UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effects of collaborative planning on adult learners McGee, Gayle 1984

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1984_A8 M33_3.pdf [ 5.7MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055862.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055862-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055862-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055862-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055862-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055862-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055862-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055862-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055862.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECTS OF COLLABORATIVE PLANNING ON ADULT LEARNERS by GAYLE MCGEE B.A.(Honours), U n i v e r s i t y Of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department Of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Adult And Higher E d u c a t i o n  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to £fte r e q u i r e d standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1984  ©  Gayle McGee, 1984  8  6  In  presenting  requirements  this  I  available  for  agree  fulfilment  for  the  Library  shall  reference  and  study.  I  extensive  may  or  representatives.  of  make  further  allowed without my  Department of  October,  that  copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y  It for  is  understood  financial  that  gain  A d m i n s t r a t i o n , A d u l t And Higher  1984  freely  agree  Columbia  by  his  copying or  shall  written permission.  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  the  British  it  be granted by the Head of my Department or  p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s  Date:  partial  that  purposes her  in  f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of  Columbia,  permission  thesis  Education  not  be  i i  Abstract Convential  adult  education  folklore  holds that l e a r n e r s  i n v o l v e d i n the program p l a n n i n g process w i l l be more with not  and w i l l  l e a r n more d u r i n g an e d u c a t i o n a l event  consulted.  This  "collaboration"  was  control  an  experimental  was an independent  "behaviour" were dependent participants  satisfied  were  (13) groups.  to  Twenty-three  treatment  (10) and  to a CUSO p r e - o r i e n t a t i o n course  h e l d d u r i n g one weekend i n May "collaborated"  where  v a r i a b l e and " a t t i t u d e s " and  assigned  Prior  those  study  (or outcome) v a r i a b l e s .  randomly  than  of  1984,  the  treatment  group  and thus helped the planner design the weekend's  activities.  The c o n t r o l group  instructed  to  "show-up"  was  not  f o r the  consulted  course.  but  The  merely  independent  variable,  " c o l l a b o r a t i o n " , was based  on a s s e r t i o n s d e r i v e d  Knowles'  definition  and Gibbs'  of  andragogy  from  ideas concerning  "trust". P a r t i c i p a n t s ' a t t i t u d e s towards the course were measured by having them.rate the l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s and weekend. which  They a l s o completed  had  three semantic  IS  of the  d i f f e r e n t i a l scales  p r e v i o u s l y been shown to have high face v a l i d i t y and  to be r e l e v a n t to the three concepts CUSO  logistics  ...  PREORIENTATION differences  ;  AS  A  CUSO  VOLUNTEER  THIS WEEKEND WAS  between  the  ).  treatment  semantic  differential  data  criteria  for scale scoring.  factors  which accounted  (AS  were  and  factor  A  DEVELOPMENT I  AM  ...  Prior control analysed  to  AGENCY ;  A  examining  groups, to  AS  the  provide  Ratings of CUSO IS broke i n t o three  f o r 68 percent of the v a r i a n c e ; r a t i n g s  of I AM broke i n t o four f a c t o r s accounting variance;  those  accounting  of  WEEKEND  WAS  f o r 70.2  broke  into  f o r 80.2 percent of the v a r i a n c e .  "behaviours" manifested  were  also  measured.  d u r i n g the course, the  other  percent four  Four  Three  of  factors  participant  behaviours  concerned  were  "follow-up"  a c t i v i t i e s t o be done a f t e r the c o u r s e . Next,  mean  behaviour) scale  variables  scores  comprised  scores f o r each of the dependent  were  were  calculated.  calculated  each f a c t o r .  by  ( a t t i t u d e and  Semantic  summing  differential  over  scales  A f t e r a p p l y i n g a s e r i e s of  that  t-tests,  it  was concluded  that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between  any  " a t t i t u d e s " expressed  of  groups. who  the  by the treatment  But there were d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r  behaviour.  Those  c o l l a b o r a t e d i n the planning of the weekend r e t r e a t took on  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more level),  and  volunteer  significantly  roles more  during  for the  differences  measures  were  between  the  discussed,  participants  as  well  procedures.  It  was  as  concluded  not c o r r e l a t e d with behaviours should  multi-factoral  and  the  treatment  (.05  "behaviour"  nature and  of  the  measurement  that the a t t i t u d e measures were  and that f u t u r e r e s e a r c h i n  look more c l o s e l y a t behaviour, designs.  weekend  A number of reasons  "attitude"  including the  the  follow-up a c t i v i t i e s than d i d  those who weren't i n v o l v e d i n the p l a n n i n g .  area  and c o n t r o l  this  p r e f e r a b l y through  TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE i i iv vi vii .viii ix  Abstract Table of Contents L i s t of Appendices L i s t of Tables L i s t of F i g u r e s Acknowledgements CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Purposes of t h i s Study Cooperating O r g a n i z a t i o n Nature of CUSO Pre-Orientation  1 9 9 9 10  2  LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT LITERATURE REVIEW Learner P a r t i c i p a t i o n What i s P a r t i c i p a t i o n ? P a r t i c i p a t i o n = Enrollment P a r t i c i p a t i o n = P a r t i c i p a t o r y Techniques Participation = Collaboration i n Research P a r t i c i p a t i o n = C o l l a b o r a t i o n i n Program Planning Who Should P a r t i c i p a t e ? Why Promote P a r t i c i p a t i o n ? Operationalization of P a r t i c i p a t i o n The E f f e c t s of P a r t i c i p a t i o n HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT Hypotheses  12 12 12 12 13 13 14 14 16 17 19 26 32 33  3  RESEARCH DESIGN Internal V a l i d i t y External V a l i d i t y  35 35 36  4  INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT Developing a Treatment Needs Assessment: Part 1 Needs Assessment: Part 2 Needs Assessment: Part 3 Needs Assessment: Part 4 Needs Assessment: Part 5 Follow-up Developing Outcome Measures W r i t t e n S e l f - R e p o r t Instrument S a t i s f a c t i o n with content Semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l Choosing the concepts and s c a l e s T e s t i n g c o n c e p t / s c a l e relevance Internal v a l i d i t y F a c t o r loadings-CUSO IS • F a c t o r loadings-WEEKEND WAS F a c t o r l o a d i n g s - I AM •  38 38 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 45 45 47 47 . . 50 53 53 55 57  V  Reliability Rating l o g i s t i c s Rating l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s Planned follow-up Measuring A f f i n i t y to Group Measuring H e l p f u l n e s s Estimating Participant Contribution A c t u a l Follow-up Telephone c a l l guide  PAGE 60 60 61 61 62 62 62 63 63  4  METHOD Random Assignment . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Sample A d m i n i s t e r i n g Treatment D i s t r i b u t i n g the Needs Assessment A c t u a l Follow-up Learning A c t i v i t y Data C o l l e c t i o n W r i t t e n Instrument A f f i n i t y to Group Helpfulness Participant Contribution A c t u a l Follow-up  65 65 65 66 66 67 67 68 68 68 68 68 69  5  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION RESULTS W r i t t e n Instrument A f f i n i t y to Group Helpfulness Participant Contribution A c t u a l Follow-up Hypotheses Reviewed Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 4 DISCUSSION Treatment Had No E f f e c t ? Treatment Had an Undetected E f f e c t ? Nature of P a r t i c i p a n t s ? Design Defect? Treatment Defect? Measurement Defect? I m p l i c a t i o n s of Behavioural D i f f e r e n c e s  70 70 71 72 73 73 73 74 75 75 75 75 76 76 79 79 80 81 81 81  REFERENCES  83  vi  LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX 1  1A-Notification Letter 1B-Follow-up l e t t e r 1C-Needs assessment  91 92 93  2  Notes f o r Introducing  3  S e l f - r e p o r t Instrument  4  Coding Schedule  5  Participant Contribution  6  Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l  Evaluation  9 6  97 107 Measure  Scale  Judging Form  Ill 112  LIST OF TABLES TABLE  PAGE  1  Review of O p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of P a r t i c i p a t i o n  2  T r u s t and Andragogical  3  Review of O p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of Dependent V a r i a b l e s  29  4  Collaboration  39  5  Summary of Measures of Dependent V a r i a b l e s  46  6  A P r i o r i Factors  52  7  Factor A n a l y s i s : CUSO IS  54  8  Factor A n a l y s i s : WEEKEND WAS  56  9  F a c t o r A n a l y s i s : I AM  58  Comparison of Mean Scores  72  10  Planning  20 .27  i n Program Planning  •  vi i i  LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1  Example of Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l  PAGE Scale  48  ix  Acknowledgments Thanks are  due  f i r s t and  Roger Boshier stuck with me  foremost to my  through v a r i o u s t h e s i s p r o p o s a l s  read numerous d r a f t s which r e s u l t e d was  patient  system.  The  intruded  and  h e l p f u l despite  in t h i s  a rather  t h e i r 'family  time.' So  staff,  returned  participants  made the  pleasurable.  Many l e n t a  committee  Dora  Orientation To my  thesis  needs and  Sean P r a t t . and  pre-orientation  research for t h i s study both p o s s i b l e  Dave  Fidler  Pratt  e r r a t i c communication  volunteers  hand,  of  but  West, Pat  Smith, Margo McLoughlin and staff,  Dan  and  thanks to I n g r i d Pipke  James Boshier as w e l l as Todd, Paige and  judging  study.  f a m i l i e s of both were g e n i a l when my  on  CUSO  committee members.  the  of  the  B i r d s e l l , Debbie Leach, Dave  Greg Bruce was  U.B.C.,  cooperation  and  and  indispensable.  Randy  CUSO  Niedzwieki of  the  department were e s p e c i a l l y h e l p f u l . family,  f r i e n d s and  fellow  supportive  i n t e r e s t throughout I'm  a s k i n g , one  more time.  Yes,  I'm  students who  maintained  r e l i e v e d to say,  finally  finished."  a  "Thanks for  1  CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 'Participation' always  topical.  is  often  Political,  t h e o r i e s abound e x t o l l i n g the individual No  Limits  our  and  the  is  the  initiating  or  controversy. discusses  The  how  adult  institutions.  as EST  Since  and  1979,  significant for  13).  become Vatican  The  of  problems.  American navy are  more of  'empowered'  (in  hierarchical  relationships  l e v e l where  poorer  encouraged  word'  Catholic  of  modern  Church, once a the  'participation'  Individuals  programs  1980,  p.  are  to be  bodies to  237).  help  shifts, from  are  demanding  such  need  the  to  empowered as  recruits  This rejection  i s a l s o apparent at the  nations  and  involvement.  experienced  hierarchical  Ferguson,  particular,  t e s t i f y to a w i d e l y - f e l t  undertaking  the  self-development movements such  impotence. Even  has  whether  heart of  in  should be  the  of  participation"  i s at the  'buzz  II,  structures,  popularity  of  a  trends  Education,  literature, and  the  Club of Rome claimed in  trend,  can  or S i l v a Mind C o n t r o l ,  solve  p.  this  strains  overcome f e e l i n g s to  the  demand  education  has  model of p a t r i a r a c h a l  congregation.  As  participation  reaped with i n c r e a s e d l e a r n e r  Participation  blessings  for  participation  heralds benefits  and  m e r i t s of  near-universal  reflecting  defined  economic  of the most  (Botkin, Elmandjra, M a l i t z a ,  rarely  s o c i a l , p s y c h o l o g i c a l and  collective.  to L e a r n i n g , "one  time  venerated,  the be of  international  partnerships,  not  patronage. T h i s same d e s i r e  f o r changing power r e l a t i o n s  i s evident  in  2  rebellions  in  human s e r v i c e p r o f e s s i o n s .  t h e i r colleagues transforming  reduce  laymen  self-reliant  (Rogers, 1957)  chronic  are  professionals health  well  as  incompetence  of  patient the  Many  collaboration  movement  among  non-professional  to provide mutual information  and  cures  higher  power  situation.  relationship  of  the  easy to f i n d church o f f i c i a l s who military  Increased  resent  personnel who  resist  groups health  are  care  as sick  participation  changes  As a r e s u l t , i t i s  the weakening of  their  fear a lack of d i s c i p l i n e ,  the q u e s t i o n i n g  participation  considered  or  ways.  Each of these moves towards  p r o f e s s i o n a l s who  in  health  to demand that h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n a l s deal with the  position,  by  patients.  to make people p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e i r own  in non-patronising  the  and  examples  maintenance.  established  dependent  c i t i z e n s i n t o c l i e n t s and  Humanist therapy care  to  Some subgroups c l a i m  changes  of  power  those r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n terms  their  authority.  relationships,  of  or  Oppenheim's  if  (1978)  d e f i n i t i o n of power: 'P (a powerholder) exercises power over R (a respondent) with respect to X (an activity of R)' means that R i n f l u e n c e s or coerces R to do X (p. 589). Education by the  theory and  influences of the ;  p r a c t i c e have been molded and  s o c i e t y i t serves.  Dewey (1916) emphasized  r o l e of education i n a democratic s o c i e t y  (1961). content,  Recent a t t e n t i o n to the has  renewed  educator i n s o c i e t y insisted  that  this  (Huden, 1981;  education  is  as  did  form of education, not  questioning  of  the  R i t t e r , 1981).  'the  adapted  practice  of  role Freire  Lindeman just  the  of  the  (1976)  freedom'.  A  3  dialogue between equals d e d i c a t e d to a c h i e v i n g a p r a x i s reflection  and  t h e i r world'. allow  the  reality. in  a  is  the  way  l e a r n e r to become c r i t i c a l l y  or  Promotion  imposed  upon  Conspiracy  them"  believe,  (Faure et a l . , 1972).  (Ferguson, "You  conspiracy"  preoccupation  with t h i s  each  seed,  (Freire,  participate  Similarly,  silent  Participation  1976,  i s apparent  individual  a  to  p.  i n the  i n The  is  16). title  Aquarian  encouraged  promise.  and  to  You are the  i s supported as an  end  in  'human p o t e n t i a l ' movement, but a l s o as the means  a  w r i t i n g and  a  (p. 417).  by the  create  are  1980)  to  " s o l u t i o n s with the people  of such an awareness of s e l f  Learning to Be  is  conscious of h i s or her  T h i s consciousness allows the c i t i z e n  for  itself  people l e a r n to 'transform  In t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p , the r o l e of educator  process which e s t a b l i s h e s ,  never  to  action  between  more  dynamic,  value-based  with p a r t i c i p a t i o n  sheds l i g h t on why  society.  i s apparent  educators  This  i n a wide-range of  have  been  struggling  issue.  The demand f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n political  sphere.  The  governed  has long been  theory,  especially  tradition.  How  in  and when  governing process?  i s perhaps  relationship  disputed  in  cultures should  most obvious i n the  between  discussions  governors of  and  political  which venerate the democratic citizens  participate  in  the  Most w r i t e r s on p a r t i c i p a t o r y democracy  from  the time of Locke and Hobbes .insist that consent must not be r e s t r i c t e d to an i n i t i a l act of a s s o c i a t i o n , but must be c o n s t a n t l y r e a f f i r m e d by the a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n of a l l members i n the conduct of p u b l i c business ( W a t t 1 981 , p. 717). The p a r t i c i p a t o r y t r a d i t i o n was  even supported by A r i s t o t l e  who  4  claimed  that  the  i n t e r e s t s and reality  is  was far  participation  of  citizens  a ' c i v i l i z i n g ' process. from  descriptions  Of course,  by  political  Rousseau's c l a i m t h a t , "the s o v e r e i g n , being the  individuals  who  compose  i n t e r e s t c o n t r a r y to t h e i r s " when the both  (Watt, 1981,  and  interests.  governments.  wholly  of  nor can have  any  p. 718)  Transferred  was  to  written  the  Rousseau's S o c i a l  imagines c o n d i t i o n s which even the most f i n d i n present  theorists.  imagined to be homogeneous in  democracies of the twentieth century,  not  their  political  formed  i t , n e i t h e r has  'sovereign' c i t i z e n r y was  abilities  protected  ardent  large  Contract  democrat  could  As Watt (1981) noted:  In a p a r t i c i p a t o r y or self-managing democracy c i t i z e n s collectively exercise . p o l i t i c a l authority over themselves i n the c a p a c i t y of p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s ... subordinating themselves to their own collective judgments, not to the judgments of others (p. 717). More  familiar  by Dahl, this  one  to the modern reader  of the most important  i s the  'polyarchy'  political  decribed  theoreticians  of  century: Polyarchy ('what we call democracy') i n s u r e s ... responsiveness l e s s by extensive mass participation than bargaining and n e g o t i a t i n g between organized m i n o r i t i e s (Krouse, 1982, p. 444).  Rather  than  participation,  nostalgically Dahl  (1956)  the governing  process  protect their  interests.  average  citizens  if  only to  pining claimed the  for  greater  citizen  that people p a r t i c i p a t e i n  extent  that  they  must  to  He p o i n t e d out that b e n e f i t s gained  they  increase  participation  compared to the more p l e a s u r a b l e t h i n g s they c o u l d do  pale with  by  when the  same time. As Krouse (1982) p o i n t e d out, Dahl i s moving away from t h i s  5  model which Bacharach c r i t i c i z e d because  i t failed  to conceive of political participation twod i m e n s i o n a l l y : as an instrumentality to gain end results and as a process that a f f o r d s the o p p o r t u n i t y to gain a g r e a t e r sense of purpose and pride and a greater awareness of community ( i n Krouse, 1982, p. 455). This  evolution  participation  of  one  reflects  writer's  attempt  contradictions  to  apparent  understand in  political  theory d e a l i n g with p a r t i c i p a t i o n . These themes are a l s o found i n s o c i a l psychology. are done on why  and how  their  (Houghland  society  Zisk,  1966;  Verba &  people p a r t i c i p a t e  i n v a r i o u s aspects of  & C h r i s t e n s o n , 1983;  Brody,  1970)  and  what  P r e w i t t , Eulau & implication  p a r t i c i p a t i o n has f o r the i n d i v i d u a l and s o c i e t y Social  psychology  has  1963),  1971),  (Rosenberg, people  'anomie' (Durkheim,  'alientation' 1956).  should  (Seeman,  (Lutz,  1973;  At times,  control'  'influence'  (Parsons,  Templeton, underlying  1966)  and  bias  (Dubery,.  p r e s c r i p t i v e notion i s i m p l i c i t y  t i e d to  democratic  the  1959).  of  evident  of  participate  an  1933),  'locus  is  recognition  non-  spawned a number of concepts which h e l p  the researcher think about p a r t i c i p a t i o n (Rotter,  Studies  'apathy'  which  says  1971).  The  ideals,  a  i n d i v i d u a l s ' s r o l e i n making them work and  the o b l i g a t i o n of the powerful segments i n s o c i e t y to assure the c o n t i n u i t y of those p r i n c i p l e s . L i t e r a t u r e on economic p a r t i c i p a t i o n has many themes intertwine about how economy 1980).  with  those  those whose  i d e n t i f e d above. activities  are  Much has been w r i t t e n  marginal  are l e s s powerful than those who  which  to  participate  A commonly c i t e d example i s the female whose  the  money  (Callaway, homemaking  6  and  c h i l d c a r e d u t i e s are a necessary but unpaid c o n t r i b u t i o n t o  society  (Mahoney  &  Richardson,  1979).  Managerial  theory  d i s c u s s e s who should be i n v o l v e d i n c o r p o r a t e d e c i s i o n s and what form  participation  Marchington,  should  1980).  take  (eg: H a l l & L e i d e c k e r , 1981;  Some w r i t e r s mainly c o n s i d e r how t o develop  an e f f e c t i v e management team (Maguire & P a s c a l e , 1978; & Ahmos, 1980); (Calhoun,  others a r e preoccupied with white c o l l a r  1980; Derber,  1983);  still  others  extension of worker p a r t i c i p a t i o n t o the lowest enterprise This  (Clawson trend  and  in  with union different  When o r g a n i z e d labour c a l l s  f o r worker  to  the employer.  and  Even  i s an  extend i t s  within  issue  union  (Walsh  &  1979).  Demands  for increased p a r t i c i p a t i o n  received considerable research a t t e n t i o n . for  which  i t r e f l e c t s the need t o p r o t e c t  relation  of the  have  membership, ' g r a s s r o o t s ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n Craypo,  levels  1983).  f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n but  priorities.  participation, power  & Fantasia,  workers  c o n s i d e r the  i n management theory i s compatable  demands which c a l l roots  McDaniel  three  reasons  summarised  by  i n the workplace I t has been  Cohen-Rosental  reasons f o r expanded f r a n c h i s e i n the workplace justifications  learning"  Similar participation:  (p.  beyond  i t i s a more  e f f e c t i v e way t o run workplaces and a more e n l i g h t e n e d to f u r t h e r  justifed  (1982), "the  extend  of j u s t i c e t o an understanding that  have  approach  15).  goals a r e i d e n t i f i e d by a d u l t educators advocating justice,  outcomes, and p o s i t i v e  effectiveness  i n promoting  learning  i n f l u e n c e on a t t i t u d e s towards l e a r n i n g .  7  Many  adult  educators  claim  desire for a cooperative educational  processes  respect  non-exploitive be  et  creating solidarity  in space.  "Participation  more than formal  The  sharing  the  and  autonomy, t r u s t , a c t i v e c o o p e r a t i o n  more  b e l i e f that t h e i r  educators subscribe necessary  to  view the  pointed  out  that people f e e l  degree  to  which  MacKeracher  dialogue,  and  and  (1980)  they  leads  p.  that r e g a r d l e s s  to  participation  a  adult  and  of whether  of l e a r n i n g outcomes.  committed  the  them  10).  process  f e e l they are part of i t .  found  empathy"  participation,  ideology,  to achieve c e r t a i n kinds  values.  r o l e i s to promote, "freedom  holds above  of  of d e c i s i o n s ; i t i s  l e a r n i n g " ( E l i a s & Merriam, 1980, pragmatic  that  notion  humanist b i a s of many a d u l t educators  support  A  (1979)  T h i s p o s i t i o n emphasizes  to  self-directed  demands  a  non-hierarchical.  al.'s  an a t t i t u d e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by c o o p e r a t i o n , (p. 13).  i n d i v i d u a l and  society  p a r t i c i p a t i v e and  T h i s view i s emphasized by Botkin  is  for the  It i s to  Brundage  education  is  the and  literature  supported t h i s viewpoint: The more an adult learner can be i n v o l v e d in the planning r e l a t e d to h i s own l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s , the more p r o d u c t i v e those a c t i v i t i e s w i l l be and the more l i k e l y the d e s i r e d outcomes w i l l be reached (p. 76). Other w r i t i n g s on which  the  adult  learner  suggest  characteristics  demand a p a r t i c i p a t i v e approach i f p o t e n t i a l l e a r n e r s  to be a t t r a c t e d and  retained  (Knowles, 1980).  Throughout a d u l t education  literature  there  is  undercurrent which assumes that the main goal of any to  encourage  1971;  are  people to become l i f e l o n g  Smith' & Haverkamp, 1977).  The  learners  means  to  a  strong  educator i s  (Faure et a l . ,  accomplish  this  8  end  is  uncertain,  but  i t seems to be  which l e a r n e r s f e e l they process.  Brundage and  'own'  or  are  MacKeracher  l i n k e d with the extent part  of  the  to  learning  (1980) emphasized t h i s  point:  The basic components of l e a r n i n g how to l e a r n appear to be the i n d i v i d u a l l e a r n e r ' s being able to accept responsibility f o r r e l y i n g on himself to f u n c t i o n as an i n t e r n a l change agent ("I am changing me") rather than r e l y i n g e x c l u s i v e l y on a change agent who i s p e r c e i v e d to be e x t e r n a l ("They are changing me"), and the i n d i v i d u a l l e a r n e r ' s being able to conceptualize his own learning process. The b a s i c processes are ones of s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n and s e l f - d i r e c t i o n (p. 16). T h i s p o s i t i o n was that,  "the  behaviour (p.  supported by Rogers  only  is.  learning  (1957)  which  self-discovered,  who  pointed  significantly  influences  self-appropriated  learning"  241). One  problem  r e l a t e d to d i s c u s s i o n s concerning  the e f f e c t s  of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s that t h e o r i e s which p e r t a i n to i t being is  developed  replete  and  with  participation and  in  often  models  j u s t pure a s s e r t i o n . emphasizing  program planning  MacKeracher, 1980;  the  (Boyle,  Knowles, 1980).  The  need 1958,  are  & Fry,  1975).  what extent Because  But  should  of  unresolved  for  learner  1981;  Brundage  Others encourage l e a r n e r  not  define  context,  taken p l a c e . or  measure.  concerning  participation  beginning  to  identify  The As  How,  to  involved?  the nature of p a r t i c i p a t i o n  i t is difficult  b e n e f i t s claimed  to prove are a l s o  a result, a plethora  remain  (Kolb  when, and  than p a i d educators be  disagreement concerning  w i t h i n an e d u c a t i o n a l or has  i s s u e s remain.  people other  just  literature  involvement through p a r t i c i p a t o r y i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques  to  out  unanswered.  which components in the  of  it  has  difficult questions  Researchers  are  l a r g e r issue of  9  ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n ' can be s c r u t i n i s e d  i n some manageable way.  Some  r e s e a r c h focusses on i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques, others on program planning s t r a t e g i e s .  T h i s study f a l l s  i n the l a t t e r  group.  Purposes of t h i s Study T h i s study•examined two q u e s t i o n s concerning  participative  program p l a n n i n g . 1.  What c o n s t i t u t e s p a r t i c i p a t i o n  2. are  Does  some  participation  kinds  participation  of  than  affect  learning  i n program p l a n n i n g ? .  l e a r n i n g outcomes; i f yes,  outcomes  more  influenced  .by  others? Cooperating O r g a n i z a t i o n  T h i s research was and  resource people  overseas  work  investigated  with were  done with the c o o p e r a t i o n of p a r t i c i p a n t s  i n v o l v e d i n a weekend r e t r e a t to prepare f o r CUSO, a development agency. particularly  appropriate  to  o r g a n i z a t i o n encourages v o l u n t e e r involvement  The CUSO  questions as  the  i n d e c i s i o n making  and d e c e n t r a l i z e d s t r u c t u r e s f o r s t a f f i n g . As  well,  because  p l a n n i n g and executing of  the the  e x e r c i s e g r e a t e r c o n t r o l than situations.  researcher was research,  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the  it  was  possible  to  i s usually p o s s i b l e in educational  In p a r t i c u l a r , the p o s s i b i l i t y of random assignment  g r e a t l y strengthened  the r e s e a r c h d e s i g n .  Nature of CUSO CUSO t r i e s to r a i s e awareness concerning development i s s u e s in  Canada and the T h i r d World.  I t a l s o r a i s e s funds to support  s m a l l - s c a l e , low-budget p r o j e c t s i n poor c o u n t r i e s . known  f o r p l a c i n g cooperants  It i s  f o r two year c o n t r a c t s through  best the  10  i n v i t a t i o n s of T h i r d  World  governments  and  agencies.  These  cooperants (once known as v o l u n t e e r s )  are p a i d at the same r a t e s  as t h e i r peer h o s t - n a t i o n a l s and  in s i m i l a r c o n d i t i o n s .  order  to  be  placed,  competence, an  interest  to get  with  along  development and CUSO overseas,  is  a  be  in l i v i n g  others,  must  demonstrate  i n another c u l t u r e , an  good  health  and  a  job  ability  concern  for  volunteer-based paid  staff  as  organization support.  As  in  Canada  and  such,  overseas  a c t i v i t i e s encourage a p p l i c a n t s to f e e l they are  a c t i v e part of to  applicant  In  underdevelopment.  with  preparation  the  live  'the CUSO f a m i l y ' .  self-directing  and  Applicants  are  pre-selected  a c t i o n - o r i e n t e d because of the  i s o l a t e d p o s i t i o n s they hold  an  often  overseas.  Pre-orientation Once a p p l i c a n t s are screened, they begin  a process  referred  to as p r e - o r i e n t a t i o n . P r e - o r i e n t a t i o n covers the time between a person's first contact with CUSO and t h e i r a r r i v a l in Ottawa for Pre-Departure O r i e n t a t i o n . In between lie seemingly endless steps of formal a p p l i c a t i o n , i n t e r v i e w s , medicals, c o n f i r m a t i o n of jobs overseas, innoculations, pre-orientation sessions, reading, t a l k i n g with returned CUSOs, a r r a n g i n g transport to Ottawa, packing e t c . (CUSO, 1984, p. 1). Part of t h i s process from  around  the  i s a r e s i d e n t i a l weekend which draws people  province  f o r an  i n t e n s i v e p e r i o d designed to  expose them to i s s u e s which the o r g a n i z a t i o n would l i k e them consider,  and  encourage  them  to undertake t h e i r own  program to prepare f o r overseas placement. with  the  orientation  cooperation weekend.  of Some  applicants returned  learning  T h i s study was who  attended  cooperants  to  a  acting  done preas  11  resource  people  a l s o cooperated  in validating  instruments used  in the study. T h i s study was theory.  As  significant  for  CUSO  and  adult  the f o l l o w i n g chapter shows, l e a r n e r  i s c e n t r a l to a d u l t education  theory,  subject of e x t e n s i v e experimentation.  but  has  education  participation not  been  the  12  CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT Two  different  focussed on l e a r n e r  literatures participation,  planning  and  purposes.  The second d e a l t  participation  were  how  i t can  studies,  be  how  reviewed. i t fits  operationalized  The  first  into  program  for  research  with how the dependent v a r i a b l e s  in particular  'attitude',  of  are d e f i n e d and  measured. LITERATURE REVIEW Learner There  is  participation  an  Participation  extensive  which  lacks  yet  fragmented  consensus  literature  concerning  some  on key  questions. 1.  What e x a c t l y  2.  Who should  3.  Why should a learner promote  i_s p a r t i c i p a t i o n ? participate? participate,  participation?  4.  How can ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n '  5.  How can the claimed b e n e f i t s These  to s i t u a t e which  questions  be o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d  with  these  of t h i s study was  f o r research?  be o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d  pervade p a r t i c i p a t i o n  t h i s study, i t was  dealt  inquiry  and why should an educator  necessary  questions.  to From  and tested?  research. review this,  In order literature  the l i n e of  isolated.  What i s P a r t i c i p a t i o n ? As noted i n the p r e v i o u s chapter, p a r t i c i p a t i o n topic  in  adult  Unfortunately,  education  rather  than  and leading  related to  i s a common  literatures.  a c l e a r and g e n e r a l l y  13  accepted d e f i n i t i o n of the term, i t i s used to d e s c r i b e a number of  concepts.  important  To  to  clarify  identify  the  thrust  which  of  this  study  it  is  aspects of p a r t i c i p a t i o n are not  c o n s i d e r e d , as w e l l as those which are i t s f o c u s . P a r t i c i p a t i o n = Enrollment The  l i t e r a t u r e which uses p a r t i c i p a t i o n as  attendance  and  focusses  on  who  education a c t i v i t i e s sheds l i t t l e study.  for  e n r o l l s i n and attends a d u l t l i g h t on the concerns  1967).  at a d u l t education a c t i v i t i e s  It  also  includes  s c h o l a r s such as Brown and S e l l (1973),  synonym  on  this  T h i s i n c l u d e s conceptual models e x p l a i n i n g f a c t o r s which  i n f l u e n c e attendance Miller,  a  survey  (1977),  (Cross,  research  Johnstone  Newberry (1959), and Waniewicz (1973).  1981;  done  and  by  Rivera  As w e l l ,  little  i s drawn from research which t r e a t s p a r t i c i p a t i o n as a dependent v a r i a b l e and explores the v a r i o u s m o t i v a t i o n s f o r involvement a d u l t education a c t i v i t i e s the  importance  directly  (Boshier & C o l l i n s ,  Participation = Participatory  l e a r n i n g and aside.  Despite  of these works to a d u l t e d u c a t i o n , they are not  r e l a t e d to q u e s t i o n s asked by t h i s  Research  1982).  in  study.  Techniques  done on p a r t i c i p a t o r y techniques, t h e i r e f f e c t s t h e i r p l a c e i n the i n s t r u c t i o n a l p l a n was  Although  i n q u i r y concerning  (Bergevin,  1963;  Kolb  usefulness  of  various  literature,  i t was  &  Fry,  set  instructional effectiveness  1975;  techniques  also  on  Thayer,  1976)  i s an important  and  the  part of the  omitted as i t d i d not apply to t h i s  study.  14  P a r t i c i p a t i o n = C o l l a b o r a t i o n i n Research Work done under the ' p a r t i c i p a t o r y research' r u b r i c was not c o n s i d e r e d here Tandon,  (see Kassam & Mustapha, 1982; H a l l ,  1982).  pushes  &  In t h i s approach the p a r t i c i p a n t s are i n v o l v e d  at a very e a r l y stage of forming It  Gillette  the  issue  of  the q u e s t i o n to be researched.  participation  one  step  beyond  c o n s u l t a t i o n to a more c o l l e g i a l approach between researcher and participants.  Although  p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s study  in the p l a n n i n g of the program, they were not planning  of  traditional  the  Therefore  study  i n the into a  s o c i a l s c i e n c e r e s e a r c h design with the focus  being  i n program planning*  this  involved falls  'participation  study.  participated  as a treatment.  P a r t i c i p a t i o n = C o l l a b o r a t i o n i n Program Planning Within necessary  this  narrower  to d e f i n e terms.  focus Verner  on  program  (1962)  planning i t was  referred  to  three  elements of the process of a d u l t e d u c a t i o n . The first element i s the method: the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the prospective participants f o r the purpose of education. The second element i n v o l v e s techniques: the v a r i e t y of ways i n which the l e a r n i n g task i s managed so as to f a c i l i t a t e l e a r n i n g . The t h i r d and f i n a l element i n v o l v e s d e v i c e s : a l l those particular t h i n g s or c o n d i t i o n s which a r e u t i l i z e d to augment the techniques and make l e a r n i n g more c e r t a i n (pp. 9-10). The  selection  of  f u n c t i o n by Verner instructional all  the while  concerns.  first  i s c o n s i d e r e d a progr'am p l a n n i n g  choosing  the  second  and  third  are  Learners can be i n v o l v e d i n any one or  t h r e e of these d e c i s i o n s . In  reviewing  participation  of  assessment executed  the  program  planning  literature  the l e a r n e r s seems to take many forms. before the program i s designed  i s the  the Needs most  15  common.  T h i s a c t i v i t y may be done on a one-to-one b a s i s between  the l e a r n e r and planner, instruments.  The  e i t h e r through c o n v e r s a t i o n s  conversations  degrees by the educator.  can  or w r i t t e n  be s t r u c t u r e d to v a r i o u s  The w r i t t e n instruments can a l s o  g r e a t l y from open-ended i n v i t a t i o n s f o r input to very and  vary  structured  d e t a i l e d response systems. Needs assessment can a l s o be done through group i n t e r a c t i o n  with  the  educator.  meeting or w r i t t e n face-to-face  Again,  t h i s could  interaction.  meetings  involve a face-to-face  A number of t o o l s are used  to maximise l e a r n e r input - f o r example,  i n t e r v i e w s , Nominal Group Technique  (Delbecq  1971;  Vedros, 1979), O b j e c t i v e s Worksheet  Delphi  technique i s perhaps the best developed  making model which uses w r i t t e n This  needs  assessment  s t a r t s to p l a n , while first  session  in  Van  den Ven,  (Knowles, 1980). group  The  decision-  instruments.  may  be done before  the p l a n n i n g  the programmer  i s i n process,  of the l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t y .  the needs assessment v a r i e s  &  according  or  at the  The t i m i n g and use of  to  the  planning  model  used. All  major  assessment learners  a d u l t education  phase. a  However,  relatively  planning  many  powerless  needs role  models i n c l u d e a needs assessments in  which they  information  which the programmer i s under no o b l i g a t i o n  upon.  course,  Of  assign provide to a c t  most educators would agree with Brundage and  MacKeracher's (1980) p o i n t t h a t , " i t would be b e t t e r not ask f o r need statements i f a teacher them"  (p. 81).  Some  has no i n t e n t i o n of  responding  to  models such as Knowles (1980) commit the  16  educator  to work in  option  of  conjunction  making  with  unilateral  learners,  decisions.  emphasize c o l l a b o r a t i o n between l e a r n e r s and The springs  the  approaches  educators. in  planning  from known or assumed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a d u l t l e a r n e r s  from  the  experience  important  but very l i t t l e  and Glass  (1977) p o i n t e d out  program  planning  researchers" works.  Such  importance of c o l l a b o r a t i o n and mutuality  (Brundage & MacKeracher, 1980; turn,  removing  has  (p. 76).  has  Knowles,  1980)  which  of p r a c t i t i o n e r s .  came,  Collaboration is  been done to i n v e s t i g a t e i t . that,  received  "student very  T h e i r study  in  Cole  participation  little  attention  referenced only two  in from  previous  Rosenblum and Darkenwald's (1983) study p u b l i s h e d seven  years l a t e r  found, "only a handful  this  issue  from  found  only two  Glass  study.  an  of  educational  unpublished These  studies  (had)  addressed  p e r s p e c t i v e " (p. 148).  They  d i s s e r t a t i o n s to update' the Cole  unexplored  questions  prompted the  and study  described herein. Who  Should P a r t i c i p a t e ?  Traditionally, participation been  l i m i t e d to a small group.  in  educational  Some argue that p l a n n i n g  be done by p r o f e s s i o n a l l y q u a l i f i e d p e r s o n n e l . l e v e l t h i s has meant t e a c h e r s , p r i n c i p a l s and officials;  at  the  adult's  level  programmers and m i n i s t r y s t a f f . has  input  from  participation (1964)  said,  school  planning  i t has  But,  boards,  At  is  a  should child's  education m i n i s t r y  included  instructors,  j u s t as the c h i l d ' s  level  i t i s apparent that community  i s needed in planning a d u l t education. "there  the  has  universally  held  As view  London that  17  participation  i n program planning  as a d u l t educators It i s now in al.  the  by community members  i s good in i t s e l f "  g e n e r a l l y accepted  planning  of t h e i r own  (p.  as  well  67).  that a d u l t s should p a r t i c i p a t e  learning a c t i v i t i e s .  As Faure et  (1972) recommended: It should be made a p r i n c i p l e to c e n t r e educational activity on the l e a r n e r , to allow him g r e a t e r and g r e a t e r freedom ... to decide f o r himself what he wants to l e a r n , and how and where he wants to l e a r n i t and take h i s t r a i n i n g (p. 220).  As  these  ideas  educators' effort  adopted,  h a b i t s and  and  learner  are  stress  organizational  attitudes  have  to  i n v o l v e d , educators  participation  want  to  know  structures  change.  Given  contemplating why  and  this  the  increased  effort  is  worthwhile. Why Discussions  Promote P a r t i c i p a t i o n ?  about  three main themes.  One  be j u s t i f i e d as an end Mutuality  and  making process 1980).  A  respect  participation  to is  active learners. participation  learners  should  in for  itself  in  others  a  democratic  and  pragmatic  position  holds  certain  learning  necessary  might  a  to  societal be  society.  educators that  level  As  well,  a d u l t s from p a s s i v e this  in  (Knowles,  participation  outcomes.  change  explained  can  demands that any d e c i s i o n -  learners  On  p a r t i c i p a t e have  argument suggests that p a r t i c i p a t i o n  i n v o l v e both  more  contributes  why  need  terms  of  for  to  active  developing  citizenship: Persons under g u a r d i a n s h i p who are deprived of a l l opportunity for autonomous conduct cannot be responsible for t h e i r conduct, nor can they be expected to develop a sense of moral r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  18  (Dahl quoted in Krouse, 1982, In education necessary  i t c o u l d be  qualities  'banking' types of Supporters  s a i d that  and  educators must r e j e c t  p.  462).  to  develop  in  others  s k i l l s to become s u c c e s s f u l  paternalistic  'guardianship'  learners, roles  of  j u s t i f y t h e i r claims  the  first  position The  research.  defend  second and  with evidence.  some s o r t of e m p i r i c a l  participation third  need  T h i s would normally  Past  research  making has  goals of  i n c r e a s i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the workplace seem  production,  worker a more p r o d u c t i v e Darkenwald worker  (1983)  education  (1970) and  Past  p a r t of a  that  and  work  The  related  seemed i n t e r e s t e d morale to make the  unit.  Rosenblum  and  f i v e s t u d i e s which i n d i c a t e d that  influences  noted  research  attendance,  referenced  participation  Douglah  involve  been conducted mainly i n work s e t t i n g s .  mainly to the pragmatist t r e n d .  to  on p a r t i c i p a t o r y  decison  improving  and  education.  because of i t s i n t r i n s i c v a l u e .  in  the  these  studies  factors  positively.  i n business and  industry,  community a c t i o n have shown that  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n decision-making usually r e s u l t s in such outcomes as: higher rates of productivity, g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n and higher l e v e l s of morale, more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s , a greater degree of commitment to action, and fewer symptoms of r e s i s t a n c e and c o n f l i c t (p. 95). Much l i t e r a t u r e by  the degree to which the  (Knowles, 1980; upon  suggests that a d u l t  assumed  research education  has  characteristics  it  is  most  influenced  l e a r n e r s p a r t i c i p a t e i n i t s planning  London, 1960).  been done to  learning i s  test  Most planning of  are  built  learners,  yet  little  assumptions.  In  adult  adult  these  frequently  models  suggested  that  increased  19  participation achievement. education,  yields  more  positive  attitudes  and  But, the few s t u d i e s which have been done i n a d u l t "yielded  conflicting  results  ...  [and were] ...  plagued with methodological problems (Rosenblum and 1983,  higher  p. 148).  Darkenwald,  More r e s e a r c h i n t o the e f f e c t s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n  on l e a r n i n g outcomes i s needed. O p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of P a r t i c i p a t i o n Even  program  participation  can  planners  who  know  why  they  favour  be f r u s t r a t e d when they t r y to e s t a b l i s h  and when to i n v o l v e l e a r n e r s .  Douglah (1970)  there  t h i s c o n f u s i o n concerning l e a r n e r  is  good  reasons  for  points  out  how that  part i c i p a t i o n : At what stage is clientele participation most desirable? What are the outcomes of p a r t i c i p a n t involvement in decision-making at d i f f e r e n t stages i n the p l a n n i n g process? Some of the l i m i t e d research i n this area has r e v e a l e d that c l i e n t e l e involvement i n decision-making i s not a simple process. It i s a complex process which c a l l s f o r c o n s i d e r a b l e s k i l l on the p a r t of the o r g a n i z e r i n p r o v i d i n g the t r a i n i n g , resources, and format through which e f f e c t i v e c l i e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n can occur. There are many unanswered questions relating to how p a r t i c i p a n t s can be most m e a n i n g f u l l y i n v o l v e d i n making d e c i s i o n s about their e d u c a t i o n a l experiences (p. 97). There i s no consensus concerning answers to these q u e s t i o n s . Table  1  shows ways i n which the c o n s t r u c t  has been o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d . Cole and McLoughlin a  (1971) used London's  reference.  assured t h e i r colleagues. to e x t e r n a l  By  using  (1977)  as  well  as  (i960) program planning guide as  a well-known model, these r e s e a r c h e r s  work was d e f i n e d As such, validity,  Glass  'participation'  i n terms  i t overcomes  familiar  to  their  one of the main blocks  "the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s  of  the  2u  Table 1 Review of O p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of P a r t i c i p a t i o n Author(s)  Model  When  Who  Act i v i ty  Rosenblum & Darkenwald (1983)  Nominal Group Technique  Before activity  Knowles' 'Objectives' Worksheet  Before activity  A=nursing supervisors B=service supervisors  1 1/2 hr per week for 6 weeks Controls received planned program  Vedros (1979) abstract  Nominal Group Techniques  Before Act i v i t y  Cole & Glass (1977)  London's Model  initial meet ings + weekly meet ings  new health workers  Inservice workshops 140 hours /3 weeks  Semberger (1972) abstract  Planning* Steering+ Feedback Committees  Before + During During  educators  conference 3 types of pa r t i c i pat ion  McLoughlin (1971)  London's Model  Before (?)  government employees  2 week inservice controls received 'planned' program  Welden (l966)-as  reported  by others;  NOTE: As some research was information i s incomplete  Both Groups Together  conference  no a b s t r a c t  referred  to  only  in  abstract,  21  operationalizations"  (Kenny  &  though London's model was not this  cannot  be  considered  Hanisch,  verified  1982, by  p. 31).  empirical  too s e r i o u s a weakness  Even  testing,  as the same  c r i t i c i s m can be a p p l i e d to most models a d u l t education models. Models such as London's not how i t i s to deciding  on  be  done.  objectives  this  Therefore,  could  v a r y i n g degrees of success. addressed  i n d i c a t e what needs to be done, but  be  done  Rosenblum  vagueness  by  activities in  and  Darkenwald  adapting  de Ven, 1971).  the  to  could  (1983)  Nominal  Group  (Delbecq  &  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h i s r e s e a r c h e r ' s reading of  the a r t i c l e c i t e d shed no referred  as  v a r i o u s ways with  Technique, to help the l e a r n e r s i d e n t i f y o b j e c t i v e s Van  such  be  light  on  condensed  how into  the a  5-stage  single  process  meeting  as  d e s c r i b e d by Rosenblum and Darkenwald (1983). Other than the use of London's model and the Nominal Technique, (Table  a  1)  review revealed  operationalization participation (Rosenblum  of  of  the types of p a r t i c i p a t i o n undertaken  little  concerning In  some  and Darkenwald,  1983; Vedros, 1979).  while  different  meetings  Semberger planning,  (1972)  steering  and  activity  Cole and G l a s s  throughout had  the  studies,  i n p l a n n i n g was e l i c i t e d only before the  participation: These  uniformity  participation.  (1977) used weekly p l a n n i n g activity  Group  the  three  feedback  learning  levels  of  committees.  types and degrees of p a r t i c i p a t i o n decrease the  c o m p a r a b i l i t y of the f i n d i n g s . In some s t u d i e s the c o n t r o l never met  the  treated  group,  yet r e c e i v e d the program the l a t t e r planned (Cole & G l a s s , 1977;  22  Roseblum during  & Darkenwald, the  1983).  In others, the two groups mingled  learning a c t i v i t y  (Semberger,  In one, the c o n t r o l group undertook  1972; Vedros,  their  program  1979).  almost s i x  months l a t e r than the p a r t i c i p a t o r y group (Cole & G l a s s , It  i s not  possible  to  might have on outcomes. the  p r e d i c t what e f f e c t  these d i f f e r e n c e s  But, they evoke c a u t i o n when  comparing  studies. Learner  characteristics  may  also  p a r t i c i p a t i o n a f f e c t s l e a r n i n g outcomes. education  activities  influence  Attendance  (Cross, 1981; Johnstone &  possible  to p r e d i c t what e f f e c t  Rivera,  1973).  It  Therefore  probably  at l e a s t a c o l l e g e degree (Semberger,  new  health  (Rosenblum reason  workers,  comparisons  some  & Darkenwald, to  adult  i s not  these d i f f e r e n c e s might have on  the outcomes. have  at  how  i s a f f e c t e d by v a r i o u s s o c i a l and economic  factors  is  1977).  without  between  high  educators,  school  who  1972), and completion  1983), has to be done with c a r e .  There  b e l i e v e a t t i t u d e s and e x p e c t a t i o n s regarding the  l e a r n i n g experience may  vary  considerably  between  these  two  diminish  the  groups. These  reservations  importance of the associated literature. these  description  research trying  to  not  done, draw  mentioned but  to  to point  out  dangers  c o n c l u s i o n s from a d i v e r g e n t  Although a l l e g e d l y d e a l i n g with the  studies  variations  here.  with  are  same  were d e s c r i b i n g d i f f e r e n t phenomena.  subject, Because of  i n past research i t seemed important t o have a of  why ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n '  clear  i s o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d as i t i s  23  To  avoid  exacerbating  'participation'  was  was used to d e s c r i b e this  study.  the  existing  confusion,  used as a general term and ' c o l l a b o r a t i o n ' how  While  participation  this  study  d e f i n i t i o n of c o l l a b o r a t i o n  i s operationalized  could  in  not o f f e r a d e f i n i t i v e  i n a p l a n n i n g process, i t attempted  to make c l e a r the r a t i o n a l e and process of o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n . Selecting  an e s t a b l i s h e d  program p l a n n i n g model as a guide,  seemed a s a t i s f a c t o r y s t a r t i n g p o i n t . the q u e s t i o n of l e a r n e r Modern P r a c t i c e  defined, learn,  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s Knowles (1980).  of Adult Education  characteristics educational  One author who d e a l s with  of  the  approach  adult  learner  - 'andragogy'.  "andragogy as the a r t and i n contrast  teaching c h i l d r e n "  he  to  pedagogy  discusses require  assumptions readiness  as  a r t and s c i e n c e of  the  Knowles  claimed  educational  developed  the and  these  an  learners'  orientation  assumptions  practice.  t r a n s l a t e t h i s system  i t as, "simply  to be used a l o n g s i d e two  In of  order  experience, to learning have  to  assumptions  'Andragogical  Process  help into of  operationalizing  the idea  state  with  of  (pp. 43-44).  implications  for  program  planners  practice,  Knowles  Program  (Knowles, 1980, p. 390). T h i s process model serves for  alternative  (Knowles, 1980, p. 43). Both models make  regarding learn  adults  out the assumptions as to t h e i r ' f i t '  situations"  to  particular  of • h e l p i n g  the pedagogical assumptions, thereby p r o v i d i n g  particular  a  the  science  (p. 43). He has now r e d e f i n e d  for testing  how  Knowles (1980) o r i g i n a l l y  another model of assumptions about l e a r n e r s  models  In The  Planning' as  a  tool  that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s synonymous  24  with c o l l a b o r a t i o n and collaborative  r e i n f o r c e s the  relationship  need  between  educator  r e f e r r i n g to t h i s model, a c o l l a b o r a t i v e designed It  as the also  'treatment' seemed  wise  o u t s i d e the d i s c i p l i n e . 1982)  said  for t h i s to  The  This  creative  sense  planning  produce a f i n a l But  p. 68).  must  involve  definition was . used  "work  (Sykes, ...  (p. 82).  collaboration  in  working together c r e a t i v e l y  to  doesn't  here  fully  because  it  describe  fails  respect which  Returning  how  to recognize  are  central  to  to the d i c t i o n a r y , m u t u a l i t y other"  (Sykes,  1982,  T h i s d e f i n i t i o n e l i m i n a t e s one-way i n f o r m a t i o n flows.  Knowles'  i s r e f e r r e d to here,  notion  Force psychology, (1957).  originating  i s meant  was  i s seen  jointly  production"  it  connotation of m u t u a l i t y r a t h e r than a simple  (1964)  process  Dictionary  Therefore  done by each to(wards) the  When ' c o l l a b o r a t i o n '  Rogers  By  echoes Knowles' (1980) c l a i m that program  a n d r a g o g i c a l model.  means, " f e l t ,  learner.  collaboration  to  artistic  nuances concerning m u t u a l i t y and the  and  product.  this  collaboration  how  means  planning i s an a r t form (p. 129). program  and  mutual  study.  see  or  a  planning  Concise Oxford  collaboration  ( e s p e c i a l l y ) at a l i t e r a r y  for  p a r t i c u l a r l y the work He  include  joint  effort.  the  andragogy i s f i r m l y anchored i n T h i r d  applied  i n group dynamics.  parallels by  of  will  to  of  adult  Work of  Maslow  (1954)  education  writers  such  and  concepts as  Gibb  the n o t i o n of andragogy and h e l p c l a r i f y what  collaborative  proposed that a d u l t educators  program  planning.  While  ' c o n s u l t ' l e a r n e r s , Gibb  Knowles suggested  25  that T-group l e a d e r s use trust.  It  identifed He The  is  acceptance  this  in  the  the  perceptions  concerns  motivation  group  felt  communication  which  'goal'  of  in  formation  relate  to  the  by i n d i v i d u a l s . attitudes,  wherein  participation  o u t l i n e how  and c h o i c e  group.  the  integration As  'control' of  a  established  dimension  behaviours, result,  with  leads  roles,  various  and  levels  of  second, and  behaviour.  assess  their  T h i s leads to a  to  creating.  formation  functions of  degree  feelings  individuals the  through  The  ' p r o d u c t i v i t y ' - doing work, having fun, and  Finally,  Gibb  process.  formation of t r u s t  guide decision-making formation  for  to  formation p r o c e s s .  of s e l f and others which  is  Next, i s  study  four stages i n the t r u s t  'acceptance',  'membership'  group.  to  four stages i n the t r u s t  first,  focus on  relevant  identified  'data'  ' p a r t i c i p a t i v e t e c h n o l o g i e s ' to promote  and  w i t h i n the  'organization'  are  d i f f e r e n t degress of f o r m a l i t y , s t a b i l i t y  and  complexity. A review of Table 2 shows these steps have p a r a l l e l s andragogical process. correspond  Both mention the need f o r mutual  t r u s t as the b a s i s f o r any  second  'acceptance/membership'  step  'creating  an  further  relationship.  organization  p l a n n i n g ' seems to r e l a t e to membership but advanced  seems  to  to Knowles' d e s i r e to ' e s t a b l i s h a c l i m a t e conducive  to a d u l t l e a r n i n g ' . and  Gibb's  in the  stage  l e a r n i n g needs and  of  for  setting objectives  seem  to  Knowles'  participative  also  'control/organization'.  acceptance  to  the  Diagnosing be  similar  more of to  'goals' where p e r s o n a l d e s i r e s and p r i o r i t i e s are made e x p l i c i t .  26  Finally  development  contracts  and  and  projects  seems  'control/organization' function. Knowles'  design of a c t i v i t i e s through l e a r n i n g  which  is  be  model  the more  participative  is  a reasonable  guide  group.  in  form  open,  personal,  models.  the  accepting  supported  and  responsive  the of  But the consciousness process  makes  of a  two  participation  most  do  'pedagogical'  choice  methods.  of Knowles' model to  collaboration.  It  is  relationship  to  not  developed planning  the  trust  the model a p p r o p r i a t e for the type of  in this  The E f f e c t s of  and  demand  than  Gibb (1964) c a l l e d a 'mature' group through  c o l l a b o r a t i o n envisaged  The  using  J u s t as Gibb (1964) r e j e c t e d 'persuasive'  operationalization  what  formation  and  wants to  approaches  claimed that the p a r a l l e l s i n d i c a t e the group c o u l d be  alone.  a  1  similarities  into  up  f o r someone who Both  t e c h n o l o g i e s , Knowles (1980) questioned  guide  setting  ' p r o f e s s i o n a l , whether t - t r a i n e r or program planner,  traditional  Such  to  These comparisons are c i t e d to i l l u s t r a t e that  b u i l d mutual t r u s t w i t h i n the that  similar  commonly  study. Participation tested  benefits  of  i n program p l a n n i n g are higher achievement  improved a t t i t u d e s towards  the  learning  activity.  learner scores Gagne  (1977) argued that there are f i v e types of l e a r n i n g outcomes: 1.Intellectual Skills-using 2. V e r b a l S k i l l s - s t a t i n g  symbols  ideas or t e l l i n g  information  3. C o g n i t i v e S t r a t e g i e s - s e l f managing of l e a r n i n g , remembering, thinking  27  Table 2 Trust and Andragogical P l a n n i n g Knowles  Gibb  Element  Andragogical Response  Stage  React ion in Group  Establishment of a c l i m a t e conducive to a d u l t l e a r n i n g  p a r t i c i p a n t s are relaxed, t r u s t i n g mood i s c o l l a b o r a t ive respectful  acceptance membership  trust, diversity  C r e a t i o n of an organization structured for participative planning  mutually by l e a r n e r s and facilitator  membership  feedback consensus potent i a l participative  D i a g n o s i s of l e a r n i n g needs  done by mutual assessment  organization goals  ego strength creativity  Formulation of established d i r e c t i o n s of by mutual learning(objectives) negotiation  goals  as above  Development of design of act i v i t i e s  control/ organization  participative form and function  control/ organization  as above  Learning c o n t r a c t s and projects  Operation of activities Rediagnosis of needs for l e a r n i n g (evaluation) From:  Knowles, 1980, p. 390 Gibb, 1964, p. 294  28  4. Motor S k i l l s - e x e c u t i n g motor 5. A t t i t u d e s - c h o o s i n g As i n d i c a t e d equate  personal  skills actions  i n column two of Table 3, past s t u d i e s  achievement  with i n t e l l e c t u a l , v e r b a l  or motor  seem to skills.  These kinds of l e a r n i n g outcomes are those most commonly by  educators so measures used to e v a l u a t e them are f a m i l i a r and  trusted matching verbal  multiple tasks.  skills  weekend  retaining and  choice Although  are g e n e r a l l y  were not i n c l u d e d the  sought  tests,  short  answer  quizzes,  or  the improvement of i n t e l l e c t u a l and a high p r i o r i t y  in  education,  i n t h i s study f o r a number of reasons.  they First,  r e t r e a t d i d not put a high p r i o r i t y on l e a r n i n g and  facts.  I t would have been very d i f f i c u l t  to  develop  v a l i d a t e a t e s t of the f a c t u a l l e a r n i n g without r e s o r t i n g to  trivialities.  Secondly,  t h i s l i n e of i n q u i r y Attitude of the weekend  there  was l i t t l e  (see Table 3,  evidence to support  'Results').  formation and change seemed  important as the g o a l s  were l a r g e l y r e l a t e d to a t t i t u d e s .  In  order  to  measure a t t i t u d e change, i t was necessary to get a more d e t a i l e d definition.  Triandis  (1971)  said  attitudes  have c o g n i t i v e ,  a f f e c t i v e , and b e h a v i o u r a l a s p e c t s : (1)COGNITIVE, p e r t a i n i n g to the ideas or propositions that express the r e l a t i o n between s i t u a t i o n s and a t t i t u d i n a l o b j e c t s (as i n 'automobiles use too much gasoline"); (2) AFFECTIVE, p e r t a i n i n g to the emotion or feeling that accompanies the idea; and (3)BEHAVIORAL, pertaining to the p r e d i s p o s i t i o n or r e a d i n e s s f o r a c t i o n (such as the a c t i o n of purchasing an automobile having a high m i l e s - p e r gallon rating) (in Gagne, 1977, p. 234).  29  Table 3 Review of O p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of Dependent V a r i a b l e s Author Rosenblum & Darkenwald (1983)  Cole & Glass (1977)  Vedros (1979) abstract  Variables  Measure  Results  Comments  achievement  multiple choice  no s i g . dif .  Random assignment  satisfaction  semant i c differential  no s i g . dif.  very high satis. both groups  achievement  tests devel. for course  s i g . d i f Pre-test counterbalanced design  retention  Retest at 1 month  no s i g . dif.  attitudes  Likert-like s c a l e s on -the course -the subject  sig, sig,  dif dif  achievement  no s i g , dif .  satisfaction  sig. dif.  Semberger (1972) abstract  sat i s f a c t ion  no s i g . dif.  McLoughlin (1971 )  achievement  no s i g .  attitude  sig.  perceived relevance  sig. dif  satisfaction  sig. d i f  Welden (1966) reported by others  Note: Because some work was r e f e r r e d to only are gaps i n the i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e  cont. n=12 exper. n=6  no random assignment  in abstract,  there  30  Although other d e f i n i t i o n s agree with the t r i p a r t i t e of  attitudes  (Aiken,  1980;  Allport,  1967;  Chisman, 1976), t h i s  consensus doesn't lead to c l e a r o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n f o r The  dilemma was  d e s c r i b e d by Cook and  nature  Selltiz  (1971)  research. who  noted  that an a t t i t u d e cannot be measured d i r e c t l y , but must always be inferred from behaviour-whether the behaviour be language in which the i n d i v i d u a l r e p o r t s h i s f e e l i n g s about the a t t i t u d e - o b j e c t , performance of a task i n v o l v i n g m a t e r i a l r e l a t e d to object (eg., r e c a l l of statements which take a p o s t i o n with respect to the o b j e c t ) , or a c t i o n s toward a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the object-class (e.g., avoidance of such an i n d i v i d u a l ) (p. 24). In  research  on p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n program planning,  usually specific a c t i v i t i e s rather  than  an  'object  a t t i t u d e s mainly satisfaction. attitudes draw  from While  unnecessarily  is  instruments  Past  reports,  evaluation  from  is  program  research has i n f e r r e d usually  measures  of  a strong component of a l l 1971),  this  type  the of  tendency measure  If measures are designed to  lessened  can  studies  (Cook  &  Selltiz,  be designed to assure  to  seems  provide  a  1971).  As  well,  that a l l three aspects  of  explored.  Unfortunately,  i t i s not always c l e a r how were designed and  examples they p r o v i d e , discriminate  only  a  from which to i n f e r a t t i t u d e s , the b i a s of each  the a t t i t u d e were  past  class'.  written  limiting.  of data  instrument  in  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  (Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum,  inferences  variety  or  the o b j e c t i s  Cole and  tested.  Glass  (1977)  instruments For  used  instance,  didn't  from  seem  to  between p r o j e c t e d behaviours "most LIKELY/UNLIKELY  to seek to o b t a i n  i n f o r m a t i o n " and  affective  evaluation  "very  31  ENJOYABLE/very UNENJOYABLE". two  tests,  area.  No  tested  one  concerning the course and  information  was  on how  reported.  of c l e a r d e f i n i t i o n and even  though  e a s i l y traced, performance. learning  that  these two  participants  there was  no  the  items the  other the  were  activity  operationalized.  6-point s c a l e s , the  were  reported  is  with  a  in  clarity,  Urdang  hospital  the  variables  were  scale.  This  choice  For  example,  same s c a l e s , McLoughlin  Although these two  of  attitudes.  apparent  that  the  carefully  made i t e a s i e r affect.  to  Through  be compared more although  (1971) t e s t e d  he  did  12 concepts measure  of  they were measuring the a f f e c t i v e  component  studies  1950s the  and  1960s,  assumed  had  tested  findings,  the  studies  l i n k between s a t i s f a c t i o n and i n the  and  contradictory  Unfortunately,  beliefs  of  Darkenwald (1983).chose a  they produced r e s u l t s which can  i s apparent that  As  follow-up to measure a c t u a l  studies  Rosenblum and  it  any  absence  employees  with semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s , thus producing a c l e a r affect.  be  (1982).  m e a n i n g f u l l y to other research. use  to  p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e , as d i d Semberger  two  differential  and  regrettable.  c l a s s t h e i r a t t i t u d e v a r i a b l e as a measure of  not  was  Welden (1966) equated p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n  Fortunately,  this  subject  developed  hypothesis  operationalization  (1972), Vedros (1979) and  semantic  these  Given  accepted or r e j e c t e d using  well,  They used s i x q u e s t i o n s in each of  reviewed f a i l e d future it  behaviour.  has  relationship  a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s to behaviour does not  to  exist  become of  investigate Contrary  to  increasingly cognitive  (Gross  &  and  Norman,  32  1975;  Lapier,  1967).  Furthermore, even when people s t a t e how  they would a c t i n a s i t u a t i o n , these modified  by the s o c i a l  Increasingly,  once given  between s i t u a t i o n s and a c t i o n s  i s past  It  conceptualize, Despite posture.  1967).  to a t t i t u d e s as 'mediators'  i s being  d i v e r t e d to  This  idea guides  i s even  argued  a  good  that  it  behaviour.  t h i s , the  both  deal  of  current  i s unnecessary  to  l e t alone measure, c o g n i t i v e or a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s . present  study  adopted  Both a f f e c t i v e and behavioural  Testing  are  c l a i m that the best p r e d i c t o r of f u t u r e behaviour  behaviour.  research.  behaviours  s i t u a t i o n (Cohen, 1967; F i s h b e i n ,  attention  Behaviourists  predicted  increased  of the treatment. discover  whether  predicted  by  the  As  a  conservative  elements were measured.  the l i k e l i h o o d of d e t e c t i n g any e f f e c t s well,  any  i t provided  observed  measure  of  an  behaviour  affect.  opportunity  differences  Measurement  to were  of  both  outcomes r e q u i r e d the development of sound instruments. HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT There  is a  lack  of  strong  evidence  t o support a l i n k  between p a r t i c i p a t i o n , s a t i s f a c t i o n and achievement.  Yet, some  writers  findings.  appear  hesitant  to  accept  their  Undoubtedly some of t h i s i s due to the human "yes,  but ...  (1971)  reiterated  a  point  literature:  members should  achieve more  commonly "logically i f they  decide on which of t h e i r needs should met"  tendency  " when pet b e l i e f s seem to be wrong.  experimental  be  own  (p. 78).  This  expressed and have  t o say, McLoughlin  in  the non-  intuitively, an  class  opportunity  be met and how they  'gut r e a c t i o n ' and o c c a s i o n a l  to  should  findings  33  (see Table 3) seem to i n d i c a t e that there may making  a  Type  abandoned  II  error  if  this  of  a  danger  of  investigation is  prematurely.  As Rosenblum and Darkenwald literature faulty  line  be  review,  design  and  (1983)  established  are  their  i t i s easy to c r i t i c i z e much r e s e a r c h f o r i t s methodology  (p. 148).  q u e s t i o n a b l e and methods o f t e n u n c l e a r . techniques  in  Research  designs are  Moreover,  o f t e n not s u f f i c i e n t l y developed  measurement  to be  reliable  on v a r i o u s p o p u l a t i o n s . T h i s study b u i l d s precedent  of  sound  on  Rosenblum  design.  and  The  ' c o l l a b o r a t i o n ' , and the dependent  Darkenwald's independent  variable,  (1983)  variable,  'attitude',  were  defined  w i t h i n t h e o r e t i c a l c o n t e x t s d i s c u s s e d i n the  literature  review.  The present study a l s o p r o v i d e d i n f o r m a t i o n  concerning  how  Knowles' a n d r a g o g i c a l model a f f e c t s a t t i t u d i n a l l e a r n i n g  a t t i t u d e towards In  the  learning.  introduction  to  this  i d e n t i f i e d as the focus of t h i s  are  paper  What c o n s t i t u t e s p a r t i c i p a t i o n  2.  Does p a r t i c i p a t i o n a f f e c t kinds  p a r t i c i p a t i o n than  of  two  q u e s t i o n s were  study.  1.  some  and  learning  i n program p l a n n i n g ? .  learning outcomes  outcomes; more  if  yes,  influenced  by  others?  A f t e r reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e  four hypotheses  were formulated.  Hypotheses A d u l t s who  participate  i n the p l a n n i n g of a l e a r n i n g  1. - w i l l have more p o s i t i v e part  i n the l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t y  f e e l i n g s and  than those who  activity:  take a more a c t i v e don't  participate.  34  2. - w i l l than  those  e v a l u a t e the who  don't  sponsoring  agency  p a r t i c i p a t e and w i l l  more  positively  take a more  active  role in i t . 3. - w i l l abilities will  express more p o s i t i v e  i n areas d e a l t  those who don't 4. - w i l l  with d u r i n g the l e a r n i n g  their  own  activity  than  participate.  take a more a c t i v e  a f t e r the a c t i v i t y  f e e l i n g s towards  than w i l l  role  in  those who don't  their  own  learning  participate.  35  CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN Campbell Design  and S t a n l e y ' s (1963) Post-Test Only C o n t r o l Group  (Design 6) was  chosen  p o r t r a y e d g r a p h i c a l l y as  for this  X  design  is  0( 1 )  R  popular  This  follows:  R  Random assignment  study.  0(2)  (R) makes Design  pretest-posttest  of  Design  6 p r e f e r a b l e to the more 4.  Design  6 i s , "greatly  underused  i n e d u c a t i o n a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l  Kerlinger  (1964) says that t h i s design and i t s v a r i a n t s , are the  'best'  designs  education" internal  available  (p. 303).  One  for  experimental  (p. 26).  purposes i n  commendable q u a l i t y of Design 6 i s i t s  validity. Internal  Randomization because  most  research"  of  was  Validity  particularly  important  in  this  study  a danger of contamination of the c o n t r o l group by a  design i n v o l v i n g a p r e t e s t .  As  i t would have been necessary  to  acquaint the c o n t r o l group with the o b j e c t i v e s and a c t i v i t i e s i n order to p r e t e s t them, they would, i n f a c t have r e c e i v e d p a r t of the  treatment  (X).  It  was  contamination by choosing the random to  assignment.  validity:  regression, effects.  Design  p o s s i b l e to a v o i d t h i s source of stronger  design  which  included  6 controls for a l l internal threats  history,  maturation,  selection,  mortality  testing, and  instrumentation,  interaction  of  these  H i s t o r y and maturation are c o n t r o l l e d because the time  36  elapsed between effect  the  treatment  and  measurement  are the same f o r both groups.  of  the measured outcomes.  affect  the  avoided.  selection  Randomization  as  different  there  takes  i s no  well,  are  treatment, The external  to  believe  and a  mortality i s  Design testing  the  6  Validity  c o n t r o l s f o r e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s such as  and  treatment.  possibility  of  The  only  points  of  i n t e r a c t i o n of s e l e c t i o n and  and p o t e n t i a l r e a c t i v e arrangements.  i n t e r a c t i o n of s e l e c t i o n and treatment validity  of  this  study.  be made.  T h i s study  undeveloped  no g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s  in planning.  Because t h i s  is  area of r e s e a r c h , r e s u l t s which can,  with c o n f i d e n c e , be t r a n s l a t e d to  the  still  assignment  unattainable.  the  i s designed t o i n v e s t i g a t e the nature  i m p l i c a t i o n s of c o l l a b o r a t i o n relatively  diminishes  The p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e q u i t e  a t y p i c a l of the general a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n so will  regarding  f o r the two groups.  i n t e r a c t i o n of concern  or  instrument  care of concerns  reason  External As  nature  As w e l l , because there i s  no p r e t e s t the problems of r e g r e s s i o n on the outcome are  treatment  The lack of p r e t e s t means  that t e s t i n g and i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n do not magnitude  of  Random  field  of  practice  without  recruitment serves to assure the equivalence of the two  are  random groups,  but not t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s of l a r g e r p o p u l a t i o n s . The to of is  second  p o t e n t i a l problem  ' r e a c t i v e arrangements'  the e f f e c t s on a study where there i s , "patent the experimental participating  refers  artificiality  s e t t i n g and the student's knowledge that in  an experiment"  (Campbell  he  & S t a n l e y , 1963,  37  p.  20).  This  factor  Randomization brought how  together.  they  were  measurements most  and  the  were  not being  behaviour  was  were  during  identical  seem  knew  evaluated;  evaluated affected.  there  the group  i n no  way  that  what  various  reason  to  For  extended  process  experience.  a s i t was made  i s no  first  preparation past  and the  groups.  their  they  As  so well,  knew  aspects clear  was  affected  activity  f o r t h e two was  study.  before  consistent with  Participants  being  with  present  learning  retreat  not c l a s h  the  study  the  organization's  would  in  effected  of t h i s  t h e weekend  would  organization.  part  were  the  collaboration  weekend were  treated  of e f f e c t  'collaboration' such  Being  with  not important  treatment  participants  experience  was  of the  that  believe  of  they their  38  CHAPTER 4 INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT Developing a It  i s unusual  Treatment  f o r a study t o develop an instrument to be  used as a treatment as w e l l as a measure Usually  the  treatment  other phenomenon. what  is a  treatment.  program, i n s t r u c t o r behaviour or  But, because of a lack of c l a r i t y  constitutes participation,  that the treatment  concerning  i t was necessary to demonstrate  r e a l l y was c o l l a b o r a t i o n  Needs assessment and v e r i f i c a t i o n this  f o r that  i n program p l a n n i n g .  instruments were developed f o r  purpose. In the l i t e r a t u r e review  mutual  effort  to  create  ' c o l l a b o r a t i o n ' was d e f i n e d  a  program.  phase  three-page treated  process.  In  the  needs assessment group.  When  first,  (Appendix  learners.  group. the  1C)  a  to each member of the  a l l assessments  She phoned each p a r t i c i p a n t  The phone c a l l was designed to  were  returned, priorities  the of  i n the c o l l a b o r a t i n g  assure  participants  in  c o l l a b o r a t i n g group that t h e i r responses had been r e c e i v e d ,  a p p r e c i a t e d , and acted on. add  as  the r e s e a r c h e r sent out a  researcher t r i e d to respond t o the i n t e r e s t s and the  a  In order to capture'the  'mutuality' of the p l a n n i n g , ' c o l l a b o r a t i o n ' was designed two  as  to  and  an  opportunity  c l a r i f y other p o i n t s and ask q u e s t i o n s .  stage process helped participative congruent  As w e l l , i t was  with  'create  planning' volunteer  as  an  organization  Knowles  orientation  d e s c r i b e d i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n .  suggested. of  CUSO  to  T h i s two-  structured  for  A l s o , i t was organization  39  Table Collaboration  4  and Program  Planning  Knowles  This  Study  Element  Andragogical Response  Establishment of a climate conducive to adult l e a r n i n g  participants are informal, r e l a x e d , t r u s t i n g open t o mood i s suggestions respectful value past collaborative learning ( p a r t 4)  C r e a t i o n o f an organization structured for participative planning  mutually by l e a r n e r s and fac i 1 i t a t o r  *Two p a r t invitation ( p a r t 5)  Diagnosis of l e a r n i n g needs  done by mutual assessment  assess understanding o-f i s s u e s ( p a r t 1)  relate individual and group needs ( P t s . 2 , 3)  Formulation of d i r e c t i o n s of learning(objectives)  established by m u t u a l negotiation  priorization of issues ( p a r t 2)  relate individual and group needs ( P t s . 4 , 5)  Development design of activities  Learning contracts projects  choice of techniques ( p a r t 3)  explained planning process ( P t s . 5 , 6)  Operation  of  of  and  activities  Needs Assessment  NOT  PART OF  Follow-up Points  appreciate response, r e m a r k on individual response (Pts.1,8) process* chance for input (Pt.7)  TREATMENT  R e d i a g n o s i s of needs f o r learning(evaluation)  From:  Knowles,  1980, p .  390  40  Table  4 summarises  model  were  reflect mutual Needs The  office  stage  felt  their  perceived  conceivably  corresponds to  one item  As  with  second  hours  o f time  various the  left  of  through  mutual  and i t s  participant  Part  task,  the would  asked  This  to rate, own  'diagnosis  a  six  understanding  and  a  understanding  other  t h e head  the pre-orientation  gave  could  which  measure of  have  on  the  issues. most o r  This  of l e a r n i n g needs' The  of the  satisfied  activities.  assessment.  1C).  step  which i s  following  example  scale.  oTSETSJo  SSSKr.-  1™"*,  »r,  w i n >  m  »T,,r,n>  2  participants  available  issues. of  together,  (Appendix  issues  their  applicant  Knowles'  Assessment:  a  seemed t o  product.  during  were  '. Tour m o t i v a t i o n f o r g o i n g o v e r s e a s w i t h CUSO.  Needs  process  inquiry  nine  be c o v e r e d  status the  through  written  objectives.  needs  to  be d o n e  shows  the  their  andragogical  working  o f an end  listed  satisfaction  applicants  of  page  participants  of  none  This  collaboration:  document  should  knowledge  Quite  procedure.  of  was a t h r e e  At f i r s t ,  scale,  of Knowles'  Part 1  of this  o f CUSO  weekend.-  in this  points  and the development  Assessment:  one  the other  elements  respect  Section  point  reflected  three  first  how  were  f o r t h e weekend  The p a r t i c i p a n t s item.  asked  The  apportion  the eighteen  and a p p o r t i o n  wrote  previous  '4' h o u r s  t o take  i n a number example  t o an  issue.  i t to  the  of hours t o  shows This  how  a  method  41  was  used to p r i o r i z e the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s  according  to  the  applicants'  aims  needs.  for  the  weekend  Thus a person c o u l d  somewhat u n s a t i s f i e d with h i s / h e r knowledge about a s u b j e c t , still the  not want to give i t much time on the weekend. aims  was  identified  by  notion t h a t , experience  of  to meet i n d i v i d u a l needs, t h i s method allowed  the  the o r g a n i z a t i o n . "learners  to  be  perceive  their goals"  t h e r e f o r e , a process (objectives)'  but  one  a p p l i c a n t to g i v e a heavy weighting  of  As  be  to issues other T h i s process the  goals  than  those  stemmed from the of  (Knowles, 1980,  the  learning  p. 57).  'formulation of d i r e c t i o n s  of  It i s , learning  through mutual n e g o t i a t i o n .  Needs Assessment: Part 3 The  second page showed a l i s t  be  used  on  the  weekend.  of p o s s i b l e techniques  which c o u l d  P a r t i c i p a n t s were given  18 hours to  d i s t r i b u t e among the v a r i o u s a c t i v i t i e s . was  The  of  activities  generated by searching CUSO f i l e s which d e s c r i b e d  techniques  used across Canada during p r e - o r i e n t a t i o n s and Knowles (1980, p. 239).  The  with  right  a  space  to  the  suggested number of hours. be  possible  The  list  l i s t s provided  activities  of each a c t i v i t y  were  by  listed  to write in the  t o t a l at the bottom was  noted to  18 hours.  Needs Assessment: Part 4 The  t h i r d page was  resources  the  a skill  applicant  inventory to  discover  could  to the group.  bring  prompted by the  idea that in s u p e r i o r  "the  process  learning  experience  is  related  conditions to  and  of the l e a r n e r s " (Knowles, 1980,  strengths  of  makes  p. 50).  This  or was  learning, use of The  the  section  42  said: I'm a l s o i n t e r e s t e d i n the s k i l l s you have. Please o u t l i n e experience, knowledge and s k i l l s you can share with the group: eg; motorcycle c a r e , t r a v e l l i n g with allergies, being a western woman i n non-western c u l t u r e s , f i t n e s s t i p s . ? . ? . ? Don't be humble; we need you. The to  question the e f f o r t  was  followed by a two  inch space.  It contributed  to b u i l d a 'climate conducive to a d u l t  learning'.  Needs Assessment: Part 5 As w e l l , an open-ended i n v i t a t i o n  f o r suggestions was  included:  Send i n your comments as soon as p o s s i b l e , I hope that the " r o y a l we" of these l e t t e r s will soon become a real "we" as p a r t i c i p a n t s , R.V.'s and s t a f f become a c t i v e i n the planning p r o c e s s . I know i t ' s hard to 'put a number' on these things, but i t ' s the e a s i e s t way to balance input from a number of people. Feel free to add comments or questions. Follow-up The  second  part  of  the  treatment  was  a  approximately two to three weeks a f t e r the treatment  was  mailed.  All  call  comparison  included to  certain  first  part  of  call the  a p p l i c a n t s telephoned had a l r e a d y  returned t h e i r responses to the f i r s t part Each  telephone  basic  of  points  the (see  treatment. Table  4 for  Knowles).  The r e s e a r c h e r : 1. acknowledged r e c e i p t filling 2  of  and  thanked  the  participant  for  out the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  noted  areas  of  response  that  were i n common with others  (mutuality, r e s p e c t ) 3. noted assessment  areas  of  response  of l e a r n i n g needs)  unique  to  individual  (mutual  43  4. e x p l a i n e d  the  relationship  i n d i v i d u a l ' s responses 5. c l a r i f i e d  (mutual  between  the  agenda  and the  n e g o t i a t i o n of o b j e c t i v e s )  u n c e r t a i n t i e s r e g a r d i n g what couldn't and  wouldn't  happen (development of l e a r n i n g c o n t r a c t s ) 6.  discussed  any  special  i n d i v i d u a l ' s request 7. asked  circumstances  (trusting, collaborative)  i f he/she had any other thoughts  questionnaire 8. c l o s e d  as a p p r o p r i a t e to the  s i n c e sending  i n the  (respectful, collaborative)  with  thanks  and  'looking  forward  to  seeing you'  (relaxed, r e s p e c t f u l ) T h i s two-part make  sure  i n t e r a c t i v e process was deemed  participants  w r i t t e n document were process,  were  read,  particularly  aware  that  understood  not have been c l e a r without  their  and  the implementation  necessary  ideas on the  acted  on.  of suggestions, might  Outcome Measures  The p a r t i c i p a n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward the l e a r n i n g sponsoring  behaviour  agency,  as  well  as  to  were c e n t r a l to t h i s r e s e a r c h .  measures,  an  effort  was  made  to  a f f e c t i v e and b e h a v i o u r a l  aspects  research  with  was  combined  e v a l u a t i o n , i t was necessary instruments  participants  This  the phone c a l l .  Developing  and  to  the  to l i m i t  were  asked  l e a r n i n g and  In developing  relate  of  future  activities  outcome  them to c o g n i t i v e ,  attitude.  sponsoring  Because  the  organization's  the number and to complete.  length  of  'Evaluation  f a t i g u e ' l e a d i n g to c a r e l e s s n e s s or incompletion was a concern. It was decided that the most important this  study  aspects of  were ' a f f e c t ' and 'behaviour'.  attitude  for  As a r e s u l t no part  44  of  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e sought the ' c o g n i t i v e ' a s p e c t . The  'affect'  reaction,  and  participants components  aspect  feelings. to  of  the  during  the  behaviour  than  is  Gagne  what  satisfaction  As  component  weekend,  focussed  emotional  with  w e l l , semantic  asked  various  differentials  concepts. was  individual  s t a f f , as w e l l as planned study  their  weekend.  behavioural  evaluation,  To measure ' a f f e c t ' , t h i s study  evaluate  measured r a t i n g s of key The  reflects  measured  contribution  i s u s u a l l y the case. calls,  helpfulness  as p e r c e i v e d by  and a c t u a l follow-ups.  on a p a r t i c u l a r event,  (1977)  as  Because  this  i t was e a s i e r to measure  The  behavioural  component  "the most i l l u m i n a t i n g f e a t u r e "  (p.242) of a t t i t u d e , so r e c e i v e d c o n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n .  As the  other measures have t r a d i t i o n a l l y t r i e d to i n f e r behaviour 'cognitive'  or  'affective'  develop measures of a c t u a l As o u t l i n e d ' i n effect  were  Table  (Appendix 3) which was  5,  several  The part  first of  the  weekend.  One  was  an  o p t i o n a l group a c t i v i t i e s ; volunteered estimation members  measures  of  evaluation  to of  help.  The  participant  (Appendix  5).  on  observation the  The  other  fourth  completed Two  observations of  was  a  measure  during  of  in who  was a magnitude  completed  measure  by  others  participation  instrument  contribution fifth  treatment  was a w r i t t e n s e l f - r e p o r t  at the end of the r e s i d e n t i a l weekend.  were completed by the researcher based the  i t seemed worthwhile t o  behaviour.  developed.  participants  response,  from  was  by  staff  completed by  t e l e p h o n i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s to d i s c o v e r what type of follow-up  they  45  had  done.  The  f o l l o w i n g i s a more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n  of these instruments and Written  Self-Report  The  main  behavioural  a d e s c r i p t i o n of how  instrument  aspects  written  the  to  put  developed.  of  used for measuring the a f f e c t i v e and attitude  was  a  written  evaluation  of the weekend.  participant-response  spread over nine pages plus a cover. asked  each  Instrument  (Appendix 3) done near the end The  i t was  of  instrument had  six parts  Because p a r t i c i p a n t s  t h e i r names on the e v a l u a t i o n ,  the cover  were  included  f o l l o w i n g statement: I understand that this evaluation i s designed to evaluate the program and NOT me or my involvement. I understand my name i s r e q u i r e d to help i n t h i s process but that nothing I w r i t e i n i t w i l l a f f e c t my p o s i t i o n in CUSO or my p o s t i n g .  As w e l l , i n accordance with U.B.C.'s p o l i c y regarding human  subjects,  needed, how  p a r t i c i p a n t s were t o l d why  i t would be used and  available.  In  addition,  p a r t i c i p a t i o n was  where  they  appreciated  but  were  not  the  the  t e s t i n g of  information  results  reminded  would that  was be  their  required. .  S a t i s f a c t i o n with content The  f i r s t page of the e v a l u a t i o n  asked p a r t i c i p a n t s to r a t e  the weekend's c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h e i r knowledge and of  issues  considered  identified  Therefore,  the o r g a n i z a t i o n .  to be o b j e c t i v e s by the  behaviourally generalized  by  defined. feelings  it  was  But or  decided  they  reactions  understanding  These i s s u e s were  organization  but  were  were q u i t e adequate f o r needed  for  this  not  justifable.  the  study.  that the e f f o r t needed to turn  i s s u e areas i n t o o b j e c t i v e s was  not  these  46  Table 5 Summary of Measures of Dependent V a r i a b l e s Instrument  Variable Measured  Completed by  Affect(Written Self-report  Instrument)  Nine 6-point scales  satisfaction with coverage of i s s u e s  participants, resource people  Semantic Differential Scales  evaluation of three concepts  participants, resource people  F i v e 5-point scales  logistics  participants, resource people  Twenty 6-point scales  satisfaction •with a c t i v i t i e s  participants, resource people  Nine yes/no items  planned follow-up  part i c i p a n t s  Behaviour(4 Separate  Instruments)  4-point checklist  affinity to group  researcher  Record names  helpfulness  researcher  Magnitude estimation  p a r t i c ipant contribution  2 CUSO staff  Telephone call  actual follow-up  researcher i n conversat ion with p a r t i c i p a n t s  p a r t i c i p a n t s = c o n t r o l and t r e a t e d  groups  47  Each type  of  scale.  nine  i s s u e s was  Here  i s one  8. Development Canada and World.  This the  gave  a  weekend  the T h i r d  ^  dealt  of  Semantic The  recommended  (Aiken,  1980;  aggregated  Thus,  responses  scale.  At or  component scales.  i n the  Osgood,  third  page  Suci  was  an  differentials  these  three  pairs  and  of  pages.  the  to  compare  scale  the  were  imwin  with  the  items  the  the  were The  over  internally of  way  scores.  (summed  bottom  explain  urnrits  nine  consistent  page  was  an  responses.  differential  highly  semantic  in order  this  differential  The  ™  UTiirito  Individual  make c o m m e n t s  affective  semantic  oiuntiriB  issues.  for  to  Likert-  X~~.T  m t m A T  the  alpha  aggregated  ,  satisfaction  with  .93.  ATTl  oiiufiinn  general  coefficient  opportunity  six-point  their  subgroups  the  ^,  91 linn into  into  within  a  issues in  measure  was  on  example.  aggregated  issues)  evaluated  pages a  Choosing Because  space For the of  page a  Concepts the  important  to  ensure  concepts  (things to  that be  instruments  were  chosen  hypotheses.  The  first  to  in  used  as  measure  to  and  list  three  i t of  3,  f i l l  six.  of  Figure  the  was  affect  in  On  16  pages  the  each  of  adjectives  1 represents  'AS  study, had  i n the  represent  concept  a  how  Appendix  instruments  rated)  chosen  by  one  100-102.  Scales  'n'  the  a  measured  1957).  five  comments.  and  small  four,  see  as  of  concept,  others  was  literature  explanation  was  was  means  & Tannenbaum,  for other the  attitude  This  the  on  there  of  A  three  face  i t  validity.  semantic ideas  was  very The  differential  found  D E V E L O P M E N T AGENCY  in CUSO  the  48  Figure 1 Example of Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l  Sr»i»  AS A CUSO VOLUNTEER I AM  passive useless unqualified unreliable inert  _  active  _  useful qualified reliable dynamic  unimportant . important incompetent . competent insensitive sensitive stagnant innovative insignificant . significant incapable capable intolerant tolerant unsuitable suitable uncooperative cooperative ineffective effective rigid  Any other comments?  flexible  49  IS  ...  '  served  as an i n d i c a t o r f o r hypothesis two regarding  p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s towards the sponsoring ORIENTATION  THIS  WEEKEND  a c t i v i t y mentioned i n  WAS  ...  hypothesis  '  one.  agency.  'AS  A  PRE-  evaluated  the l e a r n i n g  Finally,  'AS  A  CUSO  VOLUNTEER I AM ...  .' gave an idea of how the p a r t i c i p a n t s f e l t  about  within  their  role  t e s t hypothesis three. subjects  the o r g a n i z a t i o n  The concepts  for participants  to  and thus was used t o  seemed  respond  to  to  be  after  reasonable the weekend  retreat. To  find  involving  scales  several  wide range  of  adjectives  the  included  interview  measure  was undertaken.  literature  organization  fundraising  guide and o t h e r s .  generated.  Pairs  characteristics search  describe  steps  for this  was  used  done to  done  pamphlets, A list  which  to  describe  establish  an a t t r i b u t e .  antonyms  discover  which  itself.  These  recruiting 80  to  and  adjectives  was  similar  were grouped  and  the best p a i r s t o  Rogets Thesaurus (Lewis, 1971)  Roget D i c t i o n a r y or Synonyms and Antonyms  (Sylvester  1940) were the two sources used.  increased  T h i s step  project  literature,  describe  (eg. s e l f - r e l i a n t / a u t o n o m o u s ) to  process  principles,  of some  seemed  a  F i r s t , a review of a  i t s development c h a r t e r , o p e r a t i n g  descriptions,  a  CUSO  suitable  and  The  Mawson, the  total  to some 200 p a i r s . The  researcher  represented  the main  'activity' dynamic/inert,  were  narrowed ideas.  the l i s t For  first  energetic/lazy,  down to 33 s c a l e s which  example,  identified  pairs  related  and  innovative/stagnant,  to  grouped:  50  participative/nonparticipative,  active/inactive,  promoting/change-discouraging , dynamic/stagnant, stimulating/boring. representative  of  Pairs the  change-  active/passive,  judged by the r e s e a r c h e r t o be most  literature,  easily  understood  a p p l i c a b l e to the concept were r e t a i n e d f o r the next  and  phase.  T e s t i n g c o n c e p t / s c a l e relevance A  group of s i x r e t u r n e d CUSO cooperants were then asked to  assess the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the 33 p a i r s . chosen  as  judges  These  people  were  as t h e i r experience with the o r g a n i z a t i o n i n  Canada and overseas gave them a broad knowledge of the s u b j e c t . As w e l l , t h e i r  personal  characteristics  probably make them comparable given  three  checklists  and  reactions  to the a p p l i c a n t s .  would  Each judge was  s t a p l e d together (Appendix  6 ) . On the  top of each page was one of the t h r e e . c o n c e p t s which were to be rated.  Below  each  concept  arranged i n columns of 12. three  boxes  labelled  were  boxes  Beside each  YES / ? / NO.  numbered 1 to 36 and  number  was  a  s e t of  The nature and purpose of  the task was e x p l a i n e d to the judges who then experimented  with  three  They  trial  pairs  which weren't  were asked to judge, "Whether someone  to  emphasized  describe  CUSO  included  these as  a  words  i n the sample. could  development  be  used  agency".  by  I t was  that t h e i r task was not to r a t e CUSO, but t o e v a l u a t e  the u s e f u l n e s s or relevance of the s c a l e to d e s c r i b e the o b j e c t . All  judges had seen semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s  time  i n the p a s t .  By the  the examples had been read, the judges i n d i c a t e d they were  ready. The r e s e a r c h e r h e l d a p i e c e of e i g h t and a h a l f  by  eleven  51  paper  with  the  first  p a i r w r i t t e n h o r i z o n t a l l y a c r o s s i t with  three dots between the words. The number '1' was w r i t t e n The  'IMPORTANT  ...  UNIMPORTANT'.  i n the top r i g h t corner and c i r c l e d .  r e s e a r c h e r h e l d i t up, and read i t out as f o l l o w s . Unimportant [pause] important. Could those words, or some p o i n t between those two words be used to d e s c r i b e CUSO as a development agency? That's number one.  The group seemed to almost  have  immediately.  prompting  little  problem  ticking  a  The researcher went through the 33 p a i r s ,  the judges with v a r i o u s p h r a s i n g s of the q u e s t i o n they  should be a s k i n g themselves about every f i v e p a i r s . had  reaction  finished  After  they  "CUSO AS A DEVELOPMENT AGENCY", the same procedure  was repeated f o r each of the other concepts. A f t e r a l l three were completed, first  page  together  exercise.  Finally,  adequately  described  was m i s s i n g .  orally, they  giving  were  the  the  group  their  asked  if  over  the.  impressions of the those  adjectives  statement concepts or i f a dimension  A number of words were suggested, but few had the  polarity  needed f o r a semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l .  suggested  'over-staffed  over-funded'.  went  ...  For example, they  u n d e r s t a f f e d ' and 'underfunded ...  These c o u l d be used to d e s c r i b e the  organization  but don't have c l e a r p o s i t i v e and negative p o l e s . The rejected left  judges r a t i n g s were then reviewed.  A l l adjective  pairs  or q u e s t i o n e d by even one judge were e l i m i n a t e d .  This  21 a d j e c t i v e p a i r s f o r 'AS A DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CUSO IS ...  and 32 p a i r s f o r 'AS A CUSO VOLUNTEER I AM ... elimination  of  synonyms  by  '.  A  further  the r e s e a r c h e r brought the number  down to 16 s c a l e s f o r each concept, s t i l l  trying  to  represent  52  the for  main  groupings  of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  'AS A PRE-ORIENTATION THIS  apparent  that  the  applicability Therefore  to  c o n s t r a i n t s made i t impossible  to  call  was  was  '.  had much higher  than  to  new  the  I t was  events.  pairs.  judges  Time  together  than develop and t e s t t o t a l l y new p a i r s , i t  decided t o supplement the l i s t  were approved.  ...  organizations develop  rather  11 p a i r s remained  selected  to  So  was  or  pairs  WAS  necessary  again.  it  WEEKEND  adjective  people  Only  with synonyms of p a i r s  As the o b j e c t of using the semantic  which  differential  t o get a measure of p o s i t i v e n e s s , not to e v a l u a t e a l l f a c e t s  of the weekend, t h i s compromise seemed a c c e p t a b l e . As  presented  priori  i n Table 6, p a i r s seemed to group i n t o four a  categories  analytic  which  procedure.  were  later  The f i r s t  checked  concerned  group  was  qualities  or  characteristics: The  fourth  incompetent/competent; e f f i c i e n t / i n e f f i c i e n t .  The  Value Activity Quality Competence  third  competence:  These groups were  weightings.  Table 6 A Priori  value or  intolerant/tolerant;  indicated  i n each set but with d i f f e r e n t  factor  The second gauged  i n a c t i v e / a c t i v e ; stagnant/innovative.  uncooperative/cooperative.  represented  a  the concepts  worth: u s e f u l / u s e l e s s ; unimportant/important. its activity:  with  Factors  CUSO  Weekend  3 3 7 3  4 3 5 4  Volunteer 3 3 6 4  53  The  scales  numbers.  were  ordered  Internal  of a d j e c t i v e  judging process appeared factors  similar  groupings.  of  a i d of a t a b l e of random f a c t o r were randomly  pairs.  validity  semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l  (i.e.  the  S c a l e s r e p r e s e n t i n g each a p r i o r i  p l a c e d i n the l i s t  The  with  to  s c a l e - p a i r s that  from  this  r e l e v a n t to the concepts and broke  those  In an attempt  resulted  conceptualized  in  the  a  into  priori  to develop c r i t e r i a f o r - s c a l e  scoring  summing over r e l a t e d s c a l e s ) to f a c i l i t a t e the comparison  treated  and  untreated  participants,  data d e r i v e d from 16  s c a l e r a t i n g s of 'AS A DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CUSO IS inter-correlated,  then  factor  analyzed.  by people at the CUSO weekend were  analysis  which  repeated  f o r each  '  Thirty-seven  completed  was  ...  entered  of  into  were forms the  the remaining two  concepts. The three  judging process had produced  concepts.  Some  more of the concepts. similarities,  were  different  scales  f o r the  i n common and used to r a t e two or  Because the  differences  outweighed  the  r a t i n g s of each concept were f a c t o r e d s e p a r a t e l y .  Thus, i n the r e s u l t s that  f o l l o w , there i s no attempt  to compare  the s t r u c t u r e found f o r one concept with that f o r another. Factor LoadingsTable for  7 shows items and l o a d i n g s a f t e r orthogonal r o t a t i o n  r a t i n g s of 'AS A DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CUSO IS".  f a c t o r s emerged. of  'CUSO IS'  seven  clear  The f i r s t , an ' e v a l u a t i o n ' f a c t o r was composed  items with l o a d i n g s that ranged  low of .50.  Three  from a high t o .86 to a  The items on t h i s f a c t o r were almost  pure  54  Table 7 F a c t o r A n a l y s i s : CUSO IS Factor 1 Factor 2 'Flex.' 'Eval.'  I terns  Alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s  .80  incapable/capable incompetent/competent useful/useless non-exploitive/exploitive unimportant/important i n s i g n i f i c a n t / s i g n i f icant i rresponsible/responsible  .86* .85* .82* .78* .74* .69* .50*  stagnant/innovat ive unfair/fair intolerant/tolerant noncooperat ive/cooper. dependent/independent rigid/flexible inefficient/efficient inert/dynamic inactive/active  Percentage of accounted f o r  variance  Percentage of cumulative v a r i a n c e accounted f o r  .23 .32 .28 .25 -.08 .44 .17 .15 .51  .78 .26 -.10 .30 .33 .21 .28 .38 .73* .72* .70* .70* .61* .54* .06 .1 1 .08  49.0  10.9  49.0  59.9  Factor 3 'Activ' .64 .26 .21 .1 1 .07 .28 .42 .36 .37 .05 -.02 .46 -.02 .29 .81* .76* .65*  8.4 68.0  55  'evaluation'  i n that most had high l o a d i n g s on only t h i s  'Evaluation'  was - o b v i o u s l y an important  as i t accounted f o r 49 percent  aspect of t h i s  of  f a c t o r was concerned  'flexibility' any  of l o a d i n g s with  .54 and a high of .73 on the s i x items  'flexibility'  other  of  CUSO.  factor.  concept  of the v a r i a n c e .  The second f a c t o r had a narrower spread low  factor.  Again,  with  a  i t grouped.  The  'cooperativeness'  and  no s c a l e loaded to even .50 on  ' F l e x i b i l i t y ' accounted f o r 10.9  percent  of  the v a r i a n c e . 'Activity'  was the t h i r d f a c t o r  i d e n t i f i e d f o r 'CUSO IS'.  Loadings ranged from .65 to .81 f o r the three s c a l e s for t h i s f a c t o r which accounted f o r 8.4 percent These  three  factors  'evaluation',  ' a c t i v i t y ' accounted f o r 68 concept  'CUSO  projected factors  in  percent  I S ' . Although the  a  priori  of  of the v a r i a n c e .  'adaptability'  the  variance  was  conceptualization,  e v i d e n t as p r e d i c t e d .  renamed ' f l e x i b i l i t y '  as t h i s  and  i n the  the s c a l e s d i d not always load as  'value' and 'competetence' were present  'Activity'  identified  seemed  the  in 'evaluation'.  The ' q u a l i t y ' to  projected  better  f a c t o r was  describe  the  q u a l i t i e s which emerged. F a c t o r loadings-'WEEKEND WAS' Four  f a c t o r s emerged from an a n a l y s i s of the concept,"AS A  PRE-ORIENTATION THIS WEEKEND WAS Table 8 the most important, of  the  ".  As  can  be  seen  on  a c t i v i t y , accounted f o r 44.5 percent  v a r i a n c e and i n c l u d e d s i x items with a low of .62 and a  high of .91. fairly  ...  A review  of the l o a d i n g s i n d i c a t e d that t h i s was a  strong f a c t o r vaguely  l i n k e d to the t h i r d  factor  56  Table 8 Factor  A n a l y s i s : WEEKEND WAS  Items Alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s inactive/active insignificant/significant unimportant/important unaware/aware d u l l / i n t e r e s t ing humdrum/exc i t i ng inconsistent/consistent confusing/en1ightening sluggish/energetic unorganized/organized inefficient/efficient i n c o n s i s t a n t / c o n s i stant purposeless/purposeful useless/useful worthless/valuable discouraging/encouraging boring/stimulating  Percentage of v a r i a n c e accounted f o r Percentage of cumulative variance accounted f o r  Factor 3 Factor 'Encour 'Organ'  Factor 1 Factor 2 'Activ' 'Eval' .93. . 9 1 *  .89* .86* .81* .78* .71* .62* .18 .18 .1 6 .04 .54 .1 2 .49 -.02 .27 .43  44.5  .77  .76  .12 -.06 -.01 .23 -.00 .45 .57  .58  -.08 .36 .36 -.07 .33 .22 .03  -.06 -.04 .17 .35 .39 .30 .08  -.08 -.08 ' .01 .08 .1 1  .23 -.30 -.10 -.17 .10  .09 -.10 .36  .85* .68* .63*  -.00 .24 .56  -.13. .35  .06 .31  .83* .83* .81* .70* .63*  18.0  .82* .61*  11.0  6.7  73.4  80. 1  •  44.5  62.5  57  'evaluation'.  As w e l l , two  second f a c t o r .  items loaded more than  These l o a d i n g s were perhaps due  an a c t i v e weekend i s a good The .63 and 18  second f a c t o r was a high of  percent  of  .83. the  .40  on  the  to the idea that  one. comprised of four p a i r s with a low  This  of  ' o r g a n i z a t i o n ' f a c t o r accounted f o r  variance  and  seemed  to be a f a i r l y pure  factor. The to  third  .85  f a c t o r grouped three  which  seemed  items with  to i s o l a t e an  loadings  of  'evaluation' factor.  .63 With  strong l o a d i n g s on u s e f u l , p u r p o s e f u l , and v a l u a b l e , t h i s f a c t o r was  p r e d i c t e d in  percent  of the  The  the  proposed  schema  and  accounted  for  11  variance.  fourth  factor  discouraging/encouraging accounted f o r only 6.7  contained  (.82) percent  and  only  two  boring/stimulating  of the v a r i a n c e and  items:  (.61).  was  It  labelled  'encouragement'. These four f a c t o r s ' a c t i v i t y ' , and  'evaluation', 'organization'  'encouragement' accounted f o r a t o t a l of 80.1  variance.  As  untested  by  ability  to  discussed e a r l i e r ,  judges, develop  so there had  been  levels  Factor The  some  concern  about  s u f f i c i e n t l y d e s c r i p t i v e items.  1  (see Table  loadings-'I  of  the  f i v e items i n t h i s s c a l e were  the high l o a d i n g s i n c r e a s e d confidence the alpha  percent  in the  Therefore  instrument  as  8).  AM'  t h i r d semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l concept was,  'AS  the  A CUSO  did  58  Table  9  Factor A n a l y s i s : I I terns  Alpha  AM  Factor 1 F a c t o r 2 'Suiti' 'Evalu'  coefficients  .88  .73  Factor 3 Factor Flexi' 'Activ* 1  .82  unreliable/reliable incapable/capable unsuitable/suitable intolerant/tolerant uncooperat i v e / c o o p e r a t i v e insignificant/significant useless/useful unimportant/important  .81* .72* .71* .69* .69* .62* .57* .57*  .01 .17 .43 .13 .35 .26 .44 .38  .1 1 .19 -.04 .31 .31 .05 .34 .02  unquali f i e d / q u a l i f i e d insensitive/sensitive incompetent/competent ineffective/effective  .06 .36 .46 .41  .85* .63* .62* .44*  .19 -.01 .28 -.15  rigid/flexible inert/dynamic stagnant/innovat ive  .13 .25 .04  .05 .1 1 .51  .80* .74* .54*  p a s s i v e / a c t ive  .10  .13  .26  Percentage of v a r i a n c e accounted f o r  46.8  9.6  7.3  Percentage of cumulative v a r i a n c e accounted f o r  46.8  56.4  63.7  —  .12 .33 .03 .17 -.28 .59 .23 .47 .04 .24 .16 .33 -.01 .42 .41 .74*  6.5 70.2  59  VOLUNTEER  I  (Table 9).  AM The  ...  '.  The  f i r s t accounted  f o r 46.8  and grouped 8 of the 16 items. .81 the  and  formed the  'worth' concept  'character' whether  items.  s c a l e s broke i n t o four f a c t o r s  I t s l o a d i n g s ranged  'suitability' suggested  percent of the v a r i a n c e  factor.  had  i n the a p r i o r i  the  .57  to  I t seemed to combine groupings with the  In other words, i t seemed  participants  from  an  characteristics  indicator to  of  be  a good  Four  factors  cooperants. The  second  f a c t o r was  had  l o a d i n g s ranging from  low  .60's.  .59  on  Two  the  concerned  an  'evaluation' factor.  .44 to .85, with the middle  f a c t o r s with low  'suitability' with  two  i n the  l o a d i n g s a l s o loaded at .47  factor.  professional  This  second  factor  qualifications  e f f e c t i v e , q u a l i f i e d ) while the f i r s t  was  and was  (competent,  concerned  with a  more  general p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . 'Flexibility', l o a d i n g s of  .54  variance.  It  the  to  third  .80  seemed  f a c t o r , grouped three items  and  accounted  items i n  and  t h i s case  It  is  it  considerably  unusual  seemed more  important  factor  scrambled  in  of  with  The  i s c l e a r when the  f o r t i e s on the  weakest  'activity'  to leave a s i n g l e item f a c t o r , but i n  advisable  Because the s i n g l e - i t e m  'activity'  'flexibility'  l o a d i n g s a l s o have l o a d i n g s i n the low factor.  percent  item with a l o a d i n g of .74.  interconnectedness of ' f l e x i b i l i t y ' note that the two  7.3  c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the f o u r t h ' a c t i v i t y '  f a c t o r which c o n t a i n e d only one  we  for  with  factor  three  than was  semantic  the  'forced' solution  'activity', differential  factors  were  shown here. generally research,  an and  60  accounted In The  f o r 6.5 p e r c e n t  total  of the variance,  70.2 p e r c e n t  factors  identified  AM) a n d 8 0 . 2 9  i t was r e t a i n e d .  of the variance accounted  was  accounted  f o r 6 8 . 0 (CUSO  (WEEKEND WAS) p e r c e n t  f o r .  I S ) , 70.29 (I  of the variance.  Reliability The  nature  present, to  o f t h e CUSO w e e k e n d ,  coupled  carry-out,  with  the small  a test/retest  consistency  of  generating  coefficient  alpha  Coefficient  semantic  differentials  8,  a n d 9.  the  The alpha  factors  were  scale-ratings Rating The request  levels  procedure.  statistics  described indicate  internally  made  instruments  f o r the  of the concepts  eleven  that  Instead  the  by  aggregated of the  i n Tables  items  In this  the  examined  factors  aredisplayed  those  i t difficult  f o r each  consistent. were  was  of  7,  comprising sense,  these  reliable.  logistics seventh to  page  rate  'arrangements' arrangements, scale  the  alphas just  'n' p r e s e n t ,  reliability  internal  scale.  and the m o b i l i t y  of the written  five  or folder  elements  of  'logistics': materials,  evaluation the  weekend  planning site  started  with  related  process,  and meals.  A five  a to  travel point  was u s e d :  PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING FEATURES OF THE WEEKEND  PLANNING PROCESS  Participants alpha  circled  VERY POOR  POOR  the appropriate  f o rt h e aggregates  of these  five  FAIR  rating.  GOOD  The  VERY GOOD  coefficient  s c a l e s was . 6 5 .  61  Rating On two  learning activities the  pages  bottom  participants  activities. first  half  Each  Pre-0  ?".  not  part  with  t h e way  This  of t h i s  were  item  was a r e s p o n s e  the  o f t h e same p a g e  was  question  were  to  cast  t o , "how  study.  they  asked  rate  various  on two 6 - p o i n t  important was a s k e d  The second  you f e e l  was,  learning  scales.  they  on b e h a l f  The  were  to  o f CUSO  a n d was  "hdw ' s a t i s f i e d  you a r e  ;  done?".  ' VERY MODERATELY SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT  BURNING QUESTIONS  and f o r the f o l l o w i n g  SLIGHTLY MODERATELY VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT  VERY MODERATELY SLIGHTLY SLIGHTLY MODERATELY VERT .DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED Again,  the appropriate  was  used  this  research.  summed  over  Planned The the  of  CUSO's  The s c o r e s  and averaged  circled.  for future  o f t h e 20  produced  The  programs  'satisfaction'  a coefficient  first  item  rather  than  items  when  o f .71.  follow-up last  points help  were  planning  page  asked  three  f o l l o w i n g do y o u p l a n  nine with  for  responses  which  First  t o do, i f any?".  could  be c i r c l e d .  of one o f t h e l o c a l  recommended  questions.  CUSO  follow-ups.  staff  was,  I t was  This  list  followed was  to represent  The  grouping  with  an a l p h a  of  "Which o f by  developed the  these  types  answers  tr resulted  in a nine-point  The  asked,  next  Finally, finished yes/no  "Is there  "Is there the  item  scale  anything  anything  evaluation.  while  the l a t t e r  else  else  you would  The  former  was  not used  coefficient  you  plan  like  f r o m CUSO-B.C.?,  was  coded  in this  to  of .67.  as a  study.  do?".  simple  62  Measuring A f f i n i t y T h i s was group.  to Group  designed to assess  Saturday evening, was  compulsory  activites.  f r e e time with a  Using  alphabetized  a  simple  in  the  areas.  Recordings were to be made hourly between  p.m.  1:15  and  was  intervals  list,  the researcher  o f t e n counting  was  also  the  the non-  activity  As  fixed  of  was  a.m.  at  an  number  attendance check  and  done  the degree of attachment to  main 8:15  organizer  heads f o r other purposes, t h i s was  less  o b t r u s i v e than i t might seem. Measuring  Helpfulness  T h i s c o n s i s t e d simply volunteered  for  recorder  reporter).  before  or hand  the  to  those  who  s t r u c t u r e d tasks of the small groups  (eg:  avoid  of r e c o r d i n g  These any  the names of  opportunities  were  chance the researcher  identified  'noticed'  the  t r e a t e d group more. Estimating The magnitude  Participant Contribution last  instrument  estimation  T h i s instrument participants  was  focussing  on  name,  designed  contributed  as  the  indicated  to most  have  below.  staff  to  the with  The  s t a f f member to choose the p a r t i c i p a n t who to the weekend and were  to  estimate  participants.  The  weekend  was  a  of p a r t i c i p a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n (Appendix 5).  P a r t i c i p a n t s were l i s t e d a l p h a b e t i c a l l y their  the  estimate  weekend r e t r e a t . a  relative  line  opposite  i n s t r u c t i o n s asked c o n t r i b u t e d the  a s s i g n that person a score of the  which  contribution  100. of  the most  Then they all  other  example i n d i c a t e s the r a t i n g f o r a person  c o n t r i b u t e d approximately 75 percent  as much as the reference  who or  63  'baseline'  individual.  John Smith  Actual  —  final  structured 'intended' an  measure  behaviours  outline  -"Just  a  you're  -allow -points  of  telephone  I t s main  see  doing  on  your  you  carried during  got  follow-up  the  any  information  for: to  returned  cooperants  -talked  to  regional  staff  -talked  to  national  staff  -project  groundwork  with  local  -motorcycle -collected  -joined  committee  course recipes  first  aid  course  CUSO  -contacted  other  -contacted  foreign nationals  -further  the  a  ascertain The  semiwhich  following  call.  reading  package  to p r e - o r i e n t a t i o n "  -talked  a  to  out.  covered  follow-up  volunteer  check  -took  was  using  guide to  -met  follow-up  purpose  actually  points  check  to  a  were  the  call  them to  was  interview.  Telephone  how  [TJQ  75  Follow-up  The  is  -  applicants  and  to  see  64  Before responses following  to  responses  item.  the researcher question  to  reviewed  the  the  individual's  e v a l u a t i o n , "which of  do you plan to do?"  the  A f t e r the p a r t i c i p a n t s had open ended q u e s t i o n ,  their  the e v a l u a t i o n ' s q u e s t i o n s were used as prompts.  the researcher  list  on  responses to the i n i t i a l  found c e r t a i n above  the  i f any  given t h e i r  Finally,  the c a l l  remarked  that  other  l i n e s of a c t i v i t y were u s e f u l . were read out and  the p a r t i c i p a n t  participants Then those on  had the  responded to each  65  CHAPTER FIVE METHOD Random Assignment A list  of 64 a p p l i c a n t s e l i g i b l e to a t t e n d the weekend  compiled.  Those  who  had  previously  served  e l i m i n a t e d because with such a small expected judged to be too approach divided  to  different  from  the  the o r g a n i z a t i o n and  i n t o s i n g l e s and c o u p l e s .  with  was  CUSO were  'n' t h i s group  larger  group  its activities. T h i s procedure  in  The was  was  their  list  was  adopted  i t would have been impossible to a s s i g n one member of  a  to  group.  the  control  master l i s t couples. second all  was A  and  ordered  coin  name was  the  was  other  to the experimental  alphabetically, tossed  to be c i r c l e d .  to The  Then the c o i n was  second  separate l i s t s  the experimental  Couples  circled  or and  were c o n s i d e r e d to  control  to  group.  f o r the c o n t r o l , one f o r  Past experience t o l d o r g a n i z e r s that at  l e a s t h a l f of the a p p l i c a n t s various  one  A  then  tossed again to see which was  were developed,  group.  first,  name was  be the c o n t r o l ; the u n c i r c l e d names became the Two  couple  decide whether the f i r s t  subsequent even-numbered names.  be one name.  singles  as  would  be  unable  to  attend  for  reasons. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Sample  Of  the  64 p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s who  needs assessment, 23 completed from  the t r e a t e d and  the  r e c e i v e d the  evaluation  13 from the c o n t r o l group.  time l a g between i n i t i a l  contact  and  the  initial  instrument,  10  Because of the  weekend,  some  r e c e i v e d n o t i c e s they c o u l d n ' t be p l a c e d overseas by CUSO and  had so  66  had dropped out. and  possessed  P a r t i c i p a n t s ranged i n age from 20 to 63 years a  variety  of t e c h n i c a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l  i n c l u d i n g c a r p e n t r y , teaching and e n g i n e e r i n g . rural  communities,  small  B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada.  towns  and  large  They  skills  lived  in  c i t i e s throughout  The treatment group  had  five  males  and f i v e females while the c o n t r o l group had seven males and s i x females.  A l l had been  overseas  with  CUSO.  i n t e r v i e w e d and recommended f o r p o s t i n g s None  had  been  allocated  to  specific  p o s t i n g s , but most had an idea of p o s s i b i l i t i e s being pursued on their  behalf.  All  attended a p r e - o r i e n t a t i o n weekend r e t r e a t  which was v o l u n t a r y but an important part of CUSO's prepare them f o r overseas work.  program  to  F i v e were not a v a i l a b l e f o r the  follow-up s i x to eight weeks a f t e r the r e t r e a t . A d m i n i s t e r i n g the Treatment D i s t r i b u t i n g the Needs Assessment A l l members of both groups had p r e v i o u s l y r e c e i v e d a n o t i c e asking  them  to reserve the weekend in q u e s t i o n  For o r g a n i z a t i o n a l purposes  both  received  (Appendix  the  same  notice 1C).  In  control  and  1B)  addition  (Appendix treated  1A). groups  and c o n f i r m a t i o n of  registration  (Appendix  the  participated  i n a two-stage c o n s u l t a t i o n p r o c e s s .  treated  By i n c l u d i n g the needs assessment with the r e g i s t a t i o n a  prompt r e t u r n was a s s u r e d .  from  computing design  the  treated  group.  weekend's a c t i v i t e s .  A total  of  15  forms  A review of the forms and a  of the average score per item  the  form  W i t h i n two weeks almost a l l forms  of those p l a n n i n g to a t t e n d had a r r i v e d . arrived  group  helped  the  researcher  A note was made on each  needs  67  assessment Actual  i n d i c a t i n g how i t s c o n t r i b u t i o n a f f e c t e d p l a n n i n g .  Follow-up  Follow-up the  phone c a l l s were completed  treatment  weekend  group.  three  treatment  but  one of  Between the p e r i o d of treatment  and the  potential  group  p l a c e d overseas.  participants  because  they  dropped  were informed  out  interview  during  a  the  from  the  they c o u l d not be  One member of the experimental  not be c o n t a c t e d by phone r e c e i v e d face-to-face  with a l l  similar  group who c o u l d treatment  weekend.  in a  There were many  reasons other than t h i s r e s e a r c h which r e q u i r e d the o r g a n i z e r to t a l k p r i v a t e l y with  various  members  of  the  groups  so  this  c o n v e r s a t i o n d i d not seem o u t - o f - p l a c e . Learning Throughout During the that  the weekend both groups were t r e a t e d the same.  introduction  the  coordinator/researcher  the c o l l a b o r a t i o n process was undertaken  good p r e - o r i e n t a t i o n . collaborated consulted rather  Activity  with  B  to h e l p produce a  Care was taken to e x p l a i n that the was  i t s because your  than  explained  chosen  at  l a s t name  f o r Brown."  random, starts  " I f you with  A  It  P a r t i c i p a n t s were t o l d that t h i s  by  the  CUSO's  was emphasized that the purpose was to e v a l u a t e  p r e - o r i e n t a t i o n p l a n n i n g , not used  weren't  f o r Adam  study was f o r the r e s e a r c h e r ' s masters t h e s i s as w e l l as interests.  group  researcher  the  participants.  i s reproduced  in  The  Appendix  invitation  f o r q u e s t i o n s prompted only requests f o r the  from other  educators.  outline 2.  An  results  68  Data  Collection  W r i t t e n Instrument On  Sunday morning during a planned break between two p a r t s  of an a c t i v i t y , completed.  the e v a l u a t i o n  The  points  made  summarized and the importance responses  instrument  emphasized.  of  having  Eleven  from the resource group.  responses  of  the  participant  and  resource  two  out and  from  and  honest  instruments the  treatment  were and  The l a t t e r were used f o r the  group  v a l i d a t e the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l three  complete  completed  o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s e v a l u a t i o n and the t e s t i n g The  handed  i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n were b r i e f l y  returned from the c o n t r o l group, nine thirteen  was  of  scale  were c o l l e c t e d t o h e l p  instruments.  resource  validity.  person  An  additional  responses  were  r e c e i v e d l a t e r by m a i l . Affinity  to Group  On Saturday night the except  the  first  check  attendance  check  went  as  planned  (8:15 p.m.) was c a n c e l l e d because the  group was widely s c a t t e r e d . Helpfulness During the weekend the groups were t r e a t e d one but the researcher knew who was i n which there was a formal o p p o r t u n i t y to h e l p  identically.  No  group.  Whenever  ( i e : recorder,  reporter),  the r e s e a r c h e r noted who v o l u n t e e r e d t o take on each t a s k . Participant In  Contribution  the  week  recruiting staff contribution  following  f o r the  the  region  weekend,  were  made by each p a r t i c i p a n t .  asked  each  of the three  to  estimate the  Only two d i d so, as the  69  t h i r d was uncomfortable with the instrument. Actual  Follow-up  Six to e i g h t weeks a f t e r the weekend, each p a r t i c i p a n t phoned  to  find  out  what  undertaken s i n c e the weekend. another  was  eliminated  wouldn't be p l a c e d treated gathering  process.  activities  Four could  not  be  had  reached  been and  because he had r e c e i v e d n o t i f i c a t i o n he  that year.  participants  preparation  was  were  In a l l , included.  ten  controls  and  eight  T h i s completed the data  70  CHAPTER 6 RESULTS AND  DISCUSSIONS  RESULTS The  five  instruments  collaboration  produced  d i f f e r e n t ways. each  used  data  to  measure  Miller, tests  with  independent  1977, p. 79). indicated  significantly  prepare  for a  groups  from  Duncan,  test Knapp  as  of and  the  F-  the v a r i a n c e s w i t h i n the groups were not  different.  the  successively  data  one-sided  (see  Because of d i f f e r e n c e s among the f i v e measure  the  The pooled a n a l y s i s was used  that  of  C o n t r o l and t r e a t e d group mean scores  were compared using the pooled t - t e s t hypothesis  effects  which had to be coded i n s l i g h t l y  The processes used to  are o u t l i n e d below.  the  effects  of treatment,  instruments  used  each one w i l l be d e a l t  i n r e p o r t i n g the r e s u l t s .  A l l figures  to with  quoted  are  from Table 10. Written The  written  Instrument  instrument  was  broken  Issues, A c t i v i t i e s , L o g i s t i c s , Planned Differential of  Scales.  each item were  given  'Issue'  were  items  dissatisfied' Schedule,  and  a  i n each s e c t i o n . numerical  rated six  one  being  to 'very  into sections:  Follow-up  S c a l e s were produced  the i n f o r m a t i o n gained  down  and  to r e f l e c t  with  For  satisfied'  item scores were d e r i v e d by summing p a r t i c i p a n t s '  instance  one being  Appendix 4 f o r d e t a i l s on other i t e m s ) .  the nine items  the nature  F i r s t , responses on  equivalent. six  Semantic  (see  'very Coding  Mean 'Issue' responses  (see Appendix 3) and d i v i d i n g by n i n e .  to  71  This  scale  (Issues) was  used as a model and  grouped the  ratings  items).  t h i s grouping procedure i t was  mean  By  scores  for  means of the was  two  for L o g i s t i c s (5 items) and  each i n d i v i d u a l on groups.  participants  eleven more s c a l e s .  t - t e s t s was be  more  set at  any  compare  scale  The  (9  the  items)  factors i d e n t i f i e d  semantic  differentials  l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r a l l  wary of Type II than of Type I e r r o r s . t e n d e n c i e s rather  research  must  I t seemed more  than to be  concerned  with very s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . Despite t h i s c a u t i o n ,  between any  three  The  to c a l c u l a t e  s c a l e s and  .1 as t h i s type of e x p l o r a t o r y  important to d i s c o v e r only  the  (20  many follow-up a c t i v i t i e s  planned to undertake.  through Varimax a n a l y s i s of produced  how  scales  Activities  possible  A Planned Follow-up  a l s o developed which d e s c r i b e d  the  the  similar  the  of the  group  mean  scales.  scored  no  significant difference  scores of the Table  higher on  t r e a t e d and  10 shows 14 of the  that 18  was  found  c o n t r o l groups f o r  although  the  treated  items, none reached the  .1  l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Affinity The points  p a r t i c i p a n t s could during  significant  the  have been present at  Saturday  difference  to Group  night  between  the  zero  socializing. mean  number  of  two  groups were p r e s e n t .  spent  not  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time with the  but  group than d i d the c o n t r o l  group.  four  There was  i n d i v i d u a l s from the slightly  The  to  treated  no  times group larger  72  Table  10  Comparison of Mean Scores Control Group X  Treatment Group SD  X  F Ratio  t Value  SD  E v a l u a t i o n Measures Issues(M=6) Activities(M=6) Logistics(M=5) Plan. Follow(M=9) Semantic  5.01 5.25 4.58 1 .47  .44 .32 .75 .23  5.12 5.36 4.09 1 .48  .57 .29 .38 .1 1  1 .66 1 .96 3 .91 4 .35  .26 .44 - .94 .00  5.95 6.05 5.85 5.92 6.25 6.20 6.28 6.48 6.15 6.23 6.34 6.21 6.07 5.50  .73 .77 .89 .74 .63 .97 .58 .53 .74 .57 .66 .66 .72 1 .24  6.00 6.04 5.98 5.93 6.28 6.35 5.97 6.50 6.60 6.10 6.15 6.05 6.23 5.60  .36 .45 .44 .56 .45 .51 .80 .45 .39 .43 .46 .64 .52 .69  3 .97 2 .91 4. 1 2 1 .77 1 .93 3 .62 1 .87 1 .37 3 .59 1 .76 2 .04 1 .08 1 .91 3 .66  .09 - .02 .20 .02 .06 .21 .58 .04 .85 - .29 - .39 - .29 .29 — . 1 1  .08 2.67 2.66 2.25 .41 41.1  .28 1 .00 1 .37 .96 1 .57 35.9  .75 2.00 5.28 3.71 .66 58.5  .46 1 .22 1 .79 1 .38 .78 17.4  2 .57 1 .50 1 .72 2 .04 1 .38 4 .23  1 .98 + + - .67 1 .79** 1 .36* 1 .70* .66  Differential  CUSO IS(M=7): Evaluation Flexibility Activity WEEKEND WAS(M=7): Act i v i t y Evaluat ion Organization Encouragement I AM(M=7): Suitability Evaluat ion Flexibility Act i v i t y Behaviour Helpfulness(M=1) Group Aff.(M=4) Act. Follow(M=12) Follow/Learn(M=7) Follow/Cuso(M=3) Contrib.(M=100)  * ** ++ M=  t> 1.32, df=16, p<. 1 0 (One- t a i l e d t> 1.74, df=l6, p<.05 (One- t a i l e d t> 1.72, df=21, p<.05 (One- t a i l e d maximum score p o s s i b l e  test) test) test)  73  Helpfulness With t h i s offered  instrument,  which  which  individuals  to h e l p as r e c o r d e r s or r e p o r t e r s during the weekend, a  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was groups. was  identified  This  found between treatment  and  control  tendency of the t r e a t e d group to be more h e l p f u l  s i g n i f i c a n t at the  .05  level.  Participant Contribution The magnitude e s t i m a t i o n r a t i n g s were converted to a number between 1 and the  line.  100 which represented where the Some  r a t e d by only one  p a r t i c i p a n t s r e c e i v e d two of the two  staff.-  Those  scores were assigned an average of the two. done comparing the two  group means.  Two  instrument  tended  is  that  neither  to remember her p r e v i o u s  staff  member  refused  judge  to  balanced  each  confidence significant  staff  others  in t h i s  have  But,  was in  I t s main draw-back as knew everyone, so each As  well,  This  contributed  one  person's  and  have  T h i s l e d to low  i n any event,  there was  no  untreated groups.  Follow-up  Three separate t - t e s t s were done on compared  two  between the magnitude e s t i m a t i o n scores  Actual  first  received  Again, a t-t'est  p r e j u d i c e s to a degree.  difference  on  the l a t t e r problem somewhat as  ( C o n t r i b u t i o n ) assigned the t r e a t e d and  The  who  participate.  would  instrument.  placed  s c o r e s , others were  acquaintances.  p a r t i c i p a t i o n would have balanced the three r e c r u i t i n g  was  s t a f f members f i l l e d  the sheets seven days a f t e r the workshop. an  'X'  the  follow-up  the mean number of behaviours  the p a r t i c i p a n t s d u r i n g the follow-up phone  call.  data.  mentioned by The  second  74  grouped  only  affinity  to CUSO and the t h i r d  could  be  found  that  behaviours  which  could  be  compared  the  c l a s s e d as l e a r n i n g - r e l a t e d . the  treated than  group did  behaviours  control  significantly  follow-up  actions  comparison  of the number of follow-up behaviours  group.  this  variable  was  broken  'Follow/CUSO' r e f l e c t i n g a f f i n i t y committees,  buying  a  cooperants  to the  membership)  i n d i c a t i n g l e a r n i n g behaviours returned  down  into  initial  (Actual  Follow-  (collecting  for information),  .05  two  the  level.  categories  organization  and  more  An  up) produced a t - v a l u e of 1.79, s i g n i f i c a n t at the When  which  The telephone f o l l o w - u p  undertook  the  s a i d to demonstrate  (joining  'Follow/Learn'  recipes,  contacting  the d i f f e r e n c e s  remained  s i g n i f i c a n t at the .1 l e v e l . Hypotheses Reviewed These f i n d i n g s are p e r t i n e n t Chapter  to the  hypotheses  established  in  1.  A d u l t s who p a r t i c i p a t e i n the p l a n n i n g of a l e a r n i n g  activity:  1. - w i l l have more p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s and take a more a c t i v e part  i n the l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t y  than those who don't p a r t i c i p a t e .  2. - w i l l  sponsoring  evaluate  the  than those who don't p a r t i c i p a t e and w i l l  agency more p o s i t i v e l y take  a  more  active  role in i t . 3. - w i l l abilities will  express  more p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s towards t h e i r own  i n areas d e a l t with d u r i n g the l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t y  than  those who don't p a r t i c i p a t e . 4. - w i l l  take  a  more  a f t e r the a c t i v i t y than w i l l  active  r o l e i n t h e i r own  learning  those who don't p a r t i c i p a t e .  75*  Hypothesis 1 There was control were  no s i g n i f i c a n t groups  covered,  activities,  concerning the  or  number one was  difference their  logistics  the  between  the  treated  s a t i s f a c t i o n with how  of  the  pre-orientation  weekend, weekend.  the  and issues  learning  Thus h y p o t h e s i s  rejected.  Hypothesis 2 There were d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s f o r ' a f f e c t i v e ' aspects groups  of  attitudes.  evaluated  measure),  yet  There was  CUSO  AS  A  members  of  the  No d i f f e r e n c e was  to spend the  DEVELOPMENT  with  i n how  AGENCY  collaborating with  the  findings,  hypothesis  two  (affective  group were more CUSO  after  found concerning whether they  f r e e time with the group on the  behavioural  'behavioural'  no d i f f e r e n c e  l i k e l y to undertake behaviours a s s o c i a t e d weekend.  and  weekend.  the chose  Because  number two was  of  accepted  reservations.  Hypothesis 3 No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was how  they  found between the  evaluated themselves  hypothesis number three was  two  as v o l u n t e e r s (I AM).  groups  in  Therefore  rejected.  Hypothesis 4 No d i f f e r e n c e found,  but  flawed.  Followup)  participant  contribution  as noted, the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  (Contribution)  of t h i s instrument  The c o l l a b o r a t i n g group o f f e r e d to  significantly undertook  in  help  more  follow-up  activities  than d i d the c o n t r o l , f o r both l e a r n i n g  was  (Helpfulness)  more times than d i d the c o n t r o l group.  significantly  was  They a l s o (Actual  (Follow/Learn)  76  and  affiliating  with  the  organization  r e s u l t , hypothesis number four was  (Follow/CUSO).  As a  accepted.  DISCUSSION As noted, the lead  to  r e s u l t s for the  different  conclusions  instruments measuring a c t u a l The  dominant  have no e f f e c t on impact on  result  of  and  fact  were d e f e c t i v e the groups.  data were  This  s i t u a t i o n - the  treatment had  or too  had  little  (affective claiming  or no  component).  that  participation a  more  indicate influence  have designed  on how  such  a  the  had of  instruments  differences  between  attention.  Effect?  This  of  the  program  is  increased  t h i s increase learning  program  program  the  the  through  i s r e f l e c t e d in  experience.  Rosenblum  p o s s i b l i t y that good  the  f i n d i n g puts i n doubt l i t e r a t u r e  (1971) as w e l l as the  unusual,  treatment  people e v a l u a t e d  that  mentioned  the  that c o l l a b o r a t i v e program planning  i n p l a n n i n g and  regard, McLoughlin (1983),  No  a  view  within  v a l i d manifestation  an e f f e c t but  merit  'ownership' of  positive  a minor  lack of s i g n i f i c a n t  E i t h e r the  i n s e n s i t i v e to detect  Both 'explanations'  results  only  c o n t r o l groups - i s not  Treatment Had The  gathered  r e s u l t s were a f a i r and the  from  ' c o l l a b o r a t i o n ' appeared to  l i n e s of c o n j e c t u r e .  the  or,  derived  experimental design so these r e s u l t s  between t r e a t e d and  no e f f e c t and that  that  The  a defensible  leads to two  those  the a t t i t u d e s of p a r t i c i p a n t s and  merit c l o s e a t t e n t i o n . differences  than  study  behaviour. was  t h e i r behaviour.  framework  ' a f f e c t ' s e c t i o n of the  In t h i s  and  Darkenwald  treated  group might  control  group  felt  77  entirely overall  satisfied  with  evaluation  evaluating  their  was  on a 6 p o i n t  of  5.12.  very  in evaluating bias  with  the way  the general  issue  mean  p u b l i c f i g u r e s and instrumentation  found  examined (Lau,  in a d u l t education.  A general  score  a mean  s i m i l a r l y high has  the when  s c a l e while the t r e a t e d group had  Some r e s e a r c h  study  instance,  a  of  score  scores were  'positivity  the  bias'  implications  Sears, & Centers,  Perhaps a s i m i l a r phenomenon i s a f f e c t i n g the  a  this  For  the t r e a t e d group had  10).  for  in  positive.  Throughout the e v a l u a t i o n ,  found (See Table  this  Certainly,  satisfaction  a r e a s were d e a l t with, 5.01  it.  of  1979).  r e s u l t s of .studies  s a t i s f a c t i o n with the q u a l i t y  of  well-planned program produces a p o s i t i v e 'response s e t ' which  overshadows s u b t l e d i f f e r e n c e s between groups. With  random  assignment  the  two  groups  were  not  s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t so t h e i r needs would probably be s i m i l a r or  the  same.  T h i s suggests that a programmer c o u l d c o n s u l t a  randomly s e l e c t e d subgroup program  satisfactory  subgroup may further  be can  to  research.  of  groups may There McLoughlin  a  learners larger  and  still  group.  subject  of  How  produce small  conjecture  is  of  comparable  be necessary f o r high also  (1971)  that  without  groups,  the  effort  i n i t i a t i n g a c o l l a b o r a t i v e process with each of not  a  It might a l s o be s a i d that when r e p e a t i n g  the and  suggested that the extent consulted  the  only be  program with a number expense  of  might have an  question Rosenblum to  which  learner of and  and the  satisfaction.  learner  expectations.  Darkenwald  learners  i n f l u e n c e on how  a  (1983) both  expected  to  be  much they are a f f e c t e d  78  by an o p p o r t u n i t y  to p a r t i c i p a t e .  becomes an i s s u e only did  I t may be  in retrospect  up  by suggesting  w e l l might not have to  consultation  i f l e a r n e r s f i n d the program  not meet t h e i r needs and i n t e r e s t s .  summed  that  T h i s s i t u a t i o n might be  that planners who know t h e i r 'collaborate'  to  the  same  clientele degree  as  programmers new to t h e i r m a t e r i a l or c l i e n t e l e . The the  other  desire  for consultation  organizations individuals  have  learner expectations  as  an  democratic to  be  Anyone i n v o l v e d  kept  end  in  principles informed  itself. are  and  refers to  being  resolved."  important,  consulted  CUSO.  CUSO  informed i n advance when s i m i l a r i s s u e s are t o I f t h i s were a f a c t o r , one would expect i t to be  and  probably many  appreciative interests. have  explored  such  Yet p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s study were r e l a t i v e l y new to  Indeed,  would  on  i n committee work has s a i d or heard,  very apparent i n a v o l u n t e e r - b a s e d membership o r g a n i z a t i o n as  In  no problems with the d e c i s i o n that was taken but would  appreciate be  where expect  decisions. "I  point concerning  of of  had  not  the  treated  efforts  established  made  group to  such seemed  discover  expectations. surprised  their  needs  yet and  In c o n t r a s t , no c o n t r o l p a r t i c i p a n t s a i d the weekend been  more  successful  i f participant  needs were  more c a r e f u l l y . Treatment had an Undetected E f f e c t ?  Because a t t i t u d e i s d i f f i c u l t significant II  error  to  measure  there  has  been  concern expressed about the danger of making a Type  (McLoughlin, 1971; Rosenblum and Darkenwald, 1983).  avoid t h i s eventuality, t h i s  study  developed  the  concept  To of  79  attitude,  devised  a number of t e s t s rather  than r e l y i n g on one low ( . 1 ) .  instument, and set the l e v e l s of s i g n i f i c a n c e q u i t e Yet  no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between the ' a f f e c t i v e '  responses of t r e a t e d and c o n t r o l respondents. p o s s i b l e explanations assume there  There are s e v e r a l  f o r t h i s lack of d i f f e r e n c e , i f we were to  was a d i f f e r e n c e but i t went undetected.  Nature of P a r t i c i p a n t s ? The  p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s study were not  learners  and CUSO i s not the usual  were present v o l u n t a r i l y and  typical  of  sponsoring i n s t i t u t i o n . A l l  motivated  to  learn  because  weekend was designed t o prepare them f o r r o l e s they could as  part  of  an  overseas  assignment.  were  average. effect. already the  more  adaptable, cooperative  T h i s recruitment  pattern  expect  work  assured  and s e l f - d i r e c t i n g than  may have masked the treatment  C e r t a i n l y i t was p o s s i b l e that because p a r t i c i p a n t s had given  a good d e a l of time and energy t o get  weekend's  activities,  they  dedicate  which they d i d not  two years of t h e i r l i f e  consider  as  f a r as  the need f o r 'congruence' would lead  them to p o s i t i v e l y e v a l u a t e events a s s o c i a t e d could  the  As w e l l , the s e l e c t i o n  process which l e d them to be chosen f o r overseas they  adult  highly?  The  with  CUSO.  How  to an o r g a n i z a t i o n evaluation  of the  p r e v i o u s year's p r e - o r i e n t a t i o n weekend was a l s o q u i t e p o s i t i v e . This  i s mentioned because whether the e f f e c t s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n  in program planning had  negative  might be more e a s i l y d e t e c t e d  attitudes  towards  l e a r n i n g rather  h a b i t u a l l y s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r l e a r n i n g  i n groups that  activities.  who  i n those  80  Design  Defect?  Other and  s t u d i e s have emphasized e f f o r t s to keep  process  equivalent  of  learning  (Cole & G l a s s , 1977;  Darkenwald, 1983). the  same  of  treatment  groups  Rosenblum  d e a l i n g with c o l l a b o r a t i o n  i n c l u d i n g t h i s one, program  'historical'  planned  had both  by  the  which  would  these  factors  groups  Solomon be  G r a p h i c a l l y such a design would look l i k e  undertake  four-group very  this:  PL 0(1)  R=  random assignment  R  P  0(2)  P=  participation  PL=  program which r e s u l t e d  0(4)  differences thereof)  because the e f f e c t s of  planning  participatory  might  be  instructional evoked  might  in planning from  planning  T h i s i s important during  As  enlightening.  P  R  the  design  R  PL 0(3)  i n the  c o l l a b o r a t i n g " group.  or  isolated  a  i n p l a n n i n g , but  A l l s t u d i e s reviewed  ambitious as' i t i s , a f a c t o r i a l  R  &  groups p a r t i c i p a t e i n  to e l i m i n a t e a form of  a l s o with p a r t i c i p a t o r y techniques.  learning  control  1971;  the two  content  In t h i s regard, i t might be i n t e r e s t i n g to do  studies  literature,  and  McLoughlin,  T h i s study had  learning a c t i v i t y  contamination. series  in  the  have  by  compounded  experienced p a r t i c i p a t o r y  blunted  of  by  techniques.  collaborative been  lack  instructional  an  In  planning by  consultation  the  absence this  (or fact  techniques.  of  study, the  lack  everyone  81  Treatment Defect? It  i s a l s o p o s s i b l e that the experimental treatment was  adequate  to  detected  by pen  taken it  produce and  differences  paper t e s t s .  when d e v e l o p i n g the  is  possible  'collaboration the treatment measures,  that  While  treatment  the  experience' produced  significant  in  did  on  some  to  care  not  amount  be was  (see Chapter  the minds of l e a r n e r s .  effects  t h i s explanation  considerable  instrument  treatment  enough  not  4),  to  a  Because  of  the  behavioural  lacks c r e d i b i l i t y .  But  i t does draw  a t t e n t i o n to q u e s t i o n s concerning the  nature  of  consultation,  c o l l a b o r a t i o n or p a r t i c i p a t i o n ' in the program planning  context.  Measurement Defect? The  lack  of  d i f f e r e n c e between the t r e a t e d and  groups on w r i t t e n measures may has  long-established  the  reflect  lacuna  between  the  literature  response on  actual  1971).  f i n d i n g s of t h i s study suggest that whatever i s  measured by little  the  semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s and  utility  Perhaps  These  the  how  weekend.  most  of Behavioural interesting  'collaboration'  differences  activities  were  (Helpfulness)  Ultimately,  Triandis,  s a t i s f a c t i o n ratings  has  significant and  d i f f e r e n c e s on  Differences findings  influenced both  of  actual during  this  study  behaviour. the  learning  follow-up (Actual Follow-up) to  In some ways, such f i n d i n g s  significant  1963;  f o r educators i n t e r e s t e d i n behaviour change.  Implications  concerned  (Campbell,  written  instruments and But  behaviour  reality;  untreated  the  overshadow  the  lack  the of  ' a f f e c t i v e ' aspect of a t t i t u d e .  educators are more i n t e r e s t e d in  what  the  learner  82  does or  after how  "education" than what they say they are going to do  satisfied  they  are.  No  matter  how  refined  the  methodology, o p i n i o n s , " do not p r o v i d e d i r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n about the  meaning  prediction to  make  measure  the  opinion  to subsequent inferences  differences measures  of  and  do  not  behaviour: the i n v e s t i g a t o r  from the data" (Kelman, 1961,  between the s e l f - r e p o r t instruments  lead  permit  automatic still  has  p. 59).  The  and  the  other  us to reexamine the types of instruments used to  attitudes.  Future  studies  should  explore  ways  to  e s t a b l i s h the b e h a v i o u r a l i n d i c a t o r s of a t t i t u d e s , as t h i s seems to be the most promising avenue.  83  REFERENCES Aiken, L.R. (1980). A t t i t u d e measurement and a t t i t u d e research. In D.A. Payne (Ed.), Recent Developments in A f f e c t i v e Measurement. San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1-24. A l l p o r t , G. (1967). A t t i t u d e s . In M. F i s h b e i n (Ed.), Readings in a t t i t u d e theory and measurement. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 3-13. Bacharach, P. critique.  (1967). The theory of democratic Boston: L i t t l e , Brown.  elitism: a  Bergevin, P. (1963). Adult education procedures: tested patterns for e f f e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Conn.: Seabury P r e s s .  A handbook of Greenwich,  B o s h i e r , R.W. & Collins, J. (1982). E.P.S s c a l e f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e and socio-demographic c o r r e l a t e s f o r 12,000 learners. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of L i f e l o n g Education, 2 (2), 163-77. B o t k i n , J.W., Elmandjra, M., & M a l i t z a , M. (1979). No l i m i t s to l e a r n i n g : B r i d g i n g the human gap. Toronto: Pergamon Press. Boyle, P. (1958). 8(1), 22-24.  Planning with p r i n c i p l e s .  Adult  Boyle, P. Hill.  Planning b e t t e r programs.  New  (1981).  Education,  York: McGraw-  Brown, L.A., J r . , & S e l l , G.R. (1977). A statewide survey of a d u l t l e a r n e r s : Program awareness, n o n e n r o l l e d p a r t i c i p a n t s and i n t e n t i o n to e n r o l l . L i n c o l n , Nebr.: U n i v e r s i t y of Mid-America.(ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e number ED 159 479). Brundage, D. & MacKeracher, D. (1980). Adult l e a r n i n g p r i n c i p l e s and t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n to program p l a n n i n g . Toronto: O n t a r i o M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n . Calhoun, C.J. (1980). Democracy, autocracy, and intermediate a s s o c i a t i o n i n o r g a n i z a t i o n : F l e x i b i l i t y or u n r e s t r a i n e d change. S o c i o l o g y , J_4(3), 345-364. Callaway, H. (1980). The a n a l y s i s of an e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g An a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l approach. In M. Wesseler (Ed.) P a r t i c i p a t o r y l e a r n i n g and r u r a l development: Working papers. Witzenhausen, West Germany: Deutches I n s t i t u t fur t r o p i s c h e und s u b t r o p i s c h e L a n d w i r t s c h a f t , 35-43.  84  Campbell, D.T. (1963). S o c i a l a t t i t u d e s and other a c q u i r e d behavioural d i s p o s i t i o n s . In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of s c i e n c e , V o l . 6. New York: McGraw-Hill. Campbell, D.T. & S t a n l e y , J.C. (1963). Experimental and q u a s i - e x p e r i m e n t a l designs f o r r e s e a r c h . In N.L. Gage (Ed.) Handbook of r e s e a r c h on t e a c h i n g . Chicago: Rand McNally, 171-246. Chisman, R. (1976). A t t i t u d e , psychology, and the study of p u b l i c o p i n i o n . U n i v e r s i t y Park, Penn.: The Pennsylvania State U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Clawson, D. & F a n t a s i a , R. (1983). Beyond Burawoy: The d i a l e c t i c s of c o n f l i c t s and consent on the shop f l o o r . Theory and S o c i e t y , J_2(5), 671-668. Cohen, A.R. (1967). A t t i t u d i n a l consequences of induced d i s c r e p a n c i e s between c o g n i t i o n s and behaviour. In M. F i s h b e i n (Ed.), Readings i n a t t i t u d e theory and measurement. New York: John Wiley, 477-492. Cohen-Rosenthal, E. (1982). P a r t i c i p a t i o n as pedagogy: q u a l i t y of working l i f e and a d u l t e d u c a t i o n . Convergence, XV(1), 5-16. Cole, J . & G l a s s , J.C. (1977). The e f f e c t of a d u l t student p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n program p l a n n i n g and achievement, r e t e n t i o n and a t t i t u d e . Adult E d u c a t i o n , 27(2), 75-88.' Cook, S.W. & S e l l t i z , C. (1967). A m u l t i p l e - i n d i c a t o r approach t o a t t i t u d e measurement. In M. F i s h b e i n (Ed.), Readings i n a t t i t u d e theory and measurment. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Cross, K.P. (1981). A d u l t s as l e a r n e r s : I n c r e a s i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n and f a c i l i t a t i n g l e a r n i n g . San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass. CUSO.  (1984). A beginner's guide t o CUSO. P r e o r i e n t a t i o n Report.  Vancouver: B.C.  Dahl, R. (1956). A p r e f a c e to democratic t h e o r y . U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s .  Chicago:  Delbecq, A.A.& Van de Ven, A.H. (1971). A group process model for problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and program p l a n n i n g . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l Research, 7, 466-492. Derber, C. (1983). Managing p r o f e s s i o n a l s . S o c i e t y , J_2(5), 671-680.  Theory and  Dewey, J . (1916). Democracy and e d u c a t i o n : An i n t r o d u c t i o n to the p h i l o s o p h y of e d u c a t i o n . New York: Macmillan.  85  Douglah, M. (1970). Some p e r s p e c t i v e s on the phenomenon of participation. Adult Leadership, 20, 88-98. Dubery, S.N. (1971). Powerlessness and m o b i l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n among disadvantaged b l a c k s . P u b l i c Opinion Q u a r t e r l y , 35 (2), 183-8. Duncan, R.C., Knapp, R.G., & M i l l e r , M.C. (1977). Introductory b i o s t a t i s t i c s f o r the h e a l t h s c i e n c e s . New York: John Wiley and Son. Durkheim, E. (1933). The d i v i s i o n of labour i n s o c i e t y . Simpson, T r a n s . ) . New York: The Free P r e s s .  (G.  E l i a s , J . and Merriam, S. (1980). P h i l o s o p h i c a l foundations of a d u l t e d u c a t i o n . Malabar, F l o r i d a : Robert E. K r i e g e r . Faure, E., H e r r e r a , F., Kaddoura, A.R., Lopes, H., Petrovosky, A.V., Rahmema, M. & Ward, F.C. (1972). Learning to be: The world of education today and tomorrow. P a r i s : UNESCO. Ferguson, M. (1980) The aquarian c o n s p i r a c y : Personal s o c i a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i n the 1980s. Los Angeles: Tarcher.  and J.P.  F i s h b e i n , M. (1967). A t t i t u d e and p r e d i c t i o n of behaviour. M. F i s h b e i n (Ed.), Readings i n a t t i t u d e theory and measurement. New York: John Wiley and Sons. F r e i r e , P. (1976) E d u c a t i o n , the p r a c t i c e of freedom. W r i t e r s and Readers P u b l i s h i n g C o o p e r a t i v e . Gagne, R.M. (1977). The c o n d i t i o n s of l e a r n i n g Toronto: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston.  In  London:  (3rd e d i t i o n ) .  Gibb, J . (1964). Climate f o r t r u s t f o r m a t i o n . In Bradford, L.P., Gibb, J.R., & Benne, K.D. ( E d s . ) , T-group theory and l a b o r a t o r y method: Innovation i n r e - e d u c a t i o n . New York: Wiley. Gross, S.J. & Norman, C M . c o n s i s t e n c y : A review. 358-68.  (1975). Attitude-behaviour P u b l i c Opinion Q u a r t e r l y , 39(3),  H a l l , B., G i l l e t t e , A. & Tandon, R. ( E d s . ) . (1982). knowledge: A monopoly. New D e l h i : S o c i e t y f o r P a r t i c i p a t o r y Research i n A s i a .  Creating  H a l l J.L. & L e i d e c k e r , K. (1981). Is Japanese s t y l e management anything new? A comparison of Japanese s t y l e management and U.S. p a r t i c i p a t i v e models. Human Resource Management, 20(4), 14-20.  86  Heise, D.R. (1970). The semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l and a t t i t u d e research. In G.F. Summers (Ed.), A t t i t u d e measuremnt. Chicago: Rand McNally, 235-53. Houghland, J.G., J r . , & C h r i s t e n s o n , J . A. (1983). Religion and p o l i t i c s : The r e l a t i o n s h i p of r e l i g i o u s p a r t i c i p a t i o n to p o l i t i c a l e f f i c a c y . S o c i o l o g y of S o c i a l Research, 4, 392-403. Houle, C O . (1972). Jossey-Bass.  The design of e d u c a t i o n .  San F r a n c i s c o :  Huden, D.P. (1981). L i f e l o n g l e a r n i n g i n r e l a t i o n to production. In M. Wesseler (Ed.), P a r t i c i p a t o r y l e a r n i n g and r u r a l development-Working p l a n s . Witzenhausen, West Germany: Deutsches I n s t i t u t f u r t r o p i s c h e und s u b t r o p i s c h e L a n d w i r t s c h a f t , 83-90. Johnstone, J.W.C. & R i v e r a , R.J. learning. Chicago: A l d i n e .  (1973).  Volunteers for  Kassam, Y. & Mustafa, K. (1982). P a r t i c i p a t o r y r e s e a r c h : An emerging a l t e r n a t i v e methodology i n s o c i a l s c i e n c e r e s e a r c h . New D e l h i : S o c i e t y f o r P a r t i c i p a t o r y Research i n Asia. Relman, H. (1961). Process of o p i n i o n change. Q u a r t e r l y , 25, 57-78.  P u b l i c Opinion  Kenny, W.R. & Hanisch, D.L. (1982). A developmental approach to r e s e a r c h and p r a c t i s e i n a d u l t and c o n t i n u i n g e d u c a t i o n . Adult Education, 3_3 ( 1 ) , 29-54. K e r l i n g e r , F.N. (1964). Foundations of b e h a v i o u r a l r e s e a r c h . New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston. Knowles, M. (1980). The modern p r a c t i c e of a d u l t education (rev. e d . ) . Chicago: A s s o c i a t i o n P r e s s / F o l l e t . Kolb, D.A. & F r y , R. (1975). Towards an a p p l i e d theory of experiential learning. In C L . Cooper (Ed.), T h e o r i e s of group p r o c e s s e s . London: John Wiley and Sons. Krouse, R.W. (1982). Polyarchy and p a r t i c i p a t i o n : The changing democratic theory of Robert Dahl. P o l i t y , _1_4(3), 441-463. L a p i e r , R.T. (1967). A t t i t u d e s versus a c t i o n s . In M. F i s h b e i n , Readings i n a t t i t u d e theory and measurement. York: John Wiley, 26-31.  New  87  Lau, R.R., Sears, P.O., & Centers, R. (1979). The ' p o s i t i v i t y b i a s ' i n e v a l u a t i o n of p u b l i c f i g u r e s : evidence against instrument a r t i f a c t s . P u b l i c Opinion Q u a r t e r l y , 43(3), 347-358. Levinson, D.J. (1958). The Relevance of P e r s o n a l i t y f o r Political Participation. P u b l i c Opinion Q u a r t e r l y , 22(1), 3-10. Lewis, N. (Ed.). (1971). The new Roget's d i c t i o n a r y form. New York: Putnam.  thesaurus i n  Lindeman, E.C. (1961). The meaning of a d u l t e d u c a t i o n . Montreal: Harvest House. London, J . (1960). Program development i n a d u l t e d u c a t i o n . M.S. Knowles (Ed.) Handbook of a d u l t education i n the United S t a t e s . Washington, D . C : Adult Education A s s o c i a t i o n of the U.S.A., 66-76.  In  L u t z , P.C. (1973). A l i e n a t i o n as a concept i n the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s : A trend report and b i b l i o g r a p h y . Current S o c i o l o g y , 21, 1-115. Maguire, M.A. & P a s c a l e , R.T. (1978). Communication, decision-making and implementation among managers in Japanese and American managerial companies i n the United State. S o c i o l o g y and S o c i a l Research, 63(1), 1-23. . Mahoney, E.R. & Richardson, J.G. (1979). P e r c e i v e d s o c i a l s t a t u s of husbands and wives: The e f f e c t s of labour f o r c e p a r t i c i p a t i o n and o c c u p a t i o n a l p r e s t i g e . S o c i o l o g y and S o c i a l Research, 63(2), 364-374. Marchington, M. (1980). Problems with p a r t i c i p a t i o n at work. Personnel Review, 9(3), 31-38. Maslow, A.H. (1954). Harper Row.  M o t i v a t i o n and p e r s o n a l i t y .  New  York:  McDaniel, R.R., J r . , & Ahmos, D.D. (1980). Participatory management: An e x e c u t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e f o r human s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Human Resource Management, J_9(1), 14-18. McLoughlin, D. (1971). P a r t i c i p a t i o n of the a d u l t l e a r n e r in program p l a n n i n g . Adult E d u c a t i o n , 22(1), 30-35. M i l l e r , H.L. (1967). P a r t i c i p a t i o n of a d u l t s i n e d u c a t i o n : A force f i e l d a n a l y s i s . Boston: The Center f o r S t u d i e s i n L i b e r a l Education f o r A d u l t s .  88  Newberry, J.S., J r . (1959). P a r t i c i p a n t s and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a d u l t education. In E. deS Brunner, D. Wilder, C. K i r c h n e r & J.S. Newberry J r . , An overview of a d u l t education r e s e a r c h . Chicago: Adult Education A s s o c i a t i o n of U.S.A. Oppenheim, F.E. (1978). 'Power' r e v i s i t e d . P o l i t i c s , 40, 589-618.  The J o u r n a l of  Osgood, C , S u c i , G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s Press. Osgood, C , S u c i , G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1971). A t t i t u d e measurement. In G. F. Summers (Ed.), A t t i t u d e Measurement. Chicago: Rand McNally. Parsons, T. Opinion  (1963). On the concept of i n f l u e n c e . Q u a r t e r l y , 27(1), 63-82.  Public  P r e w i t t , K., Eulau, H. & Z i s k , B. (1966). Political s o c i a l i z a t i o n and p o l i t i c a l r o l e s . P u b l i c Opinion Q u a r t e r l y , 30(4), 569-582. R i t t e r , U.P. (1981). Why-why not-and how: Student p a r t i c i p a t i o n - S t u d e n t involvment i n the d e c i s i o n s concerning the t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s . In M. Wessler (Ed.), P a r t i c i p a t o r y l e a r n i n g and r u r a l development: Working papers. Witzenhausen, West Germany: Deutches I n s t i t u t f u r t r o p i s c h e und subtropische L a n d w i r t s c h a f t , 3543. Rogers, C. (1957). Personal thoughts on t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g . M e r r i l l - P a l m e r Q u a r t e r l y , 3, 241-43. Rosenberg, M. (1956). Some determinants of p u b l i c apathy. P u b l i c Opinion Q u a r t e r l y , J_8(4), 349-61. Rosenberg, M. & Hovland, C. (1960). C o g n i t i v e , a f f e c t i v e and b e h a v i o u r a l components of a t t i t u d e s . In C. Hovland & M. Rosenberg (Eds.), A t t i t u d e , o r g a n i z a t i o n , and change. New Haven,Conn.: Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1-14. Rosenblum, S. & Darkenwald, G. (1983). E f f e c t s of a d u l t l e a r n e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n course planning on achievement and satisfaction. Adult Education Q u a r t e r l y , 3_3,(3), 147-153. Rosow, I . (1965). S o c i a l Forces,  Forms and f u n c t i o n s of a d u l t 44, 35-45.  socialization.  R o t t e r , J . (1971). E x t e r n a l c o n t r o l and i n t e r n a l c o n t r o l . Psychology Today, 32(11-A), 37-42,58-59.  89  Seeman, M. (1959). On the meaning of a l i e n t a t i o n . S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 24, 783-91.  American  Semberger, F.M. (1972). S e l e c t e d e f f e c t s of the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of a d u l t s in program p l a n n i n g . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , F l o r i d a State U n i v e r s i t y . (From D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 34, 550A.) Smith, R.M. & Haverkamp, K.K. (1977). Toward a theory of l e a r n i n g how to l e a r n . Adult E d u c a t i o n, 28(1), 3-21. Sykes, J.B. current  (Ed.). (1982). The c o n c i s e Oxford d i c t i o n a r y of English. (7th ed.). Oxford: Clarendon P r e s s .  S y l v e s t e r Mawson, C O . (Ed.). (1940). The Roget d i c t i o n a r y synonyms and antonyms. Garden C i t y , N.Y.: Garden C i t y Books.  of  Templeton, F. (1966). A l i e n a t i o n and p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n : some research f i n d i n g s . P u b l i c Opinion Q u a r t e r l y , 30(2), 249-61. Thayer, L. (Ed.). (1976). experiential learning. Assoc i a t e s . T r i a n d i s , H.C (1971). York: Wiley.  A f f e c t i v e education: Strategies La J o l l a , C a i . : U n i v e r s i t y  Attitude  and  a t t i t u d e change.  for  New  Urdang, M. (1982). A model of i n - s e v i c e program c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and p a r t i c i p a n t a t t i t u d e s . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y . (From D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 43, 768A.) Vedros, K.R. (1979). The nominal group technique as a p a r t i c i p a t o r y p l a n n i n g method i n a d u l t e d u c a t i o n . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . F l o r i d a State University. (From D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 40, 3056A.) Verba S. & Brody, R.A. (1970). P a r t i c i p a t i o n , p o l i c y p r e f e r e n c e , and the war i n Vietnam. P u b l i c Opinion Quarterly. 34(3), 325-32. Verner, C. (1962). A conceptual scheme for the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of processes f o r a d u l t e d u c a t i o n . Washington, D.C: Adult Education A s s o c i a t i o n . Walsh, E. & Craypo, C. (1979). Union o l i g a r c h y and the g r a s s r o o t s ; The case of the teamsters defeat in farmworker organizing. Sociology of S o c i a l Research, 63_(2), 255-68.  90  Waniewicz, I. (1973). Demand f o r p a r t - t i m e l e a r n i n g i n O n t a r i o . Toronto: O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r S t u d i e s i n Educat i o n . Watt, E.D. (1981). Rousseau rechaufee- Being o b l i g e d , c o n s e n t i n g , p a r t i c i p a t i n g and obeying o n e s e l f . The J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c s , 3, 707-19. Welden, E . J . (1966). Program p l a n n i n g and program effectiveness in university r e s i d e n t i a l centers. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago.  APPENDIX  93  1C  Needs Assessment  In order to design the Pre-0 a c t i v i t i e s , I need issues which CUSO considers should be dealt orientation.  your with  HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE FOLLOWING?  OF  PRESENT  LEVEL  comments on during preKNOWLEDGE  AND  C i r c l e one response for each item. 1. Your motivation f o r going overseas with CUSO.  SOMEWHAT SATISFIED  HODERATELT SATISFIED  VERY SATISFIED  SOMEWHAT SATISFIED  MODERATELY SATISFIED  VERT SATISFIED  SOMEWHAT SATISFIED  MODERATELY SATISFIED  VERT SATISFIED  VERY DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  VERY DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  3. CUSO's h i s t o r y , o b j e c t i v e s and programs in Canada and overseas.  VERY DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  4. CUSO's p o l i c i e s and procedures and how they w i l l a f f e c t you.  VERY DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT SATISFIED  MODERATELY SAT1SFIED  VERY SATISFIED  5. Your r o l e i n the CUSO community i n Canada and overseas.  VERY DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT SATISFIED  MODERATELY SATISFIED  VERY SATISFIED  2. Your expectations of the CUSO experience.  6. Health and n u t r i t i o n overseas.  VERY DISSATtSFIED  7. C r o s s - c u l t u r a l awareness and communication. 8. Development issues in Canada and the Third World. 9. I n d i v i d u a l concerns other than the issues mentioned (specify)  VERY DISSATISFIED  VERY DISSATISFIED  • SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIE  SOMEWHAT 01SSATISF1ED  HODERATELT DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIE  MODERATELY DISSATISPIED  SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT SATISFIED  MODERATELY SATISFIED  VERY SATISFIED  SOMEWHAT SATISFIED  MODERATELY SATISFIED  VERT SATISFIED  SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT SATISFIED  MODERATELY SATISFIED  VERY SATISFIE!  SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT SATISFIED  MODERATELY SATISFIED  VERT SATISFIED  18 HOURS PRIORITIES A f t e r 'basic needs' are taken care of, we'll have about 18 hours a v a i l a b l e on the weekend. Think about how much time you'd i d e a l l y to devote to each of the 9 items.  like  ON THE LINE TO THE LEFT OF EACH ITEM, NOTE THE NUMBER OF HOURS YOU WOULD DEVOTE TO THAT ITEM. If you l i k e , use f r a c t i o n s to specify which parts of a p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t i v e should get the most time. Please use a l l your time, but no more than 18 hours-that's a l l we have!  94  MEANS TO THE Which  learn  ENDS  combination about these  of a c t i v i t i e s would 9 issues.  AGAIN, PRETEND YOU HAVE 18 HOURS, AND SPEND IN EACH OF THE FOLLOWING:  provide the b e s t D E C I D E HOW  'means' t o  MANY YOU'D L I K E  TO  Lectures Slide/talks Films Small  group d i s c u s s i o n s  Reading Participating Watching  i n skits/role  skits/role  play  . ...  plays  Discovery-type  learning  (participative  group e x e r c i s e s  to  explore an idea)  U n s t r u c t u r e d one-to-one c o n v e r s a t i o n s with v o l u n t e e r s s t a f f and o t h e r a p p l i c a n t s Group  returned  recreation(sports/parties)  Individual Other(not Specify  recreationCsports/private time) eating and sleeping ! )  18  HOURS  95  SKILL  SHARING  I'm a l s o i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e s k i l l s y o u h a v e . P l e a s e o u t l i n e e x p e r i e n c e , knowledge and s k i l l s you can s h a r e w i t h t h e g r o u p eg: m o t o r c y c l e care, t r a v e l l i n g w i t h a l l e r g i e s , b e i n g a w e s t e r n women i n n o n - w e s t e r n c u l t u r e s , f i t n e s s t i p s . ? . ? . ? . D o n ' t be h u m b l e ; we n e e d y o u .  F I N A L REQUEST S e n d i n y o u r comments a s s o o n a s p o s s i b l e . I h o p e t h a t t h e " r o y a l we" o f t h e s e l e t t e r s w i l l s o o n b e c o m e a r e a l "we" a s p a r t i c i p a n t s , R.V.'s a n d s t a f f become a c t i v e i n t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . I know i t ' s h a r d t o ' p u t a number' on t h e s e t h i n g s , b u t i t ' s t h e e a s i e s t way t o b a l a n c e i n p u t f r o m a number o f p e o p l e . F e e l f r e e t o a n y comments o r q u e s t i o n s . T h a n k s f o r y o u r c o o p e r a t i o n a n d i d e a s . P l e a s e l e t me know when y o u be r e a c h e d by p h o n e a s I ' l l be c a l l i n g y o u f o r f o l l o w - u p . FOR  MY  PLANNING  IT'S  ESSENTIAL  THAT I GET  T H I S FORM BACK BY  MAY  OR  MORE OF  THE  ABOVE, WHICHEVER WORKS FOR  YOU.  can  15TH.  P l e a s e s e n d i t b a c k AS SOON AS P O S S I B L E o r r i s k t h e : A. W r a t h o f a d i s g r u n t l e d p r o g r a m c o o r d i n a t o r . B. P a t h o s o f a l o v e l e s s p r o g r a m c o o r n i n a t o r . C. D i s o r g a n i z a t i o n o f an u n i n f o r m e d p r o g r a m c o o r d i n a t o r . D. B o r e d o m o f a p r o g r a m w h i c h d o e s n ' t r e f l e c t y o u r n e e d s / i n t e r e s t s . CHOOSE ONE  add  96  2  APPENDIX Notes  Points  to Bring  -evaluation personal  for Introducing  Evaluation  Out  i s more  formal  background  that  has l e a d  me  usual  f o r CUSO  to believe  because  i n the value  of  my  of  evaluations -the of  findings will  i n v o l v i n g people  -filling -please  note  compare  -if  over  the front  groups, we  feel  the margins  -please  believe  thesis,  paragraph;  you t h i s  free  the point  study  of the  appreciated  i t looks  rather  evaluation  i s used  or you would  like  t o c r i t i c i z e , a d d comments  when  I say they  only  individuals t o add  or write a l l  and a t the bottom me  effects  of the program  again  not to evaluate  missed  a  i s o p t i o n a l , but  but I can t o assure  you f e e l  something,  f o r my  i n the planning  i n the evaluation  official, to  be u s e d  a r e read  and  used  97 APPENDIX 3 Self-report Instrument EVALUATION CUSO  PRE  -  O R I E N T A T I O N  CAMP SQUAMISH May 25-27 - 1984  I understand that this evaluation i s designed  to evaluate the program and  NOT me or my involvement. I understand my name i s required to help i n this process but that nothing I write i n i t w i l l affect my p o s i t i o n i n CUSO or my posting.  NAME  98  HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THIS WEEKEND'S CONTRIBUTION TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE FOLLOWING? C i r c l e one response f o r each item.  1. Your m o t i v a t i o n f o r g o i n g o v e r s e a s w i t h CUSO.  KMT DISSATISFIED  HODERATELT DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT »»TISPIED  HODERATELT SATISFIED  VERT SATISFIED  2. Your e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e CUSO e x p e r i e n c e .  VERT DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT SATISFIED  HODERATELT SATISFIED  VERT SATISFIED  3. CUSO's h i s t o r y , o b j e c t i v e s and programs i n Canada and o v e r s e a s .  VERY IISSAT1SFIED  SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT SATISFIED  MODERATELY SATISFIED  4. C U S O ' s p o l i c i e s and p r o c e d u r e s and how t h e y w i l l affect you.  VERY DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT SATISFIED  HODERATELT SATISFIED  VERY SATISFIED  5. Your r o l e i n t h e CUSO community i n Canada and overseas.  VERY DISSATISFIED  HODERATELT DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT SATISFIED  HODERATELT SATISFIED  VERY SATISFIED  6. H e a l t h a n d n u t r i t i o n overseas. 7. C r o s s - c u l t u r a l a w a r e n e s s and comnunicat:' o n , 8 . Development i s s u e s i n Canada a n d t h e T h i r d World. 9. I n d i v i d u a l c o n c e r n s other than the i s s u e s mentioned ( s p e c i f y )  VERY DISSATISTIED  OlfSA-ISFIED  VERY DISSATISFIED  VERT DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY  DISSATISFIED  DISSATISFI J>  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT SATISFIED  HODERATELT SATISFIED  VERT SATIS MEI  HODERATELT DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED  SOMEWHAT SATISFIED  HODERATELT SATISFIED  VFPY SATISFIED  SOMEWHAT  Any other comments? Please e l a b o r a t e , e s p e c i a l l y i f you were d i s s a t i s f i e d with anything.  SOMEWHAT SATISFIED  SATTIFJB,  HODERATELT SATISFIED  VERY SATISFIED  SArfSm*  . VERY SATISFIED  SATIST'D  INSTRUCTIONS  In  this  is  CUSO a s a d e v e l o p m e n t  I  want  scales If  section,  I'd  like  y o u t o make y o u r provided.  you feel  \/  scale  the other  SLIGHTLY  hand,  that  The  f i r s t  descriptive  . . . .  important". agency  i s  check as f o l l o w s :  :  :  Important  :  CUSO a s a d e v e l o p m e n t  : along  the various  CUSO a s a d e v e l o p m e n t  "important"  :  anywnere  things.  i s "unimportant  :  you f e e l  :  may c h e c * .  scale  '• i f  three  using  "unimportant"  associated with  Unimportant You  :  PAGES  agency. judgements  CLOSELY a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  On  you to evaluate  The f i r s t  on this  Unimportant  FOR THE N E X T THREE  agency  i s  check as f o l l o w s :  : the scale  :  :  Important  ( i n the spaces)  as  long  i as  you i n d i c a t e your  Work  rapidly.  over  your  answer ALL  There  answers. items.  impression of a r e no r i g h t  Just  CUSO a s a d e v e l o p m e n t  o r wrong  indicate your  answers.  f i r s t  answer.  Don't  agency. puzzle  Please  AS A DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CUSO IS  .  unimportant  '  '  '  '  '  *  important  incompetent  :  :  :  :  :  :  competent  noncooperative  .  .  •  .  •  *  .  •  .  .  •  •  cooperative  inactive  :  :  :  :  :  :  active  irresponsible  :  :  :  :  :  :  responsible  non-exploitive  :  :  :  :  :  ;  exploitive  inert  :  :  :  ;  :  :  dynamic  rigid  :  :  useless  :  :  :  :  :  insignificant  :  :  .  unfair  :  :  : .  .  :  :  flexible  : .  :  :  : .  :  . , useful significant  :  fair  stagnant  :  :  :  :  :  :  innovative  incapable  :  :  :  :  :  :  capable  .  .  .  inefficient  •  ' dependent intolerant  :  . •  Any other comments?  *  :  .  . •  . •  . •  efficient •  :  :  :  .  .  .  .  •  •  •  •  independent  :  tolerant •  101  AS  A PRE-ORIENTATION  worthless  T H I S W E E K E N D WAS  :  '  :  inefficient  :  boring  .  :  .  •  :  '  :  .  "  valuable  :  efficient  :  .  .  .  •  •  •  stimulating  inconsistent  consistent •  •  •  •  sluggish  :  :  :  :  :  :  energetic  confusing  :  :  :  :  :  :  enlightening  unorganized  :  :  :  :  :  :  organized  purposeless  :  :  :  :  :  :  purposeful  discouraging  :  :  :  .:  :  :  encouraging  unaware  :  :  :  :  :  :  aware  humdrum  :  :  :  :  :  :  exciting  unimportant  :  :  :  :  :  :  important  dull  :  :  inactive  :  useless  :  :  :  :  :  :  useful  insignificant  :  :  :  :  :  :  significant  Any  other  comments?  :  •  •  •  :  :  •  '  :  :  :  •  interesting  :  :  :  active  102  AS  A  CUSO V O L U N T E E R I  passive  AM  active  useless  useful  unqualified  qualified  unreliable  reliable  inert  dynamic  unimportant important incompetent competent insensitive sensitive stagnant innovative insignificant significant incapable capable intolerant tolerant unsuitable suitable uncooperative cooperative ineffective effective rigid flexible  Any  other  comments?  103  PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING FEATURES OF THE WEEKEND  PLANNING PROCESS  VERY POOR  POOR  FAIR  GOOD  VERY GOOD  TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS  VERY POOR  POOR  FAIR  GOOD  VERY GOOD  FOLDER MATERIALS  VERY POOR  POOR  FAIR  GOOD  VERY GOOD  SITE  VERY POOR  POOR  FAIR  GOOD  VERY GOOD  MEALS  VERY POOR  POOR  FAIR  GOOD  VERY GOOD  Now r a t e the f o l l o w i n g as to how important you f e e l  they a r e to a  Pre-0 and how s a t i s f i e d you a r e w i t h the way they were done. W r i t e N/A i f you d i d not a t t e n d . P l e a s e s p e c i f y workshops where a p p r o p r i a t e .  BURNING QUESTIONS  VERY UNIMPORTANT  MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT  VERY .DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  VERY . UNIMPORTANT  MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT  VERY DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED SLIGHTLY . UNIMPORTANT  SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT  MODERATELY VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT  SLIGHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED  SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT  MODERATELY VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT  SLIGHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED  SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT  MODERATELY VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT  SLIGHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED  SCULPTURING  'VERY UNIMPORTANT BEGINNER'S GUIDE TO CUSO  VERY DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  "VERY • MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT D.E.F.O.G.O.  VERY DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED  SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED  SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT  MODERATELY IMPORTANT  VERY IMPORTANT  SLIGHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED  104  FUNDRAISING  NUTRITION/ FITNESS  MEDICAL/STRESS  ' VERY UNIMPORTANT  MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT  VERY .DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  VERY UNIMPORTANT  MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT  VERY DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  'VERY UNIMPORTANT VERY DISSATISFIED  REGIONAL. (Specify)  BAFA BAFA game  SPORTS  AD HOC SESSION  (Specify)  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  VERY . MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT VERY .DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  "VERY UNIMPORTANT  MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT  VERY .DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  "VERY  MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT  SPECIAL INTERES'' U N I M P O R T A N T  (Specify)  MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT  VERY UDISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  "VERY UNIMPORTANT  MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT  VERY .DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  "VERY UNIMPORTANT  MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT  VERY -DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED  SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED  SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED  SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED  SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED  SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT SLICHTLY DISSATISFIED  SLIGHTLY MODERATELY VERY IMPORTANT. I M P O R T A N T IMPORTANT SLIGHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED  SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT  MODERATELY VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT  SLIGHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED  SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT  MODERATELY VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT  SLIGHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED  SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT  MODERATELY VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT  SLIGHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED  SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT  MODERATELY VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT  SLIGHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED  SLICHTLY IMPORTANT  MODERATELY VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT  SLICHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED  SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT  MODERATELY IMPORTANT  VERY IMPORTANT  SLICHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED  SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT  MODERATELY IMPORTANT  VERY IMPORTANT  SLIGHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY SATISFIED  VERY SATISFIED  105  PARTY  INTERNATIONAL FOOD  CUSO's ROLE IN  DEVELOPMENT  UNPREPARED CUSC  VERY UNIMPORTANT  MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT  VERY .DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  VERY UNIMPORTANT  MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT  VERY DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  'VERY UNIMPORTANT  MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT  VERY .DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  VERY • MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT VERY _ DISSATISFIED  "VERY GOOD/BAD/ WELL-I U N I M P O R T A N T  MEANT  PLANNING YOUR  OWN PRE-O  STAFF INVOLVEMENT  R.O. INVOLVE-  MENT  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT  SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED  SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT  VERY .DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY IMPORTANT  VERY IMPORTANT  SLIGHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY SATISFIED  VERY SATISFIED  MODERATELY SATISFIED  VERY SATISFIED  SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT  SLICHTLY IMPORTANT  MODERATELY IMPORTANT  VERY IMPORTANT  SLICHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY SATISFIED  VERY SATISFIED  SLICHTLY IMPORTANT  MODERATELY IMPORTANT  VERY IMPORTANT  SLICHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY SATISFIED  VERY SATISFIED  SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED  SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT  SLICHTLY UNIMPORTANT  "VERY ' MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT  SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT  SLIGHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED  SLICHTLY DISSATISFIED  "VERY UNIMPORTANT  VERY .DISSATISFIED  SLIGHTLY SATISFIED  VERY IMPORTANT  SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED  MODERATELY UNIMPORTANT  VERY IMPORTANT  MODERATELY IMPORTANT  MODERATELY DISSATISFIED  "VERY UNIMPORTANT  MODERATELY IMPORTANT  SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT  VERY _ DISSATISFIED  VERY MODERATELY L-DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED  SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT  SLICHTLY DISSATISFIED  SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED  SLIGHTLY UNIMPORTANT SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED  SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT  MODERATELY IMPORTANT  VERY IMPORTANT  SLICHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY SATISFIED  VERY SATISFIED  SLIGHTLYIMPORTANT  MODERATELY IMPORTANT  VERY IMPORTANT  SLICHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY SATISFIED  VERY SATISFIED  SLICHTLY IMPORTANT  MODERATELY IMPORTANT  VERY IMPORTANT  SLICHTLY SATISFIED  MODERATELY SATISFIED  VERY SATISFIED  106'  Which o f the f o l l o w i n g do you i an to do, i f any?  Please  ; i r c l e your response  o r responses.  TAKE A MEMBERSHIP WITH CUSO  TAKE A MOTORCYCLE COURSE  COLLECT RECIPES  TAKE A FIRST AID COURSE  JOIN MY LOCAL COMMITTEE IN CANADA  JOIN MY LOCAL COMMITTEE OVERSAS  READ MORE  PROJECT GROUNDWORK IN MY COMMUNITY  DISCUSSIONS WITH R.V.s  Is there anything e l s e you p l a n t o  Is there anything e l s e you would l i k e from CUSO-B.C?  107  APPENDIX  4  CODING S C H E D U L E Column 1-3  Variable s e r i a l number  Codes  4  treatment/control  control=1 treatment=2 returned volunteer=3 staff=4  5-6  blank ISSUE  7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  Motivation Expectations CUSO's h i s t o r y / o b j e c t i v e s CUSO's p o l i c i e s / p r o c e d u r e s Y o u r r o l e i n CUSO c o m m u n i t y Health and n u t r i t i o n C r o s s - c u l t u r a l awareness Development issues Individual concerns  16-18  blank  19-34  AS A - D E V E L O P M E N T AGENCY  19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  unimportant/important incompetent/competent noncooperative/cooperative inactive/active irresponsible/responsible non-exploitive/exploitive inert/dynamic rigid/flexible useful/useless insignificant/significant unfair/fair stagnant/innovative incapable/capable inefficient/efficient dependent/independent intolerant/tolerant  35-36 37-52 37 38 39 40  CUSO  very dissatisfied=1 moderatly dissatisfied=2 somewhat d i s s a t i s f i e d = 3 somewhat satisfied=4 moderately satisfied=5 very satisfied=6  IS ... From t h e l e f t : f i r s t blank=1 second blank=2 t h i r d blank=3 f o u r t h blank=4 fifth blank=5 s i x t h blank=6  blank AS A P R E O R I E N T A T I O N T H I S WEEKEND WAS . . . . A s f o r CUSO I S worthless/valuable inefficient/efficient boring/stimulating •inconsistant/consistant  41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53-54 55-70 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71-72 73-77 73 74 75 76 77 78-79 80  sluggish/energetic confusing/enlightening unorganized/organized purposeless/purposeful discouraging/encouraging unaware/aware humdrum/exciting unimportant/important dull/interesting inactive/active useless/useful insignificant/significant blank AS A CUSO V O L U N T E E R I AM . . . passive/active useless/useful unqualified/qualified unreliable/reliable inert/dynamic unimportant/important incompetent/competent insensitive/sensitive stagnant/innovative insignificant/significant incapable/capable intolerant/tolerant unsuitable/suitable uncooperative/cooperative ineffective/effective rigid/flexible  As  f o r 'CUSO  blank LOGISTICS Planning Process T r a v e l arrangements Folder materials Site Meals  v e r y poor=1 poor=2 fair=3 good=4 v e r y good=5  blanks Card  number CARD NUMBER  1-3  serial  4  treatment/control  5-6  blank  2  number -  see c a r d  one  109  7-46 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 29-30 31-32 33-34 35-36 37-38 39-40 41-42 43-44 45-46  ACTIVITIES Burning questions Sculpturing B e g i n n e r ' s g u i d e t o CUSO D.E.F.O.G.O. Fundraising Nutrition/fundraising Medical/stress Regional sessions Bafa bafa Special interest Sports Ad hoc s e s s i o n s Party I n t e r n a t i o n a l food CUSO's r o l e i n d e v e l o p m e n t U p r e p a r e d CUSO Good/Bad/Well Meant P l a n n i n g y o u r own p r e - o Staff involvement R.V. involvement  ODD NUMBERS: v e r y unimportant=1 moderately unimportant=2 s l i g h t l y unimportant=3 slighlty important=4 moderately important=5 very important=6 E V E N NUMBERS: very dissatisfied=1 moderately d i s s a t i s . = 2 slightly dissatisfied=3 slightly satisfied=4 moderately satisfied=5 very satisfied=6  47  blank  48-59 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  PLANNED FOLLOW-UP T a k e a m e m b e r s h i p w i t h CUSO uncircled=1 Collect recipes _ circled=2 J o i n Canadian l o c a l committee Read more D i s c u s s i o n s w i t h R.V.s Take a m o t o r c y c l e c o u r s e Take a f i r s t a i d c o u r s e J o i n my l o c a l c o m m i t t e e o v e r s e a s P r o j e c t g r o u n d w o r k i n my c o m m u n i t y  57  Is there anything p l a n t o do?  else you  Is there anything  else you  58  would 59 60-61  like  from  nothing=l something=2  CUSO-B.C?  as above  blank Age  62  Blank  63  Sex  64  blank  65  Near  male-1 female=2  staff  person  yes=1  110  no=2 66 68  blank Attended  development  education 69 70 71  series  As  above  blank Helpfulness  No=0 Yes=1  blank  72  Affinity  t o group  Once=l Twice=2. Thrice=3 Four times=4  80  Card  1-3,  serial  4  treatment/control  See c a r d 1  5-6  blank  Membership  7-18  ACTUAL  7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  contacted a returned cooperant contacted regional staff contacted national staff p r o j e c t groundwork contacted local committee took m o t o r c y c l e course collected recipes took a f i r s t a i d course j o i n e d CUSO contacted other applicants contacted foreign nationals further reading  number CARD  NUMBER  THREE  number  FOLLOWUP  1  no=0 yes=1  with  CUSO  Ill  Appendix 5 PARTICIPANT CONTRIBUTION MEASURE Which candidate c o n t r i b u t e d the MOST to the p r e - o r i e n t a t i o n weekend? Write the name below.  NAME  0  25  50  Assume the above-named person's c o n t r i b u t i o n i s worth 100 Now, IN RELATION TO THE PERSON JUST IDENTIFIED, how candidates c o n t r i b u t e ?  75  100  points.  much d i d the remaining  Please mark each l i n e to show the extent of the i n d i v i d u a l candidate's c o n t r i b u t i o n TO THE PRE-ORIENTATION WEEKEND. Remember, t h i s not an e v a l u a t i o n of the candidate i n general, j u s t h i s or her c o n t r i b u t i o n to the weekend. Mark an 'X' anywhere along each  line.  0  25  50  75  100  0  25  50  75  100  0  25  50  75  100  0  25  50  75  100  0  25  50  75  100  0  25  50  75  100  Please remember that the purpose of t h i s individuals.  e v a l u a t i o n i s to compare two groups, not  If you l i k e , you may c l i p o f f the part with the names a f t e r you have f i l l e d lines. I only need the f i r s t name, the one equal to 100 p o i n t s .  i n the  Thank you f o r your h e l p . Gayle  NOTE: In order to assure the anonymity of those cooperating i n t h i s study the names have been removed from t h i s instrument. As w e l l , many of the l i n e s have been omitted. T h i s instrument was two pages long and was p r i n t e d on 8*5 by 14 paper.  APPENDIX  9  6  112  Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Scale fudging Form  S  ft  D £ 0 £ ^ O p nENT  BG-ENC^  ?  NO  I 3  US  0  ?  NO  X5  l S  i 7  la  36  3/  9  /  1  20  3^  A)  3 3  *3  3 ^  o  ^  3  k  AJO-  113  1 I  NO  AJO-  NO  13  X  ^7  3  H  it  S  /7  18  I ?  1  ll  2 3 3  7*  / 0  M V  /  /  1 X  XV  3 (,  114  f) S  Pi  C k S o  \JoiUNTE  T  5R  Am  •  / 3  X7  xa  I  7  18  36  3/  8  20  3*  3 3  /  o  X3  O  ?  NO  NO  9  IS 3  L  AJO-  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055862/manifest

Comment

Related Items