosed envelope to: M r. Padm a Singh 410 A griculture Hall M ichigan State U niversity East Lansing, M I 48824-1038 APPENDIX B cover Letter Date: Name/Address of respondent Dear (first name of respondent): I am a doctoral candidate in Agricultural and Extension Education at Michigan State University. Currently, I am conducting research as part of my degree requirements. This research focusses on the group process- especially as it relates to helping the members learn. The results of this study should provide new insight into how to improve the group process. The County Farm the groups that identified as a be possible for Bureau Boards have been selected as some of will be examined and your name was member of that group. I hope that it will you to participate in this study. Enclosed is a short questionnaire that I hope you will complete and return to me in the enclosed stamped envelope. It should take no more than 10 minutes to complete. You may be assured of complete confidentiality. Your participation in this study is voluntary and you are under no pressure to complete the questionnaire. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. You will notice that the question does not require you to provide your name (or other identifier) and no attempt will be made to identify specific respondents. The number with the questionnaire is for the mailing purpose only. All information collected from this questionnaire will be analyzed and presented as aggregated scores. I hope it will be possible for you to participate in this study by completing the questionnaire. I will appreciate if you can return the questionnaire by March 22. I thank you in advance for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (517) 355-6580. Sincerely, Padma Singh 128 APPENDIX C Letter from MFB Regional Representative MICHIGAN FARM BUREAU 7373 West S ag in aw Highway, Box 30960, Lansing, M ichigan 48909-8460 P h o n e (517) 323-7000 March 1, 1993 TO: County Farm Bureau Directors FROM: Rob Anderson, Regional Representative RE: Enclosed Questionnaire I was recently contacted by Mr. Padm a Singh, who is pursuing a doctoral degree at Michigan State, about the groups and leadership that exist in Farm Bureau. Through our discussions, he expressed a desire to gather som e information from the leadership of the county Farm Bureaus in the Central Region. Please take a couple of m inutes to complete the enclosed questionnaire for Mr. Singh and return it in a timely fashion. I am confident that the data he collects from our group will be very helpful when you consider the type of leadership that is developed through our organization. Thank you for your help! 129 I APPENDIX D Letter from Cooperative Extension Director MICHIGAN STATE U N I V E R S I T Y EXTENSION March 16, 1993 Dear Friend: You will soon be receiving a questionnaire from Padma Singh, a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at Michigan State University. Padma is doing research on how groups in support of agriculture and extension education empower individuals. Please take some time to complete Padma's research questionnaire. His findings will add to the knowledge base for providing quality Extension education programs. If you have any questions, please call me at 517-7884292 . Sincereiy, JACKSON COUNTY Cooperative Extension Service Les H . Schick County Extension Director 412 Erie Street Jac k so n , M ichigan Ihs/jcq 49202-2296 130 APPENDIX E Reminder Letter Date: Name/Address of respondent Dear(first name of respondent) Two weeks ago, a questionnaire seeking your opinion about the group process was mailed to you. You were selected to participate in the study because of your knowledge and experience as a member of Farm Bureau County Board. If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, please accept my sincere thanks. In the event the questionnaire was misplaced or you have had no time to respond, I have enclosed another questionnaire. Please take a few minutes and return the questionnaire as soon as possible. Your participation is essential for the successful completion of the study and I am counting on your support. Thank you. Sincerely, Padma Singh 131 APPENDIX F Approval letter from University's Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects OHIO. \\l) Ol - DKAN VIO Ol I’K h S I D I N I I HI- IOK ( , KADI A l l KKSIA KOI h A S T I . A N .N IN G • M IC H IG A N • 4KH24-1IM<> '-(110(11 Febniary 12, 1993 TO: Mr. Padma Singh 410 Agriculture Hall RE: IRB it: TITLE: REVISION REQUESTED: CATEGORY: APPROVAL DATE: 93-041 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL EMPOWERMENT AND SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING IN SELECTED MICHIGAN SMALL GROUPS N/A 1-C 02/12/1993 The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects’ (UCR1HS) review o f this project is complete. I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare o f the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore, the UCR1HS approved this project including any revision listed above. UCR1HS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to continue a project beyond one year must seek updated certification. Request for renewed approval must be accompanied by all four o f the following mandatory assurances. 1. 2. 3. 4. The human subjects protocol is the same as in previous studies. There have been no ill effects suffered by the subjects due to their participation in the study. There have been no complaints by the subjects or their representatives related to their participation in the study. There has not been a change in the research environment nor new information which would indicate greater risk to human subjects than that assumed when the protocol was initially reviewed and approved. There is a maximum o f four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for complete review. UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to initiation of the change. Investigators must notify UCRIHS promptly o f any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to contact us at (517) 355-2180 or FAX (517) 336-1171. Sincerely, / D a v i d E. Wright, Ph.D. / \ UCRIHS Chair ^ ^ APPENDIX G Item-total Correlation Coefficients for Empowerment Items ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICS SCALE MEAN IF ITEM DELETED 74.8101 74.6456 74.7975 75.3291 74.4810 74.8354 74.9367 75.1013 75.0127 74.9114 74.5570 74.4430 74.6962 74.6962 75.2875 75.5375 75.0500 75.300 75.3500 75.1750 EDI EDI I ERI ERII ECI ECU EWI EWII ENI ENII EVI EVII EEI EEII EFI EFII ELI ELII EMI EMU RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS ALPHA = 9397 SCALE VARIANCE IF ITEM DELETED CORRECTED ITEMTOTAL CORRELATION SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION .6362 .6121 .7145 .4513 .6052 .6374 .7134 .7513 .8137 .8581 .7710 .6876 .6520 .6363 .7069 .4798 .6830 .4513 .7281 .7003 .6727 .6412 .6684 .4956 .5968 .6646 .6888 .7807 .6867 .7283 .7153 .5973 .7214 .5131 .7810 .5010 .5488 .4973 .7882 .5569 153.3866 156.2830 154.2918 158.5570 155.9451 153.3700 152.7524 151.5024 154.0127 152.9792 152.6345 157.8909 151.0347 158.0860 148.8403 155.5429 155.8709 156.5771 150.0785 156.0703 20 ITEMS STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA Key toi the code: EDI ERI ECI EWI ENI EVI EEI EFI ELI EMI Item # = Item # = Item # = Item # = Item # = Item # = 1 in questionnaire 3 5 6 8 9 = Item # 12 = Item # 28 - Item #22 = Item # 13 EDII ERII ECU EWII ENII EVII EEII EFII ELII EMU = Item # 18 = Item #11 = Item # 15 = Item # 20 = = = = = = 133 Item Item Item Item Item Item # # # # # # 20 26 23 32 30 18 .9395 ALPHA IF ITEM DELETED .9361 .9367 .9362 .9391 .9374 .9362 .9358 .9342 .9359 .9351 .9353 .9374 .9352 .9388 .9374 .9424 .9414 .9422 .9374 .9412 APPENDIX H Item-total Correlation Coefficients for SDL Items ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICS SCALE MEAN IF ITEM DELETED 39.2500 38.9000 9.0375 39.0500 38.9750 39.2000 38.9000 39.3750 39.0125 39.5125 39.2250 39.1250 SDLD SDLR SDLI SDLN SDLA SDLU SDLK SDLS SDLC SDLP SDLREN SDLE RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS ALPHA = .9579 CORRECTED ITEMTOTAL CORRELATION SCALE VARIANCE IF ITEM DELETED .7406 .7908 .7794 .7820 .7606 .8820 .8435 -.7808 .8156 .7882 .7964 .7312 85.7342 84.6734 86.6948 86.2253 86.9867 83.1747 84.4962 85.9842 84.7720 85.8226 84.7082 87.9335 Item # Item # Item # Item # Item # Item # Item # item # Item # Item # = Item Item # ALPHA IF ITEM DELETED .6335 .7565 .7022 .6795 .7932 .8179 .8181 .6982 .7061 .7224 .7709 .6109 .9558 .9543 .9546 .9545 .9551 .9514 .9527 .9545 .9535 .9543 .9541 .9560 12 ITEMS STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA Key to the code: SDLD = SDLR = SDLI = SDLN = SDLA = SDLU = SDLK = SDLS = SDLC = SDLP = SDLREN SDLE = SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION 2 in questionnaire 4 7 10 14 17 21 24 25 27 # 29 31 134 ,9579 APPENDIX I Correlation between Empowerment Items and SDL Items SDLR SDLI SDLN .3423** .3097* .3772** .2027 .3861** .3010* .4195** .4459** .3932** .3639** .2922* .4655** .2731* .4382** .4389** .2060 .3262* .1975 .3451** .2656* .3288* .5235** .4302** .2440 .5226** .4179** .3308* .4291** .2787* .3177* .5711** .4606** .4779** .4381** .4468** .1617 .5275** .2161 .3559** .4018** .2961* .3462** .3278* .1426 .2916* .2698* .2809* .3675** .1833 .1208 .2576 .2799* .2836* .3870** .2076 .1901 .3988** .1065 .2504 .2273 .4345** .4630** .4040** .2051 .4668** .3786** .3333* .3948** .3420** .3763** .5126** .4868** .4365** .3983** .4847** .3176* .3947** .3512** .2560 .3574** SDLK SDLS SDLC SDLP C orrelations: SDLD EDI EDII ERI ERII ECI ECH EW I EW II ENI END EVI evd EEI EEII EFI EFU ELI ELD EM I EMU EDI EDU ERI ERII ECI ECH EWI Ewn N o f cases: 80 .3597** .2602* .2940* .3626** .3883** .2695* .4444** .2705* .4046** .3646** .2651* .3662** .3368* .4045** .4898** .5395** .2838* .4460** .2345 .3715** .2671* .3372* .3187* .3015* .2767* .2012 .4328** .3662** .3791** .4738** .4501** .2251 .4699** 5494** .1823 .3884** .3472** .813** .2593 .2612* 1-tailed Signif: * - . 0 1 .2178 .4404** .3596** .1323 .3062* .2410 .2227 .2760* .0804 .0884 .4272** .2732* .3032* .4321** .3428** .1745 .4629** .1456 .2510 .2431 .3511** .4400** .3557** .2426 .3481** .3273* .4707** .5135** .3543** .3499** .2930* .3180* .2849* .3385* .5866** .2835* .4849** * o o ENI END EVI EVH EEI EED EFI EFH ELI ELII EM I EMU .3662** .4498** .3528** .3027* .3086* .3714** .2519 .4400** .2501 .2804* .4544** .3816** .3746** .4986** .4219** .3293* .5742** .3363* .3409** .2879* SD LU SD L A .4176** .3238* .4651** .4168** .3916** .3283* .3730** .3443** .3370* .4879** .4005** .4305** .4075** .4368** .3912** .4925** .5742** .2728* .4930** .3746** .4342** .3854** SD LR EN .2650* .2860* .2023 .2474 .3130* .2632* .3592** .4612** .3217* .3423** .1616 .3890** .2166 .4244** .4367** .3087* .4374** .3387* .3263* .2633* SDLE .2334 .3702** .2324 .1520 .3114* .2648* .2527 .4298** .3459** .3604** .3218* .3947** .1677 .4188** .4754** .3493** .4484** .2951* .3022* .2576 * * - .0 0 1 135