15kt. ..1...1..:.w.999... €995.91. \999 . 9 v .. ... 9. 5559.99 9959.99; 9' ‘JIP. 9.0999 .097'95’9A 5 :m 551*. «Pd: .. .5 59. 09995 9 .9. .9. . " ....un3924 9.“... ..195d... ....9 1.. 5.9.1.55“... ...999. . .v . 5 9 .. 9 . 9 9. C 999,599.70. .9... ..99099: 9. ‘99...." “Ar. 79 .00”! . 9.9 . 3’9 In.‘ ... 5059?: .99? ...... .... 9.1.... ..... 9.3%.. «an... . . . . . “41.499. uJ.‘ 9 “9; q: 91,999 ,90. 9199.999 5. 99$. I 95599.. 59.9 99‘959103’f .59.} ..5 '9’..$9..9| ..5 90.9 19.999909 f.9.0,....!.99 9'9 th‘ounr 999. I!“ ..5, . I. Q. 9 .9 9.. v 5 99$. 30;” 990 9 5 99 O 99'. 0. .5, 55 , .99 . r , 9.45%.. .Jn. 0‘ .9 9 5. .... 919.90.. . 9‘.V§ ‘.5. .09 9 9, 9 99.995.90.955 99....5fvfh9‘l , 0d. ‘99. 'I 95"... .70 . .9\J..1| ' ...9,‘.| ”995 9 9.. . 65.93.9999 99.9 . ”‘39 ..5 99..“HAM5MU .9905 L5 1| ‘I, '5’ 59’... 99.9.- 3.91.99 .9. .... 9 l 559... 99.. IV’.‘9 08.559915 3.0 $9 ...9.I.. 55‘ ‘5 A59" 5 I999, ”"13." Ohm“ 9. 5:97 .59..9 ,.00. 9,9795 F. Fwd-mm; .999“ 9.599 5.. .9nu‘ .9.$9..5 99.9. .790 ... 9.995 95. 05.: 05.10 5 I 9. -.."..0 '599wnno599 .9 an 2.150.584. . ‘0...”559999W.9 509,0“.9g; .. 9 0 9. 51:}; .955).l. #9959hfi 09.345“ loll . 99909 99 . . Q 9. 990 .9. '9 I! 9.5951fl50 9 5 . 9997. 99.999 5 c. s... . : ..:.. ..:..? 1.9.9.9...595 .97.....l..$.99 ‘ ..:9 2.599,. 29 I 5090 05.9.9... 9 .. 9 7.0.! 5.9.50 99'. .. 5.. 95' .999. . .0. .999- 5.99Q'|.99 099.9 \. .599 5999.9 I9 '."|$J 5'... 01.3.5 0L9...90V90".. Q‘ .95.... .5.... 99.59....0550“. IIv. 99 59‘5591 ..LO’QJd 99.45959. 9. 9 5. 99 ... . 5. . .9!’ ”’99.. . 555.19 50- . .9 O5...9I9.v_59. .... SLIMWW. ...: . . 5959599 9. .1919 . .9 9 9 55 9 .9.99 I .9 I ”.9911. .fin 95.5.0...9-,5‘.90...9.9. ." ,, . 9 50 599999 . 9”. ’9 95.9 9-99 L3 2 . “0.9 90.909.91.499: 31.9.99 99.9.89 5. 504. 9IH99 . L" 9 55 5 9. .9955.» . 9.5 . 1.304.. 1.9 .‘9.A.9 .0, 9 99 .. u 9. 905.99... ..I'flt.9999 9~595.5II.. 1x .0’I9.995.959ol 1.99. ... 115...}. ...-5 5.5 .919. .19 9 .1959 .999. 5 Q 9999i): 574.9... 9 999 0.9.": .9 . 0011.99" q‘l‘ |4Il 1599.... .II..95$~ In“... .9 ....1 f. .02. ..5-‘99... 599 ..Ql59. .90 A 90’5“”.95 .0.. . .19....09. 95.99.95 . . Q’r095lflr 9.. 9. .v.9.95}0.'.“.fi59A.9.9HI99.IV..9 , .0 9 .0 9.... .1; .00 .~, .909 .9995... 9. . .5 9. 9 . .- . . .5 9. 9 5 V . . 0... 19.09... 5 ....O 9 Q 9’14“.” ... 5 .....99'90, ..95HI5..I.99 . 5. 905.39."..9999 ’9599‘0 . .. 9. 99:..9. . A.‘ 9559999 ”1.99999019999-.. A ‘.&9 O 9 .9 , 0.99.0.99 5.99 9.9.099. 1. ..A 99 .9 5 9 4'. .01 099. 99‘59): ‘99‘ 95. .5 5 .9 9'9... . .999 90. O\ 9,5959V09999. 0... . 9990.39.99.45 0.! .5 O .9 -, 9 0 Q0 0%.»..91 O .0950! 9 v . 900.90 9. . 99 9 9... . It..”9.?9.. ...V.. ...: A '9 .0 ‘3: 0. .9 9.9.90.9. . I09 99:01.9. 02.9 . '59. .9 9 5 90.0.9995 . 595 9 ..909 . . 09.,‘150009019 . . . “5:. ‘l.59555"09.90”9..9..9 ...-.9. 9... Q. .5 VIC... 5V {*0 . “9‘95. 99. {9.3. .IO.999.999. 9. 9 59. ..9'9‘ 9‘... 95,... 959991. 1....00 99$. 5 $3095.50 Av ’3590r! 59.. 9I‘. 0 990. 20.09 . .995 9.195.... 9099'... ...9. .599).$9 O .9. 910599 of. 09. .a . 99040.. 9.99999. 59.9. . 9..1_AIA.59.99.9 ..5.I0..9.99 9..099 .9.M.|5.9?.755.99.......9 . .. -..: 99...!95.. 19.05.90 995 59.5.9 39.9“. 0. .. . 929.. ,. 9...,9. 99.59..Olu . 5.00.“. ’9'59.. 9‘9999 . . . . 9 999.959.. .‘1059599 .91. . 9..5uo’.0.55”9~.. . . . . . . . .... 99.1.51 . .99. 0999 . : uh ' y. $9995-05: . U 5 5'51... V . 915 I..99. 9905.. 3999....“ —5 90, 5.99 ‘9. . 5.995... 9.... . flu 1.97:0..5 9-... . 5‘9... ‘ .59. 9 ...99HUI‘199955L0- O. 5. u 555 9_\9 1" 9.1-5.99 ‘r 0 $91.99 . . \ .‘9'5’.’ 999 9. .0. . 9.990.... .5 I .901995. 5.0.9.. ....‘9 19.5.: A..9. .9959. 9'95995 1.990 5099..|.4’)...9| .99,9079Q 5999.9 . 99. 99 50.9 9.5. .v:. ..9 9999\ v 95. . 9'99. 9 . 9 .999 .55 |90I5 515.9. 9959 .0.~.il-. If . 5 9 5 ‘2 59. ””9? :$99... .990.“ 5599990 ... .A‘. 5.:9J1‘. ..510... 5. 5999900.. 9.9... «“2“».9- .9991... . 9.1.9.8. 9999. 9‘}. 9.9039393.9.u.. l .J.$. .9995 ., V4.1909HCUOJ. .’. 5‘9 "£09...“ ..I. 9.x Q 0. 0. 995.’5 9. 9.9 9055.0. 9. ...; 95 .5549- 5.9.0...- 9 9.9.3.9 9 9.9. out-99.9.99. ..0W995.9. 09y 0.9 99.. 59.95$..95'9.. '9 p.9‘fi? . . 09' .fo990.l . 95.,55. :9 . ..0 9995 ...-P9 0. 7'99 6:95.. 995995....90 .‘O . 9. 9 5.95....5-5... .- 90.99, .9990. 5.9.9.9 If‘5 g 9.515. 09 54$ 99, 9 ...lv. .09.! .5 .9I.. 9.151.952. .99. ..5 01.599 9 50.. 9.... 99.. '10 .9. 9 99...... .0‘.9.0 9 2.99. 95.95. .. .0 9 5 ..uFI’qro' 9 99 .9. 1.9.9902. .9 .9 9 '9 V .990. A0.OQ I .0 5.9.9... .5999 951' ,9 u ..9. 910 :9 99:.‘. 90.....99.9 o5 .. 9 99V..9..9U 0.. 19".9.|..-I ...Kflv.*.'..|5.'[.a.99 . 9.0 5. 5.599999999\ .909 ”Diwla .9 . .59.. 9": 95 ......919 .....9599999 9 . 0. . 9:. A'995I 9. I 9.“.909 99.90.. 9.5 99.5. v9.99 . .9.&w..h.. .5 ...IS—: 9 99 .9 .9.9.|55.OI.99, 5 V. a. 9 .. 9.55005. 3 799.3,... x: .99 0 9.099I. .1. _. :99}. ‘9 . , .. . \9.9 9.5%“9539. 9 $0. 9. 9.,“ .9. .9.\I.9".6! . . .. 995.99 599.5,..OOL9I‘0995. , ...9..I..,..5. . 5. 9. . . 9 9.99. 9|...59t99. r. t... a: .5 . 95'. .1359. 9 5 999. 9.9.5.59 5. V... .959 5 .....K . 99'" 9, n. .... 109.9... . ..9u999..9.9....9..|0 9. 5.. . 1 915.99....999... . C. o . 5.9 $9.. . ’9 .9595 5 I59 59f“. .509r9! 9 19.09.9091}. 999 9-99.5...P. v ,9 .9.5 . v ...99....5 19.9959 0. 9 ..t ,"-.5. .....5 5 .... 9993!...9999. ..:...“u. 9.9- . 9 x99 91, ,‘....-...9. . . . ,. .59'9.9r950 .09. .. 0 9M, 9.. .595A 9. u ‘59. 91. ..0 9.9 9 9.5.0 995.95.99.39. 9.. , .0095. 909.. . 15.5.9.9. 7 9 50. .....59 ..I'....5.V0 9.99.5999. . .l5 . .9999: 995..-)..5599..99.999 .IO‘Vsn‘IQMI I .9 9. 9 9. .59.9.95..0.. 99.5.0.9. . .99 0.09. .9 99.. V2... 9 99....... .599095'05- "\.1... . VQ. 59A. $. 9] 0‘. 9. 0.05 . .9909 .900999,5.999-.9.l59.. . .13....933 ..-- 9 .. 9 .100.- 90.9.5991. . . 9.5“. 9.95. 5 50.9,. 99'. 0 'qu‘..¢5. I’,.o. . .59 .5995 I . III... 99.IA. - .LdnJ; MICHIGAN STATE I RSITY Ll RABIES 111111 1111111111 1111111111 3 1293 01421 6612 ll I This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL ORIENTATION AND ADULT DEVELOPMENT: A STUDY OF COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE EDUCATORS presented by Michael Jerome Tate has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Extension Education £an ' J ( Major professor mew MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunin Institution 0-12771 LlBRARY Michlgan State University remove thlo chockomm your record. PLACE N RETURN BOX to Mon date duo To AVOlD FINES mum on or DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE ———— MSU Is An Afflnnattvo Nut/Equal Opportunlty Institution Wanna THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL ORIENTATION AND ADULT DEVELOPMENT: A STUDY OF COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE EDUCATORS By MICHAEL JEROME TATE A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fialfilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural and Extension Education 1996 ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL ORIENTATION AND ADULT DEVELOPMENT: A STUDY OF COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE EDUCATORS By Michael Jerome Tate This study investigated the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators, and the relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their development as adults. Personal characteristics of field- based Extension educators were examined in relationship to educational orientation and adult development. The focus of this research was to find out if there is a relationship between the educational orientation and adult development of field-based Extension educators. Three hundred nine field-based Extension educators were asked to respond to a three part mailed questionnaire. The responses from 23 5 questionnaires were used to generate the data for this study. Means were calculated for educational orientation and adult development. T-tests and Pearson’s product moments correlation coefficient were used in the data analyses. The respondents were 47.23 percent women and 52.77 percent men. The mean age for all the respondents was 43.45 and the standard deviation was 9.12. Michael Jerome Tate The findings showed that field-based Extension educators were moderately oriented toward pedagogy and andragogy. Their orientation was more towards andragogy and strongest among women. Respondents who viewed themselves in a stage of life transition were more andragogically oriented than respondents in a stable life stage. No other significant relationships were found between educational orientation and personal characteristics. The adult development mean scores were high for all respondents. These scores indicate a predominance of positive psychosocial development attributes. Women scored highest among the eight psychosocial development stages and the aggregate stage. There were four significant relationships between adult development and personal characteristics. Respondents who possessed the highest adult development mean scores: (1) were older; (2) were female; (3) were in a stable life stage; and (4) had teaching experience. There is a relationship between educational orientation and adult development. Field-based Extension educators who have the highest orientation toward andragogy have strong adult development attributes. This research proved that field-based Extension educators do possess assumptions about learners which can difl‘erentiate them as pedagogues and andragogues. Also, there is a relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their development as adults. To D.W.T. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My deepest gratitude goes to Dr. S. Joseph Levine who served as the guidance committee chairperson and advisor. I greatly appreciate his wisdom, encouragement, patience and friendship during all phases of this research. I am most grateful to the members of the guidance committee for their support and counsel throughout the dissertation process. The committee members were Dr. James E. Jay, Dr. James C. Votruba and Dr. Carroll (Jake) H. Wamhofi‘. I sincerely appreciate the inspiration and special assistance provided by Dr. Gail Irnig. Without her spirit and commitment, much of my work during the last few years would not have been possible. This research was possible because nearly all the field-based Extension educators of Michigan State University responded to my request and submitted the questionnaire promptly. I am very thankful for their willingness to participate in this research. They represent the finest tradition of nonforrnal learning. Thank you to my colleagues and fi'iends of the state 4-H office, Michigan State University Extension for their tireless support. I feel fortunate for the guidance and assistance fi'equently provided by a group of colleagues and friends. They are: Dr. Murari Suvedi, Dr. Maxine Penis, Gary Glazier, Jim Artabasy, Julie Kiesling, Barbara Campbell, Mary Pierce, Joyce Cudworth, Cheryl Howell, Henry Allen, Morse Brown, Teny Langston, Debbie Bunch and Jan Koenigsknecht. And, thank you Sylvester for accompanying me through the writing of this dissertation and keeping me from feeling lonely during the quite times. Finally, but most important, I am gratefirl for my family, near and far, who provided strength and encouragement whenever it was needed. The support and love from my wife Winifred and our children, Alicia and Michael II gave me the energy and persistence to complete this important endeavor. Thank you mom and thank you dad. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ................................................... xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1 The Study .................................................... 10 Theoretical Foundation of the Study ................................. 11 Statement of the Problem ......................................... 17 The Research Questions .......................................... 19 Definition of Terms ............................................. 19 Adult Development Score ................................... 20 Andragogical Orientation ................................... 20 Andragogue ............................................. 20 Educational Orientation .................................... 20 Field-Based Extension Educator ............................. 21 Michigan State University Extension ........................... 21 Pedagogical Orientation .................................... 22 Psychosocial Development .................................. 23 CHAPTER H REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .................................. 24 Early Practices of Teaching Children ................................ 24 In the Beginning, There was only Pedagogy ........................... 29 A Period of Transition ........................................... 33 Adult Learning ................................................. 35 Andragogy .............................................. 40 Pedagogy and Andragogy: Two Continua of Practice .............. 47 Adult Development ............................................. 53 Psychosocial Development .................................. 56 vii CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ................................................... 60 The Research Questions .......................................... 60 The Theoretical Framework ....................................... 61 Educational Orientation .................................... 61 Assumptions about Learners ................................. 63 Adult Development ....................................... 64 The Research Design ............................................ 66 The Population ................................................. 67 The Sample ................................................... 67 Mailed Questionnaire ............................................ 68 Part A: Educational Orientation .............................. 69 Part B: Adult Development .................................. 7 0 Part C: Background Information .............................. 71 Data Collection ................................................ 72 Data Analysis .................................................. 73 CHAPTER IV RESULTS .......................................................... 76 Characteristics of Respondents ..................................... 77 Age ................................................... 77 Gender ................................................. 79 Years in Current Position ................................... 79 Years of Extension Experience ............................... 81 Life Stages .............................................. 82 Undergraduate Degree ..................................... 83 Graduate Degree ......................................... 83 Teaching Experience ...................................... 86 Educational Orientation of Respondents .............................. 86 Pedagogical Orientation .................................... 88 Andragogical Orientation ................................... 89 Relating Personal Characteristics and Educational Orientation ............. 93 Relating Personal Characteristics and Pedagogical Orientation ....... 93 Relating Personal Characteristics to Andragogical Orientation ...... 110 Adult Development ............................................ 128 Psychosocial Development Stages ........................... 130 Relating personal characteristics and psychosocial development ..... 137 Personal Characteristics, Educational Orientation and Adult Development . . . 154 The Relationship between Educational Orientation and Adult Development . . 156 Pedagogical Orientation and Adult Development ................ 156 Andragogical Orientation and Adult Development ............... 161 Linear Relationship between Educational Orientation and Adult Development..166 High and Low Educational Orientation Score Analysis .................. 166 Pedagogues and Andragogues .............................. 166 Selected Analysis of Erikson Stage Mean Scores ...................... 175 Selected Erikson Stages and Personal Characteristics ............. 176 Selected Erikson Stages and Educational Orientation ............. 177 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 179 Summary ................. 179 Personal Characteristics of the Respondents .................... 181 What is the Educational Orientation held by Respondents? ......... 182 Is there a Relationship between Educational Orientation and Personal Characteristics? ............................ 185 What is the Adult Development Score of the Respondents? ........ 186 Is there a Relationship between the Adult Development Score and Personal Characteristics? ............................ 187 Is There a Relationship between Educational Orientation and Adult Development Score? .......................... 188 Findings ..................................................... 188 Conclusions .................................................. 190 Reflections ................................................... 191 Recommendations ............................................. 195 APPENDICES ..................................................... 198 SURVEY MATERIALS AND QUESTIONNAIRE .................... 199 MEAN YEARS BY RANGE AND GENDER' ....................... 211 T-TESTS BY GENDER AND PEDAGOGUES/ANDRAGOGUES ....... 215 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................. 222 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Gender of respondents. ......................................... 76 Table 2. Number of respondents for the study. ............................... 77 Table 3. Respondents by selected age groups and gender. ...................... 77 Table 4. Mean age of respondents. ....................................... 78 Table 5. Respondents by gender. ......................................... 79 Table 6. Current position by selected ranges and gender. ....................... 79 Table 7. Mean years in current position by gender ............................. 80 Table 8. Extension experience by selected ranges and gender. ................... 81 Table 9. Mean years of Extension experience by gender. ....................... 82 Table 10. Life stages by gender. .......................................... 83 Table 11. Undergraduate degree majors by gender ............................ 84 Table 12. Do you have a graduate degree? .................................. 84 Table 13. Graduate degree majors ......................................... 85 Table 14. Teaching experience. .......................................... 86 Table 15. Level of pedagogical orientation mean scores. ....................... 88 Table 16. Pedagogical orientation statement mean scores. ...................... 90 Table 17. Level of andragogical orientation mean scores. ....................... 91 Table 18. Andragogical orientation statement mean scores. ..................... 92 Table 19. Level of pedagogical orientation scores by age. ...................... 94 Table 20. Pedagogical orientation descriptive data by age. ...................... 94 Table 21. T- test of pedagogical orientation scores for age groups. ............... 95 Table 22. Pedagogical orientation mean scores by stringent age groups ............. 95 Table 23. T-test of pedagogical orientation mean scores. ....................... 96 Table 24. Level of pedagogical orientation by gender .......................... 97 Table 25. Pedagogical orientation descriptive data by gender. ................... 97 Table 26. T-test of pedagogical orientation mean scores by gender. .............. 98 Table 27. Pedagogical orientation scores by years in current position. ............. 99 Table 28. Pedagogical orientation descriptive data by years in current position. ...... 99 Table 29. T-test of pedagogical orientation mean scores. ...................... 100 Table 30. Pedagogical orientation descriptive data by stringent groups. ........... 101 Table 31.T-test of pedagogical orientation by stringent groups ................. . 101 Table 32. Pedagogical orientation scores by years of Extension experience. ........ 102 Table 33. Pedagogical orientation descriptive data. .......................... 103 Table 34. T-test of pedagogical orientation scores by Extension experience. ....... 103 Table 35. Pedagogical orientation mean scores by stringent groups. .............. 104 Table 36. T-test of pedagogical orientation mean scores by stringent groups. ....... 104 Table 37. Level of pedagogical orientation scores by life stages. ................ 105 Table 38. Pedagogical orientation descriptive data by life stages. ................ 106 Table 39. T-test of pedagogical orientation scores by life stages. ................ 106 Table 40. Level of pedagogical orientation scores by graduate degree. ............ 107 Page Table 41. Pedagogical orientation descriptive data by graduate degree. ........... 108 Table 42. T-test of pedagogical orientation mean scores by graduate degree. ....... 108 Table 43. Level of pedagogical orientation mean scores by teaching experience. . . . . 109 Table 44. Pedagogical orientation descriptive data by teaching experience. ........ 110 Table 45. T-test of pedagogical orientation mean scores by teaching experience. . . . . 110 Table 46. Level of andragogical orientation mean scores by age groups. .......... 111 Table 47. Andragogical orientation descriptive data by age groups. .............. 112 Table 48. T-test of andragogical orientation scores for age group. ............... 112 Table 49. Andragogical orientation mean scores by stringent group. ............. 113 Table 50. T-test of andragogical orientation mean scores by stringent groups. ...... 113 Table 51. Level of andragogical orientation scores by gender. .................. 114 Table 52. Andragogical orientation descriptive data by gender. ................. 115 Table 53. T-test of andragogical orientation mean scores by gender. ............. 115 Table 54. Level of andragogical orientation scores by years in current position. ..... 116 Table 55. Andragogical orientation descriptive data by years in current position. . . . . 117 Table 56. T-test of andragogical orientation scores by current position. .......... 117 Table 57. Andragogical orientation mean scores by stringent groups. ............. 118 Table 58. T-test of andragogical orientation mean scores in stringent groups ....... 118 Table 59. Level of andragogical orientation scores by Extension experience. ....... 1 19 Table 60. Andragogical orientation descriptive data by years of Extension experience... 120 Table 61. T-test of andrgogical orientation scores by Extension experience. ........ 120 Table 62. Andragogical orientation descriptive data by stringent groups. .......... 121 Page Table 63. T-test of andragogical orientation scores by stringent groups ............ 122 Table 64. Level of andragogical orientation mean scores by life stages. ........... 123 Table 65. Andragogical orientation descriptive data by life stages. ............... 123 Table 66. T-test of andragogical orientation score by life stages. ................ 124 Table 67. Level of andragogical mean orientation scores by graduate degree ........ 125‘ Table 68. Andragogical orientation descriptive data. ......................... 125 Table 69. T-test of andragogical orientation scores by graduate degree. ........... 126 Table 70. Level of andragogical orientation by teaching experience. .............. 127 Table 71. Andragogical orientation mean score, standard deviation and range. ...... 127 Table 72. T-test of andragogical orientation scores by teaching experience. ........ 128 Table 73. Adult development statements by stages. .......................... 130 Table 74. Stages and aggregate mean scores. ............................... 131 Table 75. Level of aggregate mean scores. ................................. 132 Table 76. Mean (sd) for the statements of the eight stages. .................... 132 Table 77. Level of aggregate mean scores by age. ........................... 138 Table 78. Aggregate descriptive data. .................................... 138 Table 79. T-test of aggregate mean score by age groups. ...................... 139 Table 80. Aggregate descriptive data by stringent groups. ..................... 139 Table 81. T-test of aggregate mean scores by stringent grouping ................ 140 Table 82. Level of aggregate scores by gender. ............................. 141 Table 83. Aggregate descriptive data. ................... i ................. 141 Table 84.T-test of aggregate mean scores by gender. ......................... 142 xiii Page Table 85. Level of aggregate mean scores by years in current position. ........... 142 Table 86. Aggregate descriptive data. .................................... 143 Table 87. T-test of aggregate mean scores by years in current position. ........... 144 Table 88. Aggregate descriptive data by stringent groups. ..................... 144 Table 89. T-test of aggregate mean scores by stringent groups. ................. 145 Table 90. Level of aggregate score by years of Extension experience. ............ 146 Table 91. Aggregate descriptive data. .................................... 146 Table 92. T-test of aggregate mean scores by years of Extension experience. ....... 147 Table 93. Aggregate descriptive data by stringent groups. ..................... 148 Table 94. T-test of aggregate mean scores by stringent groups. ................. 148 Table 95. Level of aggregate score by life stages. ............................ 149 Table 96. Aggregate descriptive data. .................................... 149 Table 97. T-test of aggregate scores by transition and stable stages ............... 150 Table 98. Level of aggregate mean score by graduate degree. .................. 151 Table 99. Aggregate descriptive data. .................................... 151 Table 100. T-test of aggregate mean scores by graduate degree. ................ 152 Table 101. Level of aggregate score by teaching experience. ................... 153 Table 102. Aggregate descriptive data. ................................... 154 Table 103. T-test of aggregate mean scores by teaching experience ............... 154 Table 104. Pearson product correlation coefficient for variables. ................ 155 Table 105. Aggregate descriptive data by pedagogical orientation. ............... 156 Table 106. T-test of aggregate mean scores by pedagogical orientation. ........... 157 xiv Page Table 107. Aggregate mean scores with stringent analysis. ..................... 158 Table 108. T-test of aggregate mean scores with stringent analysis. .............. 158 Table 109. Pedagogical orientation data by aggregate development .............. 159 Table 110. T-test of pedagogical orientation scores by aggregate development. ..... 159 Table 111. Pedagogical orientation mean scores by stringent groups. ............. 160 Table 112. T-test of pedagogical mean scores by stringent groups. .............. 160 Table 113. Aggregate mean score by andragogical orientation. ................. 161 Table 114. T- test of aggegate scores by andragogical orientation. .............. 161 Table 115. Aggregate mean scores with stringent analysis. ..................... 162 Table 116. T-test of aggregate mean scores with stringent analysis. .............. 163 Table 117. Andragogical oriebtation score for adult development ................. 163 Table 118. T-test of andragogical orientation scores by adult development. ........ 164 Table 119. Andragogical orientation mean scores with stringent analysis .......... 165 Table 120.T-test of andragogical orientation with stringent analysis ............... 165 Table 121. Pearson correlation coeficient for educational orientation . ........... 166 Table 122. Extension educators by educational orientation groups. .............. 167 Table 123. Personal characteristics data of the pedagogues. .................... 168 Table 124. Psychosocial development scores of pedagogues by gender ........... 169 Table 125. Educational orientation mean scores of pedagogues by gender .......... 170 Table 126. Personal characteristics data of andragogues. ...................... 171 Table 127. Psychosocial development stage scores of the andragogues. .......... 173 Table 128. Educational orientation scores of the andragogues by gender. .......... 173 Table 129. Table 130. Table 131. Table 132. Table 133. Table 134. Table 135. Table 136. Table 137. Table 138. Table 139. Table 140. Table 141. Table 142. Table 143. Table 144. Page T-test of pedagogical orientation. ............................... 174 T-test of andragogical orientation. .............................. 175 T-test of selected Erikson scores by personal characteristics. .......... 176 T-test of andragogical orientation scores by Erikson stages. ........... 178 Mean age of respondents by selected groups and gender. ............. 212 Mean of current position experience by selected ranges and gender. ..... 213 Mean of Extension experience by selected ranges and gender. ......... 214 T-test of pedagogical orientation for pedagogues by gender. .......... 216 T-test of andragogical orientation for pedagogues by gender. .......... 216 T-tests of psychosocial development for pedagogues by gender. ........ 216 T-test of pedagogical orientation for andragogues by gender. .......... 218 T-test of andragogical orientation for andragogues by gender. ......... 218 T-test of psychosocial development for andragogues by gender. ........ 218 T-test of pedagogical orientation for pedagogues and andragogues. ..... 220 T-test of andragogical orientation for pedagogues and andragogues ..... 220 T—tests of psychosocial development for pedagogues and andragogues ........ 220 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A new civilization is emerging in our lives bringing with it new family styles, a new economy, difi'erent political structures, and changing ways organizations function and get work done. Alvin and Heidi Tofiler (1995) explained that the human race has undergone two great waves of change. The “First Wave” of change, the agricultural revolution, took thousands of years to evolve. The “Second Wave,” the rise of the industrial civilization, took only three hundred years to develop. Today, the “Third Wave” of history, the “Information Society,” is sweeping across time at an even more accelerated pace and could complete itself in only a few decades. “The Third Wave brings with it a genuinely new way of life based on diversified, renewable energy sources; on methods of production that make most factory assembly lines obsolete; on new, non-nuclear families; on a novel institution that might be called the ‘electronic cottage;’ and on radically changed schools and corporations of the firture” (pp. 19-20). The Tofllers assumed there will be upheaval, turbulence and perhaps violence to shape the characteristics of the present and fiiture waves, but, we will not totally destroy ourselves. These and other events are cumulative - adding up to a giant transformation in the way we live, work, play and think. We are experiencing nothing less than a global revolution-a quantum leap-in which a sane and desirable world is possible. Peter Drucker (1985) believed modern society consist of large and relatively small organizations that are changing their “center of gravity” away from the worker who uses only his/her muscles and hands to the worker who must employ knowledge, theories and concepts to be efi‘ective. Efi‘ectiveness can no longer be taken for granted. Having the knowledge and skills to be effective must be learned and continually supported. Peter Senge (1990) expanded Drucker’s views of the effective worker by advocating basic changes in the way people collectively think and firnction within organizations. Senge advocated transforming current organizations and creating new ones that are “learning organizations.” He stated “it is no longer suflicient to have one person learning for the organization. It's just not possible any longer to figure it out from the top, and have everyone else following the orders of the grand strategist. The organizations that will truly excel in the future will be the organizations that discover how to tap people's commitment and capacity to learn at all levels in an organization” (pp. 4). Functionally, what will distinguish learning organizations fi'om the traditional, “controlling organizations” will be the learning and mastering of five “disciplines.” These disciplines are system thinking, personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, and team learning (pp. 5). Learning organizations are vital to creating new opportunities within a changing society. Senge believed learning organizations are possible because “deep down, we are all learners” (pp. 4). Alfied Whitehead (1931), an eminent philosopher observed “that in the past the time-span of important change was considerably longer than that of a single human life. Thus mankind was trained to adapt itself to fixed conditions. But today this time-span is 3 considerably shorter than that of human life, and accordingly our training must prepare individuals to face a novelty Of conditions” (pp. xviii-xix). In this “Third Wave” society and in “learning organizations,” knowledge gained at any point in time becomes obsolete within a few years. Likewise, skills that made peOple productive a decade ago are often out of date for today. This suggest that it is no longer firnctional to define education as a process of transmitting what is currently known; it must now be redefined as a lifelong process of continuing inquiry and learning. In a changing society or organization, the most important learning is leaming how to learn, for both children and adults. Our new civilization requires self—directed inquiry and leaming skills. Malcolm Knowles (1989) who possibly was the most recognized scholar of adult education, observed that the most serious implication of the accelerating pace of change is “people will become obsolescent vocationally, socially, and psychologically unless they engage in continuing learning. As we move from being an essentially industrial society to becoming an information society, the kinds of skills required to be efi‘ective workers are shifting drastically. Millions of workers will have to be retrained to be able to get .or keep jobs. But the new skills they acquire will themselves become obsolete quickly, and thus workers will have to be continuously retrained. But not only work skills will become obsolete; social skills will, too. As our population becomes increasingly mobile, changing places of residence more and more frequently, the ability to establish close relationships with new people quickly becomes a basic requirement for social survival” (pp. 147). All of this means, adult educators are faced with helping learners replace a basic attitude of stability with an attitude of psychological adaptability and growth. These new attitudes and skills are important to becoming participating members of “learning organizations” and the emerging “Third Wave” civilization. Interestingly, Knowles devoted his career as an educator to defining and clarifying processes of adult leaming, and presenting theories to explain them. His theory of adult learning was arguably, the most significant concept in the field of adult education, and has profound importance to understanding the characteristics of adult learners in a changing society. Knowles (1970, 1980, 1989) believed one of the missions of adult education is to satisfy needs and goals of individuals in the context of society’s changes. “Being able to speak in public” or “knowing mathematics” represent how individuals often respond when asked what are your needs. Knowles considers these to be “interests,” not needs. “Interests are relevant to the adult educator’s technology, but in relation to this mission we are talking about something different and more firndamental - indeed, about something of which individuals are less conscious than they are of their interest” (1980, pp. 27). The mission to satisfy needs so individuals can achieve their goals is based on “ultimate needs and goals of human fulfillment” (1980, pp. 27). Knowles (1980) said the ultimate needs of adults are: (1) prevention of obsolescence. This need has become increasingly apparent in our changing society. What was learned as a youth and believed to be relevant for adulthood has become insufficient, and in many situations untrue in the context of current society. Consequently, adult years can become a time of creeping obsolescence in work, in leisure, in understanding of self, and in understanding the world. Therefore, contemporary adult educators view a major mission as being to help individuals develop an attitude that learning is a lifelong process, and to help individuals acquire self-directed leanring skills; (2) to achieve complete self- 5 identity through the development of their full potentialities. Houle (1961) supported this notion by pointing out there is increasing evidence that complete self-development is a universal human need, and movement towards achieving this state is a condition of a healthy mental state; and (3) to mature. Overstreet (1949) said “a mature person is not one who has come to a certain level of achievement and stopped there. He[she] is rather a maturing person - one whose ‘linkages with life’ are constantly becoming stronger and richer because his[her] attitudes are such as to encourage their growth rather than their stoppage” (pp. 43). Knowles referenced maturity fi'equently when presenting his explanation of adult leanring. With creating maturing learners as a goal of adult educators, Knowles (1980) believed the idea of maturity must be defined more specifically, if it is to serve as a force to continuous learning. Out of the psychological literature, he presented the notion that there are several dimensions of the maturing process, each with its own unique cycle of development. He explained the dimensions as “directions of growth,” not absolute states to be achieved. His “dimensions of maturation” were: “(1) dependence toward autonomy; (2) passivity toward activity; (3) subjectivity toward objectivity; (4) ignorance toward enlightenment; (5) small abilities toward large abilities; (6) few responsibilities toward many responsibilities; (7) narrow interest toward broad interest; (8) selfishness toward altruism; (9) self-rejection toward self-acceptance; (10) amorphous self-identity toward integrated self-identity; (11) focus on particulars toward focus on principles; (12) superficial concenrs toward deep concerns; (13) imitation toward originality; (14) need for certainty toward tolerance for ambiguity; and (15) irnpulsiveness toward rationality” (pp. 29-33). 6 According to Knowles (1980), perhaps the most delicate and crucial of the dimensions of maturation was “amorphous self-identity to integrated self-identity” because it suggest a complex set of psychological events which could have a relationship to other dimensions of maturation. Knowles illustrated this dimension as “I don’t know who I am [or what I need]” to “I know clearly who I am [and what I need]” ( pp. 31-32). Knowles suggested that Erik Erikson provided the deepest insights conceming this dimension. Erikson (1963, 1968; Harnachek, 1990) conceived his view of self-identity, more precisely, human development as a set of eight epigenetic, psychosocial stages that represent turning points, in which both potential and vulnerability are greatly increased. This is a time when things may go well or poorly depending on one’s experiences in previous stages and one’s current life circumstances. Erik Erikson (1963, 1968; Green, 1989) extended Freudian psychology by introducing the influence of psychosocial phenomenon. He conceived human development as a sequence of unique crises that occur between the individual and society. Also, Erikson emphasized the epigenetic principle in his theories about growth and development. The principle states “. . .that anything that grows has a ground plan, and that out of this ground plan the parts arise, each part having its time of special ascendancy, until all parts have arisen to form a functioning whole” (1968, pp. 92). The psychosocial theory and the epigenetic principle, rooted in Freudian psychology, were the components of the fiamework that supported Erikson’s eight stages of human development. Erik Erikson’s eight psychosocial stages, as described by Knowles (1980), were: “(1) oral-sensory, in which the basic issue is trust versus mistrust; (2) muscular-anal, in which the basic issue is autonomy versus shame; (3) locomotion-genital, in which the basic 7 issue is initiative versus guilt; (4) latency, in which the basic issue is industry versus inferiority; (5) puberty and adolescence, in which the basic issue is identity versus role confirsion; (6) young adulthood, in which the basic issue is intimacy versus isolation; (7) adulthood, in which the basic issue is generativity versus stagnation; (8) maturity, in which the basic issue is ego-integrity versus despair” (pp. 31). No stage is completely firlfilled at any point in life. This is a continuous process throughout life. However, “ if development at a given stage is frustrated, it is likely an individual will remain fixated at that stage” (pp. 31-32). The ultimate needs of adults to prevent obsolescence, to achieve complete self- identity, and to mature were part of the conceptual fi’amework that Knowles used to develop his ideas about the processes of adult leanring. Most of his energy focused on understanding how adults learn. This work evolved to his conceptualization of andragogy. Andragogy was derived from Greek words and it was first used by European educators to distinguish leanring processes of adults from those of children. “The body of theory and practice on which self-directed learning is based is...labeled ‘andragogy,’ fi'om the Greek word[s] aner (meaning adult) [and agogus (meaning guide or leader)] - thus being defined as the art and science of helping adults (or, even better, maturing human beings) learn” (Knowles, 1980, pp. 390). In contrast, “the body of theory and practice on which teacher-directed learning is based is. . .labeled ‘pedagogy,’ from the Greek word paid (meaning child)...thus being defined as the art and science of teaching children”(Ibid.). For this research, the pedagogical model and the andragogical model were viewed as two continua, each with different sets of assumptions about learners. On the pedagogical model continuum, one end was characterized by strong or high 8 pedagogical orientation assumptions about learners and on the other end, it was characterized by weak or low pedagogical orientation assumptions about learners. On the andragogical model continuum, one end was characterized by strong or high andragogical orientation assumptions about learners and on the other end, it was characterized by weak or low andragogical orientation assumptions about learners. Given a set of assumptions about learners, an individual’s orientation falls between the extreme ends of the pedagogical model continuum and the andragogical model continuum. Knowles (1980) premised his concept of andragogy on four crucial assumptions about learners. “As individuals mature: (1) their self-concept moves from one of being a dependent personality toward being a self-directed human being; (2) they accumulate a growing reservoir of experience that becomes an increasingly rich resource for leaming; (3) their readiness to learn becomes oriented increasingly to the developmental tasks of their social roles; and (4) their time perspective changes fi'om one of postponed application of knowledge to immediacy of application, and accordingly, their orientation toward learning shifis from one of subject-centeredness to one of perfonnance— centeredness” (pp. 44-45). On the other hand, pedagogy is premised on the assumptions that: “(1) learners are dependent on the direction and life experiences of the teacher, (2) learners bring no experiences, or their experiences are of little worth to the leanring situation; (3) learners are motivated to learn by society’s expectations such as school requirements to complete a course; and (4) learners view learning as a process to acquire subject matter knowledge that may be usefiil later in life” (pp. 43-44). This research focused on a major component of Knowles’(1980) ideas about adult learning. He theorized: “andragogy is premised on...assumptions about the characteristics 9 of learners that are different fi'om the assumptions [central to]...traditional pedagogy. [One such assumption is] as individuals mature [meaning as individuals progress from ‘amorphous self-identity toward integrated self-identity’ (pp. 31)], their self-concept moves fiom one of being a dependent personality toward being a self-directed human being” (pp. 44). Becoming self-directed as a learner is the key assumption about learners upon which the concept of andragogy evolves. On the pedagogical model continuum, the learner was assumed to have a dependent personality and this assumption is central to the concept of pedagogy. On the andragogical model continuum, the learner was assumed as becoming self-directed and this assumption is central to the concept of andragogy. This study investigated the pedagogical orientation and andragogical orientation held by adult learners, and the relationship between their pedagogical orientation and andragogical orientation, and their maturing as individuals. Succinctly, this study investigated the educational orientation held by adult learners, and the relationship between the educational orientation held by adult learners and their development as individuals. The population for this research was field-based Extension educators in the United States. The Extension System is the largest educational enterprise devoted primarily to nonforrnal adult learning in the United States. As a “learning organization,” the Extension System placed emphasis on professional development with the goal of expanding the capacity of educators to learn (Extensionjnlmnsifign, 1987). While the data and conclusions may be a resource to the Extension System, the intent of this research was to foster greater understanding about adults as learners in relationship to their development and to encourage firture research. 10 This study investigated the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators, and the relationship between educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their development as adults. The Study This study investigated the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators, and the relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their development as adults. Characteristics of field-based Extension educators that relate to such orientation are determined along with their development characteristics as adults. Some attention has been give to the educational orientation of field-based Extension educators (Holmes, 1980; Jones, 1982; Suvedi, 1991). These findings were important to planning and facilitating meaningful professional development experiences through understanding beliefs held by educators about learners, why certain learning strategies are used, and what relationship exist between educational orientation and job satisfaction. These investigations provided data and conclusion to the literature about adults as learner. While this study provided findings that may be usefirl to planning professional development experiences for field-based Extension educators, the central focus of this research was to provide greater understanding about the theoretical propositions of adult learning as presented by Malcolm Knowles. Specifically, this research investigated the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators, and the relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their 11 development as adults. The data and conclusions are a contribution to the literature about adults as learners. Theoretical Foundation of the Study Malcolm Knowles ( 1970, 1980, 1984) provided the framework for studying educational orientation. Educational orientation is defined by two distinctly different theories of learning. These theories of leaming were the concept of pedagogy and the concept of andragogy. “The body of theory and practice on which teacher-directed learning is based is...labeled ‘pedagogy,’ fi'om the Greek words paid (meaning child) and agogus (meaning guide or leader) - thus being defined as the art and science of teaching children” (1980, pp. 390). Andragogy was also derived from Greek words and first used by European educators to distinguish leaming processes of adults fi'om those of children. “The body of theory and practice on which self-directed learning is based is...labeled ‘andragogy,’ fi'om the Greek word aner (meaning adult) [ and agogus (meaning guide or leader)] - thus being defined as the art and science of helping adults (or, even better, maturing human beings) learn” (Ibid.). For this research, the pedagogical model and the andragogical model were viewed as two continua, each with different sets of assumptions about learners. On the pedagogical model continuum, one end was characterized by strong or high pedagogical orientation assumptions about learners and on the other end, it was characterized by weak or low pedagogical orientation assumptions about learners. On the andragogical model continuum, one end was characterized by strong or high andragogical orientation assumptions about learners and on the other end, it was characterized by weak 12 or low andragogical orientation assumptions about learners. Given a set of assumptions about learners, an educator’s orientation falls between the extreme ends of the pedagogical model continuum and the andragogical model continuum. The pedagogical model and the andragogical model were each based on a set of different and critical assumptions about learners. Pedagogical model assumptions about learners were regarding: “(1) Concept of the learner - The role of the learner is a dependent one. The teacher is expected to take full responsibility for determining the learning process; (2) Role of the leamers' experience - The experience learners bring to the learning situation is of little or no worth. The experience of the teacher, the textbook writer, audiovisual producers and other experts is valued and used. The primary method of teaching these experiences is by lecture; (3) Readiness to learn - People are ready to learn whatever the teacher determines important. Therefore, leanring is organized by the teacher in the form of a standardized curriculrun, with uniform progression procedures for all the learners; (4) Orientation to learning - Learners are expected to learn subject-matter content, most of which they understand will be useful at a later time in life. Learners are oriented to learning subjects and receiving extenral rewards for achievement such as grades” (Knowles, 1980, pp. 43-44). The andragogical model assumptions are regarding: “(1) Concept of the learner - Learners have a deep psychological need to be generally self-directing, although they may be dependent in particular temporary situations; (2) Role of leamers' experience - As people grow and develop, they accumulate an increasing reservoir of experience. The leamers' experiences are a primary resource to the learning situation. Learners are active participants in their learning; (3) Readiness to learn - Learners are motivated by their 13 needs to know. Learning is organized around application of knowledge to life situations and less on subjects that have an application later; (4) Orientation to leanring - Learners view education as a process of developing increased competence to achieve their firll potential in life. People are performance-centered in their orientation to learning. (Knowles, 1980, pp.43-44) Knowles (1980) premised the concept of andragogy on at least four major assumptions about the characteristics of learners that are different from the assumptions on which traditional pedagogy is premised. These assumptions were, “as individuals mature: ( 1) their self-concept moves from one of being a dependent personality toward being a self- directed human being; (2) they accumulate a growing reservoir of experience that becomes an increasingly rich resource for learning; (3) their readiness to learn becomes oriented increasingly to the developmental task of their social role; (4) their time perspective changes from one of postponed application of lmowledge to immediacy of application, and accordingly, their orientation toward learning shifts from one of subject- centeredness to one of performance-centeredness” (pp.44-45). These assumptions are the pillars of the andragogical model. Knowles (1980) believed maturity is a major influence to educational orientation. Out of the psychological literature, he presented. the notion that there are several dimensions of the maturing process, each with its own unique cycle of development. He explained the dimensions as “directions of growth,”and not absolute states to be achieved. His “dimensions of maturation” were: “(1) dependence toward autonomy; (2) passivity toward activity; (3) subjectivity toward objectivity; (4) ignorance toward enlightenment; (5) small abilities toward large abilities; (6) few responsibilities toward many . 14 responsibilities; (7) narrow interest toward broad interest; (8) selfishness toward altruism; (9) self-rejection toward self-acceptance; (10) amorphous self-identity toward integrated self-identity; (11) focus on particulars toward focus on principles; (12) superficial concerns toward deep concenrs; (13) imitation toward originality; (14) need for certainty toward tolerance for ambiguity; and (15) impulsiveness toward rationality” (pp. 29). Perhaps the most delicate and crucial of the dimensions of maturation was “amorphous self-identity to integrated self-identity,” according to Knowles, because it suggested a complex set of psychological events which could have a relationship to other dimensions of maturation. Knowles (1980) illustrated this dimension as “I don’t know who I am [or what I need]” to “I know clearly who I am [and what I need]” (pp. 31-32). Knowles suggested Erik Erikson provided the deepest insights concerning this dimension. Erik Erikson (1963, 1968; Green, 1989) extended Freudian psychology by presenting it as a psychosocial phenomenon. He conceived human development as a sequence of unique crises that occur between the individual and society. Also, Erikson (1968) emphasized the epigenetic principle in his theories about growth and development. The principle states “...that anything that grows has a ground plan, and that out of this ground plan the parts arise, each part having its time of special ascendancy, until all parts have arisen to form a fimctioning whole” (pp. 92). The psychosocial theory and the epigenetic principle, rooted in Freudian psychology, were the parts of the framework that supported Erikson’s eight stages of human development. Erik Erikson (1963; Harnachek, 1990) presented probably the most comprehensive theory of human development. His theory assessed the status of self-concept and ego development along eight psychosocial stage continua. The eight continua were: (1) Trust- 15 Mistrust - age: birth to 18 months; (2) Autonomy-Shame/Doubt - Age: 18 months to 3 years; (3) Initiative-Guilt - age: 3 to 6 years; (4) Industry-Inferiority - age: 6 to 12; (5) Identity- Identity Confirsion - age 12 to 20; (6) Intimacy-Isolation - age: 20 to 35; (7) Generativity-Stagnation - age: 35 to 45; (8)1ntegrity-Despair - age: 45+. Each stage present a psychosocial crisis which is resolved along the continua. Erikson (1963) explained that each stage builds on the previous stages and influences the outcomes of the later stages. He presented these stages on an epigenetic chart and indicates: “(1) that each critical item of psychosocial strength...is systematically related to all others, and they all depend on the proper development in the proper sequence of each item; and (2) that each item exist in some form before its critical time normally arrives” (pp. 271). The following is a summary of the eight stages of human development, as presented by Erikson (1963; Harnachek, 1985, 1990; Kalikow, 1988): Trust is learned fiom the child being able to rely on the consistent care of parents or care- givers. Mistrust can occur when the parents are unreliable and inconsistent. W The child learns autonomy by being able to hold on and let go without negative consequences. When a child is prevented hour this experience, shame and doubt develop. A child's fi'ee thinking and actions develop initiative. When there is the fear of punishment, a child can experience guilt and withdraw fi'om situations. 16 ll '-BlE'm' Ell. 1! 'IE 2; This is the period of crisis which occurs during adolescence. Issues here are focused on dominant personality characteristics and a continuity between past and present feelings about self. - ' ' 35 This is the time of comnritrnent of self to another. One can experience warmth and closeness as well as fear and hurt. G ”-5 °CCIi'3§ 15 The issues here are related to guiding and caring for the next generation. Lack of caring for others and excessive focus on self leads to stagnation. EI ’41 '[lMlIE'lEll Positive resolution of issues produces acceptance of one's life and death which creates a feeling of integration and wisdom. As issues are resolved positively at each stage, self-concept and ego identity become stronger. Likewise, unresolved issues create crisis which have a negative influence on self-concept and ego identity. Each stage has a relationship with the others, and issues may occur in various sequences unrelated to age or current stage. Even though Erikson (1962, 1982) recognized these complexities, his theory of psychosocial development is considered comprehensive and adaptable to research. Erikson‘s theory of psychosocial development was the theoretical framework for this investigation of adult development. The concept of pedagogy and the concept of andragogy, as presented by Knowles, provided the theoretical framework for educational orientation. This study investigated the educational orientation held by field-based 17 Extension educators, and the relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their development as adults. Statement of the Problem Malcolm Knowles ( 1980) spent his career developing the body of theory and practice which many adult educators consider as the guiding light of adult education today and in the future. Andragogy, defined by Knowles as the art and science of helping adults learn, was premised on a set of assumptions about learners. These assumptions were, as individuals mature: (1) they create a reservoir of experiences that is a rich resource to the learning process; (2) readiness for learning is determined by life situations and a desire to know; (3) time perspective changes fiom postponed application of knowledge to immediacy of application; and (4) learning shifts fi'om a focus on subject-matter to problem solving. Knowles originally developed his definition of andragogy and its assumptions about learners to identify adult learning as difi‘erent from traditional pedagogy and child learning. He later modified has view to include some child learning as appropriate for andragogical assumptions about learners. The focus of this research was on adult leanring. Perhaps the most critical assumption that supports the concept of andragogy was t “ as individuals mature their self-concept moves fi'om being a dependent personality towards being self-directed human beings” (Knowles, 1980, pp. 44-45). Erik Erikson provided the deepest insights into self-concept development, 18 according to Knowles. Erikson (1963, 1968; Harnachek, 1990) conceived his view self- identity, more percisely, human development as a set of eight epigenetic, psychosocial stages that represent turning points, in which both potential and vulnerability are greatly increased. This is a time when things may go well or poorly depending on one’s experiences in previous stages and one’s current life circumstances. The eight stages were: “(1) oral-sensory, in which the basic issue is trust versus mistrust; (2) muscular-anal, in which the basic issue is autonomy versus shame; (3) locmotion-genital, in which the basic issue is initiative versus guilt; (4) latency, in which the basic issue is industry versus inferiority; (5) puberty and adolescence, in which the basic issue is identity versus role confusion; (6) young adulthood, in which the basic issue is intimacy versus isolation; (7) adulthood, in which the basic issue is generativity versus stagnation; (8) maturity, in which the basic issue is ego-integrity versus despair” (Knowles, 1980, pp. 31). No stage is completely firlfilled at any point in life. It is a continuous process throughout life. “If development at a given stage is frustrated, it is likely an individual will remain fixated at that stage” (Ibid., pp. 31-32). Understanding how the development of educational orientation, as defined by the concepts pedagogy and andragogy, occur in relationship to psychosocial development among adult learners is a phenomenon of continuing interest to adult leanring theorists and practitioners (Knowles, 1980, 1984, 1989). This interest provided the theoretical opportunity and framework for this research. Specifically, this study investigated the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators, and the relationship between educational orientation held by Extension educators and their development as adults. 19 The Research Questions The purpose of this study was to investigate the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators, and to investigate the relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their development as adults. The questions that directed the research were as follows: 1. What is the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators? 2. Is there a relationship between the, educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their personal characteristics? 3. What is the adult development score of field-based Extension educators? 4. Is there a relationship between the adult development score of field-based Extension educators and their personal characteristics? 5. Is there a relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their adult development score? The aim of this study was to provide data and present conclusions that would lead to further development of theories, and to additional research. Definition of Terms This section contains explanations of terms that were consistently used in the research. Adult Development Score The adult development score was the Erikson aggregate mean score variable. It 20 was produced fi'om the eight stage mean scores which are derived from the values of the eighty statements in Part B: Adult Development of the questionnaire. Andragogical Orientation Andragogy was the body of theory and practice on which self-directed leanring is based (Knowles, 1980). An educator who has an andragogical orientation stresses free choice of alternative goals for learning, with interdependent decisions and action among learners, and between learners and educators as a basis for effective leanring. The educator perceives his relationship to the learner as that of a helper, facilitator, resource, consultant and co- leamer. The goal is to increase the effectiveness of leanring by encouraging situations which increase cooperative interaction among learners, and increase their participation in and direction of their leanring (Hadley, 1975). Andragogue A field-based Extension educator who has an andragogical orientation mean score that is equal to or greater than the andragogical orientation mean score for all field-based Extension educators. Educational Orientation Educational orientation, for this research, was the attitudinal dimensions held by field-based Extension educators with respect to their role as educators of adults. The attitudinal dimensions may include, but are not limited to, aspects such as purpose of 21 education, nature of learners, characteristics of the leanring experience, management of learning experience, and relationships of educators to learners (Hadley, 1975; Suvedi, 1991). Educational orientation was viewed on two continua each with its assumptions about learners. One continuum was pedagogical orientation and the second continuum was andrgogical orientation. These continua were operationalized as two scores derived from Part B: Educational Orientation of the questionnaire. One score was the pedagogical orientation mean and the second score was the andragogical orientation mean. Field-Based Extension Educator Field-based Extension educator referred to a person who is employed by a land- grant, higher education institution to work in a county or multi-county area of the state, away fi'om the higher education institution, to extend the application of knowledge to local people. The term Extension in the title refers to the organization that exists in each state as part of the land-grant, higher education institution. In states, the full name for Extension is the Cooperative Extension Service. Michigan State University Extension Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) is the Cooperative Extension Service in the state of Michigan. It is one of the largest nonfonnal educational organizations in the state and one of the oldest units of Michigan State University. MSUE is part of a nationwide network of educational organizations dedicated to the application of knowledge to improve communities, and to enhance the quality of life 22 for families and individuals. Federal and state legislation, in cooperation with county governments, established the nationwide Extension System in 1914. All states and territories of the United States are served by the Extension System which is a unit of the United States Department of Agriculture, and based at each land grant, higher education institution with ofices in every county throughout the nation. Pedagogical Orientation Pedagogy is the body of theory and practice of education on which teacher- directed learning is based. An educator who has a strong pedagogical orientation emphasizes acquiring knowledge and skills that the educator determines as true and efi‘ective. The personal judgment of the educator is based on tradition, accepted views and practices, or the current knowledge of the physical and social universes. In the judgment of the educator, these knowledge and skills tend to have values, inherent and instrumental, that are perennial and universal. The educator who has a pedagogical orientation, therefore, sees his primary relationship to learners as that of an authority, technical expert, director of their leanring, and judge of their achievements (Knowles, 1970, 1980; Hadley, 1975). Pedagogue A field-based Extension educator who has a pedagogical orientation mean score that is equal to or greater than the pedagogical orientation mean score for all field-based Extension educators. 23 Psychosocial Development For this study, psychosocial development referred to Erik Erikson’s eight stages of human development and was the theoretical framework for adult development. Adult development was one of the four primary variables of this study. The stages were: trust - mistrust; autonomy - shame/doubt; initiative - guilt; industry - inferiority; identity - role difiirsion; intimacy - isolation; generativity - stagnation; and ego integrity - despair. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The purpose of this study was to investigate the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and to investigate the relationship between educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their development as adult. This chapter provides the literature that was the theoretical foundation of this research. This chapter is presented in five sections. The first three sections are devoted to explaining the evolution of the practice of teaching children and adults in history. These sections are: (1) Early Practices of Teaching Children; (2) In the Beginning, There was only Pedagogy; and (3) A Period of Transition. The fourth section reviews important theories of adult leanring. The concept of pedagogy and the concept of andragogy are featured in this presentation. The last section is a review of selected adult development theories including Erik Erikson’s eight psychosocial stages of human development. Adult development was one of the primary variables of this research. Early Practices of Teaching Children “Doubtless from the day when a human family began its existence, from the day when 24 25 a father and a mother began to love their children, education had an existence”(Compayre', 1918, pp. 1). Hebrew children in early times were first taught by their father. They leamed the traditions and values of their immediate and extended family, and heard stories about the glories of Hebrew culture. After a few years, children receive instruction from the scribe at the synagogue which was the central place for teaching. Here, religious instruction was intensified, and students were taught basic skills in reading, writing and arithmetic. At about age ten, the rabbi, the spiritual leader of the community, established a close relationship with each student and taught them the religious laws which govern their life. Higher education began at age sixteen for the more intelligent students who had the potential to leanr the intricacies of the law. Instruction involved an intellectual interchange of ideas between the teacher and the student. All teachers regarded children as being naturally inclined to have wayward impulses. Creativity in ancient Hebrew civilization was hindered by rigorous orthodox religious standards. However, the close relationship between the teacher and student stimulated an intense interest in learning. Teaching was guided by the ideal of wisdom (Mayer, 1973; Compayre', 1918). The Chinese invented gunpowder, paper and printing, and developed the arts - much of which was not known to western civilization for nearly two thousand years. Chinese scholars, in 1115 BC, development the first system of psychological and proficiency testing which dominated every aspect of their society including the teaching of children (DuBois 1968; Doyle 1974). In ancient China, children received their first instruction fi'om the elders of the immediate and extended family. They were taught to respect those who have achieved much, and acquired great wisdom from a long life. 26 When ready for school, students attended elementary classes which were usually taught in the teacher's home. Academies provided advanced instruction. All students were taught writing, literature, arithmetic, philosophy and moral ideals. Teachers stressed repetition, and students were encouraged to imitate the teacher. Discipline was firm and corporal punishment used fiequently. The primary focus of instruction was to prepare students for examinations. State examination scores were used to determine intelligence, and placement for vocational instnrction and employment (Mayer; 1973; DuBois, 1968; Doyle, 1974) Before European colonists introduced a Western system of education to Nigerian, children received their initial instruction fi'om their parents and later, fi'om extended members of the family. Elders of the family and the community taught local geography, botany and zoology, and history of their communities to children and young adolescents. Adolescents and young adults experienced vocational training in areas such as agriculture, crafis and trades, and medicine, taught by masters in their profession, relatives or friends of the family. Parents were generally not allowed to teach a vocation to their children in order to ensure discipline and concentration. Early Nigerian education as well as traditional African education included storytelling, music, song and dance, imitation, demonstration, rituals, ceremonies and didactic instruction. The aim of education was to develop latent physical skills, ethical character, respect for elders and those in authority, intellectual skills, vocational skills, a sense of belonging to the family and community, and appreciation for the cultural heritage of the community at large. The philosophy of traditional educators was learning by doing (Fafirnwa, 1977). Ancient Greek education was based on the idea that the human mind had to be 27 trained or exercised in order to firnction at optimal capacity. Mental discipline was believed to be the proper approach to develop innate ideas endowed at birth. Plato and Aristotle considered learning to be a process of providing logical exercises so that the inborn thought patterns could be remembered and strengthened through practice. Mathematics, especially geometry were the subjects of choice to study because of their use of logic. However, the Greeks viewed many subjects including athletic games as logical and requiring mental discipline when schemes and strategies are used. The philosophy of mental discipline and theories based on innate ideas led to rote memory activities and this approach to teaching dominated Europe for centuries (Bigge, 1971; Smith, 1990). In Europe, the actual process of teaching children remained basically unmodified for neariy two thousand years. Initiated by the Greeks and developed at Ptolernaic Alexandria in the third century BC. teaching consisted of a cadre of rote memory activities, and harsh punishment. Teaching was monopolized by the clergy and focused solely on instruction about the written doctrines of the church. Students memorized words and passages, to be understood later, if ever, and flogging was used to punish those who were lax with their lessons and to maintain general discipline. This treatment of children and youth was encouraged by the prevailing doctrine of “total depravity” according to which students were judged to be innately bad and averse to learning, a condition that can only be rectified by liberal use of the rod (Downs, 1975). The Renaissance period, roughly fourteenth through sixteenth century, and the Reformation era that followed introduced important changes in the theory and practice of teaching children. Jean Jacques Rousseau challenged common thoughts and methods of teaching in his novel Emile. According to Rousseau, all educational practices of the time 28 were erroneous and should be rejected, because they failed to produce the morally noble citizens necessary for a free society. He opposed discipline, formal training, and restrictions in general, proclaiming that since children are born morally good, the principle function of teaching is to prevent civilization from corrupting them. Those who read Emile were able to examine for the first time the methods of teaching fi'om the student's point of view (Downs, 1975; Rousseau, 1972). Influenced by Rousseau, Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1900) spent his adult life challenging the schools and teaching practices directed by the church during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe. In his book, WW he deplored the crippling of a child's mind and natural spirit by poor home environment and excessive school discipline. He wrote: “we leave children, up to their fifth year, in the hill enjoyment of nature; we let every impression of nature work upon them; they feel their power; they already know full well the joy of unrestrained liberty and all its charms. The fine natural bent which the sensuous happy wild thing takes in his[her] development, has in them already taken its most decided direction. And afier they have enjoyed this happiness of sensuous life for five years, we make all nature around them vanish fiom before their eyes; tyrannically stop the delightful course of their unrestrained fi’eedom, pen them up like sheep, whole flocks huddle together, in stinking rooms; pitilessly chain them for hours, days, weeks, months, years, to the contemplation of unattractive and monotonous letters and, (contrasted with their former condition), to a maddening course of life.” ( pp. 21-22) His vigorous criticism of schools was concerned more with the firndamental wrongs than the physical mistreatment of students. Classroom teaching was so rigid that 29 it did not take into account the ability of the child to learn or the purpose of leanring. In efl’ect, the schools appeared to be organized to destroy originality and imagination. Pestalozzi's work to reform teaching of children particularly in elementary schools is viewed by many scholars as a pillar of western education. He is known as the “Father of Modern Pedagogy” (Downs, 1975). In the Beginning, There was only Pedagogy “Teaching has three stages. First, the teacher prepares the subject. Then he[she] communicates it to his pupils, or those parts of it that he has selected. Then he makes sure that they have learnt it” (Highet, 1954; pp.74). Most of what was known, until recent years, about learning came fiom studies of children and animals (Knowles, 1970, 1980). Also, nearly all that was known about teaching derived fi'om transactions with children under conditions of compulsory attendance. Theories evolved in the monastic schools of Europe during the seventh century and succeeding centuries. They were based on observations by monks in teaching very young children relatively simple skills in reading and writing. Later, near the close of the twelfth century, these observations came to be understood by the monks as a large set of assumptions during the emergence of secular schools and universities. From these theories, assumptions and observations of teaching children came the technology of pedagogy. Pedagogy was the first model of teaching and learning. The term is derived from the Greek words paid, meaning child, and agogus or leading. Therefore, pedagogy means, literally, the art and science of teaching children (Knowles, 1970, 1980). Even though the 30 term was used and understood since the seventh century in Europe, pedagogy did not appear in an English dictionary until 1623 as pedagog (noun), meaning schoolmaster (Cockeram, 1930). Plato and Aristotle articulated theories based on the belief that the human mind is endowed at birth with innate ideas, and they defined learning to be a process of providing logical exercises so that the inborn thoughts can be remembered and strengthened through practice (Bigge, 1971; Smith, 1984). These theories led to pedagogical practices derived from rote memory activities. For example, a common approach to vocabulary teaching was to have students copy a word and its definition ten times, followed by a quiz to evaluate retention. Whacking hands or flagging were commonly used as punishment for student who were lacking the proper amount of discipline. An Egyptian proverb declares: “The ears of the young are placed on the back.” Most of these theories and practices dominated education for centuries. In the sixteenth century, a Spanish aristocrat and soldier, Ignatius of Loyola, led reforms to change how Catholic schools approached teaching of students and the training of teachers (Smith, 1990). The Jesuit education movement, founded by Loyola, approach to teaching stressed (1) short, well organized presentations containing a small number of key concepts, followed by breaks for exercise and movement; (2) carefully varied repetition of each key concept; (3) the use of pupils to teach certain parts of lessons as a reward for doing well; (4) fi'equent debates with rewards for excellent performance; and (5) student drama as an aid to leanring. These methods were developed fi'om teaching experiences and observations of Jesuit teachers, and recorded in diaries submitted to Loyola. 31 Rigid classroom activities based on rote memory in order to exercise the mental faculties of students became the target of educational reformers during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Smith and Smith, 1994). There aim was to create a more scientific pedagogy and they developed their initial notions from the seventeenth century English philosopher John Locke. He emphasized empirical or sensory experience and introduced a more scientific approach to thinking and leanring. Locke believed an idea is not drawn fi'om an intuitive, inborn mental potential but rather of an individual's sensory experiences. To him, the mind is blank— a tabula rasa or “blank tablet,” that accumulates, in an organized manner, the impressions of an individual's sensory experiences. A teacher may introduce study of the solar system by discussing with second graders their experience with seeing the sun rise and set and then, associating planets to the sun. This illustrates the concept of associationism. The traditions and assumptions of pedagogy were reinforced as elementary schools spread throughout Europe, North America and most of the world during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Smith and Smith, 1994). Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi of Switzerland led the establishment of elementary schools across Europe while Friedrich Froebel of Germany founded and developed kindergartens for young children. Both were followers of John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau who believed in sensory experiences as the primary element of instruction. For example, a teacher may discuss the qualities of an apple by presenting one in class; it is large, red and nutritious. The students may taste the apple and discuss the favor, texture and color. This approach, in contrast, to reading about an apple and memorizing its characteristics. At the beginning of this century, educational psychologist conducted scientific 32 studies on leanring and the teaching-learning transaction. Most of these studies focused on the reactions of children and animals to didactic teaching which firrther institutionalized the concepts and assumptions of pedagogy. Ivan Pavlov was among the early behaviorist. His experiments with dogs revealed how a conditioned response can be learned. Edward L. Thorndike followed Pavlov's discoveries by conducting similar experiments with chickens, cats and dogs From his studies, Thorndike developed a set of laws about learning known as connectionism, or stimulus-response bond theory. Perhaps, the most dominate behaviorist in the first half of the century was Burrhas Frederic (BF) Skinner who introduced operant conditioning, and the practice of positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement (Smith and Smith, 1994). Skinnerian learning techniques are best observed today in programmed instruction, often via computer, in which each student works individually through a serious of activities and is reinforced immediately for every correct answer. During most of the century, a group of theorist led by John Dewey, Maria Montessori and Jean Piaget focused on an individual's interaction with the environment and the manner in which the individual perceives it (Bigge, 1971). And today, learning theorist and researchers are interested in developing a “cognitive basis for a pedagogy that fosters thinking and reasoning in school leanring” (Glaser, 1984, pp.93). Most theories of learning and teaching throughout history, until recently, were based on studies, and observations of children and animals in didactic teaching environments. Due to this, pedagogy is viewed as the body of theory and practice which provides the foundation for teacher-directed, child learning - the art and science of teaching children (Smith and Smith, 1994). 33 A Period of Transition The aftermath of both world wars of the century introduced major technological and social change. Thousands of former soldiers returned home and sought schooling and training in careers of the Industrial Era. As systematic adult education programs began to organize, in the 1920's, teachers of adults began to experience problems with the pedagogical model (Somers, 1988; Knowles, 1977). The pedagogy of this era had evolved for centuries from studies and observations of children and was based on transmittal of knowledge and skills as determined by the teachers. These methods discouraged many adults, so drop-outs fi'om classes were numerous during these years. However, these challenges did not stop the continuous growth of systematic adult education programs in the United States (Somers, 1988; Knowles, 1977). The most significant problem with pedagogy was the static world view which nurtured it (Somers, 1988). In times of a relatively unchanging world, the purpose of education was the transmission of a finite body of knowledge and skills which had stood over time and the prevailing social order. Obviously, this concept of education is legitimate only if the time span of major changes excwd the life span of the individual. The knowledge and skills acquired during one’s youth were once seen as adequate for a lifetime. Beginning in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, philosophers began to adopt a dynamic world view (Toffler, 1980; Somers, 1988). In fact, this emerging perspective anticipated quite accurately the accelerated pace of change which is assumed today. Indeed, several “waves” of change have occurred during this century. Thus, the 34 knowledge and skills obtained in youth may suffice for only a decade rather than for a lifetime. In 1931, Alfi'ed North Whitehead (1931), an eminent philosopher of this period wrote these observations which provide an explanation why the strategies of pedagogy were mostly ineffective with adults. In the introduction to a business book for scholars, practitioner and students, he wrote: ...our sociological theories, our political philosophy, our practical maxims of business, our political economy, and our doctrines of education, are derived from an unbroken tradition of great thinkers and of practical examples, from the age of Plato in the fifth century before Christ, to the end of the last century. The whole of this tradition is warped by the vicious assumption that each generation will live substantially amid the conditions governing the lives of its fathers and will transmit those conditions to mold with equal force the lives of its children (pp. xviii). We are living in the first period of human history for which this assumption is false (Ibid, pp. xviii). ...the point is that in the past the time-span of important change was considerably longer than that of a single human life. Thus mankind was trained to adapt itself to fixed conditions. But today this time-span is considerably shorter than that of human life, and accordingly our training must prepare individuals to face a novelty of conditions (Ibid, pp. xix). Whitehead was among the first philosophers to embrace the notion of accelerated social change, and articulate the opportunities and challenges of this approaching era. 35 Consequently, more adventuresome teachers of adults began to move away from the static view of education and began to experiment with methods that were consistent with a dynamic world view. They altered strategies and assumptions, and found increasing acceptance by adult learners. These pioneer educators were beginning to shape a new definition of education. The didactic pedagogy of the past was beginning to give way to a more dynamic approach to adult leanring. Adult Learning “The most important leanring needs are not among children, but among adults - especially our political, intellectual, scientific, corporate, and religious leaders - the decision-makers who will be shaping the Information Society over the next two decades. Their decisions, for better or worse, will largely determine whether the Information Society is humane, just, productive, fi'ee, participatory, and safe, or whether it is a society characterized by great inequalities, more centralization, accelerating dangers, and firrther alienation” (Marien,1983, pp. 21). Adult learning has been the concern of educators for a very long time. In ancient times, Confircius and Lao Tse of China; Hebrew prophets and Jesus; Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato in ancient Greece; and Cicero, Evelid, and Quintilian of the Roman Empire were all teachers of adults (Knowles, 1977, 1980, 1989). Their experience with adults caused them to have very different concepts of the learning-teaching process than was commonly perceived. They recognized that adults enter into leanring activities with a wealth of experience which impacted how learners chose to learn and what they learned. Thus, 36 these and other teachers of adults invented techniques that encouraged learner inquiry. For example, ancient Greek educators developed what is now called the Socratic dialogue, in which the teacher, leader or a group member would pose a question, or a dilemma, and the group would pool their thinking and experience to seek options and solutions. It has been relatively recent, within the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, that notions about the unique characteristics of adult learners has reemerged from ancient times, and evolved into theories about adult leanring. By 1926, the first year of the American Association for Adult Education, two major avenues of inquiry in adult learning were becoming discernible (Knowles, 1977, 1989). One avenue addressed adult learning from a scientific perspective and the other focused on the art or practice of leanring in adulthood. The scientific approach sought new knowledge through experimental studies and rigorous investigations while knowledge of adult learning in the artistic approach was mainly through intuition and the analysis of experience. Even though leanring and living were understood as being intricately intertwined in ancient and biblical history, events over time began to strongly associate learning only with formal education conducted in a class (Meniam, 1993). This institutionalization of learning led to questions about adult's capacity to learn and whether or not intelligence declines with age. Most of the early studies fiom the scientific perspective investigated these questions about adult learning. Edward L. Thorndike (1928) and associates conducted the first systematic study of adult learning and published their findings in a book call mm. By testing people between ages fourteen and fifty years on various memory and leanring task, they 37 concluded that “teachers of adults of age twenty-five to forty-five should expect them to learn at nearly the same rate and in nearly the same manner as they would have learned the same thing at twenty” (pp. 178-179). This work of Thorndike and associates demonstrated that adults can learn but did not provide any major new insight on the process of adult learning (Knowles, 1970,1980,1990). Along with research conducted in the 1930's (Jones and Conrad, 1933; Miles and Miles, 1932) on adult intelligence, these early studies provided a scientific foundation for adult leanring and confirmed the faith of those were adult educators. During the last fifty years, researchers approached the understanding of adult learning by conducting research and developing theories related to intelligence and cognitive development. Some of the most significant investigation and development in concept of intelligence have been done by Wechsler (Matarazzo, 1972) who designed the Adult Intelligence Scale instrument to assess adult intelligence; Cattell (1963, 1987) presented the theories of fluid and crystallized intelligence; Gardner’s (1985) book called W51 proposed a theory of multiple intelligences; and, Schaie and Willis (1986) illustrated that adults score better on some aspects of intelligence as they age, and worse on others, resulting in a stable composite measurement of intelligence until very old age. The researchers interested in adult cognitive development focused their efforts on delineating stages such as Arlin's (1975) fifth stage of problem finding that follows Piaget's four stages of cognitive development for children and youth. Others researchers (Basseches, 1984; Pascual-Leone, 1983; Riegel, 1973, 1979) suggest viewing cognitive development through mature thought which entails the ability to accept inherent contradictions and ambiguities, a dialectic process discussed by Riegel (1979). 38 The scientific investigation of adult leanring has been directed by studies in learning memory changes, intelligence and cognition that occur as adults age. Recently, researcher have begun to broaden the field of inquiry by including consideration of social context and life experiences (Meniam and Caffarella, 1991; Tennant, 1988). However, since the studies of Thorndike (1928), we know adults can leanr, and depending on how learning is measured, adult can learn as well as young people (Merriam, 1993). It seemed the initial studies from the scientific perspective, based in psychology, would satisfy the knowledge needs of adult educators. But, as problems developed with the pedagogical methods used with adults, and the need to establish adult education as a separate field of theory and practice, adult educators began to seek a body of knowledge that emphasized the processes of adult learning. After World War 11, articles and books were published describing methods teachers had use successfirlly with adult learners. Thus, the second avenue of inquiry about adult learning was bonr, concerned with how adults learn (Merriam, 1993; Knowles, 1980 1990). In the 1960's, Cyril O. Houle (1961) conducted the first study focused on the processes of adult learning, and launched the direction of a movement to investigate these processes. Houle conducted in-depth interviews with twenty-two “continuing learners” and published a book of his finding called W. He discovered that his learner fell into three subgroups: “the first, or, as they will be called, the goal-oriented, are those who use education as a means of accomplishing fairly clear-cut objectives. The second, the activity-oriented, are those who take part because they find in the circumstances of the leanring a meaning which has no necessary connection, and often no connection at all, with the content or the announced purpose of the activity. The third, 39 learning-oriented, seek knowledge for its own sake. These are not pure types; the best way to represent them pictorially would be by three circles which overlap at their edges. But the central emphasis of each subgroup is clearly discemible” (pp. 15-16) Also, Houle revealed the “most universally important factor” that influenced learning by adults is “schooling.” “The higher the formal education of the adult, the more likely it is that he will take part in continuing education.” (Ibid, pp. 7) Later, in the late 1960's and during the 1970's, Allen Tough (1971), a student of Houle's, conducted investigations which attempted to quantify the findings presented by Houle. Tough reported his first findings in two books, WW and Wis W, and his discovery focused on learning projects as devised and carried out by the learner. He uncovered the fact that nearly ninety percent of adults participate in forms of leanring projects, and seventy percent of the projects are planned by the learners. The research initiatives conducted by Houle (1961) and Tough (1971) were centered in the notion that adults are independent and self-directing when their learning is considered. Their work emphasized important characteristics of adult learning processes, and ushered the beginning of further investigations and the development of theories in, what is now known as, self-directed learning (Meniam, 1993). More recently, Jack Mezirow (1981, 1990) has developed a theory unique to adult leanring called perspective transformation. According to Mezirow, the hallmark of adult learning is: “becoming critically aware of how and why our presuppositions have come to constrain the way we perceive, understand, and feel about our world; of refonnulating these assumptions to permit a more inclusive, discriminating, permeable, and integrative 40 WW; and of making decisions or otherwise acting upon these new understandings. More inclusive, discriminating, permeable, and integrative perspective are superior Perspectives that adults choose if they can because they are motivated to better understand the meaning of their experience” (1990, pp. 14). Mezirow believed “by far the most significant learning experiences in adulthood involve critical self-reflection, reassessing the way we have posed problems and reassessing our own orientation to perceiving, knowing, believing, feeling, and acting” ( 1990, pp. 13). Critical self-reflection and awareness of “why we attach the meaning we do to reality...may be the most significant distinguishing characteristics of adult learning” (l981,pp. 11). Andragogy Perhaps the most significant stream of thought that lead to the introduction, development and application of the concept of andragogy in North America came fi'om three educators. These educators were John Dewey (1944), Eduard C. Lindeman (1926) and Malcolm S. Knowles (1989). Philosophically, the pragmatism of Dewey begot the progressive views of Lindeman which shaped the assumptions about adult learners developed by Knowles. Pragmatism is a “philosophical system that stresses the individual's experiences or interactions with the environment as the main source of reality”(Smith and Smith, 1994, pp.273), and Dewey (1952) was one of the champions of pragmatism. He believed “the lirndamental unity of the newer philosophy is found in the idea that there is an intimate and necessary relation between the processes of actual experience and education” (pp. 7). 4l Dewey felt adult derive learning chiefly from experience. It is believe this philosophy of education and experience kindled the notion of experiential leanring which is used by Contemporary educators (Stewart, 198 7 ). Dewey gave most of his attention to issues and philosophies on educating school- age children. Lindeman (1926) focused more on pragmatism as a philosophy for education and worked primarily with adults. In 1926, he revealed his philosophy of adult learning processes in a book titled mm. This book included these four important concepts: 1. “...education is life [and...life is education]- not a mere preparation for an unknown kind of future living. Consequently all static concepts of education which relegate the learning process to the period of youth are abandoned. The whole of life is learning, therefore education can have no endings” (pp. 6). 2. “...education conceived as a process coterminous with life revolves about non- vocational ideals. In this world of specialists everyone will of necessity learn to do his work, and if education of any variety can assist in this and in the firrther end of helping the worker to see the meaning of his labor, it will be education of a high order. But adult education more accurately defined begins where vocational education leaves ofi‘. Its purpose is to put meaning into the whole of life” (Ibid, pp.7). 3. “...the approach to adult education will be via the route of situations, not subjects. Our academic system has grown in reverse order: subjects and teachers constitute the starting-point, students are secondary. In conventional education the student is required to adjust himself to an established curriculum; in adult education the curriculum is built around the student's needs and interests” (Ibid, pp. 8). 42 4. “...the resource of highest value in adult education is the learner's experience. - - -Experience is the adult learner's living textbook” (Ibid, pp. 9-10). Even though he introduced the term andragogy to North America the same year this book was published, Lindeman never referred to it in any chapter. The next year, he coauthored with Martha Anderson, an article called “Education with Experience” in which they state:“schools are for children. Life itself is the adult's school. Pedagogy is the method by which children are taught. ...Andragogy is the true method of adult learning” (Stewart, 1987, pp. 109). Andragogy was first used by Alexander Kapp, a German grammar school teacher, in 1833, to explain how differently he was dealing with adult students in evening classes fiom the teenage students in his day classes (Nottingham Andragogy Group, 1986). The term was not used again until 1921, by Eugen Rosenstock, a German social scientist. However, andragogy did not receive wide acceptance by adult educators until it was used by a German teacher, Franz Poggeler, in his 1957 book called Introductigmnm WW Education (Knowles, 1989). Adult educators throughout Europe used and elaborated on his work. For example, the Dutch approach to andragogy was expanded during the 1970's by Ten Have who believed that the term should cover all “agogical” work with adults, such as social work, personnel management, community work and adult education (Nottingham Andragogy Group, 1986). Influenced by the research and philosophies of several educators including Dewey, Lindeman and Houle, Malcohn Knowles (1989) had evolved a rough theoretical fiamework of adult learning and began to speak about it in the 1960's. His framework was unified in 1967, the year Knowles was introduced to the term andragogy by a 43 Yugoslavian adult educator, Dusan Savicevic. Knowles (1980, 1989)) defined andragogy (Greek word aner, with stem andra, meaning “man, not boy” and agogy meaning “leading”) as “the art and science of helping adults learn.” (1980, pp.43) At first, he believed andragogy and pedagogy, “the art and science of teaching children,” (1980, pp. 40) to be dichotomous and antithetical; andragogy was good and pedagogy was bad, and andragogy was for adults and pedagogy was for children. Later, he altered his views after receiving reports from elementary and secondary school teachers who had been exposed to andragogical model, and found some children learned better under andragogical assumptions and strategies in many situations. Also, he discovered fi'om reports of adult educators that they found pedagogical assumptions and strategies to be necessary with adults in situations where the learners are entering into unfamiliar areas. Therefore, he later presented the models of andragogy and pedagogy as two parallel sets of assumptions, best seen not as dichotomous but rather as two ends of a spectrum The following comparison of pedagogy and andragogy was stated by Knowles (1980) to explain the difl‘erences between these concepts: Cancemnflthemmct Pedagogy -The role of the learner is, by definition, a dependent one. The teacher is expected by society to take firll responsibility for determining what is to be learned, when it is to be learned, and if it has been learned. Andragogy -It is a normal aspect of the process of maturation for a person to move fi'om dependency toward increasing self-directedness, but at different rates for difi‘erent people and in difi‘erent dimensions of life. Teachers have a 44 responsibility to encourage and nurture this movement. Adults have a deep psychological need to be generally self-directing, although they may be dependent in particular temporary situations (pp.43). We; Pedagogy -The experience learners bring to a learning situation is of little worth. It may be used as a starting point, but the experience fiom which learners will gain the most is that of the of the teacher, the textbook writer, the audiovisual aid producer, and other experts. Accordingly, the primary techniques in education are transmittal techniques-lecture, assigned reading, AV presentations. Andragogy - As people grow and develop they accumulate an increasing reservoir of experience that becomes an increasingly rich resource for leanring-for themselves and for others. Furthermore, people attach more meaning to learning they gain from experience than those they acquire passively. Accordingly, the primary techniques in education are experiential techniques-laboratory experiments, discussion, problem-solving cases, simulation exercises, field experience, and the like (Ibid., pp. 44). Readinessjaleam Pedagogy - People are ready to learn whatever society (especially the school) says they ought to leanr, provided the pressures on them (like fear of failure) are great enough. Most people of the same age are ready to learn the same things. Therefore, learning should be organized into a fairly standard curriculum, with a uniform step-by-step progression for the learners. Andragogy - People become ready to learn something when they experience a 45 need to leanr it in order to mm more satisfyingly with real-er task or problems. The educator has a responsibility to create conditions and provide tools and procedures for helping learners discover their “needs to know.” And learning programs should be organized around life-application categories and sequenced according to the leamers' readiness to learn (Ibid., pp. 44). U . . I . Pedagogy - Leanrers see education as a process of acquiring subject-matter content, most of which they understand will be usefirl only at a later time in life. Accordingly, the cuniculum should be organized in to subject-matter units (e. g. courses) which follow the logic of the subject (e. g. fi'om ancient to modern history, from simple to complex mathematics or science). People are subject-centered in their orientation to learning. Andragogy - Learners see education as a process of developing increased competence to achieve their fiill potential in life. They want to be able to apply whatever knowledge and skill they gain today to living more efi’ectively tomorrow. Accordingly, learning experiences should be organized around competency- developmerrt categories. People are performance—centered in their orientation to learning (Ibid., pp. 43-44). These comparisons were intended to operationalize the concept of andragogy for educators. Andragogy was based on at least four primary assumptions about learners. According to Knowles (1980), “these assumptions are that as individuals mature: (1) their self-concept moves fiom one of being a dependent personality towards being a self- 46 directed human being; (2) they accumulate a growing reservoir of experience that becomes an increasingly rich resource for learning; (3) their readiness to learn becomes oriented increasingly to developmental tasks of their social roles; (4) their time perspective changes fiom one of postponed application of knowledge to immediacy of application, and accordingly, their orientation toward leanring shifts from one of subject-centeredness to one of performance-centeredness” (pp. 44-45). Knowles efl‘ort to present andragogy as the theory and practice of helping adults learn stimulated debate among some adult learning scholars. Houle (1972) preferred to view education as a single fimdamental human process and felt that while there was difi‘erences between children and adults, the leanring activities of men and women were essentially the same as those of boys and girls. Jack London (1973) stressed the need for unity in education, as opposed to a dichotomous perspective, indicated that some andragogical principles could be applied to children, and suggested that adult educators were emphasizing andragogy in an effort to achieve status and respect within educational circles. Houle and London basically agreed that andragogy did not present a major new approach to leanring. Leon McKenzie (1979) suggested that the difl‘erence in philosophical origination explains why there are intelligent and reflective adult educators who support or reject the assumptions of andragogy. Meanwhile, Elias (1979) believed that the difi‘erences in adults and children does not justify a difl‘erent educational approach. And, Davenport and Davenport (1985a) felt that the andragogy debate should be based more on empirical research and less on philosophy. They believed more information is needed to establish the theoretical and practical foundation of andragogy. 47 Mohring (1989) argued the term andragogy is etyrnologically inaccurate. “Andragogy derives fiom the Greek words aner andago,-gos. Aner (o, andros, andri, andra) however, means adult male. It does not mean as Knowles claims, adult”(pp. 3). She suggest the term “teleiagogy,” to replace andragogy. The Greek word for adult is “teleios.” “The superiority of teleiagogy to andragogy is unquestionable.”(1bid., pp. 5) In Daniel Pratt's (1993) article titled “Andragogy After Twenty-Five Years,” he reviews this question: “What contribution has andragogy made to our understanding of adult leanring”(pp. 15)? He believes andragogy will continue to be “the first look into the world of adult education” (Ibid.) for educators. However, he sees the contribution of andragogy to the understanding of adult learning as being more grand than its substance. On the other hand, Sharan Merriam (1993) feels “andragogy is inarguably the best known set of principles explaining learning in adulthood, or, more accurately, characteristics of adult learning”(pp. 1). “We are now on the verge of some major breakthroughs in our understanding of the [adult] learning process” (Knowles, 1989, pp. 35). Pedagogy and Andragogy: Two Continua of Practice The act of learning is viewed by Bruner (1965) as involving three concurrent processes: ( l) acquisition of new information, (2) transformation-the process of manipulating knowledge to make it conform to new tasks; and (3) evaluation-determining whether the way we have manipulated knowledge is adequate to the task. With the rapid changes in the world, more importance is being placed on learning. Cross (1984) observed “the world is changing faster than the generations, and individuals must live in several 48 different worlds during their lifetime” (pp. 1). Knowles (1980) defined andragogy as the body of theory and practice on which self- directed learning is based, the art and science of helping adults learning. Thus, by definition, the focus of andragogy is on learning. In contrast, pedagogy, the body of theory and practice on which teacher-directed leanring takes place, the art and science of teaching children, is dedicated to “the process of providing for the learner.” (pp. 44) Andragogy and pedagogy are based on different processes and assumptions about the learner, and these processes and assumptions provide the fiamework for unique practice. The pedagogical model and andragogical model presented two different approaches to the operation and design of educational programs (Knowles, 1980, 1989). The pedagogical model is based on a subject or content plan, which requires the teacher to ' answer four questions: 1. What content needs to be covered? The implication is that it is the teacher‘s responsibility to cover-in the classroom or through assigned reading-all the content that students need to leam. 2. How can this content be organized into manageable units? It is the teacher's duty to organize the subject in manageable units. 3. What would be the most logical sequence in which to present the units? It is the logic of the subject that determines the sequence, not readiness or the desire of the learners. 4. What would be the most efficient means of transmitting this content? With a subject that is highly informational, probably the preferred means of the teacher would be lecture or audiovisual presentation and assigned reading. 49 The pedagogical model is directed by the teacher, subject-centered and focused on the transmission of content. The andragogical model has a process design format (Knowles, 1980, 1984, 1989). This model consists of seven elements: 1. Climate setting - The facilitators should establish a physical and psychological climate conducive to learning. 2. Involving learners in mutual planning - The facilitators should involve the learners in planning the methods used and direction of the content. 3. Involving participants in diagnosing their own needs for leanring - The facilitators have the responsibility of assisting learners with understanding their “felt needs” and sometimes, meshing them with the “ascribed needs” of their organizations or society. 4. Involving learners in formulating their learning objectives - The facilitators have the opportunity to assist the learners with translating needs into leanring objectives. Learning contracts is one method. 5. Involving learners in designing learning plans - The facilitators should encourage learners to identify resources and assist them with using such resources to accomplish their objectives. 6. Helping learners carry out their learning plans - The facilitators can help learners establish realistic targets to accomplish their objectives and complete the plans. 7. Involving learners in evaluating their learning - This is an opportunity for the facilitators to encourage self-evaluation and reflection by the learners. In this model, the teacher becomes a facilitator of resources, linking them with the if} 50 learners, and a manager of the leanring process. The andragogical model is centered on learner needs, problem solving or application of knowledge, and use of the leamers' experience to guide the process. Using the pedagogical model, teaching occurs in three stages. These stages are planning the subject, communicating it to the students and evaluating student comprehension (Highet, 1954). The andragogical model presents the opportunity for the educator to firnction as a facilitator of leanring, and at times, a teacher (Knowles, 1980, 1984, 1989; Brookfield, 1986). Levine (1990) ofi‘ers six principles to guide the educator when organizing instructional presentations for adult learners: (1) tell the learners what you plan to present at the start; (2) organize your material for presentation in a logical order; (3) tell them a bit and then create ways to let them tell you what else they need to know; (4) decide what you want the learners to do with your infonnation-mknow information, understand information, use information or share information with others; (5) know when to teach and when to learn - learners are a lot more willing to learn if they feel that they are being listened to; and (6) help learners the concepts to their own situation. Educational orientation. For many years, it was assumed that the methods used in the education of children would be equally efl'ective in helping adult learn. Increasingly, however, educators are becoming aware of the differences among individuals and groups of learners, and the need for difi‘erent learning strategies and techniques (Knowles, 1980; Davenport, 1984). Knowles (1980) has presented the pedagogical model and the andragogical model as two difi‘erent approaches, each with its own characteristics and set of assumptions 51 about learners. The pedagogical model emphases assumptions and methods which are external to the learner, and teacher directed. Educational activities are planned by the educator, centered on subjects and seek passive participation by the learner. On the other hand, the andragogical model is distinguish by assumptions and methods which are internal to the learner, and learner directed. This approach values the experience of the learner and is focused on problem-solving with the educator firnctioning as a facilitator. Knowles (1980) describes these models not as dichotomous entities but rather “as two end of a spectrum” (pp. 43), each with its unique set of assumptions and methods. In addition, Knowles (1980) recognized the importance of the educator’s beliefs about the learner and its influence on strategies used by the educator. He stated: “As I see it, whenever a pedagogical assumption is the realistic one, then pedagogical strategies are appropriate, regardless of the age of the learner—and vice versa. But I would like to make one caveat: an ideological pedagogue—one who has deep loyalty and commitment to the pedagogical modelumay be tempted to underrate the extent to which an andragogical assumption may be realistic and may, for example, want to keep a learner dependent long after the learner has become able to be self-directing” (pp. 43). Thus, the orientation of the educator impacts how he/she may view the learners in any situation. Herschel N. Hadley (1975), under the supervision of Knowles, developed an instrument to assess an educator's orientation with respect to the pedagogical- andragogical continuum. This instrument considers six attitudinal dimensions of an adult educators role, namely, ( 1) Purposes of Education, (2) Nature of Learners, (3) Characteristics of Learning Experience, (4) Management of Learning Experience, (5) 52 Evaluation, and (6) Relationships of Educators to Learners and Among Learners. The instrument, called the Educational Orientation Questionnaire (EOQ), was designed to measure the relative nature, rather than the absolute true orientation of an educator. Educational orientation is the relative attitude and assumptions about learners by an educator as measured on the pedagogical and andragogical continuum. For this research, educational orientation was measured on two continua. One continuum measured pedagogical orientation and the second continuum measured the andragogical orientation. These continua were operationalized by a pedagogical mean score and an andragogical mean score. Holmes (1980) conducted a study of Auburn University faculty and Alabama Cooperative Extension personnel and compared their EOQ scores with selected interpersonal behaviors. The study found difl‘erences in beliefs and attitudes about education, and their perception of efl‘ective learning situations for adults. Additionally, certain interpersonal behaviors such as showing afi’ection were related to the andragogical orientation of the educator. Jones (1982) investigated the educational orientation of selected faculty at Oklahoma State University. Their EOQ scores indicated significant difl‘erences related departments, male and female faculty, degrees earned, experience as faculty, percent of teaching assignment at graduate level, and time spent working in Extension. Specifically, men tended to be more pedagogical than women; faculty with extensive assignments with Extension are more andragogical than those with limited or no off-campus duties; faculty teaching graduate courses are more andragogical than those who teach undergraduate courses; faculty with doctorates were more pedagogical than those with masters degrees; 53 and as faculty increase in experience, they tend to be more pedagogical. Suvedi (1991) conducted a study about the educational orientation, using EOQ scores, and job satisfaction of Michigan State University Extension county personnel. Extension agents and their supervisors, County Extension Directors, were relatively more andragogical than pedagogical. However, no significant relationships were found between age, experience, graduate degree, and prior experience as a school teacher and educational orientation. Agents did possess a moderate level of pedagogical orientation but no relationship was found between pedagogy and job satisfaction. Lastly, no significant differences were discovered in the level of job satisfaction between agents whose educational orientation were similar to their immediate supervisor and those who had educational orientations different from their immediate supervisors. Adult Development Carl Jung (1975) is often considered the father of adult development because he was the first to delineate stages of development which extend through the life span. Development fiom the Jungian viewpoint involved the focus of various structures of the psyche and the integration of these structures on the individual. The inborn nature of the human organism, according to Jung, is to begin in a state of undifferentiated wholeness and to strive to become a fully difl‘erentiated, balanced and unified personality although few people ever reach the goal of complete self-realization. Jung (1975) recognized four major transitions or stages of life. These stages were childhood, youth and young adulthood, middle age and old age. With each transition, the 54 content of awareness progressed. The first stage begins at birth and continues through puberty. In the early years, the child has no continuity of consciousness and no sense of the personal identity. Later, in this stage, an ego begins to develop and the child begins to perceive himself separate from others. The youth and young adulthood phase begins with the physiological changes that accompany puberty. Adolescence is marked by a multitude of problems brought on by a conflict between the demands of life and a desire to retain childhood illusions. An adherence to childhood fantasies and failure to recognize reality exacerbates the dificulties in mastering the tasks of young adulthood. The external task of the period revolve around making one's place in the world, that is, leanring a vocation, manying and starting a family. The critical internal task is to resolve the sexual conflicts and feelings of inferiority that are remnants of childhood capiousness. This stage ends between the ages of thirty- five and forty. At this point, a major transformation occurs. After the individual has adapted to external environmental demands such as vocation, marriage, family and/or civic affairs, the primary task is to re-channel one's energy into the pursuit of cultural and spiritual values. Self-realization in this phase occurs through introspection, contemplation and meditation instead of the activity of youth. Redirecting one's psychic energy in this manner is one of the greatest challenges of life in Jung's view. A more recent contributor to the body of knowledge about adult development is Daniel Levinson (1978) and associates (Darrow, Klein, Levinson, and McKee) Through their research, they believ “. .. that the life cycle evolves through a sequence of eras each lasting roughly twenty-five years. The eras are partially overlapping, so that a new one is getting underway as the previous one is being terminated. The sequence goes as follows: 55 (1) Childhood and adolescence-age 0 to 22, (2) Early adulthood: age 17 to 45, (3) Middle adulthood: age 40 to 65, (4) Late adulthood: age 60 to death” (pp. 18). Levinson's (1978) research involved interviews with forty men between the ages of thirty-five to forty-five. The second era, early adulthood, spans the years between seventeen and forty-five. He found that between 17-225the young men experience Early Adult Transition. The two task to be accomplished are: (1) to begin separation fiom the preadult world by altering or terminating existing relationships, and reassessing or changing the previously formed self; and (2) to make initial steps into adulthood through forming a preliminary adult identity and testing choices for adult living. During the first adult life structure, titled Entering the Adult World (ages 22-28), the young man has to make decisions regarding his adult identity including occupations, love relations, life style and values. Many men enter adulthood with a Dream, a vision of their firture, usually expressed in an occupational context. Shifts in life direction may occasion a sense of betraying or compromising the Dream. Often in transitional crises, a major issue is the sense of failure attached to not having realized the guiding Dream. The Age Thirty Transition allows the individual to rework the mistakes and limitations of the first structure and to create the basis for a more satisfactory second half of early adulthood. This transition like others in adult life may cause considerable turmoil, confusion and struggle or it may involve a quiet reassessment and intensification of effort. At this juncture, men may reafirm old choices or adopt new directions. The next period, Settling Down and Becoming One's Own Man, last from thirty- three until forty. The major task of this period are to establish a place in society, to anchor one's life and to develop competence in a chosen occupation. Early in this period, 56 the man tends to regard himselfas quite autonomous-free from parental influences. Near the end of this phase, the young man tends to feel that no matter what he has accomplished so far he is not sufficiently his own man. This sense of constraint and oppression may affect relationships at work and in the family. An important element of the era called early adulthood, according to Levinson (1978), is a relationship with a mentor. Usually, the mentor is a man several years older who serves as a guide, confidante, or paternal figure. He may be a boss, co-worker, or teacher. This relationship is of great importance to the development of both the mentor and the mente. The relationship ends when the mente is about forty, most often because of increased conflict of forced separation. Bridging early and middle adulthood is a time of struggle for most men wherein they must: ( l) critically reappraise their lives and Dreams; (2) come to terms with the “great polarities”-young/old, destruction/creation, masculine/feminine and attachment/separation; and (3) modify the life structure (Levinson, 1978). Often the mid- life transition results in divorce, separation or career change. Although Levinson et a1. did not study men beyond middle adulthood, there is evidence that the sequence of stable and transitional periods continues over the entire life cycle. Psychosocial Development The psychosocial stages concept was formulated according to the epigenetic principle. The principle was borrowed fiom fetal development which, in Erik Erikson's (1968) work, referred to the idea that: “...anything that grows has a ground plan, and that out of this ground plan parts arise, each part having its time of special ascendancy, until all 57 parts have arisen to form a functioning whole” (pp. 92). More succinctly, humans follow inborn laws of development which according to Erikson, “...create a succession of potentialities for significant interaction with those who tend (them)” (Ibid., pp. 93). The conflict that Erikson associated with each stage of personality development was a “psychosocial crisis” or turning point, in which both potential and vulnerability are greatly increased, a time when things may go either well or poorly depending on one's experiences in previous stages and one's current life circumstances. Five of these stages are experienced during the first twenty years, or so, of life, and the remaining three stages during adulthood. The degree of successfirl resolution of each stage affects both the behavior of the person and also the subsequent resolutions of the later stages. Erikson (1963, 1968, 1982) believed that the individual will face psychosocial crisis of each stage in tum, regardless of the degree of resolution to previous stages. Unsuccessful resolution of the previous stages will hinder successful resolution of present and future developmental crisis but will not change the time or order in which they will be found. The resolution of the conflicts of the stages determines the health of the adult personality. The following is a summary of the eight stages of development, conceived by Erikson (1963; Kalikow, 1988; Harnachek, 1990)): Trust is learned from the child being able to rely on the consistent meeting of needs by the primary care-givers. This sameness and consistency of care-givers enables the child to develop the capacity to deal with one's own urges. Feelings of optimism and faith can result fiom this reliable care-giver, while mistrust can occur when care-giving is more 58 often unreliable and inconsistent. mmammmmnammm The child learns autonomy by being able to hold on and let go without negative consequences. Autonomy develops from the child's developing decision makrn' g, choices, and judgments. Shame and doubt occur when the child is prevented fiom making and following through on these choices and judgments. I'M-Elm 12,35 Initiative is learned as the child fi'eely thinks and acts without guilt or fear of punishment. The child can learn to make decisions and follow rather than experience guilt or the desire to withdraw. Il -Ifi"[C law 12 These issues center on the child's producing things and the recognition received fiom famrly' and peers: industry being learned from positive recognition, and inferiority expen'enced from negatrv' e responses or being ignored. Il '-BID'E' $11.1! .12 2: This is the central crisis of adolescence, with careers of personal and occupational roles. Adolescents look to understand themselves in the context of strong peer group identity. Issues are dommarrt' personality characteristics and a continuity between past and present feelings about self. I. -Il°fl]!'2i3§ Intrmacy' is learned as the individual is able to commit hIm/' herself to another, despite the risk of being hurt, and can expen'ence warmth and closeness. The fear of ego loss can prevent this contact, with the resultant feeling of isolation. 59 Li ”-5 °CCIE'35 IS The issues here are the interest in guiding and caring for the next generation, widening one's perspective for intimacy and productivity resulting in generativity. Stagnation occurs when the individual maintains a narcissistic view(excessive love of self) of the world and ceases to be productive or caring. EI '-D °Clilfil]!'|§ll Positive resolution involves the acceptance of one's own life and death, resulting in a sense of integration and wisdom. Despair occurs when there is regret, an inability to see meaning in one's life, and a denial of death. While each stage involves specific ego conflicts or psychosocial crisis and issues, some form of each crisis exist at other times. We are presented with these conflicts before their age-related time of centrality and continue to engage unresolved conflicts after their time (Erikson, 1963, 1968; Harnachek, 1985, 1990). CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methods and procedures used to study the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators, and to describe the methods and procedures used to study the relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their development as adults. The sections of this chapter are: (1) the research questions; (2) the theoretical fi'amework; (3) the research design; (4) the population; (5) the sample; (6) the instrumentation; (7) the data collection; and (8) the data analyses. This chapter describes the theoretical fiamework for the research methodology and the procedures used to collect and analyze the data. The Research Questions The purpose of the study was to investigate the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators, and to investigate the relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their development as adults. The questions that directed the research were as follows: 1. What is the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators? 2. Is there a relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based 6O 61 Extension educators and their personal characteristics? 3. What is the adult development score of field-based Extension educators? 4. Is there a relationship between the adult development score of field-based Extension educators and their personal characteristics? 5. Is there a relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their adult development score? The aim of this study was to provide data and present conclusions that could lead to further development of theories and research. The Theoretical Framework The theoretical fiamework for this study guided the methodology used to draw conclusions fi'om the research questions. There were two theoretical constructs that formed the fi'amework for studying field-based Extension educators. One of the constructs was educational orientation and the other was adult development. Malcolm Knowles provided the theory that explained educational orientation by way of his presentation of pedagogy and andragogy. Erik Erikson’s eight stages of psychosocial attributes was the theory that explained adult development. Educational orientation and adult development were the constructs that formed the theoretical framework for the study of field-based Extension educators. Educational Orientation Educational orientation was defined by two distinctly different theories of 62 leanring. One of the theories was pedagogy and the other was andragogy. “The body of theory and practice on which teacher-directed learning is based is...labeled ‘pedagogy,’ from the Greek words paid (meaning child) and agogus (meaning guide or leader) - thus being defined as the art and science of teaching children” (Knowles, 1980, pp. 390). Andragogy was also derived fi'om Greek words and was first used by European educators to distinguish the leanring processes of adults from those of children. “The body of theory and practice on which self-directed leanring is based is...labeled ‘andragogy,’ from the Greek word aner (meaning adult) [ and agogus (meaning guide or leader)] - thus being defined as the art and science of helping adults (or, even better, maturing human beings) learn” (Ibid.). The pedagogical orientation model had its set of assumptions about learners that were distinctly difl‘erent from the assumptions about learners in the andragogical orientation model. For this research, the pedagogical orientation model and the andragogical orientation model were viewed as two continua, each with difi‘erent sets of assumptions about learners. On the pedagogical orientation model continuum, one end was characterized by strong or high pedagogical orientation assumptions about learners and on the other end, it was characterized by weak or low pedagogical orientation assumptions about learners. On the andragogical orientation model continuum, one end was characterized by strong or high andragogical orientation assumptions about learners and on the other end, it was characterized by weak or low andragogical orientation assumptions about learners. Given a set of assumptions about learners, an educator’s orientation falls between the extreme ends of the pedagogical orientation model continuum and the andragogical orientation model continuum. Assumptions about learners using the 63 pedagogical orientation model and assumptions about learners using the andragogical orientation model were quantatively measured and examined to determine the educational orientation of field-based Extension educators. This was operationalized by a pedagogical orientation mean score and an andragogical orientation mean score which were derived fiom the statement values of Part A‘ Educational Orientation of the questionnaire. Assumptions about Learners Knowles (1980) believed “andragogy is premised on...assumptions about the characteristics of learners that are different fiom the assumptions [central to]...traditional pedagogy. [One such assumption was] as individuals mature [meaning as individuals progress from ‘amorphous self-identity toward integrated self-identity’], their self-concept moves from one of being a dependent personality toward being a self-directed human being” (pp. 31 and 44). Becoming self-directed as a learner was the core of the concept of andragogy. In contrast, the concept of pedagogy was based on the assumption that learners have a dependent personality and their leanring must be directed by the teacher. “As individuals [Extension educators] mature: their self-concept moves fi'om one of being a dependent personality toward being a self-directed human being” (Ibid., pp. 44-45) was the theoretical assumption about learners that this study investigated. Knowles (1980, 1989) believed an ultimate need of learners was to mature. To consider maturing as a force for learning, he presents the idea of maturity more specifically. Taken fi'om the psychological literature, he derived the notion that there are fifteen dimensions of the maturing process, each with its own unique cycle of development. He explained these dimensions as “directions of growth,” not absolute 64 states to be achieved. His “dimensions of maturation” were: “(1) dependence toward autonomy; (2) passivity toward activity; (3) subjectivity toward objectivity; (4) ignorance toward enlightenment; (5) small abilities toward large abilities; (6) few responsibilities toward many responsibilities; (7) narrow interest toward broad interest; (8) selfishness toward altruism; (9) self-rejection toward self-acceptance; (10) amorphous self-identity toward integrated self-identity; (11) focus on particulars toward focus on principles; (12) superficial concerns toward deep concerns; (13) irrritation toward originality; (14) need for certainty toward tolerance for ambiguity; and (15) impulsiveness toward rationality” (pp. 29). Perhaps the most delicate and crucial of the dimensions of maturation is “amorphous self-identity to integrated self-identity” because it suggests a complex set of psychological events which could have a relationship to other dimensions of maturation. Knowles (1980) illustrated this dimension as “I don’t know who I am [or what I need]” to “I know clearly who I am [and what I need]”(pp. 31-32). According to Knowles, Erik Erikson provided the deepest insights into the “amorphous self-identity to integrated self- identity” dimension. Adult Development Erik Erikson (1963, 1968, 1982) provided the theoretical fi'amework to study maturing. For the purpose of this study, this construct was stated in the research questions as “adult development score,” and stated as adult development or psychosocial development in sections of the study. He conceived his view of self-identity, more precisely, human development as a set of eight epigenetic, psychosocial stages that 65 represented turning points in which both potential and vulnerability are greatly increased. This is a time when things may go well or poorly depending on one’s experiences in previous stages and one’s current life circumstances. Erikson’s eight epigenetic, psychosocial stages, as described by Knowles (1980), were: “(1) oral-sensory, in which the basic issue is trust versus mistrust; (2) muscular-anal, in which the basic issue is autonomy versus shame [and doubt]; (3) locomotion-genital, in which the basic issue is initiative versus guilt; (4) latency, in which the basic issue is industry versus inferiority; (5) puberty and adolescence, in which the basic issue is identity versus role confusion; (6) young adulthood, in which the basic issue is intimacy versus isolation; (7) adulthood, in which the basic issue is generativity versus stagnation; (8) maturity, in which the basic issue is ego integrity versus despair.” (pp. 31) No stage is completely fulfilled at any point in life. Each stage has a continuous process throughout life. However, if development at a given stage is frustrated, it is likely an individual will remain fixated and the continuous process at that stage could st0p for life. For this research, Erikson’s eight epigenetic stages were viewed on an aggregate contirmum. On one end of the continuum, the positive attribute were represented. The eight positive attributes were: (I) trust; (2) autonomy; (3) initiative; (4) industry; (5) identity; (6) intimacy; (7) generativity; and (8) ego integrity. On the other end of the continuum, the negative attribute were represented. The eight negative attributes were: (1) mistrust, (2) shame and doubt, (3) guilt; (4) inferiority; (5) confirsion; (6) isolation; (7) stagnation; and (8) despair. The eight positive attributes and the eight negative attributes were operationalized by one mean score for each stage that is derived from the positive and negative statements in Part B: Adult Development of the questionnaire, and an 66 aggregate mean score of the eight stage mean scores. The aggregate mean score was the adult development score referred to in the research questions. The Research Design The study followed a descriptive survey research design using a mailed questionnaire. This design was used because it provided the opportunity to make assertions about the population (Babbie, 1990). The sample survey was the vehicle for discovering traits about the respondents. The distribution of traits were measured in order to draw a comparable description of the population. According to Babbie (1995): “Survey research is probably the best method available to the social scientist interested in collecting original data for describing a population too large to observe directly.” (pp. 257) Descriptive survey research is viewed as having three advantages (Merriam and Simpson, 1984). These advantages are as follows: 1. It produces data that are accurate and representative. It describes “what is.” 2. The researcher is allowed to study relationships and events that are current to life situations. 3. The methodology is exploratory in nature. Not only can variables be studied that indicate probable cause, but additional variables may be discovered during the process of investigation. One limitation of descriptive survey research may be its lack of predictive power. As with this research, the design provided techniques to discover and describe “what is,” 67 but is unable to generalize or predict “what will be” (pp. 63). Descriptive survey research design was the fiamework for the discovery of knowledge in this study. Data obtained from the questionnaires were used to study the characteristics of the sample and to draw conclusions about the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators, and the relationship between educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their development as adults. The Population Frankel (1983) believed that the selection of the population was one of the most important stages of the research procedure and he described two types of populations. One type of population was called the target population which referred to the segment of individuals the research would like to sample, but due to time and resources limitations, was unable to do so. The other type of population was called the survey population which referred to the segment of individuals that were actually sampled. For this research, the target population was 9,529 Cooperative Extension Service field-based educators (U. S.D.A, 1995) who are responsible for planning, implementing and evaluating nonformal educational programs in the United States. The survey population was 309 Cooperative Extension Service educators who are responsible for planning, implementing and evaluating educational programs in the state of Michigan. The Sample Descriptive survey research methodology was the design used in this study. The 68 survey approach required selecting a portion of the population which was called the sample. The sample was defined as the portion of the population used to make assertions about the total population (Babbie, 1990). For this research, the survey population was the same as the sample. Specifically, 309 Cooperative Extension Service field-based educators were the survey population and the same 309 Cooperative Extension Service field-based educators were the sample. The approach used to identify the sample for this research is called nonprobability sampling. Nonprobability sampling is used when probability sampling would be prohibitively expensive and time consurrring (Babbie, 1990). The type of nonprobability sampling used in this research is called judgmental sampling and is based on the researcher’s “knowledge of the population, its elements, and the nature of [the]. . .research aims” (Ibid.,l995, pp. 225). Mailed Questionnaire This study used a survey in the form of a mailed questionnaire for data collection. The questionnaire had three sections. The first section of the questionnaire was called Part A“ Educational Orientation and was designed to investigate the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators. The second section of the questionnaire was called Part B: Adult Development and was designed to investigate the adult development held by field-based Extension educators. The third section of the questionnaire was called Part C: Background Information and was designed to investigate the personal characteristics held by field-based Extension educators. 69 Part A: Educational Orientation The first section of the questionnaire called Part A: Educational Orientation was originally developed by Hadley (1975), and later modified by Suvedi (1991), to investigate the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators. A review of the major validation concerns was presented by Hadley in support of its repeated use: “Reliability of the instrument was measured by test-retest reliability and coeficient alpha. Test-retest reliability measured 0.89, andwcoefiicient alpha was 0.94. The use validity of the Educational Orientation Questionnaire was its efi‘ectiveness in discriminating among adult educators. Analysis of variance demonstrated that the Educational Orientation Questionnaire detected differences in orientation (significant at the 0.05 level or less) with respect to variables of. Sex Subject Matter or Specialty, Level of Position, and Type of Organization. . Differences in Age of adult educators were not associated with significant difl'erences in orientation. The content validity was judged satisfactory. Predictive validity of the instrument based on the total scores was satisfactory with coeflicients ranging fi'om 0.24 to 0.49. However, predictive validity coeficients based on summary scores of items grouped by multiple regression range from 0.50 to 0.60 which were well above the usual such coefficients. Factor analysis of the Educational Orientation Questionnaire determined eight identifiable factors: Pedagogical Orientation, Andragogical Orientation, Competitive Motivation, Pedagogical Teaching, Social Distance, Student Undependability, Standardization, and Self-Directed Change. As anticipated, Pedagogical Orientation and Andragogical Orientation were dominant factors of the instrument” (Hadley, 1975, pp. 89- 99; Suvedi, 1991, pp. 57-58). 70 Suvedi’s (1991) modifications generated reliability coefficients for internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach alpha, as 0.73 and 0.72 for pedagogy and andragogy, respectively, on a five point Likert-type scale. Part A‘ Educational Orientation was designed to investigate the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators. Respondents were asked to indicate their attitude or position on 24 statements using a five point Likert-type scale. Twelve statements investigated pedagogical orientation and 12 statements investigated andragogical orientation. Pedagogical orientation statements and andragogical orientation statements were randomly distributed in Part A: Educational Orientation. Part B: Adult Development The second section of the questionnaire called Part B: Adult Development was the ‘ Modified Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory (MEPSI) It was designed by Darling- Fisher and Leidy (1987) “to measure the strength of psychosocial attributes that arise fi'om progression through Erik Erikson’s eight stages of development.” (1995, pp. 2) For this research, Part B: Adult Development was used to investigate the adult development of field-based Extension educators. This was operationalized by determining an adult development score which was the aggregate mean of the eight stages. When Darling-Fisher and Leidy (1988) evaluated MEPSI, they found: “alpha reliability coeflicients for the 80-item instrument were trust 0.82, autonomy 0.84, initiative 0.78, industry 0.88, identity 0.85, intimacy 0.78, generativity 0.75, ego integrity 0.80, and 0.97 for the entire scale. The construct validity was indicated by positive correlations between chronological age and the attributes associated with adulthood, an increase in the 71 mean generativity and ego integrity levels with age, and an association between the strength of attributes and participation in regular exercise. Reliability and validity of this modified inventory were supported” (pp. 747). Part B: Adult Development was used to investigate the adult development of field- based Extension educators. Respondents were asked to indicate their attitude on 80 statements on a five point Likert-type scale. Each of the eight Erikson stages had five statements that represent positive attributes and five statements that represent negative attributes. The eight Erikson psychosocial stages are: (l) trust-mistrust; (2) autonomy- shame and doubt; (3) initiative-guilt; (4) industry-inferiority; (5) identity-confusion; (6) intimacy-isolation; (7 ) generativity-stagnation; and (8) ego integrity-despair. The values derived from the ten statements for each stage were used to calculate a mean score for the stage. The eight stage mean scores were aggregated to a mean score which was referred to as the adult development score in the research questions. Part C: Background Information The third section of the questionnaire called Part C: Background Information was designed to investigate the personal characteristics held by field-based Extension educators. Respondents were asked to provide information about their personal characteristics on these following areas: (1) age; (2) gender; (3) years in current position; (4) years of Extension experience; (5) life stages; (6) undergraduate degree; (7) earned graduate degree; and (8) teaching experience. 72 Data Collection A packet was prepared and mailed to the sample of 309 field-based Cooperative Extension Service educators in the state of Michigan. All of the individuals of the sample were employed by the Cooperative Extension Service on or before September 1, 1995. Each packet contained: one questionnaire; one pre-addressed, postage-paid card; one pre- addressed, postage-paid envelope; and one cover letter addressed to the field-based Extension educator. Copies of the packet items are provided in Appendix A. The questionnaire was copied on .white paper and printed on both sides of a sheet. Each of the three sections began at the top of a page. The questionnaire was seven pages long on four sheets of paper and it had no identification system to link it to a respondent. The postcard was copied on gray card-stock paper. On one side was the return address and the postage stamp. On the other side of the card, respondents were asked to indicate that the questionnaire had been returned by providing their name. Also, respondents could request a copy of the study’s findings. The one page cover letter was printed on white paper with the name and address of the respondent. The letter contained the instructions for participating in the survey research. Each letter was personally signed by the researcher and the advisor. The contents of the packet were placed in a 6 ” by 8 ” white envelope with the name and address of the field-based Extension educator. All 309 field-based Extension educators received their personally address packet by way of the United States Mail Service. On September 25, 1995, 309 field-based Extension educators in the state of 73 Michigan were mailed the survey packet. They were asked to complete the questionnaire and return it in the pre-addressed, postage-paid envelope. Also, they were asked to complete the pre-addressed, postage-paid card and return it as soon as possible. This procedure allowed the researcher to identify respondents while maintaining anonymity. No returned questionnaire was linked to a respondent. A follow-up letter was prepared and sent to individuals who had not responded by October 16, 1995. The letters were individually addressed and mailed on October 16, 1995. A copy of the follow-up letter is in Appendix A. The last questionnaire that was included in the study was received on November 17, 1995. There were 262 returned questionnaires. Each one was coded and entered into the a microcomputer data file. Data Analysis Data were coded and analyzed using SPSS 6.1 for Windows microcomputer sofiware. The data were examined by way of frequency counts to see if there were entry errors and missing data. Inconsistencies and errors were corrected in the data file. Once all the data were in the computer file, cases were examined for missing data. Cases were discarded if more than two statements had missing responses in Part A: Educational Orientation and Part B: Adult Development combined, or if any item in Part C: Background Information was omitted by the respondent. The remaining cases were used in the analyses of this study. The initial analyses were done to generate demographic information about the 74 respondents. Frequencies, ranges, percentages and measurements of central tendencies were performed for the questionnaire statements and variables. The variables of Part A: Educational Orientation and Part B: Adult Development were examined and descriptive data were generated for each respondent. An analysis of the internal reliability was performed and Cronbach’s alpha was determined for Part A: Educational Orientation, and Part BzAdult Development of the questionnaire. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at 0.71 for pedagogical orientation, 0.66 for andragogical orientation and 0.90 for adult development. Part A' Educational Orientation was designed to investigate the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators. Respondents were asked to indicate their attitude or position on twenty-four statements using a five point Likert-type scale. Twelve statements investigated pedagogical orientation and twelve statements investigated andragogical orientation. Pedagogical orientation statements and andragogical orientation statements were randomly distributed in Part A: Educational Orientation. The second section of the questionnaire called Part B: Adult Development was the Modified Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory (MEPSI). Respondents were asked to indicate on a five point Likert-type scale their answer to this question: How often is this true for you? The instrument was designed to measure the strength of psychosocial attributes that arise from progression through Erik Erikson’s eight stages of development. Each stage was represented by ten statements in Part B: Adult Development. There were eighty total statements that were randomly listed. Descriptive statistics including mean scores and standard deviations were used to analyze the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators. T-tests were 75 performed to analyze the relationship between educational orientation and personal characteristics. Pearson’s product moment correlation coeflicient was computed to determine the linear relationship between educational orientation and such variables as age, years in current position, and years of Extension experience. Adult development was analyzed using descriptive statistics including mean scores for each stage and an aggregate score of the eight stages. These statistics were performed to analyze the adult development of field-based Extension educators. T- tests were computed to analyze the relationship between adult development scores and personal characteristics. Pearson’s product moment correlation coeficient was used to determine the linear relationship between adult development scores and variables such as age, years in current position, and years of Extension experience. T-tests and Pearson’s product moment correlation coeficient were used to investigate the relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their adult development score. CHAPTER IV RESULTS The sample for this study consisted of 309 field-based Extension educators. The rate of response was determined. These data are in Table 1. Table 1. Gender of respondents. Gender Number Number Response sent responded rate (7.) Women 141 126 89.36 Men 168 135 80.36 Total 309 262* 84.79 *One questionnaire had no response to the gender item. As shown in Table 1, the response rate for women was 89.36 percent and the response rate for men was 80.36 percent. For all respondents, the response rate was 84.79 percent. Each submitted questionnaire was coded and reviewed for useability. Questionnaires were discarded if more than two statements had missing responses in Part A: Educational Orientation and Part B: Adult Development combined, or if any item in Part C: Background Information was omitted. Twenty seven questionnaires were discarded. 76 77 The number of respondents for analysis was determined. These data are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Number of respondents for the study. Number Number Number for responded removed analysis Respondents 262 27 235 All data analyses of this research included 235 respondents. Characteristics of Respondents Respondents were asked to provide personal information in Part C: Background Information of the questionnaire. This information was used to better understand the characteristics of the respondents. The characteristics of the respondents provided in this chapter include age, gender, years in current position, years of Extension experience, life stages, undergraduate degree, graduate degree and experience as a teacher. Age Respondents were asked to provide years of age. These data are shown in Table 3. Table 3. Respondents by selected age groups and gender. (N=235) Selected age Women Men Women and Men groups % (no.) '/o (no.) % (no.) 22 through 29 years 7.20 (8) 8.87 (11) 8.09 (19) Tables 3 (cont’d). 78 Selected age Women Men Women and Men goups % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) 30 through 39 years 20.73 (23) 25.81 (32) 23.40 (55) 40 through 49 years 41.44 (46) 37.10 (46) 39.15 (92) 50 through 59 years 27.03 (30) 27.41 (34) 27.23 (64) 60 through 70 years 3.60 (4) 0.81 (l) 2.13 (5) AllAges 100 (111) 100 (124) 100 (235) Minimum age=22 years Maximum age=70 years As shown in Table 3, 39.15 percent of the respondents were in the 40 though 49 years range. Also, 27.23 percent of the respondents were in the 50 though 59 years range. The mean age was calculated for each age group and by gender. These data is shown in Appendix B. The mean age of the respondents was determined. These data shown in Table 4. Table 4. Mean age of respondents. (N=235) Respondents Mean Standard deviation Women 44.44 9.31 Men 42.56 8.88 Women and men 43.45 9.12 As shown in Table 4, the mean age of all respondents was 43.45 and the standard deviation was 9.12. 79 Gender Respondents were asked to identify their gender. These data are shown in Table 5. Table 5. Respondents by gender. (N=235) Gender Number . Respondents of by respondents percentage (%) Women 1 1 l 47.23 Men 124 52.77 Total 235 100 As shown in Table 5, women were 47 .23 percent of the respondents and men were 52.77 percent of the respondents. Years in Current Position Respondents were asked to indicate the number of years in their current positions. These data are shown in Table 6. Table 6. Current position by selected ranges and gender. (N=235) Selected ranges Women Men Women and Men % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Less than one year 8.11 (9) 11.29 (14) 9.79 (23) lto6years 44.14 (49) 41.13 (51) 42.55 (100) 6 to 11 years 22.52 (25) 20.16 (25) 21.28 (50) 11 to 16 years 10.81 (12) 10.48 (13) 10.64 (25) Table 6 (cont’d). 80 Selected ranges Women Men Women and Men °/o (no.) % (no.) % (no.) 16 to 21 years 7.21 (8) 12.10 (15) 9.79 (23) 21 to 26 years 6.31 (7) 4.64 (6) 5.53 (13) 26 years and over 0.90 (1) No respondentsgL 0.42 (1) Total 100 (111) 100(124) 100 (235) Range=0.10 through 26 years. As shown in Table 6, 42.55 percent of the respondents were in the 1 to 6 years range. Also, 21.28 percent of the respondents were in the 6 to 11 years range. The mean years in current position were calculated for the selected ranges and gender. These data are shown in Appendix B. The mean years in current position were determined. These data are in Table 7. Table 7. Mean years in current position by gender. (N=235) Respondents Mean Standard deviation Women 7.66 6.90 Men 7.19 6.65 Women and men 7.41 6.76 As shown in Table 7, the mean years in current position was 7.41 and the standard deviation was 6.76 of the respondents. 81 Years of Extension Experience Respondents were asked to indicate their years of Extension experience. These data are shown in Table 8. Table 8. Extension experience by selected ranges and gender. (N=235) Selected ranges Women Men Women and Men % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Less than one year 2.70 (3) 6.45 (8) 4.68 (11) 1 to 6 years 27.03 (30) 18.55 (23) 22.55 (53) 6 to 11 years 19.82 (22) 22.58 (28) 21.28 (50) 11 to 16 years 14.41 (16) 16.13 (20) 15.32 (36) 16 to 21 years 21.63 (24) 16.94 (21) 19.15 (45) 21 to 26 years 9.91 (11) 10.48 (13) 10.21 (24) 26 years and over 4.50 (5) 8.87 (11) 6.81 (16) Total 100 (111) 100(124) 100 (235) Range=0. 10 through 32.00 years. As shown in Table 8, 22.55 percent of the respondents were in the 1 to 6 years range. Also, 21 .28 percent of the respondents were in the 6 to 11 years range. The mean years of Extension experience were calculated for each selected range and by gender. These data are shown in Appendix B. The mean years of Extension experience were determined. These data are shown in Table 9. 82 Table 9. Mean years of Extension experience by gender. (N=235) Respondents Mean Standard deviation Women 11.76 7.72 Men 12.30 8.47 Women and men 12.05 - 8.11 As shown in Table 9, the mean years of Extension experience for all respondents were 12.05 and the standard deviation was 8.11. Life Stages Respondents were asked to identify which one of three life stages best characterizes their current period of life. They could select either early transition (Life is in a state of change and uncertain about exactly where it is leading), or late transition (Life is in a state of change, but ambiguity about the firture is becoming less a factor), or stable (Life is highly predictable with few unexpected changes). These data are shown in Table 10. As shown in Table 10, 39.15 percent of the respondents indicated their life stage as stable, 37.87 percent in late transition and 22.98 percent in early transition. 83 Table 10. Life stages by gender. (N=235) Life Stages Women Men Women and Men '/o (no.) °/o (no.) % (no.) Early Transition 21.62 (24) 24.19 (30) 22.98 (54) Late Transition 40.54 (45) 35.48 (44) 37.87 (89) Stable 37.84 (42) 40.33 (50) 39.15 (92) Total 100 (111) 100 (124) 100(235) Undergraduate Degree Respondents were asked to indicate their undergraduate major. These data are shown in Table 11. As shown in Table 11, 33.19 percent of the respondents indicated agriculture as their major. The home econonrics major was indicated by 20.85 percent of the respondents. Also, the education majors were indicated by 12.77 percent of the respondents. Graduate Degree Respondents were asked to indicate whether a graduate degree had been earned. Each respondent answered this question: “Do you have a graduate degree? - yes or no.” These data are shown in Table 12. As shown in Table 12, 63.83 percent of the respondents had earned a graduate degree and 36.17 percent had no graduate degree. Table 11. Undergraduate degree majors by gender. (N =23 5) Degree majors Women Men Women and Men % (no.) % (no.) '/o (no.) Agriculture 10.82 (12) 53.23 (66) 33.19 (78) Human Ecology 43.24 (48) 0.81 (1) 20.85 (49) Education adult and continuing“ 0.00 (0) 2.42 (3) 1.28 (3) K - 12 grades“ 19.82 (22) 4.03 (5) 11.49 (27) Natural Sciences 4.51 (5) 9.68 (12) 7.23 (17) Social Sciences 7.21 (8) 7.26 (9) 7.23 (17) Business 1.80 (2) 5.65 (7) 3.83 (9) Natural Resources 2.70 (3) 4.84 (6) 3.83 (9) Arts and Humanities 1.80 (2) 3.23 (4) 2.55 (6) Public Administration 0 (0) 4.84 (6) 2.55 (6) Resource Development 2.70 (3) 2.42 (3) 2.55 (6) Communications Arts and Sciences 270(3) 1.61 (2) 2.13 (5) Health Sciences 2.70 (3) 0(0) 1.28 (3) Total 100 (111) 100(124) 100(235) * These numbers are included within the Education category. Table 12. Do you have a graduate degree? (N=235) Response Women Men Men and Women % (no.) % (no.) '/o (no.) Yes 56.76 (63) 70.16 (87) 63.83 (150) No 43.24 (48) 29.84 (37) 36. 17 (85) Total 100 (111) 100 (124) 100 (235) 85 The respondents who had earned a graduate degree were asked to indicate their major. These data are in Table 13. Table 13. Graduate degree majors. (N=150) Graduate degree Women Men Women and Men majors '/o (no.) °/o (no.) % (no.) Education adult and continuing“ 22.22 (14) 17.24 (15) 19.33 (29) K- 12 grades" 17.46 (11) 13.79(12) 15.33 (23) Agriculture 4.76 (3) 44.83 (39) 28.00 (42) Human Ecology 28.57 (18) 0.00 (0) 12.00 (18) Natural Resources 4.76 (3) 6.90 (6) 6.00 (9) Business 3.17 (2) 5.75 (5) 4.67 (7) Health Sciences 3.14 (4) 0.00 (0) 2.67 (4) Natural Sciences 3.17 (2) 2.30 (2) 2.67 (4) Public Administration 3.17 (2) 2.30 (2) 2.67 (4) Social Sciences 3.17 (2) 2.30 (2) 2.67 (4) Resource Development 1.59 (1) 2.30 (2) 200(3) Arts and Humanities 1.59 (1) 0.00 (0) 0.67 (1) Communication Arts andSciences 0.00 (0) 1.15 (1) 067(1) Law 000(0) 1.15 (1) 0.67 (1) Total 100 (63) 100 (87) 100 (150) *These numbers are indicated within the education category. As shown in Table 13, 33.66 percent of the respondents earned education graduate degrees and 28.00 percent earned agriculture degrees. Also, 12.00 percent of the 86 respondents had home economics graduate degrees. Teaching Experience Respondents were asked to indicate their experience as a teacher in formal education. Each respondent answered this question: “Have you ever been a school (k-12) or post-secondary teacher? - yes or no.” These data are shown in Table 14. Table 14. Teaching experience. (N=235) Response Women Men Men and Women % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Yes 45.90 (51) 31.50 (39) 38.30 (90) No 54.10 (60) 68.50 (85) 61.70 (145) Total 100 (111) 100 (124) 100 (235) As shown in Table 14, 38.30 percent of the respondents had teaching experience and 61.70 percent had no teaching experience. Educational Orientation of Respondents The first research question of this study pertained to the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators. Specifically, the research question was as follows: What is the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators? Part A' Educational Orientation of the questionnaire presented twenty-four statements which were used to examine educational orientation. The instrument surveyed respondents’ 87 attitudes toward education, teaching and leanring on both pedagogical orientation and andragogical orientation. There were twelve statements for pedagogical orientation and twelve statements for andragogical orientation. The twenty-four statements were randomly listed in Part A' Educational Orientation. The statements were responded to on a five point Likert-type scale. Each field- based Extension educator was asked to select one of five positions which best represented their attitude or viewpoint on a statement. The five positions were: SA—I strongly agree with this statement. A-I agree with this statement. U—I’m uncertain about this statement. D—I disagree with this statement. SD—I strongly disagree with this statement. The positions were coded on a 1 through 5 scale for statistical analyses. The code for each position was SA=5, A=4, U=3, D=2, and SD=1. Pedagogical orientation was defined for each respondent by examining the values for statements 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 23 in Part A: Educational Orientation of the questionnaire. A pedagogical orientation score was obtained for each respondent by calculating the mean of the twelve numerical values derived from the pedagogical statements. Andragogical orientation was defined for each respondent by examining the values for statements 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, and 24 in Part A ofthe questionnaire. An andragogical orientation score was obtained for each respondent by calculating the mean of the twelve numerical values derived from the andragogical statements. 88 The pedagogical orientation mean scores and andragogical orientation mean scores of respondents were used in the descriptive analyses of the data. Pedagogical Orientation The pedagogical orientation mean scores of the respondents ranged from 1.58 to 4.42 on a 1 through 5 scale. The pedagogical orientation mean score for all respondents was 3.11 and the standard deviation was 0.47. The fi'equency distribution of the pedagogical orientation mean scores were examined and categorized as low, moderate or high. A low pedagogical orientation score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high pedagogical orientation score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. A moderate pedagogical orientation mean score was defined as between one standard deviation above and one standard deviation below the mean of the respondents. These data are shown in Table 15. Table 15. Level of pedagogical orientation mean scores. (N=235) Level of Range of Respondents pedagogical scores orientation score % (no.) Low 52.65 13.61 (32) Moderate >2.65 and <3.58 68.94 (162) High 23.58 17.45 (41) Total All scores. 100 (235) 89 As shown in Table 15, 13.61 percent of the respondents had a low pedagogical orientation mean score, 68.94 percent had a moderate pedagogical orientation mean score, and 17.45 percent had a high pedagogical orientation mean score. The twelve pedagogical orientation statements were examined individually to determine their mean and standard deviation. These data are shown in Table 16. As shown in Table 16, the range of statement mean scores was 2.18 through 4.16 for pedagogical orientation. The pedagogical orientation mean score for all respondents was 3.11 and the standard deviation was 0.47. Andragogical Orientation The andragogical orientation mean scores for field-based Extension educators ranged fiom 2.67 through 4.67 on a 1 through 5 scale. The andragogical orientation mean score for all respondents was 3.81 and the standard deviation was 0 .38. The frequency distribution of the andragogical orientation mean scores were examined and categorized as low, moderate or high. A low andragogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high andragogical orientation score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. A moderate andragogical orientation mean score was defined as between one standard deviation above and one standard deviation below the mean of the respondents. These date are shown in Table 17. 90 Table 16. Pedagogical orientation statement mean scores. (N=235) Pedagogical orientation statements Respondents (Part A statement no.) mean (sd) Education should focus on what is sure, reliable and lasting. (1) 2.85 (1.04) Clientele need a strong Extension educator who can direct their learning. (2) 2.98 (1.11) Learning is an intellectual process of understanding ideas (concepts) and acquiring skills. (3) 4.16 (0.73) An Extension educator should help clientele accept values of our society. (8) 2.31 (0.88) It is an Extension educator’s responsibility to motivate clientele to learn what they ought to learn. (9) 2.71 (1.06) Clear explanation by the Extension educator is essential for efi‘ective learning. (10) 3.83 (0.89) A good Extension educator makes the decisions about what should be taught, when, and how. ( 12) 2.18 (0.89) An Extension educator should be sure his/her questions steer clientele toward truth. (14) 3.41 (1.00) The major qualifications of an Extension educator are grasp of the subject matter and ability to explain (demonstrate) it clearly and interestingly. (17) 3.65 (1.04) Education should lead pe0ple to goals that result in orderly, reasonable lives. (19) 3.17 (0.99) Evaluations prepared by the clientele are usually just as effective as those prepared by the Extension educator. (20) 3.09 (0.87) An Extension educator who does not carefirlly plan the work for a program is taking advantage of the client’sfiignorance. (23) 3.01 (0.98) 91 Table 17. Level of andragogical orientation mean scores. (N=23 5) Level of Range Respondents andragogical of orientation score scores % (no.) Low $3.43 18.30 (43) Moderate >3.43 and <4.19 67.23 (158) High 24.19 14.47 (34) Total All scores 100 (23 5) As shown in Table 17, 18.30 percent of the respondents had a low andragogical orientation mean score, 67.23 percent had a moderate andragogical orientation mean score, and 14.47 percent had a high andragogical orientation mean score. The twelve andragogical orientation statements were examined individually to determine their mean and standard deviation. These data are shown in Table 18. As shown in Table 18, the range of statement mean scores was 2.77 through 4.49 for the andragogical orientation. The andragogical orientation mean score for all respondents was 3.81 and the standard deviation was 0.38. 92 Table 18. Andragogical orientation statement mean scores. (N=235) Andragogical orientation statements Respondents (Part A statement no.) mean (sd) Efl'ective learning occurs most often when clientele actively participate in deciding what is to be learned and how. (4) 4.49 (0.77) Organization of the content and sequence of learning activities should grow out of clientele needs, with their participation. (5) 4.36 (0.72) It should be the Extension educators’ responsibility to evaluate clientele achievements and to determine the extent oflearning. (6) 3.05 (1.01) The best sources of ideas for improving educational programs are the clientele. (7) 3.95 (0.83) An Extension educator’s primary responsibility is helping clientele choose and develop their own directions for learning(l 1) 3.84 (0.93) Evaluating his/her achievement should be primarily a responsibility of the client since he/she has the necessary data. (13) 3.40 (0.94) Educational objectives should define changes in behavior which the clientele desire and the Extension educator helps them undertake. (15) 4.03 (0.69) Extension clientele are quite competent to choose and carry out their own projects for learning. (16) 3.48 (0.92) It is better for clientele to create their own learning activities and materials than for the Extension educator to provide them (18) 2.77 (0.90) The goals that the clientele set for themselves, rather than the goals that the Extension educator sets for the clientele, are the basis for efl'ective learning. (21) 4.14 (0.73) An Extension educator’s mission is to help each client learn what he/she decides will aid in the achieving of his/her personal goals. (22) 4.14 (0.69) Planning units of work should be done by clientele and Extension educators together. (24) 4.02 (0.73) 93 Relating Personal Characteristics and Educational Orientation The second research question of this study pertained to the relationship between personal characteristics and educational orientation of the respondents. Specifically, the research question was as follows: Is there a relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their personal characteristics? Relating Personal Characteristics and Pedagogical Orientation Age of the respondents was the first personal characteristic variable examined in relationship to pedagogical orientation. Age. Pedagogical orientation mean scores were examined in relationship to age of the respondents. The mean age of the respondents was 43 .45 and the standard deviation was 9.12. The pedagogical orientation mean score of the respondents was 3.11 and the standard deviation was 0.47. The pedagogical orientation mean scores were examined and categorized into low, moderate and high levels. A low pedagogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high pedagogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean of all the respondents. A moderate pedagogical orientation mean score was defined as between one standard deviation below and one standard deviation above the mean of all the respondents. The frequency of pedagogical orientation mean scores among those with ages below the mean and equal to or greater than the mean age were determined. These data are shown in Table 19. As shown in Table 19, there were 119 “young” respondents and 116 “old” respondent. 94 Table 19. Level of pedagogical orientation scores by age. (N=235) Level of Range Young Old All ages pedagogical of <43.45 243.45 orientation scores score % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Low $2.65 12.61 (15) 14.66 (17) 13.62 (32) Moderate >265 and <3.58 66.39 (79) 71.55 (83) 68.94 (162) High 23.58 21.00 (25) 13.79 (16) 17.45 (41) Total All scores 100 (119) 100 (116) 100 (235) The pedagogical orientation mean score, standard deviation and range of scores were determined for ages below and equal to or greater than the mean age. These data are shown in Table 20. Table 20. Pedagogical orientation descriptive data by age. (N=23 5) Statistical measures ' Young Old <43.45 243.45 Mean 3. l 5 3 .07 Standard deviation 0.50 0.44 lit—lange 1.58-4.42 1.58—4.25 A t-test was performed to see if there was a difference between the pedagogical orientation mean score for respondents below the mean age and for the respondents equal to or greater than the mean age. These data are shown in Table 21. As shown in Table 21, there was no significant difference between the pedagogical 95 orientation mean score of the “young” respondents and the pedagogical orientation mean score of the “old” respondents. Table 21. T- test of pedagogical orientation scores for age groups. (N=235) Means (sd) n t-value Probability 3.15 (0.50) 119 3.07 (0.44) 116 - 1.22 0.224 p<.01 Additional analyses were performed by examining the pedagogical orientation mean scores of respondents one standard deviation below the mean age and the respondents one standard deviation above the mean age. This more stringent grouping was done to see if it might yield difi‘erences in pedagogical orientation mean scores. These data are shown in Table 22. Table 22. Pedagogical orientation mean scores by stringent age groups. (n=7 8) Statistical measures Youngest Oldest <43.45 243.45 Mean 3.20 3.07 Standard deviation 0.54 0.44 Number of respondents 41 37 96 A t-test was performed to see if there was a significant difference between the pedagogical orientation mean scores for respondents in the two stringent age groups. These data are shown in Table 23. Table 23. T-test of pedagogical orientation mean scores. (n=78) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.20 (0.54) 41 3.07 (0.44) 37 - 1.16 0.246 p<.01 As shown in Table 23, there was no significant difi’erence between the pedagogical mean score of the “youngest” respondents and the pedagogical orientation mean score of the “oldest” respondents. Gender. Pedagogical orientation mean scores were examined in relationship to gender of the respondents. The pedagogical orientation mean scores were examined and categorized into low, moderate and high levels. A low pedagogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high pedagogical orientation score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean of all the respondents. A moderate pedagogical mean orientation score was defined as between one standard deviation below and one standard deviation above the mean of all the respondents. The frequency of pedagogical orientation mean scores at each level by gender were determined. These data are shown in Table 24. 97 Table 24. Level of pedagogical orientation by gender. (N =235) Level of Range Women Men All pedagogical of orientation scores score % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Low $2.65 18.02 (20) . 9.68 (12) 13.61 (32) Moderate >2.65 and <3.58 67.57 (75) 70.16 (87) 68.94 (162) High 23.58 14.41 (16) 20.16 (25) 17.45 (41) Total All scores 100 (111) 100 (124) 100 (235) As shown in Table 24, there were 111 women respondents and 124 men respondents. The pedagogical orientation score, standard deviation and range of scores were determined by gender. These data are shown in Table 25. Table 25. Pedagogical orientation descriptive data by gender. (N=235) Statistical measures Women Men Mean 3.04 3.18 Standard deviation 0.49 ' 0.45 we 1.58-4.42 1.58-4.25 A t-test was performed to see if there was a difi‘erence between the pedagogical orientation mean scores of women and the pedagogical orientation mean scores of men. These data are shown in Table 26. 98 Table 26. T-test of pedagogical orientation mean scores by gender. (N=235) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.04 (0.49) 111 3.18 (0.45) 124 - 2.33 0.021 p<.01 As shown in Table 26, there was no significant difference between pedagogical orientation mean scores of women and the pedagogical orientation mean scores of men. Years in current position. Pedagogical orientation scores were examined in relationship to the years in current position of the respondents. The mean years in current position was 7 .41 and the standard deviation was 6.76. The pedagogical orientation mean scores were examined and categorized into low, moderate and high levels. A low pedagogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high pedagogical orientation score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean of all the respondents. A moderate pedagogical orientation mean score was defined as between one standard deviation below and one standard deviation above the mean of all the respondents. The fi'equency of pedagogical orientation mean scores at each level was determined for respondents below the mean years in current position and for respondents equal to or greater than the mean years in current position. These data are shown in Table 27. As shown in Table 27, there were 146 respondents below the mean years in current position and 89 respondents equal to or greater than the mean years in current position. 99 Table 27. Pedagogical orientation scores by years in current position. (N=235) Level of Range Current Current All years pedagogical of position position orientation scores years years score <7.4l 27.41 % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Low $2.65 16.44 (24) 8.99 (8) 13.62 (32) Moderate >.2.65 and <3.58 64.38 (94) 76.40 (68) 68.94 (162) High 23.58 19.17 (28) 14.61 (13) 17.45 (41) Total All scores 100 (146) 100 (89) 100 (23 5) The pedagogical orientation mean score, standard deviation and range of scores were determined for respondents who were below the mean years in current position and for respondents who were equal to or greater than the mean years in current position. These data are shown in Table 28. Table 28. Pedagogical orientation descriptive data by years in current position. (N=235) Statistical measures Current position years Current position years <7.41 27.41 Mean 3.10 3.13 Standard deviation 0.50 0.41 we 1.58-4.42 1.58-4.17 A t-test was performed to see if there was a difi‘erence between the pedagogical orientation mean scores of respondents below the mean years in current position and for 100 the respondents who were equal to or greater than the mean years in current position. These data are shown in Table 29. Table 29. T-test of pedagogical orientation mean scores. (N=235) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.10 (0.50) 146 3.13 (0.41) 89 0.57 0.572 p<.01 As shown in Table 29, there was no significant difference between the pedagogical orientation mean scores of respondents who were below the mean years in current position and the respondents who were equal to or greater than the mean years in current position. Additional analyses were performed by examining the pedagogical orientation mean scores of respondents one standard deviation below the mean years in current position and the respondents one standard deviation above the mean years in current position. This more stringent grouping was done to see if it might yield difi‘erences in pedagogical orientation mean scores. These data are in Table 30. A t-test was performed to see if there was a significant difference between the pedagogical orientation mean scores of respondents in the two stringent groups. These data are shown in Table 31. 101 Table 30. Pedagogical orientation descriptive data by stringent groups. (n=61) Statistical measures Current position years Current position years <7.4l 27.41 Mean 3.24 3.22 Standard deviation 0.53 0.37 Number of respondents 20 41 Table 31. T-test of pedagogical orientation mean scores by stringent groups. (n=61) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.24 (0.53) 20 3.22 (0.37) 41 - 0.10 0.912 p<.01 As shown in Table 31, there was no significant difference between the pedagogical orientation mean scores of respondents in the stringent groups. Years of Extension experience. Pedagogical orientation mean scores were examined in relationship to years of Extension experience. The mean years of Extension experience was 12.05 and the standard deviation was 8.11. The pedagogical orientation mean scores were examined and categorized into low, moderate and high levels. A low pedagogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high pedagogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. A moderate pedagogical orientation mean score was defined as between one standard deviation below and one standard deviation above the mean of the 102 respondents. The frequency of pedagogical orientation mean scores at each level was determined for respondents below the mean years of Extension experience and for respondents equal to or greater than the mean years of Extension experience. These data are shown in Table 32. Table 32. Pedagogical orientation scores by years of Extension experience. Level of Range Extension Extension All years pedagogical of experience experience orientation scores years years score <12.05 2 12.05 % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Low $2.65 16.00 (20) 10.91 (12) 13.62 (32) Moderate >2.65 and <3.58 64.00 (80) 74.55 (82) 68.94 (162) High 23.58 20.00 (25) 14.55 (16) 17.45 (41) Total All scores 100 (125) 100 (110) 100 (235) N=235 As shown in Table 32, there were 125 respondents below the mean years of Extension experience and 110 respondents equal to or greater than the mean years of Extension experience. The pedagogical orientation mean score, standard deviation and range of scores were determined for respondents who were below the mean years of Extension experience and for respondents who were equal to or greater than the mean years of Extension experience. The data are shown in Table 33. A t-test was performed to see if there was a difi’erence between the pedagogical orientation mean scores of respondents who were below the mean years of Extension 103 experience and respondents who were equal to or greater than the mean years of Extension experience. These data are shown in Table 34 Table 33. Pedagogical orientation descriptive data. (N=235) Statistical measures Extension experience Extension experience years years <12.05 2 12.05 Mean 3.11 3.11 Standard deviation 0. 52 0.52 Range 1.58-4.42 2.17-4.25 Table 34. T-test of pedagogical orientation scores by Extension experience. Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.11 (0.52) 125 3.11 (0.52) 110 - 0.01 0.992 p<.01; N=235 As shown in Table 34, there was no significant difference between the pedagogical orientation mean scores of respondents who were below the mean years of Extension experience and respondents who were equal to or greater than the mean years of Extension experience. Additional analyses were performed by examining the pedagogical orientation mean scores of respondents who are one standard deviation below and one standard 104 deviation above the mean years of Extension experience. This more stringent grouping was done to see if it might yield difi‘erences in pedagogical orientation mean scores. These data are shown in Table 35 . A t-test was performed to see if there was a significant difl’erence between the pedagogical orientation mean scores for respondents in the stringent groups. These data are shown in Table 36. Table 35. Pedagogical orientation mean scores by stringent groups. (n=80) Statistical measures Extension experience Extension experience years years <12.05 2 12.05 Mean 3.29 3.11 Standard deviation 0.45 0.37 Number of respondents 40 4O Table 36. T-test of pedagogical orientation mean scores by stringent groups. (n=80) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.29 (0.45) 40 3.11 (0.37) 40 - 1.89 0.063 p<.01 As shown in Table 36, there was no significant difl'erence between the pedagogical orientation mean scores of respondents in the stringent groups. Life stages. Pedagogical orientation scores were examined in relationship to life stages. 105 The stages were early transition, late transition and stable. The pedagogical orientation mean scores were examined and categorized into low, moderate and high levels. A low pedagogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high pedagogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean for all respondents. A moderate pedagogical orientation mean score was defined as between one standard deviation below and one standard deviation above the mean for all respondents. The frequency of pedagogical orientation mean scores in relationship to the life stages were determined. These date are shown in Table 37. Table 37. Level of pedagogical orientation scores by life stages. (N=235) Level of Range Early Late Stable All pedagogical of transition transition stages orientation scores score % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Low $2.65 12.96 (7) 17.98 (16) 9.78 (9) 13.62 (32) Moderate >265 and 61.11 (33) 62.92 (56) 79.35 68.94 (162) <3.58 (73) High 23.58 25.93 (14) 19.10 (17) 10.87(10) 17.45 (41) Total All scores 100 (54) 100 (89) 100 (92) 100 (235) As shown in Table 37, there were 143 in the transition stages, early and late combined, and 92 in the stable stage. The pedagogical orientation mean score, standard deviation and range of scores were determined for respondents in a transition stage of both early and late transition, and respondents in the stable stage. These data are shown in Table 38. 106 Table 38. Pedagogical orientation descriptive data by life stages. (N=235) Statistical measures Transition Stable Mean 3.19 3.10 Standard deviation 0.49 0.43 Lange 1.58-4.42 1.58-4.25 A t-test was performed to see if there was difference between the pedagogical orientation mean scores of respondents in the transition stage and the respondents in stable stage. These data are shown in Table 39. Table 39. T-test of pedagogical orientation scores by life stages. (N=235) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.19 (0.49) 143 3.10 (0.43) 92 0.33 0.742 p<.01 As shown in Table 39, there is no significant difference between the pedagogical orientation mean scores of respondents in the combined transition stage and the respondents in the stable stage. Graduate degree. Pedagogical orientation mean scores were examined in relationship to respondents with a graduate degree and respondents without a graduate degree. The pedagogical orientation mean scores were examined and categorized into low, moderate and high levels. A low pedagogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high pedagogical orientation mean score was defined as —E———’ _ A ' u Prue-s. - 107 one standard deviation above the mean of all the respondents. A moderate pedagogical orientation score was defined as between one standard deviation below and one standard deviation above the mean of all the respondents. The fi'equency of pedagogical orientation scores at each level were determined for respondents with a graduate degree and for respondents without a graduate degree. These date are shown in Table 40. Table 40. Level of pedagogical orientation scores by graduate degree. (N=23 5) Level of Range Earned Without All pedagogical of graduate graduate orientation scores degree degree score % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Low $2.65 12.67 (19) 15.29 (13) 13.62 (32) Moderate >265 and<3.58 70.00 (105) 67.06 (57) 68.94 (162) High 23.58 17.33 (26) 17.65 (15) 17.45 (41) Total All scores 100 (150) 100 (85) 100 (235) As shown in Table 40, there were 150 respondents who earned a graduate degree and 85 respondents with no graduate degree. The pedagogical orientation mean score, standard deviation and range of scores were determined for respondents who had earned a graduate degree and for respondents who had no graduate degree. These data are shown in Table 41. 108 Table 41. Pedagogical orientation descriptive data by graduate degree. (N=235) Statistical measures Earned graduate “£3 Withfl- graduate degr__ele_ Mean 3.11 3.11 Standard Deviation - 0.45 0.50 Range 1.58-4.42 1.58-4.25 A t-test was performed to see if the was a difference between the pedagogical orientation mean scores of respondents who earned a graduate degree and the respondents with no graduate degree. These date are shown in Table 42. Table 42. T-test of pedagogical orientation mean scores by graduate degree. (N=235) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.11 (0.45) 150 3.11 (0.50) 85 -0.01 0.992 p<.01 As shown in Table 42, there was no significant difference between the pedagogical orientation scores of respondents who had earned a graduate degree and respondents who had no graduate degree. Teaching experience. Pedagogical orientation mean scores were examined in relationship to teaching experience. Pedagogical orientation mean scores of respondents with teaching experience and pedagogical orientation mean scores of respondents without teaching experience were determined. The pedagogical orientation mean scores were examined and categorized into low, moderate and high levels. A low pedagogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high 109 pedagogical orientation score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. A moderate pedagogical orientation mean score was defined as between one standard deviation below and one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. The fi'equency of pedagogical orientation mean scores at each level were determined for respondents with and for respondents without teaching experience. These date are shown in Table 43. Table 43. Level of pedagogical orientation mean scores by teaching experience. (N=235) Level of Range With teaching Without All pedagogical of experience teaching orientation scores experience score % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Low $2.65 15.56 (14) 12.41 (18) 13.62 (32) Moderate >265 and<3.58 65.56 (59) 71.03 (103) 68.94 (162) High 23.58 18.89 (17) 16.55 (24) 17.45 (41) Total All scores 100 (90) 100 (145) 100 (235) As shown in Table 43, there were 90 respondents with teaching experience and 145 respondents without teaching experience. The pedagogical orientation score, standard deviation and range of scores were determined for respondents with teaching experience and for respondents without teaching experience. These data are shown in Table 44. 110 Table 44. Pedagogical orientation descriptive data by teaching experience. (N=235) Statistical measures With teaching Without teaching experience experience Mean 3.11 3.11 Standard deviation 0.50 0.46 fle 1.58-4.42 1.58-4.33 A t-test was performed to see if there was a difi‘erence between the pedagogical orientation mean scores of respondents with teaching experience and the respondents without teaching experience. These data are shown in Table 45. Table 45. T-test of pedagogical orientation mean scores by teaching experience. (N=235) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.11 (0.50) 90 3.11 (0.46) 145 0.01 0.989 p<.01 As shown in Table 45, there was no significant difference between the pedagogical orientation mean scores of respondents who had teaching experience and the respondents without teaching experience. Relating Personal Characteristics to Andragogical Orientation Age of the respondents was the first variable examined in relationship to andragogical orientation. Age. Andragogical orientation mean scores were examined in relationship to the age of ———_ ' "_"‘“‘ 111 the respondents. The mean age of the respondents was 43 .45 and the standard deviation was 9.12. The andragogical orientation mean score of respondents was 3.81 and the standard deviation was 0.38. The andragogical orientation mean scores were examined and categorized into low, moderate and high levels. A low andragogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high andrgogical orientation score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. A moderate andragogical orientation score was defined as between one standard deviation below and one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. The fi'equency of andragogical orientation mean scores at each level were determined in relationship to the respondents with ages below the mean and to the respondents with ages equal to or greater than the mean age. These data are shown in Table 46. Table 46. Level of andragogical orientation mean scores by age groups. (N=23 5) Level of Range Young Old All ages andragogical of <43.45 243.45 orientation scores score % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Low $3.43 19.33 (23) 17.24 (20) 18.30 (43) Moderate >343 and <4.19 65.55 (78) 68.97 (80) 67.23 (158) High 24.19 15.13 (18) 13.79 (16) 14.47 (34) _ Total Allscores 100(119) 100(116) 100 (235) As shown in Table 46, there were 119 “young” respondents and 116 “old” respondents. The andragogical orientation mean score, standard deviation and the range of 112 scores were determined for ages below and for ages equal to or greater than the mean age. These data are shown in Table 47. Table 47. Andragogical orientation descriptive data by age groups. (N=235) Statistical measures Young Old <43.45 243.45 Mean 3.80 3.81 Standard deviation 0.38 0.38 Ege 2.83-4.67 2.67-4.50 A t-test was performed to see if there was a difl‘erence between the andragogical orientation mean scores of respondents who were below the mean age and for respondents whoareequaltoorgreaterthanthemeanage. ThesedataareshowninTable48. Table 48. T-test of andragogical orientation scores for age group. (N=235) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.80 (0.38) 119 3.81 (0.38) 116 0.21 0.832 p<.01 As shown in Table 48, there was no significant difi’erence between andragogical orientation mean score of the “young” respondents and the andragogical orientation mean score of the “old” respondents. Additional analyses were performed by examining the andragogical orientation 113 mean scores of respondents one standard deviation below the mean age and one standard deviation above the mean age. This more stringent grouping was done to see if it might yield difi‘erences in andragogical orientation mean scores. These data are shown in Table 49. Table 49. Andragogical orientation mean scores by stringent group. (n=78) Statistical measures Youngest Oldest <43.45 243.45 Mean 3 .76 3.87 Standard deviation 0.42 . 0.37 Number of respondents 41 37 A t—test was performed to see if there was a difference between the andragogical orientation mean scores of the two stringent age groups. These data are shown in Table 50. Table 50. T-test of andragogical orientation mean scores by stringent groups. (n=78) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.76 (0.42) 41 3.87 (0.37) 37 1.23 0.222 p<.01 As shown in Table 50, there was no significant difl‘erence between the andragogical orientation mean score of the Woungest” respondents and the andragogical orientation mean score of the “oldest” respondents. 114 Gender. Andragogical orientation mean scores were examined in relationship to gender. The andragogical orientation mean scores were examined and categorized into low, moderate and high levels. A low andragogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high andrgogical mean orientation score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. A moderate andragogical orientation mean score was defined as between one standard deviation below and one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. The frequency of andragogical orientation mean scores at each level and by gender were determined. These data are shown in Table 51. As shown in Table 51, there were 111 women respondents and 124 men respondents. Table 51. Level of andragogical orientation scores by gender. (N=23 5) Level of Range Women Men Respondents andragogical of orientation scores score % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Low $3.43 18.02 (20) 18.55 (23) 18.30 (43) Moderate >343 and <4.19 66.67 (84) 67.74 (84) 67.23 (158) High 24.19 13.71 (17) 13.71 (17) 14.47 (34) — Total All scores 100 (111) 100 (124) 100 (235) The andragogical orientation mean score, standard deviation and range of scores were determined for women and men. These data are shown in Table 52. l 15 Table 52. Andragogical orientation descriptive data by gender. (N=235) Statistical measures Women Men Mean 3.79 3.83 Standard deviation 0.39 0.36 gigs 2.75-4.67 ' 2.67-4.50 A t-test was performed to see if there was a difference between the andragogical orientation mean score of women and the andragogical mean orientation score of men. These data are shown in Table 53. Table 53. T-test of andragogical orientation mean scores by gender. (N=235) Mean (sd) n t-valne Probability 3.79 (0.39) 111 1 3.83 (0.36) 124 0.44 0.657 p<.01 As shown in Table 53, there was no significant difl‘erence between the andragogical orientmion mean scores of women and the andragogical mean scores of men. Years in current position. Andragogical orientation mean scores were examined in relationship to years in current position. The mean years in current position was 7.41 and the standard deviation was 6.76. The andragogical orientation mean scores were examined and categorized into low, moderate and high levels. A low andragogical 1 l6 orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high andrgogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. A moderate andragogical orientation mean score was defined as between one standard deviation below and one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. The fiequency of andragogical orientation mean scores at each level were determined in relationship to years in current position below the mean and equal to or greater than the mean These data are shown in Table 54. As shown in Table 54, there were 146 respondents with years in current position belowthemeanand 89 respondentswithyearsin currentposition equalto orgreaterthan themean. Table 54. Level of andragogical orientation scores by years in current position. (N=23 5) Level of Range Current Current All years andragogical of position years position years orientation scores <7.4l 27.41 score % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Low $3.43 19.86 (29) 15.73 (14) 18.30 (43) Moderate >3.43 and<4.19 66.44 (97) 68.54 (61) 67.23 (158) High 24.19 13.70 (20) 15.73 (14) 14.47 (34) Total All scores 100 (146) 100 (89) 100 (235) The andragogical orientation mean score, standard deviation and range of scores were determined for respondents below the mean years in current position and for respondents equal to or greater than the mean years in current position. These data are shown in Table 55. 117 Table 55. Andragogical orientation descriptive data by years in current position. (N=235) Statistical measures Current position years Current position years <7.4l 27.41 Mean 3.79 3.83 Standard deviation 0.39 - 0.36 _R_ln_ge 2.75-4.67 2.67-4.50 A t-test was performed to see if there is a difi’erence between the andragogical orientation mean score of respondents below the mean years in current position and respondents who were equal to or greater than the mean years in current position. These data are shown in Table 56. Table 56. T-test of andragogical orientation scores by current position. Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.79 (0.39) 146 3.83 (0.36) 89 0.69 0.492 p<.01; N=235 As shown in Table 56, there was no significant difi'erence between the andragogical orientation mean scores of respondents below the mean years in current position and the respondents equal to or greater than the mean years in current position. Additional analyses were performed by examining the andragogical orientation scores of respondents who were one standard deviation below the mean years in current 118 position and respondents who were one standard deviation above the mean years in current position. This more stringent grouping was done to see if it might yield difi‘erences in andragogical mean orientation scores. These data are shown in Table 57. Table 57. Andragogical orientation mean scores by stringent groups. (n=61) Statistical measures Current position years Current position years <7.4l 27.41 Means 3.83 3.82 Standard deviation 0.37 0.33 Number of respondents 20 41 A t-test was performed to see if there was a difi‘erence between the andragogical orientation mean scores of respondents in the stringent These data are shown in Table 58. Table 58. T-test of andragogical orientation mean scores in stringent groups. (n=61) Mean (sd) n t-valne Probability 3.83 (0.37) 20 3.82 (0.33) 41 - 0.12 0.906 p<.01 As shown in Table 58, there was no significant difl‘erence between the andragogical orientation mean scores of respondents who were one standard deviation below the mean years in current position and respondents who were one standard deviation above the mean years in current position. Years of Extension experience. Andragogical orientation mean scores were 119 examined in relationship to years of Extension experience. The mean years of Extension experience was 12.05 and the standard deviation was 8.11. The andragogical orientation mean scores were examined and categorized into low, moderate and high levels. A low andragogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high andrgogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. A moderate andragogical orientation score was defined as between one standard deviation below and one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. The frequency of andragogical orientation mean scores at each level were determined in relationship to respondents who were below the mean years of Extension experience and respondents who were equal to or greater than the mean years of Extension experience. These data are shown in Table 59. Table 59. Level of andragogical orientation scores by Extension experience. Level of Range Extension Extension All years andragogical of experience experience orientation scores years years score <12.05 212.05 “/- (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Low $3.43 19.20 (24) 17.27 (19) 18.30 (43) Moderate >3.43 and<4.19 68.00 (85) 66.36 (73) 67.23 (158) .High 24.19 12.80 (16) 16.36 (18) 14.47 (34) Total All scores 100 (125) 100 (110) 100 (235) N=235 As shown in Table 59, there were 125 respondents below the mean years of Extension experience and 110 respondents equal to or greater than the mean years of 120 Extension experience. The andragogical orientation mean score, standard deviation and range of scores were determined for respondents who were below the mean years of Extension experience and for respondents who were equal to or greater than the men years of Extension experience. These data are shown in Table 60. Table 60. Andragogical orientation descriptive data by years of Extension experience. Statistical measures Extension experience Extension experience 3““ years <12.05 ' 212.05 Mean 3.77 3.85 Standard deviation 0.39 0.37 Range 2.67-4.67 2.75-4.50 N=235 At-testwasperformedto seeiftherewasasignificant difi'erencebetweenthe andragogical orientation mean scores of respondents below the mean years of Extension experience andtherespondents equalto orgreaterthanthe meanyears ofExtension experience. These data are shown in Table 61. Table 61. T-test of andragogical orientation scores by Extension experience. Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.77 (0.39) 125 3.85 (0.37) 110 1.54 0.126 p<.01; N=235 121 As shown in Table 61, there was no significant difference between the andragogical orientation mean scores for respondents who were below the mean years of Extension experience and respondents who were equal to or greater than the mean years of Extension experience. , Additional analyses were performed by examining the andragogical orientation mean scores of respondents who were one standard deviation below the mean years of Extension experience and the respondents who were one standard deviation above the mean years of Extension experience. This more stringent grouping was done to see if it might yield difi’erences in andragogical orientation mean scores. These data are shown in Table 62. Table 62. Andragogical orientation descriptive data by stringent groups. (n=80) Statistical measures 9 Extension experience Extension experience Ya“ Ya" <12.05 2 12.05 Mean 3.71 3.81 Standard deviation 0.36 0.33 Number of respondents 40 40 A t-test was performed to see if there was a significant difi‘erence between the mdragogical orientation mean scores for respondents in the stringent groups by years of Extension experience. These data are shown in Table 63. 122 Table 63. T-test of andragogical orientation scores by stringent groups. (n=80) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.71 (0.36) 40 3.81 (0.33) 40 1.33 0.188 p<.01 , As shown in Table 63, there was no significant difi‘erence between the andrgogical orientation mean scores of respondents who were one standard deviation below the mean years of Extension experience and the respondents who were one standard deviation above the mean years of Extension experience. Life stages. Andragogical orientation mean scores were examined in relationship to life stages. The life stage are early transition, late transition and stable. The andragogical orientation mean scores were examined and categorized into low, moderate and high levels. A low andragogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high andragogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. A moderate andragogical orientation score was defined as between one standard deviation below and one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. The fiequency of andragogical orientation meanscoresateachlevelandthelifestageswasdetermined. Thesedataareshownin Table 64. 123 Table 64. Level of andragogical orientation mean scores by life stages. (N=235) Level of Range Early Late Stable andragogical of transition transition orientation scores score % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Low 53.43 20.37 (11) . ' 13.48 (12) 21.74 (20) Moderate >3.43 and<4.l9 64.81 (35) 65.17 (58) 70.65 (65) High 24.19 14.81 (8) 21.34 (19) 7.61 (7) Total All scores 100 (54) 100 (89) 100 (92) As shown in Table 64, there were 143 respondents in the transition stages and 92 in the stable stage. The andragogical orientation mean score, standard deviation and range of score were determined for the respondents in the transition stage of both eariy and late transition, and the respondents in the stable stage. These data are shown in Table 65. Table 65. Andragogical orientation descriptive data by life stages. (N=235) Statistical measures Transition Stable Mean 3.86 3.72 Standard deviation 0.39 0.36 R__a_n_ge ' 2.75-4.58 2.67-4.58 A t-test was performed to see if there was a significant difi‘erence between andragogical orientation mean scores of respondents who were in the transition stage and 124 the respondents who were in stable stage. These data are shown in Table 66. Table 66. T-test of andragogical orientation score by life stages. (N =23 5) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.86 (0.39) 143 ' 3.72 (0.36) 92 2.63 0.009 p<.01 As shown in Table 66, there was a significant difi‘erence between andragogical orientation mean scores of respondents who were in the transition stage and respondents who were in the stable stage. Graduate degree. Andragogical orientation mean scores were examined in relationship to graduate degree. The andragogical orientation scores were examined and categorized into low, moderate and high levels. A low andragogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high andragogical orientation score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. A moderate andragogical orientation mean score was defined as between one standard deviation below and one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. The fiequency of andragogical orientation mean scores at each level were determined for respondents who earned a graduate degree and respondents who had not earned a graduate degree. These data are shown in Table 67. 125 Table 67. Level of andragogical mean orientation scores by graduate degree. (N=235) Level of Range Earned No All andragogical of graduate graduate orientation scores degree degree score % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Low 53.43 18.00 (27) ' 18.82 (16) 18.30 (43) Moderate >3.43 and <4.l9 70.00 (105) 62.35 (53) 67.23 (158) High 24.19 12.00 (18) 18.82 (16) 14.47 (34) Total All scores 100 (150) 100 (85) 100 (235) As shown in Table 67, there were 150 respondents who had earned graduate degrees and 85 respondents who had not earned a graduate degree. The andragogical orientation mean score, standard deviation and range of scores were determined for respondents who had earned a graduate degree and for respondents who had no graduate degree. These data are shown in Table 68. Table 68. Andragogical orientation descriptive data (N=23 5) Statistical measures Earnedgraduate (Legge No graduate dm— Mean 3.79 3.83 Standard deviation 0.37 0.40 Range 2.67-4.67 2,834.58 126 A t-test was performed to see if there is a significant difi'erence between the andragogical orientation mean scores of respondents who had earned a graduate degree and respondents who had graduate degree. These data are shown in Table 69. Table 69. T-test of andragogical orientation scores by graduate degree. Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.79 (0.37) 150 3.83 (0.40) 85 -0.83 0.410 p<.01; N=235 As shown in Table 69, there was no significant difl‘erence between andragogical orientation mean scores of respondents who earned a graduate degree and the respondents had no graduate degree. Teaching experience. Andragogical orientation scores were examined in relationship to teaching experience. The andragogical orientation scores were examined and categorized into low, moderate and high levels. A low andragogical orientation score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high andragogical orientation mean score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. A moderate andragogical orientation mean score was defined as between one standard deviation below and one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. The fiequency of andragogical orientation scores at each level were determined in relationship to teaching experience. These data are shown in Table 70. 127 Table 70. Level of andragogical orientation by teaching experience. (N=235) Level of Range Teaching No All andragogical of experience teaching orientation scores experience scale % (no.) _ % (no.) '/o (no.) Low 53.43 15.56 (14) 20.00 (29) 18.30 (43) Moderate >3.43 and <4.19 65.56 (59) 68.28 (99) 67.23 (158) High 24.19 18.89 (17) 11.72 (17) 14.47 (34) — Total All scores 100 (90) 100 (145) 100 (235) As shown in Table 70, there are 90 respondents with teaching experience and 145 respondents without teaching experience. The andragogical orientation mean score, standard deviation and range of scores were determined in relationship to teaching experience. These data are shown in Table 71. Table 71. Andragogical orientation mean score, standard deviation and range. (N=23 5) Statistical measures Teaching experience No teaching experience Mean 3.86 3.77 Standard deviation 0.39 0.37 L318: 2.75-4.58 2.67-4.67 A t-test was performed to see if the was a significant difl‘erence between andragogical orientation mean scores of respondents who had teaching experience and respondents who did not have teaching experience. These data are shown in Table 72. 128 Table 72. T-test of andragogical orientation scores by teaching experience. (N=235) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.86 (0.39) 90 3.77 (0.37) 145 1.68 0.096 p<.01 , As shown in Table 72, there was no significant difi‘erence between andragogical orientation mean scores of respondents who had teaching experience and the respondents who had teaching experience. Adult Development The third research question pertained to the psychosocial adult development of field-based Extension educators. Specifically, the third research question was as follows: What is the adult development score of field-based Extension educator? Part B: Adult Development of the questionnaire was the Modified Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory (MEPSI). It was designed to measure the strength of psychosocial attributes that arise fi'om progression through Erik Erikson’s eight stages of development. Erikson explained progression as the struggle to resolve the conflict between psychosocial attributes that arise at periods of a person’s life. Each of the eight stages were measured by the responses to a set of statements. Scores for each stage and an aggregate score were calculated for each respondent. The instrument had 80 statements that field-based Extension educators were asked to respond to on a five point Likert-type scale. Field-based Extension educators were asked to answer". “How often is this true for you?” by indicating one of the following items 129 for each of the 80 statements: A—Almost always true. B-Usually true. C-About halfthe time it is true. D—Occasionally true. E—Hardly ever true. The instrument was designed to measure successful and unsuccessful resolution. Successful resolution was measured by the. responds to five positive statements for each of the eight stages. Unsuccessful resolution was measured by the responds to five negative statements for each of the eight stages. Each stage had ten statements. Part B:Adult Development of the questionnaire had 80 statements. The coding for statistical analyses was done for the positive and negative statements. The positive statement codes were: A=5, B=4, C=3, D=2, and E=1. The negative statement code were: A=l, B=2, C=3, D=4, and E=5. A mean score of each stage and an aggregate mean of the eight stages were calculated for each respondent. The 80 statements were randomly list in Part B: Adult Development of the questionnaire. Each statement is identified by the mrmber in Part B: Adult Development and the stage it is measuring in Table 73. Each stage had five positive and five negative statements. Each statement was assigned to only one stage and each statement was identified as being either positive or negative. 130 Table 73. Adult development statements by stages. M Positive Statements Negative Statements Tmst-Mistrust 24, 34, 36, 53, 67 10, 18, 28, 40, 44 Autonomy-Shame/Doubt 1, 5, 12, 54, 68 37, 49, 57, 66, 78 Initiative-Guilt 7,32, 59, 71, 75 - " 11, 15, 22, 23, 65 Industry-Inferiority 2, 29, 33, 38, 64 14, 52, 61, 74, 76 Entity—Confusion 8, 13, 16, 17, 41 6, 9, 25, 47, 48 Intimacy-Isolation 4, 26, 45, 62, 77 3, 30, 39, 58, 72 Generativity-Stagnation 21, 42, 50, 70, 80 27, 43, 60, 63, 69 Ego Integrity-Despair 20, 46, 56, 73, 79 19, 31, 35, 51, 55 Psychosocial Development Stages The Modified Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory (MEPSI) which was Part B: Adult Development of the questionnaire provided the mean scores for eight psychosocial development stages and an aggregate mean score derived fiom the eight stage mean scores. These data are shown in Table 74. As shown in Table 74, the aggregate mean score of the respondents was 4.22 and the standard deviation was 0.32. The range of respondent aggregate scores was 3.01 to 4.95. 131 Table 74. Stages and aggregate mean scores. (N=235) Stages Women Men Respondents n-lll F124 N=235 mean (sd) mean (sd) mean (sd) Trust—Mistrust 4.30 (0.37) 4.11 (0.40) 4.20 (0.40) Autonomy-Shame/Doubt ' 4.31 (0.35) 4.27 (0.38) 4.29 (0.37) Initiative-Guilt 4.25 (0.35) 4.14 (0.37) 4.19 (0.36) Industry-Inferiority 4.49 (0.32) 4.35 (0.43) 4.42 (0.38) Identity-Confusion 4.38 (0.43) 4.26 (0.45) 4.32 (0.44) Intimacy- Isolation 4.11 (0.45) 3.67 (0.48) 3.88 (0.51) Generativity-Stagnation 4.23 (0.41) 4.08 (0.41) 4.15 (0.42) Ego Integrity-Despair 433 (0.42) 4.24 (0.40) 4.28 (0.41) M 4.30 (0.30) 4.14 (0.32) 4.22 (0.32) The fiequency distribution of the aggregate mean scores were examined and categorized as low, moderate and or high. A low aggregate mean score was defined as onestandarddeviationbelowthemeanandahighaggregate scorewasdefinedasone standard deviation above the mean. A moderate aggregate mean score was defined as between one standard deviation below the mean and one standard deviation above the mean for all respondents. These data are shown in Table 75. As shown in Table 75, the respondents had 15.74 percent in the low aggregate mean score level, 72.34 percent in the moderate aggregate mean score level and 11.92 percent in the high aggregate mean score level. The statements were examined by each stage to determine their mean and standard 132 deviation These data are shown in Table 76. Table 75. Level of aggregate mean scores. (N=23 5) Level of aggregate Range ,- Respondents score of scores % (no.) Low 53.90 15.74 (37) Moderate >3.9O and <4.54 72.34 (170) High ' 24.54 11.92 (28) Total All scores 100 (23 5) Table 76. Mean (sd) for the statements of the eight stages. (N=235) Stage Statement (Part B no.) Mean (sd) (mean/ad) Trust-Mistrust Ifindtheworldavery coufirsing (4.20/0.40) place. (10) 4.41 (0.75) I worry about losing control of my feelings. (18) 4.46 (0.76) Other people tmderstand me. (24) 3.65 (0.75) I find that good things never last long. (28) 4.17 (0.90) Things and people usually turn out well for me. (34) 4.09 (0.62) I thing the world and people in it arebasically good. (36) 4.03 (0.87) Table 76 (con’d). 133 Stage Statement (Part B no.) Mean (sd) (mean/sd) People try to take advantage of me. (40) 4.29 (0.70) I find myselferqrecting the worst to happen. (44) 4.44 (0.77) I’m as good as other people. (53) 4.45 (0.70) I trust people. (67) 4.01 (0.73) Autonomy- Iamabletotakethingsasthey Shame/Doubt come. (1) 4.21 (0.66) (4.29/0.37) I really believe in myself. (5) 4.32 (0.66) I know when to please myself and when to please others. ( 12) 3.62 (0.85) I am ashamed of myself. (37) 4.84 (0.42) I can’t make sense of my life. (49) 4.72 (0.67) I like to make my own choices. (54) 4.53 (0.58) I find it hard to make up my mind. (66) 4.21 (0.71) I like to take risks. (68) 3.56 (0.98) I can’t make up my own mind about things. (78) 4.49 (0.62) Initiative-Guilt I like to assume respousrbility for (4.19/036) things. (7) 4.06 (0.72) I feel guilty about many things. (11) 4.48 (0.70) Idon’tseemtohavetheability that most others have. 4.30 (0.70) Irelyouotherpeopletogiveme ideas. (22) 3.37 (0.89) I think I must be basically bad (23) 4.90 (0.46) Table 76 (con’d). 134 Stage Statement (Part B no.) Mean (sd) (mean/ad) I’m an energetic person who does lots of things. (32) 4.24 (0.74) I cope very well. (59) 4.13 (0.70) I’m a follower rather than a leader. (65) 3.95 (0.80) I like new adventures. (71) 4.09 (0.85) I like finding out about new things or places. (75) 4.40 (0.72) Industry-lufcriority I’m a hard worker. (2) 4.60 (0.53) (4.42/0.38) Idon’tseemtobeabletoachieve my ambitions. (14) 4.25 (0.87) I feel I am a useful pasou to have around. (29) 4.36 (0.60) I’m trying hard to achieve my goals. (33) 4.25 (0.73) I’m good at my work. (38) 4.38 (0.63) I waste a lot of my time. (52) 4.34 (0.78) I’m not much good at things that need brams’ or skill. (61) 4.73 (0.50) I stick with things until they’re finished (64) 4.28 (0.65) I don’t get things finished (74) 4.41 (0.67) I don’t get much done. (76) 4.60 (0.60) Identity-Confirsion I change my opinion of myselfa (43210.44) lot. (6) 4.40 (0.75) I’vegotaclearideaofwhatl want to be. (8) 3.97 (0.88) I feel mixed up. (9) 4.42 (0.71) The important things in life are clear to me. ( 13) 4.22 (0. 77) I’ve got it together. (16) 3.99 (0.66) Table 76 (con’d). 135 Stage Statement (Part B no.) Mean (sd) (mean/ad) I know what kind of person I am (17) 4.43 (0.58) Ican’tdecidewhatlwanttodo with my life. (25) 4.45 (0.85) I like myself and am proud of what I stand for. (41) 4.55 (0.59) IfindIhavetokeepupafi'ont when I’m with people. (47) 4.26 (0.90) I don’t really feel involved (48) 4.50 (0.68) Intimacy-Isolation I get embarrassed when someone (3.88/0.51) begins to tell me personal things.(3) 3.91 (0.94) I’m warm and fiiendly. (4) 4.16 (0.70) It’s important to me to be completely open with my fiiends. (26) 3.77 (0.99) I keep what I really think and feel to myself. (30) 3.44 (0.98) I think it’s crazy to get too involved with people. (39) 4.36 (0.77) I care deeply for others. (45) 4.17 (0.78) I’m basically a loner. (58) 3.85 (1.08) I have (have had) a close physical and emotional relationship with another person (62) 4.56 (0.76) I prefer not to show too much of myselfto others. (72) 3.36 (1.07) I find it easy to make close fiiends. (77) 3.18 (1.07) Generativity- IfeelthatIhaveleftmymarkon Stagnation the world through my (4.15/0.42) children/work (21) 3.63 (1.15) I spend . great deal oftime thinking about myself. (27) 3.96 (0.92) Table 76 (con’d). 136 Stage Statement (Part B no.) Mean (sd) (mean/ad) I have a sense that there is purpose in my life. (42) 4.51 (0.72) I feel inadequate in my interactions with others. (43) 4.16 (0.96) Itisimportanttometofeelthatl have made a contribution in life. (50) 4.29 (0.82) I have dificulty relating to people difi‘erent fi'om me. (60) 4.27 (0.72) I have discovered no mission or purpose in life. (63) » 4.84 (0.47) I worry about how others perceive me. (69) 3.39 (1.03) It is more important to work on behalfof those I care about than to work just for myself. (70) 3.85 (0.95) I am proud of what I have accomplished in my life. (80) 4.58 (0.60) Ego Integrity-Despair As I look over my life, I feel the (42810.41) need to make up for lost time. (19) 4.35 (0.92) I feel that I have the wisdom and experience to be of help to others. (20) 4.14 (0.77) I have many regrets about what I might have become. (31) 4.63 (0.67) I’m afi'aid of growing old (35) 4.20 (0.95) My achievements and failures are largely a consequence of my own actions. (46) 4.10 (0.78) There’s a lot about my life I’m sorry about. (51) 4.65 (0.70) I am disgusted by other people. (55) 4.39 (0.73) Table 76 (con’d). 137 Stage Statement (Part B no.) Mean (sd) (meanlsd) I feel at peace with my life. (56) 4.14 (0.80) IN could live my life over, there islittlelwouldchange. (73) 3.62 (1.10) As I lookbackovermylife,l realize that my parents did the m “a m“ in mi ‘79) 4'60 (2.65) Each stage mean and standard deviation were calculated by aggregating the mean and standard deviation of the ten statements. Additionally, the mean of the eight stage meanscoreswascalculated. Thisistheaggregatemean scorewhichwasreferredtoin the research questions as the adult development mean score. Relating personal characteristics and psychosocial development The fourth research question was as follows: Is there a relationship between the adult development score of field-based Extension educators and their personal characteristics? Age. The aggregate mean scores were examined in relationship to age of the respondents. The mean age of the respondents was 43.45 and the standard deviation was 9.12. The aggregate mean scores were exanrined and categorized as low, moderate and or high A low aggregate mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high aggregate mean score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean. A moderate aggregate mean score was defined as between one standard deviation below the mean and one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. The fiequency 138 of aggregate scores at each level among those with ages below the mean and equal to or greater than the mean age were determined. These data are shown in Table 77 . Table 77. Level of aggregate mean scores by age. (N=235) Level of Range Young Old All ages aggregate of <43.45 243.45 score scores % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Low 52.65 21.85 (26) 9.48 (11) 15.74 (37) Moderate >2.65 and<3.58 68.91 (82) 75.86 (88) 72.34 (170) High 23.58 9.24 (11) 14.66 (17) 11.91 (28) Total All scores 100 (119) 100 (116) 100 (235) As shown in Table 77, there were 119 "young” respondents and 116 “old” respondents. The aggregate mean score, standard deviation and range of scores were determined for the group less than the mean age and the group equal to or greater than the meanage. ThesedataareshowninTable78. Table 78. Aggregate descriptive data. (N=235) Statistical measures Young Old <43.45 243.45 Mean 4. 16 4.27 Standard deviation 0.33 0.30 3 .01 -4.95 Range 3.30-4.70 139 A t-test was performed to see if there was a difl‘erence between the aggregate mean score for the group less than the mean age of respondents and the aggregate mean score for the group equal to or greater than the mean age of respondents. These data are shown in Table 79. Table 79. T-test of aggregate mean score by age groups. (N=235) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 4.16 (0.33) 119 4.27 (0.30) 116 l 2.68 0.008 p<.01 As shown in Table 79, there was a significant difi’erence between the aggregate scores of the “young” respondents and the aggregate scores of the “old” respondents. Additionalanalyseswereperformedbyexaminingtheaggregatescoresof respondents one standard deviation below the mean age and one standard deviation above the mean age. This more stringent grouping was tried to see if it might yield additional difl'erenaes in the aggregate mean scores of the two age groups. These data are shown in Table 80. Table 80. Aggregate descriptive data by stringent groups. (n=78) Statistical measures Youngest Oldest Mean 4.21 4.36 Standard deviation 0.32 0.23 Number of respondents 41 37 140 A t-test was performed to see if there was an additional significant difl‘erence between the aggregate mean scores of the more stringent groups. These data are shown inTable 81. ,- Table 81. T-test of aggregate mean scores by stringent grouping. (n=78) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 4.21 (0.32) 41 4.36 (0.23) 37 2.34 0.022 p<.01 As shown in Table 81, there was no significant difference between the aggregate mean scores of the “youngest” respondents and the aggregate mean scores of the “oldest” respondents using stringent groupings. Gender. Aggregate mean scores were examined in relationship to gender of the respondents. The aggregate mean scores were examined and categorized as low, moderate and or high A low aggregate mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high aggregate mean score was defined as one standard deviation above themean. Amoderateaggregatemean scorewasdefinedasbetween one standard deviation below the mean and one standard deviation above the mean of all the respondents. The frequency of aggregate mean scores at each level and gender were determined. These data are shown in Table 82. 141 Table 82. Level of aggregate scores by gender. (N=235) Level of Range Women Men Respondents aggregate of score scores '/o (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Low 53.80 10.81 (12) 20.16 (25) 15.74 (37) Moderate >3.9o and <4.54 73.87 (82) ’ 70.97 (88) 72.34 (170) High 24.54 15.32 (17) 8.87 (1 l) 11.92 (28) Total Allscores 100 (111) 100 (124) 100 (235) As shown in Table 82, there were 111 women respondents and 124 men respondents. The aggregate mean score, standard deviation and range of scores were determined by gender. These data are shown in Table 83. Table 83. Aggregate descriptive data. (N=235) Statistical measures Women Men Mean 4.30 4.14 Standard deviation 0.30 0.32 R_£ge 3.30-4.95 3.01-4.75 A t-test was performed to see if there was a difi‘erence between the aggregate mean score for women and the aggregate mean score for men. These data are shown in Table 84. 142 Table 84.T-test of aggregate mean scores by gender. (N=235) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 4.30 (0.30) 111 4.14 (0.32) 124 4.01 0.000 p<.01 / As shown in Table 84, there is a significant difference between the aggregate mean score of the women respondents and the aggregate mean score of the men respondents. Years in current position. Aggregate mean scores were examined in relationship to the years in current position The mean years in current position was 7.41 and the standard deviation was 6.76. The aggregate mean scores were examined and categorized as low, moderate and or high. A low aggregate mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high aggregate score was defined as one standard deviation above themean Amoderateaggregatemean scorewasdefinedasbetweenone standard deviation below the mean and one standard deviation above the mean of all the respondents. The fiequency of aggregate mean scores at each level was determined for respondents below the mean years in current position and for respondents equal to or greater than the mean years in current position. These data are shown in Table 85. Table 85. Level of aggregate mean scores by years in current position. (N=235) Level of Range Current Current All years aggregate of position position score scores years years <7.41 27.41 % (no.) % (no.) '/o (no.) Low 53.90 17.12 (25) 13.48 (12) 15.77 (37) Table 85 (con’d). 143 Level of Range Current Current All years aggregate of position position score scores years years <7.4l 27.41 % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Moderate >3.90 and <4.54 70.55 (103) 75.28 (67) 72.34 (170) High 24.54 12.33 (18) 11.24 (10) 11.91 (28) — Total All scores 100 (146) 100 (89) 100 (235) As shown in Table 85, there were 146 respondents below the mean years in current position and 89 respondents equal to or greater than the mean years in current position. The aggregate mean score, standard deviation and range were determined for the respondents who were below the mean years in current position and for respondents who wereequalto orgreaterthanthemeanyearsincmrentposition Thesedataareshownin’ Table 86. Table 86. Aggregate descriptive data. (N=235) Statistical measures Current position years Current position years <7.41 27.41 Mean 4.19 4.25 Standard deviation 0.34 0.28 R__a_nge 3.01-4.85 3.54-4.95 A t-test was performed to see ifthere is a difi‘erence between the aggregate mean score of respondents below the mean years in current position and the aggregate mean 144 score of respondents equal to or greater than the mean years in current position. These data are shown in Table 87. Table 87. T-test of aggregate mean scores by years in current position. (N=23 5) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 4.19 (0.34) 146 4.25 (0.28) 89 1.35 0.180 p<.01 As shown in Table 87, there was no significant difl‘erence between the aggregate mean score of respondents below the mean years in current position and the aggregate mean score of respondents equal to or greater than the mean years in current position. Additional analyses were performed by examining the aggregate mean scores of respondents one standard deviation below the mean years in current position and the aggregate mean scores of respondents one standard deviation above the mean years in current position This more stringent grouping was done to see if it might yield differences in the aggregate mean scores. These data are shown in Table 88. Table 88. Aggregate descriptive data by stringent groups. (n=61) Statistical measures Current position years Current position years <7.41 27.41 Mean 4.20 4.26 Standard Deviation 0.39 0.30 Number of respondents 20 41 145 A t-test was performed to see if there was a significant difi‘erence between the aggregate mean scores of respondents in the more stringent groups by years in current position. These data are shown in Table 89. Table 89. T-test of aggregate mean scores by stringent groups. (n=61) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 4.20 (0.39) 20 4.26 (0.26) 41 0.60 0.555 p<.01 As shown in Table 89, there was no significant difi‘erence between the aggregate mean scores of respondents in more stringent groups by years in current position. Years of Extension experience. Aggregate mean scores were examined in relationship to years of Extension experience. The mean years of Extension experience was 12.05 and the standard deviation was 8.11. The aggregate mean scores were examined and categorized as low, moderate and or high. A low aggregate mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high aggregate mean score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean. A moderate aggregate score was defined as between one standard deviation below the mean and one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. The frequency of aggregate mean scores at each level was determined for respondents below the mean years of Extension experience and for respondents equal to or greater than the mean years of Extension experience. These data are shown in Table 90. 146 Table 90. Level of aggregate score by years of Extension experience. (N=235) Level of Range Extension Extension All years aggregate of experience experience score scores years years <12.05 2 12.05 % (no.) .- % (no.) % (no.) Low 53.90 16.00 (20) 15.45 (17) 15.74 (37) Moderate >3.90 and <4.54 71.20 (89) 73.64 (81) 72.34 (170) High 24.54 12.80 (16) 10.91 (12) 11.91 (28) Total Allscores 100 (125) 100 (110) 100(235) As shown in Table 90, there are 125 respondents below the mean years of Extension experience and 110 respondents equal to or greater than the mean years of Extension experience. The aggregate mean score, standard deviation and range of scores were determined for respondents who were below the mean years of Extension experience and forrespondentswhowereequaltoorgreaterthanthemeanyearsofExtension experience. ThesedataareshowninTable 91. Table 91. Aggregate descriptive data. (N=235) Statistical measures Extension experience Extension experience Ya” years <12.05 212.05 Mean 4.21 4.22 Standard deviation 0.33 0.31 3.28-4.95 3.01-4.85 Range 147 A t-test was performed to see if there was a difi’erence between the aggregate mean score of respondents who were below the mean years of Extension experience and the aggregate mean score of respondents who were equal to or greater than the mean years of Extension experience. These data are shown in Table 92. Table 92. T—test of aggregate mean scores by years of Extension experience. (N -23 5) Mean (sd) n - t-valne Probability 4.21 (0.33) 125 4.22 (0.31) 110 0.09 0.931 p<.01 As shown in Table 92, there was no significant difl'erence between the aggregate mean score of respondents who were below the mean years of Extension experience and the aggregate mean score ofrespondents equal to or greater than the mean years of Extension experience. Additional analyses were performed by examining the aggregate mean score of respondents one standard deviation below the mean years of Extension experience and the aggregate mean score of respondents one standard deviation above the mean years of Extension experience. This more stringent grouping was done to see if it might yield difi‘erences in the aggregate scores. These data are shown in Table 93. 148 Table 93. Aggregate descriptive data by stringent groups. (n=80) Statistical measures Extension experience Extension experience years years <12.05 3 212.05 Mean 4.11 4.21 Standard deviation 0.31 0.34 Number of respondents 40 40 A t-test was performed to see if there was a sigrificant difl‘erence between the aggregate mean scores of respondents in more stringent groups by years of Extension experience. These data are shown in Table 94. Table 94. T-test of aggregate mean scores by stringent groups. (n=80) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 4.1 1 (0.31) 40 4.21 (0.34) 40 1.34 0.183 p<.01 AsshowninTable 94, therewasno significant difi‘erencebetweentheaggregate mean scores of respondents in more stringent groups by years of Extension experience. Life stages. Aggregate mean score were examined in relationship to life stages. The stages were early transition, late transition and stable. The aggregate mean scores were examined and categorized as low, moderate and or high. A low aggregate mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high aggregate mean score 149 was defined as one standard deviation above the mean. A moderate aggregate mean score was defined as between one standard deviation below the mean and one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. The fiequency of aggregate mean scores at each level were determined in relationship to life stages. These- data are shown in Table 95. Table 95. Level of aggregate score by life stages. (N-235) Level of Range Early Late Stable All stages aggregate of transition transition score scores % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Low 53.90 29.63 (16) 14.61 (14) 8.70 (8) 15.74 (37) Moderate >3.90 and<4.54 68.52 (37) 69.66 (62) 77.17 (71) 72.34 (170) High 24.54 1.85 (1) 15.73 (14) 14.13 (13) 11.91 (28) Total All scores 100 (54) 100 (89) 100 (92) 100 (235) As shown in Table 95, there are 143 respondents in the transition stages and 92 respondents in the stable stage. Theaggregatemean score, standard deviation and rangeofscoreswere determined for respondents in a combined transition stage of early and late transition, and the aggregate mean score, standard deviation and range of scores were determined for respondents in stable stage. These data are shown in Table 96. Table 96. Aggregate descriptive data. (N=235) Statistical measures Transition Stable Mean 4.17 4.28 Table 96. (con’d). 150 Statistical measures Transition Stable Standard deviation 0.34 0.27 Range 3.01-4.79 3.44-4.95 A t-test was performed to see if there was a difi‘erence between the aggregate mean score of respondents in the transition stage and the aggregate mean score of respondents in the stable stage. These data are shown in Table 97. Table 97 . T-test of aggregate scores by transition and stable stages. (N=23 5) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 4.17 (0.34) 143 4.28 (0.27) 92 - 2.74 0.007 p<.01 AsshowninTable 97,therewasasignificant difi‘erencebetweentheaggregate meanscoreofrespondentsinthetransitionstageandtheaggregatemeanscoreof respondents in the stable stage. Graduate degree. Aggregate mean scores were examined in relationship to respondents with graduate degree and respondents with no graduate degree. The aggregate scores were examined and categorized as low, moderate and or high. A low aggregate mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high aggregate mean score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean. A moderate aggregate mean score was defined as between one standard deviation below the mean and 151 one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. The fiequency of aggregate scores at each level were determined for respondents with graduate degree and for respondents with no graduate degree. These data are shown in Table 98. Table 98. Level of aggregate mean score by graduate degree. (N=23 5) Level of Range Earned Without ' All aggregate of graduate graduate score scores degree degree % (no.) '/o (no.) % (no.) Low 53.90 15.33 (23) 16.47 (14) 15.74 (37) Moderate >390 and <4.54 75.33 (113) 67.05 (57) 72.34 (170) High 24.54 9.33 (14) 16.47 (14) 11.91 (28) — Total All scores 100 (150) 100 (85) 100 (235) As shown in Table 98, there were 150 respondents who had earned a graduate degreeand85 respondentswhohadnot earnedagraduatedegree. The aggregate mean score, standard deviation and range of scores were deternrined for respondents who had earned a graduate degree and the aggregate mean score, standard deviation and range of scores were determined for respondents who had not earned a graduate degree. These data are shown in Table 99. Table 99. Aggregate descriptive data. (N=235) Statistical measures Earned Enduate degge Without Eduate degree Mean 4.21 4.22 Standard deviation 0.32 0.33 Table 99 (con’d). 152 Statistical measures Earned grraduateggree Withotggraduatcm Range 3.01-4.79 3.30-4.95 A t-test was performed to see if there was a difference between the aggregate mean score of respondents who had earned a graduate degree and the aggregate mean score of respondents who had not earned a graduate degree. These data are shown in Table 100. Table 100. T-test of aggregate mean scores by graduate degree. (N=23 5) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 4.21 (0.32) 150 4.22 (0.33) 85 -0.34 0.735 p<.01 As shown in Table 100, there was no significant difference between the aggregate mean score ofrespondents who had earned a graduate degree and the aggregate mean score of respondents who had not earned a graduate degree. Teaching experience. Aggregate mean scores were examined in relationship to teaching experience. The aggregate mean scores were examined and categorized as low, moderate and or high. A low aggregate mean score was defined as one standard deviation below the mean and a high aggregate score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean A moderate mean aggregate score was defined as between one standard deviation below the mean and one standard deviation above the mean of the respondents. 153 The fiequency of aggregate scores at each level were detemrined for respondents who ind teaching experience and for respondents who had no teaching experience. These data are shown in Table 101. Table 101. Level of aggregate score by teaching experience. (N=235) Level of Range With teaching Without All aggregate of experience teaching score scores experience % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Low $3.90 7.78 (7) 20.69 (30) 15.74 (37) Moderate >3.9O and<4.54 77.78 (70) 68.97 (100) 72.34 (170) High 24.54 14.45 (13) 10.34 (15) 11.91 (28) _ Total All scores 100 (90) 100 (145) 100 (235) As shown in Table 101, there were 90 respondents with teaching experience and 145 respondents without teaching experience. The aggregate mean score, standard deviation and range of score for respondents with teaching experience, and the aggregate mean score, standard deviation and range of scores for respondents without teaching experience were determined. These data are shown in Table 102. 154 Table 102. Aggregate descriptive data. (N=235) Statistical measures With teaching Without teaching experience experience Mean 4.29 4.17 Standard deviation 0.29 0.35 _R;ar_1_ge 3.52-4.95 3.01-4.85 A t-test was performed to see if there was a difi‘erence between the aggregate mean score of respondents who had teaching experience and the aggregate mean score of respondents who had no teaching experience. These data are shown in Table 103. Table 103. T-test of aggregate mean scores by teaching experience. (N=235) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 4.29 (0.29) 90 4.17 (0.35) 145 3.17 0.002 p.<.01 As shown in Table 103, there was a significant difi‘erence between the aggregate mean score of respondents with teaching experience and the aggregate mean score of respondents with no teaching experience. Personal Characteristics, Educational Orientation and Adult Development Linear relationships between continuous demographic variables, educational orientation and adult development were examined. The Pearson product moment 155 correlation coeficient was determined for age, years in current position and years of Extension experience in relationship to the pedagogical orientation mean scores, the andragogical orientation mean scores and the aggregate mean scores. Analyses using data of all respondents as well as the stringent grouping were done. The stringent grouping analysis examined data fiom respondents who were one standard deviation below the mean and one standard deviation above the mean for the personal characteristics. These data are shown in Table 104. Table 104. Pearson product correlation oceficient for variables. Characteristics Pedagogical Andragogical Adult orientation orientation development correlation correlation correlation coefficient coefficient coefficient AGE - 0.06 0.06 0.17 Bystringentanalysis -0.11 0.15 0.30 CURRENT POSITION 0.06 0.07 0.08 By stringent analysis - 0.05 0.01 0.30 EXTENSION EXPERIENCE - 0.08 0.11 0.06 By stringent analysis 0.21 0.17 0.16 As shown in Table 104, there were no significant linear relationships between personal characteristics and educational orientation and there were no significant linear relationships between personal characteristics and adult development. 156 The Relationship between Educational Orientation and Adult Development The fifth and last research question pertained to the relationship between educational orientation and adult development. Specifically, the research question was as follows: Is there a relationship between the educational ofientation held by field-based Extension educators and their adult development score. Educational orientation was examined in relationship to adult development. The pedagogical orientation mean scores and the andragogical mean scores were examined in relationship to the aggregate mean scores of the respondents. Pedagogical Orientation and Adult Development The aggregate mean score and standard deviation were determined for respondents who were below the pedagogical orientation mean score, and the aggregate mean score and standard deviation were determined for respondents who were equal to or greater than the pedagogical orientation mean score. The pedagogical orientation mean was 3.11 and the standard deviation was 0.42. These data are shown in Table 105. Table 105. Aggregate descriptive data by pedagogical orientation. Statistical measures Pedagogical orientation Pedagogical orientation G.“ 23.11 Mean 4.22 4.21 Standard deviation 0.35 0.30 Range 3.01 - 4.95 3.33 - 4.75 N=235 157 A t-test was performed to see if there was a difference between the aggregate mean score of respondents who were below the pedagogical orientation mean score and the aggregate mean score of respondents who were equal to or greater than the pedagogical mean score. These data are shown in Table 106. Table 106. T-test of aggregate mean scores by pedagogical orientation. (N=23 5) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 4.22 (0.35) 116 4.21 (0.30) 119 - 0.06 0.953 p<.01 As shown in Table 106, there was no significant difl‘erence between the aggregate mean score of respondents who were below the pedagogical orientation mean score and the aggregate mean score of respondents who were equal to or greater than the pedagogical orientation mean score. Additional analyses were performed by examining the aggregate mean score of respondents one standard deviation below the pedagogical orientation mean score and the aggregate mean score of respondents one standard deviation above the pedagogical mean score. This more stringent grouping was done to see if it might yield difl‘erences in the aggregate mean scores. These data are shown in Table 107. 158 Table 107. Aggregate mean scores with stringent analysis. (n=73) Statistical measures Pedagogical orientation Pedagogical orientation - <3.11 23.11 Mean 4.24 4.22 Standard deviation 0.36 ' N 0.30 Number of respondents 32 41 A t-test was performed to see if there was a difi‘erence between the more stringent groups. These data are shown in Table 108. Table 108. T-test of aggregate mean scores with stringent analysis. (n=73) Mean (sd) n t-valne Probability 4.23 (0.36) 32 4.22 (0.30) 41 - 0.11 0.910 p<.01 As shown in Table 108, there was no significant difl‘erence between the aggregate mean scores of respondents in the more stringent groups. The pedagogical orientation mean score and standard deviation were determined for respondents who were below the aggregate mean score, and the pedagogical orientation mean score and standard deviation were determined for respondents who were equal to or greater than the aggregate mean score. The aggregate mean score was 4.22 and the standard deviation was 0.32. These data are shown in Table 109. 1 59 Table 109. Pedagogical orientation data by aggregate development. (N=235) Statistical measures Aggregate development Aggregate development <4.22 24.22 Mean 3.12 3.10 Standard deviation 0.44 - 0.50 Range 2.12 - 4.42 1.58 - 4.33 A t-test was performed to see if there was a difi'erence between the pedagogical orientation mean score of the respondents who were below the aggregate mean and the respondents who were equal to or greater than the aggregate mean. These data are shown in Table 110. Table 110. T-test of pedagogical orientation scores by aggregate development. Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.12 (0.44) . 110 3.10 (0.50) 125 -0.27 0.787 p<.01; N=235 As shown in Table 110, there was no significant difference between the pedagogical orientation mean score of respondents who were below the aggregate mean and the respondents who were equal to or greater than the aggregate mean. Additional analyses were performed by examining the pedagogical orientation mean score of respondents one standard deviation below the aggregate mean score and 160 the pedagogical orientation mean score of respondents one standard deviation above the . aggregate mean score. This more stringent grouping was done to see if it nright yield differences in the pedagogical orientation mean scores. These data are shown in Table 111. Table 111. Pedagogical orientation mean scores by stringent groups. (n=65) Statistical measures Aggregate development Aggregate development <4.22 24.22 Mean 3.13 3.03 Standard deviation 0.41 0.62 Number of respondents 37 28 At—testwasperformedtoseeifthewasadifl‘erencebetweenthemore stringent groups. These data are shown in Table 112. Table 112. T-test of pedagogical mean scores by stringent groups. (n=65) Mean (sd) n t-valne Probability 3.13 (0.41) 37 3.03 (0.62) 28 - 0.71 0.482 p<.01 As shown in Table 112, there was no significant difi‘erence between the pedagogical orientation mean scores in the more stringent aggregate development groups, 161 Andragogical Orientation and Adult Development The aggregate mean score and standard deviation were determined for respondents who were below the andragogical orientation mean score, and the aggregate mean score and standard deviation were determined for respondents who were equal to or . greater than the andragogical orientation mean score. The andragogical orientation mean was 3.81 and the standard deviation was 0.38. These data are shown in Table 113. Table 113. Aggregate mean score by andragogical orientation. (N=235) Statistical measures Andragogical orientation Andragogical orientation 6.81 23.81 Mean 4.17 4.25 ' Standard deviation 0.34 0.30 italic ‘ 3.23 - 4.85 I 3.01 — 4.95 A t-test was performed to see ifthere was a difference between the aggregate mean score of respondents who were below the andragogical orientation mean score and the aggregate mean score of respondents who were equal to or greater than the andragogical orientation mean score. These data are shown in Table 114. Table 114. T- test of aggregate scores by andragogical orientation. (N=235) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 4.17 (0.34) 111 4.25 (0.30) 124 1.90 0.058 p<.01 162 As shown in Table 114, there was no significant difi‘erence between the aggregate mean score of respondents who were below the andragogical orientation mean score and the aggregate mean score of respondents who were equal to or greater than the andragogical orientation mean score. Additional analyses were performed by examining the aggregate mean score of respondents one standard deviation below the andragogical orientation mean score and the aggregate mean score of respondents one standard deviation above the andragogical mean score. This more stringent grouping was done to see if it might yield difl‘erences in the aggregate mean scores. These data are shown in Table 115. Table 115. Aggregate mean scores with stringent analysis. (n=77) Statistical measures Andragogical orientation Andragogical orientation 6.81 23.81 Mean 4.11 4.30 Standard deviation 0.34 0.32 Number of respondents 43 34 A t-test was performed to see ifthere was a difl‘erence between the aggregate mean scores of respondents in the more stringent groups. These data are shown in Table 116. As shown in Table 116, there was no significant difference between the aggregate mean scores of respondents in the more stringent andragogical orientation groups. 163 Table 116. T-test of aggregate mean scores with stringent analysis. (n=77) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 4.1 l (0.34) 43 4.30 (0.32) 34 2.57 ' 0.012 p<.01 The andragogical orientation mean score and standard deviation were determined for respondents who were below the aggregate mean, and the andragogical orientation mean score and standard deviation were determined for respondents who were equal to or greatcrthanthe aggregate mean. Theaggregate mean scorewas4.22 andthe standard deviation was 0.32. These data are shown in Table 117. Table 117. Andragogical orientation scores by aggregate development. (N=235) Statistical measures Aggregate development Aggregate development <4.22 24.22 Mean 3.73 3.87 Standard deviation 0.38 0.37 M 2.67 - 4.50 2.75 - 4.67 A t-test was performed to see if there was a difl‘erence between the andragogical orientation mean score of respondents who were below the aggregate mean and the 164 andragogical orientation mean score of respondents who were equal to or greater than the aggregate mean. These data are shown in Table 118. Table 118. T—test of andragogical orientation scores by adult development. Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.73 (0.38) 110 3.87 (0.37) 125 2.99 0.003 p<.01; (N=235) As shown in Table 118, therewas a significant difference betweenthe andragogical orientation mean scores of respondents below the aggregate mean and the andragogical orientation mean score of respondents equal to or greater than the aggregate mean. Additional analyses were performed by examining the andragogical orientation mean scores of respondents who were one standard deviation below the aggregate mean and the andragogical orientation mean score of respondents who were one standard deviation above the aggregate mean This more stringent grouping was done to see if it might yield additional difl‘erenoes between the andragogical orientation mean scores. Thesedataare showninTable 119. 165 Table 119. Andragogical orientation mean scores with stringent analysis. (n=65) Statistical measures Aggregate development Aggregate development <4.22 24.22 Mean 3 .70 3 .90 Standard deviation ~ 0.40 ' 0.36 Number of respondents 37 28 A t-test was performed to see if there was a difi‘erence between the andragogical orientation mean scores of respondents who were in more stringent aggregate mean groups. These data are shown in Table 120. Table 120. T-test of andragogical orientation scores with stringent analysis. (n=65) Mean (sd) n t-value Probability 3.70 (0.40) 37 3.90 (0.36) 28 2.02 0.046 p<.01 As shown in Table 120, there was no significant difference between the andragogical orientation mean scores of respondents who were in more stringent aggregate development groups. 166 Linear Relationship between Educational Orientation and Adult Development The Pearson product moment correlation coeficient was used to determine if a linear relationship exist between pedagogical orientation, andragogical orientation and the aggregate mean scores of the respondents. These data aré shown in Table 121. There was no significant linear correlation between the aggregate mean score, pedagogical orientation and andragogical orientation. Table 121. Pearson correlation coeficient for educational orientation . Variables ' Aggregate mean score correlation coefficient Pedagogical orientation - 0.01 Andragogical orientation 0.18 N=235 High and Low Educational Orientation Score Analysis The pedagogical mean scores and the andragogical mean scores were examined to see if field-based Extension educators could hold high or low pedagogical orientation while simultaneously holding high or low andragogical orientation. Pedagogues and Andragogues For this analysis, low pedagogical orientation was determined to be less than the mean score which is 3.11 (sd=0.47) and high pedagogical orientation was determined to 167 be equal to or greater than the mean score which was 3.11 (sd=0.47). Low andragogical orientation was determined to be less than the mean score which is 3.81 (sd=0.38) and high andragogical orientation was determined to be equal to or greater than the mean score which is 3.81 (sd=0.38). The fi’equencies of high or. low pedagogical orientation while sinmltaneously holding high or low andragogical orientation were examined. The results ofthese analyses are shown in Table 122. Table 122. Extension educators by educational orientation groups. (N=235) Educational Orientation Frequency % (no.) High pedagogical orientation and high andragogical orientation 24.26 (57) High pedagogical orientation and low andragogical orientation 26.38 (62) Low pedagogical orientationand high andragogical orientation 28.51 (67) Low pedagogical orientation and low andragogical orientation 20.85 (49) Total 100 (23 5) As shown in Table 122, 26.38 percent of the respondents held high pedagogical orientation and low andragogical orientation. This group was called the pedagogues. Also, 28.51 percent of the respondents held low pedagogical orientation and high andragogical orientation. This group was called the andragogues. The pedagogues. Analyses of the pedagogues generated personal characteristics data, 168 psychosocial development stage mean scores, a pedagogical orientation mean score and an andragogical mean score. The personal characteristics data are shown in Table 123. Table 123. Personal characteristics data of the pedagogues. (n=62) ( Characteristies Mean Standard Deviation Age 42.58 8.16 Years in current position 7.02 6.6] Years of Extension experience , 9.87 7.29 Characteristics Frequency Gender Women 28 Men 34 Undergraduate degree Agriculture 20 Human ecology 13 Basic sciences Education (K-12) Social sciences Natural resources Resource development Business Comnnrnications Public policy Adult education NNNww-h-hat H Table 123. (con’d). 169 Characteristics Frequency Arts and humanities l Adult education ’ 6 Education (K-12) 4 Human ecology 4 Natural resources 4 Basic sciences 2 ' Business 2 Health sciences 2 Resource develOpment 2 Public administration 1 Social sciences 1 No graduate degree 24 Teaching experience Yes 23 No 39 The psychosocial development stage mean scores of the pedagogues were determined. These data are shown in Table 124 Table 124. Psychosocial development scores of pedagogues by gender. (n=62) Stages Women Men Respondents n= n=34 n=62 mean (sd) mean (sd) mean (sd) Trust - Mistrust 4.22 (0.39) 4.00 (0.37) 4.10 (0.39) 170 Table 124 (con’d). Stages Women Men Respondents n=28 n=34 n=62 mean (sd) mean (sd) mean (sd) Autonomy - Shame/Doubt 4.38 (0.29) 4.21 (0.40) . 4.29 (0.36) Initiative - Guilt 4.26 (0.35) 4.16 (0.36) 4.21 (0.35) Industry - Inferiority 4.47 (0.30) 4.38 (0.46) 4.42 (0.39) Identity - Confirsion 4.38 (0.48) 4.30 (0.41) 4.34 (0.44) Intimacy - Isolation 3.97 (0.54) 3.63 (0.39) 3.79 (0.49) Generativity - Stagnation 4.19 (0.36) 4.06 (0.43) 4.12 (0.40) Ego Integrity - Despair 4.28 (0.44) 4.20 (0.39) 4.24 (0.41) Aggregate 4.27 (0.29) 4.12 (0.30) 4.19 (0.30) For the pedagogues, the pedagogical orientation mean score and the andragogical orientation mean score were calculated. These data are shown in Table 125. Table 125. Educational orientation mean scores of pedagogues by gender. (n=62) Educational Orientation Women Men Respondents n= n=34 n=62 mean (sd) mean (sd) mean (sd) Pedagogical orientation 3.42 (0.31) 3.40 (0.20) 3.41 (0.26) Andragogical orientation 3.51 (0.26) 3.51 (0.21) 3.51 (0.23) T-tests were performed to see if there were significant difi‘erences between the educational orientation mean scores and psychosocial development stage mean scores of women pedagogues, and the educational orientation mean scores and psychosocial 171 development mean scores of men pedagogues. A significant difference between the mean scores of women and men was found for the Intimacy - Isolation psychosocial development stage. These data are shown in Appendix C. The andragogues. Analyses of the andragogues produced personal characteristics data, psychosocial development stage mean scores, pedagogical orientation mean scores and andragogical orientation mean scores. The personal characteristics data are shown in Table 126 Table 126. Personal characteristics data of andragogues. (n=67) Characteristics Mean Standard Deviation Age 44.79 8.15 Years in current position 7.35 6.82 Years of Extension experience 13.60 8.16 Characteristics Frequency Gender Women 35 l 72 Table 126. (con’d). Characteristics Frequency Social sciences 6 Natural resources 6 Basic sciences 5 Arts and humanities 3 Communications 2 Public policy 2 Adult education 1 Business 1 Health sciences 1 Resource development 1 ed Adult education 11 Education (K-12) 8 Agriculture 6 Human ecology 4 Natural resources 4 Business 2 Social sciences 2 Arts and humanities I Basic sciences 1 Health sciences 1 Public Administration 1 Resource development 1 No graduate degree 25 ' 173 The psychosocial development stage mean scores were determined for the andragogues. These data are shown in Table 127. Table 127. Psychosocial development stage scores of the andragogues. (n=67) Stages Women Men Respondents n=35 n=32 n=67 mean (sd) 'mean (sd) mean (sd) Trust - Mistrust 4.44 (0.31) 4.22 (0.34) 4.34 (0.34) Autonomy - Shame/Doubt 4.38 (0.38) 4.23 (0.41) 4.31 (0.40) Initiative - Guilt 4.34 (0.33) 4.12 (0.36) 4.24 (0.36) Industry - Inferiority 4.54 (0.28) 4.33 (0.40) 4.44 (0.35) Identity - Confirsion 4.44 (0.38) 4.14 (0.45) 4.30 (0.44) Intimacy - Isolation 4.19 (0.47) 3.62 (0.48) 3.92 (0.55) Generativity - Stagnation 4.31 (0.38) 4.07 (0.44) 4.19 (0.42) Ego Integrity - Despair 4.45 (0.35) 4.25 (0.37) 4.35 (0.37) Aggregate 4.39 (0.28) 4.12 (0.31) 4.26 (0.32) For the andragogues, the pedagogical orientation mean score and the andragogical orientation mean score were calculated. These data are shown in Table 128. Table 128. Educational orientation scores of the andragogues by gender. (n=67) Educational Orientation Women Men Respondents n=35 n=32 n=67 mean (sd) mean (sd) mean (sd) Pedagogical Orientation 2.64 (0.38) 2.77 (0.28) 2.10 (0.34) Andragogical Orientation 4.15 (0.20) 4.06 (0.23) 4.10 (0.21) 174 T-tests were performed to see if there might be significant differences between the educational orientation mean scores and psychosocial development stage mean scores of women andragogues, and the educational orientation mean scores and psychosocial development mean scores of men andragogues. Significant difi'erences between the mean scores of women and men were found for the Trust - Mistrust, Intimacy - Isolation and the Aggregate psychosocial development stage mean scores. These data are shown in Appendix C. Further analyses were performed to see if there might be significant differences between the pedagogical orientation mean scores of pedagogues and andragogues. These data are shown in Table 129. Table 129. T-test of pedagogical orientation. 11 Mean (sd) t-value Probability Pedagogues 62 3.41 (0.25) Andragogues 67 2.70 (0.34) 13.45 0.000 p<.01; n=129 As shown in Table 129, there was a significant difl‘erence between the pedagogical orientation mean score of the pedagogues and the pedagogical orientation mean scores of the andragogues. Analyses were performed to see if there might be significant difl‘erences between the andragogical orientation mean scores of pedagogues and andragogues. These data are shown in Table 130. 175 As shown in Table 130, there was a significant difi‘erence between the andragogical orientation of pedagogues and the andragogical orientation of andragogues. Table 130. T-test of andragogical orientation. 11 Mean (sd) t-value Probability Pedagogues 62 3.51 Andragogues 67 4.10 - 15.20 0.000 p<.01; n=129 Analyses were performed to see if there might be significant difi‘erences between the psychosocial development mean scores of pedagogues and andragogues. There was a significant difl‘erence between the Trust - Mistrust psychosocial development mean score of pedagogues and the Trust - Mistrust psychosocial development mean score of andragogues. The t-tests of psychosocial development between pedagogues and andragoguesare showninAppendix C. Selected Analysis of Erikson Stage Mean Scores The last three Erikson psychosocial development stages, those of adulthood, were examined in relationship to personal characteristics and educational orientation to see if it might yield difi‘erences in the mean stage scores. The three adult Erikson stages are: (1) intimacy - isolation; (2) generativity - stagnation; and (3) ego integrity - despair. The standard and stringent groupings were used in the same manner previously explained in the study. T-tests were performed to see if there was a significant difi‘erence 176 between the means of a stage that are grouped according to personal characteristics and educational orientation. The personal characteristics examined in relationship to the selected stages were age, gender, years in current position, years of Extension experience, life stages, graduate degree, and teaching experience. The educational orientation variables examined in relationship to the selected stages were pedagogical orientation and andragogical orientation. Selected Erikson Stages and Personal Characteristics The mean scores of the selected Erikson stages were examined in relationship to the personal characteristics. There were five sets of mean stage scores that indicated a difi‘erence. Thesedataare showninTable 131. Table 131. T-test of selected Erikson scores by personal characteristics. n=146 n=8_9 S e Youngest Oldest Probability <43. 45 243. 45 mean sd_ mean sd 300(040) 4..31(029) 3:41 n=37 0000 4.26 (0.34) 4.08 (0.44) n=90 __- __ __ - _- _ 177 Table 131 (con’d). ‘ Probability transition . 1 Ego Integrity Men Probability =11] n=124 mean 3" -2, ,Wd,_ 4.11 (0.45) 3.67 (0.48) 7. 36 . ;.' ' 4.23 0.41 4.08 0.4” 2.84 7 0.005 As shown in Table 131, there were significant difl‘erences between: the generativity stagemean scoresbyyemsinposifiomthegenerativity stagemean scorebystringentage groups; the generativity stage mean score by teaching experience; the ego integrity stage meanscombylifestages;mdmenusgmdumy,mfimacymdgenaafivitystagesmean scores by gender. No other significant difl'erences between the mean scores of the selected Erikson stages by personal characteristics were found. Selected Erikson Stages and Educational Orientation The pedagogical orientation mean scores and the andragogical orientation mean scores were examined in relationship to the last three Erikson stage mean scores. The last three stages were: (1) intimacy-isolation; (2) generativity-stagnation; and (3) ego integrity- despair. These are the psychosocial development stages during the adult years (Erikson, 1982). 178 T-tests were performed to see if there might be a difference between the pedagogical orientation mean scores in relationship to the three Erikson stages and the andragogical orientation mean scores in relationship to the three Erikson stages. There were no significant difi‘erences between the pedagogical orientation mean scores in relationship to the three Erikson stages. There were two significant differences between the andragogical orientation mean scores in relationship to the last three Erikson stages. These data are shown in Table 132. Table 132. T-test of andragogical orientation scores by Erikson stages. Orientation Ego Integrity Ego Integrity Probability 24.28 mean 28sd_ mean sd n=136 Orientation Generativitym Generatrvrty Probability [B-stringent <4.15 24.15 mean sd mean sd n=36 n=37 p<. 01 As shown in Table 132, there were significant difl‘erences between the andragogical orientation mean scores by ego integrity and andragogical orientation by generativity in stringent groups. No other significant difi‘erences were found between the andragogical orientation mean scores by selected Erikson stages. CHAPTERV SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The first section of this chapter is in three parts. The first part is an overview of the procedure; the second part is a discussion about the characteristics of the respondents; and the third part provides the answers to the research questions. The second section of this chapter contains the list of major findings. The third section provides the research conclusions and a reflective discussion. The last section has a list of recommendations for future research in the field of study and the C00perative Extension Service. Summary The purpose of this study was to investigate the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators, and to investigate the relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their development as adults. No studies were reported in the literature at the time of this research that focused on the examination of educational orientation in relationship to adult development. The study was directed by five research questions. These questions were: 1. What is the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators? 2. Is there a relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based 179 180 Extension educators and their personal characteristics? 3. What is the adult development score of field-based Extension educators? 4. Is there a relationship between the adult development score of field-based Extension educators and their personal characteristics? 5. Is there a relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their adult development score? The aim of this study was to provide data and present conclusions that could lead to firrther development of theories and to inspire firture research. The sample population was 309 field-based C00perative Extension Service educators who are responsible for planning, implementing and evaluating nonformal educational programs for a county or multi-county area in Michigan. The target population was 9,497 field—based Cooperative Extension Service educators who are responsible for planning implemenfing and evaluating nonformal educational programs in the United States. This study was descriptive survey research. The survey was a self-administered questionnaire that had three sections. The first section of the questionnaire was called Part A: Educational Orientation and was designed to investigate the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators. This instrument was originally developed by Hadley (1975) and later modified by Suvedi (1991). The second section of the questionnaire was called Part B: Adult Development and was designed to investigate the adult development of field-based Extension educators. The instrument in this section was developed by Darling-Fisher and Leidy (1988), called the Modified Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory (MEPSI). The third section of the questionnaire was called 181 Part C: Backgrormd Information and was designed to discover the personal characteristics of the field-based Extension educators. The questionnaire packets were mailed to the sample population on September 25, 1995. The last questionnaire used in the study was coded and dated on November 17, 1995. There were 262 questionnaires returned which represents a return rate of 84.79 percent. After questionnaires with missing data were discarded, there remained 235 respondents. All data analyses of the study included 235 respondents. The statistical methods performed were fi'equencies, means, standard deviations, t- tests and Pearson’s product moment correlations. Data were coded and analyzed using SPSS 6.1 for Windows microcomputer software. Personal Characteristics of the Respondents There were 235 respondents which included 47.23 percent women and 52.77 percent men. The mean age for the women was 44.44 and the standard deviation was 9.31. The mean age for the men was 42.56 and the standard deviation was 8.88. The mean age for all the respondents was 43.45 and the standard deviation was 9.12. The mean years in their current position as field-based Extension educators was 7.41 and the standard deviation was 6.76. The mean years in their current position for women was 7.66 and the standard deviation was 6.90. The mean years in their current position for men was 7.19 and the standard deviation was 6.65. The mean years of Extension experience for women was 1 1.76 and the standard deviation was 7.72. For men, the mean years of Extension experience was 12.30 and the standard deviation was 8.47. The mean years of Extension experience for all respondents 182 was 12.05 and the standard deviation was 8.11. The field-based Extension educators were asked to indicate their life stage. There were 22.98 percent of the respondents who selected early transition, 37.87 percent selected late transition and 39.15 percent of the respondents selected stable. All field-based Extension educators had an undergraduate degree. There were 33.19 percent ofthe respondents who earned agriculture degrees and 20.85 percent ofthe respondents earned a home economics degree. Education majors were 12.77 percent of the respondents. Ofthe 235 respondents, 63.83 percent had earned a graduate degree and 36.17 percent had no graduate degree. Education graduate degree majors were 33.66 percent of therespondents. Therewere28.00 percent oftherespondentswhohadearnedan agriculture graduate degree and 12.00 percent were home economics graduate degree majors. The last item of Part C: Background Information pertained to teaching experience in a formal setting. There were 38.30 percent of the respondents who had teaching experience and 61.70 percent ofthe respondents who had no teaching experience. What is the Educational Orientation held by Respondents? The first research question was: “What is the educational orientation held by field- based Extension educators?” The pedagogical orientation mean score of the respondents was 3.11 and the standard deviation was 0.47. There were 13.61 percent ofthe respondents in the low pedagogical orientation level, 68.94 percent in the moderate level and 17.45 percent of the respondents in the high pedagogical orientation level. The 183 andragogical orientation mean score was 3.81 and the standard deviation was 0.38. There were 18.30 percent of the respondents in the low andragogical orientation level, 67.23 percent in the moderate level and 14.47 percent of the respondents in the high andragogical orientation level. The mean scores of respondents were low for two of the pedagogical orientation statements in Part A: Educational Orientation of the questionnaire. A low mean score was equal to or less than 2.65 for pedagogical orientation. The statements with lowest mean scores were: (1) An Extension educator should help clientele accept values of our society; and (2) a good Extension educator makes the decisions about what should be taught, when, and how. The mean scores of respondents were high for two of the pedagogical orientation statements in Part A' Educational Orientation of the questionnaire. A high mean score was equal to or greater than 3.58 for pedagogical orientation. The two statements with the highest mean scores were: (1) Lear-rung is an intellectual process ofrmderstanding ideas (concepts) and acquiring skills; and (2) the major qualifications of an Extension educator are grasp of the subject matter and ability to explain (demonstrate) it clearly and interestingly. The man scores of respondents were low on two of the andragogical orientation statements in Part A' Educational Orientation of the questionnaire. A low mean score was equal to or less than 3.43 for andragogical orientation The two statements with the lowest mean scores were: (1) It should be the Extension educators’ responsrbility to evaluate clientele achievements and to determine the extent of learning; and (2) it is better for the clientele to create their own leanring activities and materials than for the Extension 184 educator to provide them. The mean scores of respondents were high on two of the andragogical orientation statements in Part A“ Educational Orientation of the questionnaire. A high mean score was equal to or greater than 4.19 for andragogical orientation. The two statements with the highest mean scores were: (1) Efl‘ective learning occurs most often when clientele actively participate in deciding what is to be learned and how; (2) organization of the content and sequence of learning activities should grow out of clientele nwds, with their participation It was reported that 24.26 percent of the respondents held high pedagogical orientation and high andragogical orientation sinmltaneously. The educational orientation of these fifty-seven respondents was indistinguishable because they measured high on both pedagogical orientation and andragogical orientation. Also, 20.85 percent of the respondents held low pedagogical orientation and low andragogical orientation simultaneously. Likewise, their educational orientation was indistinguishable because they measrn’ed low on both pedagogical orientation and andragogical orientation It was not possible to difi‘erentiate the educational orientation of these groups of respondents. It was reported that 26.38 percent of the respondents held high pedagogical orientation and low andragogical orientation simultaneously. These sixty-two respondents were called pedagogues because the relative measure of their attitudes about learners were based predominantly on pedagogical assumptions. It was reported that 28.51 percent of the respondents held low pedagogical orientation and high andragogical orientation sirmrltaneously. These sixty-seven respondents were called andragogues because the relative measure of their attitudes about 185 learners were based predominately on andragogical assumptions. The first research question of this study was: “What is the educational orientation held by respondents?” There were 26.38 percent of the respondents who held educational orientation based on predominately pedagogical assumptions about learners. Also, there were 28.51 percent of the respondents who held educational orientation based on predominately andragogical assumptions about learners. The remainder of the respondents were indistinguishable as to their educational orientation. Is there a Relationship between Educational Orientation and Personal Characteristics? The second research question was: “Is there a relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their personal characteristics?” T- tests were performed to see if there were significant difi‘erences between pedagogical orientation and personal characteristics. No significant difl‘erences were found between the pedagogical orientation of respondents and their personal characteristics. T-tests were performed to see if there were significant difi‘erences between andragogical orientation and personal characteristics. The study found a significant difl‘erence between the andragogical orientation of respondents and their life stages. The andragogical orientation mean score of respondents who viewed themselves in early or late transition was higher than the andragogical mean score of respondents who viewed themselves in a stable stage. No other significant difi‘erences were found between andragogical orientation and personal characteristics. Pearson product moment correlations were produced for pedagogical orientation and andragogical orientation in relationship to personal characteristics. There were no 186 linear significant correlations between these variables. The second research question was: “Is there a relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their personal characteristics?” The study found one relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and a personal characteristic. The field-based Extension educators who viewed their current life situation as in a stage oftransition held stronger andragogical assumptions about learners than field-based Extension educators who viewed their current life situation as stable. Any other observed relationships between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their personal characteristics were not significant. What is the Adult Development Score of the Respondents? Thethirdresearchquestionwas: “What istheadult development score ofthefield- basedExtension educators?” Forthisresearch, theaggregatemeanscorewasthesameas the adult development score. Theaggregatemeansconoftherespondentswas422andthestmdarddeviafion was 0.32. There were 15.74 percent ofthe respondents in the low aggregate mean score level, 72.34 percent in the moderate level and 11.91 percent of the respondents in the high aggregatemeanscorelevel. Theaggregatemean scorewasthemeasureofadult development in this study. The eight Erikson stage mean scores were determined from the values derived from the eighty statements in Part B: Adult Development of the questionnaire. The stage mean scores were: (1) trust-mistrust = 4.20 (0.40); (2) autonomy-shame/doubt = 4.29 187 (0.37); (3) initiative-guilt = 4.19 (0.36); (4) industry-inferiority = 4.42 (0.38); (5) identity- confusion = 4.32 (0.44); (6) intimacy-isolation = 3.88 (0.51); (7) generativity-stagnation = 4.15 (0.42); and ego integrity-despair = 4.28 (0.41). The third research question was: “What is the adult development score of field- based Extension educators?” The adult development score of field-based Extension educator was 4.22 and the standard deviation was 0.32. Is there a Relationship between the Adult Development Score and Personal Characteristics? The fourth research question was: “Is there a relationship between the adult development score of field-bawd Extension educators and their personal characteristics?” Therewere significantdifi'erencesbetweentheaggregatemeanscoreforadult development and these personal characteristics: (1) age; (2) gender; (3) life stages; and (4) teaching experience. However, there were no linear relationships between adult development and personal characteristics. Is there a relationship between the adult development score of field-based Extension educators and their personal characteristics? Yes, there were relationships between the adult development score of respondents and their personal characteristics. The “01 ” field-based Extension educators possessed a stronger predominance of positive psychosocial development attributes than the ‘young” field-based Extension educators; the respondents who are women possessed a stronger predominance of positive psychosocial development attributes than men; respondents who viewed their lives in the stable stage possessed a stronger predominance of positive psychosocial development attributes than 188 respondents who viewed their lives in the transition stage; and field-based Extension educators who had teaching experience possessed a stronger predominance of positive psychosocial development attributes than field-based Extension educators who had no teaching experience. Any other observed relationships between the adult development scores and the personal characteristics of field-based Extension educators were not significant. Is There a Relationship between Educational Orientation and Adult Development Score? The fifth research question was: “Is there a relationship between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their adult development score?” Yes, there was a relationship between the educational orientation of respondents and their adult development score. The field-based Extension educators who possessed a stronger predominance of positive psychosocial attributes had the strongest andragogical assumptions about learners. Also, the respondents who possessed the strongest predominance of positive generativity and ego integrity attributes had strong andragogical assumption about learners. Any other observed relationships between the educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their development as adults occurred by chance. Findings The purpose of this research was to investigate the educational orientation of field-based Extension educators, and to investigate the relationship between the 189 educational orientation of field-based Extension educators and their development as adults. This study generated data on the educational orientations, psychosocial development attributes and personal characteristics of field-based Extension educators that provide many observations. The primary observations support the following major findings: 1. Field-based Extension educators were more andragogically oriented than pedagogically oriented. These educators predominately held assumptions about learners that are based on the theory of andragogy. 2. Younger, less experienced field-based Extension educators were more pedagogically oriented than andragogically oriented. These educators were likely to view themselvesasthemainsourceofknowledgeandperceivetheexperiencesofleamersasa marginal resource to the learning process. 3. Older respondents who have several years of experience as field-based Extension educators held strong andragogical orientation These educators were likely to view themselves as facilitators of the learning process and perceive the experiences of the learners as a valuable resource. 4. Field-based Extension educators who possess the highest predominance of positive psychosocial development attributes held the strongest andragogical assumptions about learners. The psychosocial development of these educators had a significant relationship to their assumptions about learners. 5. The field-based Extension educators were older and mature. While their mean age was nearly forty, these educators held a predominance of positive psychosocial development attributes. 190 6. There was a relationship between gender and educational orientation. Women held a stronger andragogical orientation than men. Also, men held a stronger pedagogical orientation than women. 7. Field-based Extension educators who have teaching experience were more andragogically oriented than field-based Extension educators who have no teaching experience. 8. Field-based Extension educators who are andragogues had more years of Extension experience than field-based Extension educators who are pedagogues. 9. Trust is a significant variable in determining educational orientation. Andragogues had a higher predominance of trusting attributes than pedagogues. Conclusions First, this research proved that field-based Extension educators do possess assumptions about learners. Further, it is possible to difl'erentiate field-based Extension educators by their assumptions about learners. This study found that approximately twenty-five percent of the field-based Extension educators are pedagogues and approximately twenty-five percent of the field-based Extension educators are andragogues. Fifty percent of the field-based Extension educators were indistinguishable as to their educational orientation. Second, field-based Extension educators do possess difi‘erent levels of psychosocial development and their level of psychosocial development has some relationship to their educational orientation. While this study did not establish a causal 191 relationship between educational orientation and adult development, it does seem that psychosocial development and educational orientation have some mutual relationship. The assumptions field-based Extension educators hold about learners carmot be fully understood without considering the psychosocial development of the educators. Third, field-based Extension educators who have predominantly trusting personality attributes are likely to hold strong andragogical assumptions about learners. This conclusion may present another way to identify field-based Extension educators who have strong andragogical orientation. . The Cooperative Extension Service typically characterizes field-based Extension educators by degree majors, knowledge, skills and experiences. These characteristics are referenced in the employment process and throughout an educator’s career to determine appropriate staff training experiences, promotions and recognition. Possibly, this research offers a new dimension to the set of characteristics used to differentiate field-based Extension educators. This study showed that field-based Extension educators can be differentiated by their assumptions about learners. As Malcolm Knowles (1980) illustrated, the role of the educator in the learning process is greatly influenced by his/her assumptions about learners. Reflections The faculty and staff of the Cooperative Extension Service provide leadership and the intellectual resources which fuel the educational endeavors of the organization. The people of the organization, individually and collectively, plan and implement programs designed to enhance the quality of life for citizens through the application of knowledge. 192 As with all educational organimtions, the human resources of the C00perative Extension Service are its greatest asset. The field-based Extension educators provide the support and leadership to develop and deliver a diverse repertoire of educational programs which are conducted in local communities. The primary source of research based information comes to field-based Extension educators fi'om a team of campus-based faculty fi'om several departments and colleges of the state land grant university. This network of educators is the human resource that discharges the mission of the organization. The practitioners of the Cooperative Extension Service are the field-based educators. They are geographically located in county units and organized by disciplines to serve the needs and interests of citizens in comnmnities. Traditionally, field-based Extension educators have college degrees in various disciplines of agriculture. In each county unit, these educators are responsible for the educationalprogramsthataddress issuesfacedbycitizenswhoareengagedinthe business of production agriculture. Other field-based Extension educators have college degrees in disciplines such as human ecology/home economics, education and other social sciences. These educators are responsible for educational programs that deal with issues of interest to parents, children and youths, and senior citizens. More recently, the Cooperative Extension Service has expanded its mission to include programs in community and economic development, and natural resources management and conservation. The field-based Extension educators draw upon their skills to apply knowledge to the needs, interests and problems of local citizens. Considerable attention is given to the employment and development of field-based 193 Extension educators. Since these locally based educators execute the primary mission of the organization, it is important to select pe0p1e with the appropriate backgrounds and experiences, and to maintain a program that supports their development and growth. 7 Variables such as educational background, degree major and employment experience are central elements of the employment review process. Also, other elements such as proven leadership abilities, teaching experience and communication skills are carefirlly considered. These characteristics are used to select the most acceptable persons for field-based Extension educator positions. In addition, there are systems that support professional development and training needs of field-based Extension educators throughout their careers. County and regional supervisors are responsible for guiding the development of each educator. Field-based Extension educators regularly participate in various educational experiences that are designed to expand knowledge and improve skills in areas specific to an educator’s needs. The employment process, and the professional development and training system are institutionalized to produce the most knowledgeable and skilled field-based Extension educators possible. It is through the work of the field-based Extension educators that the purpose of the Cooperative Extension Service is accomplished. While Cooperative Extension Service organizations have defined and refined employment processes, and professional development and training systems, few of them consider the attitudes and assumptions field-based Extension educators carry about participants. Possibly, for the first time, we know more about the field-based Extension educator than their knowledge and skills. This study clearly has shown that it is possible 194 to characterize field-based Extension educators on the basis of their educational orientation and psychosocial development. Efi‘ectively, this now adds a new dimension to the set of characteristics by which field-based Extension educators are employed, trained and rewarded. 7 While the discovery of a new dimension to characterize field-based Extension educators is significant, perhaps this research has introduced a greater notion For the present and future Extension organization, what should be the appropriate composition of pedagogues and andragogues to efi‘ectively address the interests and needs of citizens in their comnmnities? In this study, there were approximately twenty percent of the respondents were pedagogues and approximately twenty percent of the respondents were andragogues. The remainderofthe respondents could notbedifi‘erentiated. Isthisthe appropriatebalance among field-based Extension educators who design and deliver nonforrnal educational programs? Do Extension programs for citizens in agriculture production require field- based Ernension educators with a difi‘erent educational orientation than field-based Extension educators who conduct programs for parents, children and youths, and senior citizens? Should field-based Extension educators who design and deliver nonforrnal educational programs by way of volunteer leadership hold an educational orientation difi‘erent fi'om field-based Extension educators who design and deliver nonforrnal educational programs without volunteer leadership? These are some of the questions that should be answered in order to establish the appropriate composition of pedagogues and andragogues. Since the educational orientation was unknown to the state Cooperative Extension Service, the combination of pedagogues, andragogues and those who are 195 indistinguishable occurred by chance in this research. The Cooperative Extension Service of the twenty-first century should plan and implement a strategy that establishes the appropriate composition of pedagogues and andragogues at all levels of the organization. Further, the factors that may predict the level of success of field-based Extension educators have less to do with degree majors and professional experience. These characteristics only describe the relative knowledge and skills of the educator. However, these characteristics often receive the highest recognition as predictors of success. Perhaps, the most significant factor that influences the success of field-based Extension educators and, in part, the success of Extension as an organization are the attitudes held by its educators. Attitudes fire] behavior. In terms of this research, the assmnptions educators hold about learners greatly influence the behavior of field-based Extension educators. Extension educators determine educational strategies and relationships based on their assumptions about participants. Andtheefi‘ecfiveness ofthe learning experienceisevaluatedbytheparticipant based upon the behavior of the Extension educator. The assumptions held by of field-based Extension educators about learners are linked to the present and future success of the Cooperative Extension Service. Recommendations The following items are recommendations for further research in the area of adult learning and development, and the Cooperative Extension Service. 1. Repeat this study with a larger sample population. The sample population of 196 this study was confined to one state field-based Extension educator stafl' and the conclusions apply only to the sample population of the study. A larger sample of two or more states would enhance the significance of the findings. 2. Study the relationship between the duties of field-based Extension educators and their development as adults. There may be a relationship between the professional responsibilities of field-based Extension educators and their psychosocial development. 3. This study suggests that gender influences psychosocial development. However, it is not known why this may have occurred. Study the relationship of gender to the psychosocial development of field-based Extension educators. 4. This study suggeststhattheremaybearelationship betweenthefield-based Extension educator’s educational orientation and teaching experience. However, we don’t know if this is a causal relationship. Study the relationship between the educational orientation of field-based Extension educators and teaching experience. 5. Theremaybeacausalrelationshipbetweeneducational orierrtationand life stages. Research the relationship of educational orientation held by field-based Extension educators and their life stages. 6. We need to better understand why field-based Extension educators who are pedagogues have fewer years of Extension experience than field-based Extension educators who are andragogues. Do people that stay with Extension over a period of time change their educational orientation? Do andragogues have characteristics that cause them to stay with Extension longer? Have hiring practices influenced this finding? 197 7. It seems the trust-mistrust attribute of Erikson’s psychosocial development is a factor that influences educational orientation. We need to know more about why trust is a factor that influences educational orientation. APPENDICES APPENDIX A SURVEY MATERIALS AND QUESTIONNAIRE 200 Appendix A: Cover Letter Mailed With The Postcard And The Questionnaire September 25, 1995 [Field-based Extension educator’s first and last name] [Street address] [City, State and Zip Code] Dear [Field-based Extension educator’s first name] This is to request your participation in a study that I am conducting entitled “Relationship between Educational Orientation and Adult Development: A Study of Cooperative Extension Service Educators.” This study is being conducted as a part of my doctoral degree requirements, and is an attempt to better understand difl'erent educational orientations of Extension educators and the relationship of these orientations to adult development. A selected group of Extension educators are being asked to participate in this research I would very much appreciate some of your time to respond to the enclosed questionnaire. It should take you only 15-20 minutes. Completing the questionnaire is the only form of involvement that will be asked of you. The questionnaire has three sections. Part A is devoted to understanding your educational orientation Part B presents statements that are focused on understanding your development as an adult. Part C request background information. Identities ofall respondents will be anonymous and no attempt will be made to link the identity of respondents to their responses. To provide for anonymity, you are asked to return the questionnaire in the pre-addressed, postage paid envelope and separately, mail the postcard. The postcard will allow the researchers to record your name as having mailed the questionnaire without being able to identify your questionnaire. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and retuming this questionnaire. An early response would be greatly appreciated. A summary of the results of the study will be available upon completion. Ifyou would like a copy, please indicate that on the postcard. Thank you very much for you assistance!!! Ifyou have any questions concerning the study, please call at 517/355-2317. Sincerely, Michael J. Tate Dr. S. Joseph Levine Doctoral Degree Candidate Professor and Advisor 201 Appendix A: Postcard Mailed With Cover Letter and Questionnaire I have completed and returned the questiormaire in the envelope provided. Please Print Your Name _Check and provide address below if you would like a summary of the study’s findings. Address: Thank you for you assistancellll 202 Appendix A: Follow-up Letter October 13, 1995 [Name] {County} [Address] [City, State, Zip] Dear [Fieldebased Extension educator’s first name] Three weeks ago, a questionnaire seeking your opinion about educational orientation and adult development was mailed to you. If you have not returned the questionnaire with your response along with the post card as requested, please take a few minutes and do it without delay. Your response is valuable and importantll THANK YOU!! By some chance, you did not receive the survey packet with the questionnaire and post card, orithasbeenmisplaced, aphone callto 517/355-2317 orane-mailmessagewill get you another one. Disregard this notice if you have responded. Thank you for participating” Sincerely, Michael J. Tate Doctoral Degree Candidate tate@msue.msu.edu Michigan State University Department of Agricultural and Extension Education 409 Agriculture Hall East Lansing Michigan 48824-1039 203 Appendix A: The Questionnaire EDUCATIONAL ORIENTATION AND ADULT DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONNAIRE Part A: Educational Orientation Belowuestateruerrtsaboutedncafimteachingandlemning. Thesehavebeenchosentoexpreesseveral i'fii . . 7 Fwewhmmhpbaxchckmerespmxmatmdbuesyomammdempodfimbea-Mwmnchymagee ordisagreewiththestatement. Thefivepositionsfiunwhichtochooseare: SA—Isu'onglyagreewiththisstatement. A—Iagreewiththisstatement. U—I’muncertainaboutthisstatcmenttoagreeordisagree. D—Idisagreewiththisstatanent. SD—Istronglydisagreewithth'sstatement l. Edncationshouldfocusonwhatissure, reliableandlasting SA A U D 2. ClienteleneedastrongExtursioneducator whocandirecttheirlearniug. SA A U D 3. Learningisanintellectnalprocessof understanding ideas (concepts) and acquiringskills SA A U D SD 5 sag 4. Efl‘ectivelearningoccursmostofienwhen clienteleactivelyparticipateindecidingwhat istobelearnedandhow. SA A U D SD 5. Organizationofthecontentandsequenceof learn'mgactivflsshouldgrowoutof clienteleneedswiththeirparticipation. SA A U D SD 6. ItshouldbetheExtarsioneducators’ responsibilitytoevalnateclientele achievementsandtodeterminetheextentof learning. SA A U D SD 7. Thebestsourcesofideasforimproving educational programs are the clientele. SA A U D SD 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. AnExtarsioneducatorshouldhelpclientele acceptvaluesofomsociety. ItisanExtensiouedncator’sresponsrhilityto motivateclieuteletolcarnwhattheyoughtto learn ClearexplanationbytheExtensioneducator isessentialforefi'ectivclearning. AnExtensionedncator’sprimary responsibilityishelpingclientelechooseand developtheirowudirectionsforlearning. AgoodExtarsioneducatormakesthe decisionsaboutwhatshouldbetauglrtwheu, andhow. Evaluatinghis/herachievunentshouldbe primarilyarespousibilityofthecliartsince he/shehasthenecessarydata. AnExtarsioneducatrrshouldbesme hklhaquestimsteucliurteletowardu'uth. changesinbehavim'whichthecliartele desireandtheExtensioneducatorhelpsthem nude-take. Extarsiurcliurteleareqnitecompetanto chooeeandcarryonttheirownprojectsfor leaning. 'I'hemajorqualificationsofanExtensian educatoraregraspofthesubjectmatterand abilitytoexplain(dunonstrate)itcleerlyand Itisbetterforclienteletocreatetheirown learningactivitiesandmaterialsthanforthe Emulsionedncatm'toprovidethem. Educationshouldleadpeopletogoalsthat resultinorderly,reasonablelives. Evaluationspreparedbytheclienteleare mallyjnstasefl'wtiveasthosepreparedby theExtarsioneducator. 204 W A90: SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA A U D SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 205 21.1'hegoaklhatlhcclientclcsetfor 910080 Age: (hasn't: Disasrec M thanselvesratherthanthegoalsthatthe A” Extensioueducatorsetsfortheclientele,are A U D thebasrsfaefi‘ectrvelearnmg. SA SD 22. AuExteusioneducator’smissionistohelp eachclientlearnwhathe/shedecideswillaid intheachievingofhis/herpersonalgoals. SA A U D SD 23. AnErdarsioneducatorwhodoesnot carefullyplantheworkforaprogramis takingadvantageofthecliem’s ignorance. SA A U D SD 24. Plnmingmritsofwmkshouldbedoneby clienteleandExtensioneducatorstogether. SA A U D SD ParthAdultDevelopment Eachpersurhashisorherownwayofviewingasituation. lncrdertounderstandwhatbeinganExtensiun Mislikefayuuhwfllbehelpfflbhawyouidenfilysomeofyomownaunudes Herearesome thoughtsthatmostpeoplehaveaboutthermelvesatonetimecranother. Readewhsmtmcemdchekthemwhichshowshowofienthemisuneofym Don’tspenda lotoftimethiukingaboutyourresponse. Theremnoriglnorwrouganswers reammW: A—Almostelwaystrue B—Usuallytrue C—Abouthalfthetimetme D—Occasiouallytrue E-Hardlyevertrue HOWOF'IENISTHISTRUEFORYOU? ALMOST USUALLY AmUT OCCASIONALLY HARDLY ALWAYS TRUE HALFTHE TRUE EVER TRUE TIME TRUE TRUE 1. Iamabletotakethingsastheycome. A B C D E 2. I’mahardworker. A _ B C D E 3. Igetanbarrassedwheusomeonebegiusto tellmepersonalthings. A B C D E 4. I’mwarmandfiiardly. A B C D E 206 ALMOST USUALLY ABOUT OCCASIONALLY HARDLY ALWAYS TRUE HALF THE TRUE EVER HOW OFTEN IS THIS TRUE FOR YOU? TRUE TIME TRUE _ _ TRUE 5. Ireally behevemmyself. A B D E C 6. Ichangemyopinionofmyselfalot A B C D E 7. Iliketoassumeresponsibilityforthings. A B C D E 8. I’vegotaclearideaofwhatlwanttobe. A B C D E 9. Ifeelmixedup. A B C D E 10.1findtheworldaveryconfusingplace. A B C D E 11.1feelguiltyaboutmanythings. A B C D E 12. Iknowwhartopleasemyselfandwhento A B C D E pleaseothers. l3. Theimpa'tantthingsinlifearecleartome. A B C D E 14.1don’tseemtobeabletoachievemy ambitions A B C D E 15. Idon’tseemtohavetheabilitythatmost A B C D E othershave. l6. I’vegotittogether. A B C E 17.1kuowwhatkindofpersonlam. A B C E 18. Iwouyaboutlosingcontrolofmyfeelings. A B C E 19. Asllookovermylife,lfeeltheneedto makeup forlosttime. A B C D E 20.1feelthatlhavethewisdomand experiencetobeofhelptoothers A B C D E 21. Ifeelthatlhavelefimymarkontheworld thronghmychildren/work A B C E 22. Irelyonotherpeopletogivemeideas. A B C E 207 HOW OFTEN IS THIS TRUE FOR YOU? ALMOST USUALLY ABOUT OCCASIONALLY HARDLY ALWAYS TRUE HALFTHE TRUE EVER TRUE TIME TRUE . . A B TRUE 23. Ithmklmustbebasrcallybad. C D E 24. Otherpeopleunderstandmc. A B C D E 25. Ican’tdecidewhatlwanttodowithmy . life. A B C D E 26.1t’simportanttometobecompletelyopen withmyfiiards. A B C D E 27.1spardagreatdealoftimethinkingabout myself. A B C D E 28. Ifindthatgoodthingsneverlastlong A B C D E 29.1feelIamausefulpersontohavearouud A B C D E 30.1keepwhatlreallythiukaudfeelto A B C D E myself- 31.1havemmyregretsabontwhatlmight A B C D E havebecome. 32. I’manenergeticpasonwhodoeslotsof things. A B C D E 33.1’muyinghardtoachievemygoals. A B C D E 34. Thingsandpeopleusuallyunnoutwellfor me. A B C D E 35. lamafi'aidofgrowingold. A B C D E 36.1thiuktheworldandpeopleinitare basicallygood A B C D E 37. Iamashamedofmyself. A B C D E 38. I’m good at my work. A B C D E 208 HOW OFTEN IS THIS TRUE FOR YOU? ALMOST USUAILY ABOUT OCCASIONAILY HARDLY ALWAYS TRUE HALFTHE TRUE EVER TRUE TIME TRUE TRUE 39.1mmkit’scrazytogettooinvolvedwith E 1e B D W - A C 40. Peopletrytotakeadvantageofme. A B _ ' C D E 41.1h‘kemyselfandamproudofwhatlstand for. A B C D E 42.1haveasensethatthereispurposeinmy life. A B C D E 43. Ifeelinadequateinmyinteractiouswith «hers. A B C D E 44. Ifindmyselfexpectingflreworsttohappen A B C D E 45. Icaredeeplyforothers A B C D E 46. Myachievemartsandfailmesarelargelya cmseqnmceofmyownactious. A B C D E 47.1findlhavetokeepupafiontwha11’m withpeople. A B C D E 48. ldon’treellyfeclinvolved. A C E 49. Ican’tmakesenseofmylife. A C D E 50.1tisimpmtanttometofeelthatlhave madeacontributioninlife. A B C D E 51. There’sabtabotnmylifel’msorryabout. A B C D E 52. Iwastealotofmytime. A B C D E 53. I’masgoodasotherpeople. A B C D E 54. Iliketomakemyownchoices A B C D E 55. Iamdisgustedbyotherpeople. A B C D E 56.1feelatpeacewithmylife. A B C D E 57. Idon’tfeelconfidentofmyjudgmnent A B C D E 58. I’mbasicallyaloner. A B C D E 59. Icopeverywell. A B C D E 209 ALMOST USUALLY AMUT OCCASIONALLY HARDLY HOW OFTEN IS THIS TRUE FOR YOU? ALWAYS TRUE HALF THE TRUE EVER TRUE TTME TRUE TRUE 60.1havedificultyrelatiugtopeopledifi'ermt fiomme. A B C D E 61. I’mnotmuchgoodatthingsthatneed brainsorskill. A B C D E 62.1have(havehad)aclosephysicaland ernouonalrelationshipwithanotherperson A B C D E 63. Ihavediscoverednomissionorpurposein life. A B C D E 64. Istickwiththingsuntilthey’refinished. A B C D E 65. I’mafollowerratherthanaleader. A B C D E 66. Ifindithardtomakeupmymind A B C D E 67. Itrustpeople. A B C D E 68. Ilikemtakerisks A B C D E 69. Iwouyabouthowotherspaceiveme. A B C D E 70.1tismoreimportanttoworkonbehalfof thoeelcareaboutthantoworkjustfor myself. A B C E 71. Ilikenewadvurtures. A B C D E 72.1prefernottoshowtoornuchofmyselfto others. A B C D E 73.1flcouldlivemylifeover,thereislittlel wouldchange. A B C D E a» U7 0 U {Tl 74.1don’tgetthingsfinished. 75. Ilikefindingoutaboutnewthingsor plaees 76. Idon’t get much done. 77. Ifinditeasytomakeclosefiiends >>> > murmur noon UUUU murmur 78.1csn’tmakeupmyownmindabontthings. 210 79. Asllookbackovermylife,lrealizethat my parents did the best they could for me. A B C D E HOW OFTEN IS THIS TRUE FOR YOU? ALMOST USUALLY AMUT OCCASIONALLY HARDLY ALWAYS TRUE HALF THE TRUE EVER TRUE TIME TRUE e 0 mm 80.1mproudofwhatlhaveaccomplrshedm ° D my lrfe. A B ,_ C B Part C: Background Information What is you age? years Gender Female Male Howlonghaveyoubeeninyourcmrunpositiou?_years WhnkyowtdextmsimmqrmimcechhdmgwakwnhomaEmaganizafims)—yems Wegotlnoughaseriesofaableperiodsandu'ansitionperiodsinom'life. Whichofthethreeperiods identifiedbelowbestcharacterizestheperiodyouarecmmtlyin? _ SubbCMylfl‘cismrmflychnactaizedumhighlypredictabkwhhfcwWed chins“) _ EuinrmsifimMyhfeiscmrqrflychmaflaizedbybehgmamofchmgeJGredfly predictableand I’mnotsmeexactlywhereit’sleading.) _ LateTmsifimNyfifeiscmrenflychuactaizedbybehgmastateofchange,me’m beginningtohaveclarityintumsofwhereitisleading.) Wmmmsndnmdesmmja’? Doyouhaveagraduatedegree? _yes _no ““357WMW'SYWW Haveyoueverbeenasehoorrk-rz)orpost-seeondnyw_yes _no Thanksforyouraam'stanceandcooperatiou. Pbaseretmntheqnestionnaireto: MichaelJ.Tate DepartmentongricultnralandExteusionEdncation FourthFloor,AgricultmeHall MichiganStateUnivasity EastIansingMichigan48824-1039 APPENDDI B MEAN YEARS BY RANGE AND GENDER‘ AGE CURRENT POSITION EXTENSION EXPERIENCE 212 APPENDIX B: AGE Table 133. Mean age of respondents by selected groups and gender. (N=23 5) Selected age Women Men Women and Men groups mean (std. dev.) mean (std. dev.) mean (std. dev.) [no.] [no.] [no.] 22 through 29 26.38 (2.70) 25.91 (2.26) 26.11 (2.38) yea“ [8] [11] [19] 30 through 39 35.48 (2.78) 35.00 (2.92) 35.20 (2.85) years [23] [32] [55] 40 through 49 44.15 (2.92) 44.02 (3.23) 44.09 (3.09) years [45] [45] [92] 50 through 59 54.00 (2.52) 52.50 (2.53) 53.20 (2.61) Years [30] [34] [64] 60 through 70 63.75 (4.35) 62.00 (0) 63.40 (3.85) Years [4] [1] [5] All Ages 44.44 (9.31) 42.56 (8.88) 43.45 (9.12) [111] [124] [235] 213 APPENDIX B: YEARS IN CURRENT POSITION Table 134. Mean of current position experience by selected ranges and gender. Selected ranges Women Men Women and Men mean (std. dev.) mean (std. dev.) mean (std. dev.) [noJ [noJ [noJ Less than one year .53 (.16) .33 (.20) .41 (.21) [9] [14] [23] 1 to 6 years 2.82 (1.61) 2.53 (1.38) 2.67 (1.50) ' [49] [51] [100] 6 to 11 years 8.32 (1.63) 7.52 (1.43) 7.92 (1.56) [25] , [25] [50] 11 to 16 years 13.83 (1.03) 13.08 (1.38) 13.44 (1.26) [12] [13] [25] 16 to 21 years 17.75 (1.58) 17.87 (1.36) 17.83 (1.40) [3] [151 £23] 21 to 26 years 23.29 (1.25) 22.00 (.89) 22.69 (1.25) [7] [6] [13] 26 years and over 28.00 (0) No respondents 28.00 (0) [1] [1] Total 7.66 (6.90) 7.19 (6.65) 7.41 (6.76) [111] [124] [235] APPENDIX B: YEARS OF EXTENSION EXPERIENCE Table 135. Mean of Extension experience by selected ranges and gender. (N=235) Selected ranges Women Men Women and Men mean (std. dev.) mean (std. dev.) mean (std. dev.) [no.1 [no.1 [no.1 Less than one year .58 (.14) .31 (.21) .38 (.23) [31 [8] [11] 1 to 6 years 3.24 (1.58) 2.99 (1.66) 3.13 (161) [30] [23] [53] 6 to 11 years 8.39 (1.54) 7.54 (1.33) 7.91 (1.48) [22] , [28] [50] 11 to 16 years 13.25 (1.53) 13.40 (1.43) 13.33 (1.43) [16] [20] [36] 16 to 21 years 17.33 (1.25) 17.57 (1.47) 17.44 (1.35) [24] [21] [45] 21 to 26 years 23.09 (1.64) 22.92 (1.55) 23.00 (1.56) [11] [13] [24] 26 years and over 28.00 (2.12) 28.00 (1.90) 28.00 (1.90) [5] [1 l] [16] Total 11.76 (7.72) 12.30 (8.47) 12.05 (8.11) [1111 [124] [235] APPENDD( C T-TESTS BY GENDER AND PEDAGOGUES/ANDRAGOGUES 216 APPENDIX C: T—TESTS BY GENDER Table 136. T-test of pedagogical orientation for pedagogues by gender. (n=62) Gender n Mean (sd) t-value Probability Women 28 3.42 (0.31) Men 34 3.40 (0.20) 0.28 0.783 p<.01 Table 137. T-test of andragogical orientation for pedagogues by gender. (n=62) Gender 11 , Mean (sd) t-value Probability Women 28 3.51 (0.26) Men 34 3.51 (0.21) - 0.08 0.935 p<.01 Table 138. T—tests of psychosocial development for pedagogues by gender. (n=62) Stage Gender n Mean (sd) t-value Probability Trust-Mistrust Women 28 4.22 (0.39) Men 34 4.00 (0.36) 2.23 0.030 Autonomy-Shame Womm 28 4.38 (0.29) or Men 34 4.21 (0.40) 1.93 0.059 Doubt Initiative-Guilt Women 28 4.26 (0.35) Men 34 4.16 (0.36) 1.07 0.290 Industry-Inferiority Women 28 4.48 (0.30) Men 34 4.38 (0.46) 0.97 0.338 Identity-Confusion Women 28 4.38 (0.48) Men 34 4.30 (0.41) 0.69 0.495 Intimacy-Isolation Women 28 3.97 (0.54) Men 34 3.63 (0.39) 2.77 0.008 217 Table 138. (con’d). Stage Gender 11 Mean (sd) t-value Probability Generativity- Women 28 4.19 (0.32) Stagnation Men 34 4.06 (0.43) 1.29 0.202 Ego Integrity- Women 28 4.28 (0.44) Despair Men 34 4.20 (0.38) 0.76 0.452 Aggregate Women 28 4.27 (0.29) 34 4. 0.30 2.01 049 p<.01 218 Table 139. T-test of pedagogical orientation for andragogues by gender. (n=67) Gender It Mean (sd) t-value Probability Women 35 2.64 (0.38) Men 32 2.76 (0.28) - 1.53 0.131 p<.01 Table 140. T-test of andragogical orientation for andragogues by gender. (n=67) Gender 11 Mean (sd) t-value Probability Women 35 4.15 (0.08) Men 32 4.06 (0.08) 1.73 0.089 p<.01 Table 141. T-test of psychosocial development for andragogues by gender. (n=67) Stage Gender n Mean (sd) t- Probability value Trust-Mistrust Women 35 4.44 (0.31) Men 32 4.22 (0.33) 2.73 0.008 Autonomy-Shame Women 35 4.38 (0.38) or Doubt Men 32 4.22 (0.40) 1.63 0.108 Initiative-Guilt Women 35 4.34 (0.33) Men 32 4.12 (0.36) 2.57 0.012 Industry- Women 35 4.54 (0.28) Inferiority Men 32 4.33 (0.39) 2.38 0.021 Identity-Confusion Women 35 4.44 (0.38) Men 32 4.14 (0.45) 2.93 0.005 Intimacy-Isolation Women 35 4.19 (0.47) Men 32 3.62 (0.48) 4.93 0.000 219 Table 141 (con’d). — Stage _ Gender n Mean (sd) t- Probability value Generativity- Women 35 4.31 (0.38) Stagnation Men 32 4.07 (0.44) 2.42 0.019 Ego Integrity- Women 35 4.45 (0.35) Despair Men 32 4.25 (0.37) 2.21 0.030 Aggregate Women 35 4.39 (0.27) Men 32 4.12 0.3 3.66 .00 p<.01 220 APPENDIX C: T-TEST FOR PEDAGOGUES AND ANDRAGOGUES Table 142. T-test of pedagogical orientation for pedagogues and andragogues. It Mean (sd) - t-value Probability Pedagogues 62 3.41 (0.25) Andragogues 67 2.70 (0.34) 13.45 0.000 p<.01; n=129 Table 143. T-test of andragogical orientation for pedagogues and andragogues. 11 Mean (sd) t-value Probability Pedagogues 62 3.51 (0.23) Andragogues 67 4.10 (0.21) - 15.20 0.000 p<.01; n=129 Table 144. T-tests of psychosocial development for pedagogues and andragogues. Stage Orientation n Mean (sd) t-value Probability Trust-Mistrust Pedagogues 62 4.09 (0.39) Andragogues 67 4.33 (0.34) - 3.65 0.000 Autonomy-Shame Pedagogues 62 4.29 (0.36) or Doubt Andragogues 67 4.31 (0.40) - 0.37 0.714 Initiative-Guilt Pedagogues 62 4.21 (0.35) Andragogues 67 4.24 (0.36) - 0.49 0.626 Industry- Pedagogues 62 4.42 (0.39) Inferiority Andragogues 67 4.44 (0.35) - 0.23 0.815 Identity—Confirsion Pedagogues 62 4.34 (0.44) Andragogues 67 4.30 (0.43) 0.47 0.640 Intimacy-Isolation Pedagogues 62 3.79 (0.49) Andragogues 67 3.92 (0.55) - 1.47 0.145 221 Table 144 (con’d). Stage Orientation 11 Mean (sd) t-value Probability Generativity- Pedagogues 62 4.12 (0.41) Stagnation Andragogues 67 4.19 (0.42) - 1.00 0.317 Ego Integrity- Pedagogues 62 4.24 (0.41) Despair Andragogues 67 4.35 (0.36) - 1.67 0.098 Aggregate Pedagogues 62 4.18 (0.30) p<.01; n=129 APPENDIX D BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Arlin, Patricia Kennedy, 1975. “Cognitive Development In Adulthood: A Fifth Stage?” W Vol. 11. No. 5. PP- 602-606- Babbie, Bar], 1995. WWW (Seventh Edition). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Babbie, Earl, 1990. W (Second Edition). Belmont, California: Wadsworld Publishing Company. Basseches, M, 1984. Jersey. Ablex Bee, Helm L., 1987. W. New Yorlc MacMillan Publishing Company. Bigge, Morris L., 1971. W. New York: Harper and Row. Broolcfield, Stephen D., 1984. “The Contribution of Eduard Lindeman to the Development of Theory and Philosophy in Adult Education.” mm mm, Vol. 34, No. 4, Summer, pp. 185-196. Brookfield, Stephen D. 1986. . -,- ' Francisco. Jossey- Bass Pubfishers. Brunet, J., 1965. “InDefenseofVerbalLearning.” InRC. AndersonandD. P. Aumbel, eds .Rradainthefisysholmcffioanitian New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Carlson, Rae, 1971. “Sex Difi‘erences 1n Ego Functioning: Exploratory Studies of Agency and Communion” WWW Vol 37 PP 267-277. Cattell, R B, 1963. “Theory of Flurd and Crystallized Intelligence: A Critical APProach ” Watchdogs V01 54 Issue 1 PP 1-22 Cattell. R B. 1987. WWW Amsterdam. The Netherlands: North-Holland. 223 224 Cockeram, Henry, 1930. W. New York: Huntington Press. Compayre', Gabriel, 1918. W (Ninth Edition). London, England (UK): George Allen and Unwin, LTD. ConstantinOple, Anne, 1969. “An Eriksonian Measure of Personafity Development in College Students.” WW Vol. 1. No. 4. PP- 357-372. CrossKPatncra,1984. ‘. z. . ' ' ° ' . Looming (Sixth Printing). sari Francisco: JoSsey -Bass Pubfishers. Darfing-Fisher, Cynthia S., 1987. “The Relationship Between Mothers' and Fathers' Eriksonian Psychosocial Attrrhutes, Perceptions of Family Support, and Adaptation to Parenthood.” PhD. Dissertation. Ann Arbor. The University of Michigan. Darling-Fisher, Cynthia S. and Leidy, Nancy Kline, 1988. “Measuring Eriksonian Development in the Adult: The Modified Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory” 2W5. Vol 62 PP 747-754 Darfing-Fisher, Cynthia S. and Leidy, Nancy Kline, 1995. “The Modified Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory.” Ann Arbor. School of Nursing, The University of Michigan and Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health Davenport, Joseph, 111, 1984. “Adult Educators and Andragogical-Pedagogical Orientation: A Review of the Literature.” WM Vol. 12, Issue 2, pp. 9-17. Davenport, Joseph, III, and Davenport, Judith I-L, 1985a “Andragogical-Pedagogical Orientations ofAdultLearners: ResearchResultsandPractice Recommendations” - . . . ' -. .- : Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 6-8. Davenport, Joseph, 111 and Davenport, Judith H., 1985b. “Knowles or Lindeman: Would the Real Father of American Andragogy Please Stand Up.” WW WWW” N0 3 PP 4-5 Dewey, John, 1944. .A-‘J'Ik.a.ltzh 2 ' Education. New York: The Free Press. Dewey, Jolm, 1952. Wm. New York: The MacMillan Company. 225 DiOP. Cheikh Anta, 1974 WWW Translated fi'om the French version by Mercer Cook. New York: Lawrence Hill and Company. Downs,RobertB.,1975. ram. 1 ". : .' Smith. Boston: Twayne Pubfishers. Doyle, Kenneth 0. (Jr) 1974. “Theory and Practice of Abrlrty Testing rn Ancient Greece.” Jimmalnfifistamaflthcflshmmsgsnaea APfiLVol 10 No 2 pp. 202-21 Dnrcker, Peter F., 1985. W. New Yorlc Harper Business. DuBois,PhilipH., 1968. “ATest-Dominated Society: China,1115B..C -1905 AD. In ' ‘ edWLeslieBarnette. Homewood, Ilfinois: The Dorsey Press. . ‘ EliaalohnL 1979 “Andragogy Revisited.” W W V0124, No 4, pp 252-256 Erickson,V. LoisandMartin,Joshua, 1984. “TheChangingAdult: Anlntegrated Approach.” : 162-171. Erikson, Erik H., 1963. W (Second Edition). New Yorlc W.W. Norton and Company. Erikson, Erik IL, 1968. W (First Edition). New Yorlc W.W. Norton and Company. Erikson, Erik I-L, ed., 1978. Adulthood. New Yorlc W.W. Norton and Company. Erikson, Erik H., 1980. W. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Erikson, Erik H. 1982. mmaacomprmamdm New York : W.W. Norton and Company. Fafunwa, Afiu Babs, 1977. “Directions in Afiican Childhood Education.” Childhmd Education, March, Vol. 53, pp. 250-256. Frankel, Martin, 1983. “Samng Theory.” In Peter H. Rossi, James D. Wright and Andy 3 Anderson. eds. HandhmknfSumResmh. New York: Academic Press. 226 Galbraith, Michael W. ed., 1990. W. Malabar, Florida: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company. Gardner Howard, 1985 W (Paperback Edition). New York Harper Collins Publishers. Gilligan,Carol, 1982 . z ' . ' ‘ -. Dexelopmgm. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Glaser, Robert, 1984. “Education and Thinking: The Role of Knowledge.” American W51, Vol. 39, pp.93. Good. Harry G. and Teller, James D., 1969. WWHMM Edition) Londorr The MacMillan Company, Collier-MacMaillan, Limited. Gray,Mary McPhail, et al.,1986. “Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory. A Factor Analysis.” . -z. . 12f: , Green,Michael, 1989. -. - - ' - Englewood Clifl‘s, NewJersey: Prentioel-IalLInc. Hadley, Herschel N., 1975. “Development of an Instrument to Determine Adult Educators' Orientatiom Andragogical or Pedagogical.” Ph.D. Dissertation Bostorr Boston University School of Education Harnachek, Don E., 1985. “The Selfs Development and Ego Growth: Conceptual Analysis and Implications for Counselors.” MW Watcher, Vol. 64, pp. 136-142. Harnachek, Don E., 1990. “Evaluating Self-Concept and Ego Status in Erikson's Last Three Psychological Stags” WWW July/August, Vol. 68, pp. 677-683. Highet, Gilbert, 1954. W (Eighth Edition). New York Alfi'ed A Knopf. Hilgard, Ernest R and Bower, Gordon H., 1966. W (Third Edition). New York: Meredith Publishing Company. Holmes, Mel R, 1980. “Interpersonal Behaviors and Their Relationship to the Andragogical and Pedagogical Orientations of Adult Educators.” Adult Education, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.18-29. 227 Houle, Cyril 0., 1961. W. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Houle, Cyril O., 1972. W. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Jarvis, Peter, 1987. W. London: Croom Helm. Jones, Gordon Eric, 1982. “An Analysis of the Andragogical-Pedagogical Orientation of Selected Faculty at Oklahoma State University.” Ph.D. Dissertation. Stillwater”. Oklahoma State University. Jones, H. E., and Conrad, H. S., 1933. “The Growth and Decline of Intelligence WWW Vol 13.139 223-298 Jung. CG. 1975. W (Second Edition)- Princeton, New Jersey. Princeton Press. Kalikow, Joseph H, 1988. “Adult Friendship Patterns and their Relationship to Erikson's Epigenetic Developmental Theory.” Ph.D. Dissertation. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Knowles, Malcolm S. 1950. ' ' - W. New York Assocration Press. Knowles, Malcolm S., 1962. I. - - York Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Knowles,MalcolmS., 1970. In' H . ' ' - mas W New York: Association Press. KnOWleS,MalCOlms.,1977. . y is; o ' . .3 . ' ' ' States W Edition) Huntington, New York: Robert E. Kiieger Publishing Company Knowles,MalcolmS.,1980. h.- u . - ' . _ - Wm (Revised and Updated). Chicago. Follett Publishing Company. Knowles, Malcolm S., 1984. Won. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Knowles, MalcolmS., 1989. I.- 2. 1mm. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 228 Knowles, Malcolm 8.. 1990. WWW (Fourth Edition} Houston: Gulf Publishing Company. Knox,AlanB., 1978 - l. 1.31. .llrl'il I 15' _I~ 9 J 5401;]! l” O’Nll‘ W. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Leidy, Nancy Kline and Darling-Fisher, Cynthia S., 1995. “Reliability and Validity of the Modified Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory in Diverse Samples.” m WW Vol. 17, Issue 2, pp. 168-187. Levine, S. Joseph, 1990. “Principles for Teaching Technical Information to Adults.” East Lansing: Department of Agricultural and Extension Education, Michigan State University. Levinson, Daniel J., 1978. W. New York: Ballantine Books. Levinson, Daniel J ., 1986. “A Conception of Adult Development.” Amgim Wat, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 3-13. Lindeman. EduardC ”January 1915. WNW mewhrbBufletinNo. 1). EastLansing: ExtensionDivision, Michigan Agricultural College Lindeman, Eduard C., 1926. W New York New Republic, Inc. Logan, Richard D., 1986. “A Reconceptualization of Erikson’s Theory: The Repetition of Existential and Instrumental Themes.” Wm Vol. 29, pp. 125-136. London, Jack, 1973. “Adult Education for the 1970's: Promise or Illusion.” Adult Man, Vol. 24, Issue 1, pp. 60-70. MackieKarLl98l. I.-- " ' Nottingham: Publications Unit, Department of Adult Education, University of Nottingham. Marien, M., 1983. “Some Questions for the Information Society.” WW Bulletin, Vol. 17, Issue 5, pp.17-23. Marienau, Catherine and Chickering, Arthur W., 1982. “Adult Development and W San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 229 Mayer, Frederick, 1973. WWW (I’hird Edition) Columbia, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company. Matarazzo, JosephD., 1972. -. , .- - ' . Imdlizm. Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Company. McKenzie Loon. 1979 “A Reaponse to EliaS” WWW WM Vol 24 No 4. PP 256-260 Merriam. SharanB and Simpson. EdwinL. 1989 WW WW1: (Updated Edition). Malabar, Florida Krieger Publishing Company Merriam, SharanB. andCafi‘arella, RosemaryS, 1991. W W512, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Merriam, Sharan B, 1993. “Adult Learning: Where Have We Come fi'om? Wha'e Arc WeHudedThAnJlnMrmAdmumngIhem. SharanB Manned San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Mezirow, Jack, 1981. “A Critical Theory of Adult Learning and Education” Adm; Education, Vol. 32, No.1, Fall, pp. 3-24. Miles, C. C., and Miles, W.,R. 1932. “The Correlation of Intelligence Scores and Chronological Age from Early to Late Maturity. W Eminent. Vol 44. pp 44-78 Mohring, Popie M., 1989. “Andragogy and Pedagogy: A Comment on Their Erroneous Usage” (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 305 509). Nomais, Mania 1.. 1993. SEW. Chicago: SPSS Inc. Nottingham Andragogy Gimp. The. 1986. W Andragogy (First Reprint). Nottingham, England (U .K.): Publications Unit, Department of Adult Education, University of Nottingham. Nunnally,JumC., 1972 . : ‘~ m 2 New York: Mc Grew-Hill Book Company. : _=.u- (SecondEdition). 230 Overstreet, H. A, 1949. W. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Pascual-Leone, J. 1983. “Growing into Maturity: Towards a Metasubjective Theory of Adulthood Stages.” In P. B. Baltes and O. G. Brim, Jr. (eds), Lifespan Wm, vol. 5. San Diego: Academic Press. Pestalozzi. Johann H. 1900. WWW. Translated by L- E- Holland and F. C. Turner. Syracuse, New York: Bardeen. Pratt, Daniel D. 1993. “Andragogy After Twenty-Five Years.” In W W Sharan B. Merriam, ed. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Riegel, Klaus F., 1973. “Dialectic Operations: The Final Period of Cognitive Development.” Himau Mm Vol. 16, pp. 346-370. Riegel. Klaus F., 1979. W New York Academic Press. Rosenthal, Doreen A et al., 1981. “From Trust to Intimacy. ANew Inventory for Examining Erikson's Stages of Psychosocial Development.” humalgflomhjud Adulesgeuce, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 525-537. Rossi, Peter H. et al., ed., 1983. W. New York Academic Press. Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 1972. Emile. Londorr J. M. Dent and Sons LTD. RownneewDerek1981 ~: ° NewYorkClmrlesScribner’sSons. Schaie, KW, and Willis, S.L., 1986. W (Second Edition). Bostorr Little-Brown. Schlein,Stephen,ed.,1987. . s . ' z ' ' Wu. New York W. W. Norton and Company. Seevers, Brenda and Clark, Richard W., 1991. “Factors Relating to Teaching Style Preference of Ohio Cooperative Extension Service Faculty and Program Stafl‘” (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EDBB9868). Senge,PeterM.,1990. I..- ‘ ' W911 New York: Doubleday Publishing. Smith,L. Glennetal. 1984. ° -. ' ' _ leading. Ames, Iowa: Educational Studies Press. 231 Smith, L. Glenn, 1990. “For the Greater Glory of God: Religious Competition and Educational Improvement, 1565-1650.” In W W. Ed. Giovanni Genovesi et al. Hannover. Universitat Hannover Verofl‘entlichung der International Standing Conference for the History of Education [ISCHE]. Smith. Joan K and Smith. L. Glenn. 1994. WWW Emfessiuu. New York: St. Martin's Press. Somers, Robert L., 1988. “Working With the Adult Learner. Applied Andragogy for Developmental Programs.” Vol.5, Issue 5, pp. 1-5. Stewart. DavidW..1987 WWW £91: Won. Malabar, Florida: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company Suvedi, Murari Prasad, 1991. “Educational Orientation and Job Satisfaction: A Study of Extension Agents and Their Supervisors.” Ph.D. Dissertation. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Tmant. Mark. 1988. W London: Routledse- Terbush, Jay M., 1989. “An Investigation of the Relationships Between Adult Religious Orientation and Eriksonian Psychosocial Development.” PhD. Dissertation. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Thornburg, Kathy R. et al., 1992. “Testing the Simplex Assumption Underlying the Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory.” WW Mmeut, Vol. 52, pp. 431-436. Thorndike, Edward L. et al., 1928. mm. New York The MacMillan Company. Tomer, Alvin, 1980. W. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc. Tofller, Alvin and Heidi, 1995. W. Atlanta, Georgia Turner Publishing, Inc. Tough, Allen, 1967. W Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Tough, Allen, 1971. I ~ . _ ' ' W. Toronto, Ontario: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Wegge, Nancy B., 1987. “The Efl‘ect of an In-service Intervention on the Educational Orientation of Part-time Adult Continuing Education Instructors.” (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED295046) Whitbourne, Susan Krauss and Waterman, Alan S., 1979. “Psychosocial Development During the Adult Years: Age and Cohort Comparisons.” W 2mm, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 373-378. Whitehead, Alfred North, 1931. “On Foresight.” W Donham, Wallace Brett. New York Mc Graw-Hill Book Company, Inc. Edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon Wise, George W., 1977. “The Personal Orientation Inventory: A Study of Internal Consistency.” WW Vol 40, pp. 1000-1002. _November, 1987. “Extension in Transition: Bridging the Gap Between Vision and .Washington, D. (3.: National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. W (Version 6.1.2), 1995. Chicago: SPSS Inc. W 1994. Chicago: SPSS Inc. United States Department of Agriculture, 1995. “Salary Analyses of Cooperative Extension Service Positions”: December. Washington, DC: US. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service. hM-~v - HICHIGRN STATE UNIV. lllllllll 0 1 I ll“ |||| "ll 9 312 3 III 1 I LIBRQRIE‘ ||||||| ll 42 6612