Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The beliefs of educational administrators about problem formulation 1985

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1985_A2 G54.pdf [ 11.03MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0055786.json
JSON-LD: 1.0055786+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0055786.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0055786+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0055786+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0055786+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0055786.ris

Full Text

THE BELIEFS OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATORS ABOUT PROBLEM FORMULATION by AVERLYN PENELOPE PEDRO GILL B.A., U n i v e r s i d a d I n t e r a m e r i c a n a , 1970 (M.A., Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , 1975 M.Ed., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1978 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS. FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department Of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e , A d u l t And H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o the r e q u i r e d - ^ s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MAY 1985 © A v e r l y n Penelope Pedro G i l l , 1985 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department O f Administrative/Adult and Higher Education The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date June 7, 1985 )E-6 (3/81) ABSTRACT This study developed a scale for use in assessing administ rators ' b e l i e f s about problem formulation behaviour, examined selected aspects of i t s construct v a l i d i t y , and used the scale in an exploratory study to assess the problem formulation b e l i e f s of educational admin is t rators . Based on theore t i ca l and empi r ica l studies of problem formulation ( A l l a l , 1973; Getzels and Cs ikszentmihaly i , 1976) and the theory of Cognitive Or ientat ion (K re i t l e r and K r e i t l e r , 1972; 1976) a conceptual framework was developed in which four kinds of b e l i e f s could be held about each of four component behaviours of problem formulat ion. A set of statements which were consistent with t h i s framework was developed. Screening and rat ing procedures y ie lded four equivalent sets of statements, one set for each be l ie f domain. With the add i t ion of questions about biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s these formed the instrument which was p i l o t tested and revised p r io r to being sent to 317 administrators in 12 Community Col leges and four P rov inc ia l Ins t i tu tes in B r i t i s h Columbia. A 60% (189) return rate y ie lded the data for the study. Psychometric analyses indicated adequate in terna l r e l i a b i l i t i e s for the subtests . Hypotheses were tested by means of c o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses and showed that Normative, Goal and Self b e l i e f s about problem formulation were moderately corre lated with each other but not with General b e l i e f s . Normative b e l i e f s were p o s i t i v e l y and more highly cor re lated with Goal b e l i e f s than with General or Self b e l i e f s . A comparison of the responses of selected respondents (low scorers and high scorers) revealed that high scorers were more consistent than low scorers in the leve l and conf igurat ion of the i r responses. Training in problem solv ing was the only biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c found to d i s t i n g u i s h s i g n i f i c a n t l y between low and high scorers . The resu l t s suggest some need for further examination of e x i s t i n g theory: the four b e l i e f domains may not be independent but organized in p a r t i c u l a r ways; computation of a summary "cognit ive o r ien ta t ion" score i s not wel l l eg i t imized by the present data . Respondents' a b i l i t y to recognize four component behaviours of problem formulation i s confirmed by the study but the i r b e l i e f s about the components are not equally cons is tent . The study concludes with speculations about the usefulness of the scale as a too l in administ rat ive preparat ion . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x i i Chapter 1. THE BACKGROUND, PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY 1 Problem Formulation Behaviour 2 B e l i e f s About What Administrators Do 4 Descr ipt ion of B e l i e f s and Problem Formulation Behaviour 7 PURPOSE AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY 10 OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS 12 2. PROBLEM FORMULATION AND BELIEFS: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 14 PROBLEM FORMULATION BEHAVIOUR 14 Conceptions of Problem Formulation 16 Si tuat ions requi r ing problem formulation 19 Problem formulation as a process 20 Var iat ions in Problem Formulation \ Behaviour 23 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem 24 Select ion of information 26 V U t i l i z i n g c r i t e r i a in the se lec t ion of information 29 Exploratory behaviour 33 Summary 38 BELIEFS AND THEIR RELATION TO BEHAVIOUR 39 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of B e l i e f s 39 The K r e i t l e r i a n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of b e l i e f s 40 The use of d i f fe ren t types of b e l i e f s in studies of b e l i e f s arid behaviour . . 42 The Theory of Cognitive Or ientat ion 44 B e l i e f s About Problem Formulation 47 THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK . . 50 Problem Formulation Behaviour 50 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem 53 Select ion of information 54 The use of c r i t e r i a in the se lec t ion of information 55 Exploratory behaviour 56 Patterns of Problem Formulation Behaviours 57 B e l i e f s About Problem Formulation 59 Hypotheses and Exploratory Questions 60 Hypotheses 62 Exploratory analys is of admin is t ra tors ' b e l i e f s 63 3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROBLEM FORMULATION BELIEF SCALE AND THE PILOT STUDY 65 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROBLEM FORMULATION BELIEF SCALE 66 v i Generation of Statements 66 The Construct V a l i d a t i o n Process 70 Prel iminary screening of statements . . . . 70 Rating of the statements 73 Sample of raters 74 Procedures 74 Analys is of responses 77 Results of the ra t ing of statements . . . . 78 The Construction of the Questionnaire . . . . 81 Biodemographic information 84 Be l ie f scales 85 Scoring 87 Normative be l ie fs ' score 87 General b e l i e f s score 87 Goal b e l i e f s score 87 B e l i e f s about se l f score 87 Questionnaire form 89 THE PILOT TESTING OF THE INSTRUMENT 90 Sampling Procedure 90 Analys is of P i l o t Data 91 Results and Discussion 92 Characte r i s t i cs of the sample 92 Item l e v e l data 92 Domain leve l data 96 Revision of the Instrument 97 4. THE USE OF THE INSTRUMENT, I: METHOD 99 v i i SAMPLING PROCEDURES 99 Sample 100 DATA COLLECTION 101 Procedures in the Questionnaire D i s t r i b u t i o n 102 Procedure 1 104 Procedure 2 104 Procedure 3 104 DATA PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS 105 Prel iminary Analys is and Results 106 Results 106 Psychometric Analys is 107 R e l i a b i l i t y of the v a r i a b l e , administ rat ive l e v e l 109 R e l i a b i l i t y of the be l ie f var iab les . . . . 110 S t a t i s t i c a l Analyses 111 Cor re la t iona l analyses 111 Analyses of Exploratory Questions 112 Grouping of Demographic Var iables 114 Analys is of responses to the PF be l ie f instrument 116 Analys is of biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 118 5. THE USE OF THE INSTRUMENT, I I : RESULTS OF THE STUDY OF ADMINISTRATORS' BELIEFS 119 CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS . . 119 Descr ipt ion of the Sample 119 Administrat ive c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 122 Educational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 122 v i i i Biographical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 122 RESULTS OF PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSES 123 Problem Formulation (PF) Bel ie f Scale . . . . 125 Results of the Hypotheses Tests 127 Review of the Results of the Hypotheses Tests 131 6. THE USE OF THE INSTRUMENT, I I I : CHARACTERISTICS OF EXTREME SCORERS 133 RESPONSES TO THE PROBLEM FORMULATION BELIEF SCALE 134 Comparisons of Responses of Extreme Scorers 134 Consistency Across Be l ie f Domains 135 The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems (IP) . . . . 137 Exploratory behavior (EXP) 137 C r i t e r i a used in the se lect ion of information (CRIT) 138 The se lec t ion of information (INFO) . . . . 138 Consistency Within Be l ie f Domains 140 Normative b e l i e f s domain 140 General b e l i e f s domain 140 Goal b e l i e f s domain 141 B e l i e f s about se l f domain 141 Configurations in Be l ie f Domain Scores . . . 142 BIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF EXTREME SCORERS 146 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 151 7. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 158 SUMMARY 158 ix Development of a Conceptual Framework . . . . 158 Procedure 159 Hypotheses 162 Results 163 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 166 Concerning Theories of B e l i e f s and Cognitive Or ientat ion 167 Concerning Views of Problem Formulation . . 172 Concerning Further Development of the Instrument 174 BIBLIOGRAPHY 178 APPENDICES 186 A. RATING PACKAGE FOR RATERS 187 B\ ITEM ANALYSIS DATA FOR THE PILOT TEST 224 C. FINAL FORM OF THE PROBLEM FORMULATION BELIEF INSTRUMENT 233 D. SAMPLE LETTER TO ADMINISTRATORS • 250 E. ITEM ANALYSIS DATA FOR THE EXPLORATORY STUDY . 253 X LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1 PROBLEM FOMULATION BEHAVIOURS AND VARIATIONS . . . 51 2.2 MATRIX OF PROBLEM FORMULATION BEHAVIOUR 58 3.1 SAMPLE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE . 69 3.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FACULTY INVOLVED IN INITIAL SCREENING AND RATING 71 3.3 DISTRIBUTION OF STATEMENTS FOR RATING: 75 3.4 LISTING OF THE STATEMENTS RATED AND THE RESULTS OF THE RATING ANALYSIS 79 3.5 SUMMARY STATISTICS OF ALL STATEMENTS RATED 82 3.6 SUMMARY STATISTICS OF RETAINED STATEMENTS 83 3.7 SCORING GUIDE FOR ITEMS WITHIN BELIEF DOMAINS . . 88 3.8 BIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBJECTS 93 3.9 SUMMARY TEST STATISTICS FOR THE PF BELIEF INSTRUMENT BY BELIEF DOMAIN 94 3.10 PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN NORMATIVE, GENERAL, GOAL, SELF BELIEFS 97 4.1 PROCEDURES USED IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRES TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND INSTITUTES 103 4.2 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES BY INSTITUTIONS 108 4.3 SUMMARY OF ANALYSES FOR HOMOGENEITY OF VARIANCE-COVARIANCE AND DIFFERENCES AMONG MEAN BELIEF SCORES OF INSTITUTIONS 109 5.1 DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRES ISSUED AND RETURNED BY COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE AND TOTAL NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS 120 5.2 BIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERSTICS OF THE SAMPLE 121 xi 5.3 SUMMARY TEST STATISTICS FOR THE PROBLEM FORMULATION BELIEFS INSTRUMENT 124 5.4 PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN NORMATIVE, GENERAL, GOAL, SELF BELIEFS 126 6.1 EXTREME SCORERS: RESPONSE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR FOUR ITEMS IN NORMATIVE, GENERAL, GOAL, AND SELF BELIEF DOMAINS 136 6.2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PROFILES OF RESPONSES OF EXTREME SCORERS 145 6.3 BIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SUB-SAMPLE 147 6.4 FREQUENCY AND CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION OF EXTREME SCORERS BY DICHOTOMOUS GROUPING OF TRAINING IN PROBLEM SOLVING 150 6.5 FREQUENCY AND CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION OF EXTREME SCORERS BY THREE GROUPINGS OF TRAINING IN PROBLEM SOLVING 150 x i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people helped to shape t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n and I would l i k e to thank them. Their ass is tance, advice and support are appreciated. I would l i k e to acknowledge the f i n a n c i a l support provided by the fel lowships from the Soc ia l Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia. I would l i k e to thank my Disser tat ion Committee for the expert ise which they shared with me, the i r guidance and. construct ive c r i t i c i s m . I am spec ia l l y indepted to Dr. Graham Kelsey, the Chairman of my Disser tat ion Committee for h i s assistance and encouragement. The produced d i s s e r t a t i o n i s in large part the resu l t of h is a n a l y t i c a l and e d i t o r i a l input and h is ins istence on conciseness, in te rna l consistency and conceptual c l a r i t y . The other members of the Committee are a lso thanked for the i r unique cont r ibut ions . Dr. Pat A r l i n ' s expert ise and ins ights into problem f ind ing served to broaden my conceptual izat ion of problem formulat ion. The many methodological questions which Dr. Todd Rogers raised led to r e f l e c t i v e and productive inqu i ry . I would a lso l i k e to thank the members of the Univers i ty Examining Committee: Dr. Les Greenberg, Dr. Ian Housego, and Dr. Anthony Boardman, the Chairman and x i i i the External Examiner, Dr. Bernard Shapiro. I acknowledge with grat i tude the assistance of severa l people: Dr. Robert Conry, Dr. Naomi Hersom, Dr. Jean H i l l s , and Dr. Wi l l iam Tetlow who helped in the ear ly stages of the development of the t h e s i s ; Dr. John Dennison who was always a w i l l i n g resource person; Bruce McGi l l i v ray for h i s ass is tance with computer a f f a i r s ; the administrators of the Community Colleges and P r o v i n c i a l Ins t i tu tes in B r i t i s h Columbia who w i l l i n g l y p a r t i c i p a t e d in the study; the Facul ty members who served as judges and ca r r ied out my time-consuming rat ing tasks ; members of the Faculty and col leagues from the Department of Admin is t rat ive , Adult and Higher Education who cooperated f u l l y and par t i c ipa ted in the various phases of the study. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to express my grat i tude to my husband, L ionel and our daughter, Kofoworola and son, Kwegyir for thei r support, patience and encouragement while enduring the inconveniences and predicaments which arose from an extended period of study; and to my parents, Augustus and Sy lv ia Pedro George for the i r continuous ass is tance and goodwi l l . 1 CHAPTER I THE BACKGROUND, PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY This study was concerned with one aspect of what administrators do, namely, the formulation of problems. It was not, however, d i r e c t l y an invest igat ion of what administrators do when they formulate problems, but of what they bel ieve about problem formulat ion. S p e c i f i c a l l y the problem for invest igat ion was to develop an instrument by which to assess the problem formulation b e l i e f s of educational adminis t rators . The study was therefore an attempt (1) to develop a be l ie f scale for use in assessing adminis t rators ' b e l i e f s about problem formulation behaviour, (2) to examine selected aspects of i t s construct v a l i d i t y , and (3) to use the instrument in an exploratory study to assess the problem formulation b e l i e f s of educational admini s t r a t o r s . In t h i s chapter are described under the appropriate headings the background to the study, the purpose and design of the study, and an overview of the t h e s i s . BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY The handling of problems has been long recognized as a fundamental part of the decis ion making process, a cent ra l 2 function of educational administrat ion (Gregg, 1957; Ha lp in , 1958; G r i f f i t h s , 1958). Administrators have been viewed as facing two major tasks : problem formulation and problem solv ing (Pounds, 1969; Campbell et a l . , 1977). Problem formulation involves the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of what i s wrong, and the attempts to locate the cause of the d i f f i c u l t y (Campbell et a l . , 1977). Problem solv ing involves the app l i ca t ion of a selected course of act ion from a set of po tent ia l ac t ions . But invest igat ions of problem solv ing have been more numerous than invest igat ions of problem formulat ion. Only three major studies have been car r ied out to invest igate problem formulation ( A l l a l , 1973; Getzels and Cs ikszentmihaly i , 1976; Lyles and M i t r o f f , 1980). Moreover, no empir ical invest igat ions of problem formulation behaviour in the context of educational administrat ion have been undertaken, although i t has been recognized as an important a c t i v i t y in educational administrat ion (Getzels , .1978; Immergart and Boyd, 1979). Problem Formulation Behaviour A major contr ibut ion of the invest igat ions of problem formulation (Getzels and Cs ikszentmihaly i , 1976; Lyles and M i t r o f f , 1980) has been the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of d i f ferences in problem formulation behaviour as a resu l t of d i f f e r i n g responses to a problem s i t u a t i o n . For example, i f 3 an ind iv idua l perceived a given problem s i tua t ion to be one with which he was f a m i l i a r , h i s formulation of the problem would be routine and would fo l low ava i lab le establ ished procedures. I f , on the other hand the ind iv idua l perceived the problem s i t u a t i o n as one which was hard to define because of h i s lack of f a m i l i a r i t y with i t , h is formulation of the problem would not fol low establ ished procedures but would need innovative responses. Problem formulation in th i s context depends large ly on how the ind i v idua l decides to specify the problem s i t u a t i o n . It involves c r e a t i v i t y and discovery. In addi t ion to the studies of problem formulat ion, there are some studies in the area of problem solv ing and problem f ind ing which have impl icat ions for the study of problem formulat ion. Several studies on ind i v idua l problem solvers have suggested that problem formulation i s a function of cogni t ive s t y l e (Taylor, 1975), b e l i e f s (George, 1980), the problem environment (Newell and Simon, 1972), and t r a i n i n g in information processing s k i l l s ( A l l a l , 1973; E l s t e i n et a l . , 1979). Findings from studies of the problem f ind ing process have suggested that problem formulation in a discovered problem s i t u a t i o n , (that i s a problem s i t u a t i o n which an i n d i v i d u a l f inds unfamil iar and thus hard to de f ine ) , i s a funct ion of divergent th inking ( A r l i n , 1974; Getzels and Cs ikszentmiha ly i , 1976), formal operat ional thought ( A r l i n , 1974), and the models which the ind i v idua l chooses to use (Pounds, 1969). 4 Despite the impl icat ions of these f indings and suggestions for educational admin is t rat ion , progress towards the development of systematic empir ical research in the area of problem formulation has not occurred. The focus of empir ica l research has continued to be large ly on problem so l v ing . B e l i e f s About What Administrators Do Several researchers have pointed out that invest igat ion into the area of b e l i e f s would provide ins ights into the way administrators make sense of s i tuat ions at the i r work place ( H i l l s , 1975; Kimbrough and Nunnery, 1976; Campbell et a l . , 1977; Sergiovanni and Carver, 1980). They note that administrators come to hold s i m p l i f i e d b e l i e f s about the environment in an e f fo r t to make sense of i t s confusing and complex r e a l i t y . Jastrow, the phi losopher, supports t h i s point in h is statement that "mind i s a be l ie f seeking rather than a fact seeking apparatus" (as quoted in Rokeach, 1968: 113). Theorists in educational administrat ion have discussed in varying degrees the be l ie f systems of administrators and the i r impl icat ions for administ rators ' behaviour in the work place (Campbell and Gregg, 1957). Some (Campbell et a l . , 1960; Cunningham et a l . , 1963, Downey and Enns, 1963; Gross, 1967) have c a l l e d for a greater 5 emphasis on the b e l i e f s of administrators in the research and in the study of administ rat ive p r a c t i c e . The notion i s that an i n d i v i d u a l ' s perceptions are f i l t e r e d through b e l i e f s which function as "conceptual maps" of d i f fe ren t parts of his or her s o c i a l and physical environment. The b e l i e f s provide the ind iv idua l with a r e l a t i v e l y coherent way of organizing and making sense of what would otherwise be a confusing array of s ignals picked up from the environment. H i l l s (1975) notes that administ rat ive act ions are not the products of s p e c i f i c knowledge alone but are the products of incomplete knowledge and approximations which can give r i se to judgements, b e l i e f s , values, unver i f ied assumptions and value commitments. Be l ie f s have also been recognized in studies of organizat ional behaviour as performing a cent ra l function in administ rat ive a c t i v i t y ( P f e f f e r , 1981; Smircich and Morgan, 1982). P fe f fe r (1981) views the organization as a system of shared meanings and b e l i e f s which assures continued compliance, commitment, and p o s i t i v e a f fect on i t s p a r t i c i p a n t s . Administrat ive act ion i s thus viewed as being involved in bu i ld ing shared b e l i e f s so that act ion can be interpreted in a way that i s compatible with emergent norms and values. Smircich and Morgan (1982) view the administ rat ive leader in the organizat ion as the manager of shared meanings, who attempts to provide a basis for organized ac t ion . But despite these studies which recognize 6 the cent ra l ro le of administ rators ' b e l i e f s there has been no development of systematic research designed to explore in greater depth the area of administ rators ' b e l i e f s and values about what they do in the work p lace. Perhaps one reason for the lack of progress in the development of systematic empir ica l invest igat ions of administ rators ' b e l i e f s about what they do, i s that the manner in which they organize the i r experiences at the i r i n s t i t u t i o n s of work i s exceedingly complex. It involves the sets of ideas, concepts, values, a t t i tudes and goals which they accept and which const i tu te the base from which they attempt to make sense of the i r world of work. From the foregoing d iscuss ion , i t seems p laus ib le to conclude that since the manner in which educational administrators organize the i r experiences in the work place i s complex, one kind of attempt to understand the complexity might be to focus on some fundamental aspect of i t , for example, administ rators ' formulation of problems. Furthermore, the focus of empir ica l research has been la rge ly on what administrators do rather than on the i r b e l i e f s about what they do. In a d d i t i o n , theor is ts have pointed out the usefulness of attempting to understand the underlying conceptions of ac t ions , therefore i t i s reasonable to conclude that a more useful approach to understanding the complexity would be to focus on educational administ rators ' b e l i e f s about the i r formulation of problems in the work p lace . 7 The present study took t h i s approach and focused on a small but essent ia l area of inqu i ry : administ rators ' b e l i e f s about problem formulat ion. Descr ipt ion of Be l ie f s and Problem Formulation Behaviour B e l i e f s have been described as symbolic systems, that i s , systems of conceptions which represent meanings. Meanings are abstract ions from experience (Parsons and S h i l s , 1951; Edelson, 1976; K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r , 1976). K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) used a set of four d i f fe rent types of b e l i e f s to obtain a comprehensive p r o f i l e of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s b e l i e f s . These b e l i e f s included the fo l lowing : (1) Normative b e l i e f s which express evaluat ive standards and rules of an e t h i c a l or non e t h i c a l nature, (for example, "Administrators should accumulate as much information as possible before def in ing the nature of a problem.") ; (2) General b e l i e f s which express assumed facts about behaviours, objects or events (for example, "Administrators often accumulate as much information as possible before def in ing the nature of a problem.") ; (3) Goal b e l i e f s which express future ac t ions , desired or rejected by "the s e l f " , (for example, "I want to accumulate as much information as possib le before def in ing the nature of a problem,") ; and (4) B e l i e f s about Self which express assumed facts about onesel f , behaviour or t r a i t s (for 8 example, "I tend to accumulate as much information as possible before def in ing the nature of a problem.") . K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1972, 1976) maintain that the combination of these four types of b e l i e f s forms a "cognit ive o r ien ta t ion" c lus te r which provides a meaningful and v a l i d summary of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s o r ientat ion to behaviour. The c lus te r of b e l i e f s can also be used to predict the i n d i v i d u a l ' s o r ientat ion to a p a r t i c u l a r behaviour of i n t e r e s t . A major assumption of the theory of cognit ive or ientat ion i s that the four b e l i e f s are independent and that i t i s the i r in te rac t ion in the form of a c lus te r which provides a meaningful and v a l i d index of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s o r i e n t a t i o n . In a ser ies of studies of b e l i e f s and the i r re la t ion to a d i v e r s i t y of behaviours such as cur ious i t y and achievement ( K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r , 1976) the K r e i t l e r s noted that the correspondence between the four b e l i e f s d i f f e r e d in d i f f e r e n t domains of cogni t ive content. Scholars in the f i e l d of psychology and philosophy have i d e n t i f i e d i n i t i a l conceptions as a fundamental step in the problem formulation process (Dewey, 1938; Shulman et a l . , 1968, Newell and Simon, 1972; E l s t e i n et a l . , 1972, 1979; A l l a l , 1973; George, 1980). Findings from these studies (Newell and Simon, 1972; E l s t e i n et a l . , 1972, 1979; A l l a l , 1973) suggest that when an ind iv idua l perceives a s i t u a t i o n to be problematic, he or she generates an i n i t i a l conception of the problem. Through 9 the process of evoking b e l i e f s , acquir ing add i t iona l information, tes t ing and re ject ing hypotheses, and invest igat ing the nature of the problem, the ind iv idua l formulates the problem in a form which f a c i l i t a t e s i t s so lut ion (E ls te in et a l . , 1979; Lyles and M i t r o f f , 1980; Chi et a l . , 1981). However, i t can be argued that i t i s impossible to ve r i f y the connections between b e l i e f s and problem formulation behaviour without some means of ve r i f y ing the basic b e l i e f s involved. No previous attempts have been made to iden t i f y empi r i ca l l y the problem formulation b e l i e f s of adminis t rators . Neither has a be l ie f scale been developed for use in the assessment of the b e l i e f s of educational adminis t rators . The development of a Problem Formulation (PF) Be l ie f Scale would thus contr ibute to the progress of empir ica l invest igat ions of the re la t ion between b e l i e f s and problem formulation behaviour and the development of theory in educational admin is t rat ion . In a d d i t i o n , a study of t h i s nature might be useful in the development of procedures for t r a i n i n g students in educational administrat ion in the task of formulating problems, and in recognizing e x p l i c i t and u n j u s t i f i e d constra ints a r i s i n g from the i r b e l i e f s . 10 PURPOSE AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY The purpose of the present study was: (1) to develop a Problem Formulation Bel ie f Scale that could be used for the assessment of problem formulation b e l i e f s and the pred ic t ion of problem formulation behaviour, (2) to examine selected aspects of the construct v a l i d i t y of the instrument, and (3) to apply the Be l ie f Scale in an exploratory study to assess the problem formulation b e l i e f s of educational administ rators . The development of the instrument was based on the l i t e r a t u r e on problem formulation and on the theory of cogni t ive or ientat ion (K re i t l e r and K r e i t l e r , 1976) which assumes that an i n d i v i d u a l ' s o r ientat ion to a p a r t i c u l a r behaviour, for example problem formulat ion, can be determined by measuring h is or her Normative, General, Goal and Self b e l i e f s about the s p e c i f i c behaviour. In the l i t e r a t u r e there i s considerable ambiguity about the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s of these four types of b e l i e f s . K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) concede on the one hand, that there i s an i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p among the four types of b e l i e f s , but on the other hand maintain that the four types of b e l i e f s , as components of cogni t ive or ientat ion are independent. Each of the four b e l i e f s contr ibutes equally to the cogn i t i ve o r ienta t ion c lus te r which provides a meaningful summary of 11 an i n d i v i d u a l ' s o r ientat ion to a spec i f ied behaviour. These two c o n f l i c t i n g views of the re la t ionsh ips of the four b e l i e f s have been l e f t unresolved in the discussions of t h e o r e t i c a l and empi r ica l research (Parsons and S h i l s , 1951; K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r , 1972, 1976). The present study was based on the assumption ( fo l lowing Parsons, 1951) that normative b e l i e f s would function as evaluat ive standards, goal b e l i e f s would give commitment to evaluat ive b e l i e f s by providing the basis for a c t i o n , and general and se l f b e l i e f s would express assumed f a c t s . Thus, in the context of problem formulation normative and goal b e l i e f s would correspond more c lose ly than the -other pa i rs of b e l i e f s , namely: general and normative b e l i e f s , se l f and normative b e l i e f s , general and goal b e l i e f s , se l f and goal b e l i e f s , and general and se l f b e l i e f s . The view of K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) was incorporated into the present study by means of the assumption that the combination of b e l i e f s of the four types provided a meaningful and v a l i d index of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s o r ientat ion to problem formulation behaviour. Through the examination of the correspondence of the normative, general , goal and se l f b e l i e f s of administrators about problem formulation the t e n a b i l i t y of each of the views of the re la t ionsh ips of the be l i e f domains was assessed. The study also included explor ing research questions designed: (1) to examine the data on 1 2 administ rators ' problem formulation b e l i e f s among administrators whose scores on the Normative, General, Goal , and Self be l ie f domains were farthest from the mean, and (2 ) to compare selected biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h i s sub-sample of administ rators . OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS This chapter has provided a br ief descr ip t ion of the background to the study and has described i t s purpose. A review of the l i t e r a t u r e i s presented in Chapter II together with the t h e o r e t i c a l or ientat ions relevant to the construct ion of the instrument. Three main areas are explored: problem formulation behaviour, b e l i e f s and behaviour and the conceptual framework for the study of b e l i e f s about problem formulation behaviour in the present study. In Chapter III the development of the Problem Formulation (PF) Be l ie f Scale i s described and in Chapter IV the methodological aspects of the use of the developed instrument are discussed. In Chapter V the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondents are described as wel l as the resu l ts of (a) the psychometric analyses, (b) the tests of the hypotheses, and (c) the supplementary analyses conducted. 1 3 Chapter VI presents the f indings from an analys is of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a selected sub-sample of 60 administrators whose t o t a l be l ie f scores were approximately one standard deviat ion above or below the mean be l ie f scores of the whole sample of post-secondary administ rators . Each of the two main sections in th i s chapter deals respect ive ly with one of the two research questions designed to examine d i f ferences in the responses to items of the PF be l ie f scale and the biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sub-sample of low and high be l ie f scorers . Chapter VII presents a summary of the study, followed by the conclusions and some of the i r imp l i ca t ions . 14 CHAPTER II PROBLEM FORMULATION AND BELIEFS: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The purpose of t h i s chapter i s f i r s t to examine the t h e o r e t i c a l issues in the research l i t e r a t u r e which are relevant to the study, and second, to describe a conceptual framework for the study. The mater ial i s presented in three major sect ions . The f i r s t and second deal with problem formulation behaviour and b e l i e f s respect i ve l y . The t h i r d describes the study's conceptual framework. PROBLEM FORMULATION BEHAVIOUR Despite , the recognit ion of problem formulation as a fundamental aspect of the problem solv ing process, progress towards i t s inves t igat ion has been r e l a t i v e l y neg l ig ib le (Mintzberg et a l . , 1976; Getze ls , 1978). Lyles (1980) has a t t r ibu ted t h i s r e l a t i v e neglect to lack of at tent ion in the workplace to the problem formulation process. She notes that in organizat ions managers are not required to analyse the process by which they formulate problems. Neither do organizat ions provide contro ls or rewards for problem formulation a c t i v i t y , although problem formulation i s recognized to have an impact on organizat ional l i f e . Gettys 1 5 and Fisher (1979) suggest that the lack of systematic inquiry in problem formulation may be due to the tendency for researchers to view problem formulation as an art rather than as an area of s c i e n t i f i c study. In recent times researchers of problem processes have suggested that empir ica l research into the area of problem formulation may be f r u i t f u l since i t in large part determines subsequent courses of act ion (Getzels and Cs ikszentmihaly i , 1976; Mintzberg et a l . , 1976; Ly les , 1980). As early as 1931, Maier conducted an experimental study which demonstrated that the manner in which a problem i s formulated determines the types of a l te rnat i ves which are considered and the types of resources which are u t i l i z e d to solve the problem. E inste in and Inheld (1938), in t rac ing the development of s c i e n t i f i c d iscover ies in phys ics , noted that problem solut ion was merely a mathematical s k i l l , whereas problem formulation involved c reat ive imagination, the ra i s ing of new questions and the looking at old problems from a new perspect ive. Since the 1930's, some progress has been made in both the t h e o r e t i c a l and empir ica l invest igat ions of problem formulat ion. The pace has been slow and uneven but several ins ights have been gained. In the fo l lowing sect ions , the discussion w i l l focus on attempts to conceptualize problem formulation and the var ia t ions that have been found to e x i s t in problem formulation behaviour. 16 Conceptions of Problem Formulation There has been considerable agreement among researchers of problem oriented processes that problem formulation begins when an ind i v idua l senses that there i s a problem to be formulated (Dewey, 1910; A l l a l , 1973; Getzels and Cs ikszentmihaly i , 1976; Ly les and M i t r o f f , 1980). These researchers have noted that problem formulation can be viewed as a process and as a product but that whatever the conception, problem formulation d i f f e r s with the i n d i v i d u a l ' s response to the problem s i tua t ion with which he or she i s faced. For example, Lyles and Mi t ro f f (1980) invest igated problem formulation as a process in the context of organizations and noted that problem formulation occurred in wel l -def ined or in i l l - d e f i n e d problem s i t u a t i o n s . They found that the majority of managers who par t i c ipated in the i r study of organizat ional problem formulation described the formulation of problems as a r i s i n g only from i l l - d e f i n e d problem s i t u a t i o n s . Lyles and Mi t ro f f (1980) viewed problem formulation as a process involv ing (1) the sensing that a problem ex i s ted , (2) the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of contr ibut ing fac tors , and (3) the reaching of a d e f i n i t i o n of the problem. They defined problem formulation as : 1 7 a questioning or chal lenging of the current state of a f f a i r s in order to a r r i ve at one or a l l of the fo l low ing : wel l defined goals or ob ject ives , a better understanding of the current s i t u a t i o n , or an awareness of po tent ia l opportunit ies (Lyles and M i t r o f f , 1980: 104). A l l a l (1973) and E l s t e i n et a l . , (1979) have conceptualized problem formulation on the other hand, as a product of information processing in an "open system". The problem formulator does not have any previously establ ished routine or standard procedure to fol low in def in ing the problem but by a process of reasoning, deduction and induction makes attempts to f ind the problem and to discover i t s cause. Problem formulation has thus been equated with a diagnosis which, viewed as a product, has been defined in the medical context as a labe l ranging from the highly general to the highly s p e c i f i c [for example, from a general labe l such as "organic disorder" or "psychological problem" to a more s p e c i f i c l abe l such as "myocardial i n f a r c t i o n " or "glomerulonephrit is"] ( A l l a l , 1 9 7 3 : i x ) . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , A l l a l has defined problem formulation as the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a " labe l having po tent ia l diagnostic and/or management impl icat ions which the physic ian generates on the basis of cues ( A l l a l , 1 9 7 3 : i x ) . " In t h i s context, then, problem formulation consists of a "working diagnosis" or "hypothesis" , that i s a f a i r l y s p e c i f i c diagnostic label ( A l l a l , 1 973; E l s t e i n et a l . , 1979:53). 18 Besides the conceptions of problem formulation as a product or as the i n i t i a l phase of the problem solv ing process, problem formulation has a lso been viewed as a step in the problem f inding process (Getzels and Cs ikszentmihaly i , 1976). Problem f inding and problem solv ing have been conceived to be d i s t i n c t in terms of the i r processes and the i r outcomes. Based on the theore t i ca l discourse of Mackworth (1965), problem f ind ing has been viewed as the detection of a need or discrepancy, whereas problem solv ing has been viewed as the se lec t ion and use of a course of a c t i o n . Getzels and Csikszentmihaly i (1976) in the i r d iscussion of problem f ind ing tend to use the term "discovered" to describe what others (Reitman, 1964; Hayes, 1978; Lyles and M i t r o f f , 980) have c a l l e d an " i l l - d e f i n e d " problem s i t u a t i o n . The f indings of both groups are cons is tent , however, in that they show that problem f inding or problem formulation behaviour i s done in response to the i l l - d e f i n e d (or "discovered") problem s i t u a t i o n . It i s the r a i s i n g of many poss ib le questions rather than the se lect ion of a s ing le s o l u t i o n . Further explanations of the ways in which problem formulation has been conceptualized have shown that d iscuss ion has had one of two f o c i : an examination of the kinds of s i tuat ions which give r i se to various modes of problem formulation and an examination of problem formulation as a process. 19 S i tuat ions requi r ing problem formulat ion. The formulation of problems d i f f e r s with respect to the type of problem s i t u a t i o n with which the in d i v id ua l i s faced. Getzels (1964) has proposed a continuum of problem s i tuat ions at one end of which are we l l -def ined problem s i t u a t i o n s . At the other end of the continuum are i l l - d e f i n e d problem s i t u a t i o n s . In the we l l -de f ined (or "presented") problem s i tuat ions there ex i s t s a known formulation of the problem which has been worked out by others , a routine method of so lu t ion , and a recognized s o l u t i o n . The ind i v idua l needs only to recognize and re t r ieve the e x i s t i n g formulation and establ ished procedures in order to meet the requirements of the s i t u a t i o n . Examples of t h i s type of problem s i t u a t i o n are : What i s the salary scale for a new teacher? or What i s to be done i f f i r e breaks out in a classroom at your school? An intermediary type of problem s i tua t ion i s one in which the problem i s presented but no standard method for solv ing i t i s known to the problem so lver , although i t i s known by s i g n i f i c a n t others . In t h i s type of problem s i t u a t i o n , the ind iv idua l has to r e f l e c t upon the presented problem u n t i l he or she reaches a so lut ion which matches the one that i s already known. This process involves mainly reasoning and r a t i o n a l i t y whereas, in the case of the f i r s t 2 0 type of problem s i t u a t i o n which has been i d e n t i f i e d , m e m o r i z a t i o n and r e c o g n i t i o n a r e the main p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e d . At the o t h e r end of the continuum a r e the i l l - d e f i n e d (or " d i s c o v e r e d " ) problem s i t u a t i o n s which a re n o v e l and important and f o r which t h e r e a r e n e i t h e r e s t a b l i s h e d r o u t i n e f o r m u l a t i o n s nor s o l u t i o n s . The i n d i v i d u a l has t o be i n n o v a t i v e and f i n d the problem. Examples of t h i s type of problem s i t u a t i o n a r e : "How would you r e o r g a n i z e your Department?" or "Wr i t e a p r o p o s a l of an i n t e n d e d r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . " I l l - d e f i n e d problems have been i n v e s t i g a t e d by r e s e a r c h e r s of problem s o l v i n g p r o c e s s e s , who have i d e n t i f i e d the f o l l o w i n g problem f o r m u l a t i o n f e a t u r e s as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of such problems: (1) The problem s o l v e r has t o t a k e an a c t i v e r o l e i n s p e c i f y i n g what the problem i s (Reitman, 1964; Simon, 1973; Hayes, 1978:206; L e i n h a r d t , 1978). (1a) T h i s means t h a t the problem s o l v e r has t o make d e c i s i o n s about how t o d e c r e a s e the d i s c r e p a n c y between the s i t u a t i o n as p e r c e i v e d and the s i t u a t i o n as c o n c e i v e d t o be d e s i r a b l e . (2) The problem s o l v e r i s r e q u i r e d t o make t e n t a t i v e problem s o l v i n g a t t e m p t s i n orde r t o f i n d or u n d e r s t a n d what the problem i s ( B a r t l e t t , 1958; E l s t e i n et a l . , 1972; 1979; G e t z e l s and C s i k s z e n t m i h a l y i , 1976). Problem f o r m u l a t i o n as a p r o c e s s . Even among those who fo c u s on problem f o r m u l a t i o n as a p r o c e s s , t h e r e has been c o n s i d e r a b l e d i v e r s i t y i n the ways i n which t h a t 21 process has been conceptual ized. For example, A l l a l (1973) invest igated the s t ruc tu ra l processes of problem formulation and i d e n t i f i e d three major component a c t i v i t i e s , namely: (1) generating competing formulat ions, (2) generating mult ip le subspaces, that i s categor iz ing aspects of the problem s i tua t ion and (3) i d e n t i f y i n g funct ional re la t ionsh ips between formulations. These three components are d i f f e r e n t from those proposed by MacCrimmon (1980). He has viewed problem formulation as involv ing the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a problem. This requires the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of conceptions of the desi rable and of the actual s t a t e s . The product of th i s process i s a statement of the problem. MacCrimmon maintains that a prerequis i te to adequate problem formulation i s understanding what the problem i s . He defines a problem as "a gap between an actual state and a des i red state (1980:3) ." The actual state i s the s i tua t ion in which the problem solver i s , whereas the desired s tate i s the s i tua t ion in which he would l i k e to be. MacCrimmon states that problem formulation requires independent s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the problem so lve r ' s actual state and desi red s t a t e , and the contrast ing of these s p e c i f i c a t i o n s to produce more complete and useful formulations of the problem. MacCrimmon uses President Nixon's s i t u a t i o n during the impeachment hearings of the House Jud ic ia ry Committee in Ju ly 1974, to i l l u s t r a t e how problem formulations can be generated: 22 To formulate the problem one might begin by spec i fy ing the DESIRED STATE: (1) Retain the Presidency. This would then d i rec t one's at tent ion to the fo l lowing aspects of the ACTUAL STATE (as perceived by Nixon): ( i ) loss of congressional support, ( i i ) impeachment inquiry pending in the Senate, ( i i i ) s t i l l have P r e s i d e n t i a l powers, ( iv) increasing negative mood toward Nixon.and Republican party , (v) upcoming Congressional e l e c t i o n s . These descr ipt ions might then lead to the considerat ion of other aspects of the DESIRED STATE: (2) preserve (or restore) Nixon's reputation for p o s t e r i t y , (3) help strengthen the Republican party . This might lead to further ACTUAL STATE desc r ip t ions : (vi ) lack of time to spend on matters of s ta te , ( v i i ) f i n a n c i a l hassle with IRS over tax on income and c a p i t a l gains, ( ix) upcoming t r i a l s of former a ides . Such descr ipt ions in turn could lead to a considerat ion of the DESIRED STATE: (4) re ta in cont ro l of tapes and records, (~5l avoid c r imina l prosecut ion, (6) assure future f i n a n c i a l secur i t y , and (7) obtain future peace of mind. These could lead to further ACTUAL STATE cons iderat ions : (x) deter io ra t ion in hea l th , (Iii) q u a l i f i e d for pension i f res ign , but not i f impeached, and ( x i i ) good re la t ions with V .P . Ford (re pardon). By continuing to develop more complete descr ipt ions of the actual state and desired s t a t e , the gap and i t s dimensions can be h igh l igh ted , and the fo l lowing problem statements or formulations may r e s u l t : For example, 1. How to turn the Congressional t ide against impeachment. 2. How to a id the Republican party in the upcoming congressional e l e c t i o n s . 3. How to have more time for regular P r e s i d e n t i a l matters and enhancement of h is reputat ion . 4. How to avoid c r imina l prosecution for himself and h is f r i ends . 5. How to restore f i n a n c i a l , phys ica l and mental we l l -be ing (MacCrimmon,1980: 13-17) . 23 What A l l a l and MacCrimmon have in common i s the view that problem formulation can be analysed in terms of a set of component behaviours. The notion of components i s a useful one in examining the research which has invest igated var ia t ions in problem formulation behaviour. Var ia t ions in Problem Formulation Behaviour The f indings of several studies have indicated that va r ia t ions ex is t among ind iv idua ls with respect to cer ta in component behaviours of the problem formulation process. For example in an experiment designed to observe the production of the creat ive works of a r t i s t s , Getzels and Csikszentmihaly i (1976) observed notable d i f ferences among the subjects with respect to how they formulated problems. The subjects were requested to s e l e c t , arrange and compose a s t i l l l i f e composition in whichever way they pleased. The formulation of the problem was conceived of as occurr ing in the predrawing stage during which the a r t i s t s attempted to determine what to do. The drawing phase was treated as the problem solv ing stage, and the stage in which the a r t i s t s evaluated the i r drawings was c a l l e d the problem evaluation stage. Notable d i f ferences in the problem formulation behaviour of the subjects were found i n : (1) the themes which they used in the paint ings , (2) the number of objects manipulated, (3) the uniqueness of the objects selected for 24 the f i n a l arrangement of the s t i l l l i f e , and (4) the i r exploratory behaviour while invest igat ing the ob jects . Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) assumed that these behaviours were ind icat i ve of cognit ive processes in a problem f ind ing approach to a problem s i t u a t i o n . The themes which the a r t i s t s used in the i r paint ings represented the problems which they had i d e n t i f i e d . The manipulation of objects represented the manipulation of ideas, symbols and information. The uniqueness of objects was interpreted as the c r i t e r i a the subjects used in the se lec t ion of the objects . Exploratory behaviour referred to the invest igat ive a c t i v i t i e s which the subjects undertook. These four components behaviours, namely: (1) the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem, (2) the se lec t ion of information, (3) the use of c r i t e r i a in the se lec t ion of information, and (4) exploratory behaviour provide a focus for the discussion of the v a r i a t i o n s in problem formulation behaviour. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem. In the problem f inding experiment of Getzels and Csikszentmihaly i (1976) i t was observed that the a r t i s t s used d i f fe ren t themes in the i r drawings. The themes represented the i d e n t i f i e d problem. Pr io r to the development of the themes, Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) noted that the a r t i s t s experienced vague tensions and strong fee l ings that a "general" problem 25 or some apparent problem ex is ted , and that there was a source behind t h i s apparent problem. This represented the apprehension of a problem which was subsequently re f ined . I t led to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the s p e c i f i c problem. In an experiment in problem formulation among experienced physicians and medical students, A l l a l (1973) examined the i n i t i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems in a d i f fe rent perspect ive . She r e s t r i c t e d her invest igat ion to the f i r s t few minutes of a phys ic ian 's encounter with a patient who presents a number of complaints. The problems which were apprehended were considered i n i t i a l problem formulat ions. A l l a l (1973) defined the number of problems i d e n t i f i e d as a measure of the thoroughness of a subject 's performance. She noted that experienced physicians did not ident i f y a unidimensional l i s t of problems when deal ing with a p a t i e n t ' s complaints, but formulated a structured set of problems with the fol lowing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : (1) H i e r a r c h i c a l o rganizat ion , that i s the organizat ion of problems into a general to s p e c i f i c hierarchy along a s ing le diagnostic category. (2) Competing formulations that provide a l te rnat i ve explanations for some group of symptoms. (3) M u l t i p l e subspaces, or d i f f e r e n t types of d iagnost ic categories which the decis ion maker used in categor iz ing cues or aspects of the problem s i t u a t i o n . (4) Funct ional re la t ionsh ips between problem formulations ( A l l a l , 1 9 7 3 : 114-115). 26 A l l a l (1973) found that the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of competing sets of problems was a consistent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a l l phys ic ians . Physicians and medical students t ra ined in formulating problems were found to ident i f y more thorough and appropriate sets of competing problems than untrained students. Thoroughness referred to the number of problems i d e n t i f i e d . Appropriateness referred to the number of d iagnost ic categories or subspaces of major importance that were used in ident i f y ing at least one problem. A l l a l (1973) noted that the major d i f ference between the t ra ined group of students and the contro l or untrained group of students was the l a t t e r ' s f a i l u r e to ident i f y mult ip le competing problems from a p a t i e n t ' s reported complaints. Complaints were e i ther interpreted as problems or as symptoms of underlying problems. Among the untrained medical students a p a t i e n t ' s reported complaints tended to be interpreted as i so la ted problems. But among the t ra ined students the complaints were interpreted as symptoms of mul t ip le competing problems. These f ind ings indicate that a dimension of v a r i a t i o n of problem formulation behaviour that i s relevant to i t s descr ip t ion i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem. Select ion of information. Kuhn (1963:105) has noted that the se lect ion of information i s important to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of phenomena as members of some p a r t i c u l a r c lass or concept. Dewey (1938) has asserted that the 27 s e l e c t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n i s g u i d e d by the i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o n c e p t i o n s as i d e a s or h y p o t h e s e s . These i d e a s , he has argued, p l a y a c r u c i a l " o p e r a t i o n a l " r o l e i n the s e l e c t i o n , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , arrangement and o r d e r i n g of i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d from a p r o b l e m a t i c s i t u a t i o n . H i s n o t i o n i s t h a t i d e a s (hypotheses) do not o n l y l e a d t o the d e t e c t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n , but i n t e r a c t w i t h the d e t e c t i o n of f a c t s . The i d e a s i n t u r n i n s t i g a t e and d i r e c t the f u r t h e r s e l e c t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n . The i d e a s u s u a l l y become embodied i n symbols which a c t as s i g n a l s and d i r e c t subsequent a c t i v i t y . In the problem f i n d i n g experiment of G e t z e l s and C s i k s z e n t m i h a l y i (1976) s u b j e c t s i d e n t i f i e d and m a n i p u l a t e d a number of o b j e c t s r a n g i n g from as many as 19 of 27 o b j e c t s t o as few as two. T h i s b e h a v i o u r was used as a measure of the b r e a d t h of i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i s the s u g g e s t i o n of G e t z e l s and C s i k s z e n t m i h a l y i (1976: 136,147) t h a t i n an experiment i n which symbols and i d e a s are b e i n g m a n i p u l a t e d , the symbols and i d e a s can be taken as the analogue of o b j e c t s as used i n t h e i r s t u d y . G i v e n t h i s , Shulman's i n v e s t i g a t i o n of human i n q u i r y u s i n g s c h o o l t e a c h e r s becomes r e l e v a n t . Shulman (1965) examined the i n f o r m a t i o n which s u b j e c t s used i n the i n q u i r y p r o c e s s . He used two v a r i a b l e s t o a s s e s s the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g a c t i v i t i e s . They were (1) " b i t s of i n f o r m a t i o n used", and (2) " i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s " used. The f i r s t v a r i a b l e was used as a measure of the problems sensed ( t h a t 28 i s problems i n i t i a l l y formulated) whereas the second var iable was a measure of the categories or kinds of information a subject used. A subject had the opportunity to use varying numbers of b i t s of information from in te rna l and external sources. The b i t s of information which .a subject wished to use could be manipulated in which ever way the subject chose. Shulman found that there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences among subjects with regard to the number of b i t s of information used. Subjects who were more var iable and f l e x i b l e in the i r search for information employed a higher number of b i t s of information from both in te rna l and external sources. This was assumed to measure the breadth of the subject 's information seeking r e l a t i v e to the t o t a l number of mater ia ls processed during the inquiry sess ion. A l l a l (1973), on the other hand, used the measure "cues" to determine the data base which subjects used in the i r formulation of problems. Cues referred to elements of data which a subject used for ident i f y ing problems. She found that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ference between the groups of subjects on t h i s va r iab le . The average performance in the se lec t ion of information by the subjects who had received t r a i n i n g in problem formulation and those who had not was h igh, that i s they attained over 70% of the maximum possib le score on the va r iab le . 29 A l l a l concluded that the subjects had already a t ta ined , p r io r to the experiment, a high l e v e l of s k i l l in detect ing cues and using them to ident i f y at least one problem. However on the var iab le which re lated cues used to the problems i d e n t i f i e d there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences between the untrained subjects and the t ra ined subjects . This was at t r ibuted to the ef fect of t r a i n i n g in the use of se lec t ing information to formulate problems. This involved the recognit ion of information and the undertaking of a search. A l l a l noted, however, that a knowledge of the domain and the use of search s t rateg ies in obtaining information were necessary in t h i s a c t i v i t y of se lect ing adequate information. An examination of these studies suggests that another dimension of problem formulation which i s relevant to i t s descr ipt ion i s the se lec t ion of information which a subject uses in h is or her attempts to formulate the problem. U t i l i z i n g c r i t e r i a in the se lec t ion of information. In the l i t e r a t u r e on problem formulat ion, d i f ferences in the information se lect ion of subjects have been viewed par t l y as the resu l t of the use of d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a ( A l l a l , 1973; Getzels and Cs ikszentmihaly i , 1976; Ross, l 9 8 l a ; b ) . Ross (1981a: 4; 198lb), in h is development of an instrument to measure student decis ion making, conceptualized c r i t e r i a 30 used in the making of decis ions in terms of f ive l e v e l s , namely: (1) no c r i t e r i a , (2) c r i t e r i a based on good things and bad th ings , (3) se l f - re fe renced c r i t e r i a , (4) c r i t e r i a which refer to other people, and (5) c r i t e r i a which are general p r i n c i p l e s . At l e v e l 1 - no c r i t e r i a - the ind iv idua l d id not consider a l t e r n a t i v e c r i t e r i a . At l eve l two - good things and bad things - the ind i v idua l did not apply the same reasons to a l l the a l te rnat i ves considered. A d i f fe rent set of good and bad reasons was given for each a l t e r n a t i v e . Level 3 - se l f - re fe renced c r i t e r i a - was character ized by an e x p l i c i t set of c r i t e r i a which the ind i v idua l appl ied systemat ica l ly to a l l h is a l t e r n a t i v e s . The d i s t ingu ish ing feature of these c r i t e r i a was that they were e n t i r e l y s e l f - r e f e r e n c e d . They concerned the i n d i v i d u a l ' s personal needs, wants, and goals without reference to other people. At l e v e l 4 - c r i t e r i a re fe r r ing to other people - the ind i v idua l had an e x p l i c i t set of c r i t e r i a which appl ied to each a l t e r n a t i v e considered. This set included se l f - re fe renced c r i t e r i a and some c r i t e r i a that referred to other people. Level 5 - c r i t e r i a as general p r i n c i p l e s ' - was character ized by se l f - re fe renced concerns and the considerat ion of other people into a general set of p r i n c i p l e s of human act ion having universal v a l i d i t y . This d i f f e r e d from l e v e l four c r i t e r i a in the considerat ion of concerns from a theore t i ca l l e v e l or as a p r i n c i p l e . 31 In the app l i cat ion of the model to a t ra in ing program, Ross (1981b) found that there was considerable d i f f i c u l t y in r a i s i n g to a higher l e v e l an i n d i v i d u a l ' s performance in the u t i l i z a t i o n of c r i t e r i a . He suggested that th i s might be due to the s ingle l i n e a r i t y of h is scheme which might have been concealing other kinds of growth, that i s , model m i s f i t . Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) focussed on the i n t u i t i v e aspects of th inking in the i r invest igat ion of the problem f inding behaviour of art students. They argued that creat ive problem formulation depended on s e n s i t i v i t y , i n t u i t i o n , and h o l i s t i c evaluation rather than on o b j e c t i v i t y , reasoning, and a n a l y t i c a l a b i l i t y . They maintained that associated with i n t u i t i o n were deep emotional fee l ings and experiences which led to discovery. A main assumption was that subjects who i d e n t i f i e d unique objects rather than popular 'objects had selected the objects on the basis of i n t u i t i o n and deep emotional f e e l i n g s . In the experiment these subjects received higher scores for the objects they selected (judged on the basis of the c r i t e r i a they used) than did those subjects who had chosen popular objects . The l a t t e r group of subjects was assumed to lack deep emotional f e e l i n g s . From an e n t i r e l y d i f fe ren t perspective A l l a l (1973) examined the c r i t e r i a which physicians and medical students used in the i r search for cues when formulating problems. 32 A l l a l was concerned with subjects ' use of previously acquired knowledge, experience, thoroughness of cue a c q u i s i t i o n , and s ty le of information integrat ion in generating accurate problem formulations in the medical context. A l l a l ' s focus was thus on the outcome of the subjects ' information processing and l o g i c a l d iagnost ic reasoning. The c r i t e r i a which she considered relevant in problem formulation pertained to the types of cues that were u t i l i z e d . A l l a l noted that four main types of c r i t e r i a were used in detect ing, i n t e r p r e t i n g , and se lec t ing cues: (1) unconscious c r i t e r i a , (2) impress ion is t i c c r i t e r i a , (3) general c r i t e r i a , and (4) c r i t e r i a based on a p r i n c i p l e . A l l a l (1973) found that among experienced physic ians the se lec t ion of a cue or strategy was often an unconscious process. Physicians reported that cues and re la t ionsh ips among cues suddenly came to mind. Impressionist ic c r i t e r i a were a type of c r i t e r i a found to be used by physicians who focussed on non verbal data to form impressions of the patient for use in judging the accuracy and o b j e c t i v i t y of the symptoms the pat ient reported. Some physicians made greater use of the i r i n i t i a l impressions of the patient than others. The t h i r d category of c r i t e r i a which physic ians used in se lec t ing cues - general c r i t e r i a - were selected on the basis of the r e l a t i v e frequency of a complaint or incidence of disease, presenting complaints of p a t i e n t s , major complaints of the patient or s ing le sa l ient cues. A 33 fourth type of c r i t e r i a was based on p r i n c i p l e s . E l s t e i n et a l . , (1979) noted that physic ians did not usual ly d i f f e r e n t i a t e between cues and c r i t e r i a l f indings but that they adhered to p r i n c i p l e s in rank ordering the i r hypotheses. These p r i n c i p l e s pertained to the p robab i l i t y of a p a r t i c u l a r disease causing the p a t i e n t ' s problem, the seriousness of the cond i t ions , the t r e a t a b i l i t y of a l te rna t i ve diseases, or the novelty of a hypothesis which might serve to keep the physic ian interested in the,case or to ensure that u n l i k e l y avenues were explored. Although A l l a l (1973) d id not examine the c r i t e r i a that physicians used in terms of d i f fe rent l e v e l s , she i d e n t i f i e d types of c r i t e r i a which were s imi la r to what Ross (1981b) i d e n t i f i e d as d i f f e r i n g l e v e l s of c r i t e r i a . From the preceding d iscussion i t can be concluded that another dimension of va r ia t ion that i s relevant to the descr ipt ion of problem formulation behaviour i s the c r i t e r i a which are used in the se lect ion of informat ion. Exploratory behaviour. Although the l i t e r a t u r e on problem formulation i s r e l a t i v e l y s i l e n t on exploratory behaviour, work on problem so lv ing has ins ights to o f f e r . In these problem solv ing s tud ies , the problem solv ing process has been conceptualized as an o v e r a l l process inc lud ing the formulation of the problem and the se lect ion and execution of a course of a c t i o n . Findings from these 34 studies which are relevant to the discussion of exploratory behaviour are included in t h i s sect ion . Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) invest igated the amount of exploratory a c t i v i t y displayed by subjects in the se lec t ion and arrangement of objects . Explorat ion included a range of var ia t ions in behaviour such as merely t rans fe r r ing objects from one table to another, in tent l y observing objects and fee l ing the i r texture , and ac t i ve l y experimenting with some objects by changing the i r pos i t ions and shapes and rearranging them. Subjects who merely t ransferred objects were given low scores, whereas those who observed and ac t i ve l y experimented with objects were given high scores. Kolb (1976) approached exploratory behaviour in a d i f f e r e n t context, the context of managerial learning and problem so l v ing . According to Kolb 's model, problem solv ing a c t i v i t y 1 begins with concrete experiencing, then proceeds through r e f l e c t i v e observation to abstract conceptual izat ion and f i n a l l y to act ive experimentation. Getzels and Csikszentmihaly i (1976) observed behaviours s i m i l a r to those 1 Kolb uses the term "problem so lv ing" to refer to both the processes i d e n t i f i e d by Pounds (1969) as problem f inding and problem so lv ing . The problem solv ing process as conceptualized by Kolb (1976:26) involves the fo l lowing stages: (1) choosing a model or goal , (2) comparing i t to r e a l i t y , (3) i dent i f y ing d i f ferences (problems), (4) se lec t ing a problem, (5) considering a l te rna t i ve so lu t ions , (6) evaluating consequences of so lu t ions , (7) se lect ing a s o l u t i o n , and (8) executing the s o l u t i o n . 35 described by Kolb (1976), but in the i r d e f i n i t i o n of exploratory behaviour, act ive experimentation followed conceptual i zat ion . But E ins te in and Infe ld (1938) envisaged experimentation from a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t perspect ive . For them experimentation was a conceptual process involv ing the manipulation of symbols. An example which they c i t e d can be used to i l l u s t r a t e the po int . E inste in and In fe ld (1938) noted that i n t u i t i v e th inking subscribed to the idea that the greater the act ion the greater was the v e l o c i t y . This led to the representation that a cart would stand s t i l l i f someone stopped pushing i t . The resu l t of t h i s idea was s t e r i l i t y . However G a l i l e o reasoned that i f no external forces were act ing on a body i t would move uniformly, that i s , always with the same v e l o c i t y along a s t ra ight l i n e . This was speculat ive th inking (d i f ferent from i n t u i t i v e thinking) which involved idea l i zed experimentation that could never be performed. It led to discovery . McDermott and Larkin (1978) examined the inves t igat i ve behaviour of problem solvers attempting to solve physics problems and conceptualized the invest igat i ve process in terms of four stages during which d i f fe rent representations of the problems were constructed. These stages were reformulated by Chi et a l . , (1981) for use in the i r study of the categor izat ion and representations of problems. These "stages" are described as fo l lows : 36 (1) " L i t e r a l representation contains "surface s t ruc tures" , such as objects , l i t e r a l terms, and the r e p l i c a t i o n of the phys ica l conf igurat ions described in the presented task. (2) "Naive representation contains l i t e r a l objects and s p a t i a l re la t ionsh ips as stated in the presented task. (3.) " S c i e n t i f i c " representation contains idea l i zed objects and physical concepts which are necessary for generating equations that w i l l solve the problem. (4) Algebraic (quant i tat ive) representation contains "deep st ructures" which include abstract ions in the form of equations. Getzels and Csikszentmihaly i (1976) in the i r problem f ind ing study made observations which pertained to issues of problem representation and exploratory behaviour s imi la r to those addressed by McDermott and Larkin (1978). They noted that subjects explored the i r s i tuat ions at d i f f e r i n g l e v e l s . For example, an a r t i s t may have looked at an object l i t e r a l l y as an object on one l e v e l , and simultaneously may have looked at the object as symbolic of a human f igure at a more abstract l e v e l . This a l t e r n a t i v e in terpretat ion suggests greater in teract ion among the "stages" of representation than was proposed by McDermott and Larkin (1978). Getzels ' in te rpretat ion allows for the tentat ive conception of the problem and i t s subsequent refinement as more information i s gathered and i t avoids d isc rete stages. Chi et a l . , (1981) invest igated the "basic approach" of novices and experts to problems to be solved and found that there were d i f ferences between the groups in the way 37 they explored, manipulated and interpreted problem features. Novices exhibi ted l i t t l e explorat ion in the i r arrangement and organization of problem features, and in the prel iminary procedures which they adopted in developing an approach to the problem. They were found to examine the problem features in terms of global frameworks, to focus on solv ing rather than ident i f y ing the problems, to interpret l i t e r a l l y features of the problem and to resort to the immediate q u a n t i f i c a t i o n of terms without much q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s . Experts on the other hand were found to use deeper l eve l s t ructures , to focus more on the abstract conceptual izat ion of the problem features and on q u a l i t a t i v e analys is with respect to some p r i n c i p l e . These f indings indicate that d i f ferences in exploratory behaviour ex is t and can be traced to the i n d i v i d u a l ' s system of conceptual const ructs . Larkin et a l . , (1980) noted that a main and obvious d i f ference that they found in the problem solv ing behaviour of experts and novices was that experts possessed more knowledge. This accounted for the qua l i t y of the representations of the problem which they generated and the i r recognit ion of patterns which evoked vast amounts of stored information from thei r memory. H i l l s (1975) in a report of h is observations of the p r i n c i p a l s h i p noted that several p r i n c i p a l s exhibi ted unproductive behaviours when deal ing with problems. This 38 led him to conclude that there was a lack , among other s k i l l s , of exploratory a c t i v i t y among p r i n c i p a l s . Selected aspects of h is conclusions which are relevant to the discussion of the explorat ion of problems are : (a) Administrators seldom question the problematic status of s i t u a t i o n s , or the d e s i r a b i l i t y of stated ob ject i ves . (b) L i t t l e e f for t i s made to ident i f y the condit ions that permit (and/or cause) problematic s i tuat ions to occur. Problems are seldom seen as symptoms of underlying causes. (c) Problems tend to be treated as d i s c r e t e , independent, i so la ted phenomena. Relat ions among problems are seldom i d e n t i f i e d . From the preceding d i scuss ion , i t i s c lear that exploratory behaviour const i tutes a fourth var iable dimension of problem formulation behaviour. Summary. From the l i t e r a t u r e on problem formulation and solv ing two main conclusions can be made. F i r s t , problem formulation can be defined in terms of four component behaviours, namely: (1) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem, (2) se lect ion of information, (3) the use of c r i t e r i a in the se lec t ion of information, and (4) exploratory behaviour. Second, these component behaviours are not uni tary behaviours but have ranges of v a r i a t i o n . In the next sect ion a discussion of b e l i e f s with reference to problem formulation behaviour i s presented. 39 BELIEFS AND THEIR RELATION TO BEHAVIOUR H o l s t i (1976) has pointed out that the connections between b e l i e f s and behaviour are not simple and d i rec t but involve cognit ive a c t i v i t i e s . This view has been supported by several researchers of b e l i e f s and cogni t ive tasks such as decis ion making, problem so lv ing , and problem formulation (Shapiro and Bonham, 1973, Taylor, 1975, George, 1980). The notion i s that b e l i e f s are conceptions and that the s t a r t i n g point for cognit ive tasks such as decis ion making, problem s o l v i n g , and problem formulation i s in the conceptions of the i n d i v i d u a l s . In the fo l lowing sections relevant research into the area of b e l i e f s about problem formulation i s discussed. The d iscussion focusses f i r s t on c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of b e l i e f s , second, on the K r e i t l e r i a n theory of "cognit ive o r ienta t ion" and t h i r d , on b e l i e f s about problem formulat ion. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of B e l i e f s Parsons and S h i l s (1951: 140) have defined b e l i e f s as "symbol systems in which the cogni t ive function has primacy." As symbolic systems, b e l i e f s represent meanings, for symbols are d i s t i n c t i v e e n t i t i e s which by convention, stand f o r , represent, or present a meaning. A meaning i s both an abstract ion and a conception. Thus a be l i e f 40 represents a conception which i s an abstract ion from deta i led experience (Edelson, 1976). In a c u l t u r a l system, human behaviour has been associated with four d i f fe ren t types of symbol systems - the cogni t ive symbol system, the expressive symbol system, the moral -evaluat ive symbol system, and the cons t i tu t i ve symbol system (Parsons, 1965: 495-523). These four symbolic systems give r i s e to four types of b e l i e f s which represent conceptions of information and thought, desire and f e e l i n g , value and evaluation and the ult imate meaning of behaviours, objects and events. The four types of b e l i e f s (Parsons and Sh. i ls , 1951; Parsons, 1965) have been used as the basis for the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme of b e l i e f s developed by K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1972, 1976) for determining an i n d i v i d u a l ' s "cognit ive o r ien ta t ion" to a p a r t i c u l a r behaviour of i n t e r e s t . The K r e i t l e r i a n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of b e l i e f s . K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) have defined a be l ie f as a combination of concepts which have been produced as the resu l t of a meaning generation process. More s p e c i f i c a l l y they have defined a be l ie f as a complex unit cons is t ing of at l e a s t , a concept l inked by a r e l a t i o n a l concept to another concept ( K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r , 1972; 1976: 80) , for example, "School administrators ex is t only for the improvement of i ns t ruc t ion and welfare of the students." A be l ie f could 41 therefore be expressed as an af f i rmat ive or negative proposi t ion r e l a t i n g to a behaviour, object , state or event (Abelson and Rosenberg, 1958; Rokeach, 1968:113; Bern, 1970:43; Cappella and Folger , 1980). K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) have adapted the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of be l i e f systems developed by Parsons and S h i l s (1951) to devise a set of b e l i e f s which, they have hypothesized, comprehensively describes an i n d i v i d u a l ' s cogn i t i ve , expressive and evaluative or ientat ion to a behaviour, object or event. Two of these kinds of b e l i e f s refer to the i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n te rna l world, that i s b e l i e f s about Sel f and Goal b e l i e f s , and two refer to the external world, that i s General b e l i e f s and Normative b e l i e f s . The combination of. the d i f f e r e n t types of b e l i e f s has been assumed to give a v a l i d ind ica t ion of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s "cognit ive o r i e n t a t i o n " 2 to a spec i f ied behaviour, object or event. The types of b e l i e f s which K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) have used in the i r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . system are described as fo l lows : 2 K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976:69) use the term, cogni t ive o r ienta t ion to refer to a network of "meanings" which implies r e l a t i n g to objects on the basis not only of factual knowledge but a lso in terms of the i r g r a t i f i c a t o r y s ign i f i cance and value standards. This usage of the term "cogni t i ve" d i f f e r s from the Parsonian d e f i n i t i o n of "cogni t i ve" which refers to an or ientat ion to objects in terms of knowledge. Through invest igat ion one obtains knowledge of the object (Parsons and S h i l s , 1951). 42 (1) Normative B e l i e f s (N). These express general standards or rules r e l a t i n g to what people should th ink , say or do with regard to other people, objects or s i t u a t i o n s , for example, "Preparation programs in educational administrat ion should place an emphasis on the development of problem-solving s k i l l s . " (2) General B e l i e f s (GB). These express cogni t ive proposit ions about people, objects or s i tuat ions in the present, past or future; for example, "Most administrators tend to be random and unsystematic in the i r search for solut ions to problems." (3) Goal B e l i e f s (Go). These express a f f e c t i v e proposit ions concerning future ac t ions , objects or s ta tes , i . e . , those desired or rejected by the s e l f ; for example, "I want to explore more f u l l y the area of s t rateg ies and the i r app l i ca t ion in the teaching of problem solv ing s k i l l s . " (4) B e l i e f s about Self (BS). These express cognit ive proposit ions about one's s e l f ; for example, "I often approach the formulation of a problem by f i r s t speci fy ing the features that appear to contr ibute to the problem." These b e l i e f s have been used s ing ly and in varying degrees in studies of be l ie f systems of ind iv idua ls and groups. But less frequently have they been used as a set of four types of b e l i e f s in studies designed to a t t a i n a comprehensive p o r t r a i t of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s o r ientat ion to a p a r t i c u l a r object , behaviour or event, or in studies designed to predict a spec i f ied behaviour. The use of d i f fe rent types of b e l i e f s in studies of b e l i e f s and behaviour. Studies which have sought to. analyze the consistency between b e l i e f s and behaviour, and at t i tudes and behaviour, have attempted to use more than one type of b e l i e f . The importance of doing so has been exhibited in several s tud ies . 43 Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) proposed adding personal normative b e l i e f s , which ind icate an i n d i v i d u a l ' s motive to comply with the norm, to the invest igat ion of the att i tude-behaviour r e l a t i o n . O'Keefe (1980) proposed adding b e l i e f s which emphasized the cognit ive to evaluat ive b e l i e f s which were claimed to be the predominating kinds of b e l i e f s used by invest igators of a t t i t u d e s and behaviour. In the context of b e l i e f s , Cancian (1975) suggested the inc lus ion of three types of normative b e l i e f s in determining the consistency between b e l i e f s and behaviour. Schwartz (1973) showed that the function of b e l i e f s about personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for one's own actions and the consequences for the welfare of others were important. An aggregation of these diverse f indings suggests that i t may be f r u i t f u l to u t i l i z e a d i v e r s i t y of b e l i e f s in examining i n d i v i d u a l s ' b e l i e f s and the r e l a t i o n of b e l i e f s and behaviour. K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976: 338-364), in a review of 117 a t t i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s , noted that the a t t i t u d i n a l scales in studies in which at t i tudes and behaviour were found to be p o s i t i v e l y co r re la ted contained statements which represented an average of three types of b e l i e f s . A t t i t u d i n a l scales in studies in which no, or negative co r re la t ions were found between at t i tudes and behaviour contained statements which represented on average one type of' b e l i e f . Ninety-one percent of the a t t i t u d i n a l scales in 44 studies that obtained p o s i t i v e cor re la t ions between at t i tudes and behaviour were found to contain statements which represented three or four d i f fe rent types of b e l i e f s . On the other hand, only seven percent of the a t t i t u d i n a l scales in studies in which no or negative cor re la t ions were found contained a t t i t u d i n a l statements represented by three or four d i f f e r e n t types of b e l i e f s . In add i t ion , in the at t i tude scales of studies with no or negatively corre lated f ind ings , goal b e l i e f s were least represented in the statements of the sca les . These f indings supported assumptions of the cogni t ive or ientat ion theory which K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) developed in the course of the i r invest igat ions of b e l i e f s . The Theory of Cognit ive Or ientat ion K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) have noted that in order for behaviour to be predicted from b e l i e f s , a combination of four types of b e l i e f s - Normative B e l i e f s , General B e l i e f s , Goal B e l i e f s , and B e l i e f s about Self which are relevant to any s p e c i f i c stimulus input has to be i d e n t i f i e d . The inc lus ion of one or more Goal b e l i e f s with Normative, General , and Self b e l i e f s creates a "Cognitive Or ientat ion" (CO) c lus te r which prescribes the d i rec t ion for behaviour. The goal be l ie f forms the core of the CO c l u s t e r . If the relevant b e l i e f s have previously undergone c l u s t e r i n g , as i s common in recurrent and s i g n i f i c a n t 45 s i t u a t i o n s , these c lus te rs may be assumed to be stored in memory from where they are retr ieved when needed. The s ign i f i cance of the CO c lus te r i s that i t i s a v a l i d and meaningful summary of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s o r ientat ion to a s p e c i f i c behaviour and that i t can be used to prescr ibe behaviour. This has been the cent ra l proposit ion in the K r e i t l e r i a n theory of cognit ive o r i e n t a t i o n . Each of the component b e l i e f s of the "cognit ive o r ien ta t ion" c lus ter i s assumed to be independent, and performing a s p e c i f i c funct ion . Yet in the theore t i ca l discussions of the four types of b e l i e f s , K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) admit that these b e l i e f s are i n t e r r e l a t e d . Following the theory of the s o c i a l i z e d actor developed by Parsons (Parsons and S h i l s (1951) normative b e l i e f s have been described as evaluat ive standards which function in the evaluation of act ions or ind iv idua ls on the basis of how wel l they conform to some standard. They define the act ions and a t t r ibu tes which d i s t ingu ish a p a r t i c u l a r rank. Normative b e l i e f s are thus rules which enable an ind iv idua l to select the best behaviour pattern for him or herself and to evaluate the behaviour of others. These b e l i e f s specify whether a behaviour i s good or bad. They are assumed to bring e x i s t i n g and desired states of a f f a i r s into close conformity with des i rable states of a f f a i r s (Parsons, 1951). 46 General b e l i e f s and b e l i e f s about se l f are both cognit ive types of b e l i e f s which express assumed facts about behaviours, objects or events. The d i f ference between them is that general b e l i e f s perta in to a l l ind iv idua ls whereas b e l i e f s about se l f perta in to assumed facts about oneself . These two types of b e l i e f s express cognit ive meanings which f i r s t have to be establ ished before a f fect and evaluation can be estab l i shed . (Exceptions may occur in s i tuat ions where there i s not much knowledge about an object but i t i s s t i l l evaluated. For example, a student may not have much knowledge about a course which i s being offered but may s t i l l consider i t a good course. However the evaluat ive be l ie f i s based on the cognit ive be l i e f that such a course e x i s t s . ) Goal b e l i e f s represent conceptions of the desired which are d i s t i n c t from normative b e l i e f s which are conceptions of the desi rable that define the d i rec t ion of b e l i e f s . Goal b e l i e f s specify states which are to be achieved in a given context . Since they give commitment to evaluat ive b e l i e f s thereby providing the basis for act ion they are viewed as having a c loser correspondence with normative b e l i e f s than with cogni t ive b e l i e f s such as b e l i e f s about se l f and general b e l i e f s . In add i t ion , K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1972, 1976) have maintained that the goal b e l i e f s prescr ibe the d i r e c t i o n of the b e l i e f s c lus ter because of the i r propensity for a c t i o n . 47 From t h i s d iscuss ion , i t i s c lear that despite the claim of K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) that the four types of b e l i e f s are independent there i s support for the notion that normative b e l i e f s as evaluat ive standards function so as to bring cogni t ive and goal b e l i e f s into close conformity with b e l i e f s about the des i rable state of a f f a i r s (that i s normative b e l i e f s ) . Furthermore, goal b e l i e f s which represent conceptions of the desired and which give commitment to evaluative b e l i e f s would appear to correspond more c l o s e l y to normative b e l i e f s than would cognit ive b e l i e f s . Apart from the studies of the consistency of b e l i e f s and behaviour which have been reviewed e a r l i e r , several studies using cognit ive process models have shown that the decis ion maker can be viewed as a bel iever whose "conceptual baggage" has some ef fec t on h is decis ion making behaviour, thus having impl icat ions for the study of problem formulat ion. These studies w i l l be discussed b r i e f l y in the fol lowing sec t ion . B e l i e f s About Problem Formulation Both c l a s s i c a l and contemporary theor i s t s (Dewey, 1938: 104; M i l l e r et a l . , 1960: 172-173; H i l l s , 1975) have noted that the s t a r t i n g point for the formulation of problems i s the conceptions of i n d i v i d u a l s . Dif ferences between the conceptions of what a s i tua t ion i s and what a 48 s i tua t ion ought to be lead to the formulation or creat ion of problems. Kuhn (1963) notes that conceptions are , however, rooted in percept ion, a process which involves both the detect ing and the decoding of sensory input . Detecting involves the use of the senses in order to i d e n t i f y s t i m u l i . Decoding involves the use of the brain and conceptions for the purpose of in terpret ing incoming s ignals from the environment (Kuhn, 1963; Cappella and Folger , 1980; George, 1980). The process of detect ing and decoding s ignals from the environment involves the evocation of b e l i e f s . The explanation i s that the sensing of s t imu l i does not take place in an empty organism but in one who has already formed cer ta in concepts, preferences and b e l i e f s . This makes decoding poss ib le . The i n d i v i d u a l uses already formed concepts and b e l i e f s which are integrated and h i e r a r c h i c a l l y organized in terms of conceptual dimensions. These systems of conceptions (which are b e l i e f s ) are used for making inferences and for generating predict ions (Schroeder et a l . , 1967). Among ind iv idua ls there are d i f ferences in the integrat ion and h i e r a r c h i c a l organizat ion of the i r systems of conceptions. These d i f ferences have been decribed in terms of complexity, organizat ion and integrat ion (Schroeder et a l . , 1967; Shapiro and Bonham, 1973; George, 1980; O'Keefe, 1980). The d i f ferences have been at t r ibuted to d i f ferences in learning and experience (Shapiro and Bonham, 49 1973). Shapiro and Bonham (1973: 161) in a study of the e f fec ts of the b e l i e f s of po l icy experts on the i r decis ion making behaviour noted that the b e l i e f s of the po l i cy experts accounted for most of the variance in the i r decis ion making behaviour. They defined b e l i e f s as causal ly re lated concepts which were operat ional ized as cognit ive maps. Cognit ive maps were maps cons is t ing of l inkages between four main types of concepts which po l i cy analysts used in the i r explanation of events. The explanations were used by the researchers as a way of descr ib ing the subjects ' decis ion making behaviour. Shapiro and Bonham (1973) found that the po l i cy makers whose cognit ive maps contained few and simple l inkages gave simpler and more evident explanations of the cause of the events when compared with those who exhibi ted complex cogni t ive maps. These complex cognit ive maps were more densely structured and contained more complex i n t e r r e l a t i o n s among the various concepts used. This invest igat ion i s only one example of the cent ra l ro le that b e l i e f s play in cognit ive tasks such as decision-making in general and in problem formulation in p a r t i c u l a r . Taylor (1975) has noted that b e l i e f s have an e f fec t on the formulation of problems. They may contr ibute to l i m i t e d information search and constra ints in the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem. In educational admin is t ra t ion , a t t r ibutes such as a t t i t u d e s , goals , 50 perceptions, preferences and values have been discussed g loba l l y with b e l i e f s in the general context of administ rat ive behaviour, but rare ly in the p a r t i c u l a r context of problem formulation (Immegart and Boyd, 1979; Sergiovanni and Carver, 1980). This c l e a r l y suggests impl icat ions for empir ical research in t h i s area. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK In the sections which fo l low, the conceptual izat ion of the study i s discussed under three t o p i c s , namely: (1) problem formulation behaviour, (2) b e l i e f s about problem formulation behaviour, and (3) var ia t ions in b e l i e f s about problem formulation behaviour. Problem Formulation Behaviour From the review of the l i t e r a t u r e in the preceding sections problem formulation can be defined as the process of i dent i f y ing an actual or ant ic ipated aspect of a s i tua t ion as d i f fe rent from what i s held to be d e s i r a b l e . The problem formulation process cons is ts of four component behaviours: (1) the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem, (2) the se lect ion of information, (3) the use of c r i t e r i a in the se lect ion of information, and (4) exploratory behaviour. The f indings of the major studies of problem formulation indicated that the four component behaviours might each have TABLE I I .1 PROBLEM FORMULATION BEHAVIOURS AND VARIATIONS COMPONENT BEHAVIOURS RANGE OF VARIATIONS OF PROBLEM FORMULATION 1 2 3 Identi f- i c a t i o n of the problem Simple Moderate- Moderate- ly ly simple complex Complex B: S e l e c t - ion of i n f o r - mat ion Inform, near at hand and general Inform. near at hand and p a r t i c u l a r Inform, general near at hand and d istant Inform. general , pa r t i c . , near at hand and d is tant C: Use of C r i t e r i a Self ref- se lec t ion that come erenced c r i t e r i a to mind c r i t e r i a General c r i t e r i a that other admin is t r - ators use C r i t e r i a based on p r i n c - i p l e s D: Exp lor - L i t e r a l Naive Experim- Abstract atory and and r e f - entat ive and Behaviour Concrete l e c t i v e and concept- p r a c t i c a l ual 52 a four point range of v a r i a t i o n . Table I I .1 shows the matrix created by d isp lay ing each component behaviour with i t s range of v a r i a t i o n s . In the empir ica l invest igat ion of problem formulation behaviour, l eve ls of behaviour ranging from the simple to the complex have been i d e n t i f i e d . Simple problem formulation has been character ized by the fo l lowing var ia t ions for each of the four component behaviours: (1) i d e n t i f y i n g a s ingle s p e c i f i c a t i o n of a view of the problem, (2) se lec t ing general information which is near at hand, (3) using c r i t e r i a which readi ly come to mind, and (4) l i t e r a l l y in terpret ing d e t a i l s of the problem s i t u a t i o n . These kinds of behaviours are consistent with what i s found in the s o - c a l l e d "presented" problem s i t u a t i o n . That i s to say, there i s an absence of questioning and chal lenging the status of the problematic s i tua t ion which might be perceived. The problem s i t u a t i o n which i s perceived i s accepted as i t i s i n i t i a l l y perceived; c r i t e r i a which readi l y come to mind are used in se lec t ing information; search behaviour for f ind ing information i s l i m i t e d ; and l i t e r a l and concrete leve ls of explorat ion are exh ib i ted . Complex problem formulation has been character ized by the fo l lowing var ia t ions for each of the four component behaviours: (1) i d e n t i f y i n g many views of the problem and the i r r e l a t i o n s , (2) se lec t ing general and p a r t i c u l a r b i t s of information which may be near at hand or d i s t a n t , (3) 53 using c r i t e r i a based on p r i n c i p l e s , and (4) abst ract l y in terpret ing d e t a i l s of the problem s i t u a t i o n . These kinds of behaviours are consistent with what i s found in a "discovered" problem s i tua t ion and are ind icat i ve of ideas of c r e a t i v i t y , the questioning and chal lenging of perceived problematic s i t u a t i o n s , the use of c r i t e r i a based on p r i n c i p l e s , extensive search for general and pa r t i cu la r types of information, and the conceptual izat ion of aspects of the problematic s i tuat ions in terms of cases of types of s i tuat ions Each of the four component behaviours of problem formulation and i t s range of var ia t ions are discussed in the fo l lowing sub-sect ions . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem. Based on the invest igat ions undertaken by A l l a l (1973) and Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem s i t u a t i o n was i d e n t i f i e d as a relevant component of problem formulation behaviour. It refers to the number of aspects of the problem and the re la t ionsh ips that are considered in determining the nature of the d i f ference between an actual and desirable s i t u a t i o n . Var ia t ions in the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d as fo l lows : (1) The simple i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem i s character ized by the considerat ion of l im i ted a t t r ibu tes of the problem s i t u a t i o n . Only a s ingle s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the state(s) of the problem i s considered. 54 (2) The moderately simple i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem i s character ized by the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of one or two aspects of the problem s i tua t ion as problematic . Considerations of the problem s i t u a t i o n are l i m i t e d and s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f ferences between sets of condit ions are i d e n t i f i e d . (3) The moderately complex i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem i s character ized by the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of two or three views of the problem s i t u a t i o n . They are simultaneously held in focus and compared and cases are made for each d i f f e r e n t view. The re la t ionsh ips and the in te rac t i ve e f fec ts of the d i f f e r e n t views are considered. (4) The complex i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem i s character ized by the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of many views of the problem s i t u a t i o n which are simultaneously held in focus and compared. The outcomes of various comparisons of views of the problem s i t u a t i o n produce statements about the i r funct iona l re la t ions and lead to the emergence of new ways of viewing the problem. Select ion of information. Based on the invest igat ions of Shulman (1965), A l l a l (1973), and Getzels and Csikszentmihaly i (1976) the se lec t ion of information was i d e n t i f i e d as the second component behaviour of problem formulat ion. The behaviour re fers to the cues or b i t s of information which are obtained about a problem s i tua t ion and used for r e f i n i n g one's conception of the problem. It r e f l e c t s the breadth of one's search a c t i v i t i e s in formulating the problem. Var ia t ions along the dimension of the se lect ion of information might be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d as fo l lows : (1) The se lec t ion of general information which i s near' at hand refers to the use of g lobal information 55 obtained from the presented s i t u a t i o n . The search for information i s minimal. (2) The se lect ion of p a r t i c u l a r b i t s of information which are near at hand refers to the use of s p e c i f i c b i t s of information extracted from the presented s i t u a t i o n . Search i s required in se lec t ing relevant b i t s of information. (3) The se lect ion of general information which i s near at hand and distant refers to the use of g lobal information obtained from the presented s i t u a t i o n and from searching and questioning aspects of the s i t u a t i o n . This requires the introduct ion of information from other sources. (4) The se lect ion of information which i s p a r t i c u l a r , general , near at hand and distant refers to the use of global and s p e c i f i c b i t s of information extracted from the presented s i tua t ion and obtained from other sources as a resu l t of the questioning and chal lenging of aspects of the s i t u a t i o n . The use of c r i t e r i a in the se lect ion of information. From the d iscussion of the invest igat ion of Ross ( l98 la ;b ) coupled with the f indings of A l l a l (1973) and Getzels and Csikszentmihaly i (1976) the use of c r i t e r i a in the se lec t ion of information appears pert inent to the d e f i n i t i o n of problem formulat ion. C r i t e r i a refer to the standard points of reference which are employed when information per ta in ing to a problem s i tua t ion i s se lected . Based on the l i t e r a t u r e , the use of c r i t e r i a in the se lect ion of information might range from the use of c r i t e r i a which readi ly come to mind to the use of c r i t e r i a based on p r i n c i p l e s . Var ia t ions might be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d as fo l lows : 56 (1) The use of c r i t e r i a which readi ly come to mind i s character ized by the spontaneous acceptance of whatever c r i t e r i a come to mind. No consideration i s given to a l te rnat i ve points of reference. (2) The use of se l f - re ferenced c r i t e r i a i s character ized by the use of personal c r i t e r i a as a point of reference when se lec t ing information. (3) The use of general c r i t e r i a i s character ized by the considerat ion of c r i t e r i a which other administrators use besides one's personal preferences. (4) The use of c r i t e r i a based on p r i n c i p l e s i s character ized by the considerat ion of general c r i t e r i a inc luding personal standards and other people's standards as a point of reference, but they are considered in terms of p r i n c i p l e s . Exploratory behaviour. The synthesis of f indings from the major studies of problem formulation which were reviewed indicate that exploratory behaviour can be character ized by invest igat ion involv ing reasoning and in terpretat ion of the nature of the problem ( A l l a l , 1973, Getzels and Cs ikszentmihaly i , 1976; Kolb, 1976; Larkin et a l . , 1980; Chi et a l . , 1981). Exploratory behaviour i s viewed as an ind icator of the depth and complexity of the invest igat ion undertaken. Var iat ions along th i s dimension might be described as fo l lows : (1) L i t e r a l in terpretat ion represents a response to environmental condit ions or the problem s i tuat ion as presented. Interpretat ion of the s i tuat ion i s l i t e r a l . Invest igat ion i s l i m i t e d and r e s t r i c t e d to the immediate experiences of the s i t u a t i o n . (2) Naive in te rpre tat ion represents an analys is of react ions , and observations with respect to the d e t a i l s of the problem s i t u a t i o n . The ind iv idua l 57 interprets aspects of the s i tua t ion in a quasi l i t e r a l manner and considers possible re la t ionsh ips between observed aspects of the s i t u a t i o n . In the case of medical problem formulations, the routines of h is tory taking and a physical examination represent t h i s form of inves t iga t ion . (3) Experimentative in terpretat ion represents the a p p l i c a t i o n , tes t ing and extension of ideas about the problem. It involves questioning and chal lenging aspects of the s i t u a t i o n which are manipulated with p r a c t i c a l object ives in mind. Aspects of the s i t u a t i o n are interpreted as symptomatic of problems. (4) Abstract conceptual izat ion represents the integrat ion and a s s i m i l a t i o n of experiences and tentat ive conclusions made from observations and from experimentation. There are the questioning and chal lenging of aspects of the s i t u a t i o n , which are analysed and manipulated in many d i f fe rent ways, leading to new ways of th inking about the problem. Aspects of the s i tua t ion are interpreted as symptoms of kinds of problems to be explored. Patterns of Problem Formulation Behaviours The four components behaviours of problem formulation and the i r four -po int range of va r ia t ion y i e l d a matrix of 256 c e l l s which can be used to describe the var iety of ways in which ind iv idua ls formulate problems. This matrix i s shown in Table I I . 2 , in which each c e l l indicates a possible combination (or pattern) of problem formulation behaviours. Thus the c e l l l a b e l l e d (1111) would describe ind iv idua ls who d isp lay the fo l lowing pattern of problem formulation behaviours: - (a) the simple i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems ( IP :1 ) , (b) the se lect ion of general information which i s near at hand (INF0:1), (c) the TABLE II.2: MATRIX OF PROBLEM FORMULATION BEHAVIOUR A 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 l i t ! 1211 1311 1411 2111 2211 2311 2411 3111 3211 3311 3411 4111 4211 4311 4141 1 2 1121 1221 1321 1421 2121 2221 2321 2421 3121 3221 3321 3421 4121 4221 4321 4421 3 1131 1231 1331 1431 2131 2231 2331 2431 3131 3231 3331 3431 4131 4231 4331 4431 4 1141 1241 1341 1441 2141 2241 2341 2441 3141 3241 3341 3441 4141 4241 4341 4441 1 1112 1212 m ? 1412 2112 2212 2312 2412 3112 3212 3312 3412 4112 4212 4312 4412 2 1122 1222 1322 1422 2122 2222 2322 2422 3122 3222 3322 3422 4122 4222 4322 4422 2 3 1132 1232 1332 1432 2132 2232 2332 2432 3132 3232 3332 3432 4132 4232 4332 4432 4 1142 1242 1342 1442 2142 2242 2342 2442 3142 3242 3342 3442 4142 4242 4342 4442 1 u n 1 2 U 1313 1413 2113 2213 2313 2413 3113 3213 3313 3413 4113 4213 4313 4413 2 1123 1223 1323 1423 2123 2223 2323 2423 3123 3223 3323 3423 4123 4223 4323 4423 3 i m 1233 1331 1433 2133 2233 2333 2433 3133 3233 3333 3433 4133 4233 4333 4433 4 1143 1243 1343 1443 3143 2243 2343 2443 3143 2243 3343 3443 4143 4243 4343 4443 1 1114 1214 1314 1414 2114 2214 2314 2414 3114 3214 3314 3414 4114 4214 4314 4414 2 1124 1224 1324 1424 2124 2224 2324 2424 3124 3224 3324 3424 4124 4224 4324 4424 4 3 1134 1234 1334 1434 2134 2234 2334 2434 3134 3234 3334 3434 4134 4234 4334 4434 4 1144 1244 1344 1444 2144 2244 2244 2444 3144 3244 3344 3444 4144 4244 4344 4444 c Legend Component Behaviours of Problem Formulation RANGE OF VARIATIONS 1 2 3 4 A I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem Simple Moderately simple Moderately complex Complex B Se l e c t i o n of information General S near at hand P a r t i c u l a r & near at hand General, near at hand & d i s t a n t General i p a r t i c u l a r , near at hand & di s t a n t C Use of c r i t e r i a i n the s e l e c t i o n of information C r i t e r i a that come to mind Self - referenced c r i t e r i a General c r i t e r i a that other admin- i s t r a t o r s use C r i t e r i a based on pr i n c i p l e s • Exploratory behaviour L i t e r a l i concrete Naive i r e f l e c t i v e Experiment- a l ve i p r a c t i c a l Abstract & conceptual (1111) (2222) (3333) (4444) For example: A l +• B l + C l + DI - (1111) A2 + B2 + C2 + D2 - (2222) A3 +• B3 + C3 + D3 - (3333) A4 + B4 + C4 + D4 - (4444) 59 use of c r i t e r i a which read i l y come to mind (CRIT :1) , and (d) exploratory behaviour character ized by l i t e r a l in te rpretat ion of the d e t a i l s of the problem s i tuat ion (EXP :1) , L ikewise, the c e l l l a b e l l e d (4444) describes people who have the fo l lowing pattern of problem formulation behaviours: - (a) the complex i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems ( IP :4 ) , (b) the se lec t ion of general and p a r t i c u l a r b i t s of information which are d is tant and near at hand (INF0:4), (c) the use of c r i t e r i a based on p r i n c i p l e s (CRIT:4), and (d) exploratory behaviour character ized by abstract ion and conceptual izat ion of d e t a i l s of the problem s i tuat ion (EXP:4). B e l i e f s About Problem Formulation The study i s concerned with normative, general , goa l , and se l f b e l i e f s (N, GB, Go and BS) about problem formulat ion. Each of these kinds of b e l i e f s can be held about each of the four components of problem formulation behaviour, each of which in turn has four points of v a r i a t i o n . These behaviours can be used as bases for generating statements representing b e l i e f s . Thus, in the f i r s t example c i t e d e a r l i e r (p.57) a pattern of four behaviours was shown (IP:1 INFO:1 , CRIT:1 , E X P :1 ) . Be l ie f about these behaviours (using phrasing appropriate to Normative b e l i e f s ) would be as fo l lows . (a) When faced with a perplexing work -s i tuat ion , administrators should concentrate on discovering the s ingle major problem which the s i t u a t i o n poses. 60 (b) Administrators should think about the discrepancies which are obvious in the given work-s i tuat ion as the problems to a t tack . (c) Administrators , in deciding what information they need when invest igat ing the nature of a problem, should rely c h i e f l y on whatever c r i t e r i a come to mind. (d) When exploring the nature of a problem, administrators should consider obtaining a broad insight into the nature of the problem based not on par t i cu la r pieces of information, but on whatever general information may be immediately a v a i l a b l e . Equivalent statements could be constructed to represent the other kinds of b e l i e f s about these behaviours or other behaviours in the range shown in Table 11.1 . Hypotheses and Exploratory Questions Based on the K r e i t l e r i a n theory of cognit ive o r i e n t a t i o n , i t can be assumed that (a) the Normative, General , Goal and Self b e l i e f s about each of the four values of the four component behaviours provide together a meaningful summary of an admin is t rator ' s o r ientat ion to problem formulat ion. The t e n a b i l i t y of the two views of the re la t ionsh ips of the four b e l i e f types remains to be examined. The claims of the 'independence of the four be l ie f types as components of cogni t ive or ientat ion based on the empir ica l studies of K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) are counter to the claims of the i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p as supported by the theore t i ca l studies of Parsons (1951). 61 However, i n the a r e a of problem f o r m u l a t i o n , i t might be more r e a s o n a b l e t o argue t h a t n o r m a t i v e b e l i e f s f u n c t i o n as a s t a n d a r d t o which o t h e r t y p e s of problem f o r m u l a t i o n b e l i e f s tend t o conform ( P a r s o n s , 1951). T h i s c o n f o r m i t y r e s u l t s from the i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of e v a l u a t i v e s t a n d a r d s p e r t a i n i n g t o problem f o r m u l a t i o n which i n d i v i d u a l s have l e a r n e d . An e x p e c t e d outcome would be t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s ' m o t i v a t i o n and g o a l s become h a r n e s s e d to t h e f u l f i l m e n t of t h e i r n o r m a t i v e b e l i e f s about problem f o r m u l a t i o n and the no r m a t i v e b e l i e f s i n t u r n would b r i n g t h e i r c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e b e l i e f s ( b e l i e f s about t h e d e s i r e d , t h a t i s g o a l b e l i e f s ) i n t o c l o s e c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e i r b e l i e f s about the d e s i r a b l e . I t was t h u s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t i n the c o n t e n t a r e a of problem f o r m u l a t i o n , normative b e l i e f s would r e p r e s e n t s t a n d a r d s t o which t h e t h r e e o t h e r t y p e s of b e l i e f s would conform. Fu r t h e r m o r e , g o a l b e l i e f s were c l a i m e d by K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) t o p r e s c r i b e the d i r e c t i o n of t h e combined c l u s t e r of the f o u r t y p e s of b e l i e f s . They a l s o e x p r e s s commitment t o e v a l u a t i v e b e l i e f s by p r o v i d i n g t h e b a s i s f o r a c t i o n (Parsons and S h i l s , 1951 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , g o a l b e l i e f s were h y p o t h e s i z e d t o e x h i b i t a c l o s e r c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w i t h normative b e l i e f s than would the o t h e r b e l i e f s (GB, N); (BS, N). Two o t h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s were h y p o t h e s i z e d . F i r s t , t h a t g o a l b e l i e f s would e x h i b i t a g r e a t e r correspondence 62 with b e l i e f s • about se l f (both b e l i e f s perta in ing to the in te rna l world) than with general b e l i e f s (which pertain to the external world) . Second, that the c lose correspondence between goal and normative b e l i e f s , and between b e l i e f s about se l f and goal b e l i e f s would account for an even c loser correspondence between se l f . and normative b e l i e f s than between general and normative b e l i e f s . Given these considerat ions the fo l lowing hypotheses were tes ted : Hypotheses Ho: That there w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t co r re la t ions between pa i rs of be l ie f scores grouped as fo l lows : Normative and General be l ie f scores, Normative and Goal be l ie f scores, Normative and Be l ie f about Self be l i e f scores, General and Goal be l ie f scores, General and Be l ie f about.Self b e l i e f scores, and Goal and Be l ie f about Self b e l i e f scores. However, i f the n u l l hypothesis were to be re jected , that i s i f s i g n i f i c a n t re la t ionsh ips were found to ex ist between pa i rs of grouped be l ie f scores, the fo l lowing p laus ib le a l t e r n a t i v e was proposed: HI: (a) That there w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher co r re la t ion between the Normative and Goal b e l i e f scores than between the fo l lowing pa i rs of b e l i e f s scores grouped as fo l lows : the Normative and General b e l i e f scores, the Normative and Be l ie f about Sel f be l ie f scores, the General and Goal be l ie f scores, and the Goal and Be l ie f about Sel f be l ie f scores. (b) That there would be a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher co r re la t ion between the Goal and Be l ie f about Self 63 be l ie f scores than between the Goal and General be l ie f scores. (c) That there would be a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher co r re la t ion between the Normative and Be l ie f about Self be l ie f scores than between the Normative and General be l ie f scores. Exploratory analys is of administ rators ' b e l i e f s . In order to examine in greater depth (a) the consistency between the performance of the developed Problem Formulation Be l ie f Scale and the assumptions and in terpretat ions of the theory of cogni t ive o r i e n t a t i o n , and (b) the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of respondents who exhib i ted an or ientat ion to problem formulation consistent with e i ther what i s found in the so c a l l e d "presented" problem s i t u a t i o n or with what i s found in the so c a l l e d "discovered" problem s i t u a t i o n , two exploratory questions were posed. The f i r s t question was designed to explore the response patterns of normative, general , goal and sel f b e l i e f s about problem formulation found among the extreme scorers , (that i s administrators whose be l ie f scores were approximately one standard dev iat ion from the mean be l ie f scores) . The second question was designed to explore the d i f ferences in the biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these groups of low and high scorers . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which were of in terest were: (a) administ rat ive c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s inc luding administ rat ive p o s i t i o n , and years spent in admin is t ra t ion ; (b) educational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s including 6 4 highest leve l of education atta ined and t r a i n i n g in problem so lv ing ; and (c) biographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s including age and gender. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were taken from studies of problem formulation and problem inquiry ( A l l a l , 1973; Lyles and M i t r o f f , 1980) which suggested that they might have an ef fect on the problem formulation process. The research questions were as fo l lows : (1) What, i f any, d i f ferences are apparent in the problem formulation b e l i e f s of educational administrators grouped according to low problem formulation and high problem formulation be l ie f scores, respect ively? (2) What, i f any, d i f ferences are apparent in the biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of educational administrators grouped according to low problem formulation and high problem formulation be l i e f scores, respect ive ly? 65 CHAPTER III THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROBLEM FORMULATION BELIEF SCALE AND THE PILOT STUDY The purpose of t h i s study was (a) to develop a b e l i e f scale for use in assessing adminis t rators ' b e l i e f s about problem formulation behaviour, and (b) to examine selected aspects of i t s construct v a l i d i t y . A major task, therefore , was to develop the instrument, the PF be l ie f s c a l e , to assess adminis t rators ' normative, general , goal , and se l f b e l i e f s about component behaviours of problem formulation and the i r range of va r ia t ions as defined in the las t part of Chapter I I . The instrument was developed and va l idated in three sequent ial steps. The three steps were: (1) Development of the PF be l ie f scale which involved: (1 .1 ) Generation of statements representing b e l i e f s and (1 .2 ) Assessment of the i r construct v a l i d i t y by a panel of selected experts; (2) P i l o t tes t ing of the PF be l ie f sca le , and (3) Empir ical v a l i d a t i o n of the PF be l i e f s c a l e . This chapter deals with the f i r s t two of these steps. The methodology and design of the study for the empi r ica l va l ida t ion of the PF be l ie f scale are presented in Chapter IV. 66 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROBLEM FORMULATION BELIEF SCALE The objective of th i s phase of the study was (a) to develop four sets of statements to represent respect ive ly normative, general , goal and se l f b e l i e f s about problem formulation behaviour, (b) to have the statements evaluated by experts in administ rat ive decis ion making processes, and (c) to conduct a prel iminary va l ida t ion of the retained statements in the form of a p i l o t test of the resu l t ing instrument, the PF be l i e f sca le . Generation of Statements Using the four component behaviours of problem formulation and the i r range of va r ia t ions as shown in Table I I .1 (p .51) , an i n i t i a l set of 48 statements was generated to express b e l i e f s about each v a r i a t i o n of each component behaviour of problem formulat ion. The main guidel ines for the generation of the statements, representing b e l i e f s were: (1) Statements were to be stated in a c l e a r , simple and straightforward manner. This approach was aimed at a t ta in ing a high leve l of face v a l i d i t y . (2) Each statement was to be stated as a General B e l i e f , (that i s the subject of the proposi t ion was not to refer to the " s e l f " and the r e l a t i o n a l concept which l inked the subject to the predicate 67 of the proposit ion was to be of a dec larat ive or asser t ive type r e f l e c t i n g some presumed or denied f a c t ) , for example, "Administrators often think of many d i f fe ren t aspects of a problem s i tua t ion when formulating a problem." The decis ion to generate statements representing general b e l i e f s , and to avoid i n i t i a l l y , statements representing normative, goal or se l f b e l i e f s , was based mainly on the need to work with a homogeneous set of statements so as to ensure as much consistency of expression as possible and to reduce any possib le confusion which might resu l t from mixing statements representing d i f fe ren t kinds of b e l i e f s at t h i s i n i t i a l stage. It would be possible l a t e r to reformulate these statements in forms appropriate to the other be l ie f domains. For example, the General Bel ief "Administrators often approach problems r a t i o n a l l y " could be restated as a Normative Be l ie f by changing the r e l a t i o n a l concept, to one expressing "ought" or "should" , l i k e "Administrators should often approach problems r a t i o n a l l y " . Restated as a Goal B e l i e f , both the subject of the proposit ion and the r e l a t i o n a l concept jo in ing the subject and the predicate would be changed to form a statement such as "I would l i k e to approach problems r a t i o n a l l y " . A Bel ief about Self would require changing only the subject of the proposit ion representing the General B e l i e f , as, for example, in "I often approach problems r a t i o n a l l y " . 68 The process of generating statements began with a search of the relevant l i t e r a t u r e for examples which met the c r i t e r i a out l ined above. Par t i cu la r at tent ion was paid to statements made by A l l a l (1973), Getzels and Csikszentmihaly i (1976), Shulman (1965), Chi et a l . , 1981, and Ross (1981a,b). The statements found were used as models for the generation of the 48 statements for i n i t i a l considerat i o n . This l i t e r a t u r e review was supplemented by interviews with administrators about problem formulat ion. A group of 16 educational administrators was randomly selected from those attending graduate c lasses in educational administ rat ion at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia in the summer of 1982. Using a semi-structured interview guide (see Table I I I . 1 ) , the administrators were interviewed and asked to discuss the meaning of the term "problem formulat ion" . Administrators for whom the term did not mean anything were presented with a sample problem and asked to discuss the meaning of problem formulat ion. The responses were then examined and a l l poss ib le references to what the respondents saw as problem formulation behaviour were i temized. This ana lys is confirmed the existence of the four component behaviours i d e n t i f i e d from the l i t e r a t u r e , and did not suggest the addit ion of any new ones. 69 TABLE 111 . 1 : SAMPLE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE (1) Does the term "PROBLEM FORMULATION" mean anything to you? (2:a) If yes: Could you please state in wr i t ing what "problem formulation" means to you? (2:b) If no: I would l i k e to re late to you an inc ident . Afterwards, I would l i k e us to discuss i t . "A car i s t r a v e l l i n g on a deserted country road and blows a t i r e . The dr iver goes to the trunk and discovers there i s no jack. He says to h imsel f : "Where can I get a jack?" He r e c a l l s that he has not seen a house nearby but that several miles back he had passed a service s t a t i o n . He decides to walk to the s tat ion for a jack. While he i s gone, another car coming from the other d i r e c t i o n a lso blows a t i r e . This dr iver goes to the trunk, and discovers that there i s no jack. He thinks for a moment and says: "How can I ra ise th i s car?" He looks around and sees that adjacent to the road i s a barn with an o ld pu l ley . ' He pushes the car to the barn, ra ises i t on the pu l ley , changes the t i r e and dr ives away while the dr iver of the f i r s t car i s s t i l l walking to the s t a t i o n . " (Getzels, 1978) (3) From the s i tua t ion I have just described what comments would you l i k e to make about the ending of the scenario - that i s when both dr i vers found that what they needed was not a v a i l a b l e . (4) What do you imagine the dr ivers were th inking then? (5) A person can be described in terms of h is age, height , weight, sex, e t c . , how would you describe "problem formulation"? (6) If problem formulation i s described as a process: How would you describe the process of problem formulation? (7) If "problem formulat ion" i s described as a product: How would you describe problem formulation as a product? THANK YOU 70 The Construct Va l ida t ion Process The selected aspects of construct va l ida t ion which were car r ied out in t h i s study pertained to the rat ing and evaluation of the statements, representing Normative, General , Goal , and Self b e l i e f s about problem formulation by experts in the f i e l d of administ rat ive behavioural processes, problem oriented processes or educational measurement. Prel iminary screening of statements. Statements generated from the l i t e r a t u r e were f i r s t screened to reduce overlap and r e p e t i t i o n and then evaluated to provide an i n i t i a l assessment of the i r construct v a l i d i t y . These a c t i v i t i e s were completed by 11 facu l ty members with expert ise in administ rat ive processes or test construct ion and measurement. The eleven raters were a l l experienced as administrators or students of administ rat ion or both. They included one Univers i ty Department Head, two administrators of graduate programs, three coordinators of academic or continuing education programs, one former supervisor of publ ic schools who had become a doctoral student in administ rat ion and four professors of educational admin is t ra t ion . Their q u a l i f i c a t i o n s are shown in general terms in Table I I I . 2 . They were asked to sort the 71 TABLE 111.2: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FACULTY INVOLVED IN INITIAL SCREENING AND RATING Average No. Years Experience N Spec ia l i za t ion As An Administrator As An Academic 4 Decision Making/ Problem Solving 6.8 10.5 4 Administrat ive Educat ion 8.8 9.8 2 Educational Measurement 5.0 8.0 1 Educational Planning 5.0 5.0 statements into c lus te rs each re fe r r ing to one of the component behaviours of problem formulation and to evaluate the assignment of each statement to i t s category. Par t i cu la r at tent ion was paid to the wording of the statements. This i n i t i a l process of screening and rat ing permitted the se lect ion of 16 statements which conformed to the model of problem formulat ion. That i s , each statement was referenced to one of the four points of v a r i a t i o n of each of the four component problem formulation behaviours. 72 Thirty two statements from the i n i t i a l set were thus el iminated because they f a i l e d to meet one or more of the c r i t e r i a of p l a u s i b i l i t y , c l a r i t y , and consistency with the model of problem formulation used in the study. The 16 selected statements were rephrased so as to produce p laus ib le and c l e a r l y worded equivalent statements representing normative, goal and se l f b e l i e f s . Thus four sets of items each containing 16 statements representing problem formulation b e l i e f s were developed. Each set represented a d i f fe ren t type of b e l i e f (normative, general , goal and se l f be l i e f s ) and included one statement about each of the points of va r ia t ion for each of the four problem formulation behaviours (see Table I I . 1, p.51). In order to v e r i f y the v a l i d i t y of these four sets of statements, the strategy of increasing the accepted core of 16 statements was adopted. This was done in order to provide some choice in the process of the i r eva luat ion . Thus, 16 other statements which had been s h o r t l i s t e d in the i n i t i a l screening process and which represented each of the four component problem formulation behaviours and t h e i r four point range of behaviour were chosen to expand the set of statements to be rated. The fo l lowing procedure was used in the se lec t ion of the supplementary statements. The 16 statements representing general b e l i e f s were rephrased to produce equivalent statements representing Normative, Goal and Self b e l i e f s . From t h i s set of 64 supplementary 73 statements, 16 were randomly se lec ted . Their d i s t r i b u t i o n among the four be l i e f domains was as fo l lows . Seven statements represented normative b e l i e f s ; s ix represented general b e l i e f s ; one represented a goal be l ie f and two represented b e l i e f s about s e l f . The se lect ion of these 16 supplementary statements provided a l te rnat i ves to the core of 16 i n i t i a l l y accepted statements that were to be f i n a l l y evaluated. The addit ion of such a small number of statements to the rat ing set d id not subs tant ia l l y increase the t o t a l number of statements to be rated and thus the time to be spent on the ra t ing task. The 16 supplementary statements and the four sets of 16 statements which were accepted in the prel iminary screening and rat ing process comprised a set of 80 statements that were to be rated. Rating of the statements. The ra t ing of the statements was conducted in order to corroborate the c lus te rs described above and to assess the 80 statements representing Nrmative, General , Goal , and Self b e l i e f s about problem formulat ion. The process of ra t ing provided evidence of the v e r i f i c a t i o n of the construct v a l i d i t y of the statements. The set of 80 statements was div ided into nine sets of mainly 30 statements each, in a manner described below. These were d i s t r ibu ted to independent raters for the i r evaluation in two ways: (a) for each 74 stat e m e n t ' s r e l e v a n c e t o a p a r t i c u l a r b e l i e f ( r a t i n g t a s k 1 ) , and (b.) f o r each s t a t e m e n t ' s r e l e v a n c e t o a p a r t i c u l a r problem f o r m u l a t i o n b e h a v i o u r ( r a t i n g t a s k 2 ) . Nine r a t e r s completed both t a s k s 1 and 2. Sample of r a t e r s . The n i n e r a t e r s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s v a l i d a t i o n p r o c e s s were e x p e r t s i n e d u c a t i o n a l measurement or problem o r i e n t e d p r o c e s s e s . Of these n i n e f a c u l t y members two had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the s c r e e n i n g p r o c e d u r e s d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r . These f a c u l t y members i n c l u d e d one p r o f e s s o r of e d u c a t i o n a l measurement, two p r o f e s s o r s of a d u l t e d u c a t i o n (one w i t h e x p e r t i s e i n program p l a n n i n g , one i n d e c i s i o n m a k i n g ) , two p r o f e s s o r s of h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n (one s p e c i a l i z e d i n d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s e s , the o t h e r i n Community C o l l e g e and P r o v i n c i a l I n s t i t u t e A f f a i r s ) , t h r e e p r o f e s s o r s of e d u c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n (two w i t h e x p e r t i s e i n d e c i s i o n making, the o t h e r i n a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' b e l i e f systems) and one l e c t u r e r whose a r e a of r e s e a r c h was c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . P r o c e d u r e s . In o r d e r t o reduce t h e time each r a t e r would have t o spend on the t a s k , the 80 s t a t e m e n t s were randomly d i v i d e d i n t o n i n e s e t s of m a i n l y 30 statements each as shown i n T a b l e I I I . 3 . Thus a l l s t atements were e v a l u a t e d by a t l e a s t t h r e e r a t e r s . The 80 s t a t e m e n t s were r a t e d 75 TABLE III .3 : DISTRIBUTION OF STATEMENTS FOR RATING Grouping Sets of Statements For Rating of Statements by Nos. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1- 5 X X X X 6-10 X X X X 11-15 X X X X 1 6-20 X X X X 21-25 X X X X X 26-30 X X X 31-35 X X X 36-40 X X X X 41-45 X X X 46-50 X X X X 51-55 X X X X 56-60 X X X X 61-65 X X X 66-70 X X X X 71-75 X X X X 76-80 X X using a f i ve point L i k e r t type scale of relevance to a p a r t i c u l a r problem formulation behaviour (1 = not re levant ; 2 = s l i g h t l y re levant ; 3 = somewhat re levant ; 4 = re levant ; 5 = highly re levant ) . In a d d i t i o n , to the r ight of each statement, the l e t t e r s N, GB, Go, and BS appeared and raters were asked to check the l e t t e r s corresponding to the types of b e l i e f s to which they considered a statement belonged. The order of the statements was random. Each rater was provided with a package containing the fo l lowing mater ia ls : 76 (1) A l e t t e r explaining the.nature of the research and requesting the cooperation of the raters, (2) A five page "introduction" explaining the concepts in the study and the problem that was being investigated. This was included so as to allow the raters to f a m i l i a r i z e themselves with the concepts and d e f i n i t i o n s needed in order to carry out the rating task. (3) A sheet of instructions for completing the rating task. The procedures which the raters were to follow were explained on th i s sheet. In addition the raters were also invited to make comments or suggestions concerning any of the statements. (4) A draft of the introductory sheets for the f i v e parts of a questionnaire which would la t e r be developed i f the procedure for rating the statements proved to be s a t i s f a c t o r y . On the introductory sheet of Part I, the purpose of the proposed questionnaire and general information about the study were introduced. On the introductory sheets of the other parts of the questionnaire the type of belief was explained as well as the instructions the respondents were to follow. (5) The rating form which included the 30 statements' that were to be rated. 7 7 (6) A sel f -addressed envelope for the return of the ra t ing forms. A copy of t h i s rat ing package i s presented in Appendix A. Analys is of responses. Two measures were used in analysing the responses: (1) the mean of the rat ings assigned by a l l raters for the relevance of a statement to a problem formulation behaviour. This was c a l l e d the M.R. measure, and (2) the proportion of raters who agreed on the designation of a statement as belonging to a p a r t i c u l a r be l ie f domain. This was c a l l e d the P.A. measure. The c r i t e r i a used for the re tent ion , modif icat ion or e l iminat ion of statements were as fo l lows : (1) A statement was retained "as i s " i f (a) i t s M.R. was ^3.00 and (b) i t s P.A. was >66.6% ( i . e . , two t h i r d s of the raters agreed). (2) A statement was rephrased i f i t met the f i r s t c r i t e r i o n but two or more judges suggested changes in the phrasing of the statement or (b) i f i t had been cons is tent ly rated as belonging to more than one type of b e l i e f . (3) A statement was el iminated i f (a) i t s M.R. was <3.00 and i t s P.A. was <66.6% or (b) i f the statement having met the c r i t e r i a for retent ion was found to be a dup l i ca t ion of another accepted 78 statement which was rated more h igh ly . The M.R. and P.A. values were considered sat i s fac tory in view of the small number of raters who in t h i s phase of the ra t ing task evaluated each set of statements. Results of the rat ing of statements. The app l i ca t ion of the above c r i t e r i a resulted in the retention of the 64 i n i t i a l l y accepted statements. Ten of them were rephrased, and the 16 supplementary statements were e l iminated . Table I I I .4 shows the act ions which were taken with regard to each of the 80 statements in the set for r a t i n g . The summary s t a t i s t i c s for a l l 80 statements are shown in Table I I I . 5 , and s imi la r information for the 64 retained statements i s displayed in Table I I I . 6 . Of the 10 statements which were rephrased s ix pertained to the item, " c r i t e r i a used in the se lect ion of informat ion" . Of the remaining four statements, two represented Normative and General b e l i e f s respect ive ly about exploratory behaviour, the other two represented Normative and General b e l i e f s respect ive ly about the select ion of information. The resu l ts of the rat ings of the raters were consistent and high. 79 TABLE I I I . 4 : LISTING OF THE STATEMENTS RATED AND THE RESULTS OF THE RATING ANALYSIS PFB Stat Be l ie f Mean P.A. M.R. for Std. Action No. Type on Relevance dev. Taken B e l i e f s A1 61 N 100.00 4.33 0.58 Accepted 62 GB 100.00 4.33 1.15 Accepted 63 BS 100.00 4.67 0.58 Accepted 64 GB 66.67 4.00 1 .00 Deleted 65 Go 66.67 4.67 0.58 Accepted A2 66 BS 100.00 4.25 0.96 Accepted 67 GB 100.00 4.50 0.58 Accepted 68 Go 100.00 4.25 0.96 Accepted 69 N 100.00 4.25 0.50 Accepted 70 GB 66.67 4. 00 1.41 Deleted A3 71 BS 100.00 4.50 1 .00 Accepted 72 N 100.00 4.75 0.50 Accepted 73 N 50.00 3.75 1 .26 Deleted 74 Go 100.00 4.25 0.96 Accepted 75 GB 100.00 4.25 0.96 Accepted A4 76 N 100.00 5.00 0.00 Deleted 77 GB 100.00 5.00 0.00 Accepted 78 BS 100.00 4.67 0.58 Accepted 79 Go 100.00 4.67 0.58 Accepted 80 N 100.00 5.00 0.00 Accepted B1 41 GB 100.00 4.67 0.58 Accepted 42 BS 100.00 4.67 0.58 Accepted 43 N 100.00 4.67 0.58 Deleted 44 Go 100.00 4.00 1 .73 Accepted 45 N 100.00 4.33 1.15 Accepted B2 46 BS 100.00 4.50 1 .00 Accepted 47 N 100.00 4.50 1 .00 Accepted 48 GB 100.00 4.50 0.58 Accepted 49 Go 100.00 4.25 1 .50 Accepted 50 GB 100.00 4.25 1 .50 Deleted 80 TABLE 111.4 Continued PFB Stat Be l ie f Mean P.A. M.R. for Std . Action No. Type on Relevance dev. Taken B e l i e f s B3 51 GB 75.00 4.25 0.96 Deleted 52 GB 100.00 4.50 0.58 Rephrased 53 N 100.00 4.00 1.15 Rephrased 54 BS 100.00 4.25 0.96 Accepted 55 Go 100.00 4.25 0.50 Accepted B4 56 N 100.00 4.75 0.50 Accepted 57 BS 75.00 4.25 1 .50 Accepted 58 BS 100.00 4.25 0.96 Deleted 59 GB 100.00 4.25 0.96 Accepted 60 Go 100.00 4.50 1 .00 Accepted Cl 21 Go 100.00 4.40 0.55 Rephrased 22 N 100.00 4.60 0.55 Rephrased 23 GB 100.00 4.60 0.55 Rephrased 24 BS 100.00 4.40 0.55 Rephrased 25 N 100.00 4.80 0.45 Deleted C2 26 N 100.00 4.00 1 .73 Accepted 27 BS 100.00 4.33 0.58 Accepted 28 GB 100.00 4.33 0.58 Accepted 29 GO 100.00 3.33 1 .53 Rephrased 30 N 100.00 4.67 0.58 Deleted C3 31 N 100.00 5.00 0.00 Accepted 32 Go 100.00 4.67 0.58 Rephrased 33 GB 100.00 4.67 0.58 Accepted 34 GB 100.00 4.67 0.58 Deleted 35 BS 100.00 4.67 0.58 Accepted C4 36 BS 100.00 4.75 0.50 Accepted 37 N 100.00 5.00 0.00 Accepted 38 GB 100.00 5.00 0.00 Accepted 39 Go 100.00 5.00 0.00 Accepted 40 N 100.00 5.00 0.00 Deleted 81 TABLE I I I . 4 Continued PFB Stat Be l ie f Mean P.A. M.R. for Std . Action No. Type on Relevance dev. Taken B e l i e f s D1 01 N 100.00 4.00 0.82 Accepted 02 GB 100.00 4.75 1 .30 Accepted 03 Go 100.00 4.50 0.58 Accepted 04 N 75.00 4.75 0.50 Deleted 05 BS 100.00 4.75 0.50 Accepted D2 06 GB 100.00 4.50 0.58 Accepted 07 N 100.00 5.00 0.00 Accepted 08 Go 100.00 4.25 0.96 Accepted 09 BS 100.00 4.75 0.50 Accepted 10 Go 100.00 4.00 0.82 Deleted D3 1 1 BS 100.00 3. 50 1 .73 Accepted 1 2 N 75.00 3. 50 0.82 Accepted 1 3 GB 100.00 4.00 1.15 Rephrased 1 4 GO 100.00 4.00 0.81 Accepted 1 5 GB 75.00 3.75 1 .50 Deleted D4 16 N ' 75.00 4.50 0.58 Rephrased 17 BS 100.00 4.00 0.82 Deleted 18 Go 100.00 4.25 1 .50 Accepted 19 GB 100.00 4.50 1 .00 Accepted 20 BS 100.00 4.50 1 .00 Accepted N Normative B e l i e f GB General Be l ie f Go Goal Be l ie f BS B e l i e f s about Self P.A. = Percent Agreement M.R. = Mean Rating PFB = Problem Formulation Behaviour The Construction of the Questionnaire The construct ion of the questionnaire i s described under three headings: (1) Biodemographic information, (2) Be l ie f Scales and (3) Scor ing. 82 TABLE 111.5: SUMMARY STATISTICS OF ALL STATEMENTS RATED STATEMENTS =80 N of RATERS = 9 Domain of B e l i e f s Number of statements Mean Rating Standard Deviation Percent Agreement Normat ive 23 4.53 0.44 94.56 General 22 4.42 0.32 94.52 Goal 1 7 4.34 0.39 98.04 About Self 18 4. 43 0.32 98.61 Total 80 4.44 0.37 96.25 TABLE 111.6: SUMMARY STATISTICS OF RETAINED STATEMENTS STATEMENTS = 64 N of RATERS = 9 Domain of B e l i e f s Number of statements Mean Rating Standard Deviat ion Percent Agreement Normat ive 1 6 4.34 0.45 96.88 General 1 6 4.52 0.27 100.00 Goal 1 6 4.36 0.39 97.92 About Self 16 4.46 0.32 98.44 Total 64 4.45 0.36 98.31 84 Biodemographic information. Biodemographic information was c o l l e c t e d for the purpose of descr ib ing the sample and ascer ta in ing the degree to which admin is t ra t i ve , educational and biographical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may have affected subjects ' o r ientat ion to problem formulat ion. Ly les and Mi t ro f f (1980) invest igated the e f fec ts of selected demographic var iab les such as l e v e l of education, managerial experience, and managerial l e v e l on the a t t i tudes of managers to organizat ional problem formulat ion. They found that except for managerial l e v e l , the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s had l i t t l e e f fec t on the managers' a t t i t u d e s . Managerial l eve l was found to be re lated to managers' a t t i tudes toward ra t iona l problem formulation behaviour. Findings from A l l a l ' s (1973) study of problem formulation among experienced physicians and second year medical students suggested that selected var iab les such as t r a i n i n g and experience may have an ef fect on i n d i v i d u a l s ' problem formulation processes. In view of these f indings s ix biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were i d e n t i f i e d for study of the i r assoc iat ion with respondents oriented to problem formulation in a "presented" problematic s i t u a t i o n as compared with respondents or iented to problem formulation in a "discovered" problematic s i t u a t i o n . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were: (1) number of years spent in admin is t ra t ion , (2) administ rat ive l e v e l , (3) highest educational l e v e l 85 a t ta ined , (4) t ra in ing in problem so lv ing , (5) age, and (6) gender. Be l ie f sca les . The 64 retained statements were separated into four groups according to the type of be l ie f which the statement represented. Each be l ie f domain group of 16 statements was further subdivided according to the behaviour to which the statement was referenced. The subdivided groups of four statements each contained statements representing a four point range of va r ia t ion on the p a r t i c u l a r component problem formulation behaviour. That i s , a set of four statements representing normative b e l i e f s about the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems (IP) would range from statements representing normative b e l i e f s about the simple i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems to normative b e l i e f s about the complex i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems. Examples of these statements are : (1) Administrators should concentrate on discovering the s ingle major problem which the s i tua t ion poses. (2) Administrators should concentrate on discovering one or two major problems and the i r re la t ion to more s p e c i f i c problems which the s i tua t ion poses. (3) Administrators should concentrate on discovering two or three major problems which the s i tua t ion poses. (4) Administrators should concentrate on discover ing as many problems as poss ib le and how they might be related to more s p e c i f i c problems. 86 This ordering was developed in conformity with the model of problem formulation and i t s range of var ia t ions discussed in the section on the conceptual framework in Chapter I I . Another way of descr ib ing the grouping of the statements i s that a group of four statements about a p a r t i c u l a r behaviour represented an item. Each item had four options which were weighted according to the leve l which i t represented. On the instrument an item was presented as numbers (1), (2) , (3) or (4) respect ively and comprised of four opt ions: (a) , (b), (c) , or (d). Items (1) , (2), (3) and (4) represented respect ive ly b e l i e f s about: the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems, se lect ion of information, c r i t e r i a used in the se lect ion of information and exploratory behaviour. The items were ordered as fo l lows : Item (1) represented IP; Item (2) represented EXP; Item (3) represented CRIT and Item (4) represented INFO. This ordering with in a domain was kept constant across the four be l ie f domains. The four options were ordered from the s imple, to the moderately simple, to the moderately complex, to the complex and were randomized within each item in the four be l ie f domains. The instrument was thus comprised of randomly ordered options with in items of which there were four in a be l ie f domain. There were four d i f fe rent be l ie f domains. 87 Scoring Four scores corresponding to the four be l i e f domains were computed according to the scoring guide presented in Table I I I . 7 . These be l ie f domain scores are described as fo l lows : Normative be l ie f score. This score was designed to r e f l e c t a Subject 's b e l i e f s about how administrators should formulate problems. General be l ie f score. This score was designed to r e f l e c t a Subject 's b e l i e f s about how administrators a c t u a l l y do formulate problems. Goal be l ie f score. This score was designed to r e f l e c t the Subject 's b e l i e f s about what he or she as an administrator would l i k e to aim for when formulating problems. B e l i e f s about Sel f score. This score was designed to r e f l e c t the Subject 's b e l i e f s about what he or she personal ly d id when formulating problems. Subjects were asked to choose for each item the option with which they agreed most by p lac ing a check mark against i t . The maximum score a subject could be awarded for an item was four . The lowest score was one. Since there were four d i f f e r e n t items in a be l ie f domain i t was poss ib le that a respondent could be awarded the maximum t o t a l domain score of 16 or the minimum t o t a l domain score 88 TABLE III.7: SCORING GUIDE FOR ITEMS WITHIN BELIEF DOMAINS Component Description of Range Points Behaviour of Variation IP ( I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the Problem) 1 Simple i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem 1 2 Moderately simple i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem 2 3 Moderately complex i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem 3 4 Complex i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem 4 EXP (Exploratory Behaviour) 1 L i t e r a l and concrete investigation of the problem 1 2 Naive and r e f l e c t i v e investigation of the problem 2 3 P r a c t i c a l and experimentative investigation of the problem 3 4 Abstract and conceptual investigation of the problem 4 CRIT ( C r i t e r i a Used in the Selection of Information) 1 No alternative c r i t e r i o n i s used; whatever comes to mind is used as the point of reference 1 2 C r i t e r i a of personal preferences 2 3 C r i t e r i a of the standards which other administrators use 3 4 C r i t e r i a of t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s 4 INFO (The Selection of Information) 1 Selection of general information immediately at hand 1 2 Selection of p a r t i c u l a r b i t s of information immediately at hand 2 3 Selection of general information at hand or distant 3 4 Selection of general and p a r t i c u l a r b i t s of information at hand or distant 4 89 of four. For example a respondent who selected statements about: (1) the complex i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems, (2) an abstract and conceptual in terpretat ion of the nature of problems, (3) the use of c r i t e r i a based on p r i n c i p l e s , and (4) the se lect ion of general and par t i cu la r b i t s of information at hand and d istant was given a score of four points for each of the four items: IP, EXP, CRIT, and INFO. Thus the respondent would receive a t o t a l score of 16 in that p a r t i c u l a r be l ie f domain. On the other hand, i f a respondent selected statements about (1) the simple i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems, (2) a l i t e r a l and concrete in te rpre tat ion of the problem, (3) the use of c r i t e r i a which readi l y come to mind, and (4) the se lec t ion of general information which i s near at hand, the respondent would receive a score of one point for each of the four items, IP, EXP, CRIT and INFO. Thus the respondent would receive a t o t a l score of four points in that p a r t i c u l a r be l ie f domain. The underlying assumption in scoring was that a high t o t a l score indicated an or ientat ion to problem formulation consistent with what i s found in a "discovered" problem s i t u a t i o n , whereas a low t o t a l score indicated an or ientat ion consistent with what i s found in a "presented" problem s i t u a t i o n . Questionnaire form. The biodemographic sect ion and the sections dealing with the four d i f fe rent types of 90 b e l i e f s were assembled to form one quest ionnai re . Each sect ion was colour-coded to f a c i l i t a t e the t r a n s i t i o n between sections for the respondents. White was chosen for the section on biodemographic information, pink for the normative b e l i e f s sca le , green for the general b e l i e f s sca le , yellow for the goal b e l i e f s sca le , and blue for the scale perta in ing to b e l i e f s about s e l f . The sect ions were introduced with a br ief statement of the content and the d i rec t ion for responding. Only one side of the page was used in the construct ion of the quest ionnai re , thus resu l t ing in a questionnaire of 15 pages. The t o t a l questionnaire was pretested by nine graduate students and two facul ty members in educational admin is t ra t ion . Eight of the students had previous experience in educational admin is t ra t ion . Fol lowing th i s pretest was the p i l o t tes t ing of the quest ionnai re . THE PILOT TESTING OF THE INSTRUMENT The purpose of the p i l o t tes t ing of the instrument was to determine i t s appropriateness for the intended target population of post-secondary administrators and to examine the psychometric propert ies of the be l i e f s c a l e s . Sampling Procedure The p i l o t tes t ing of the PF instrument was conducted in la te J u l y , 1983. Questionnaires were d i s t r i b u t e d to 35 91 admin is t rators , 31 of whom had registered for graduate courses in educational administrat ion and/or higher education during the 1983 summer session. The other four ind i v idua ls worked as administrators in post-secondary i n s t i t u t i o n s . Of the 35 questionnaires administered, 23 were returned. Of those returned, one was blank in a l l parts and the other four were incomplete. Thus, a sample of 18 (51%) administrators par t i c ipa ted in the p i l o t study. Analys is of P i l o t Data Responses on the questionnaires were coded by the invest igator on fortran sheets. From these sheets the codes were keypunched into the computer (AMDAHL 470 V/6 Model II using the Michigan Terminal System) and placed on disk f i l e s . A manual check was made of a l l the f i l e d data for both coding and key punching e r ro rs . Errors were double checked and corrected. The LERTAP computer program (Nelson, 1974) was used to analyse the items, and to determine the in te rna l consistency (Hoyt, 1941) of the subtests . The computation of Cronbach's s t r a t i f i e d alpha (Cronbach, 1951) and a c o r r e l a t i o n a l analys is were also conducted in order to determine the degree of correspondence among the d i f fe rent types of b e l i e f s . 92 Results and Discussion Charac te r i s t i cs of the sample. A descr ipt ion of the biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sample of administrators i s presented in Table I I I . 8 . In summary, the sample consisted of 14 males and four females most of whom were p r i n c i p a l s or coordinators with over 2.5 years experience as f u l l - t i m e administ rators , and with some t r a i n i n g in problem so l v ing . Item l e v e l data. As shown in Table I I I . 9 , the in te rna l consistency (Hoyt, 1941) values for the four be l ie f subscales were low: .39 for N, .21 for GB, .11 for Go, .26 for BS. These low values were ascribed for the most part to the short length of the subscale and the small s i ze of the sample who did not exh ib i t much v a r i a b i l i t y in the i r responses. The mean scores for the subscales were moderately high and represented over 50% of the possible subscale scores. For the Normative be l ie f subscale the mean score was 12.33, representing 75% of the possib le subscale score; for GB i t was 8.89, representing 56%; for Go i t was 11.78, representing 74%, and for BS i t was 9.56, representing 60%. The standard deviat ions for the N, GB, Go 93 TABLE 111 .8 : BIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBJECTS (N=18) Number Gender Male 1 4 77.8 Female 4 22.2 I n s t i t u t i o n : Crown ( Corporation 1 5.6 School Board 3 16.7 Elememtary/Junior High/Senior High School 4 22.2 Community College 6 33.3 Min is t ry of Education 1 5.6 P rov inc ia l Council 1 5.6 Univers i ty 2 11.1 Years in Administrat ion (Fu l l Time): 15.6 - 25.0 years 1 5.6 10.6 - 15.5 - - 5.6 - 10.5 5 27.8 2.6 - 5.5 6 33.3 1 . 0 - 2.5 6 33.3 Years in Administrat ion (Part Time) 10.6 - 15.0 years - - 5.6 - 10.5 - - 2.6 - 5.5 6 33.3 0.5 - 2.5 5 27.8 0.0 II 7 38.9 Involvement in I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research: 10.6 - 15.0 years 1 5.6 5.6 - 10.5 - - 2.6 - 5.5 2 11.1 0.5 - 2.5 3 16.7 0.0 II 1 2 66.6 Training in Problem So lv ing : Course work 7 38.9 Management t ra in ing 1 5.6 Workshops 1 5.6 No t r a i n i n g 9 50.0 94 TABLE 111.9: SUMMARY TEST STATISTICS FOR THE PF BELIEF INSTRUMENT BY BELIEF DOMAIN N GB Go BS TT No. of I terns 4 4 4 4 1 6 Mean 1 2.33 8.89 1 1 .78 9.56 42.56 St . Dev. 2.11 2.49 2.13 2.20 5.90 Hoyt's r. 0.39 0.21 0.11 0.26 0.57* Std . Error 1 .43 1 .93 1 .74 1 .64 3.78 Legend * = Cronbach's Composite alpha N = Normative b e l i e f s subtest GB = General b e l i e f s subtest Go = Goal b e l i e f s subtest BS = B e l i e f s about Self subtest TT = Tota l test 95 and BS subscales were 2 .11 , 2.49, 2.13 and 2.20 respect i ve ly . The standard error ranged from 1.43 for the Normative be l ie f subscale to 1.93 for the General b e l i e f s subscale. To c l a r i f y further t h i s s i t u a t i o n , the resu l t s of the item analyses were examined (see Appendix B) . In the Normative b e l i e f s - and B e l i e f s about Self subscales there were two options which did not receive any responses. They were option 2 of IP and option 4 of EXP respect i ve l y . These two options were evaluated. Option 2 of the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems did not exh ib i t any i r r e g u l a r i t i e s in the General , Goal and Self be l ie f subscales. Neither did option 4 of EXP in the Normative, General and Goal b e l i e f s domains. The absence of responses to these two items was a t t r ibu ted to the small sample s ize that was used. Thus, i t was decided to re ta in these items for subsequent use with a larger sample. Options one, three and four were the most popular responses among the items. This f ind ing suggested that the p i l o t sample may have consisted of la rge ly extreme scorers . In 67% of the cases the point b i s e r i a l co r re la t ions behaved as expected, ranging from negative values for the more simple options (one and two), to p o s i t i v e values for the more complex options (three and four ) . In the other cases the options misbehaved thereby reveal ing inconsistent choices of options of items within the be l ie f domains. 96 These o b s e r v a t i o n s l e d t o the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i n the c o n t e x t of problem f o r m u l a t i o n b e l i e f s i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t r esponses t o component b e h a v i o u r s might be a f u n c t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l items r a t h e r than the c o l l e c t i v e set of i t e m s . C o n s i d e r i n g t h a t two t h i r d s of the o p t i o n s behaved as e x p e c t e d and t h a t a s m a l l sample s i z e was used, the d e c i s i o n was taken t o e x p l o r e t h i s i s s u e of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' responses t o i t e m s , r e p r e s e n t i n g problem f o r m u l a t i o n b e l i e f s w i t h a l a r g e r sample. Domain l e v e l d a t a . The low r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the s u b s c a l e s l e d t o an e x a m i n a t i o n of the Cronbach's composite a l p h a (1951) f o r the t o t a l t e s t . The r e p o r t e d v a l u e of .57 suggested t h a t t h e r e was more than one u n d e r l y i n g f a c t o r i n the b e l i e f s c a l e . As a r e s u l t of t h i s f i n d i n g the c o r r e l a t i o n s of the s u b s c a l e s , ( P e a r s o n - P r o d u c t moment c o r r e l a t i o n s ) , as r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e I I I . 1 0 were examined. As shown, the c o r r e l a t i o n s among the N, GB, Go, and BS s u b s c a l e s ranged from -0.07 t o .43. The p a t t e r n s of c o r r e l a t i o n s l e f t unanswered the q u e s t i o n r a i s e d i n C h a p t e r s I and I I c o n c e r n i n g the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of the f o u r b e l i e f domains. From t h i s p i l o t study the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the b e l i e f domains were not c l e a r s i n c e a s m a l l sample was used. However, K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) noted t h a t i n d i f f e r e n t a r e a s of c o n t e n t or i n d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l or 97 TABLE I I I . 10: PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN NORMATIVE, GENERAL, GOAL, SELF BELIEFS Normative General Goal Self Normative -0 .07 .06 .32 General .43 .38 Goal .35 Self personal i ty contexts the r e l a t i v e independence of the four b e l i e f s , Normative, General , Goal , and Self b e l i e f s may be a l t e r e d , r e s u l t i n g in varying correspondences between the four b e l i e f s . Revision of the Instrument As a resu l t of the p i l o t study two types of rev is ions were made to the PF instrument. The f i r s t type of rev is ion was made to Part I of the Questionnaire, which was designed to e l i c i t biodemographic information about the subjects . F i r s t , headings in the introductory part of the questionnaire were adjusted. Second, the responses to questions in Part I indicated that some questions required rewording in order to avoid ambiguity and others required expansion for greater c l a r i t y . The f i r s t question 98 perta in ing to i n s t i t u t i o n of work was rephrased s l i g h t l y and i t s open ended response format was changed to one of a check mark to ident i f y e i ther College or I n s t i t u t e as the place of work. Questions on the years spent in f u l l - t i m e and/or part - t ime administrat ion were expanded to include years and time spent in administ rat ion at the present i n s t i t u t i o n and at other i n s t i t u t i o n s . Questions on age and highest educational l e v e l at ta ined were incorporated into th i s f i r s t part of the quest ionnaire . On the question perta in ing to t r a i n i n g in decis ion making, the format was changed to one using check marks against i d e n t i f i e d areas of t r a i n i n g . The second type of rev is ion was made to item (3) in Parts II to V of the Questionnaire on b e l i e f s . This item referred to the c r i t e r i a used in the se lect ion of information. The a l t e r n a t i v e response options for th i s item in the four be l ie f domains were rephrased so as to d i s t ingu ish the use of d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of c r i t e r i a . The word " c h i e f l y " was inserted to a id in achieving t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n . The revised items were incorporated into the instrument which was used in the f i e l d survey among post-secondary admin is t rators . The f i n a l form of the instrument used in the study i s presented as Appendix C. 99 CHAPTER IV THE USE OF THE INSTRUMENT, I : METHOD In o r d e r t o conduct a p a r t i a l e m p i r i c a l v a l i d a t i o n of the Problem F o r m u l a t i o n (PF) b e l i e f i n s t r u m e n t , an a n a l y t i c a l f i e l d s u r v e y was u n d e r t a k e n . The survey was d e s i g n e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e the n o r m a t i v e , g e n e r a l , g o a l and s e l f b e l i e f s about problem f o r m u l a t i o n among a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of p o s t - s e c o n d a r y i n s t i t u t i o n s , and t o examine the responses of a s e l e c t e d subsample of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t o items of the PF b e l i e f i n s t r u m e n t and the biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h o s e r e s p o n s e s . In t h i s c h a p t e r the method used i n the a p p l i c a t i o n of the i n s t r u m e n t i s d e s c r i b e d . I t i n c l u d e s t h r e e major s e c t i o n s : (1) s a m p l i n g p r o c e d u r e s , (2) da t a c o l l e c t i o n and, (3) d a t a p r e p a r a t i o n and a n a l y s i s . SAMPLING PROCEDURES The t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n was a d m i n i s t r a t o r s c u r r e n t l y employed i n Community C o l l e g e s and I n s t i t u t e s i n the p r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia ( B . C . ) . I t would have been i d e a l i f i n c l u d e d i n the p o p u l a t i o n were a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i t h o u t s t a n d i n g s k i l l s i n problem f o r m u l a t i o n . But the a v a i l a b l e means f o r i d e n t i f y i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i t h such 100 s k i l l s were not known. It was thus decided that a representative sample of administrators from d i f f e r e n t l e v e l pos i t ions and with varying amounts and types of administrat ive experience would be adequate for the purposes of t h i s study. Sample The potent ia l sample sources were the 15 Community Colleges and the s ix Ins t i tu tes in B.C. The Community Colleges were establ ished to provide un ivers i t y p a r a l l e l courses, general education and vocat ional t r a i n i n g , and to serve community c u l t u r a l needs. The Ins t i tu tes were more spec ia l i zed i n s t i t u t i o n s , establ ished to provide s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g for vocations such as a r t , technology, and law enforcement. The administ rat ive structure and mandate of the post-secondary i n s t i t u t i o n s were such that d i f ferences might be expected to ex is t at each i n s t i t u t i o n . Because of t h i s , sampling of a l l Community Colleges and P r o v i n c i a l Ins t i tu tes in B.C. was attempted. This included a l l f u l l - t i m e administrators at a l l administ rat ive leve ls in these i n s t i t u t i o n s . For purposes of th i s study, f u l l - t i m e administrators were defined as ind iv idua ls who spent over 65% of the i r time in administ rat ive du t ies , that i s coordinat ing, c o n t r o l l i n g and d i r e c t i n g a c t i v i t i e s . This d e f i n i t i o n of f u l l time administrator was consistent with 101 what was used in these i n s t i t u t i o n s . The administrators who were sampled were 317 in t o t a l . DATA COLLECTION In September, 1982 the p r i n c i p a l s of a l l 15 Community Colleges in B r i t i s h Columbia were sent l e t t e r s which described the purpose of the study and requested t h e i r consent for the researcher to request the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of administrators in the i r i n s t i t u t i o n s . (See Appendix D.) Their own p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the study was a lso requested. Of the 15 p r i n c i p a l s approached, one p r i n c i p a l was unable to give consent; two did not rep ly . The i n s t i t u t i o n s of these three non -par t i c ipat ing p r i n c i p a l s exh ib i ted di f ferences in administrat ive s t ructures , a feature t y p i c a l of the Community College in B r i t i s h Columbia. Two were s ing le campus i n s t i t u t i o n s with s ing le admin is t rat ive bodies; the other was a multi-campus i n s t i t u t i o n . At each of i t s campuses there was an adminis t rat ive unit which was coordinated by a cent ra l i zed adminis t rat ive body. In September, 1983 l e t t e r s s i m i l a r to those sent to the p r i n c i p a l s of Community Colleges were sent to the p r inc ipa l s of a l l s ix I n s t i t u t e s . A l l the p r i n c i p a l s consented to p a r t i c i p a t e . At the time of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the questionnaire a labour dispute arose at one I n s t i t u t e , which prevented i t s administrators from 1 02 p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the study. Another Ins t i tu te was la te r el iminated from the study because of the small number of i t s admin is t rators . Thus, two I n s t i t u t e s were e l iminated. In November of 1983, packages were d i s t r i b u t e d to the 12 Community Colleges and Four I n s t i t u t e s . Each package contained (1) a covering l e t t e r explain ing the purpose of the study, and requesting voluntary p a r t i c i p a t i o n , (2) the PF be l ie f quest ionnaire , and (3) a sel f -addressed return envelope. Each package was coded with an ID number on the outer and inner envelopes for i d e n t i f i c a t i o n purposes. The ID number i d e n t i f i e d both the I n s t i t u t i o n and the i n d i v i d u a l . The administrators were assured that anonymity would be maintained and that a l l resu l ts would be treated c o n f i d e n t i a l l y . Return of the completed questionnaire in the envelope provided was requested within one week from the date of d i s t r i b u t i o n . Procedures in the Questionnaire D i s t r i b u t i o n Because of d i f f e r e n t administ rat ive p o l i c i e s and structures in these educational i n s t i t u t i o n s three procedures were used in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of quest ionnaires. They are shown in Table IV.1 and are described below: TABLE IV .1 : PROCEDURES USED IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRES TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND INSTITUTES I n s t i t u t i o n Procedure No. of Administrators Used who were sent Questionnaires Community Col leges: 001 3 40 002 1 12 003 1 10 004 1 19 005 1 9 007 1 19 008 1 17 009 2 12 010 1 16 011 1 8 014 1 29 015 1 15 Sub t o t a l 206 I n s t i t u t e s : 006 *1 3 012 2 42 013 2 25 016 1 13 017 2 28 Sub t o t a l 1 1 1 Total 317 Legend * Subsequently el iminated because of small sample s i z e . 104 Procedure 1: The P r i n c i p a l provided a l i s t of the names and postal addresses of f u l l - t i m e administrators at the p a r t i c u l a r i n s t i t u t i o n s . Packages were prepared and mailed to each administrator who in turn returned the completed questionnaire in the stamped sel f -addressed envelope to the researcher. Procedure 2; The P r i n c i p a l provided a l i s t of the names of f u l l - t i m e administrators and handled the d i s t r i b u t i o n of packages. Packages, addressed to the ind iv idua l administrators were thus, sent to the P r i n c i p a l for h is d i s t r i b u t i o n . The completed questionnaires were returned in the sel f -addressed envelopes e i ther d i r e c t l y to the researcher or to the P r i n c i p a l who in turn forwarded them to the researcher. Procedure 3: The P r i n c i p a l provided the number of f u l l - t i m e administrators at his i n s t i t u t i o n and the appropriate number of packages was prepared and sent to the p r i n c i p a l for h is d i s t r i b u t i o n . The packages containing completed questionnaires were returned to the P r i n c i p a l who in turn forwarded them to the researcher. 105 DATA PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS As questionnaires were received, the i r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers were recorded and the date of the i r return was noted. Each questionnaire was reviewed for completeness. Twelve questionnaires had incomplete section's and thus were not used in the study. One returned quest ionnaire was not used because of the small sample s ize at that p a r t i c u l a r i n s t i t u t i o n . The biodemographic items in Part 1 of the questionnaire were examined for completeness and converted to numerical codes with the use of a questionnaire key, recorded on fortran sheets, and double checked for accuracy. The coded data were keypunched into a computer f i l e and the f i l e was then checked against the o r i g i n a l forms for key punching e r ro rs . A l l errors were double checked and cor rec ted . Responses to the be l ie f items in Parts II to V of the Questionnaire were converted to scores with the use of a Questionnaire Key, recorded on fort ran sheets, and double checked for accuracy. The data were then keypunched into a computer f i l e and checked for accuracy fo l lowing the procedure out l ined above. 1 06 A l l subsequent data analyses were done using the computing f a c i l i t i e s at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia. Prel iminary Analysis and Results A prel iminary analys is was conducted to test for possible d i f ferences among i n s t i t u t i o n s with respect to administ rators ' normative, general , goal and se l f b e l i e f s . This was necessary in order to ascerta in whether the i n s t i t u t i o n or ind i v idua l was the appropriate unit of a n a l y s i s . In the l i t e r a t u r e upon which the items were developed the ind i v idua l was t y p i c a l l y used as the unit of a n a l y s i s . These studies had been ca r r ied out la rge ly in the f i e l d of psychology where ind i v idua ls could be randomly assigned to treatment groups. In t h i s study administrators were members of i n s t i t u t i o n s and the removal of any i n s t i t u t i o n a l e f fec ts in the case that an admin is t ra tor ' s b e l i e f s were not formed independently of the i n s t i t u t i o n in which he or she worked was necessary. OWMAR, (Hakstian, not dated) a computer program, maintained by the Department of Psychology, U . B . C , was used to perform a mul t i var ia te test of d i f ferences in cent ra l tendency among the i n s t i t u t i o n s and to test the t e n a b i l i t y of the assumption of homogeneity of var iance-covar iance. Results As shown in Tables IV.2 and IV .3 , the n u l l hypotheses of no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences for mean be l ie f 1 07 scores and of homogeneity of variance-covariance among the i n s t i t u t i o n s were rejected at the .05 leve l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Standardization of the scores within each i n s t i t u t i o n (mean 0; standard deviat ion 1) revealed that the lack of homogeneity of variance-covariance was a t t r i b u t a b l e to the lack of var iance. Further examination of the di f ferences among means (nonstandardized) revealed that the s ign i f i cance was a t t r ibu tab le to one or more complex cont rasts . The simple contrasts between pa i rs of i n s t i t u t i o n s for each var iab le were not s i g n i f i c a n t . Given these r e s u l t s , and taking into account the large degrees of freedom and the magnitude of the F r a t i o , the decis ion was taken to reta in the raw scores and to disregard i n s t i t u t i o n as a va r iab le , that i s , to pool subjects across i n s t i t u t i o n s . This permitted reporting of resu l t s in the metric used in obtaining the responses, thereby a id ing in the in terpretat ion of the r e s u l t s . Psychometric Analys is Two main issues concerning r e l i a b i l i t y were considered. F i r s t , the r e l i a b i l i t y of scoring the va r iab le , administ rat ive l e v e l , was examined. Second, the c o e f f i c i e n t s of r e l i a b i l i t y for the be l ie f var iab les were examined. 108 TABLE IV .2 : MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES BY INSTITUTIONS Var Ins t l Inst2 Inst3 Inst4 Inst5 Inst6 Inst7 Inst8 N = 24 N=7 N=6 N=6 N = 7 N=10 N=8 N=8 N 11.58 11.14 11.50 11.17 12.86 12.40 12.50 11.38 (2.67) (3.53) (1.64) (3.31) (1.77) (1.78) (1.31) (3.16) GB 9.23 9.57 8.00 9.33 7.29 8.30 8.38 6.88 (2.76) (3.91) (0.63) (2.88) (1.38) (1.89) (3.29) (2.17) Go 12.00 12.14 12.50 11.67 12.29 12.70 12.63 11.00 (2.62) (3.39) (1.64) (2.80) (0.76) (1.70) (1.60) (2.33) BS 10.50 11.29 10.50 12.50 10.43 10.10 10.88 9.13 (2.57) (1.80) (1.76) (2.07) (2.51) (1.73) (2.23) (2.64) Var Inst9 InstlO I n s t i l Inst12 Inst13 Inst14 Ins t l5 Inst16 N= 10 N = 4 N = 23 N= 22 N = 14 N= 8 N= 5 N= 27 N 1 3 .10 1 2 .50 1 0 .71 1 1 . 59 12 .43 13. 38 12. 60 12. 19 (1 .52) (2 .65) (2 .65) (1 . 65) (2 .87) (1 . 41 ) (1 . 82) (1 . 98) GB 10 .60 8 .00 8 .05 10. 95 9 .29 9. 1 3 9. 20 8. 52 (2 .80) (1 .83) (1 .80) (2. 82) (2 .27) (2. 85) (2. 59) (2. 05) Go 1 2 .30 1 1 .75 1 1 .33 1 1 . 05 1 1 .71 12. 63 10. 80 1 1 . 81 (2 .31 ) (2 .99) (2 .74) (2. 17) (2 .84) (2. 13) (1 . 79) (2. 54) BS 1 1 .60 1 1 .75 10 .00 1 1 . 1 4 10 .64 12. 00 10. 40 10. 59 (1 .78) (1 .50) (2 .32) (2. 03) (3 .25) (2. 56) (2. 51 ) (2. 58) Legend: Var.= Var iables Inst= I n s t i t u t i o n N = Normative b e l i e f s Go = Goal b e l i e f s GB = General b e l i e f s BS = B e l i e f s about Self () = Standard deviat ion 109 TABLE IV .3 : SUMMARY OF ANALYSES FOR HOMOGENEITY OF VARIANCE-COVARIANCE AND DIFFERENCES AMONG MEAN BELIEF SCORES OF INSTITUTIONS Test DF1 DF2 F Ratio Prob. MANOVA L ike l ihood Ratio 60.0 666.0 1.394 0.030* Test for d i f ferences among Means Bar t le t t -Box Homogeneity 150.0 4110.61 1.491 0.000* of Dispersion Test *p<.05 R e l i a b i l i t y of the v a r i a b l e , administ rat ive l e v e l . Administrat ive l e v e l was determined from responses to question two of Part 1 of the quest ionnaire . Given the di f ferences in administ rat ive structures and the considerable v a r i a t i o n in the t i t l e s used to designate various pos i t ions among the i n s t i t u t i o n s , judgements had to be made in assigning administrators to a p a r t i c u l a r administ rat ive l e v e l . For example, whether to place a Dean from I n s t i t u t i o n 1 at l eve l 2 or 3, a Di rector from I n s t i t u t i o n 8 at l e v e l 2, or the P r i n c i p a l of a multicampus i n s t i t u t i o n at l eve l 1 or at l e v e l 2 required the making of judgements. Thus, the issue of consistency of judgement was the primary concern in estimating in te r - sco re r r e l i a b i l i t y on th i s v a r i a b l e . A random sample of ten administ rators ' responses (5% of the responses) was scored independently by the researcher and a second profess ional in educational administrat ion and 1 1 0 teacher education. The i n t r a c l a s s cor re la t ion c o e f f i c i e n t (Ebel , 1951) was used to estimate the in te r - scorer r e l i a b i l i t y of the ten responses. The c o e f f i c i e n t obtained was 0.97. On the basis of th i s high c o e f f i c i e n t i t was concluded that scoring with regard to the v a r i a b l e , adminis t rat ive l e v e l did not const i tute a source of u n r e l i a b i l i t y in the data. R e l i a b i l i t y of the be l ie f va r iab les . R e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were ca lcu lated for each be l ie f v a r i a b l e , that i s for each type of be l ie f on the basis of the scores of the whole sample of 189 admin is t rators . These c o e f f i c i e n t s were ca lcu la ted by means of Hoyt*s (1941) analys is of variance technique using the LERTAP program (Nelson, 1974). In order to e s t a b l i s h compensatory evidence for the r e l i a b i l i t y of the PF be l ie f instrument, item analys is was undertaken by examining the point b i s e r i a l co r re la t ion c o e f f i c i e n t s for the response options on the subtests . Selected aspects of the v a l i d i t y of the PF be l ie f instrument were addressed by examining the re la t ionsh ips of the four mean be l ie f scores. This was based on assert ions of the theory of cogni t ive or ientat ion ( K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r , 1972; 1976). Of major concern were the in terpretat ions of the correspondence among the mean normative, general , goal and se l f be l ie f scores. 111 S t a t i s t i c a l Analyses The analyses which were conducted to test the hypotheses and to explore the research questions stated in Chapter II (pp. 62-64) are described in t h i s sec t ion . Cor re la t iona l analyses. The hypotheses were tested by means of c o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses. Three main procedures were used. F i r s t , scatter p lo ts for a l l s i x combinations of Normative, General, Goal , and Self b e l i e f s (N vs . GB; N vs. Go; N vs . BS; GB vs. Go; GB vs. BS; Go vs. BS) were drawn in order to determine whether a l i near re la t ionsh ip existed between the various combinations. Second, Pearson product-moment cor re la t ions were computed in order to determine the magnitude of the l inear re la t ionsh ip among the four var iab les - Normative, General , Goal and Self b e l i e f s . Thi rd , a Z c o r r e l a t i o n a l test (Glass and Stanley, 1970: 313) was conducted in order to test for d i f ferences between pa i rs of co r re la t ions of be l i e f scores. The fo l lowing formula was used: ) 1 12 v/n(R x y -R x z ) l/TT R 2 Xy) 2 + ( 1 R 2 X ^ 2 2R 3 y z - (2R / z Rxy ^xz ) ( 1 R x y ~ R x z R 2 y z ^ where n i s the sample s i z e , Rxy i s the sample c o r r e l a t i o n of X and Y, Rxz i s the sample c o r r e l a t i o n of X and Z, and Ryz i s the sample c o r r e l a t i o n of Y and Z. Analyses of Exploratory Questions Based on the major invest igat ion of problem f inding processes by Getzels and Csikszentmihaly i (1976) problem formulation was conceptual ized as the formulation of problems in a continuum of problem s i t u a t i o n s , the extreme ends of which were "presented" problem s i tua t ions and "discovered" problem s i t u a t i o n s . These problematic s i tua t ions and associated problem formulation behaviours and cogni t ive processes were discussed in Chapter I I . Since problem formulation in a "presented" problem s i t u a t i o n was viewed as a simple behaviour and problem formulation in a "discovered" problem s i t u a t i o n was viewed as complex, low scorers as assessed by the PF be l ie f instrument were viewed as one kind of extreme scorer (the simple) and high scorers on the PF be l ie f instrument were viewed as another kind of extreme scorer (the complex). On the basis of t h i s conceptual izat ion of the problem 1 1 3 formulation scores and considerations of manageability of the analys is and c l a r i t y in showing the correspondence between the c o l l e c t e d data and the theoret ica l claims in the l i t e r a t u r e , a subsample of extreme scorers was i d e n t i f i e d . Their responses to items on the PF bel ief instrument were analysed and the biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s associated with these scorers . The extreme scorers , thus represented two classes of respondents, the simple and the complex. Both groups were i d e n t i f i e d by the i r l e v e l of scores. Those whose t o t a l scores were approximately one standard deviat ion above or below the mean be l ie f scores of the sample of post-secondary administrators were selected as the sub-sample of extreme scorers . An approximation of one standard deviat ion rather than exact ly one standard deviat ion was used in order to incorporate into the group o u t l i e r respondents who formed a natura l break in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondents, for a cut off po in t . Thus, a group of 30 administrators whose scores were approximately one standard deviat ion below the mean b e l i e f scores was selected and i d e n t i f i e d as low be l ie f scorers ; another group of 30 whose scores were approximately one standard above the mean be l ie f scores was selected and i d e n t i f i e d as high be l ie f scorers . This subsample of extreme scorers was used for a l l the exploratory analyses. 1 14 Based on the l i t e r a t u r e on problem formulation (Pounds, 1969; A l l a l , 1973; Lyles and M i t r o f f , 1980) s ix biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were i d e n t i f i e d as p o t e n t i a l l y capable of having an e f fec t on problem formulation behaviour. These were explored in order to determine i f they d i f fe red between the low and the high scorers . Grouping of Demographic Var iables Due to i n s u f f i c i e n t sample s i z e s , the scor ing of several of the biodemographic var iables was rev ised. These rev is ions included: (1) Administrat ive l e v e l : (a) Level one represented the leve l at which reports were made d i r e c t l y to the governing board. Heads and p r i n c i p a l s of one-campus Community Colleges and I n s t i t u t e s , and of multi-campus i n s t i t u t i o n s were represented at th i s l e v e l . (b) Level two represented those who reported to superiors who in turn reported d i r e c t l y to the Governing Board. These administrators included V i c e - P r i n c i p a l s , Bursars, and other administrators such as Deans whose pos i t ions as described in the administ rat ive structure of the i n s t i t u t i o n conformed to l e v e l two as described in th i s study. 1 1 5 (c) Level three represented administrators at three reporting leve ls from the Governing Board. At t h i s l eve l were included D i r e c t o r s , Managers of centres such as Computing Services and Plant Operations and some Deans, depending on the structure of the p a r t i c u l a r I n s t i t u t i o n . (d) Level four contained administrators at four reporting leve l s from the Board. It comprised mainly Coordinators and middle management personnel. These four leve ls were i d e n t i f i e d by the fol lowing l a b e l s : (a) the p r i n c i p a l s h i p l e v e l , (b) the v i c e - p r i n c i p a l s h i p l e v e l , (3) the deanship or d i rec to rsh ip l e v e l , and (d) the leve l of the coordinator . Due to the lack of coordination in the t i t l e s used to describe the administ rat ive pos i t ions among the post-secondary i n s t i t u t i o n s , organizat ional char ts , job desc r ip t ions , and leve l s of report ing to the governing board were examined. (2) Age. The o r i g i n a l nine age groupings were regrouped as fo l lows : (1) 39 years and under, (2) 40 49 years, (3) 50 years and over. (3) Educational l e v e l . The data on educational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s obtained from questions (5) and (6) on the questionnaire were put into f i v e groups, ind icat ing the highest educational l e v e l a t ta ined : (1) no diploma or degree, (2) diploma, (3) bachelors, (4) masters, and (5) doctorate. 1 1 6 (4) Administrat ive experience. For administ rat ive experience, the years spent in administrat ion at the present i n s t i t u t i o n and at other i n s t i t u t i o n s were added and placed into four groups: (1) 0-4 years, (2) 5-7 years, (3) 8-10 years, and (4) over 10 years. (5) Training in problem so l v ing . Data per ta in ing to t r a i n i n g in problem solv ing were categorized as fo l l ows : (a) administrators who had studied problem so lv ing in a course or as a major area of study, (b) those who had taken a workshop or seminar in problem s o l v i n g , and (c) those who reported having received no course work or other t r a i n i n g in problem so l v ing . Analys is of responses to the PF be l ie f instrument. Because of small subsample s i z e s , descr ip t i ve s t a t i s t i c a l analyses were used in the exploratory analys is of the responses of the extreme scorers . These analyses included frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s , the range, mode and rank of the responses. Ranking was based on the percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses. The option with the highest percentage of responses was assigned the f i r s t rank; the option with the second highest percentage of responses was assigned the second rank and so on. 1 1 7 Two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the responses were examined, the consistency of the l e v e l of responses across and within be l ie f domains and the conf igurat ion of composite be l i e f domain responses. Consistency referred to e i ther the constant se lect ion of the same option for any given item across the Normative, General , Goal and Self be l ie f domains or the constant se lect ion of a given option for a l l items within a given be l ie f domain. Configuration referred to the high and the low points of the response pattern of a respondent for a l l four b e l i e f domains. It was not a measure of the l e v e l of an in d i v id ua l b e l i e f score per se but of the r e l a t i v e l eve l of the four b e l i e f scores, that i s the Normative, General , Goal and Self b e l i e f domain scores. This conf igurat ion score was ca lcu la ted by adding the respondent's four item scores (IP, EXP, CRIT and INFO scores) . The range of scores for each item was 1 to 4 and since each domain included four items, the t o t a l score which a respondent could achieve in any one domain ranged' from 4 to 16. The four r e s u l t i n g domain scores were then c l a s s i f i e d as fo l lows : HIGH (scores from 12 to 16), MEDIUM (scores from 9 to 11), LOW (scores from 4 to 8) . Through th i s procedure a respondent's conf igurat ion of be l ie f domain scores was der ived. 1 1 8 Analys is of biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Chi square tests were used in the analys is of nominal l e v e l data such as admin is t rat i ve , educational and personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to determine whether they d i f fe red s i g n i f i c a n t l y from an expected normal d i s t r i b u t i o n between both low and high scorers at the .05 leve l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . For the two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , age, and years spent in admin is t rat ion , the Kruska l -Wal l i s test was conducted to determine whether these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the low and high scorers were from the same population or from populations which were s imi la r with regard to a measure of cent ra l tendency. The alpha l e v e l was set at .05 . The resu l ts of the tests of hypotheses are presented in the next chapter. The resu l t s of the exploratory analyses of the extreme scorers are presented in Chapter VI . 119 CHAPTER V THE USE OF THE INSTRUMENT, I I : RESULTS OF THE STUDY OF ADMINISTRATORS' BELIEFS This chapter presents the resu l ts of analyses undertaken in va l ida t ing the Problem Formulation Be l ie f Scale and in tes t ing the hypotheses described in Chapter two. It includes three main sect ions : (1) c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondents, (2) resu l ts of psychometric analyses, and (3) resu l ts of analyses conducted to test the research hypotheses. CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS A summary of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of quest ionnaires i s presented in Table V . 1 . In t o t a l 317 quest ionnaires were d i s t r i b u t e d . Of th i s number, 203 (64%) questionnaires were returned. Fourteen of the returns were non-usable y i e l d i n g an o v e r a l l usable return rate of 60%. These rates compare favourably to those discussed by Warwick and L in inger (1975) as being good return and usable rates in survey s tud ies . Descr ipt ion of the Sample A summary of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sample of administrators i s presented in Table V .2 . 1 20 TABLE V . 1 : DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRES ISSUED AND RETURNED BY COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE AND TOTAL NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS Category No. of Questionnaires Questionnaires Question- returned Usable naires Issued No. % No. % Community Col leges: 001 40 24 60 24 60 002 12 7 58 7 58 003 10 6 60 6 60 004 19 9 47 6 32 005 09 7 78 7 78 007 19 1 3 68 10 53 008 17 9 53 8 47 009 12 8 67 8 67 010 16 1 5 94 10 63 011 08 4 50 4 50 014 29 1 5 52 1 4 48 015 15 8 53 8 53 I n s t i t u t e s : '006 3 1 33 0 0 012 42 23 55 23 55 013 25 22 88 22 88 016 13 5 38 5 38 017 28 27 96 27 96 Total 317 203 64 189 60 Sample Legend Fourteen questionnaires were not retained for data a n a l y s i s . Three were blank in a l l of Parts I to V of the quest ionnaire . Eight were s u b s t a n t i a l l y incomplete. Two were blank in Parts II to V. One was not used because i t was the only return from that I n s t i t u t i o n . TABLE V . 2 : BIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE N Percent = 189 Administrat ive Charac te r i s t i cs Years in admin is t ra t ion : 0 -4 years 65 34 5 - 7 years 37 20 8 - 1 0 years 42 22 10 + years 45 24 Administrat ive l e v e l : P r i n c i p a l 14 7 V i c e - P r i n . ; Dean 40 21 Director 81 43 Coordinator 54 29 Educational Charac te r i s t i cs Highest educ. l e v e l a t ta ined : No Degree or Diploma 07 4 Diploma 39 21 Bachelors 43 23 Masters 80 42 Doctorate 20 11 Training in problem so lv ing : Course work 96 51 Some t r a i n i n g 47 25 No t r a i n i n g 46 24 Biographic Charac te r i s t i cs Age: 39 + under 56 30 40 - 49 81 43 50 + over 52 27 Gender: Male Female 161 28 85 1 5 122 Administrat ive c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . As shown in Table V . 2 , 34% of the respondents had spent four years or less in admin is t rat ion . Of the remainder, 20% had spent f i ve to seven years, 22% had spent 8 to 10 years, and 24% had spent over 10 years in admin is t rat ion . Di rectors (43%) comprised the largest group in the sample. The next largest group consisted of coordinators (29%). Deans or V i c e - P r i n c i p a l s made up 21% and P r i n c i p a l s seven percent. Educational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The Masters degree was the highest educational l e v e l attained by 42% of the respondents (see Table' V . 2 ) . Those at the Bachelor 's degree l e v e l or the Diploma l e v e l comprised 23% and 21% of the sample respect ive ly . Doctoral degrees were held by 11% of the respondents. L a s t l y , respondents, who had no degree or diploma accounted for four percent of the sample. F i f t y -one percent of the sample reported that they had course work in problem s o l v i n g ; 25% reported that they had taken a seminar or workshop in problem so l v ing ; and 24% reported that they did not have any course work or t r a i n i n g in problem so l v ing . Biographical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . As shown in Table V . 2 , 43% of the respondents were between 40 and 49 years o l d . Those below 40 years and those 50 years and over 123 represented 30% and 27% of the sample respect i ve ly . E igh ty - f i ve percent of the sample was male and 15% female. RESULTS OF PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSES The summary resu l ts of the analyses of the four be l ie f subscales are presented in Table V . 3 . Item analys is data for the i n d i v i d u a l be l ie f subscales are reported in Appendix E. As shown in Table V . 3 , the in te rna l consistency (Hoyt, 1941) values for the four subscales were low: .26 for N, .42 for GB, .27 for Go, .24 for GB. These low values can be ascribed for the most part to the short length of each subscale. The mean scores for the subscales were r e l a t i v e l y high and represented over 55% of the possib le subscale scores. For the Normative b e l i e f subscale the mean score was 11.93, representing 75% of the poss ib le subscale score; for GB i t was 8 .96 , representing 56%; for Go i t was 11.81, representing 74%, and for BS i t was 10.71, representing 67%. The .standard dev iat ions for the subscales were as fo l lows : 2.33 for N, 2.38 for BS, 2.39 for Go and 2.59 for GB. The standard error ranged from 1.72 for GB to 1.80 for BS. To c l a r i f y further t h i s s i t u a t i o n , the resu l t s of the item analyses were examined (see Appendix E ) . For each item within each subscale a l l options were responded to , although options three and four were the more popular and accounted for between 45 and 55% of the responses. This 124 TABLE V . 3 : SUMMARY TEST STATISTICS FOR THE PROBLEM FORMULATION BELIEFS INSTRUMENT Four Domains of B e l i e f s N GB Go BS Total No. of items 4 4 4 4 16 Mean 1 1 .93 8.96 11.81 10.71 43.42 S t . Dev. 2.33 2.59 2.39 2.38 6.88 Hoyt's r .26 .42 .27 .24 .67* St . Error 1 .73 1 .72 1 .77 1 .80 3.91 Legend N = Normative b e l i e f s GB = General b e l i e f s Go = Goal b e l i e f s BS = B e l i e f s about Self * = Cronbach's composite alpha (Cronbach, 1951) f ind ing was not surpr is ing given the high mean scores of the subscales. The point b i s e r i a l cor re la t ions behaved as expected, ranging from negative values for the more simple options (one and two), to p o s i t i v e values for the more complex options (three and four ) . Further examination of i nd i v idua l responses revealed that general ly respondents would respond to e i ther options worth one or two points across a l l items, or to options worth three or four points across items, suggesting a somewhat consistent pattern . Given these observations, i t was concluded that the small number of items, together with the r e s t r i c t i o n of range, led 1 25 to the low values for in te rna l consistency. The decis ion was, then, taken to re ta in the use of the subscale scores in subsequent data analyses. Problem Formulation (PF) Be l ie f Scale The mean, standard deviat ion and Cronbach's alpha for the t o t a l PF score are reported in Table V . 3 . Of in terest here i s the value for Cronbach's a lpha, an index of the homogeneity of the four subscales. A value close to one would indicate the subscales were measuring a s ing le fac to r . The value obtained for the PF s c a l e , .67 suggested that the subscales probably measured more than one underlying fac to r . Thus, cor re la t ions of the subscales were examined. F i r s t , scatter p lo ts for the s ix pa i rs of tests were drawn. They revealed that there were no nonlinear r e l a t i o n s h i p s , thus Pearson product-moment co r re la t ions were computed to r e f l e c t the magnitude of l inear re la t ionsh ips among the subscales. The Pearson-Product cor re la t ions for the N, GB, Go and BS subscales are reported in Table V . 4 . As shown, the co r re la t ions among N, Go, and BS subscales ranged from .53 to .67 . In contrast , the co r re la t ions of the GB subscale with each of these three subscales were much lower ( .06, .03 , and .25) . Taken together, these f indings indicated that the PF scale was not unidimensional . 1 26 TABLE V .4 : PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN NORMATIVE, GENERAL, GOAL, SELF BELIEFS Normative General Goal Self Normat ive .06 .67* .53* General .03 .25* Goal .55* Self * s i g n i f i c a n t at p < 0.01 The independence of the General be l ie f subscale from the other subscales might be ind icat i ve of the di f ference and independence of perceptions r e l a t i n g to General b e l i e f s and Normative, Goal and Self b e l i e f s . K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) used in the i r construct ion of the four types of b e l i e f s two sets of fac to rs , namely (1) b e l i e f s pertaining to the external world, that i s the world of "non- I" , for example N and GB b e l i e f s and those pertain ing to the in te rna l world, that i s the world of "I", for example Go and BS b e l i e f s , and (2) b e l i e f s per ta in ing to (a) the factual or cogn i t i ve , for example GB and BS b e l i e f s , (b) the eva luat ive , for example N b e l i e f s and (c) the expressive, for example Go b e l i e f s . At f i r s t s ight , the independence of GB from the N, Go and BS subscales does not conform to the factors K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) used in the development 1 27 of the four types of b e l i e f s , as components of one's "cognit ive o r i e n t a t i o n " . But a c loser examination of the f ind ing seems to be supportive of the "Non-I" and "I" f a c t o r i a l d i s t i n c t i o n , provided that the N be l ie f subscale i s interpreted as representing personal evaluat ive standards rather than general norms. Further impl icat ions of these f indings w i l l be discussed in Chapter V I I . Results of the Hypotheses Tests As shown in Table V . 4 , the co r re la t ions between N and Go, N and BS, and Go and BS were s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l , therefore the n u l l hypothesis that the cor re la t ions between the normative, general , goal and se l f be l ie f scores were equal to zero was re jec ted . It was noted that although the co r re la t ion between BS and GB was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p < .01) , the re la t ionsh ip was weak. A conclusion which was drawn from the resu l ts was that in the content area of problem formulat ion, there was a greater d i f ference in and independence of perceptions r e l a t i n g to General b e l i e f s than to Normative and Goal b e l i e f s and B e l i e f s about S e l f . The f indings a lso suggested that in the content area of problem formulation respondents might not be as f l e x i b i l e in the i r N, Go and BS b e l i e f s perta in ing to problem formulation as in the i r GB b e l i e f s . 128 In what fo l lows , the resu l t s of the z c o r r e l a t i o n a l tests are discussed with respect to the second set of hypotheses stated in Chapter II (pp. 62-63) . The resu l t s of the analyses indicated that (p < .01 ) : (a) Normative b e l i e f s had a stronger re la t ionsh ip with Goal b e l i e f s than with General b e l i e f s . Normative b e l i e f s had a stronger re la t ionsh ip with Goal b e l i e f s than with B e l i e f s about S e l f . Normative b e l i e f s had a stronger re la t ionsh ip with B e l i e f s about Self than with General B e l i e f s . Goal b e l i e f s had a stronger re la t ionsh ip with Normative b e l i e f s than with General b e l i e f s , and Goal b e l i e f s had a stronger re la t ionsh ip with B e l i e f s about Self than with General b e l i e f s . (b) The strength of the re la t ionsh ip between Goal b e l i e f s , Normative b e l i e f s and B e l i e f s about Self was equal . In the review of the l i t e r a t u r e in Chapter I I , i t was noted that K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1972, 1976) maintained that Normative, General , Goals, and Self b e l i e f s each played a unique ro le in the formation of cogni t ive or ientat ion c lus te rs which prescr ibed the d i r e c t i o n and leve l of behaviour. K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) a lso maintained that goal b e l i e f s were instrumental in the formation of the 1 29 cognit ive or ientat ion c lus te r for they large ly prescribed the d i rec t ion in which the b e l i e f s were c lus te red . This suggestion that goal b e l i e f s were c r u c i a l in the organization of normative, general and se l f b e l i e f s was borne out by these f ind ings , p a r t i c u l a r l y in the f inding of re lat ionsh ips of equal strength between Goal and Normative and Self b e l i e f s . This contrasts with the f inding of a stronger re la t ionsh ip between Normative and Goal b e l i e f s than between Normative b e l i e f s and B e l i e f s about Se l f . The f indings also led to a reexamination of the theore t i ca l and empir ical based assumptions about the role of Normative and Goal b e l i e f s . According to the theory of the soc ia l i zed actor (Parsons, 1951; Parsons and S h i l s , 1951), ind iv iduals through s o c i a l i z a t i o n learn shared evaluative standards and normative b e l i e f s . This resulted in the motivation of ind iv idua ls to conform to these evaluative standards and b e l i e f s , to or ient the i r actions to these general values, and to make se lect ions according to these shared normative standards. Thus, i t was expected that there would be a correspondence between personal goal b e l i e f s and shared normative b e l i e f s . The f indings that N was more strongly re lated to Go than to GB and BS supported the Parsonian theore t i ca l c la ims. In a d d i t i o n , the f ind ing that the strength of the re la t ionsh ip between Go and N and BS was equal supported the K r e i t l e r i a n empi r i ca l l y derived assumptions of the instrumental i ty of Goal b e l i e f s in the 1 30 integrat ion and organization of other types of b e l i e f s for a c t i o n . Although the test ing of hypotheses was concerned with only s ix comparisons of co r re la t ions of b e l i e f scores, other cor re la t ions were compared in order to explore the nature of the re lat ionships with B e l i e f s about Self and General B e l i e f s . The s ix sets of co r re la t ions which were examined were: (1 ) BS, N and Go, (2) BS, Go and GB, (3) BS, N and GB, (4) GB, N and Go, (5) GB, N and BS, (6) GB, Go and BS. An examination of the co r re la t ions of the sets of b e l i e f s scores revealed that three of the comparisons were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f fe rent at the .01 l e v e l , namely (a) BS, Go and GB; (b) BS, N and GB and (c) GB, N and BS. Be l ie f s about Self had a pos i t i ve and stronger r e l a t i o n s h i p with Goal and Normative b e l i e f s than with General B e l i e f s , but General b e l i e f s had a stronger negative r e l a t i o n s h i p with Normative b e l i e f s than with B e l i e f s about S e l f . These resu l ts conformed to e a r l i e r t h e o r e t i c a l d iscussions of perceived di f ferences between the b e l i e f s about the a c t u a l , and the desired and desi rable state of a f f a i r s . 131 Review of the Results of the Hypotheses Tests The n u l l hypothesis that the co r re la t ions between the normative, general , goa l , and se l f b e l i e f s were equal to zero was re jected . Four s i g n i f i c a n t co r re la t ions at the .01 leve l were found, namely: between N and Go ( .67) , N and BS ( .53) , Go and BS ( .55) , and GB and BS ( .26) . This f inding supports the case that in the content area of problem formulation there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of the four types of b e l i e f s , the components of cognit ive or ientat ion c l u s t e r s . The second hypothesis was confirmed in f i ve out of s i x areas. The area in which there was no confirmation was between N, Go and BS. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ference was found between the cor re la t ion of Go and N and Go and BS scores. In the fo l lowing areas s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences at the .01 l e v e l were found: • Normative b e l i e f s had a stronger re la t ionsh ip with Goal b e l i e f s than with GB b e l i e f s . • Normative b e l i e f s had a stronger re la t ionsh ip with Goal b e l i e f s than with BS b e l i e f s . • Goal b e l i e f s had a stronger re la t ionsh ip with Normative b e l i e f s than with General b e l i e f s . • Goal b e l i e f s had a stronger r e l a t i o n s h i p with B e l i e f s about Self than with General b e l i e f s . 1 32 • Normative b e l i e f s had a stronger re la t ionsh ip with B e l i e f s about Self than with General b e l i e f s . On the basis of these f indings of s i g n i f i c a n t correspondences between the b e l i e f s of the four types conclusions which pertain to the content area of problem formulation can be drawn. They are discussed in Chapter VII . 1 3 3 CHAPTER VI THE USE OF THE INSTRUMENT, I I I : CHARACTERISTICS OF EXTREME SCORERS The previous chapter establ ished that the performance of items in the Problem Formulation (PF) Be l ie f Scale was such as to suggest i t s v a l i d i t y . The present chapter describes the use of that va l idated instrument to ascertain what i t shows about the b e l i e f s of adminis t rators . The l i t e r a t u r e tends to describe problem formulation behaviour in terms of a continuum, the extreme points of which are behaviours suggesting a response to a "presented" problem as d i s t i n c t from those in which the subject "discovers" the problem; the simple views of a problem as d i s t i n c t from the complex ones, and so on. In the PF be l ie f sca le , low scorers represent one kind of extreme (the "simple") and high scorers the other (the "complex"). In order therefore to make the analys is both manageable and as revealing as possible about the correspondence between the present data and what i s said in the l i t e r a t u r e , the responses and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the low scorers were compared with those of the high scorers . Following the procedure described in Chapter IV, two groups of extreme scorers were i d e n t i f i e d on the basis of the i r be l ie f scores. Those whose t o t a l scores were approximately one standard deviat ion above or below the mean 134 bel ie f scores of the sample of post-secondary administrators were selected as the sub-sample group. This chapter cons is ts of two main sections which deal respect ive ly with each of the fo l lowing research quest ions: ( 1 ) What, i f any, d i f ferences are apparent in the responses to the items of the Problem Formulation Be l ie f Scale of the low and high scoring subjects, respect ively? ( 2 ) What, i f any, d i f ferences are apparent in the biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the low and high scoring subjects , respect ively? RESPONSES TO THE PROBLEM FORMULATION BELIEF SCALE It w i l l be reca l led that the options for each item represented b e l i e f s about component problem formulation behaviours ranging from simple to more complex behaviours and scored from one to four . Comparisons of Responses of Extreme Scorers Some aspects of the d i f ferences in the responses of the low and high scorers are inev i tab le given in the d e f i n i t i o n s of the two groups of extreme scorers . Thus, we w i l l expect to f ind that low scorers tend to choose options 1 or 2 in responding to each item and that high scorers tend 135 to choose options 3 or 4. Two kinds of d i f fe rences , however may be masked by focussing only on the ove ra l l l eve l of responses. F i r s t , there may be d i f ferences in the consistency with which cer ta in options are selected by the members of each group. By consistency i s meant e i ther the constant se lect ion of the same option for any given item across a l l four be l ie f domains o_r the constant se lect ion of a given option for a l l items within a given be l ie f domain. Second, there may be d i f ferences in the conf igurat ion of the responses. By conf igurat ion i s meant the shape of the response pattern for a l l four be l ie f domains. In examining conf igurat ions one i s focussing not on the leve l of the scores per se but on the r e l a t i v e l eve l of the scores in the Normative, General , Goal and Self b e l i e f domains. The examination of these aspects of the responses makes use of frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s and for some purposes, the rank order of respondents' choices. The data displayed in Table VI.1 are the basic data needed for the discussion which fo l lows. Consistency Across Be l ie f Domains The fol lowing paragraphs examine the responses to each of the four behaviours across a l l four be l ie f domains. Table VI.1 (p. 136) summarizes for the low and high scorers respect ive ly the frequency and percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses. 136 TABLE V I . 1 : EXTREME SCORERS: RESPONSE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR FOUR ITEMS IN NORMATIVE, GENERAL, GOAL, AND SELF BELIEF DOMAINS IP EXP CRIT INFO 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Low Scorers N=30 Normative No. 19 3 3 5 8 3 1 2 7 9 1 3 3 5 1 1 4 10 5 % 63 10 10 17 27 1 0 40 23 30 43 10 1 7 37 1 3 33 17 General No. 19 1 4 6 19 6 1 4 8 16 5 1 9 12 7 2 % 63 3 1 3 20 63 20 3 1 3 27 53 17 3 30 40 23 7 Goal No. 1 7 6 3 4 7 5 1 2 6 8 1 7 2 3 8 6 1 1 5 % 57 20 10 1 3 23 17 40 20 27 57 7 10 27 20 37 17 Self No. 1 8 5 5 2 1 6 6 8 0 10 15 4 1 8 .14 5 3 % 60 1 7 1 7 7 53 20 27 0 33 50 13 3 27 47 7 10 High Scorers N=30 Normative No. 0 0 3 27 0 1 12 17 1 6 1 22 1 0 17 12 % 0 0 10 90 0 3 40 57 3 20 3 73 3 0 57 40 General No. 4 4 7 1 5 9 3 8 10 5 7 9 9 6 7 7 10 % 13 13 23 50 30 10 27 33 1 7 23 30 30 20 23 23 33 Goal No. 1 0 1 28 0 0 7 23 1 3 0 26 1 2 15 12 % 3 0 3 93 0 0 23 77 3 10 0 87 3 7 50 40 Self No. 0 1 3 26 2 2 13 13 2 6 3 19 2 2 12 14 % 0 3 10 87 7 7 43 43 7 20 10 63 7 7 40 47 1 37 The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems ( IP) . Table V I . 1 , confirms the expected di f ference in the way in which the low and high scorers chose options for the item, the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems. Among the low scorers , the highest percentages of choices were for e i ther option 1 or option 2 in a l l four be l ie f domains. Among the high scorers , option 4 was c l e a r l y chosen over the other options by at least 50% of the group in the four be l ie f domains. Exploratory behaviour (EXP). Table VI .1 shows that the low scorers ' responses concerning exploratory behaviour were less uniform than in the case of problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . For exploratory behaviour, option 1 was most frequently chosen only in two be l ie f domains (GB and BS) and option 3 was the most frequent choice in the other two domains (N and Go). Another way of descr ibing the s i tuat ion i s to say that 40% of the low scorers appeared to bel ieve that exploratory behaviour in problem formulation should be of the kind which character izes a "discovered" problem ( i . e . the Normative B e l i e f ) and that that i s what they would l i k e to aim for (the Goal Be l ie f ). A majority of these low scorers , however, reported b e l i e f s that administrators in fact use the kind of exploratory behaviour 138 found in a "presented" problem s i t u a t i o n , as do they themselves (GB and BS domains). Among the high scorers , option 3 or option 4 accounted for the highest percentage of choices in a l l be l ie f domains, but i t i s noticeable that the N and Go domains show greatest proportion of option 4 choices in th i s group. C r i t e r i a in the se lect ion of information (CRIT). As shown in Table V I . 1 , option 2 accounted for the highest percentage of responses in a l l be l ie f domains for the low scorers . Among the high scorers , responses to t h i s item were not as uniform as they were to the IP and EXP items. Although the highest percentage of responses was for option 4 in a l l domains, the General be l ie f domain showed a t i e in the percentage of responses for option 3 and option 4, each receiv ing 30% of the responses. The se lect ion of information (INFO). There was much more va r ia t ion in the responses of the low and high scorers to the item pertaining to the se lect ion of information than was the case with the responses to the other items. Among the low scoring group, option 1 received the highest percentage of responses (37%) in the Normative be l ie f domain. In the General and Self be l ie f domains, option 2 received the highest percentage of responses (40%, 47%). In 1 39 the Goal be l ie f domain, option 3 received the highest percentage of responses (37%). Among the high scorers , there was also v a r i a b i l i t y in the responses. The highest percentage of responses was for option 3 in the Normative and Goal (57%, 50% respect ively) be l ie f domains and option 4 in the General and Self be l ie f domains (33%, 47%) with option 3 of the B e l i e f s about Self domain receiv ing 40% of the responses. In the Goal be l ie f domain the modal response for t h i s item among both the low and high scorers was option 3. This option refers to the se lec t ion of general (as d i s t i n c t from p a r t i c u l a r ) information and i t i s notable that t h i s response of both groups in the Goal be l ie f domain contrasts with the i r response in the domains of General and Self b e l i e f s . There, option 2 for the low scorers and option 4 for the high scorers were favoured. Both of those options referred to the se lect ion of p a r t i c u l a r b i t s of information but the d i f ference was in the amount of search required for obtaining the information. The high scorers ' choice of option 4 represented the be l ie f that search was required to obtain p a r t i c u l a r b i t s of information which might not necessar i ly be near at hand. Options 2 which the low scorers chose referred to p a r t i c u l a r information which was immediately a v a i l a b l e . 140 Consistency Within Be l ie f Domains The foregoing paragraphs have r e l i e d pr imar i l y upon a reading of the v e r t i c a l columns of Table V I . 1 . In order to examine consistency within domains, i t i s necessary to read that t a b l e ' s hor izonta l rows. Normative b e l i e f s domain. Reference to Table VI.1 shows that the most frequently chosen responses for the low scorers in the N be l ie f domain var ied among the d i f fe rent items and ranged from option 1 to 3. Thus for IP, option 1 was most frequently chosen as i t was for INFO, but EXP evoked option 3 most frequently and CRIT, option 2. The most frequent responses for high scorers , on the other hand was option 4 of a l l items except INFO, where i t was option 3 (4: IP, 4:EXP, 4:CRIT, 3:INFO). General b e l i e f s domain. The responses of the low scorers in the General be l ie f domain were not as var iable as in the Normative be l ie f domain. The most frequently chosen options were 1 (IP and EXP) and 2 (CRIT and INFO). For the high scorers the most frequent choices also covered two l e v e l s , but for th i s group the leve ls were 3 and 4 (4: IP, 4:EXP, 3=4:CRIT,and 4:INFO). 141 Goal b e l i e f s domain. Table VI.1 shows a s i m i l a r kind of d i f ference between the responses of the low and high scorers in the Goal be l ie f domain as was seen in the Normative be l ie f domain. The most frequently chosen responses for the low scorers in the Go be l ie f domain were: 1:IP, '3:EXP, 2:CRIT and 3:INFO. The only d i f ference between these most frequently chosen responses and those of the N be l ie f domain was the choice on the INFO item. The most frequently chosen responses for high scorers , on the other hand were for items which ranged between the same two leve ls as in the N and Go be l ie f domains. They were 4 : IP , 4:EXP, 4:CRIT,and 3:INF0. B e l i e f s about se l f domain. Table VI.1 shows the s i m i l a r i t y between the range and l e v e l of responses of the low scorers in the General and the Self be l i e f domains. The most frequently chosen responses for the low scorers in both of these domains were 1:IP, 1:EXP, 2:CRIT and 2:INF0. The range and leve l of responses for the high scorers on the other hand were uniform in the four b e l i e f domains. The most frequently chosen responses for high scorers were: 4 : IP , 3=4:EXP, 4:CRIT,and 4:INF0. 1 42 Configurations in Be l ie f Domain Scores The previous sect ions have examined the consistency in the frequency with which low and high scorers respect ive ly chose p a r t i c u l a r options for the items on th i s PF be l ie f sca le . The ana lys is focussed on the l e v e l of responses chosen. It i s p o s s i b l e , however, that there may be d i f ferences between low and high scorers which are not seen in an examination of the leve ls at which they respond, but are seen in an examination of the d i f ferences in leve ls chosen in d i f fe ren t domains. Thus, one respondent might show high scores for the N and Go domains with low scores for the GB and BS domains, whereas another might show low scores in a l l domains. If these scores were to be shown graphica l l y in the Normative, General , Goal and B e l i e f s about Self sequence, they would resu l t in the f i r s t case in a z izzag pat tern , and in the second case in a s t ra ight l i n e . In th i s sense one may examine the conf igurat ions y ie lded by the responses. Since the range of scores for each item i s one to four and since each domain includes four items, the t o t a l score which a respondent could achieve in any one domain ranges from four to 16. To use t h i s 12 point range as a basis for examining conf igurat ions would y i e l d an unworkably large number of possib le conf igurat ions and in many cases, i t would be d i f f i c u l t to d iscern any rea l meaning in the 143 d i f ferences among them. For t h i s reason, the scores have been combined to y i e l d three kinds of scores: High (scores from 12 to 16), Medium (scores from 9 to 11) and Low (scores from 4 to 8 ) . Using t h i s three point system there are 81 (3 4) poss ib le conf igurat ions across the four be l ie f domains. Some of these however, are i d e n t i c a l in shape: for example, a l l four domains may be scored high by one respondent and low by another, and both cases y i e l d the same p r o f i l e , namely a st ra ight l i n e . S i m i l a r l y , the p r o f i l e y ie lded by scores of High-High-High-Medium i s no d i f fe ren t from that y ie lded by Medium-Medium-Medium-Low, but both are d i f fe rent from High-High-High-Low. To consider only conf igurat ions whose shapes are d i f fe ren t from a l l others y ie lds 65 d i f f e r e n t ones rather than the 81 possible ones referred to above. These 65 may be seen as f a l l i n g into four groups: A. Straight Line conf igurat ions ( in which a l l four scores are at the same l e v e l ) , B. Divergent conf igurat ions (in which three scores are at one l e v e l and the fourth i s d ivergent) , C. S p l i t conf igurat ions (in which there are two pai rs of s i m i l a r scores) , and D. Errat ic conf igurat ions (in which no more than two scores are at the same leve l ) In order to examine the data in terms of the conf igurat ion scores, the four domain scores for each 1 44 respondent were ca lcu lated by adding the IP, EXP, CRIT and INFO scores. The four resu l t ing domain scores were then c l a s s i f i e d as HIGH, MEDIUM, or LOW and the respondent's conf igurat ion was p l o t t e d . Of the 65 possible conf igurat ions , 20 proved to be present in the data. These conf igurat ions and the group in which they were found are shown in Table V I .2 . Table VI.2 shows that 16 of the 60 extreme scorers displayed st ra ight l i n e p r o f i l e s . Of these 16, f i ve were low scorers and 11 were high scorers . Nineteen of the high scorers had divergent p r o f i l e s in comparison with 10 among the low scorers . Among the 19 high scorers with divergent conf igurat ions , 16 (84%) were divergent on the i r general be l ie f scores, that i s the scores of the N, Go and BS domains were at one leve l whereas the General be l ie f score was at a d i f fe ren t l e v e l . Only four of the 30 (13%) low scorers had divergent conf igurat ions as a resu l t of the i r discrepant general be l ie f scores. The divergency of the general be l i e f scores supports considerat ions of the possible independence of th i s general be l i e f subscale. The high scorers displayed only A and B conf igurat ion types while the low scorers displayed a l l four types, that i s A, B, C, D. That i s , 30% of the high scorers displayed the st ra ight l i n e conf igurat ion and 63% displayed a conf igurat ion with divergency on one be l ie f score. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of conf igurat ion types among the low scorers 1 45 TABLE V I . 2 : FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PROFILES OF RESPONSES OF EXTREME SCORERS Type No. of N GB Go BS Low High Total Prof i l e Scorers Scorers A: 1 H H H H 1 1 16 2 L L L L 5 B: 3 H H H M 1 4 M M M L •3 5 H H M H - 1 6 M M L M 1 - 7 H M H H - 1 1 8 M L M M 3 - 29 9 H L H H - 5 10 M H H H - 1 1 1 L L M L 1 -12 L M L L 1 - 1 3 M L L L 1 C: 14 M M L . L 1 1 5 M L L M 1 - 16 L M M L 1 - 1 2 17 L M L M 3 - 18 M L M L 6 D: 19 M L H L 1 20 H L M L 2 3 146 was: f i ve of the 30 low scorers (17%) had s t ra ight l i n e conf igurat ions ; 10 (33%) had divergent ones; 12 (40%) had conf igurat ions which were s p l i t and three (10%) had e r r a t i c conf igurat ions . Since the A and B types ind icate "more consistency" whereas the C and D. types ind icate " less consistency" in terms of the high and low points of the set of four scores i t was concluded that consistency in shape of responses was what d is t inguished the high scorers from the low scorers . Far fewer conf igurat ions were present among the high scorers . Of the 20 conf igurat ions which were i d e n t i f i e d from the data, 16 were displayed by the low scorers and s ix were displayed by the high scorers . BIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF EXTREME SCORERS A summary of the biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the subsample of extreme scorers i s presented in Table V I . 3 . Six biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were examined (administrat ive c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , administ rat ive l e v e l , educational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t r a i n i n g in problem so lv ing , age and gender). As shown in Table V I . 3 , 18 out of 30 (60%) respondents in the low scoring group had spent at least eight years in administrat ion whereas among the high scoring group 15 out of 30 (50%) respondents had spent a s imi la r 147 TABLE V I . 3 : BIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SUBSAMPLE LOW SCORING HIGH SCORING GROUP GROUP N (%) N (%) = 30 = 30 Administrat ive Characte r i s t i cs Years in admin is t rat ion : 0 -4 years 8 (27) 9 (30) 5 -7 years 4 (13) 6 (20) 8 - 1 0 years 8 (27) 5 (17) 10 + years 10 (33) 10 (33) Administrat ive l e v e l : P r i n c i p a l 2 (07) 3 (10) V ice -Pr i n . 8 (27) 6 (20) Director 1 2 (40) 1 4 (47) Coordinator 8 (27) 7 (23) Educational Charac te r i s t i cs Highest educ. l eve l a t ta ined : No Degree or Diploma 0 (00) 1 (03) Diploma 7 (23) 4 (13) Bachelors 5 (17) 6 (20) Masters 1 7 (57) 1 6 (53) Doctorate 1 (03) 3 (10) Training in problem so l v ing : Course work 1 1 (37) 20 (67) Some t r a i n i n g 8 (27) 6 (20) No t r a i n i n g 1 1 (37) 4 (13) Age: 39 + under 8 (27) 1 0 (33) 40 - 49 1 3 (43) 1 2 (40) 50 + over 9 (30) 8 (27) Gender: Male 27 (90) 22 (73) Female 3 (10) 8 (27) 148 amount of time in admin is t rat ion . Those who had spent less than 8 years in administrat ion included 50% of the high scorers and 40% of the low scorers. The low scorers included no one without a diploma or degree. Representation in both the low and high scor ing groups was highest among subjects with masters degrees. F i f t y seven percent of the low scorers had masters degrees compared with 53% of the high scorers . The extreme scorers revealed s i m i l a r patterns in the three age groupings. The respondents in the middle age grouping comprised 43% and 40% of the low and high groups respect i ve ly . There was a r e l a t i v e l y even d i s t r i b u t i o n among those 39 years of age and younger and those 59 years of age and over in both the low scoring and high scoring groups. For each of these var iables a ch i square test was performed to ascerta in whether there were any s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences between the low and high scor ing groups. Only the var iab les concerned with t r a i n i n g in problem so lv ing showed such di f ferences and the resu l t s for these are shown in Tables VI.4 and V I . 5 . Data pertain ing to t ra in ing in problem solv ing were grouped in two ways: (1) those who had taken course work in problem so lv ing and those who had not, (2) those who had no t r a i n i n g in problem so lv ing , those who had some t r a i n i n g in problem so lv ing (which included attending seminars, workshops and other a c t i v i t i e s such as i n s t i t u t e s re lated to 149 the development of problem solv ing s k i l l s ) , and those who had taken course work in problem so lv ing . Using the dichotomous grouping of those who had taken course work and those who had not (Table V I . 4 ) , s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences were found between the high and low scoring groups at the .05 l e v e l . The corrected chi square was 4.271 with 1 degree of freedom., Among the high scorers a r a t i o of two to one was found to ex is t between those who reported having had course work in problem solv ing and those who reported not having had course work. Among the low scorers t h i s r a t i o was reversed. Eleven out of t h i r t y (37%) of the low scorers reported that they had taken course work in problem so l v ing , in contrast with 19 out of 30 (63%) who reported that they had not. When the d i s t r i b u t i o n of extreme scorers was examined with regard to the second grouping, that i s subjects with no t r a i n i n g , subjects with some t r a i n i n g , and subjects with t r a i n i n g by means of course work (Table V I . 6 ) , s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences were found at the .10 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The chi square was 6.165 with 2 degrees of freedom. TABLE V I .4 : FREQUENCY AND CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION OF EXTREME SCORERS BY DICHOTOMOUS GROUPING OF TRAINING IN PROBLEM SOLVING No Courses Courses Taken Taken N N Chi Square with 1 degree of freedom Low Scorers 19 11 % (63.3) (36.7) High Scorers 10 20 % (33.3) (66.7) 4.271* * s i g n i f i c a n t at p < .05 l e v e l . TABLE V I . 5 : FREQUENCY AND CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION OF EXTREME SCORERS BY THREE GROUPINGS OF TRAINING IN PROBLEM SOLVING No Some Training Training Course Work Training Chi Square with 2 Degrees of Freedom Low Scorers 11 8 % (36.7) (26.7 1 1 (36.7) High Scorers 4 6 % (13.3) (20.0 20 (66.7) 6.165* *Sign i f icant at p < .10 1 5 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND DISCUSSSION In t h i s chapter the responses of the low scoring and high scoring groups to items representing b e l i e f s about problem formulation were compared as wel l as the i r biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The comparison of responses indicated that there were d i f ferences between the low scorers and the high scorers in the consistency of the i r responses to the four items, IP, EXP, CRIT and INFO across the four be l ie f domains and within each be l ie f domain. There were a lso d i f ferences in the conf igurat ion of the i r composite be l ie f domain responses. These di f ferences are discussed in th i s sec t ion . There was greater consistency in the most frequently chosen options among the high scorers than among the low scores. For the former, the consistent and most frequently chosen options were for IP, EXP and CRIT, but for the l a t t e r they were only from IP and CRIT. From the perspective of the performance of the items among the low and high scorers the item with the most consistent f i r s t choice option across the four be l i e f domains was the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems. The item with the least consistent f i r s t choice option across the four be l ie f domains was the se lect ion of information. Among the low scorers alone the f i r s t choice option of CRIT was a lso consistent and to a lesser extent 1 52 the f i r s t choice option of EXP. Among the high scorers , the consistency of the f i r s t choice options of EXP and CRIT items was s i m i l a r . For EXP, option 4 was the f i r s t choice in the Normative, General and Goal be l ie f domains. Option 4 t i e d with option 3 in the B e l i e f s about Self domain. For CRIT, option 4 was the f i r s t choice in the Normative, Goal and Self be l ie f domains. In the General be l i e f domain option 4 t i e d with option 3 as the most frequently chosen opt ion . These f indings of d i f ferences in the consistency of responses to the four component problem formulation behaviours, IP, EXP, CRIT and INFO, across be l ie f domains suggest that the p r e v a i l i n g view of problem formulation in the l i t e r a t u r e as a compound cons is t ing of four component behaviours combined at uniform leve ls among ind iv idua ls may be incor rec t . The f ind ings suggest that consistency in an i n d i v i d u a l ' s leve l of o r ientat ion to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem appears to be e s s e n t i a l . I t was a lso noted that the l e v e l of the extreme scorers ' b e l i e f s about the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem corresponded to the i r ove ra l l o r ientat ion to problem formulat ion. Consistency in the l e v e l of the other items, namely exploratory behaviour, c r i t e r i a used in the se lec t ion of information and the se lect ion of informat ion, appears to be less essent ia l across the four b e l i e f domains. This i s an area which needs further examination. 1 53 Responses to the item perta in ing to the se lect ion of information were var ied among both the low and the high scorers . One possib le explanation of t h i s observation comes from the l i t e r a t u r e on problem fomulation which associates administ rators ' se lect ion of general information with lack of search and s p e c i f i c i t y , s k i l l s which have been found to be essent ia l in the reduction of ambiguity and global di f fuseness when i d e n t i f y i n g the nature of a problem ( A l l a l . 1973; H i l l s , 1975). Feldman and March (1981), however noted that managers often obtained information not for s p e c i f i c decis ion making purposes but for surve i l lance purposes. The se lect ion of information in t h i s scanning mode would involve mainly general information. Another explanation for the var ia t ions in the choice of options 3 and 4 (which pertained respect ive ly to the se lect ion of general information at hand and d i s t a n t , and general and s p e c i f i c b i t s of information at hand and d is tant ) among the high scorers i s that administrators regard information as symbols of competence and s o c i a l e f f i cacy and thus the i r gathering of information i s often r i t u a l i s t i c . In a r i t u a l i s t i c mode of operat ion, considerat ion i s given more to being the f i r s t person to receive the information or to the resources expended to re t r ieve the information rather than than to the general i ty or s p e c i f i c i t y of the information (Feldman and March, 1981). 154 The problem formulation b e l i e f s of the high scorers approached the ideal pattern of 4 : IP , 4:EXP, 4:CRIT, 4:INF0 more c lose ly than those of the low scorers approached the idea l pattern of 1:IP, 1:EXP, 1-.CRIT, 1:INF0 in each of the four be l ie f domains. These patterns were discussed in Chapter 2. This suggested greater deviat ion from the ideal type by the low scorers in comparison with the high scorers . Since the idea l types re f lec ted consistency in the l e v e l and in the conf igurat ion of response p r o f i l e s , the responses of the low scorers can be character ized as r e f l e c t i n g less consistency in the i r l eve l and conf igurat ion than the responses of the high scorers . The high scorers ' choices of options of the four items can thus be character ized as representing an or ientat ion to problem formulation in a "discovered" problem s i t u a t i o n . For example, among the high scorers the f i r s t choice options across the four items, IP, EXP, CRIT and INFO within the four be l ie f domains were N:4443; GB:444(3=4)4; Go:4443; BS:43=444. For the low scorers on the other hand, the f i r s t choice options were N:1321; GB:1122; Go:1323; BS:1122. These b e l i e f s represented an or ientat ion to the fo l lowing : (1) the simple i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems, (2a) act ive experimentation in the explorat ion of a problem as wel l as (2b) a l i t e r a l and concrete in terpretat ion of problems, (3) the use of c r i t e r i a based on personal preferences when deciding what information to use in the formulation of a 1 55 problem, (4a) the se lect ion of general information which i s near at hand, (4b) the se lec t ion of p a r t i c u l a r b i t s of information which are near at hand, and (4c) the se lect ion of general information which may be near at hand or d i s t a n t . Thus, the low scorers exhib i ted an or ientat ion to problem formulation more l i k e that found in a "presented" problem s i tua t ion than a "discovered" one. The comparison of the conf igurat ions of responses of the low and high scorers indicated two main features. F i r s t , the high scorers ' responses revealed fewer d i f fe rent conf igurat ions when compared with the low scorers ' responses. This information again confirms the consistency that ex isted among the high scorers . If the s t ra ight l i ne and divergent p r o f i l e s were viewed as more consistent response p r o f i l e s and the s p l i t and e r r a t i c p r o f i l e s were viewed as less consistent response p r o f i l e s , then 50% of the low scorers can be viewed as d isp lay ing less consistency in the i r responses across the four be l ie f domains, whereas the high scorers (100%) can be viewed as d isp lay ing more consistent response p r o f i l e s . Sixteen of the 19 high scorers (84%) who had displayed divergent p r o f i l e s exhib i ted conf igurat ions in which the l e v e l of the scores of the general be l i e f domain was d i f fe ren t from the l e v e l of the other three sets of be l ie f domain scores. This unique b i t of information about the divergent responses in the general be l ie f domain i s of 156 po tent ia l value to considerat ions of weighting the general be l ie f subscale in the context of problem formulation b e l i e f s . Since 84% of the high scorers had divergent general be l i e f p r o f i l e s i t could be assumed that among the high scorers general b e l i e f s were perceived to be independent of the other three types of b e l i e f s . The independence of the general b e l i e f domain appears to require further in depth cons iderat ion . The d i f f e r i n g function of the general be l i e f domain has also been noted by K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976: 96) who state that general b e l i e f s r e l i e d on the other b e l i e f s for mani festat ion . They suggested that the general b e l i e f s operate at a lower l e v e l pos i t ion in the c l u s t e r i n g of the four types of b e l i e f s to form the t o t a l o r ientat ion c l u s t e r . They c i t e the fo l lowing example: "A general be l i e f l i k e - "Tomorrow the sun w i l l r i s e at f i v e o 'c lock and 52 minutes," may seem devoid of cogni t i ve or ientat iveness unless considered in conjunction with a goal be l ie f l i k e "I want to see the sunrise" or a normative be l ie f l i k e "People should get up before sunr ise" or a b e l i e f about se l f l i k e "I enjoy returning home from a night party a f ter sunr i se" . Of the s ix biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which were analysed for d i f ferences between the low and the high scorers , only one was found to d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y between both groups. This was the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t r a i n i n g in problem so l v ing . This f ind ing supports the observations of 157 Larkin et a l . , 1980 that t ra in ing and knowledge d i f f e r e n t i a t e the problem or ientat ion behaviour of experts from that of novices. Evidence from the study of Lyles and Mi t ro f f (1980) on organizat ional problem formulations indicates that educational l e v e l , t o t a l years of experience in managerial p o s i t i o n , type of industry in which the manager has been employed have ' l i t t l e e f fec t on the managerial a t t i tudes to problem formulat ion. A l l a l ' s study of ind i v idua l problem formulation supported the notion that b e l i e f s about problem formulation were independent and ind i v idua l i zed b e l i e f s which were af fected large ly by t r a i n i n g . 1 5 8 CHAPTER VII SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS This chapter presents a br ie f summary of the study, i t s conclusions and some impl icat ions of these conclusions for theory, further research and app l i ca t ion in administrator preparation programs. SUMMARY The purpose of the study was (a) to develop a Problem Formulation Bel ie f Scale which could be used for the assessment of administ rators ' b e l i e f s about problem formulat ion, (b) to examine selected aspects of i t s construct v a l i d i t y , and (c) to apply the Bel ie f Scale in an exploratory study to assess the problem formulation b e l i e f s of educational administ rators . Development of a Conceptual Framework On the basis of a review of the l i t e r a t u r e , and in p a r t i c u l a r of the works of A l l a l (1973); Getzels and Csikszentmihaly i (1976); and K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) a conceptual framework for the development of the problem formulation be l ie f scale was devised. Problem formulation was defined as the process of ident i f y ing an actual or 159 ant ic ipated aspect of a s i tua t ion as d i f fe rent from what i s held to be desirable and re f in ing the d i f ference i d e n t i f i e d . Problem formulation consisted of four component behaviours: (1) the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem ( IP) , (2) the se lect ion of information (INFO), (3) the use of c r i t e r i a in the se lect ion of information (CRIT), and (4) exploratory behaviour (EXP). These behaviours were conceptualized as having a four point v a r i a t i o n , ranging from simple to more complex behaviours. Based on the cognit ive or ientat ion theory developed by K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) normative, general , goal and se l f b e l i e f s about each of the four component problem formulation behaviours were used to obtain a comprehensive summary of post-secondary educational admin is t rators ' b e l i e f s about problem formulat ion. Statements representing these b e l i e f s were used in the development of the be l ie f s c a l e . Procedure This study involved the development of the instrument (which included prel iminary construct v a l i d a t i o n procedures) and the app l i cat ion of the instrument to assess administ rators ' b e l i e f s about problem formulat ion. On the basis of a review of the l i t e r a t u r e on problem formulat ion, 48 statements representing general b e l i e f s about the four component problem formulation behaviours were generated. 160 They were screened and i n i t i a l l y rated by 11 facul ty members with expert ise in administ rat ive processes or educational measurement. This i n i t i a l process of screening and rat ing permitted the se lect ion of 16 statements which conformed to the model of problem formulat ion. The 16 selected statements representing general b e l i e f s were rephrased so as to produce in addit ion p laus ib le and c l e a r l y worded equivalent statements for the normative, goal and sel f be l ie f domains. Thus four se ts , each of which contained 16 statements were developed. Each set represented a d i f fe ren t type of b e l i e f (normative, general , goal and se l f b e l i e f s ) and included one statement about each of the points of v a r i a t i o n for each of the four problem formulation behaviours (see Table I I . 1, p .51) . In order to ve r i f y the v a l i d i t y of these four sets of statements, they were subjected to further r a t i n g . To ensure that any possibly weak statements could be i d e n t i f i e d , 16 extra statements were added (one for each behaviour in each domain). The r e s u l t i n g batch of 80 statements was then subdivided into nine sets of statements and d i s t r i b u t e d to nine independent experts for the assessment of the i r degree of relevance to a p a r t i c u l a r problem formulation behaviour and to a p a r t i c u l a r problem formulation b e l i e f . The pre-def ined c r i t e r i a of v a l i d i t y were a mean ra t ing of 3.00 and a percentage agreement of 66.66% for a set of four statements, that i s an equivalent 161 set of four statements in each of the Normative, General , Goal and Self be l ie f domains. The resu l ts of the rat ing confirmed that the 64 i n i t i a l l y accepted statements were v a l i d ind icators of problem formulation b e l i e f s of four types. Ten statements were s l i g h t l y rephrased. The 64 va l idated statements, together with questions about biodemographic information (pertaining to number of years spent in admin is t rat ion , administ rat ive l e v e l , highest educational l e v e l a t ta ined , t r a i n i n g in problem so l v ing , age and gender) formed the quest ionnaire . A p i l o t test of the instrument was conducted in which 18 administrators from post-secondary i n s t i t u t i o n s in B r i t i s h Columbia p a r t i c i p a t e d . The resu l ts of the p i l o t test were evaluated and f i n a l refinements of the PF be l ie f scale were made. This was followed by the exploratory study designed to va l idate empi r i ca l l y the PF be l ie f s c a l e . A t o t a l of 189 administrators in Community Colleges and Ins t i tu tes in the province of B r i t i s h Columbia par t i c ipa ted in the study. The data on the b e l i e f s of administrators were c o l l e c t e d and analysed for evidence of the r e l i a b i l i t y of the items of the scale and to test two hypotheses. 162 Hypotheses The hypotheses were: Ho: That there w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t co r re la t ions between pa i rs of be l ie f scores grouped as fo l lows : Normative and General be l i e f scores, Normative and Goal be l i e f scores, Normative be l ie f and Be l ie f about Self scores, General and Goal be l ie f scores, General b e l i e f s and Be l ie f about Self scores, and Goal b e l i e f s and Be l ie f about Self scores. However, i f the n u l l hypothesis were to be re jected , the fol lowing p laus ib le a l te rnat i ve was proposed: H1: (a) That there w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher co r re la t ion between the Normative and Goal be l ie f scores than between the fol lowing pa i rs of b e l i e f s scores grouped as fo l lows : the Normative and General be l ie f scores, the Normative and Be l ie f about Self be l ie f scores, the General and Goal b e l i e f scores, and the Goal and Be l ie f about Self be l ie f scores. (b) That there w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher co r re la t ion between the Goal and Be l ie f about Self be l ie f scores than between the Goal and General be l ie f scores. (c) That there w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher co r re la t ion between the Normative and Be l ie f about Self be l ie f scores than between the Normative and General be l ie f scores. In order to examine at greater depth the normative, general , goal and se l f b e l i e f s of respondents to the PF be l ie f scale , the responses of 60 respondents whose scores were approximately one standard deviat ion above or below the mean be l ie f scores of the t o t a l sample were examined. The biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s associated with these extreme scorers were also examined. The s p e c i f i c research questions 1 63 were: (1) What, i f any, d i f ferences are apparent in the responses to the items of the Problem Formulation Be l ie f Scale of the low and high scoring subjects , respect ive ly? (2) What, i f any, d i f ferences are apparent in the biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the low and high scoring subjects , respect ive ly? Results The psychometric analyses revealed that the r e l i a b i l i t e s of the four subscales were low (.26 for N, .42 for GB, .27 for Go, and .24 for GB). This was ascribed to the shortness of the four subtests and - the i r r e s t r i c t e d ranges. The composite r e l i a b i l i t y of .67 (Cronbach, 1951) suggested that the PF be l ie f scale was not unidimensional . This was further supported by the in te rco r re la t ions of the four subscales which ranged from .53 to .67 for the co r re la t ions among N, Go and BS subscales and .06 , .03 and .25 for the i r co r re la t ions with the GB subscale respect i ve l y . The co r re la t ions of the four subscales indicated that one dimension was represented by the norm- a t i v e , goal and se l f b e l i e f s subscales and another dimension was represented by the general b e l i e f s subscale. The independence of the general b e l i e f s subscale was a t t r ibu ted to the d i f fe rence in how respondents perceived 164 administrators to formulate problems. These perceptions seemed to be independent of how the respondents perceived themselves in the formulation of problems or how they perceived problems should be formulated and how they wanted to formulate problems. The ind icat ions of mult id imensional i ty of the PF be l ie f scale ra ised questions about the claims of K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) that the four b e l i e f domains as components of cognit ive o r ientat ion were independent dimensions. A further question was also raised about another aspect of the work of K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976). They concluded that Normative b e l i e f s were to be regarded as b e l i e f s perta in ing to general ("Non-I") evaluat ive standards. The f indings of the present study suggested that t h i s might not be so. The respondents to the PF be l ie f scale might wel l have interpreted Normative b e l i e f s as personal evaluative b e l i e f s , that i s b e l i e f s about what the ind i v idua l considers to be des i rab le . The resu l ts of the tests of the hypotheses indicated that the cor re la t ions between N and Go ( .67) , N and BS ( .53) , Go and BS ( .55) , and BS and GB (.25) were s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l , therefore the n u l l hypothesis was re jected . A comparison of the cor re la t ions of the be l ie f domains using a z co r re la t ion . test (Glass and Stanley, 1970: 313) indicated that Normative and Goal b e l i e f s had a pos i t i ve and stronger r e l a t i o n s h i p than did 165 e i ther Normative and General b e l i e f s or Normative and Self b e l i e f s , but that there was no d i f ference in the magnitude of the re la t ionsh ip between Goal and Normative b e l i e f s and between Goal and Self b e l i e f s (p < .01) . The supplementary c o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses which were conducted to examine the d i f ferences in the re lat ionsh ips of B e l i e f s about Self and General B e l i e f s indicated that re la t ionsh ips between B e l i e f s about Self and Goal b e l i e f s , and B e l i e f s about Self and Normative b e l i e f s were pos i t i ve and were stronger than the r e l a t i o n s i p between Be l ie f s about Self and General b e l i e f s . However, General be l i e f s had a negative and stronger re la t ionsh ip with Normative b e l i e f s than with b e l i e f s about S e l f . These f indings confirmed t h e o r e t i c a l d iscussions of the perceived di f ferences between the actual and the desired or des i rab le . The comparison of the responses of the extreme scorers indicated that there were d i f ferences between the low scorers and the high scorers in the consistency of the i r l e v e l of responses to the three items, IP, EXP, and CRIT across the four be l ie f domains and within each b e l i e f domain. For the high scorers , consistency in which options were most frequently chosen was found in IP, EXP and CRIT, but for the low scorers i t was found only in IP and CRIT. There were a lso d i f ferences in the conf igurat ions of the composite be l ie f domain responses of the group of extreme scorers . High scorers were found to exh ib i t more consistent 1 66 p r o f i l e s than low scorers . The b e l i e f s of the high scorers approached the ideal pattern of 4 : IP , 4:EXP, 4:CRIT, 4:INF0 more c lose ly than those of the low scorers approached the idea l pattern of 1:IP, 1:EXP, 1:CRIT, 1:INF0 in each of the four be l ie f domains. Given the way each of the low and high scoring groups was def ined, approximations to the idea l patterns (4444 for high scorers and 1111 for low scorers) were expected. What i s in te res t ing about these resu l ts i s that only the high scorers ' pattern resembled expectat ions. The data suggest the p o s s i b i l i t y of untapped complexity in the low scorers , espec ia l l y with regard to EXP and INFO. Of the s ix biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which were analysed for d i f ferences between the low and the high scorers , only one was found to d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y between both groups. This was the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t r a i n i n g in problem s o l v i n g . CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The conclusions of the study need to be seen in the context of two important l i m i t a t i o n s . The shortness of the test i s the f i r s t of these. E s s e n t i a l l y the instrument consisted of four four - i tem subtests and the low number of items may have accounted in large part for the low in te rna l r e l i a b i l i t y est imates. 1 67 The second l i m i t a t i o n pertains to the nature of the study. It was c o r r e l a t i o n a l and descr ip t i ve and focussed on face and construct v a l i d i t y to the exclusion of pred ic t i ve v a l i d i t y . Because of t h i s predict ions could not be made. These l i m i t a t i o n s notwithstanding, the study has establ ished a f i r s t step in the assessment of administ rators ' b e l i e f s . A conceptual framework has been a r t i c u l a t e d and an instrument constructed and p a r t i a l l y va l ida ted . I t s use has ra ised a number of quest ions. Given the exploratory nature of the study, the conclusions are necessar i ly more tentat ive than f i r m . They are grouped in three se ts . The f i r s t concerns the ex i s t ing theory of b e l i e f s as components of cogni t ive o r i e n t a t i o n . The second concerns e x i s t i n g views of problem formulation and the t h i r d set of conclusions concerns probable d i rec t ions which are suggested for further research and instrument development and a p p l i c a t i o n . Concerning Theories of B e l i e f s and Cognitive Or ientat ion The f indings of t h i s study ra ise questions about two aspects of ex i s t ing approaches to the study of b e l i e f s and also the e f fec ts of d i f f e r e n t content areas on the i r correspondence. 1. The t h e o r e t i c a l base from which the study was drawn ( K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r , 1976) postulated four independent be l ie f domains which, taken together could summarize an i n d i v i d u a l ' s "cognit ive o r i e n t a t i o n " . The 168 present study found that the be l i e f domains were not independent. Indeed, the pattern of co r re la t ions suggested that they may be "organized" in a p a r t i c u l a r way. This - "o rgan i za t ion" in the present data seems to consist of two main dimensions, namely: General b e l i e f s in the one and Normative, Goal , and Self b e l i e f s in the other (see Chapter V, Table V . 3 : p. 124; Table V .4 : p.126). These resu l t s are i n t e r e s t i n g , not only because they suggest interdependence where independence had been postu lated, but a lso because the groupings they suggest do not conform to one of the o r i g i n a l conceptual izat ions of K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976). As discussed in Chapter II (p. 41), K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) included in the i r conceptual framework the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of b e l i e f s as being e i ther about the personal world (the "I") or the external world (the "Non- I" ) . In th i s view, Normative and General b e l i e f s perta in to the "Non-I" and Goal b e l i e f s and B e l i e f s about Self to the " I" . Moreover, they considered that the two kinds of "Non-I" b e l i e f s could be considered as one set and the "I" group as another. In the present data, two aspects of the r e s u l t s c a l l th i s view into quest ion. F i r s t , as already noted, General b e l i e f s seemed separate from a l l the others . Second, in the c l u s t e r formed by Normative, Goal and Self b e l i e f s , the re la t ionsh ip between Normative and Goal b e l i e f s i s stronger than that between Normative and Self b e l i e f s and the same as that between Goal and Self 169 b e l i e f s . This suggests two considerat ions . F i r s t , the dominant posi t ion of Goal b e l i e f s in th i s set of cor re la t ions tends to confirm the notion of K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976) that i t i s Goal b e l i e f s which lend d i rec t ion to the composite set of b e l i e f s as an or ientat ion c l u s t e r . Second, however, the resu l ts a lso support the Parsonian view that i t i s Normative b e l i e f s which, functioning as evaluat ive standards and shared prescr ip t ions are regulators of other types of b e l i e f s . The present study thus cannot s e t t l e the question of whether Normative or Goal b e l i e f s are so le l y dominant. In the absence of a f i rm conclusion on oneside or the other, however, i t i s possible to speculate on a t h i r d p o s s i b i l i t y , namely, that Normative and Goal b e l i e f s may operate together. The normative b e l i e f s may function as evaluat ive standards and the goal b e l i e f s as commitments to these standards thereby providing the basis for a c t i o n . However for, t h i s in terpretat ion to be v a l i d , one must make one further observation. E i ther the K r e i t l e r i a n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Normative b e l i e f s as "Non-I" must be changed or t h i s set of three b e l i e f s found in the present data must be viewed as containing both "I" and "Non-I" b e l i e f s . If the "I"/"Non-I" d i s t i n c t i o n i s assumed to be v a l i d , then the former in terpretat ion makes better sense than the l a t t e r . It i s conceivably the case that for the subjects in the present sample, Normative b e l i e f s functioned as personal , not external evaluative standards. 170 The questions which these f indings raise suggest that a p r o f i t a b l e area for further research i s in the invest igat ions of the correspondence of goal and personal evaluative b e l i e f s and the i r organizat ion with other types of b e l i e f s . This issue of the correspondence of the four b e l i e f s has relevance to the der i va t ion of the index to measure i n d i v i d u a l s ' o r ientat ions to problem formulation behaviour, a procedure which i s necessary i f the instrument i s to be used for p red ic t i ve purposes. 2. In the conceptual framework of Cognitive Or ientat ion (CO), developed by K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1976), the four types of b e l i e f s , as the components of CO are assumed to be of equal status and are thus given equal weights in the i r computation of a CO index. This index which i s a measure of the in te rac t ion of the b e l i e f s of the four types i s used to predict the l e v e l and the d i rec t ion of the spec i f ied behaviour. In t h i s study, the f indings that the N, GB, Go and BS subscales may be b i f a c t o r i a l ra ised questions about the computation of the CO score in the context of the problem formulation b e l i e f s of administ rators . K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r computed the index of cognit ive o r ientat ion in the fo l lowing way: They assigned an equal weight of one (1) to each b e l i e f domain. Thus four be l ie f scores are computed: one for each type of be l ie f 171 domain (N, GB, Go, BS). If a subject 's score i s above the mean of the sample's mean be l ie f score the ind iv idua l i s awarded 1 po int . If the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p a r t i c u l a r be l ie f score i s below the mean be l ie f score he or she i s awarded 0 po in ts . These points are f i n a l l y summed to derive the CO score which ranges from a minimum of zero to a maximum of four . The f ind ing that the PF be l ie f scale may be b i f a c t o r i a l ra ises the question of what weights should be used in the der ivat ion of a CO score for problem formulat ion. This i s an area which can be explored in future research undertakings. 3. The f ind ing that normative, general , goa l , and se l f b e l i e f s about problem formulation may be organized along two dimensions ra ises another question—whether the organizat ion of the four b e l i e f s i s a function of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the problem formulator, or of the nature of the content area or both. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the problem formulator have already been invest igated and t r a i n i n g has been found to have an e f fec t on problem formulation b e l i e f s . One goal of future research then, should be to determine the way in which the nature of the content area a f fec ts the organizat ion of the four types of b e l i e f s . I t may not be s u f f i c i e n t to i den t i f y only a t o p i c a l area of content such as problem formulation in order to examine the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the four b e l i e f s . Rather i t w i l l be necessary to construct c a r e f u l l y cases 172 using d i f f e r e n t spec i f i c areas of content to ascerta in the e f fec ts of the various content areas on the four types of b e l i e f s . Concerning Views of Problem Formulation Findings from the analys is of the data on the problem formulation b e l i e f s of administrators have raised several questions about the components of problem formulat ion . Invest igat ions of problem formulation have not been concerned with the s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of problem formulat ion. For example, Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) defined problem formulation in terms of three component behaviours (see Chapter I I , pp. 23-24) but d id not invest igate how the component problem formulation behaviours were combined among the subjects of the i r experiment. Their underlying assumption seems to be that the behaviours were of equal importance. Neither d id A l l a l (1973) invest igate t h i s area although she explored the s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and processes of problem formulat ion. Two conclusions relevant to these questions are noted. 1. The present f indings suggest that b e l i e f s about the four components of problem formulation are not necessar i l y combined at uniform l e v e l s . For example, b e l i e f s about the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems among the extreme scorers exhibited uniform leve ls unl ike the b e l i e f s 173 about exploratory behaviour and the se lect ion of information, the leve ls of which var ied . It was also noted that the l e v e l of the extreme scorers ' b e l i e f s about the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem corresponded to the i r o v e r a l l o r ientat ion to problem formulat ion. B e l i e f s of the extreme scorers about the c r i t e r i a used in the se lect ion of information a lso exhib i ted uniform l e v e l s across the four be l ie f domains but they were not consistent with ove ra l l o r ientat ions to problem formulation of the two groups. The' observations from t h i s study suggest that two areas for future research should be the invest igat ion of : (a) the s t ruc tu ra l re la t ionsh ips among the four component problem formulation behaviours in each ind i v idua l be l ie f domain, and across b e l i e f domains, and (b) the extent to which performance on one component could be predicted from the performance on another item , for example the extent to which performance on the items, EXP, CRIT and INFO could be predicted by performance on IP. 2. The second conclusion about the problem formulation aspect of the study concerns what might determine the approach to d i f fe rent component behaviours. Previous work has suggested that personal and demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may be important in th i s respect ( A l l a l , 1973; Lyles and M i t r o f f , 1980). In the present study the f indings from the analys is of the biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the extreme scorers support the 174 conclusion that the subjects ' were not af fected by biographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as age and gender or by adminis t rat ive and educational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s except for t r a i n i n g in problem s o l v i n g . Concerning Further Development of the Instrument Four conclusions are made concerning the development of the instrument. They pertain to r e l i a b i l i t y , construct v a l i d i t y , predict ive v a l i d i t y and the use of the instrument. 1 . The v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y tests which were conducted provided r e s u l t s which indicated that the instrument was adequate for further exploratory research into administ rators ' b e l i e f s about problem formulat ion. Two main considerations were taken into account in the study: the in te rna l r e l i a b i l i t y and construct v a l i d i t y of the t e s t . The in te rna l r e l i a b i l i t y estimates of the subtests were considered adequate given the i r shortness. But the shortness of the test stands out as an area which should be pursued in further research i f the instrument i s to be improved. This could include increasing the number of items in the subtests, (that i s the items which comprise the N, GB, Go, and BS be l ie f subtests) in ' order to increase the r e l i a b i l i t y of the t e s t s . This would conform with test theory which maintains that the r e l i a b i l i t y of a test i s a funct ion of i t s length . 175 2. The process of construct v a l i d a t i o n was begun in t h i s study. It i s recognized in test theory that construct va l ida t ion i s an ongoing process. What i s now needed i s to extend attempts at construct va l ida t ion by examining, for instance the responses of extreme scorers in d i f f e r e n t s i tuat ions and the sampling of administrators in d i f fe ren t leve ls of the educational system. 3. A t h i r d area for improving the instrument i s that of i t s p red ic t i ve v a l i d i t y . Since the resu l t s of the study indicate that the instrument can be used to assess the normative, general , goa l , and se l f b e l i e f s about problem formulation the next l o g i c a l step i s to apply the instrument in a context where i t s p red ic t i ve v a l i d i t y could be assessed. A study of that nature would require the tes t ing of hypotheses to examine the re la t ionsh ip between the leve l s of b e l i e f s about problem formulation and l e v e l s of problem formulation behaviour. K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1972, 1976) in the i r model of cogni t ive or ientat ion noted that the combination of Normative, General, Goals and Self b e l i e f s formed a cogni t ive or ientat ion c lus te r which could be used to predict the l e v e l and d i r e c t i o n of the spec i f ied behaviour. This would mean that the cognit ive or ientat ion of administrators would vary systematical ly with the i r problem formulation behaviour. Following the present study, i t could then be assumed that a cognit ive o r ienta t ion to problem formulation as found in a "discovered" problem s i t u a t i o n would be 1 76 pred ic t i ve of a complex l eve l of problem formulation behaviour and a cognit ive or ientat ion to problem formulation as found in a "presented" problem s i tua t ion would be pred ic t i ve of a simple l e v e l of problem formulation behaviour. 4. Even without further research and development the PF b e l i e f s instrument may have a number of useful app l icat ions in administrat ive educational programs which are designed to t r a i n students in the acqu is i t i on of problem formulation s k i l l s . Three such appl icat ions come readi ly to mind. The PF instrument could be eas i l y packaged for ind iv idua l use with a scoring scheme and an explanation of i t s admin is t ra t ion . It could then be made ava i lab le for the use of students on an ind iv idua l bas is . Students may use the instrument to assess the i r problem formulation b e l i e f s and thus t h e i r l eve l of o r ientat ion to problem formulat ion. In the process students may be instructed to r e f l e c t on other ava i lab le a l te rnat i ves which may be appropriate in handling problems in d i f fe ren t problem s i t u a t i o n s . The instrument could also be used in group sett ings such as in a c lass or seminar on problem formulat ion. In such a se t t ing i t would be useful to have a group discussion fol low the administrat ion of the instrument. Di f ferent leve ls of o r ientat ion to problem formulation and the constra ints a r i s i n g could be discussed. 1 77 F i n a l l y , the instrument could be used in conjunction with mater ia ls designed for use in course work perta in ing to problem formulation and a n a l y s i s . For example, the instrument could be included in the i n s t r u c t i o n a l mater ials and coordinated with a simulation exercise on problem formulation behaviour. Performance on the be l ie f scale could then be compared with performance on the simulation exercise and the r e s u l t s used as a focus for ins t ruc t ion and t r a i n i n g . 178 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abelson, R . P . , and M.J . Rosenberg 1958 "Symbolic psycho - log ic : a model of a t t i t u d i n a l c o g n i t i o n . " Behavioral Science, 3: 1-8. A l l a l , L.K. 1973 "Training of medical students in a problem-solving s k i l l : the generation of diagnostic problem formulat ions." Unpublished Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan State Un i ve rs i t y . A r l i n , P.K. 1974 "Problem f i n d i n g : the re la t ion between cognit ive var iab les and problem f ind ing performance." Unpublished Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Univers i ty of Chicago. B a r t l e t t , F.D. 1958 Thinking. New York: Basic Books. Bern, D. 1970 B e l i e f s , A t t i tudes , and Human A f f a i r s . Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks/Cole. Campbell, R . F . , and R. Gregg 1957 Administrat ive Behaviour in Education. New York: Harper Books. Campbell, R . F . , and Lipham, J . M . , eds. 1960 Administrat ive Theory as a Guide to Act ion . Midwestern Administrat ion Center, The Univers i ty of Chicago. Campbell, R . F . , E.M. Bridges, J . E . Corbal ly , J r . , and R.O. Nystrand 1977 Introduction to Educational Administ rat ion . Boston: A l l yn and Bacon. Cancian, F.M. 1975 What Are Norms? A Study of B e l i e f s and Action in a Mayan Community. New York: Cambridge Univers i ty Press . 179 Cappel la , J . N . , and J . P . Folger 1980 "An information-processing explanation of at t i tude-behavior inconsistency ." In D.P. Cushman and R.D. McPhee (eds . ) , Message—Att i tude- - Behavior Re lat ionsh ip : 149-193. New York: Academic Press . C h i , M.T.H. , P . J . F e l t o v i c h , and R. Glaser 1981 "Categorizat ion and representation of physics problems by experts and novices ." Cognitive Science, 5: 121-152. Cronbach, L . J . 1951 "Coef f i c ient alpha and the in te rna l structure of t e s t s . " Psychometrika, 16: 297-334. Cunningham, L . L . , W.G. Hach, and R.O. Nystrand, eds. 1963 Educational Admin is t rat ion . C a l i f o r n i a : McCutchan. Dewey, J . 1910 How We Think. Boston: Heath. Dewey, J . 1938 Log ic : The Theory of Inquiry . New York: Ho l t . Downey, L.W., and F.Enns, eds. 1963 The Soc ia l Sciences and Educational Admin is t rat ion . Edmonton: Univers i ty of A lber ta . Ebe l , R.L. 1951 "Est imation of the r e l i a b i l i t y of r a t i n g s . " Psychometrika, 16: 407-424. Edelson, M. 1976 "Toward a study of in terpretat ion in psychoanalys is ." In J . J . Loubser, R.C. Baum, and V.M. L idz (eds . ) , Explorat ions in General Theory in Soc ia l Science, 1: 151-181. New York: The Free Press . E i n s t e i n , A . , and L. In fe ld 1938 The Evolut ion of Phys ics . New York: Simon and Schuster. E l s t e i n , A . S . , N. Kegan, L .S . Shulman, H. Jason, and M.J . Loupe 1972 "Methods and theory in the study of medical i n q u i r y . " Journal of Medical Education, 47: 85-92. 180 E l s t e i n , A . S . , L .S. Shulman, and S.A. Skprafka 1979 Medical Problem Solv ing . An Analys is of C l i n i c a l Reasoning. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Univers i ty Press . Feldman, M. , and J .G . March 1981 "Information in organizations as s igna l and symbol." Administrat ive Science Quarter ly , 26: 171-186. F ishbein , M. , and I. Ajzen 1975 B e l i e f , A t t i t u d e , Intent ion , and Behavior: an Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Fox, D . J . , and K.E. Guire 1976 Documentation for Midas (3rd e d . ) , Univers i ty of Michigan: S t a t i s t i c a l Research Laboratory. George, H. 1980 Problem Solv ing . London: Pitman Press . Gettys, C . F . , and S.D. Fisher 1979 "Hypothesis p l a u s i b i l i t y and hypothesis generat ion." Organizat ional Behavior and Human Performance, 24: 93-110. Getzels , J.W. 1964 "Creative th ink ing , problem so l v ing , and i n s t r u c t i o n . " In E.R. Hi lgard (ed . ) , Theories of Learning and Ins t ruc t ion , 63rd Year Book of the National Society for the Study of Education, 1: 240-267. Chicago: Univers i ty of Chicago Press. Getzels , J.W. 1978 A l te rnat i ve Di rect ions for Research in Educational Adminis t rat ion . Unpublished manuscript. Fourth Internat ional I n t e r v i s i t a t i o n Program in Educational Adminis t rat ion : Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia. Getzels , J .W. , and M. Csikszentmihalyi 1975 "From problem-solving to prob lem-f ind ing . " In I.A. Taylor and J.W. Getzels (eds . ) , Perspectives in C r e a t i v i t y : 90-116. Chicago: A ld ine . 181 Getze ls , J .W. , and M. Csikszentmihaly i 1976 The Creative V i s i o n : A Longitudinal Study of Problem Finding in A r t . New York: John Wiley. G lass , G.V. , and J . C . Stanley 1970 S t a t i s t i c a l Methods in Education and Psychology. Toronto: Prent ice H a l l . Gregg, R.T. 1957 "The administ rat ive process . " In R.F. Campbell and R.T. Gregg (eds . ) , Administrat ive Behaviour in Education: 269-317. New York: Harper and Brothers. G r i f f i t h s , D.E. 1958 "Administrat ion as dec is ion making." In A.W. Halpin (ed. ) , Administ rat ive Theory in Education: Chicago, Midwestern Administrat ion Center: Un ivers i ty of Chicago. Gross, N. 1967 "The use and abuse of s o c i o l o g i c a l inquiry in t r a i n i n g programs for educational admin i s t ra t ion . " In L.W. Downey and F. Enns (eds. ) , The Soc ia l Sciences and Educational Adminis t rat ion : 23-38. Edmonton: Un ivers i ty of A lber ta . Hakst ian, A.R. (nd) User 's manual for the oneway mul t i var ia te analys is of variance (OWMAR) program. Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: Department of Psychology, Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia. Hayes, J .R . 1978 Cognit ive Psychology. Thinking and Creat ing . Homewood, I l l i n o i s : The Dorsey Press. H i l l s , J . 1965 "Soc ia l sc ience, ideology and the professor of educat ion." Educational Administrat ive Quarter ly , 1: 23-29. H i l l s , R . J . 1975 Ingredients for admin is t rat ive success: proposals for the preparation of p r i n c i p a l s . Unpublished manuscript. Centre for Educational Adminis t rat ion . Vancouver: Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia. 182 H o l s t i , O.R. 1976 "Foreign po l i cy formation viewed c o g n i t i v e l y . " In R. Axlerod (ed . ) , Structure of Dec is ion : 18-54. Pr inceton: New Jersey. Hoyt, C . J . 1941 "Test r e l i a b i l i t y estimated by analys is of var iance . " Psychometrika, 6: 153-160. Immegart, G . L . , and W. L. Boyd, eds. 1979 Problem-Finding in Educational Adminis t rat ion . Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Book, D.C. Heath. Kimbrough, R .B . , and M.Y. Nunnery 1976 Introduction to Educational Adminis t rat ion . New York: McMi l lan . Kolb, D.A. 1976 "Management and the learning process." C a l i f o r n i a Management Review, 18: 21-31. K r e i t l e r , H . , and S. K r e i t l e r 1972 "The model of cogni t ive o r i e n t a t i o n : towards a theory of human behavior ." B r i t i s h Journal of Psychology, 63: 9 -30. K r e i t l e r , H . , and S. K r e i t l e r 1976 Cognit ive Or ientat ion and Behavior. New York: Springer.. Kuhn, A. 1963 The Study of Soc iety : A Un i f ied Approach. Homewood, I l l i n o i s : Richard D. I rwin. L a r k i n , J . , J . McDermott, D.P. Simon, and H.A. Simon 1980 "Expert and novice performance in so lv ing physics problems." Science, 208: 1335-1342. Leinhardt , G. 1978 "Coming out of the laboratory c l o s e t . " In D. Bar- t a l and L. Saxe (eds . ) , Soc ia l Psychology of Education, Theory and Research: 83-110. New York: John Wiley. Ly les , M. 1980 "A descr ip t i ve model of organizat ional problem formulat ion . " Proceedings of Midwest American Ins t i tu te for Decision Science. 183 Ly les , M., and I.I. M i t ro f f 1980 "Organizational problem formulat ion: an empir ical study." Administrat ive Science Quarter ly , 25: 109- 119. MacCrimmon, K.R. 1980 Ident i fy ing Problems. Vancouver: Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia. Mackworth, N.H. 1965 " O r i g i n a l i t y . " American Psychologist , 20: 51-66. Ma i e r , N.R.F. 1931 "Reasoning in humans. I I . The so lut ion of a problem and i t s appearance in consciousness." Journal of Comparative Psychology, 12: 181-194. McDermott, J . , and J . H . Larkin 1978 "Re-representing textbook physics problems." Proceedings of the 2nd National Conference of the Canadian Society for Computional Studies of In te l l i gence . Toronto: Univers i ty of Toronto Press. M i l l e r , G .A. , E. Galanter , and K.H. Pribham 1960 Plans and the Structure of Behavior. New York: Ho l t , Rinehart and Winston. Mintzberg, H. , D. Rais inghani , and K. Theoret 1976 "The structure of unstructured d e c i s i o n s . " Administrat ive Science Quarter ly , 21: 246-275. Nelson, L.R. 1974 Guide to LERTAP. Use and In te rpre ta t ion . Dunedin, New Zealand: Education Department, Univers i ty of Otago Press. Newell , A . , ' a n d H.A. Simon 1972 Human Problem Solv ing . Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prent ice H a l l . O'Keefe, D.J . 1980 "The re la t ionsh ip of a t t i tudes and behavior: a c o n s t r u c t i v i s t a n a l y s i s . " In D.P. Cushman and R.D. McPhee (eds . ) , Message- -Att i tude- -Behavior Re lat ionsh ip : 117-148. New York: Academic Press. 184 Parsons, T. 1951 The Soc ia l System. I l l i n o i s : The Free Press. Parsons, T. 1965 "Culture and the s o c i a l system." In T. Parsons, E. S h i l s , K. Naegele and J . P i t t s (eds . ) , Theories of Soc iety : 963-993. New York: The Free Press. Parsons, T . , and E.A. S h i l s 1951 Toward a General Theory of Ac t ion . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Univers i ty Press. P f e f f e r , J . 1981 "Management as symbolic a c t i o n : The creat ion and maintenance of organizat ional paradigms." In L .L . Cummings and B.M. Staw (eds . ) , Research in Organizat ional Behavior, 3: 1-52. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press. Pounds, W.F. 1969 "The process of problem f i n d i n g . " Indus t r ia l Management Review, 11: 1-19. Reitman, W.R. 1964 "Heur is t ic decis ion procedures, open cons t ra in ts , and the structure of i l l - d e f i n e d problems." In M.W. Shelley and G.L. Bryan (eds . ) , Human Judgments and Opt imal i ty : 282-315. New York: John Wiley. Ross, J . A . 1981a "The measurement of student progress in a decision-making approach to values educat ion." Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 27: 1-15. Ross, J . A . 1981b "Improving adolescent decision-making s k i l l s . " Curriculum Inquiry, 11: 279-295. Rockeach, M. 1968 B e l i e f s , Att i tudes and Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schroeder, H . , J . Dr iver , and S. Steufert 1967 Human Information Processing. New York: Ho l t , Rinehart and Winston. 185 Schwartz, S. 1973 "Normative explanations of helping behavior: a c r i t i q u e , proposal , and empir ical t e s t . " Journal of Experimental Soc ia l Psychology, 9: 349-364. Sergiovanni , T . J . , and F.D. Carver 1980 The New School Executive. A Theory of Admin is t rat ion . New York: Harper and Row. Shapiro, Michael J . , and G.M. Bonham 1973 "Cognit ive process and foreign po l i cy d e c i s i o n - making." Internat ional Studies Quarter ly , 17: 145- 174. Shulman, L .S . 1965 "Seeking s ty les and ind i v idua l d i f ferences in patterns of i n q u i r y . " School Review, 73: 258-266. Shulman, L . S . , M.J . Loupe, and R.M. Piper 1968 Studies of the inquiry process: inquiry patterns of students in teacher - t ra in ing programs. East Lansing, Michigan: Educational Pub l i ca t ion Serv ices , Michigan State Univers i ty (ERIC Document Reproduction Serv ice , no. ED 028 157). Simon, H.A. 1973 "The structure of i l l - s t r u c t u r e d problems." A r t i f i c i a l I n t e l l i g e n c e , 4: 181-201. Smirc ich , L . , and G. Morgan 1982 "Leadership: the management of meaning." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18: 257-273. Taylor , R. 1975 "Perception of problem c o n s t r a i n t s . " Management Science, 22: 22-29. Warwick, D .P . , and L in inger , C.A. 1975 The Sample Survey: Theory and P r a c t i c e . Toronto: McGraw-Hi l l . Winer, B. 1971 S t a t i s t i c a l P r i n c i p l e s in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hi l l . 1 8 6 APPENDICES APPENDIX A RATING PACKAGE FOR RATERS 188 Thank you for agreeing to help me in my doctora l work. I am asking that you do the fo l low ing : • Read the f i ve page " Introduct ion" so as to f a m i l i a r i z e yourself with the concepts and d e f i n i t i o n s needed. • Read the Instruct ions fo l lowing the Introduct ion. • Rate each of the t h i r t y (30) statements in two ways: (a) for i t s relevance to a p a r t i c u l a r v a r i a b l e , and (b) for i t s relevance to a p a r t i c u l a r b e l i e f . Thank you. 189 INTRODUCTION The B e l i e f s about Problem Formulation Scale The problem for invest igat ion is the development of a be l ie f scale for use in assessing the b e l i e f s of educational administrators and in predict ing the d i rec t ion and l e v e l of the i r problem formulation behaviour. The development of the Be l ie f Scale i s based on the view that what are c a l l e d cogni t ive or ientat ion c lus ters can provide a framework for p red ic t ing cer ta in aspects of behaviour. The cogni t ive or ientat ion c lus te rs comprise four types of b e l i e f s . Analysis of these four types of b e l i e f s can, i t i s he ld , provide a basis for p red ic t ing both the d i r e c t i o n and l e v e l of behaviour ( K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r , 1976). The four types of b e l i e f s are : (1) B e l i e f s about Self (BS), (2) General B e l i e f s (GB), (3) Goal B e l i e f s (Go) and (4) Normative B e l i e f s (N). Descr ipt ion of Four Types Of B e l i e f s A be l ie f i s defined as an af f i rmat ive or negative proposi t ion r e l a t i n g to an object , a state or event. Four types of b e l i e f s are used in t h i s instrument. They conform to the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s made by Parsons and S h i l s (1951) and used by K r e i t l e r and K r e i t l e r (1972, 1976). The four types of b e l i e f s are described as f o l l o w s : - (1) B e l i e f s about Self (BS) express cognit ive proposit ions about one's s e l f ; for example, "I often approach the formulation of a problem by f i r s t spec i fy ing the features that appear to contr ibute to the problem." (2) General B e l i e f s (GB) express cognit ive proposit ions about people, objects or s i tuat ions in the present, past or future; for example, "Most administrators tend to be random and unsystematic in the i r search for solut ions to problems." (3) Goal B e l i e f s (Go) express a f fec t i ve proposit ions concerning future ac t ions , objects or s tates , i . e . , those desired or rejected by the s e l f ; for example, "I want to explore more f u l l y the area of s t rateg ies and the i r app l icat ion in the teaching of problem solv ing s k i l l s . " 190 (4) Normative B e l i e f s (N) express general standards or ru les r e l a t i n g to what people should th ink, say or do with regard to other people, objects or s i t u a t i o n s , for example, "Preparation programs in educational administrat ion should place an emphasis on the development of problem-solving s k i l l s . " The d i f ferences among the four types of b e l i e f s are in the nature of the concepts that serve as subject of the propos i t ion , the r e l a t i o n a l concept, and the concept which stands for the pred icate . For example: A general be l ie f may be stated as fo l lows : "Considering many views of a problem and th inking about the i r r e l a t i v e consequences are essent ia l in formulating a problem." A reformulation of t h i s statement into statements of Normative (N), Goal (Go), and Self (BS) b e l i e f s respect ive ly are as fo l lows : "Problems should be formulated by considering many d i f fe ren t views of the problem and th inking about the i r r e l a t i v e consequences (N);" "I aim at viewing a problem from many d i f fe rent perspectives and comparing these perspectives (Go);" "I often think about many d i f fe ren t views of the problem s i t u a t i o n when formulating a problem (BS)." As ind ica ted , the foca l behaviour i s problem formulat ion. This can be described in terms of four var iab les varying along four d i f fe ren t values ( A l l a l , 1 9 7 3 ; Getzels and Cs ikszentmihaly i , 1976). The four var iab les are : (1) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem, (2) Select ion of information, (3) C r i t e r i a used in the se lect ion of information, and (4) Exploratory behaviour in invest igat ing the nature of the problem. The four values along each of the four problem formulation var iab les are shown in the table below: 191 TABLE 2 Var iables of Problem Formulat ion Four Al ternate Values Identi f- icat ion of the problem Simple Moderate- Moderate- ly ly simple complex Complex B: Se lec t -ion of i n f o r - mat ion General and immediate P a r t i c u l a r and immediate General , immediate and d istant P a r t i c u l a r & general immediate & d istant C i t e r i a used in se lect ion of i n f o r - mation No c r i t e r i a , re l iance on i n t u i t i o n Self ref- erenced c r i t e r i a C r i t e r i a admini - s t ra to rs use C r i t e r i a based on p r i n c - ip les D: Explor - atory Behaviour ( Invest i - gation) L i t e r a l i n v e s t i - gation Naive inves t i - gation Act ive i n v e s t i - gation Abstract i n v e s t i - gation 1 92 DEFINITION OF VARIABLES OF PROBLEM FORMULATION BEHAVIOUR A: I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the Problem This behaviour describes the number of aspects of the problematic s i t u a t i o n and the re la t ionsh ips that are considered in determining the nature of the d i f ference between the actual and desirable s i t u a t i o n . Var ia t ions in the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d as fo l lows : (1) Simple i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem, (2) Moderately simple i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem, (3) Moderately complex i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem, and (4) Complex i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem. A1: Simple i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem. This behaviour i s character ized by the considerat ion of l imi ted a t t r ibu tes of the problem s i t u a t i o n . Only a s ingle s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the state(s) of the problem i s considered. A2: Moderately simple i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem. This behaviour i s character ized by the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of one or two aspects of the problem s i tua t ion as problematic. Considerations of the problem s i tua t ion are l i m i t e d and s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f ferences between sets of condit ions are i d e n t i f i e d . A3: Moderately complex i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem. This behaviour i s character ized by the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of two or three views of the problem s i t u a t i o n . They are simultaneously held in focus and compared and cases are made for each d i f fe ren t view. The re la t ionsh ips and the in te rac t i ve e f fec ts of the d i f fe rent views are considered. A4: Complex i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem. This behaviour i s character ized by the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of many views of the problem s i t u a t i o n . These views are simultaneously held in focus and compared. The outcomes are considerat ions of aspects of funct ional re la t ionsh ips and new ways of viewing the problem s i t u a t i o n . B: Select ion of Information This behaviour describes the type of information which i s selected when i d e n t i f y i n g the nature of a problem. The cues or b i t s of information which are obtained about the problem s i t u a t i o n are used for r e f i n i n g the conception of the problem. The four leve ls of se lec t ion of information are : 1 93 (1) Select ion of general information from immeditae sources, (2) Select ion of pa r t i cu la r information from immediate sources, (3) Select ion of general information from immediate and d is tant sources, and (4) Select ion of p a r t i c u l a r and general information from immediate and d is tant sources. Bl : Select ion of general information from immediate sources. This behaviour refers to the use of general information obtained from the presented s i t u a t i o n . The search for information i s minimal. B2: Select ion of p a r t i c u l a r information from immediate sources. This behaviour refers to the use of s p e c i f i c b i t s of information extracted from the presented s i t u a t i o n . Search i s required in se lec t ing relevant b i t s of informat ion. B3: Select ion of general information from immediate and d is tant sources. This behaviour refers to the use of general information obtained from the presented s i t u a t i o n and from searching and questioning aspects of the s i t u a t i o n . This requires the introduct ion of information from other sources. Se lect ion of pa r t i cu la r and general information from immediate and d istant sources. This behaviour refers to the use of general and s p e c i f i c b i t s of information extracted from the presented s i t u a t i o n and obtained from other sources as a resu l t of the questioning and chal lenging of aspects of the s i t u a t i o n . C: C r i t e r i a Used in the Select ion of Information This behaviour refers to the points of reference and values which an ind iv idua l employs when se lec t ing information per ta in ing to a problem s i t u a t i o n . Four d i f f e r e n t values may be used: (1) No c r i t e r i a , (2) C r i t e r i a based on personal preferences, (3) C r i t e r i a which other administrators use, (4) C r i t e r i a based on theore t i ca l p r i n c i p l e s . C1: No c r i t e r i a . This behaviour i s character ized by a re l iance on g u t - l e v e l fee l ings and i n t u i t i o n as a point of reference. No considerat ion i s given to a l te rnat i ve points of reference. 1 94 C2: C r i t e r i a based on personal preferences. This behaviour i s character ized by a re l iance on one's personal in terests and judgement as a point of reference. C3: C r i t e r i a based on what other administrators use. This behaviour i s character ized by a re l iance on the knowledge of the pract ices of other administrators as a point of reference, besides one's personal preferences. C4; C r i t e r i a based on p r i n c i p l e s . This behaviour i s character ized by the considerat ion of personal standards and other administ rators ' standards as a point of reference, but they are considered in terms of theore t i ca l models and p r i n c i p l e s . D; Exploratory Behaviour in Invest igat ing the Nature of the Problem Exploratory behaviour refers to the depth and complexity of the invest igat ion which i s car r ied out when attempting to understand the nature of the problem. The invest igat ion may range from a l i t e r a l and concrete l eve l to an abstract and conceptual l e v e l . The four leve ls of exploratory behaviour are : (1) L i t e r a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n , (2) Naive inves t iga t ion , (3) Act ive i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and (4) Abstract i n v e s t i g a t i o n . D1: L i t e r a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . This type of invest igat ion i s character ized by the fo l lowing features: (a) A focus on discrepancies which are obvious, and (b) Acceptance of the obvious discrepancies without questioning them. Invest igat ion i s l imi ted and r e s t r i c t e d to the immediate experiences of the s i t u a t i o n . D2: Naive i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . This type of behaviour i s character ized by the fo l lowing features: (a) A focus on discrepancies which are obvious, and (b) Limited examination of the obvious discrepancies within the given context . D3: Act ive i n v e s t i g a t i o n . This type of behaviour i s character ized by the fo l lowing features: (a) A focus on discrepancies which are obvious and obscure, and (b) Limited examination of the discrepancies outside the given context. This behaviour involves questioning and chal lenging aspects of the problematic s i tuat ion with p r a c t i c a l object ives in mind. 195 D4: Abstract conceptua l i zat ion . This type of behaviour i s character ized by the fol lowing features: (a) A comprehensive examination of discrepancies which are obvious and obscure, and (b) The examination of discrepancies at an abstract l e v e l . Aspects of the s i tua t ion are questioned, analysed and manipulated in many d i f f e r e n t ways, leading to new ways of th ink ing about the problem. Aspects of the s i t u a t i o n are interpreted as symptoms of kinds of problems to be explored. REFERENCES A l l a l , L.K. 1973 "Training of medical students in a problem-solving s k i l l : the generation of diagnostic problem formulat ions ." Unpublished Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . Michigan State Un ivers i t y . Getze ls , J .W. , and M. Csikszentmihaly i 1976 The Creative V i s i o n : A Longitudinal Study of Problem Finding in A r t . New York: John Wiley and Sons. K r e i t l e r , H . , and S. K r e i t l e r 1972 "The model of cogni t ive o r ien ta t ion : towards a theory of human behavior ." B r i t i s h Journal of Psychology, 63: 9-30. K r e i t l e r , H . , and S. K r e i t l e r 1976 Cognitive Or ientat ion and Behavior. New York: Springer. 1 96 INSTRUCTIONS I have d e v e l o p e d 80 s t a t e m e n t s each of which i s assumed t o r e l a t e t o one of s i x t e e n o r i e n t a t i o n s t o problem f o r m u l a t i o n b e h a v i o u r . A s e t of 30 of t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s has been s e l e c t e d f o r you t o r a t e . These s t a t e m e n t s appear on the f o l l o w i n g pages and a r e a r r a n g e d i n s e t s of f i v e . Each s e t of f i v e s t a t e m e n t s i s r e l a t e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r v a r i a b l e of problem f o r m u l a t i o n b e h a v i o u r , f o r example, A1: I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a s i n g l e problem, or D1: E x p l o r a t o r y B e h a v i o u r : L i t e r a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n . The problem f o r m u l a t i o n v a r i a b l e i s g i v e n a t the b e g i n n i n g of each s e t of f i v e (5) s t a t e m e n t s . I would l i k e you t o r a t e the s t a t e m e n t s i n two ways: (1) I n d i c a t e the degree t o which each statement i s r e l e v a n t t o the p a r t i c u l a r problem f o r m u l a t i o n v a r i a b l e ( f o r example, a problem f o r m u l a t i o n v a r i a b l e may be i d e n t i f i e d as "C2: C r i t e r i a based on p e r s o n a l p r e f e r e n c e s " ) by c i r c l i n g one of the f i v e numerals below the s t a t e m e n t : 1, 2, 3 4, 5. (1) r e f e r s t o a statement which i s not r e l e v a n t t o the v a r i a b l e of problem f o r m u l a t i o n b e h a v i o u r ; 2 = s l i g h t l y r e l e v a n t ; 3 = somewhat r e l e v a n t ; 4 = r e l e v a n t ; and 5 r e f e r s t o a statement which i s h i g h l y r e l e v a n t t o the v a r i a b l e of problem f o r m u l a t i o n b e h a v i o u r . ) P l e a s e f e e l a t l i b e r t y t o make notes or s u g g e s t i o n s underneath the s t a t e m e n t s . (2) I n d i c a t e t o which of the f o u r t y p e s of b e l i e f s the statement seems most r e l e v a n t , by c h e c k i n g one of the f o l l o w i n g codes t o the r i g h t s i d e of t h e s t a t e m e n t : (BS, GB, Go and N) BS r e f e r s t o B e l i e f s about S e l f , GB r e f e r s t o G e n e r a l B e l i e f s , Go r e f e r s t o G o a l B e l i e f s and N r e f e r s t o Normative B e l i e f s . B e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g w i t h your r a t i n g of the s t a t e m e n t s I would l i k e you t o read the d e f i n i t i o n of the terms s t a t e d i n the I n t r o d u c t o r y S e c t i o n . I would a l s o l i k e you t o read the Sample of I n s t r u c t i o n s which w i l l accompany the f i n a l i n s t r u m e n t and which has been i n c l u d e d i n S e c t i o n I I f o r your s u g g e s t i o n s and comments, s p e c i f i c or g e n e r a l which you may have t o o f f e r . Thank you f o r your c o o p e r a t i o n . YOUR ASSISTANCE AS A JUDGE IN THIS PROJECT IS APPRECIATED. I t would a s s i s t me g r e a t l y i f you c o u l d r e t u r n your responses by the end of the day. Thank you. SECTION II SAMPLE OF INSTRUCTIONS TO THE SUBJECTS 198 BELIEFS ABOUT PROBLEM FORMULATION SCALE Purpose This questionnaire i s based on the idea that there i s a d i f ference between solv ing problems and formulating them, and i t focuses only on the second of these a c t i v i t i e s . When we try to solve a problem we are in e f fec t t ry ing to remove what we see as the discrepancy between actual condit ions and condit ions which are des i red . WHEN WE FORMULATE A PROBLEM, WE TRY, IN SOME WAY, TO IDENTIFY WHAT IT IS THAT MAKES THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH IS DESIRED. The way we do th i s may be del iberate and conscious or i t may not, but i t has some ef fect on the way we eventually set about so lv ing the problem. In t h i s questionnaire you are inv i ted to consider the formulation of problems which go beyond the r u n - o f - t h e - m i l l , routine kinds of problems that a r i se everyday. Thus we are concerned with THE NON-ROUTINE, COMPLEX KINDS OF PROBLEMS FACED BY INDIVIDUAL ADMINISTRATORS. This quest ionnaire, then i s designed to assess your b e l i e f s about the way problems are formulated. General Descr ipt ion of the Questionnaire The questionnaire has f i ve par ts . The f i r s t deals with demographic information and the next four deal with four d i f fe rent types of b e l i e f s about problem formulat ion. Each type of be l ie f i s independent of the other three. Thus, each set of questions i s to be answered independently of the others. PART II deals with b e l i e f s about how you think administrators should formulate problems, PART III deals with b e l i e f s about how administrators ac tua l l y do formulate problems, PART IV deals with what you personal ly would l i k e to aim for when you formulate problems, and PART V deals with what you think you personal ly do when you formulate problems. 1 99 Please answer each part in the order in which i t i s presented. Read c a r e f u l l y the ins t ruc t ions for that part before answering i t s quest ions. Answer a l l quest ions, but i f you have d i f f i c u l t y understanding the statement, c i r c l e the statement number. The questionnaire pertains to a general study of the theory of problem formulation and your responses w i l l be used for research purposes only . The answers that you give and the general information which you provide w i l l be considered c o n f i d e n t i a l . The analys is and report ing w i l l not refer to ind iv idua l responses in anyway. I appreciate your wi l l ingness to p a r t i c i p a t e in th i s study despite your busy schedule. Thank you for your cooperat ion. •••••••• It would a s s i s t the project g reat l y i f you could return your completed quest ionnaire by the end of the week. •••••••• PART I Demographic Information 1. At what kind of i n s t i t u t i o n do you work? 2. What i s your present pos i t i on? . 3. What i s your sex? Male • Female i 1 4. How many years have you worked as a f u l l time administrator? Years 2 0 0 5. Have you carried out administrative duties on part-time basis in an educational i n s t i t u t i o n ? No Yes If Yes: How many years have you worked as a part-time administrator in an educational i n s t i t u t i o n ? Year(s) 7. Are you presently involved in i n s t i t u t i o n a l research? No j — — Yes i A. IF YES: How long have you been involved in i n s t i t u t i o n a l research? Year(s) 8. Have you been involved in i n s t i t u t i o n a l research in the past? NO ^ Yes . , A. IF YES: What i s the nature of t h i s involvement in i n s t i t u t i o n a l research? 201 Have you had any formal t r a i n i n g (as d i s t i n c t from learning by experience) in decision making and/or problem solving? N O Q Yes i 1 A. IF YES: Please s p e c i f i y the nature of th i s t r a i n i n g . PART I I : NORMATIVE BELIEFS HOW ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD FORMULATE PROBLEMS Instruct ions These statements express b e l i e f s about how administrators should or should not go about formulating problems. Please read each statement c a r e f u l l y . Then ident i f y the statement with which you agree most by p lac ing a check mark next to i t . PART I I I : GENERAL BELIEFS HOW ADMINISTRATORS ACTUALLY FORMULATE PROBLEMS Instruct ions These statements express b e l i e f s about how administrators ac tua l l y formulate problems. Please read each statement c a r e f u l l y . Then ident i f y the statement with which you agree most by p lac ing a check mark next to i t . 202 As you may have noted, in Parts II and III of the questionnaire you have been consider ing how administrators formulate problems. Now I would l i k e you to think about how you personal ly formulate problems. In Part IV, I would l i k e you to think about what you would want to aim for when formulating problems. In Part V, I would l i k e you to think about how you ac tua l l y go about formulating problems. PART IV: GOAL BELIEFS MY OWN GOALS WHEN FORMULATING PROBLEMS Instruct ions These statements express personal goals , ( b e l i e f s about your aims ) in formulating problems. Please read each statement c a r e f u l l y . Then ident i f y the statement which most nearly character izes your goals by placing a check mark next to i t . PART V: BELIEFS ABOUT SELF HOW I ACTUALLY FORMULATE PROBLEMS Inst ruct ions : These statements express b e l i e f s about how you ac tua l l y go about formulating problems. Respond to each statement only on the basis of what you bel ieve i s true about yourself and describes best what you a c t u a l l y do, and not what you would l i k e to be true about you. Please read each statement c a r e f u l l y . Then ident i f y the statement with which you agree most by p lac ing a check mark next to i t . 203 STATEMENTS REPRESENTING BELIEFS ABOUT PROBLEM FORMULATION NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 . 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS Statements Response Options D1: Exploratory Behaviour: L i t e r a l Invest igat ion 1. Administrators should think about the discrepancies which are obvious in the given work -s i tuat ion as the problems to attack BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 2. Administrators often think about the discrepancies which are obvious in the given work -s i tuat ion as the problems to attack BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 3. I would l i k e to aim at inves t iga t ing the discrepancies which are obvious in the given work -s i tuat ion as the problems to attack BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 4. Discrepancies which are obvious in the given work -s i tuat ion should be the problems to be at tacked. BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 204 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS 5. I tend to think about the discrepancies which are obvious in the given work -s i tuat ion as the problems to attack BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 D2: Exploratory Behaviour: - Naive Invest igat ion 6. Administrators often think about several aspects of the discrepancies which are obvious in the given work s i tua t ion as the problems to attack 1 2 3 4 5 7. Administrators should think about several aspects of the discrepancies which are obvious in the given work -s i tuat ion as the problems to attack 1 2 3 4 5 8. My goal i s to invest igate several aspects of the obvious discrepancies in the given work -s i tuat ion as the possib le problems to attack 1 2 3 4 5 BS GB Go N BS GB Go N BS GB Go N 205 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS 9. I tend to think about several aspects of the discrepancies which are obvious in the given work -s i tuat ion as the problems to at tack . BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 10. I would l i k e to aim at invest igat ing several aspects of .the discrepancies which are • obvious in the given work -s i tuat ion as the problems to attack BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 D3: Exploratory Behaviour: - Act ive Invest igat ion 11. I tend to think about the discrepancies which are obvious and those which are not as symptoms of problems to be discovered BS GB Go N 1 2 . 3 4 5 12. Administrators should think about the discrepancies which are obvious and those which are not as symptoms of problems to be discovered BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 206 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS 13. Administrators often think about the discrepancies which are obvious and those which are not, as symptoms of problems to be discovered BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 14. I would l i k e to aim at invest igat ing the discrepancies which are obvious and those which are not, as the symptoms of problems to be discovered BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 15. Invest igat ing discrepancies which are obvious and those which are not can provide ind icat ions of whether they are symptoms of a problem or not BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 D4: Exploratory Behaviour: - Abstract Invest igat ion 16. Administrators should think about every conceivable discrepancy as a symptom of some p a r t i c u l a r kind of problem to be discovered BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 207 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 . RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS 17. I am inc l ined to think of conceivable discrepancies as symptoms of some p a r t i c u l a r kind of problem BS. GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 18. My goal i s to invest igate every conceivable discrepancy as a symptom of some p a r t i c u l a r kind of problem which i s to be discovered. BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 19. Administrators often think about every conceivable discrepancy as a symptom of some p a r t i c u l a r kind of problem to be discovered1 BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 20. I tend to think about every conceivable discrepancy as a symptom of some p a r t i c u l a r kind of problem to be discovered BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 C1: C r i t e r i a Used:-No C r i t e r i a 21. My goal i s to use my i n t u i t i v e judgement as a point of reference when deciding what information w i l l be useful in i d e n t i f y i n g the kind of problem that ex i s t s BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 208 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS 22. Administrators should re ly on the i r i n t u i t i o n as a guide when deciding what information w i l l be useful in i d e n t i f y i n g the kind of problem that e x i s t s BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 23. Administrators use c r i t e r i a based on the i r i n t u i t i o n when deciding what information w i l l be useful in i d e n t i f y i n g the kind of problem that ex i s t s BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 24. When deciding what information w i l l be useful in i d e n t i f y i n g the kind of problem that e x i s t s , I focus on the information in terms of my i n t u i t i v e judgement BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 209 HIGHLY 5 RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT 1 2 3 4 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT 25. Administrators should re ly on thei r i n t u i t i o n and not consciously impose on themselves any theory when deciding what information w i l l be useful in ident i f y ing the kind of problem that e x i s t s BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 C2: C r i t e r i a U s e d : - C r i t e r i a Based on Personal Preferences 26. Administrators should re ly on thei r personal preferences as a guide when deciding what information w i l l be useful in ident i f y ing the kind of problem that e x i s t s , BS GB Go N 1 27. I focus on the information in terms of my personal preferences when deciding w i l l be usefu l kind of problem what information in i d e n t i f y i n g the that ex i s t s , BS GB Go N 1 28. Administrators use c r i t e r i a based on the i r personal preferences when deciding what information w i l l be useful in ident i f y ing the kind of problem that ex i s ts , BS GB Go N 1 210 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT - RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS 29. My goal i s to use models which conform with my personal preferences as a point of reference when deciding what information w i l l be usefu l .in i d e n t i f y i n g the kind of problem that ex i s t s BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 30. Personal preferences should be recognized as an important feature when deciding what information w i l l be useful in i d e n t i f y i n g the kind of problem that ex i s t s BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 C3: C r i t e r i a U s e d : - C r i t e r i a Which Other Administrators Use 31. Administrators should re l y on the i r knowledge of other administ rators ' standards as a guide when deciding what information w i l l be useful in i d e n t i f y i n g the kind of problem that ex i s t s BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 32. My goal i s to use models s i m i l a r to what other administrators would use as a point of reference when deciding what information w i l l be useful in i d e n t i f y i n g the kind of problem that ex i s ts BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 21 1 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS 33. Administrators use c r i t e r i a based on the i r knowledge of other administ rators ' standards when deciding what information w i l l be useful in i d e n t i f y i n g the kind of problem that e x i s t s BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 34. Administrators focus on information from the perspective of other administrators when deciding what information to use in ident i f y ing the kind of problem that ex is ts BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 35. When deciding what information w i l l be useful in i d e n t i f y i n g the kind of problem that e x i s t s , I focus on the information in terms of what other administrators would do in such s i tua t ions BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 C4: C r i t e r i a U s e d : - C r i t e r i a Based on Theoret ical P r i n c i p l e s 36. I focus on the information in terms of theore t i ca l p r i n c i p l e s when deciding what information w i l l be useful in i d e n t i f y i n g the kind of problem that e x i s t s BS GB Go N 1 2 .3 4 5 212 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS 37. Administrators should re ly on t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s as a guide when deciding what information w i l l be useful in i d e n t i f y i n g the kind of problem that ex i s ts BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 38. Administrators use c r i t e r i a based on theore t i ca l p r i n c i p l e s when deciding what information w i l l be useful in ident i f y ing the kind of problem that ex i s ts , BS GB Go N 1 39. My goal i s to use t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s as a point of reference when deciding what information w i l l be useful in i d e n t i f y i n g the kind of problem that ex i s ts , BS GB Go N 1 40. When deciding what information w i l l be useful in i d e n t i f y i n g the kind of problem that e x i s t s p r i n c i p l e s such as seriousness, s o l v a b i l i t y and p robab i l i t y are to be considered BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 213 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS B1 Select ion of In format ionr -Par t icu lar Pieces of Information From Immediately Ava i lab le Sources 41. Administrators consider p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information which are immediately ava i lab le BS GB Go N 1 42. I tend to consider pieces of information, immediately a v a i l a b l e . p a r t i c u l a r which are BS GB Go N 1 43. Because of time and energy const ra ints administrators should pay most attent ion to p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information which are at hand , BS GB Go N 1 44. My goal i s to consider p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information, which are immediately ava i lab le , BS GB Go N 1 45. Administrators should consider p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information, which are immediately a v a i l a b l e . BS GB Go N 1 214 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS B2; Select ion of Information: -General Information From Immediately Ava i lab le Sources 46. I tend to obtain a broad ins ight into the nature of the problem based not on p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information, but on whatever general information may be immediately ava i lab le BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 47. Administrators should consider obtaining a broad insight into the nature of the problem based not on p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information, but on whatever general information may be immediately ava i lab le BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 48. Administrators consider obtaining a broad ins ight into the nature of the problem based not on p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information, but on whatever general informati'on may be immediately ava i lab le BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 215 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS 49. My goal i s to obtain a broad insight into the nature of the problem based not on p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information, but on whatever general information may be immediately ava i lab le BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 50. Administrators try to get a good idea of the nature of the problem based not on pa r t i cu la r pieces of information, but on whatever general information may be immediately ava i lab le BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 B3: Select ing of Informat ion: - General Information From Immediate and Distant Sources 5 1 . When considering what information to use in attempting to understand the nature of a problem administrators consider get t ing a good idea of the nature of the problem based not on p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information but on whatever general information i s ava i lab le whether immediately to hand or not BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 21 6 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS 52. When considering what information to use in attempting to understand the nature of a problem administrators consider obtaining a broad insight into the nature of the problem based not on p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information but on whatever general information i s ava i lab le whether immediately to hand or not BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 53. When considering what information to use in attempting to understand the nature of a problem administrators should consider obtaining a broad ins ight into the nature of the problem based not on p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information but on whatever general information i s ava i lab le whether immediately to hand or not BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 54. When considering what information to use in attempting to understand the nature of a problem I tend to obtain a broad ins ight into the nature of the problem based not on p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information but on whatever general information i s ava i lab le whether immediately at hand or not. BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 217 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS 55. When considering what information to use in attempting to understand the nature of a problem my goal i s to obtain a broad insight into the nature of the problem based not on p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information but on whatever general information i s ava i lab le whether immediately to hand or not BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 B4: Se lect ing Informat ion: - P a r t i c u l a r Pieces of Information From Immediate and Distant Sources 56. When considering what information to use in attempting to understand the nature of a problem: administrators should consider p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information which may or may not be immediately ava i lab le BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 57. When considering what information to use. in attempting to understand the nature of a problem: I tend to consider p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information ion which may or may not be immediately ava i lab le BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 218 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS 58. When considering what information to use in attempting to understand the nature of a problem I f ind myself searching for as many pieces of information, as possib le which may or may not be immediately ava i lab le BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 59. When considering what information to use in attempting to understand the nature of a problem administrators consider p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information which may or may not be immediately a v a i l a b l e . . BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 60. When considering what information to use in attempting to understand the nature of a problem: my goal i s to consider p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information which may or may not be immediately ava i lab le BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 A1: I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a Single Major Problem 61. When faced with a perplexing work -s i tuat ion administrators should concentrate on discover ing the s ing le major problem which the s i t u a t i o n poses BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 219 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS 62. When faced with a perplexing work -s i tuat ion administrators often iden t i f y a s ing le major problem . BS GB Go N 1 63. When faced with a perplexing work -s i tuat ion I look for the s ingle major problem which I bel ieve i s essent ia l to understanding the s i t u a t i o n BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 64. When faced with a perplexing work -s i tuat ion in educational departments i t i s often only necessary to discover the s ingle major problem which the s i tua t ion poses BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 65. When faced with a perplexing work -s i tuat ion my goal i s to i den t i f y the s ing le major problem which I bel ieve i s relevant to understanding the s i t u a t i o n BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 220 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS A2; I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of at Least Two Major Problems 66. When faced with a perplexing work-s i tuat ion I look for at least two major problems which I bel ieve are essent ia l to understanding the s i tua t ion BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 67. When faced with a perplexing work-s i tuat ion administrators often ident i f y at least two major problems BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 68. When faced with a perplexing work -s i tuat ion my goal i s to ident i f y two or three major problems which I bel ieve are relevant to understanding the s i tua t ion BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 69. administrators should concentrate on discovering at least two major problems which the s i t u a t i o n poses BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 221 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS 70. When faced with a perplexing work-s i tuat ion i t i s poor pract ice not to ident i f y two or three major problems , BS GB Go N 1 A3: I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of One or Two Major Problems as Related to More Spec i f ic Problems 71. When faced with a perplexing work-s i tuat ion I look for one or two major problems which are re lated to more s p e c i f i c problems which I bel ieve are e s s e n t i a l to understanding the s i t u a t i o n BS GB Go N 1 72. When faced with work-s i tuat ion should concentrate one or two major the i r r e l a t i o n to problems poses. a perplexing admini s t ra tors on discover ing problems and more s p e c i f i c which the s i tua t ion BS GB Go N 1 73. When faced work -s i tuat ion administrat ive concentrate on with a perplexing i t i s good pract ice to d iscover ing one or two major problems, BS GB Go N 1 4 74. my goal i s to i d e n t i f y one or two major problems and the i r re la t ion to more s p e c i f i c problems, which I bel ieve are relevant to understanding the s i t u a t i o n , BS GB Go N 1 222 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS 75. When faced with a perplexing work -s i tuat ion administrators often ident i f y one or two major problems and the i r re la t ion to more s p e c i f i c problems BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 A4: I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Mu l t ip le Major Problems and Their Relat ion to More Spec i f i c Problems 76. When faced with a perplexing work -s i tuat ion i t i s not enough to ident i f y a few major problems; administrators should ident i f y mult ip le sets of in te r re la ted major and more s p e c i f i c problems. . BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 77. When faced with a perplexing work -s i tuat ion administrators often i d e n t i f y as many major problems as poss ib le and how they might be re lated to more s p e c i f i c problems BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 223 NOT SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT HIGHLY 1 2 3 4 5 RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT RELEVANT BS = BELIEFS ABOUT SELF GB = GENERAL BELIEFS Go = GOAL BELIEFS N = NORMATIVE BELIEFS 78. When faced with a perplexing work -s i tuat ion I look for as many major problems as possible and how they might be re lated to more s p e c i f i c problems, which I bel ieve are essent ia l to understanding the s i t u a t i o n BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 79. When faced with a perplexing work -s i tuat ion My goal i s to i d e n t i f y as many major problems as poss ib le and the i r r e l a t i o n to more s p e c i f i c problems which I bel ieve are relevant to understanding the s i tua t ion BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 80. When faced with a perplexing work -s i tuat ion Administrators should concentrate on discover ing as many major problems as possib le and how they might be re lated to more s p e c i f i c problems BS GB Go N 1 2 3 4 5 APPENDIX B ITEM ANALYSIS DATA FOR THE PILOT TEST L E R T A P 2 . 0 T E S T NO 1 A D M I N I S T R A T O R S ' B E L I E F S I T E M NUMBER 1 OPT ION WT C 1 1 1 5 . 6 C C 2 2 0 0 . 0 C C 3 3 4 2 2 . 2 C C 4 4 13 7 2 . 2 C TOTAL 18 I T E M NUMBER 2 O P T I O N WT N P C 1 1 1 5 . , 6 C C 2 2 1 5 . 6 C C 3 3 14 77 , . 8 C C 4 4 2 1 1 . 1 C TOTAL 18 I T E M NUMBER 3 O P T I O N WT C 1 1 2 1 1 . 1 C C 2 2 1 5 . 6 C C 3 3 2 1 1 . 1 C C 4 4 13 7 2 . 2 C TOTAL 18 I T E M NUMBER 4 OPT ION WT N P C 1 1 6 3 3 . 3 C C 2 2 1 5 . 6 C C 3 3 10 5 5 . 6 C C 4 4 1 5 . . 6 C TOTAL 18 SUMMARY ITEM S T A T I S T I C S ( A c h i e v e m e n t T e s t ) S U B T E S T 1 NORM C O E F F I C I E N T S OF C O R R E L A T I O N MEANS P B - S T - 0 . 39 0 . 0 - 0 . 3 5 0 . 5 2 P B - T T - 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 - 0 . 3 3 0 . 3 6 B - S T - 0 . 8 0 0 . 0 - 0 . 4 8 O. 7 0 B - T T -O. 2 2 0 . 0 - 0 . 4 6 O. 4 8 C C c c ST 9 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 1 . 0 0 13 . 0 0 TT 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 3 9 . 0 0 4 3 . 8 5 C O E F F I C I E N T S OF C O R R E L A T I O N P B - S T P B - T T B - S T B - T T MEANS - 0 . 2 8 - 0 . 4 9 - 0 . 5 1 - 0 . 6 2 0 . 4 1 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 3 0 . 1 8 - 0 . 5 6 - 1 . 0 0 - 1 . 0 5 - 1 . 2 6 0 . 5 7 0 . 6 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 3 0 ST 1 0 . 0 0 8 . 0 0 12 . 79 1 2 . 5 0 TT 31 . 0 0 28 . 0 0 4 4 . 0 0 4 5 . 5 0 C O E F F I C I E N T S OF C O R R E L A T I O N P B - S T P B - T T B - S T B - T T MEANS - 0 . 3 2 0 . 2 7 - 0 . 5 1 - 0 . 6 2 0 . 0 3 0 . 2 1 0 . 4 6 - 0 . 0 3 - 0 . 5 2 0 . 4 5 - 1 . 0 5 - 1 . 2 6 0 . 0 5 0 . 3 5 0 . 6 2 - 0 . 0 4 ST 1 0 . 5 0 8 . 0 0 12 . 5 0 12 . 9 2 TT 4 7 . 0 0 28 . 0 0 4 6 . 0 0 4 2 . 4 6 C O E F F I C I E N T S OF C O R R E L A T I O N MEANS P B - S T - 0 . 8 6 - 0 . 0 4 0 . 74 0 . 2 0 P B - T T - 0 . 3 1 - 0 . 1 5 0 . 28 O. 19 B - S T - 1 . 1 2 - 0 . 0 8 0 . 9 4 0 . 4 0 B - T T - 0 . 4 1 - 0 . 3 1 0 . 3 5 0 . 38 C C C C ST 9 . 8 3 12 . 0 0 1 3 . 7 0 14 . 0 0 TT 4 0 . 0 0 3 9 . 0 0 4 4 . 0 0 4 7 . 0 0 LERTAP 2.0 TEST NO 1 ADMINISTRATORS' BELIEFS ITEM NUMBER 1 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 7 38 .9 C C 2 2 3 16 . 7 C C 3 3 3 16 . 7 c C 4 4 5 27 .8 c TOTAL 18 ITEM NUMBER 2 OPTION WT C 1 1 6 33.3 C C 2 2 5 27.8 C C 3 3 5 27 .8 C C 4 4 2 11 .1 C TOTAL 18 ITEM NUMBER 3 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 7 38 .9 C C 2 2 4 22 . 2 C C 3 3 6 33 . 3 C C 4 4 1 5. .6 C TOTAL 18 ITEM NUMBER 4 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 6 33. , 3 C C 2 2 5 27 . 8 C C 3 3 2 1 1 , . 1 C C 4 4 5 27 . 8 C TOTAL 18 SUMMARY ITEM STATISTICS ( A c h i e v e m e n t T e s t ) SUBTEST 2 GENERAL COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION MEANS PB--ST PB--TT B--ST B--TT ST TT -0. . 57 -0. .67 -0 . 73 -0 . 86 C 7.14 37.71 0. .08 0. 27 0 . 12 0 .40 C 9.33 46 .00 -O , . 29 0. .01 -0 .43 0 .01 c 7 . 33 42.67 0. .80 0. ,50 1 .06 0 .67 c 12 .00 47 . 20 COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION MEANS »B--ST PB--TT B--ST B--TT ST TT 0 . 6 0 - 0 . 42 - 0 , . 78 - 0 . 54 C 6 . 83 39 . 17 0 . 34 0 . 31 0 . 45 0 . 41 C 1 0 . 2 0 4 5 . 4 0 0 .02 - 0 . 10 - 0 . . 03 - o . 14 C 8 .'80 41 . 6 0 0 . . 45 0 . 34 0 . . 75 0 . 56 C 12 . 0 0 48 . 0 0 COEFFICIENTS OF PB-ST PB-TT -0.25 -0.22 -O.20 0.11 0.18 0.03 0.51 0.19 CORRELATION B-ST B-TT 0.31 -0.28 C 0.27 0.16 C 0.23 0.04 C 1.05 0.38 C MEANS ST TT 8.14 41.00 8.00 43.75 9.50 42.83 14.00 47.00 COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION MEANS PB--ST PB--TT B--ST B--TT ST TT -0. 16 -0. 07 -0. 21 -0. 09 C 8 .33 42 .00 -0. 43 -0. 30 -0. 58 -0. 40 C 7 . 20 39.80 0. 23 0. 12 0. 39 0. . 20 C 10. 50 44 . 50 6. 44 0. 29 0. 58 0. 38 C 10.60 45.20 LERTAP 2 . 0 TEST NO 1 ADMINISTRATORS' BELIEFS ITEM NUMBER 1 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 1 5 .6 C C 2 2 4 22 . 2 C C 3 3 4 22 . 2 C C 4 4 9 50 . 0 C TOTAL 18 ITEM NUMBER 2 OPTION WT C 1 1 2 1 1 . 1 C C 2 2 4 2 2 . 2 C C 3 3 9 5 0 . 0 C C 4 4 3 1 6 . 7 C TOTAL 18 ITEM NUMBER 3 OPTION WT C 1 1 2 1 1 . . 1 C C 2 2 2 1 1 . . 1 C C 3 3 2 1 1 . . 1 c C 4 4 12 6 6 . . 7 c TOTAL 18 ITEM NUMBER 4 OPTION WT C 1 1 5 2 7 . 8 C C 2 2 1 5 . 6 C C 3 3 9 5 0 . 0 C C 4 4 3 1 6 . 7 C TOTAL 18 SUMMARY ITEM STATISTICS ( A c h i e v e m e n t T e s t ) SUBTEST 3 GOALS COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION MEANS PB-ST PB-TT B-ST B-TT ST TT - 0 . 0 9 - 0 . 1 5 - 0 . 19 - 0 . 3 1 C 1 1 .00 39 . 0 0 - 0 . 33 - 0 . 10 - 0 . 4 6 - 0 . 14 C 10. 50 41 . 5 0 - 0 . 0 7 - 0 . 1 7 - 0 . 10 - 0 . 23 C 1 1 . 50 4 0 . 75 0 . 38 0 . 29 0 . 4 7 0 . 36 C 12 . 56 44 . 22 COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION MEANS PB-ST PB-TT B-ST B-TT ST TT - 0 . 56 - 0 . 8 0 - 0 . 93 - 1 . 34 C 8 . 50 29 . 50 - Q . 14 - 0 . 1 7 - 0 . 1 9 - 0 . 23 C 1 1 . 2 5 4 0 . 7 5 0 . 16 0 . 4 5 0 . 20 0 . 5 6 C 12 .11 45 . 1 1 0 . 4 1 0 . 27 0 . 6 1 0 . 4 0 C 13 .67 46 . 0 0 COEFFICIENTS OF PB-ST PB-TT - 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 8 - 0 . 6 5 - 0 . 6 2 - 0 . 0 5 0 . 2 1 0 . 5 5 0 . 1 5 CORRELATION B-ST B-TT 0 . 2 2 0 . 3 0 C 1.07 - 1 . 0 3 C 0 . 0 8 0 . 3 5 C 0 . 7 1 0 . 2 0 C MEANS ST TT 1 1 . 0 0 4 5 . 5 0 8 . 0 0 3 2 . 5 0 1 1 . 5 0 4 6 . 0 0 1 2 . 5 8 4 3 . 1 7 COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION MEANS »B--ST PB- -TT B--ST B--TT ST TT 0 .47 - 0 . 38 - 0 , , 63 - 0 . 51 C 1 0 . 2 0 3 9 . 0 0 0 .03 0 . 19 0 . .05 0 . 38 C 1 2 . 0 0 47 . 0 0 0 .05 0 . 15 0 .07 0 . 19 C 1 1 . 89 4 3 . 4 4 0 .48 0 . 14 0 . . 72 0 . 21 C 14 . 0 0 44 . 33 to L E R T A P 2 . 0 T E S T N O 1 A D M I N I S T R A T O R S ' B E L I E F S I T E M N U M B E R 1 O P T I O N WT N P C 1 1 3 16 . 7 C C 2 2 2 1 1 . 1 C C 3 3 8 4 4 . 4 C C 4 4 5 2 7 . . 8 C T O T A L 18 I T E M N U M B E R 2 O P T I O N WT N P C 1 1 2 1 1 . 1 C C 2 2 8 4 4 . 4 C C 3 3 8 4 4 . . 4 C C 4 4 0 0 . . 0 C T O T A L 1 8 I T E M N U M B E R 3 O P T I O N WT C 1 1 1 1 6 1 . 1 C C 2 2 3 16 . 7 C C 3 3 3 1 6 . . 7 C C 4 4 1 5 . 6 C T O T A L 18 I T E M N U M B E R 4 O P T I O N WT C 1 1 4 2 2 . . 2 C C 2 2 3 16 . . 7 C C 3 3 5 2 7 . . 8 C C 4 4 6 3 3 , , 3 C T O T A L 18 S U M M A R Y I T E M S T A T I S T I C S ( A c h i e v e m e n t T e s t ) S U B T E S T 4 S E L F C O E F F I C I E N T S O F C O R R E L A T I O N M E A N S P B - S T - 0 . 7 4 - 0 . 1 7 0 . 5 0 0 . 19 P B - T T - 0 . 7 7 - 0 . 2 8 0 . 4 4 0 . 3 5 B - S T - 1 . 1 1 - O . 2 9 0 . 6 3 0 . 2 5 B - T T - 1 . 1 5 - 0 . 4 7 0 . 5 5 0 . 4 7 C C C C S T 6 . 0 0 8 . 5 0 1 0 . 7 5 1 0 . 2 0 T T 3 2 . 6 7 3 8 . 0 0 4 5 . 3 8 4 5 . 8 0 C O E F F I C I E N T S O F C O R R E L A T I O N M E A N S P B - S T - 0 . 4 2 - 0 . 18 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 P B - T T - O . 2 2 - 0 . 2 0 0 . 3 4 0 . 0 B - S T - O . 7 0 - O . 2 3 0 . 5 6 0 . 0 B - T T - O . 3 6 - O . 2 6 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 C C C C S T 7 . 0 0 9 . 1 3 1 0 . 6 3 0 . 0 T T 3 9 . 0 0 4 1 . 2 5 4 4 . 7 5 0 . 0 C O E F F I C I E N T S O F C O R R E L A T I O N M E A N S P B - S T - 0 . 3 3 - 0 . 2 6 0 . 4 4 0 . 3 9 P B - T T 0 . 0 4 - 0 . 3 6 0 . 2 2 0 . 1 5 B - S T - 0 . 4 1 - 0 . 3 8 0 . 6 6 0 . 8 0 B - T T 0 . 0 5 - 0 . 5 3 0 . 3 2 0 . 3 0 C C C C S T 9 . 0 0 8 . 3 3 1 1 . 6 7 1 3 . 0 0 T T 4 2 . 7 3 3 8 . 0 0 4 5 . 3 3 4 6 . 0 0 C O E F F I C I E N T S O F C O R R E L A T I O N M E A N S P B - S T - 0 . 3 3 - 0 . 4 6 0 . 3 6 0 . 3 1 P B - T T - 0 . 2 1 - 0 . 3 6 0 . 1 3 0 . 3 4 B - S T - 0 . 4 6 - O . 6 9 0 . 4 8 0 . 4 0 B - T T - 0 . 3 0 - 0 . 5 3 0 . 18 0 . 4 4 C C C C S T 8 . 2 5 7 . 3 3 1 0 . 8 0 1 0 . 5 0 T T 4 0 . 2 5 3 8 . 0 0 4 3 . 8 0 4 5 . 3 3 LERTAP 2 . 0 TEST NO 1 ADMINISTRATORS' BELIEFS ITEM NUMBER 1 OPTION WGT N P 1 1 .0 1 5 . 6 2 2 . 0 0 0 . 0 3 3 . 0 4 2 2 . 2 4 4 . 0 13 7 2 . 2 TOTAL 18 ITEM NUMBER 2 OPTION WGT 1 1 .0 1 5 . 6 2 2 . 0 1 5 . 6 3 3 . 0 14 7 7 . 8 4 4 . 0 2 11.1 TOTAL 18 ITEM NUMBER 3 OPTION WGT 1 1 . 0 - 2 11.1 2 2 . 0 1 5 . 6 3 3 . 0 2 11.1 4 4 . 0 13 7 2 . 2 TOTAL 18 ITEM NUMBER 4 OPTION WGT 1 1 .0 6 3 3 . 3 2 2 . 0 1 5 . 6 3 3 . 0 10 5 5 . 6 4 4 . 0 1 5 . 6 TOTAL 18 SUMMARY ITEM STATISTICS ( A f f e c t i v e T e s t ) SUBTEST 1 NORM ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S . D . ST TT EC 3 . 6 1 1 0 . 7 7 8 0 . 2 1 1 0 . 2 8 1 ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S . D . ST TT EC 2 . 9 4 4 0 . 6 3 9 0 . 1 1 3 0 . 6 7 9 ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S . D . ST TT EC 3.444 1 .042 0 . 0 2 8 - 0 . 0 4 3 ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S . D . ST TT EC 2 . 3 3 3 1 .029 0 . 6 0 2 0 . 3 7 4 VO L E R T A P 2 . 0 T E S T NO 1 A D M I N I S T R A T O R S ' B E L I E F S I T E M NUMBER 1 O P T I O N WGT N P 1 1 . 0 7 3 8 . 9 2 2 . 0 3 1 6 . 7 3 3 . 0 3 1 6 . 7 4 4 . 0 5 2 7 . 8 TOTAL 18 I T E M NUMBER 2 OPT ION WGT N P 1 1 . 0 6 3 3 . 3 2 2 . 0 5 2 7 . 8 3 3 . 0 5 2 7 . 8 4 4 . 0 2 1 1 . 1 TOTAL 18 I T E M NUMBER 3 O P T I O N WGT N P 1 1 . 0 7 3 8 . 9 2 2 . 0 4 2 2 . 2 3 3 . 0 6 3 3 . 3 4 4 . 0 1 5 . 6 TOTAL 18 I T E M NUMBER 4 OPT ION WGT N P 1 1 . 0 6 3 3 . 3 2 2 . 0 5 2 7 . 8 3 3 . 0 2 1 1 . 1 4 4 . 0 5 2 7 . 8 TOTAL 18 SUMMARY ITEM S T A T I S T I C S ( A f f e c t i v e T e s t ) S U B T E S T 2 G E N E R A L I T E M S T A T S C O R R E L A T I O N S MEAN S . D . ST TT EC 2 . 3 3 3 1 . 2 8 3 0 . 2 6 8 0 . 6 2 6 I T E M S T A T S C O R R E L A T I O N S MEAN S . D . ST TT EC 2 . 1 6 7 1 . 0 4 3 0 . 1 5 6 0 . 3 5 7 I TEM STATS C O R R E L A T I O N S MEAN S . D . ST TT EC 2 . 0 5 6 0 . 9 9 8 0 . 0 5 7 0 . 2 1 4 ITEM STATS C O R R E L A T I O N S MEAN S . D . ST TT EC 2 . 3 3 3 1 . 2 3 7 - 0 . 0 5 0 0 . 2 7 1 to OJ O L E R T A P 2 . 0 T E S T NO 1 A D M I N I S T R A T O R S ' B E L I E F S I T E M NUMBER 1 O P T I O N WGT N P 1 1 . 0 1 5 . 6 2 2 . 0 4 2 2 . 2 3 3 . 0 4 2 2 . 2 4 4 . 0 9 5 0 . 0 TOTAL 18 I T E M NUMBER 2 O P T I O N WGT 1 1 .O 2 1 1 . 1 2 2 . 0 4 2 2 . 2 3 3 . 0 9 5 0 . 0 4 4 . 0 3 1 6 . 7 TOTAL 18 I T E M NUMBER 3 OPT ION WGT 1 1 . 0 2 1 1 . 1 2 2 . 0 2 1 1 . 1 3 3 . 0 2 1 1 . 1 4 4 . 0 12 6 6 . 7 TOTAL 18 I T E M NUMBER 4 OPT ION WGT 1 1 . 0 5 2 7 . 8 2 2 . 0 1 5 . 6 3 3 . 0 9 5 0 . 0 4 4 . 0 3 1 6 . 7 TOTAL 18 SUMMARY I T E M S T A T I S T I C S ( A f f e c t i v e T e s t ) S U B T E S T 3 GOALS ITEM STATS C O R R E L A T I O N S MEAN S . D . ST TT 3 . 1 6 7 0 . 9 8 5 - 0 . 0 8 6 0 . 2 6 6 I TEM S T A T S C O R R E L A T I O N S MEAN S . D . ST TT 2 . 7 2 2 0 . 8 9 5 0 . 2 8 2 0 . 7 7 7 I TEM STATS C O R R E L A T I O N S MEAN S . D . ST TT 3 . 3 3 3 1 . 0 8 5 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 1 4 4 ITEM STATS C O R R E L A T I O N S MEAN S . D . ST TT 2 . 5 5 6 1 . 0 9 7 0 . 0 5 4 0 . 3 3 1 LERTAP 2 . 0 TEST NO 1 ADMINISTRATORS' BELIEFS ITEM NUMBER 1 OPTION WGT 1 1 .0 3 1G.7 2 2 . 0 2 11 .1 3 3 . 0 8 4 4 . 4 4 4 . 0 5 2 7 . 8 TOTAL 18 ITEM NUMBER 2 OPTION WGT 1 1 .0 2 11 .1 2 2 . 0 8 4 4 . 4 3 3 . 0 8 4 4 . 4 4 4 . 0 0 0 . 0 TOTAL 18 ITEM NUMBER 3 OPTION WGT 1 1 .0 11 G1 . 1 2 2 . 0 3 16.7 3 3 . 0 3 16.7 4 4 . 0 1 5 . 6 TOTAL 18 ITEM NUMBER 4 OPTION WGT 1 1 .0 4 2 2 . 2 2 2 . 0 3 16.7 3 3 . 0 5 2 7 . 8 4 4 . 0 6 3 3 . 3 TOTAL 18 SUMMARY ITEM STATISTICS ( A f f e c t i v e T e s t ) SUBTEST 4 SELF ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S . D . ST TT 2 . 8 3 3 1 .043 0 . 2 7 5 0 . 8 0 9 ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S . D . ST TT 2 . 3 3 3 0 . 6 8 6 0 . 2 5 2 0 . 3 5 8 ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S . D . ST TT 1.667 0 . 9 7 0 0 . 1 0 8 0 . 1 3 7 ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S . D . ST TT 2 . 7 2 2 1 .179 - 0 . 0 2 2 0 . 4 1 2 233 APPENDIX C FINAL FORM OF THE PROBLEM FORMULATION BELIEF INSTRUMENT 234 BELIEFS ABOUT PROBLEM FORMULATION SCALE This questionnaire i s based on the idea that there i s a d i f ference between solv ing problems and formulating them, and i t focuses only on the second of these a c t i v i t i e s . When we try to solve a problem we are in e f fec t t ry ing to remove what we see as the discrepancy between actual condit ions and condit ions which are des i red . WHEN WE FORMULATE A PROBLEM, WE TRY, IN SOME WAY, TO IDENTIFY WHAT IT IS THAT MAKES THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH IS DESIRED. The way we do t h i s may be del iberate and conscious or i t may not, but i t has some ef fect on the way we eventually set about solv ing the problem. In th i s questionnaire you are inv i ted to consider the formulation of problems which go beyond the r u n - o f - t h e - m i l l , routine kinds of problems that a r i se everyday. Thus we are concerned with THE NON-ROUTINE, COMPLEX KINDS OF PROBLEMS FACED BY INDIVIDUAL ADMINISTRATORS. This quest ionnaire , then i s designed to assess your b e l i e f s about the way problems are formulated. General Descr ipt ion of the Questionnaire The questionnaire has f i ve par ts . The f i r s t deals with demographic information and the next four deal with four d i f fe rent types of b e l i e f s about problem formulat ion. Each type of be l i e f i s independent of the other three. Thus, each set of questions i s to be answered independently of the others. PART II deals with b e l i e f s about how you think administrators should formulate problems, PART III deals with b e l i e f s about how administrators ac tua l l y do formulate problems, PART IV deals with what you personally would l i k e to aim for when you formulate problems, and PART V deals with what you think you personally do when you formulate problems. 235 Please answer each part in the order in which i t i s presented. Read c a r e f u l l y the ins t ruct ions for that part before answering i t s quest ions. Answer a l l quest ions, but i f you have d i f f i c u l t y understanding the statement, c i r c l e the statement number. The questionnaire pertains to a general study of the theory of problem formulation and your responses w i l l be used for research purposes only . The answers that you give and the general information which you provide w i l l be considered conf i d e n t i a l . The analys is and report ing w i l l not refer to i n d i v i d u a l responses in anyway. I appreciate your wi l l ingness to p a r t i c i p a t e in th i s study despite your busy schedule. Thank you for your cooperation. It would a s s i s t the project greatly i f you could return your completed questionnaire by the end of the week. PART I Demographic Information 1. At what kind of i n s t i t u t i o n do you work? College I n s t i t u t e 2. What i s your present pos i t ion? 3. What i s your sex? Male Female 236 4. What i s your age? under 24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60 or over 5. Do you have a Diploma or other p ro fess iona l , non-degree q u a l i f i c a t i o n s ? A. IF YES: In what f i e l d ? (a) in Art (b) in Music (c) in Trades/ Technology (d) in Teaching (e) Other (Please specify the f i e l d ) . . . 6. Do you have a un ivers i t y degree? No Yes A. IF YES: Which of the fo l lowing best describes your highest degree? •• Bachelor 's Degree 237 •• Master's Degree (a) in educational administrat ion . (b) in business administrat ion . . . (c) in higher and/or adult education (d) not in admin is t rat i ve , adu l t , or higher education (Please specify the area of spec ia l i za t ion ) •• Doctoral Degree (a) in educational administrat ion . (b) in business administrat ion . (c) in higher and/or adult education (d) not in admin is t rat i ve , adu l t , or higher education (Please specify the area of spec ia l i za t ion ) 238 7. For how many years and for what percentage of time have you been employed as an administrator in your present i n s t i t u t i o n ? (Please place a check mark in a l l appropriate c e l l s ) % Time spent in adminis- t r a t i o n YEARS 0-1 2-4 5-7 8-10 11-15 1 6-20 21-25 over 25 Under 50% 50%-65% 66%-75% Over 75% 8. How much time are you spending in administ rat ive d u t i e s , i n your assignment t h i s year? (Please check one itern only . ) 50%-65% | 1 66%-75% over 75% 9. Have you in the past car r ied out administ rat ive dut ies at other educational i n s t i t u t i o n s ? 239 10. IF YES: For how many years and for what percentage of time have you worked as an administrator in other educational i n s t i t u t i o n ( s ) ? (Please place a checkmark in a l l appropriate c e l l s ) % Time spent in adminis- t r a t i o n YEARS 0-1 2-4 5-7 8-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 over 25 Under 50% 50%-65% 66%-75% Over 75% 11. Are you presently involved in i n s t i t u t i o n a l research, that i s research r e l a t i n g to the operation of your i n s t i t u t i o n ? A. IF YES: How long have you been involved in i n s t i t u t i o n a l research? Year(s) 240 12. Have you been involved in i n s t i t u t i o n a l research in the pa s t ? No i 1 Yes A. IF YES: What i s the nature of th i s involvement in i n s t i t u t i o n a l research? 13. Have you had any formal t ra in ing (as d i s t i n c t from learning by experience) in decis ion making and/or problem solving? A. IF YES: Please indicate the nature of t h i s t ra in ing by p lac ing a check mark against one or more of these items. Course work Workshop Seminar Major area of study Other 241 PART I I : NORMATIVE BELIEFS HOW ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD FORMULATE PROBLEMS Instruct ions These statements express b e l i e f s about how administrators should or should not go about formulating problems. Please read each statement c a r e f u l l y . Then ident i f y the statement with which you agree most by p lac ing a check mark next to i t . 1. When faced with a perplexing work - s i tua t ion : (Choose one of the fol lowing) a . administrators should concentrate on discovering two or three major problems which the s i tuat ion poses. b. administrators should concentrate on discovering one or two major problems and the i r re la t ion to more s p e c i f i c problems which the s i tua t ion poses. c. administrators should concentrate on discovering as many major problems as possib le and how they might be re lated to more s p e c i f i c problems. d. administrators should concentrate on discovering the s ing le major problem which the s i tua t ion poses. 2. Problems are character ized by discrepancies between actual condit ions and desired condi t ions . When examining the nature of these d iscrepancies : (Choose one of the fol lowing) a . administrators should think about the discrepancies which are obvious in the given work -s i tuat ion as the problems to at tack . b. administrators should think about several aspects of the discrepancies which are obvious in the given work -s i tuat ion as the problems to at tack . 242 c . administrators should think about the discrepancies which are obvious and those which are not, as symptoms of problems to be discovered. d . administrators should think about a l l conceivable discrepancies as symptoms of p a r t i c u l a r kinds of problems to be discovered. 3 . When faced with a problem, administrators consciously or unconsciously, need to decide what kind of problem i t i s . In order to f ind out, they sometimes (consciously or unconsciously) seek information. How should they decide which information to seek? (Choose one of the fol lowing) a . by l e t t i n g whatever comes to mind guide the i r choice. b. by re l y ing c h i e f l y on the i r personal preferences as a guide. c . by re l y ing c h i e f l y on theore t i ca l p r i n c i p l e s as a guide. d . by re l y ing c h i e f l y on the i r knowledge of other administ rators ' standards as a guide. 4. Having decided what kind of problem they are fac ing , administrators sometimes need to explore the nature of the problem fur ther . To do t h i s , they w i l l use information. What information should they use? (Choose one of the fol lowing) a . administrators should consider p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information which are immediately a v a i l a b l e . b. administrators should consider p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information which may or may not be immediately a v a i l a b l e . c . administrators should consider obtaining a broad ins ight into the nature of the problem based not on p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information, but on whatever general information may be immediately a v a i l a b l e . d . administrators should consider obtaining a broad ins ight into the nature of the problem based not on p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information but on whatever general information i s a v a i l a b l e , whether immediately at hand or not. 243 PART III:GENERAL BELIEFS HOW ADMINISTRATORS ACTUALLY FORMULATE PROBLEMS Instruct ions These statements express b e l i e f s about how administrators ac tua l l y formulate problems. Please read each statement c a r e f u l l y . Then ident i f y the statement with which you agree most by p lac ing a check mark next to i t . 1. When faced with a perplexing work - s i tua t ion : (Choose one of the fol lowing) a . administrators often iden t i f y one or two major problems and the i r r e l a t i o n to more s p e c i f i c problems. b. administrators often iden t i f y two or three major problems. c . administrators often iden t i f y a s ing le major problem. d . administrators often i d e n t i f y as many major problems as possible and how they might be re lated to more s p e c i f i c problems. 2. Problems are character ized by discrepancies between actual condit ions and desired cond i t ions . When examining the nature of these d iscrepancies : (Choose one of the fol lowing) a . administrators often think about the discrepancies which are obvious and those which are not, as symptoms of problems to be discovered. b. administrators often think about the discrepancies which are obvious in the given work -s i tuat ion as the problems to a t tack . c . . administrators often think about several aspects of the discrepancies which are obvious in the given work s i tua t ion as the problems to attack. d . administrators often think about a l l conceivable discrepancies as symptoms of p a r t i c u l a r kinds of problems to be discovered. 244 3. When faced with a problem, administrators consciously or unconsciously, need to decide what kind of problem i t i s . In order to f ind out, they sometimes (consciously or unconsciously) seek information. How do they decide which information to seek? (Choose one of the fol lowing) a . They decide by re l y ing p r i n c i p l e s as a guide. c h i e f l y on theore t i ca l b. They decide by l e t t i n g whatever comes to mind guide the i r choice. c . They decide by re l y ing c h i e f l y on the i r personal preferences as a guide. d. They decide knowledge of a guide. by re ly ing c h i e f l y on the i r other administrators ' standards as 4. Having decided what kind of problem they are fac ing , administrators sometimes need to explore the nature of the problem fur ther . To do t h i s , they use information. What information do they use? (Choose one of the fol lowing) a . administrators consider pa r t i cu la r pieces of information, which may or may not be immediately a v a i l a b l e . b. administrators consider obtaining a broad insight into the nature of the problem based not on p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information but on whatever general information may be immediately a v a i l a b l e . c . administrators consider obtaining a broad insight into the nature of the problem based not on pa r t i cu la r pieces of information but on whatever general information i s ava i lab le whether immediately at hand or not. d. administrators consider p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information which are immediately a v a i l a b l e . 245 As you may have noted, in Parts II and III of the questionnaire you have been considering how administrators formulate problems. Now I would l i k e you to think about how you personal ly formulate problems. In Part IV, I would l i k e you to think about what you would want to aim for when formulating problems. In Part V, I would l i k e you to think about how you ac tua l l y go about formulating problems. 246 PART IV:GOAL BELIEFS MY OWN GOALS WHEN FORMULATING PROBLEMS Instruct ions These statements express personal goals , (be l ie fs about your aims) in formulating problems. Please read each statement c a r e f u l l y . Then ident i f y the statement which most nearly character izes your goals by p lac ing a check mark next to i t . 1. When faced with a perplexing work - s i tua t ion : (Choose one of the fol lowing) a . my goal i s to i den t i f y the s ingle major problem which I bel ieve i s relevant to understanding the s i tuat i on . b. my goal i s to ident i f y as many major problems as possible and the i r r e l a t i o n to more s p e c i f i c problems, which I bel ieve are relevant to understanding the s i t u a t i o n . c . my goal i s to i d e n t i f y two or three major problems which I bel ieve are relevant to understanding the s i t u a t i o n . d . my goal i s to ident i f y one or two major problems and the i r r e l a t i o n to more s p e c i f i c problems, which I bel ieve are relevant to understanding the s i t u a t i o n . 2. Problems are character ized by discrepancies between actual condit ions and desired cond i t ions . When examining the nature of these d iscrepancies : (Choose one of the fol lowing) a . my goal i s to think about the discrepancies which are obvious and which are not, as the symptoms of problems to be discovered. b. my goal i s to think about a l l conceivable discrepancies as symptoms of p a r t i c u l a r kinds of problems to be discovered. c . my goal i s to think about several aspects of the discrepancies which are obvious in the given work -s i tuat ion as the problems to at tack . 247 d. my goal i s to think about the discrepancies which are obvious in the given work -s i tuat ion as the problems to a t tack . 3. When faced with a problem, I consciously or unconsciously, need to decide what kind of problem i t i s . In order to f ind out, I sometimes (consciously or unconsciously) seek information. My goal when deciding which information to seek i s : (Choose one of the fol lowing) a . to t ry to re ly c h i e f l y on t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s as a guide. b. to t ry to le t whatever comes to mind guide my choice. c . to t ry to re ly c h i e f l y on my knowledge of other administ rators ' standards as a guide. d . to t ry to re ly c h i e f l y on my personal preferences as a guide. 4. Having decided what kind of problem I am fac ing , I sometimes need to explore the nature of the problem fur ther . To do t h i s , I use information. When using information: (Choose one of the fol lowing) a . my goal i s to obtain a broad ins ight into the nature of the problem based not on p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information but on whatever general information i s a v a i l a b l e , whether immediately at hand or not. b. my goal i s to consider pa r t i cu la r pieces of information, which are immediately a v a i l a b l e . c . my goal i s to obtain a broad ins ight into the nature of the problem based not on p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information but on whatever general information may be immediately a v a i l a b l e . d. my goal i s to consider pa r t i cu la r pieces of information which may or may not be immediately a v a i l a b l e . 248 PART V:BELIEFS ABOUT SELF HOW I ACTUALLY FORMULATE PROBLEMS Inst ruct ions : These statements express b e l i e f s about how you actua l l y go about formulating problems. Respond to each statement only on the basis of what you bel ieve i s true about yourself and describes best what you actua l l y do, and not what you would l i k e to be true about you. Please read each statement c a r e f u l l y . Then ident i f y the statement with which you agree most by p lac ing a check mark next to i t . 1. When faced with a perplexing work -s i tua t ion : (Choose one of the fol lowing) a . T look for two or three major problems which I bel ieve are essent ia l to understanding the s i t u a t i o n . b. I look for as many major problems as possible and how they might be re lated to more s p e c i f i c problems, which I bel ieve are essent ia l to understanding the s i t u a t i o n . c . I look for one or two major problems which are re lated to more s p e c i f i c problems which I bel ieve are essent ia l to understanding the s i t u a t i o n . d. I look for the s ingle major problem which I bel ieve i s e s s e n t i a l to understanding the s i t u a t i o n . 2. Problems are character ized by discrepancies between actual condit ions and desired condi t ions . When examining the nature of these d iscrepancies : (Choose one of the fol lowing) a . I tend to think about several aspects of the discrepancies which are obvious in the given work-s i tuat ion as the problems to at tack. b. I tend to think about the discrepancies which are obvious in the given work -s i tuat ion as the problems to at tack . 249 c . I tend to think about the discrepancies which are obvious and those which are not as symptoms of problems to be discovered. d. I tend to think about a l l conceivable discrepancies as symptoms of p a r t i c u l a r kinds of problems to be discovered. 3. When faced with a problem, I consciously or unconsciously, need to decide what kind of problem i t i s . In order to f ind out, I sometimes (consciously or unconsciously) seek informat ion. In deciding which information to seek: (Choose one of the fo l lowing) a . I re ly c h i e f l y on my personal preferences as a guide. b. I re ly on l e t t i n g whatever comes to mind guide my choice. c . I re ly c h i e f l y on my knowledge of other administ rators ' standards as a guide. d. I re ly c h i e f l y on theore t i ca l p r i n c i p l e s as a guide. 4. Having decided what kind of problem I am f a c i n g , I sometimes need to explore the nature of the problem fur ther . To do t h i s , I use informat ion. (Choose one of the fo l lowing ) a . I tend to consider p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information which may or may not be immediately a v a i l a b l e . b. I tend to obtain a broad ins ight into the nature of the problem based not on p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information, but on whatever general information may be immediately a v a i l a b l e . c . I tend to obtain a broad ins ight into the nature of the problem based not on p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information but on whatever general information i s a v a i l a b l e , whether immediately at hand or not. d . I tend to consider p a r t i c u l a r pieces of information which are immediately a v a i l a b l e . APPENDIX D SAMPLE LETTER TO ADMINISTRATORS 251 Dear As a doctoral student in the Department of Administrat ive and Higher Education at U.B.C. , I am undertaking a study of the b e l i e f s of educational administrators and the i r re la t ion to problem formulation behaviour, and would l i k e to request your permission for me to ask f u l l - t i m e administ rat ive personnel at your Ins t i tu te to pa r t i c ipa te in t h i s study. The problem that I am invest igat ing i s the development and experimental test ing of a Be l ie f Scale that might be used for pred ic t ing the problem formulation behaviour of educational administ rators . The study i s therefore concerned with the construct ion and test ing of the Be l ie f Scale for assessing administ rators ' b e l i e f s about problem formulat ion. It has been frequently suggested in the l i t e r a t u r e of educational administrat ion that b e l i e f s guide behaviour, but despite these claims no empir ical study has been undertaken to explore t h i s question f u l l y . I would l i k e to ask you for two th ings : (1) Your consent for me to ask f u l l - t i m e administrators to pa r t i c ipa te as subjects in t h i s study. The administrators w i l l be asked to : (a) complete a questionnaire which takes about twenty minutes, and (b) to work on a problem formulation task, i f they are among a sub-sample selected from the population of questionnaire respondents. (2) A l i s t of personnel who are assigned as f u l l - t i m e administrators at your I n s t i t u t e . It would be a pleasure to discuss with you the d e t a i l s regarding any aspect of th i s study and to review the f indings of the study with you, i f you are in terested . Thank you very much for your cooperation. I hope the enclosed response sheet w i l l s impl i f y your task of responding. Yours s incere l y , Averlyn G i l l Researcher cc . J .G.T . Kelsey Research Supervisor Associate Professor Department of Admin is t rat ive , Adult and Higher Education 252 To: Averlyn G i l l Re: Administrators ' B e l i e f s and Problem Formulation Study Yes, you have permission to conduct research in th i s i n s t i t u t i o n as out l ined in your recent l e t t e r . Please contact me to provide further information about the study. No, I am not able to grant permission Add i t iona l comments: P r i n c i p a l I n s t i t u t i o n 253 APPENDIX E ITEM ANALYSIS DATA FOR THE EXPLORATORY STUDY LERTAP 2.0 TEST NO 1 ADMINISTRATORS' BELIEFS ITEM NUMBER 1 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 41 21 . ,7 C C 2 2 1 1 5 .8 C C 3 3 32 16. .9 C C 4 4 105 55. .6 C TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 2 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 15 7.9 C C 2 2 12 6.3 C C 3 3 104 55.0 C C 4 4 58 30.7 C TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 3 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 33 17.5 C C 2 2 51 27.0 C C 3 3 21 1 1 . 1 C C 4 4 84 44.4 C TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 4 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 24 12. , 7 C C 2 2 9 4 . 8 C C 3 3 108 57 , . 1 C C 4 4 48 25. 4 C TOTAL 189 SUMMARY ITEM STATISTICS (Ach ievement T e s t ) SUBTEST 1 NORM COEFFICIENTS OF PB-ST PB-TT -0.60 -0.51 -0.18 -0.10 -0.01 -0.02 0.58 0.49 CORRELATION B-ST B-TT -0.84 -0.72 C -0.36 -0.21 C -0.01 -0.03 C 0.73 0.61 C MEANS ST TT 9.29 36.76 10.27 40.55 11.88 43.13 13.14 46.41. COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION MEANS PB--ST PB--TT B--ST B--TT ST TT - 0 . 48 - 0 . 37 - 0 . . 8 7 - 0 . . 6 8 C 8 . 1 3 34 . 8 0 - 0 . .21 - o . 0 9 - 0 . . 4 0 - 0 , . 17 C 1 0 . 0 8 41 . 0 8 0 . . 0 8 - o . 0 2 0 . . 10 - 0 . . 0 3 C 1 2 . 1 0 43 . 29 0 . . 3 0 0 . 29 0 . . 4 0 0 . . 38 C 1 2 . 9 8 46 . 36 COEFFICIENTS OF PB-ST PB-TT -0.33 -0.24 -0.28 -0.17 -0.09 -0.07 0.56 0.38 CORRELATION B-ST B-TT 0.48 -0.35 C 0.38 -0.23 C 0.15 -0.11 C 0.70 0.48 C MEANS ST TT 10.27 39.88 10.84 41.45 11.33 42.10 13.38 46.33 COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION MEANS PB--ST PB--TT B--ST B--TT ST TT -0. .39 -0. . 29 -0. 62 -0. . 47 C 9.54 38 . 17 -0. 13 -0. . 17 -0. 28 -0. . 36 C 10. 56 38 . 22 ' 0. 08 0. 09 0. 10 0. 1 1 c 12 .08 43.93 0. 27 0. 21 0. 37 0. 28 c 13.02 45.88 LERTAP 2.0 TEST NO 1 ADMINISTRATORS' BELIEFS ITEM NUMBER 1 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 68 36 . 0 C C 2 2 29 15 . 3 C C 3 3 50 26 .5 C C 4 4 42 22 . 2 C TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 2 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 90 47 .6 C C 2 2 41 21 .7 C C 3 3 30 15 .9 C C 4 4 28 14 .8 C TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 3 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 52 27.5 C C 2 2 87 46.0 C C 3 3 25 13.2 C C 4 4 25 13.2 C TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 4 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 33 17.5" C C 2 2 70 37.0 C C 3 3 42 22.2 C C 4 4 44 23.3 C TOTAL 189 SUMMARY ITEM STATISTICS (Achievement T e s t ) SUBTEST 2 GENERAL COEFFICIENTS PB-ST PB-TT -0.60 -0.36 -0.10 0.04 0.15 0.08 0.61 0.29 CORRELATION B-ST B-TT -0.77 -0.46 C -0.15 0.07 C 0.21 0.10 C 0.86 0.41 C MEANS ST TT 6.90 40.16 8.38 44.14 9.62 44.30 11 .93 47. 14 COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION MEANS >B--ST PB--TT B- ST B--TT ST TT 0 .63 -0. , 26 -0. 79 -0. 32 C 7 . 26 41 . 56 0 .07 -0, .03 0. 10 -0. .05 C 9.32 42 .98 0. . 26 0. . 18 0. 39 0. . 27 c 10. 50 46 . 20 0. . 54 0. . 22 0. 82 0. . 34 c 12 . 29 47 .07 COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION MEANS PB--ST PB-•TT B--ST B-•TT ST TT - 0 . 2 6 - o . 1 0 - 0 . 3 5 - 0 . 14 C 7 . 8 7 4 2 . 2 7 - 0 . 1 5 - 0 . 1 1 - 0 . 18 - 0 . 1 4 C 8 . 5 5 4 2 . 5 9 0 . 16 0 . 0 9 0 . 2 5 0 . 1 5 C 1 0 . 0 0 4 5 . 0 8 0 . 4 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 6 4 0 . 3 3 C 1 1 . 6 4 4 7 . 0 4 COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION MEANS PB-ST PB-TT B-ST B-TT ST TT -0.18 -0.12 -0.27 -0.18 C 7.94 41.61 -0.46 -0.15 -0.59 -0.20 C 7.40 42.04 0.4O 0.08 0.55 0.11 C 10.88 44.43 0.30 0.21 0.42 0.29 C 10.39 46.00 £j> O l LERTAP 2.0 TEST NO 1 ADMINISTRATORS' BELIEFS ITEM NUMBER 1 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 36 19. .0 c C 2 2 23 12 . 2 C C 3 3 27 14 . 3 C C 4 4 103 54 . 5 C TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 2 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 12 6.3 C C 2 2 21 11.1 C C 3 3 87 46.0 C C 4 4 69 36.5 C TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 3 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 36 19 .0 C C 2 2 50 26 .5 C C 3 3 28 14 .8 c C 4 4 75 39 . 7 C TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 4 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 32 16 .9 C 2 2 14 7 .4 C 3 3 85 45 .0 C 4 4 58 30. .7 TOTAL 189 SUMMARY ITEM STATISTICS (Achievement T e s t ) SUBTEST 3 GOALS COEFFICIENTS OF PB-ST PB-TT -0.57 -0.40 -0.25 -0.19 -0.02 -0.09 0.62 0.50 CORRELATION B-ST B-TT -0.82 -0.58 C -0.40 -0.30 C -0.03 -0.13 C 0.78 0.63 C MEANS ST TT 9.03 37.69 10.22 39.96 11.70 41.96 13.17 46.57 COEFFICIENTS OF PB-ST PB-TT -0.36 -0.36 -0.28 -0.22 -0.05 -0.05 0.42 0.38 CORRELATION B-ST B-TT 0.71 -0.7 1 C 0.46 -0.36 C 0.07 -0.07 C 0.54 0.49 C MEANS ST TT 8.50 33.83 9.95 39.24 11.68 43.01 13.13 46.87 COEFFICIENTS OF PB-ST PB-TT -0.27 -0.17 -0.36 -0.31 -0.03 -0.10 0.56 0.49 CORRELATION B-ST B-TT 0.39 -0.25 C 0.49 -0.42 C 0.05 -0.16 C 0.71 0.62 C MEANS ST TT 10.50 41.00 10.38 39.86 11.64 41.75 13.47 47.57 COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION MEANS PB-•ST PB-•TT B--ST B--TT ST -0. 36 -0. 18 -0. . 53 -0. 27 C 9 .94 40 -0. 27 -0. 24 -0. .50 -0. 46 C 9.57 37 0. 19 0. 1 1 0. . 25 0. 14 C 12.33 44 0. 23 0. 17 0. 30 0. 22 C 12 .64 45 LERTAP 2.0 TEST NO 1 ADMINISTRATORS' BELIEFS ITEM NUMBER 1 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 37 19 .6 C C 2 2 28 14 .8 C C 3 3 45 23 .8 C C 4 4 79 41 .8 C TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 2 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 42 22 .2 C C 2 2 29 15 . 3 C C 3 3 84 44 .4 C C 4 4 34 18 .0 c TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 3 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 37 19.6 C C 2 2 70 37.0 C C 3 3 35 18.5 C C 4 4 47 24.9 C TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 4 OPTION WT N P C 1 1 35 18.5 C C 2 2 29 15.3 C C 3 .3 70 37.0 C C 4 4 55 29.1 C TOTAL 189 SUMMARY ITEM STATISTICS (Achievement T e s t ) SUBTEST 4 SELF COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION MEANS PB- ST PB--TT B--ST B-•TT ST TT -0. 47 -o . 42 -0. 68 -0. 61 C 8.43 37 . 51 -0. 19 -o . 17 -0. 30 -0. 27 C 9.61 40.57 -0. 03 -0. 07 -0. 04 -o . 10 C 10. 58 42 . 53 0. 55 0. 53 0. 69 0. 67 C 12 . 25 47.70 COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION MEANS PB- ST PB--TT B--ST B--TT ST TT -0. 48 -0. 40 -0. 67 -0. 55 C 8 . 57 38 . 33 -o . 14 -0. 10 -0. 21 -0. 15 C 9 .93 41 .79 0. 19 0. 15 0. 24 0. 19 C 1 1 . 23 44.60 0. 40 0. 33 0. 59 0. 48 C 12 . 76 48 . 18 COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION MEANS PB--ST PB--TT B--ST B--TT ST TT -0 . 24 -0. . 19 -0. .34 -0. . 27 C 9 . 57 40.84 -0. . 27 -0. 19 -0. 34 -0. . 25 C 9 . 89 41 .69 0 .06 -0. 04 0. 09 -o . .06 C 1 1 .03 42.86 0 . 46 0. 42 0. 63 0. 58 C 12.62 48 . 45 COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION MEANS >B--ST PB--TT B--ST B--TT ST TT 0. 32 -o . 14 -0. 46 -0. 20 C 9.14 41 .46 -0. 37 -0. 36 -0. 57 -0. 55 C 8.62 37.59 0. 20 0. 14 0. 26 0. 17 C 1 1 . 34 44 .63 0. 35 0. 26 0. 47 0. 34 C 12 .02 46.20 LERTAP 2.0 TEST NO 1 ADMINISTRATORS' BELIEFS ITEM NUMBER 1 OPTION WGT N P 1 1.0 41 21.7 2 2.0 11 5.8 3 3.0 32 16.9 4 4.0 105 55.6 TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 2 OPTION WGT N P 1 1.0 15 7.9 2 2.0 12 6.3 3 3.0 104 55.0 4 4.0 58 30.7 TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 3 OPTION WGT N P 1 1.0 33 17.5 2 2.0 51 27.0 3 3.0 21 11.1 4 4.0 84 44.4 TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 4 OPTION WGT N P 1 1.0 24 12.7 2 2.0 9 4.8 3 3.0 108 57.1 4 4.0 48 25.4 TOTAL 189 SUMMARY ITEM STATISTICS ( A f f e c t i v e T e s t ) SUBTEST 1 NORM ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S.D. ST TT 3.063 1.219 0.205 0.566 ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S.D. ST TT 3.085 0.827 0.219 0.428 ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S.D. ST TT 2.825 1.179 0.059 0.380 ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S.D. ST TT 2.952 0.901 0.076 0.358 LERTAP 2.0 TEST NO 1 ADMINISTRATORS' BELIEFS ITEM NUMBER 1 OPTION WGT N P 1 1.0 68 36.0 2 2.0 29 15.3 3 3.0 50 26.5 4 4.0 42 22.2 TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 2 OPTION WGT N P 1 1.0 90 47.6 2 2.0 41 21.7 3 3.0 30 15.9 4 4.0 28 14.8 TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 3 OPTION WGT N P 1 1.0 52 27.5 2 2.0 87 46.0 3 3.0 25 13.2 4 4.0 25 13.2 TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 4 OPTION WGT N P 1 1.0 33 17.5 2 2.0 70 37.0 3 3.0 42 22.2 4 4.0 44 23.3 TOTAL 189 SUMMARY ITEM STATISTICS ( A f f e c t i v e T e s t ) SUBTEST 2 GENERAL ITEM STATS MEAN S.D. 2.349 1.183 ITEM STATS MEAN S.D. 1 .979 1.1 1 1 ITEM STATS MEAN S.D. - 2. 122 0.963 ITEM STATS MEAN S.D. 2.513 1.035 CORRELATIONS ST TT 0.376 0.378 CORRELATIONS ST TT 0.375 0.317 CORRELATIONS ST TT O.102 O.227 CORRELATIONS ST TT 0.086 0.246 LERTAP 2.0 TEST NO 1 ADMINISTRATORS' BELIEFS ITEM NUMBER 1 OPTION WGT N P 1 1.0 36 19.0 2 2.0 23 12.2 3 3.0 27 14.3 4 4.0 103 54.5 TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 2 OPTION WGT N P 1 1.0 12 6.3 2 2.0 21 11.1 3 3.0 87 46.0 4 4.0 69 36.5 TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 3 OPTION WGT N P 1 1 .0 36 19 .0 2 2 .0 50 26 . 5 3 3 .0 28 14 .8 4 4 .0 75 39 .7 TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 4 OPTION WGT N P 1 1.0 32 16.9 2 2.0 14 7.4 3 3.0 85 45.0 4 4.0 58 30.7 TOTAL 189 SUMMARY ITEM STATISTICS ( A f f e c t i v e T e s t ) SUBTEST 3 GOALS ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S.D. ST TT 3.042 1.198 0.270 O.528 ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S.D. ST TT 3. 127 0.847 0.228 0.508 ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S.D. ST TT 2.751 1.170 0.075 0.439 ITEM STATS MEAN S.D. 2.894 1.026 ST 0.003 CORRELATIONS TT 0.272 LERTAP 2.0 TEST NO 1 ADMINISTRATORS' BELIEFS ITEM NUMBER 1 OPTION WGT N P 1 1.0 37 19.6 2 2.0 28 14.8 3 3.0 45 23.8 4 4.0 79 41.8 TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 2 OPTION WGT N P 1 1.0 42 22.2 2 2.0 29 15.3 3 3.0 84 44.4 4 4.0 34 18.0 TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 3 OPTION WGT N P 1 1.0 37 19.6 2 2.0 70 37.0 3 3.0 35 18.5 4 4.0 47 24.9 TOTAL 189 ITEM NUMBER 4 OPTION WGT N P 1 1.0 35 18.5 2 2.0 29 15.3 3 3.0 70 37.0 4 4.0 55 29.1 TOTAL 189 SUMMARY ITEM STATISTICS ( A f f e c t i v e T e s t ) SUBTEST 4 SELF ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S.D. ST TT 2.878 1 . 158 0. 167 0.571 ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S.D. ST TT 2.582 1.026 0.197 0.480 ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S.D. ST TT 2.487 1.070 0.041 0.397 ITEM STATS CORRELATIONS MEAN S.D. ST TT 2.767 1.066 0.069 0.333

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 7 0
Germany 2 9
Japan 2 0
United States 1 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 7 0
Unknown 2 9
Tokyo 2 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items