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), University 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 Administration, Adult And Higher Education We accept th i s thesis as conforming to £fte required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1984 © Gayle McGee, 1984 8 6 In presenting t h i s thesis in p a r t i a l fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his or her representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Adminstration, Adult And Higher Education The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: October, 1984 i i Abstract Convential adult education fol k l o r e holds that learners involved in the program planning process w i l l be more s a t i s f i e d with and w i l l learn more during an educational event than those not consulted. This was an experimental study where "collaboration" was an independent variable and "attitudes" and "behaviour" were dependent (or outcome) variables. Twenty-three participants were randomly assigned to treatment (10) and control (13) groups. Prior to a CUSO pre-orientation course held during one weekend in May of 1984, the treatment group "collaborated" and thus helped the planner design the weekend's a c t i v i t i e s . The control group was not consulted but merely instructed to "show-up" for the course. The independent variable, "collaboration", was based on assertions derived from Knowles' d e f i n i t i o n of andragogy and Gibbs' ideas concerning "t r u s t " . Participants' attitudes towards the course were measured by having them.rate the learning a c t i v i t i e s and l o g i s t i c s of the weekend. They also completed three semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l scales which had previously been shown to have high face v a l i d i t y and to be relevant to the three concepts (AS A DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CUSO IS ... ; AS A CUSO VOLUNTEER I AM ... ; AS A PREORIENTATION THIS WEEKEND WAS ). Prior to examining differences between the treatment and control groups, the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l data were factor analysed to provide c r i t e r i a for scale scoring. Ratings of CUSO IS broke into three factors which accounted for 68 percent of the variance; ratings of I AM broke into four factors accounting for 70.2 percent of variance; those of WEEKEND WAS broke into four factors accounting for 80.2 percent of the variance. Four participant "behaviours" were also measured. Three behaviours were manifested during the course, the other concerned "follow-up" a c t i v i t i e s to be done after the course. Next, mean scores for each of the dependent (attitude and behaviour) variables were calculated. Semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l scale scores were calculated by summing over scales that comprised each factor. After applying a series of t-t e s t s , i t was concluded that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between any of the "attitudes" expressed by the treatment and control groups. But there were differences in their behaviour. Those who collaborated in the planning of the weekend retreat took on s i g n i f i c a n t l y more volunteer roles during the weekend (.05 l e v e l ) , and s i g n i f i c a n t l y more follow-up a c t i v i t i e s than did those who weren't involved in the planning. A number of reasons for the differences between the "attitude" and "behaviour" measures were discussed, including the nature of the participants as well as the treatment and measurement procedures. It was concluded that the attitude measures were not correlated with behaviours and that future research in this area should look more clos e l y at behaviour, preferably through multi - f a c t o r a l designs. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Abstract i i Table of Contents iv L i s t of Appendices v i L i s t of Tables v i i L i s t of Figures . v i i i Acknowledgements ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Purposes of this Study 9 Cooperating Organization 9 Nature of CUSO 9 Pre-Orientation 10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT 12 LITERATURE REVIEW 12 Learner P a r t i c i p a t i o n 12 What is Participation? 12 Par t i c i p a t i o n = Enrollment 13 Part i c i p a t i o n = Participatory Techniques 13 Par t i c i p a t i o n = Collaboration in Research 14 Par t i c i p a t i o n = Collaboration in Program Planning 14 Who Should Participate ? 16 Why Promote Participation? 17 Operationalization of P a r t i c i p a t i o n 19 The Ef f e c t s of P a r t i c i p a t i o n 26 HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT 32 Hypotheses 33 3 RESEARCH DESIGN 35 Internal V a l i d i t y 35 External V a l i d i t y 36 4 INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT 38 Developing a Treatment 38 Needs Assessment: Part 1 40 Needs Assessment: Part 2 40 Needs Assessment: Part 3 41 Needs Assessment: Part 4 41 Needs Assessment: Part 5 42 Follow-up 42 Developing Outcome Measures 43 Written Self-Report Instrument 45 Sati s f a c t i o n with content 45 Semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l 47 Choosing the concepts and scales 47 Testing concept/scale relevance . . 50 Internal v a l i d i t y 53 Factor loadings-CUSO IS • 53 Factor loadings-WEEKEND WAS 55 Factor loadings-I AM • 57 V PAGE R e l i a b i l i t y 60 Rating l o g i s t i c s 60 Rating learning a c t i v i t i e s 61 Planned follow-up 61 Measuring A f f i n i t y to Group 62 Measuring Helpfulness 62 Estimating Participant Contribution 62 Actual Follow-up 63 Telephone c a l l guide 63 4 METHOD 65 Random Assignment . 65 Characteristics of Sample 65 Administering Treatment 66 D i s t r i b u t i n g the Needs Assessment 66 Actual Follow-up 67 Learning A c t i v i t y 67 Data Col l e c t i o n 68 Written Instrument 68 A f f i n i t y to Group 68 Helpfulness 68 Participant Contribution 68 Actual Follow-up 69 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 70 RESULTS 70 Written Instrument 71 A f f i n i t y to Group 72 Helpfulness 73 Participant Contribution 73 Actual Follow-up 73 Hypotheses Reviewed 74 Hypothesis 1 75 Hypothesis 2 75 Hypothesis 3 75 Hypothesis 4 75 DISCUSSION 76 Treatment Had No Effect? 76 Treatment Had an Undetected Effect? 79 Nature of Participants? 79 Design Defect? 80 Treatment Defect? 81 Measurement Defect? 81 Implications of Behavioural Differences 81 REFERENCES 83 v i LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 1A-Notification Letter 91 1B-Follow-up l e t t e r 92 1C-Needs assessment 93 2 Notes for Introducing Evaluation 9 6 3 Self-report Instrument 97 4 Coding Schedule 107 5 Participant Contribution Measure I l l 6 Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Scale Judging Form 112 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 Review of Operationalization of P a r t i c i p a t i o n 20 2 Trust and Andragogical Planning .27 3 Review of Operationalization of Dependent Variables 29 4 Collaboration in Program Planning 39 5 Summary of Measures of Dependent Variables 46 6 A P r i o r i Factors • 52 7 Factor Analysis: CUSO IS 54 8 Factor Analysis: WEEKEND WAS 56 9 Factor Analysis: I AM 58 10 Comparison of Mean Scores 72 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Example of Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Scale 48 ix Acknowledgments Thanks are due f i r s t and foremost to my committee members. Roger Boshier stuck with me through various thesis proposals and read numerous drafts which resulted in this study. Dan Pratt was patient and helpful despite a rather e r r a t i c communication system. The families of both were genial when my thesis needs intruded on their 'family time.' So thanks to Ingrid Pipke and James Boshier as well as Todd, Paige and Sean Pratt. CUSO s t a f f , returned volunteers and pre-orientation participants made the research for t h i s study both possible and pleasurable. Many lent a hand, but the cooperation of the judging committee Dave West, Pat B i r d s e l l , Debbie Leach, Dave Smith, Margo McLoughlin and Greg Bruce was indispensable. CUSO s t a f f , Dora F i d l e r of U.B.C., and Randy Niedzwieki of the Orientation department were esp e c i a l l y h e l p f u l . To my family, friends and fellow students who maintained a supportive interest throughout I'm relieved to say, "Thanks for asking, one more time. Yes, I'm f i n a l l y finished." 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 'Participation' is often venerated, rarely defined and always t o p i c a l . P o l i t i c a l , s o c i a l , psychological and economic theories abound e x t o l l i n g the merits of p a r t i c i p a t i o n for the individual and the c o l l e c t i v e . As the Club of Rome claimed in No Limits to Learning, "one of the most s i g n i f i c a n t trends of our time i s the near-universal demand for p a r t i c i p a t i o n " (Botkin, Elmandjra, Malitza, 1979, p. 13). Education, whether i n i t i a t i n g or r e f l e c t i n g t h i s trend, i s at the heart of the controversy. The adult education l i t e r a t u r e , in p a r t i c u l a r , discusses how p a r t i c i p a t i o n can and should be encouraged and heralds benefits reaped with increased learner involvement. Pa r t i c i p a t i o n has become a 'buzz word' of modern i n s t i t u t i o n s . Since Vatican II, the Catholic Church, once a model of patriarachal structures, has experienced the s h i f t s , blessings and strains of more 'pa r t i c i p a t i o n ' from the congregation. The popularity of self-development movements such as EST or S i l v a Mind Control, t e s t i f y to a widely-felt need to overcome feelings of impotence. Individuals are to be empowered to solve problems. Even h i e r a r c h i c a l bodies such as the American navy are undertaking programs to help recru i t s be 'empowered' (in Ferguson, 1980, p. 237). This rejection of h i e r a r c h i c a l relationships is also apparent at the international l e v e l where poorer nations are demanding partnerships, not patronage. This same desire for changing power relations i s evident in 2 rebellions in human service professions. Some subgroups claim t h e i r colleagues reduce laymen to dependent incompetence by transforming s e l f - r e l i a n t c i t i z e n s into c l i e n t s and patients. Humanist therapy (Rogers, 1957) and patient collaboration in chronic care are examples of the movement among health professionals to make people participants in their own cures or health maintenance. Many non-professional groups are established to provide mutual information and health care as well as to demand that health professionals deal with the sick in non-patronising ways. Each of these moves towards higher p a r t i c i p a t i o n changes the power relationship of the s i t u a t i o n . As a r e s u l t , i t is easy to find church o f f i c i a l s who resent the weakening of their position, m i l i t a r y personnel who fear a lack of d i s c i p l i n e , or professionals who r e s i s t the questioning of their authority. Increased p a r t i c i p a t i o n changes power relationships, i f considered those relationships in terms of Oppenheim's (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 a c t i v i t y of R)' means that R influences or coerces R to do X (p. 589). Education theory and practice have been molded and adapted by influences of ;the society i t serves. Dewey (1916) emphasized the role of education in a democratic society as did Lindeman (1961). Recent attention to the form of education, not just the content, has renewed th i s questioning of the role of the educator in society (Huden, 1981; R i t t e r , 1981). Freire (1976) i n s i s t e d that education i s 'the practice of freedom'. A 3 dialogue between equals dedicated to achieving a praxis between r e f l e c t i o n and action i s the way people learn to 'transform their world'. In t h i s relationship, the role of educator is to allow the learner to become c r i t i c a l l y conscious of his or her r e a l i t y . This consciousness allows the c i t i z e n to p a r t i c i p a t e in a process which establishes, "solutions with the people and never for or imposed upon them" (Freire, 1976, p. 16). Promotion of such an awareness of s e l f is apparent in the t i t l e Learning to Be (Faure et a l . , 1972). S i m i l a r l y , in The Aquarian Conspiracy (Ferguson, 1980) each individual is encouraged to believe, "You are a seed, a s i l e n t promise. You are the conspiracy" (p. 417). P a r t i c i p a t i o n i s supported as an end in i t s e l f by the 'human potential' movement, but also as the means to create a more dynamic, value-based society. This preoccupation with p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s apparent in a wide-range of writing and sheds l i g h t on why educators have been struggling with t h i s issue. The demand for p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s perhaps most obvious in the p o l i t i c a l sphere. The rel a t i o n s h i p between governors and governed has long been disputed in discussions of p o l i t i c a l theory, es p e c i a l l y in cultures which venerate the democratic t r a d i t i o n . How and when should c i t i z e n s p a r t i c i p a t e in the governing process? Most writers on participatory democracy from the time of Locke and Hobbes . i n s i s t 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 association, but must be constantly re-affirmed by the active p a r t i c i p a t i o n of a l l members in the conduct of public business ( W a t t 1 981 , p. 717). The participatory 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 p a r t i c i p a t i o n of c i t i z e n s protected their interests and was a ' c i v i l i z i n g ' process. Of course, p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t y i s far from descriptions by p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t s . Rousseau's claim that, "the sovereign, being formed wholly of the individuals who compose i t , neither has nor can have any interest contrary to t h e i r s " (Watt, 1981, p. 718) was written when the 'sovereign' c i t i z e n r y was imagined to be homogeneous in both a b i l i t i e s and in t e r e s t s . Transferred to the large democracies of the twentieth century, Rousseau's Social Contract imagines conditions which even the most ardent democrat could not find in present governments. As Watt (1981) noted: In a participatory or self-managing democracy c i t i z e n s c o l l e c t i v e l y exercise . p o l i t i c a l authority over themselves in the capacity of private individuals ... subordinating themselves to their own c o l l e c t i v e judgments, not to the judgments of others (p. 717). More familiar to the modern reader i s the 'polyarchy' decribed by Dahl, one of the most important p o l i t i c a l theoreticians of th i s century: Polyarchy ('what we c a l l democracy') insures ... responsiveness less by extensive mass p a r t i c i p a t i o n than bargaining and negotiating between organized minorities (Krouse, 1982, p. 444). Rather than n o s t a l g i c a l l y pining for greater c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n , Dahl (1956) claimed that people par t i c i p a t e in the governing process only to the extent that they must to protect their interests. He pointed out that benefits gained by average c i t i z e n s i f they increase p a r t i c i p a t i o n pale when compared to the more pleasurable things they could do with the same time. As Krouse (1982) pointed 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 f a i l e d to conceive of p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n two-dimensionally: as an instrumentality to gain end results and as a process that affords the opportunity to gain a greater sense of purpose and pride and a greater awareness of community (in Krouse, 1982, p. 455). This evolution of one writer's attempt to understand p a r t i c i p a t i o n r e f l e c t s contradictions apparent in p o l i t i c a l theory dealing with p a r t i c i p a t i o n . These themes are also found in s o c i a l psychology. Studies are done on why and how people part i c i p a t e in various aspects of their society (Houghland & Christenson, 1983; Prewitt, Eulau & Zisk, 1966; Verba & Brody, 1970) and what implication non-p a r t i c i p a t i o n has for the individual and society (Seeman, 1959). Social psychology has spawned a number of concepts which help the researcher think about p a r t i c i p a t i o n - 'locus of control' (Rotter, 1971), 'anomie' (Durkheim, 1933), 'influence' (Parsons, 1963), 'alientation' (Lutz, 1973; Templeton, 1966) and 'apathy' (Rosenberg, 1956). At times, an underlying bias which says people should part i c i p a t e i s evident (Dubery,. 1971). The prescriptive notion is i m p l i c i t y t i e d to democratic ideals, a recognition of the individuals's role in making them work and the obligation of the powerful segments in society to assure the continuity of those p r i n c i p l e s . Literature on economic p a r t i c i p a t i o n has many themes which intertwine with those identifed above. Much has been written about how those whose a c t i v i t i e s are marginal to the money economy are less powerful than those who part i c i p a t e (Callaway, 1980). A commonly c i t e d example i s the female whose homemaking 6 and childcare duties are a necessary but unpaid contribution to society (Mahoney & Richardson, 1979). Managerial theory discusses who should be involved in corporate decisions and what form p a r t i c i p a t i o n should take (eg: Hall & Leidecker, 1981; Marchington, 1980). Some writers mainly consider how to develop an e f f e c t i v e management team (Maguire & Pascale, 1978; McDaniel & Ahmos, 1980); others are preoccupied with white c o l l a r workers (Calhoun, 1980; Derber, 1983); s t i l l others consider the extension of worker p a r t i c i p a t i o n to the lowest levels of the enterprise (Clawson & Fantasia, 1983). This trend in management theory i s compatable with union demands which c a l l for p a r t i c i p a t i o n but which have d i f f e r e n t roots and p r i o r i t i e s . When organized labour c a l l s for worker p a r t i c i p a t i o n , i t r e f l e c t s the need to protect and extend i t s power in re l a t i o n to the employer. Even within union membership, 'grassroots' p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s an issue (Walsh & Craypo, 1979). Demands for increased p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the workplace have received considerable research attention. It has been j u s t i f e d for three reasons summarised by Cohen-Rosental (1982), "the reasons for expanded franchise in the workplace extend beyond j u s t i f i c a t i o n s of j u s t i c e to an understanding that i t is a more ef f e c t i v e way to run workplaces and a more enlightened approach to further learning" (p. 15). Similar goals are i d e n t i f i e d by adult educators advocating p a r t i c i p a t i o n : j u s t i c e , effectiveness in promoting learning outcomes, and positive influence on attitudes towards learning. 7 Many adult educators claim respect for the individual and a desire for a cooperative non-exploitive society demands that educational processes be p a r t i c i p a t i v e and non-hierarchical. This view is emphasized by Botkin et a l . ' s (1979) notion of creating s o l i d a r i t y in space. This position emphasizes values. " P a r t i c i p a t i o n i s more than formal sharing of decisions; i t i s an attitude characterized by cooperation, dialogue, and empathy" (p. 13). The humanist bias of many adult educators leads them to support the b e l i e f that their role i s to promote, "freedom and autonomy, trus t , active cooperation and p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and s e l f - d i r e c t e d learning" (El i a s & Merriam, 1980, p. 10). A more pragmatic view holds that regardless of whether educators subscribe to the above ideology, p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s necessary to achieve certain kinds of learning outcomes. It is pointed out that people feel committed to a process to the degree to which they f e e l they are part of i t . Brundage and MacKeracher (1980) found the adult education l i t e r a t u r e supported this viewpoint: The more an adult learner can be involved in the planning related to his own learning a c t i v i t i e s , the more productive 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 desired outcomes w i l l be reached (p. 76). Other writings on the adult learner suggest c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which demand a p a r t i c i p a t i v e approach i f potential learners are to be attracted and retained (Knowles, 1980). Throughout adult education l i t e r a t u r e there i s a strong undercurrent which assumes that the main goal of any educator i s to encourage people to become l i f e l o n g learners (Faure et a l . , 1971; Smith' & Haverkamp, 1977). The means to accomplish t h i s 8 end is uncertain, but i t seems to be linked with the extent to which learners f e e l they 'own' or are part of the learning process. Brundage and MacKeracher (1980) emphasized this point: The basic components of learning how to learn appear to be the individual learner's being able to accept r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for r e l y i n g on himself to function as an internal change agent ("I am changing me") rather than relying exclusively on a change agent who i s perceived to be external ("They are changing me"), and the individual learner's being able to conceptualize his own learning process. The basic 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). This position was supported by Rogers (1957) who pointed out that, "the only learning which s i g n i f i c a n t l y influences behaviour i s . self-discovered, self-appropriated learning" (p. 241). One problem related to discussions concerning the effects of p a r t i c i p a t i o n is that theories which pertain to i t are just being developed and often just pure assertion. The l i t e r a t u r e i s replete with models emphasizing the need for learner p a r t i c i p a t i o n in program planning (Boyle, 1958, 1981; Brundage and MacKeracher, 1980; Knowles, 1980). Others encourage learner involvement through participatory i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques (Kolb & Fry, 1975). But unresolved issues remain. How, when, and to what extent should people other than paid educators be involved? Because of disagreement concerning the nature of p a r t i c i p a t i o n within an educational context, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to prove i t has or has not taken place. The benefits claimed are also d i f f i c u l t to define or measure. As a result, a plethora of questions concerning p a r t i c i p a t i o n remain unanswered. Researchers are beginning to i d e n t i f y which components in the larger issue of 9 'pa r t i c i p a t i o n ' can be sc r u t i n i s e d in some manageable way. Some research focusses on i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques, others on program planning strategies. This study f a l l s in the l a t t e r group. Purposes of t h i s Study This study•examined two questions concerning p a r t i c i p a t i v e program planning. 1. What constitutes p a r t i c i p a t i o n in program planning?. 2. Does p a r t i c i p a t i o n a f f e c t learning outcomes; i f yes, are some kinds of learning outcomes more influenced .by p a r t i c i p a t i o n than others? Cooperating Organization This research was done with the cooperation of participants and resource people involved in a weekend retreat to prepare for overseas work with CUSO, a development agency. The questions investigated were p a r t i c u l a r l y appropriate to CUSO as the organization encourages volunteer involvement in decision making and decentralized structures for s t a f f i n g . As well, because the researcher was responsible for the planning and executing of the research, i t was possible to exercise greater control than i s usually possible in educational situ a t i o n s . 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 greatly strengthened the research design. Nature of CUSO CUSO t r i e s to raise awareness concerning development issues in Canada and the Third World. It also raises funds to support small-scale, low-budget projects in poor countries. It is best known for placing cooperants for two year contracts through the 10 i n v i t a t i o n s of Third World governments and agencies. These cooperants (once known as volunteers) are paid at the same rates as their peer host-nationals and l i v e in similar conditions. In order to be placed, the applicant must demonstrate job competence, an interest in l i v i n g in another culture, an a b i l i t y to get along with others, good health and a concern for development and underdevelopment. CUSO is a volunteer-based organization in Canada and overseas, with paid staff as support. As such, overseas preparation a c t i v i t i e s encourage applicants to f e e l they are an active part of 'the CUSO family'. Applicants are pre-selected to be s e l f - d i r e c t i n g and action-oriented because of the often isolated positions they hold overseas. Pre-orientation Once applicants are screened, they begin a process referred to as pre-orientation. Pre-orientation covers the time between a person's f i r s t contact with CUSO and their a r r i v a l in Ottawa for Pre-Departure Orientation. In between l i e seemingly endless steps of formal application, interviews, medicals, confirmation of jobs overseas, innoculations, pre-orientation sessions, reading, talking with returned CUSOs, arranging transport to Ottawa, packing etc. (CUSO, 1984, p. 1). Part of t h i s process i s a r e s i d e n t i a l weekend which draws people from around the province for an intensive period designed to expose them to issues which the organization would l i k e them to consider, and encourage them to undertake th e i r own learning program to prepare for overseas placement. This study was done with the cooperation of applicants who attended a pre-orientation weekend. Some returned cooperants acting as 1 1 resource people also cooperated in v a l i d a t i n g instruments used in the study. This study was s i g n i f i c a n t for CUSO and adult education theory. As the following chapter shows, learner p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s central to adult education theory, but has not been the subject of extensive experimentation. 12 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT Two di f f e r e n t l i t e r a t u r e s were reviewed. The f i r s t focussed on learner p a r t i c i p a t i o n , how i t f i t s into program planning and how i t can be operationalized for research purposes. The second dealt with how the dependent variables of pa r t i c i p a t i o n studies, in pa r t i c u l a r 'attitude', are defined and measured. LITERATURE REVIEW  Learner P a r t i c i p a t i o n There i s an extensive yet fragmented l i t e r a t u r e on pa r t i c i p a t i o n which lacks consensus concerning some key questions. 1 . What exactly i_s participation? 2. Who should participate? 3. Why should a learner p a r t i c i p a t e , and why should an educator promote participation? 4. How can 'parti c i p a t i o n ' be operationalized for research? 5. How can the claimed benefits be operationalized and tested? These questions pervade p a r t i c i p a t i o n research. In order to situate t h i s study, i t was necessary to review l i t e r a t u r e which dealt with these questions. From t h i s , the li n e of inquiry of t h i s study was isolated. What i s Participation? As noted in the previous chapter, p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s a common topic in adult education and related l i t e r a t u r e s . Unfortunately, rather than leading to a clear and generally 13 accepted d e f i n i t i o n of the term, i t i s used to describe a number of concepts. To c l a r i f y the thrust of t h i s study i t is important to identify which aspects of p a r t i c i p a t i o n are not considered, as well as those which are i t s focus. 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 a synonym for attendance and focusses on who enrolls in and attends adult education a c t i v i t i e s sheds l i t t l e l i g h t on the concerns on t h i s study. This includes conceptual models explaining factors which influence attendance at adult education a c t i v i t i e s (Cross, 1981; M i l l e r , 1967). It also includes survey research done by scholars such as Brown and S e l l (1977), Johnstone and Rivera (1973), Newberry (1959), and Waniewicz (1973). As well, l i t t l e i s drawn from research which treats p a r t i c i p a t i o n as a dependent variable and explores the various motivations for involvement in adult education a c t i v i t i e s (Boshier & C o l l i n s , 1982). Despite the importance of these works to adult education, they are not d i r e c t l y related to questions asked by this study. P a r t i c i p a t i o n = Participatory Techniques Research done on pa r t i c i p a t o r y techniques, their effects on learning and their place in the i n s t r u c t i o n a l plan was also set aside. Although inquiry concerning i n s t r u c t i o n a l effectiveness (Bergevin, 1963; Kolb & Fry, 1975; Thayer, 1976) and the usefulness of various techniques is an important part of the l i t e r a t u r e , i t was omitted as i t did not apply to t h i s study. 14 P a r t i c i p a t i o n = Collaboration in Research Work done under the 'participatory research' rubric was not considered here (see Kassam & Mustapha, 1982; H a l l , G i l l e t t e & Tandon, 1982). In this approach the participants are involved at a very early stage of forming the question to be researched. It pushes the issue of p a r t i c i p a t i o n one step beyond consultation to a more c o l l e g i a l approach between researcher and par t i c i p a n t s . Although participants in thi s study participated in the planning of the program, they were not involved in the planning of the study. Therefore t h i s study f a l l s into a t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i a l science research design with the focus being 'p a r t i c i p a t i o n in program planning* as a treatment. P a r t i c i p a t i o n = Collaboration in Program Planning Within t h i s narrower focus on program planning i t was necessary to define terms. Verner (1962) referred to three elements of the process of adult education. The f i r s t element i s the method: the organization of the prospective participants for the purpose of education. The second element involves techniques: the variety of ways in which the learning task is managed so as to f a c i l i t a t e learning. The t h i r d and f i n a l element involves devices: a l l those p a r t i c u l a r things or conditions which are u t i l i z e d to augment the techniques and make learning more certain (pp. 9-10). The selection of the f i r s t i s considered a progr'am planning function by Verner while choosing the second and t h i r d are in s t r u c t i o n a l concerns. Learners can be involved in any one or a l l three of these decisions. In reviewing the program planning l i t e r a t u r e the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the learners seems to take many forms. Needs assessment executed before the program is designed i s the most 1 5 common. This a c t i v i t y may be done on a one-to-one basis between the learner and planner, either through conversations or written instruments. The conversations can be structured to various degrees by the educator. The written instruments can also vary greatly from open-ended i n v i t a t i o n s for input to very structured and detailed response systems. Needs assessment can also be done through group interaction with the educator. Again, t h i s could involve a face-to-face meeting or written interaction. A number of tools are used in face-to-face meetings to maximise learner input - for example, interviews, Nominal Group Technique (Delbecq & Van den Ven, 1971; Vedros, 1979), Objectives Worksheet (Knowles, 1980). The Delphi technique i s perhaps the best developed group decision-making model which uses written instruments. This needs assessment may be done before the programmer starts to plan, while the planning i s in process, or at the f i r s t session of the learning a c t i v i t y . The timing and use of the needs assessment varies according to the planning model used. A l l major adult education planning models include a needs assessment phase. However, many needs assessments assign learners a r e l a t i v e l y powerless role in which they provide information which the programmer i s under no obligation to act upon. Of course, most educators would agree with Brundage and MacKeracher's (1980) point that, " i t would be better not ask for need statements i f a teacher has no intention of responding to them" (p. 81). Some models such as Knowles (1980) commit the 1 6 educator to work in conjunction with learners, removing the option of making u n i l a t e r a l decisions. Such approaches emphasize collaboration between learners and educators. The importance of collaboration and mutuality in planning springs from known or assumed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of adult learners (Brundage & MacKeracher, 1980; Knowles, 1980) which came, in turn, from the experience of p r a c t i t i o n e r s . Collaboration is important but very l i t t l e has been done to investigate i t . Cole and Glass (1977) pointed out that, "student p a r t i c i p a t i o n in program planning has received very l i t t l e attention from researchers" (p. 76). Their study referenced only two previous works. Rosenblum and Darkenwald's (1983) study published seven years l a t e r found, "only a handful of studies (had) addressed this issue from an educational perspective" (p. 148). They found only two unpublished dissertations to update' the Cole and Glass study. These unexplored questions prompted the study described herein. Who Should Participate? T r a d i t i o n a l l y , p a r t i c i p a t i o n in educational planning has been lim i t e d to a small group. Some argue that planning should be done by professionally q u a l i f i e d personnel. At the chil d ' s level t h i s has meant teachers, p r i n c i p a l s and education ministry o f f i c i a l s ; at the adult's l e v e l i t has included instructors, programmers and ministry s t a f f . But, just as the c h i l d ' s level has input from school boards, i t is apparent that community p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s needed in planning adult education. As London (1964) said, "there i s a universally held view that 17 p a r t i c i p a t i o n in program planning by community members as well as adult educators i s good in i t s e l f " (p. 67). It i s now generally accepted that adults should p a r t i c i p a t e in the planning of their own learning a c t i v i t i e s . As Faure et a l . (1972) recommended: It should be made a p r i n c i p l e to centre educational a c t i v i t y on the learner, to allow him greater and greater freedom ... to decide for himself what he wants to learn, and how and where he wants to learn i t and take his t r a i n i n g (p. 220). As these ideas are adopted, organizational structures and educators' habits and attitudes have to change. Given the e f f o r t and stress involved, educators contemplating increased learner p a r t i c i p a t i o n want to know why this e f f o r t is worthwhile. Why Promote Participation? Discussions about why learners should p a r t i c i p a t e have three main themes. One argument suggests that p a r t i c i p a t i o n can be j u s t i f i e d as an end in i t s e l f in a democratic society. Mutuality and respect for others demands that any decision-making process involve both learners and educators (Knowles, 1980). A more pragmatic position holds that p a r t i c i p a t i o n contributes to certain learning outcomes. As well, p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s necessary to change adults from passive to active learners. On a s o c i e t a l l e v e l t h i s need for active p a r t i c i p a t i o n might be explained in terms of developing c i t i z e n s h i p : Persons under guardianship who are deprived of a l l opportunity for autonomous conduct cannot be responsible for their 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, p. 462). In education i t could be said that to develop in others the necessary q u a l i t i e s and s k i l l s to become successful learners, educators must reject p a t e r n a l i s t i c 'guardianship' roles and 'banking' types of education. Supporters of the f i r s t position defend p a r t i c i p a t i o n because of i t s i n t r i n s i c value. The second and t h i r d need to j u s t i f y t h e i r claims with evidence. This would normally involve some sort of empirical research. Past research on participatory decison making has been conducted mainly in work settings. The goals of increasing p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the workplace seem related mainly to the pragmatist trend. Past research seemed interested in improving production, attendance, and morale to make the worker a more productive part of a work unit. Rosenblum and Darkenwald (1983) referenced fiv e studies which indicated that worker p a r t i c i p a t i o n influences these factors p o s i t i v e l y . Douglah (1970) noted that studies in business and industry, education and community action have shown that p a r t i c i p a t i o n in decision-making usually results in such outcomes as: higher rates of productivity, greater s a t i s f a c t i o n and higher l e v e l s of morale, more pos i t i v e attitudes, a greater degree of commitment to action, and fewer symptoms of resistance and c o n f l i c t (p. 95). Much l i t e r a t u r e suggests that adult learning i s influenced by the degree to which the learners p a r t i c i p a t e in i t s planning (Knowles, 1980; London, 1960). Most planning models are b u i l t upon assumed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of adult learners, yet l i t t l e research has been done to test these assumptions. In adult education i t is most frequently suggested that increased 19 p a r t i c i p a t i o n yields more posit i v e attitudes and higher achievement. But, the few studies which have been done in adult education, "yielded c o n f l i c t i n g results ... [and were] ... plagued with methodological problems (Rosenblum and Darkenwald, 1983, p. 148). More research into the effects of p a r t i c i p a t i o n on learning outcomes is needed. Operationalization of Pa r t i c i p a t i o n Even program planners who know why they favour p a r t i c i p a t i o n can be frustrated when they try to esta b l i s h how and when to involve learners. Douglah (1970) points out that there i s good reasons for t h i s confusion concerning learner part ic ipat ion: At what stage i s c l i e n t e l e p a r t i c i p a t i o n most desirable? What are the outcomes of participant involvement in decision-making at di f f e r e n t stages in the planning process? Some of the limited research in thi s area has revealed that c l i e n t e l e involvement in decision-making is not a simple process. It i s a complex process which c a l l s for considerable s k i l l on the part of the organizer in providing the tra 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 re l a t i n g to how participants can be most meaningfully involved in making decisions about their educational experiences (p. 97). There i s no consensus concerning answers to these questions. Table 1 shows ways in which the construct 'participation' has been operationalized. Cole and Glass (1977) as well as McLoughlin (1971) used London's (i960) program planning guide as a reference. By using a well-known model, these researchers assured t h e i r work was defined in terms familiar to their colleagues. As such, i t overcomes one of the main blocks to external v a l i d i t y , "the appropriateness of the 2 u Table 1 Review of Operationalization of Par 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 Knowles' 'Objectives' Worksheet Before a c t i v i t y Before a c t i v i t y 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 Both Groups Together Cole & Glass (1977) London's Model i n i t i a l 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 confer-ence 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; no abstract confer-ence NOTE: As some research was referred to only in abstract, information i s incomplete 21 operationalizations" (Kenny & Hanisch, 1982, p. 31). Even though London's model was not v e r i f i e d by empirical testing, t h i s cannot be considered too serious a weakness as the same c r i t i c i s m can be applied to most models adult education models. Models such as London's indicate what needs to be done, but not how i t i s to be done. Therefore, a c t i v i t i e s such as deciding on objectives could be done in various ways with varying degrees of success. Rosenblum and Darkenwald (1983) addressed this vagueness by adapting the Nominal Group Technique, to help the learners i d e n t i f y objectives (Delbecq & Van de Ven, 1971). Unfortunately, t h i s researcher's reading of the a r t i c l e c i t e d shed no l i g h t on how the 5-stage process referred to could be condensed into a single meeting as described by Rosenblum and Darkenwald (1983). Other than the use of London's model and the Nominal Group Technique, a review of the types of p a r t i c i p a t i o n undertaken (Table 1) revealed l i t t l e uniformity concerning the operationalization of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . In some studies, p a r t i c i p a t i o n in planning was e l i c i t e d only before the a c t i v i t y (Rosenblum and Darkenwald, 1983; Vedros, 1979). Cole and Glass (1977) used weekly planning meetings throughout the learning a c t i v i t y while Semberger (1972) had three levels of p a r t i c i p a t i o n : planning, steering and feedback committees. These di f f e r e n t types and degrees of p a r t i c i p a t i o n decrease the comparability of the findings. In some studies the control never met the treated group, yet received the program the l a t t e r planned (Cole & Glass, 1977; 22 Roseblum & Darkenwald, 1983). In others, the two groups mingled during the learning a c t i v i t y (Semberger, 1972; Vedros, 1979). In one, the control group undertook their program almost six months later than the participatory group (Cole & Glass, 1977). It is not possible to predict what effect these differences might have on outcomes. But, they evoke caution when comparing the studies. Learner c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may also influence how pa r t i c i p a t i o n affects learning outcomes. Attendance at adult education a c t i v i t i e s i s affected by various s o c i a l and economic factors (Cross, 1981; Johnstone & Rivera, 1973). It i s not possible to predict what eff e c t these differences might have on the outcomes. Therefore comparisons between educators, who probably have at least a college degree (Semberger, 1972), and new health workers, some without high school completion (Rosenblum & Darkenwald, 1983), has to be done with care. There is reason to believe attitudes and expectations regarding the learning experience may vary considerably between these two groups. These reservations are not mentioned to diminish the importance of the research done, but to point out dangers associated with trying to draw conclusions from a divergent l i t e r a t u r e . Although allegedly dealing with the same subject, these studies were describing d i f f e r e n t phenomena. Because of variations in past research i t seemed important to have a clear description of why 'par t i c i p a t i o n ' is operationalized as i t is here. 23 To avoid exacerbating the existing confusion, 'participation' was used as a general term and 'collaboration' was used to describe how p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s operationalized in th i s study. While t h i s study could not offer a d e f i n i t i v e d e f i n i t i o n of collaboration in a planning process, i t attempted to make clear the rationale and process of operationalization. Selecting an established program planning model as a guide, seemed a satisfactory s t a r t i n g point. One author who deals with the question of learner p a r t i c i p a t i o n is Knowles (1980). In The  Modern Practice of Adult Education he discusses how the ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the adult learner require a pa r t i c u l a r educational approach - 'andragogy'. Knowles (1980) o r i g i n a l l y defined, "andragogy as the art and science of • helping adults learn, in contrast to pedagogy as the art and science of teaching children" (p. 43). He has now redefined i t as, "simply another model of assumptions about learners to be used alongside the pedagogical assumptions, thereby providing two alternative models for testing out the assumptions as to their ' f i t ' with pa r t i c u l a r situations" (Knowles, 1980, p. 43). Both models make assumptions regarding the learners' experience, state of readiness to learn and orientation to learning (pp. 43-44). Knowles claimed these assumptions have implications for educational practice. In order to help program planners translate t h i s system of assumptions into practice, Knowles developed an 'Andragogical Process of Program Planning' (Knowles, 1980, p. 390). This process model serves as a tool for operationalizing the idea that p a r t i c i p a t i o n is synonymous 24 with collaboration and reinforces the need for a mutual and collaborative relationship between educator and learner. By referr i n g to t h i s model, a collaborative planning process was designed as the 'treatment' for t h i s study. It also seemed wise to see how collaboration i s seen outside the d i s c i p l i n e . The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Sykes, 1982) said collaboration means to "work j o i n t l y ... (especially) at a l i t e r a r y or a r t i s t i c production" (p. 82). This creative sense echoes Knowles' (1980) claim that program planning is an art form (p. 129). Therefore collaboration in program planning must involve working together cr e a t i v e l y to produce a f i n a l product. But t h i s d e f i n i t i o n doesn't f u l l y describe how collaboration was . used here because i t f a i l s to recognize nuances concerning mutuality and respect which are central to the andragogical model. Returning to the dictionary, mutuality means, " f e l t , done by each to(wards) the other" (Sykes, 1982, p. 68). This d e f i n i t i o n eliminates one-way information flows. When 'collaboration' i s referred to here, i t w i l l include the connotation of mutuality rather than a simple joint e f f o r t . Knowles' notion of andragogy i s firmly anchored in Third Force psychology, p a r t i c u l a r l y the work of Maslow (1954) and Rogers (1957). He applied to adult education concepts originating in group dynamics. Work of writers such as Gibb (1964) p a r a l l e l s the notion of andragogy and help c l a r i f y what is meant by collaborative program planning. While Knowles proposed that adult educators 'consult' learners, Gibb suggested 25 that T-group leaders use ' p a r t i c i p a t i v e technologies' to promote tr u s t . It i s relevant to t h i s study to outline how Gibb identifed four stages in the trust formation process. He i d e n t i f i e d four stages in the trust formation process. The f i r s t , 'acceptance', concerns formation of trust through acceptance of self and others which relate to the degree of 'membership' in the group f e l t by individuals. The second, 'data' i s the communication of attitudes, feelings and perceptions which guide decision-making and choice behaviour. Next, i s 'goal' formation wherein individuals assess their motivation for p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the group. This leads to a focus on 'productivity' - doing work, having fun, and creating. F i n a l l y , the 'control' dimension leads to formation and integration of behaviours, roles, and functions within the group. As a re s u l t , various lev e l s of 'organization' are established with d i f f e r e n t degress of formality, 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 in the andragogical process. Gibb's 'acceptance/membership' seems to correspond to Knowles' desire to 'establish a climate conducive to adult learning'. Both mention the need for mutual acceptance and trust as the basis for any further relationship. Knowles' second step 'creating an organization for p a r t i c i p a t i v e planning' seems to relate to membership but also to the more advanced stage of 'control/organization'. Diagnosing of learning needs and setting objectives seem to be similar to 'goals' where personal desires and p r i o r i t i e s are made e x p l i c i t . 26 F i n a l l y development and design of a c t i v i t i e s through learning contracts and projects seems similar to setting up a 'control/organization' which i s p a r t i c i p a t i v e in form and function. These comparisons are c i t e d to i l l u s t r a t e that using Knowles' model is a reasonable guide for someone who wants to build mutual trust within the group. Both approaches demand that the 'p r o f e s s i o n a l 1 , whether t- t r a i n e r or program planner, be more open, personal, accepting and responsive than do t r a d i t i o n a l models. Just as Gibb (1964) rejected 'persuasive' technologies, Knowles (1980) questioned 'pedagogical' methods. Such s i m i l a r i t i e s supported the choice of Knowles' model to guide the operationalization of c o l l a b o r a t i o n . It i s not claimed that the p a r a l l e l s indicate the group could be developed into what Gibb (1964) c a l l e d a 'mature' group through planning alone. But the consciousness of a r e l a t i o n s h i p to the trust formation process makes the model appropriate for the type of collaboration envisaged in t h i s study. The E f f e c t s of P a r t i c i p a t i o n The two most commonly tested benefits of learner p a r t i c i p a t i o n in program planning are higher achievement scores and improved attitudes towards the learning a c t i v i t y . Gagne (1977) argued that there are fiv e types of learning outcomes: 1.Intellectual S k i l l s - u s i n g symbols 2. Verbal S k i l l s - s t a t i n g ideas or t e l l i n g information 3. Cognitive Strategies-self managing of learning, remembering, thinking 27 Table 2 Trust and Andragogical Planning Knowles Gibb Element Andragogical Stage React ion Response in Group Establishment of a climate conducive to adult learning Creation of an organization structured for p a r t i c i p a t i v e planning Diagnosis of learning needs participants are relaxed, trusting mood i s collaborat ive respectful mutually by learners and f a c i l i t a t o r done by mutual assessment Formulation of established directions of by mutual learning(objectives) negotiation Development of design of act i v i t ies Learning contracts and projects acceptance trus t , membership d i v e r s i t y membership feedback consensus potent i a l organization p a r t i c i -pative goals ego strength c r e a t i v i t y goals as above c o n t r o l / p a r t i c i -organization pative form and function Operation of a c t i v i t i e s Rediagnosis of needs for learning (evaluation) c o n t r o l / as above organization From: Knowles, 1980, p. 390 Gibb, 1964, p. 294 28 4. Motor Skills-executing motor s k i l l s 5. Attitudes-choosing personal actions As indicated in column two of Table 3, past studies seem to equate achievement with i n t e l l e c t u a l , verbal or motor s k i l l s . These kinds of learning outcomes are those most commonly sought by educators so measures used to evaluate them are familiar and trusted - multiple choice tests, short answer quizzes, or matching tasks. Although the improvement of i n t e l l e c t u a l and verbal s k i l l s are generally a high p r i o r i t y in education, they were not included in t h i s study for a number of reasons. F i r s t , the weekend retreat did not put a high p r i o r i t y on learning and retaining facts. It would have been very d i f f i c u l t to develop and validate a test of the factual learning without resorting to t r i v i a l i t i e s . Secondly, there was l i t t l e evidence to support th i s l i n e of inquiry (see Table 3, 'Results'). Attitude formation and change seemed important as the goals of the weekend were largely related to attitudes. In order to measure attitude change, i t was necessary to get a more detailed d e f i n i t i o n . Triandis (1971) said attitudes have cognitive, a f f e c t i v e , and behavioural aspects: (1)COGNITIVE, pertaining to the ideas or propositions that express the relation between situations and a t t i t u d i n a l objects (as in 'automobiles use too much gasoline"); (2) AFFECTIVE, pertaining to the emotion or feeling that accompanies the idea; and (3)BEHAVIORAL, pertaining to the predisposition or readiness for action (such as the action of purchasing an automobile having a high miles-per gallon rating) (in Gagne, 1977, p. 234). 29 Table 3 Review of Operationalization of Dependent Variables Author Variables Measure Results Comments Rosenblum & achievement multiple no s i g . Random Darkenwald choice di f . assignment (1983) s a t i s f a c t i o n semant ic no s i g . very high d i f f e r e n t i a l d i f . s a t i s . both groups Cole & achievement tests devel. s i g . d i f Pre-test Glass for course counter-(1977) balanced design retention Retest at no s i g . cont. n=12 1 month d i f . exper. n=6 attitudes L i k e r t - l i k e scales on -the course -the subject sig, sig, d i f d i f Vedros (1979) abstract achievement no sig, di f . s a t i s f a c t i o n s i g . d i f . Semberger sat i sfact ion no s i g . (1972) d i f . abstract McLoughlin achievement no s i g . no random (1971 ) assign-attitude s i g . ment Welden perceived s i g . d i f (1966) relevance reported by others s a t i s f a c t i o n s i g . d i f Note: Because some work was referred to only in abstract, there are gaps in the information available 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 nature of attitudes (Aiken, 1980; A l l p o r t , 1967; Chisman, 1976), this consensus doesn't lead to clear operationalization for research. The dilemma was described by Cook and S e l l t i z (1971) who noted that an attitude 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 individual reports his feelings about the attitude-object, performance of a task involving material related to object (eg., r e c a l l of statements which take a postion with respect to the object), or actions toward a representative of the object-class (e.g., avoidance of such an individual) (p. 24). In research on p a r t i c i p a t i o n in program planning, the object is usually s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a program rather than an 'object c l a s s ' . Past research has inferred attitudes mainly from written reports, usually measures of s a t i s f a c t i o n . While evaluation is a strong component of a l l attitudes (Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum, 1971), the tendency to draw inferences from only this type of measure seems unnecessarily l i m i t i n g . If measures are designed to provide a variety of data from which to infer attitudes, the bias of each instrument i s lessened (Cook & S e l l t i z , 1971). As well, instruments can be designed to assure that a l l three aspects of the attitude were explored. Unfortunately, i t i s not always clear how instruments used in past studies were designed and tested. For instance, from examples they provide, Cole and Glass (1977) didn't seem to discriminate between projected behaviours "most LIKELY/UNLIKELY to seek to obtain information" and a f f e c t i v e evaluation "very 31 ENJOYABLE/very UNENJOYABLE". They used six questions in each of two tests, one concerning the course and the other the subject area. No information on how these items were developed and tested was reported. Given that the hypothesis was to be accepted or rejected using these two 6-point scales, the absence of clear d e f i n i t i o n and operationalization i s regrettable. As well, even though participants were hospital employees and e a s i l y traced, there was no reported follow-up to measure actual performance. Welden (1966) equated posi t i v e evaluation of the learning a c t i v i t y with a positive attitude, as did Semberger (1972), Vedros (1979) and Urdang (1982). Fortunately, in two studies variables were c a r e f u l l y operationalized. Rosenblum and Darkenwald (1983).chose a tested semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l scale. This choice made i t easier to class their attitude variable as a measure of a f f e c t . Through thi s c l a r i t y , they produced results which can be compared more meaningfully to other research. For example, although he did not use the same scales, McLoughlin (1971) tested 12 concepts with semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s , thus producing a clear measure of a f f e c t . Although these two studies had contradictory findings, i t i s apparent that they were measuring the a f f e c t i v e component of attitudes. Unfortunately, the studies reviewed f a i l e d to investigate any link between s a t i s f a c t i o n and future behaviour. Contrary to b e l i e f s in the 1950s and 1960s, i t has become increasingly apparent that the assumed relat i o n s h i p of cognitive and a f f e c t i v e states to behaviour does not exist (Gross & Norman, 32 1975; Lapier, 1967). Furthermore, even when people state how they would act in a s i t u a t i o n , these predicted behaviours are modified by the so c i a l s i t u a t i o n (Cohen, 1967; Fishbein, 1967). Increasingly, attention once given to attitudes as 'mediators' between situations and actions i s being diverted to behaviour. Behaviourists claim that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. This idea guides a good deal of current research. It i s even argued that i t i s unnecessary to conceptualize, let alone measure, cognitive or a f f e c t i v e states. Despite t h i s , the present study adopted a conservative posture. Both a f f e c t i v e and behavioural elements were measured. Testing both increased the l i k e l i h o o d of detecting any effects of the treatment. As well, i t provided an opportunity to discover whether any observed behaviour differences were predicted by the measure of a f f e c t . Measurement of both outcomes required the development of sound instruments. HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT There i s a lack of strong evidence to support a link 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 appear hesitant to accept th e i r own findings. Undoubtedly some of t h i s i s due to the human tendency to say, "yes, but ... " when pet b e l i e f s seem to be wrong. McLoughlin (1971) reiterated a point commonly expressed in the non-experimental l i t e r a t u r e : " l o g i c a l l y and i n t u i t i v e l y , class members should achieve more i f they have an opportunity to decide on which of their needs should be met and how they should be met" (p. 78). This 'gut reaction' and occasional findings 33 (see Table 3) seem to indicate that there may be a danger of making a Type II error i f t h i s l i n e of investigation is abandoned prematurely. As Rosenblum and Darkenwald (1983) established in their l i t e r a t u r e review, i t i s easy to c r i t i c i z e much research for i t s faulty design and methodology (p. 148). Research designs are questionable and methods often unclear. Moreover, measurement techniques are often not s u f f i c i e n t l y developed to be r e l i a b l e on various populations. This study builds on Rosenblum and Darkenwald's (1983) precedent of sound design. The independent variable, 'collaboration', and the dependent variable, 'attitude', were defined within theore t i c a l contexts discussed in the l i t e r a t u r e review. The present study also provided information concerning how Knowles' andragogical model aff e c t s a t t i t u d i n a l learning and attitude towards learning. In the introduction to t h i s paper two questions were i d e n t i f i e d as the focus of t h i s study. 1. What constitutes p a r t i c i p a t i o n in program planning?. 2. Does p a r t i c i p a t i o n a f f e c t learning outcomes; i f yes, are some kinds of learning outcomes more influenced by p a r t i c i p a t i o n than others? After reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e four hypotheses were formulated. Hypotheses Adults who p a r t i c i p a t e in the planning of a learning a c t i v i t y : 1. - w i l l have more positive feelings and take a more active part in the learning a c t i v i t y than those who don't p a r t i c i p a t e . 34 2. - w i l l evaluate the sponsoring agency more p o s i t i v e l y than those who don't pa r t i c i p a t e and w i l l take a more active role in i t . 3. - w i l l express more posit i v e feelings towards their own a b i l i t i e s in areas dealt with during the learning a c t i v i t y than w i l l those who don't p a r t i c i p a t e . 4. - w i l l take a more active role in the i r own learning after the a c t i v i t y than w i l l those who don't p a r t i c i p a t e . 35 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN Campbell and Stanley's (1963) Post-Test Only Control Group Design (Design 6) was chosen for t h i s study. This design i s portrayed graphically as follows: R X 0( 1 ) R 0(2) Random assignment (R) makes Design 6 preferable to the more popular pretest-posttest of Design 4. Design 6 i s , "greatly underused in educational and psychological research" (p. 26). Kerlinger (1964) says that t h i s design and i t s variants, are the 'best' designs available for most experimental purposes in education" (p. 303). One commendable quality of Design 6 i s i t s internal v a l i d i t y . Internal V a l i d i t y Randomization was p a r t i c u l a r l y important in this study because of a danger of contamination of the control group by a design involving a pretest. As i t would have been necessary to acquaint the control group with the objectives and a c t i v i t i e s in order to pretest them, they would, in fact have received part of the treatment (X). It was possible to avoid this source of contamination by choosing the stronger design which included random assignment. Design 6 controls for a l l internal threats to v a l i d i t y : history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, regression, selection, mortality and interaction of these e f f e c t s . History and maturation are controlled because the time 36 elapsed between the treatment and measurement of treatment effect are the same for both groups. The lack of pretest means that testing and instrumentation do not affect the nature or magnitude of the measured outcomes. As well, because there is no pretest the problems of regression on the outcome instrument are avoided. Randomization takes care of concerns regarding selection as there i s no reason to believe mortality i s dif f e r e n t for the two groups. External V a l i d i t y As well, Design 6 controls for external factors such as interaction of testing and treatment. The only points of concern are the p o s s i b i l i t y of interaction of selection and treatment, and potential reactive arrangements. The interaction of selection and treatment diminishes the external v a l i d i t y of thi s study. The participants are quite atypical of the general adult population so no generalizations w i l l be made. This study i s designed to investigate the nature and implications of collaboration in planning. Because this i s a r e l a t i v e l y undeveloped area of research, results which can, with confidence, be translated to the f i e l d of practice are s t i l l unattainable. Random assignment without random recruitment serves to assure the equivalence of the two groups, but not their representativeness of larger populations. The second potential problem 'reactive arrangements' refers to the eff e c t s on a study where there i s , "patent a r t i f i c i a l i t y of the experimental setting and the student's knowledge that he is p a r t i c i p a t i n g in an experiment" (Campbell & Stanley, 1963, 37 p. 2 0 ) . T h i s f a c t o r was not i m p o r t a n t i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . R a n d o m i z a t i o n and t r e a t m e n t were e f f e c t e d b e f o r e t h e g r o u p was b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r . B e i n g p a r t o f t h i s s t u d y i n no way a f f e c t e d how t h e y were t r e a t e d d u r i n g t h e l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t y and t h e measurements o f e f f e c t were i d e n t i c a l f o r t h e two g r o u p s . F o r most p a r t i c i p a n t s t h e weekend r e t r e a t was t h e i r f i r s t e x t e n d e d e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s p r e p a r a t i o n p r o c e s s so ' c o l l a b o r a t i o n ' would n o t c l a s h w i t h p a s t e x p e r i e n c e . As w e l l , s u c h c o l l a b o r a t i o n would seem c o n s i s t e n t w i t h what t h e y knew of t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . P a r t i c i p a n t s knew t h a t v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of t h e weekend were b e i n g e v a l u a t e d ; a s i t was made c l e a r t h a t t h e y were not b e i n g e v a l u a t e d t h e r e i s no r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h e i r b e h a v i o u r was a f f e c t e d . 3 8 CHAPTER 4 INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT Developing a Treatment It i s unusual for a study to develop an instrument to be used as a treatment as well as a measure for that treatment. Usually the treatment i s a program, instructor behaviour or other phenomenon. But, because of a lack of c l a r i t y concerning what constitutes p a r t i c i p a t i o n , i t was necessary to demonstrate that the treatment r e a l l y was collaboration in program planning. Needs assessment and v e r i f i c a t i o n instruments were developed for th i s purpose. In the l i t e r a t u r e review 'collaboration' was defined as a mutual e f f o r t to create a program. In order to capture'the 'mutuality' of the planning, 'collaboration' was designed as a two phase process. In the f i r s t , the researcher sent out a three-page needs assessment (Appendix 1 C ) to each member of the treated group. When a l l assessments were returned, the researcher t r i e d to respond to the interests and p r i o r i t i e s of the learners. She phoned each participant in the collaborating group. The phone c a l l was designed to assure participants in the collaborating group that t h e i r responses had been received, appreciated, and acted on. As well, i t was an opportunity to add to and c l a r i f y other points and ask questions. This two-stage process helped 'create an organization structured for p a r t i c i p a t i v e planning' as Knowles suggested. Also, i t was congruent with volunteer orientation of CUSO organization described in the introduction. 39 T a b l e 4 C o l l a b o r a t i o n and Program P l a n n i n g Knowles E l e m e n t T h i s S t u d y A n d r a g o g i c a l R esponse Needs A s s e s s m e n t F o l l o w - u p P o i n t s E s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a c l i m a t e c o n d u c i v e t o a d u l t l e a r n i n g C r e a t i o n o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e d f o r p a r t i c i p a t i v e p l a n n i n g D i a g n o s i s o f l e a r n i n g needs F o r m u l a t i o n o f d i r e c t i o n s o f l e a r n i n g ( o b j e c t i v e s ) D e v elopment d e s i g n o f a c t i v i t i e s of p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e i n f o r m a l , r e l a x e d , t r u s t i n g open t o mood i s s u g g e s t i o n s r e s p e c t f u l v a l u e p a s t c o l l a b o r a t i v e l e a r n i n g ( p a r t 4) m u t u a l l y by l e a r n e r s and f a c i 1 i t a t o r done by m u t u a l a s s e s s m e n t e s t a b l i s h e d by m u t u a l n e g o t i a t i o n L e a r n i n g c o n t r a c t s p r o j e c t s and a p p r e c i a t e r e s p o n s e , remark on i n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n s e ( P t s . 1 , 8 ) *Two p a r t p r o c e s s * i n v i t a t i o n c h a n c e ( p a r t 5) f o r i n p u t ( P t . 7 ) a s s e s s r e l a t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g i n d i v i d u a l o-f i s s u e s ( p a r t 1) p r i o r i z a t i o n of i s s u e s ( p a r t 2) c h o i c e of t e c h n i q u e s ( p a r t 3) and g r o u p n e e d s ( P t s . 2 , 3) r e l a t e i n d i v i d u a l and g r o u p needs ( P t s . 4 , 5) e x p l a i n e d p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s ( P t s . 5 , 6) O p e r a t i o n o f a c t i v i t i e s R e d i a g n o s i s of needs l e a r n i n g ( e v a l u a t i o n ) f o r NOT PART OF TREATMENT From: Knowles, 1980, p. 390 40 T a b l e 4 summarises how t h e o t h e r p o i n t s of K n o w l e s ' a n d r a g o g i c a l model were r e f l e c t e d i n t h i s p r o c e d u r e . T h i s p r o c e s s seemed t o r e f l e c t t h r e e e l e m e n t s o f c o l l a b o r a t i o n : w o r k i n g t o g e t h e r , m u t u a l r e s p e c t and t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f an end p r o d u c t . Needs A s s e s s m e n t : P a r t 1 The f i r s t s t a g e was a t h r e e page w r i t t e n i n q u i r y ( A p p e n d i x 1C). S e c t i o n one o f t h i s document l i s t e d n i n e i s s u e s w h i c h t h e head o f f i c e o f CUSO f e l t s h o u l d be c o v e r e d d u r i n g t h e p r e - o r i e n t a t i o n weekend.- A t f i r s t , p a r t i c i p a n t s were a s k e d t o r a t e , on a s i x p o i n t s c a l e , t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r own u n d e r s t a n d i n g and knowledge o f t h e o b j e c t i v e s . T h i s gave a measure o f t h e a p p l i c a n t s p e r c e i v e d s t a t u s o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e i s s u e s . Q u i t e c o n c e i v a b l y t h e a p p l i c a n t c o u l d have s a t i s f i e d most o r none o f t h e i r needs t h r o u g h o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s . T h i s s t e p c o r r e s p o n d s t o Knowles' ' d i a g n o s i s of l e a r n i n g n e e d s ' w h i c h i s t o be done t h r o u g h m u t u a l a s s e s s m e n t . The f o l l o w i n g example shows one i t e m and i t s s c a l e . '. Tour motivation for - m going overseas with CUSO. oTSETSJo SSSKr.- 1™"*, » r , w i n > »T,,r,n> Needs A s s e s s m e n t : P a r t 2 As a s e c o n d t a s k , p a r t i c i p a n t s were a s k e d t o t a k e t h e e i g h t e e n h o u r s o f t i m e a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e weekend and a p p o r t i o n i t t o t h e v a r i o u s i s s u e s . The p a r t i c i p a n t s w r o t e i n a number o f h o u r s t o th e l e f t o f t h e i t e m . The p r e v i o u s example shows how a p a r t i c i p a n t would a p p o r t i o n '4' h o u r s t o an i s s u e . T h i s method 41 was used to p r i o r i z e the organization's aims for the weekend according to the applicants' needs. Thus a person could be somewhat u n s a t i s f i e d with his/her knowledge about a subject, but s t i l l not want to give i t much time on the weekend. As one of the aims was to meet individual needs, this method allowed the applicant to give a heavy weighting to issues other than those i d e n t i f i e d by the organization. This process stemmed from the notion that, "learners perceive the goals of the learning experience to be their goals" (Knowles, 1980, p. 57). It i s , therefore, a process of 'formulation of directions of learning (objectives)' through mutual negotiation. Needs Assessment: Part 3 The second page showed a l i s t of possible techniques which could be used on the weekend. Participants were given 18 hours to d i s t r i b u t e among the various a c t i v i t i e s . The l i s t of a c t i v i t i e s was generated by searching CUSO f i l e s which described techniques used across Canada during pre-orientations and l i s t s provided by Knowles (1980, p. 239). The possible a c t i v i t i e s were l i s t e d with a space to the right of each a c t i v i t y to write in the suggested number of hours. The t o t a l at the bottom was noted to be 18 hours. Needs Assessment: Part 4 The t h i r d page was a s k i l l inventory to discover strengths or resources the applicant could bring to the group. This was prompted by the idea that in superior conditions of learning, "the learning process is related to and makes use of the experience of the learners" (Knowles, 1980, p. 50). The section 42 said: I'm also interested in the s k i l l s you have. Please outline experience, knowledge and s k i l l s you can share with the group: eg; motorcycle care, t r a v e l l i n g with a l l e r g i e s , being a western woman in non-western cultures, fitness tips.?.?.? Don't be humble; we need you. The question was followed by a two inch space. It contributed to the e f f o r t to build a 'climate conducive to adult learning'. Needs Assessment: Part 5 As well, an open-ended i n v i t a t i o n for suggestions was included: Send in your comments as soon as possible, I hope that the "royal we" of these l e t t e r s w i l l soon become a real "we" as par t i c i p a n t s , R.V.'s and s t a f f become active in the planning process. I know i t ' s hard to 'put a number' on these things, but i t ' s the easiest 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 telephone c a l l approximately two to three weeks after the f i r s t part of the treatment was mailed. A l l applicants telephoned had already returned their responses to the f i r s t part of the treatment. Each c a l l included certain basic points (see Table 4 for comparison to Knowles). The researcher: 1. acknowledged receipt of and thanked the participant for f i l l i n g out the questionnaire 2 noted areas of response that were in common with others (mutuality, respect) 3. noted areas of response unique to individual (mutual assessment of learning needs) 43 4. explained the relationship between the agenda and the individual's responses (mutual negotiation of objectives) 5. c l a r i f i e d uncertainties regarding what couldn't and wouldn't happen (development of learning contracts) 6 . discussed any special circumstances as appropriate to the individual's request (trusting, collaborative) 7. asked i f he/she had any other thoughts since sending in the questionnaire (respectful, collaborative) 8. closed with thanks and 'looking forward to seeing you' (relaxed, respectful) This two-part interactive process was deemed necessary to make sure participants were aware that their ideas on the written document were read, understood and acted on. This process, p a r t i c u l a r l y the implementation of suggestions, might not have been clear without the phone c a l l . Developing Outcome Measures The part i c i p a n t s ' attitudes toward the learning a c t i v i t i e s and sponsoring agency, as well as to future learning and behaviour were central to this research. In developing outcome measures, an e f f o r t was made to relate them to cognitive, a f f e c t i v e and behavioural aspects of attitude. Because the research was combined with the sponsoring organization's evaluation, i t was necessary to l i m i t the number and length of instruments participants were asked to complete. 'Evaluation fatigue' leading to carelessness or incompletion was a concern. It was decided that the most important aspects of attitude for th i s study were 'affect' and 'behaviour'. As a result no part 44 of the questionnaire sought the 'cognitive' aspect. The 'affect' aspect r e f l e c t s evaluation, emotional reaction, and feelings. To measure 'affect', t h i s study asked participants to evaluate their s a t i s f a c t i o n with various components of the weekend. As well, semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s measured ratings of key concepts. The behavioural component was measured as helpfulness during the weekend, individual contribution as perceived by s t a f f , as well as planned and actual follow-ups. Because th i s study focussed on a p a r t i c u l a r event, i t was easier to measure behaviour than i s usually the case. The behavioural component is what Gagne (1977) c a l l s , "the most illuminating feature" (p.242) of attitude, so received considerable attention. As the other measures have t r a d i t i o n a l l y t r i e d to infer behaviour from 'cognitive' or 'affective' response, i t seemed worthwhile to develop measures of actual behaviour. As outlined' in Table 5, several measures of treatment effect were developed. The f i r s t was a written self-report (Appendix 3) which was part of the evaluation completed by participants at the end of the r e s i d e n t i a l weekend. Two others were completed by the researcher based on observations during the weekend. One was an observation of p a r t i c i p a t i o n in optional group a c t i v i t i e s ; the other was a measure of who volunteered to help. The fourth instrument was a magnitude estimation of participant contribution completed by staff members (Appendix 5). The f i f t h measure was completed by telephoning participants to discover what type of follow-up they 45 had done. The following is a more detailed discussion of each of these instruments and a description of how i t was developed. Written Self-Report Instrument The main instrument used for measuring the a f f e c t i v e and behavioural aspects of attitude was a written evaluation (Appendix 3) done near the end of the weekend. The written participant-response instrument had six parts spread over nine pages plus a cover. Because participants were asked to put their names on the evaluation, the cover included the following statement: I understand that t h i s evaluation i s designed to evaluate the program and NOT me or my involvement. I understand my name i s required to help in t h i s process but that nothing I write in i t w i l l a ffect my position in CUSO or my posting. As well, in accordance with U.B.C.'s policy regarding testing of human subjects, participants were told why the information was needed, how i t would be used and where the results would be available. In addition, they were reminded that their p a r t i c i p a t i o n was appreciated but not required. . S a t i s f a c t i o n with content The f i r s t page of the evaluation asked participants to rate the weekend's contribution to their knowledge and understanding of issues i d e n t i f i e d by the organization. These issues were considered to be objectives by the organization but were not behaviourally defined. But they were quite adequate for the generalized feelings or reactions needed for this study. Therefore, i t was decided that the e f f o r t needed to turn these issue areas into objectives was not j u s t i f a b l e . 46 Table 5 Summary of Measures of Dependent Variables Instrument Variable Completed by Measured Affect(Written Self-report Instrument) Nine 6-point scales Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Scales Five 5-point scales Twenty 6-point scales Nine yes/no items s a t i s f a c t i o n with coverage of issues evaluation of three concepts l o g i s t i c s s a t i s f a c t i o n •with a c t i v i t i e s planned follow-up participants, resource people participants, resource people participants, resource people participants, resource people part ic ipants Behaviour(4 Separate Instruments) 4-point checklist Record names a f f i n i t y to group helpfulness researcher researcher Magnitude estimation part ic ipant contribution 2 CUSO staff Telephone c a l l actual follow-up researcher in conversat ion with participants participants=control and treated groups 47 E a c h of n i n e i s s u e s was e v a l u a t e d on a s i x - p o i n t L i k e r t -t y p e s c a l e . Here i s one example. 8. Development issues in Canada and the T h i r d ^ ^, A T T l, m t m A T X ~ ~ . T ™ World. 91 linn into o i i u f i i n n o i u n t i r i B UTiirito urnrits i m w i n T h i s gave a measure o f t h e i r g e n e r a l s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e way t h e weekend d e a l t w i t h t h e i s s u e s . I n d i v i d u a l i t e m s were a g g r e g a t e d i n t o s u b g r o u p s i n o r d e r t o compare t h e s c o r e s . The c o e f f i c i e n t a l p h a f o r t h i s a g g r e g a t e d s c a l e (summed o v e r n i n e i s s u e s ) was .93. Thus, r e s p o n s e s were i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i n t h e a g g r e g a t e d s c a l e . A t t h e b o t t o m o f t h e page was an o p p o r t u n i t y t o make comments o r e x p l a i n r e s p o n s e s . S e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l The a f f e c t i v e component o f a t t i t u d e was m easured by t h r e e s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e s . T h i s means was c h o s e n as i t was h i g h l y recommended i n t h e t h e l i t e r a t u r e as a measure o f a f f e c t ( A i k e n , 1980; Osgood, S u c i & Tannenbaum, 1957). The t h i r d page was an e x p l a n a t i o n of how t o f i l l i n t h e s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s on page f o u r , f i v e and s i x . On e a c h o f t h e s e t h r e e p a g e s t h e r e was a c o n c e p t , a l i s t o f 16 a d j e c t i v e s p a i r s and a s p a c e f o r o t h e r comments. F i g u r e 1 r e p r e s e n t s one o f t h e p a g e s . F o r t h e o t h e r s s e e A p p e n d i x 3, p a g e s 100-102. C h o o s i n g t h e C o n c e p t s and S c a l e s B e c a u s e o f t h e s m a l l 'n' i n t h e s t u d y , i t was v e r y i m p o r t a n t t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e i n s t r u m e n t s had f a c e v a l i d i t y . The c o n c e p t s ( t h i n g s t o be r a t e d ) u s e d i n t h e s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l i n s t r u m e n t s were c h o s e n t o r e p r e s e n t t h r e e i d e a s f o u n d i n t h e h y p o t h e s e s . The f i r s t c o n c e p t 'AS A DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CUSO 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 unimportant incompetent insensitive stagnant i n s i g n i f i c a n t incapable intolerant unsuitable uncooperative ineff e c t i v e r i g i d _ active _ useful q u a l i f i e d r e l i a b l e dynamic . important . competent sensitive innovative . s i g n i f i c a n t capable tolerant suitable cooperative effective f l e x i b l e Any other comments? 49 IS ... ' served as an indicator for hypothesis two regarding pos i t i v e feelings towards the sponsoring agency. 'AS A PRE-ORIENTATION THIS WEEKEND WAS ... ' evaluated the learning a c t i v i t y mentioned in hypothesis one. F i n a l l y , 'AS A CUSO VOLUNTEER I AM ... .' gave an idea of how the participants f e l t about their role within the organization and thus was used to test hypothesis three. The concepts seemed to be reasonable subjects for participants to respond to after the weekend retreat. To find scales suitable for this measure a process involving several steps was undertaken. F i r s t , a review of a wide range of CUSO l i t e r a t u r e was done to discover which adjectives the organization used to describe i t s e l f . These included i t s development charter, operating p r i n c i p l e s , project descriptions, fundraising pamphlets, r e c r u i t i n g l i t e r a t u r e , interview guide and others. A l i s t of some 80 adjectives was generated. Pairs which seemed to describe similar c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (eg. self-reliant/autonomous) were grouped and a search done to e s t a b l i s h antonyms and the best pairs to describe an a t t r i b u t e . Rogets Thesaurus (Lewis, 1971) and The  Roget Dictionary or Synonyms and Antonyms (Sylvester Mawson, 1940) were the two sources used. This step increased the t o t a l to some 200 pairs. The researcher narrowed the l i s t down to 33 scales which represented the main ideas. For example, pairs related to ' a c t i v i t y ' were f i r s t i d e n t i f i e d and grouped: dynamic/inert, energetic/lazy, innovative/stagnant, 50 participative/nonparticipative, a c t i v e / i n a c t i v e , change-promoting/change-discouraging , dynamic/stagnant, active/passive, stimulating/boring. Pairs judged by the researcher to be most representative of the l i t e r a t u r e , e a s i l y understood and applicable to the concept were retained for the next phase. Testing concept/scale relevance A group of six returned CUSO cooperants were then asked to assess the appropriateness of the 33 p a i r s . These people were chosen as judges as their experience with the organization in Canada and overseas gave them a broad knowledge of the subject. As well, their personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and reactions would probably make them comparable to the applicants. Each judge was given three checklists stapled together (Appendix 6). On the top of each page was one of the three.concepts which were to be rated. Below each concept were boxes numbered 1 to 36 and arranged in columns of 12. Beside each number was a set of three boxes la b e l l e d YES / ? / NO. The nature and purpose of the task was explained to the judges who then experimented with three t r i a l pairs which weren't included in the sample. They were asked to judge, "Whether these words could be used by someone to describe CUSO as a development agency". It was emphasized that their task was not to rate CUSO, but to evaluate the usefulness or relevance of the scale to describe the object. A l l judges had seen semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s in the past. By the time the examples had been read, the judges indicated they were ready. The researcher held a piece of eight and a half by eleven 51 paper with the f i r s t pair written horizontally across i t with three dots between the words. 'IMPORTANT ... UNIMPORTANT'. The number '1' was written in the top right corner and c i r c l e d . The researcher held i t up, and read i t out as follows. Unimportant [pause] important. Could those words, or some point between those two words be used to describe CUSO as a development agency? That's number one. The group seemed to have l i t t l e problem t i c k i n g a reaction almost immediately. The researcher went through the 33 pairs, prompting the judges with various phrasings of the question they should be asking themselves about every five p a i r s . After they had finished "CUSO AS A DEVELOPMENT AGENCY", the same procedure was repeated for each of the other concepts. After a l l three were completed, the group went over the. f i r s t page together o r a l l y , giving their impressions of the exercise. F i n a l l y , they were asked i f those adjectives adequately described the statement concepts or i f a dimension was missing. A number of words were suggested, but few had the po l a r i t y needed for a semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l . For example, they suggested 'over-staffed ... understaffed' and 'underfunded ... over-funded'. These could be used to describe the organization but don't have clear positive and negative poles. The judges ratings were then reviewed. A l l adjective pairs rejected or questioned by even one judge were eliminated. This l e f t 21 adjective pairs for 'AS A DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CUSO IS ... and 32 pairs for 'AS A CUSO VOLUNTEER I AM ... '. A further elimination of synonyms by the researcher brought the number down to 16 scales for each concept, s t i l l trying to represent 52 the main groupings of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Only 11 pairs remained for 'AS A PRE-ORIENTATION THIS WEEKEND WAS ... '. It was apparent that the adjective pairs selected had much higher a p p l i c a b i l i t y to people or organizations than to events. Therefore i t was necessary to develop new pa i r s . Time constraints made i t impossible to c a l l the judges together again. So rather than develop and test t o t a l l y new pairs, i t was decided to supplement the l i s t with synonyms of pairs which were approved. As the object of using the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l was to get a measure of positiveness, not to evaluate a l l facets of the weekend, t h i s compromise seemed acceptable. As presented in Table 6, pairs seemed to group into four a p r i o r i categories which were later checked with a factor analytic procedure. The f i r s t concerned the concepts value or worth: useful/useless; unimportant/important. The second gauged i t s a c t i v i t y : inactive/active; stagnant/innovative. The t h i r d group was q u a l i t i e s or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : intolerant/tolerant; uncooperative/cooperative. The fourth indicated competence: incompetent/competent; e f f i c i e n t / i n e f f i c i e n t . These groups were represented in each set but with d i f f e r e n t weightings. Table 6 A P r i o r i Factors CUSO Weekend Volunteer Value A c t i v i t y Quality Competence 3 3 7 3 4 3 5 4 3 3 6 4 53 The scales were ordered with the aid of a table of random numbers. Scales representing each a p r i o r i factor were randomly placed in the l i s t of adjective p a i r s . Internal v a l i d i t y The semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l scale-pairs that resulted from this judging process appeared relevant to the concepts and broke into factors similar to those conceptualized in the a p r i o r i groupings. In an attempt to develop c r i t e r i a for-scale scoring ( i . e . summing over related scales) to f a c i l i t a t e the comparison of treated and untreated participants, data derived from 16 scale ratings of 'AS A DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CUSO IS ... ' were inter-correlated, then factor analyzed. Thirty-seven forms completed by people at the CUSO weekend were entered into the analysis which was repeated for each of the remaining two concepts. The judging process had produced d i f f e r e n t scales for the three concepts. Some were in common and used to rate two or more of the concepts. Because the differences outweighed the s i m i l a r i t i e s , ratings of each concept were factored separately. Thus, in the results that follow, there i s no attempt to compare the structure found for one concept with that for another. Factor Loadings- 'CUSO IS' Table 7 shows items and loadings after orthogonal rotation for ratings of 'AS A DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CUSO IS". Three clear factors emerged. The f i r s t , an 'evaluation' factor was composed of seven items with loadings that ranged from a high to .86 to a low of .50. The items on this factor were almost pure 54 Table 7 Factor Analysis: CUSO IS I terns Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 'Eval.' 'Flex.' 'Activ' Alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s .80 .78 .64 incapable/capable .86* .26 .26 incompetent/competent .85* -.10 .21 useful/useless .82* .30 . 1 1 non-exploitive/exploitive .78* .33 .07 unimportant/important .74* .21 .28 i n s i g n i f i c a n t / s i g n i f icant .69* .28 .42 i rresponsible/responsible .50* .38 .36 stagnant/innovat ive .23 .73* .37 u n f a i r / f a i r .32 .72* .05 intolerant/tolerant .28 .70* -.02 noncooperat ive/cooper. .25 .70* .46 dependent/independent -.08 .61* -.02 r i g i d / f l e x i b l e .44 .54* .29 i n e f f i c i e n t / e f f i c i e n t .17 .06 .81* inert/dynamic .15 . 1 1 .76* inactive/active .51 .08 .65* Percentage of variance accounted for 49.0 10.9 8.4 Percentage of cumulative variance accounted for 49.0 59.9 68.0 55 'evaluation' in that most had high loadings on only t h i s factor. 'Evaluation' was -obviously an important aspect of thi s concept as i t accounted for 49 percent of the variance. The second factor had a narrower spread of loadings with a low of .54 and a high of .73 on the six items i t grouped. The ' f l e x i b i l i t y ' factor was concerned with 'cooperativeness' and ' f l e x i b i l i t y ' of CUSO. Again, no scale loaded to even .50 on any other factor. ' F l e x i b i l i t y ' accounted for 10.9 percent of the variance. ' A c t i v i t y ' was the t h i r d factor i d e n t i f i e d for 'CUSO IS'. Loadings ranged from .65 to .81 for the three scales i d e n t i f i e d for t h i s factor which accounted for 8.4 percent of the variance. These three factors 'evaluation', 'adaptability' and ' a c t i v i t y ' accounted for 68 percent of the variance in the concept 'CUSO IS'. Although the scales did not always load as projected in the a p r i o r i conceptualization, the projected factors 'value' and 'competetence' were present in 'evaluation'. ' A c t i v i t y ' was evident as predicted. The 'quality' factor was renamed ' f l e x i b i l i t y ' as this seemed to better describe the q u a l i t i e s which emerged. Factor loadings-'WEEKEND WAS' Four factors emerged from an analysis of the concept,"AS A PRE-ORIENTATION THIS WEEKEND WAS ... ". As can be seen on Table 8 the most important, a c t i v i t y , accounted for 44.5 percent of the variance and included six items with a low of .62 and a high of .91. A review of the loadings indicated that t h i s was a f a i r l y strong factor vaguely linked to the t h i r d factor 56 Table 8 Factor Analysis: WEEKEND WAS Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 'Activ' 'Eval' 'Organ' 'Encour Alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s .93. .77 .76 .58 inactive/active . 9 1 * .12 -.08 -.06 i n s i g n i f i c a n t / s i g n i f i c a n t .89* -.06 .36 -.04 unimportant/important .86* -.01 .36 .17 unaware/aware .81* .23 -.07 .35 d u l l / i n t e r e s t ing .78* -.00 .33 .39 humdrum/exc i t i ng .71* .45 .22 .30 inconsistent/consistent .62* .57 .03 .08 confusing/en1ightening .18 .83* -.08 .23 sluggish/energetic .18 .83* -.08 ' -.30 unorganized/organized . 1 6 .81* .01 -.10 i n e f f i c i e n t / e f f i c i e n t .04 .70* .08 -.17 inconsistant/consi stant .54 .63* . 1 1 .10 purposeless/purposeful . 1 2 .09 .85* -.00 useless/useful .49 -.10 .68* .24 worthless/valuable -.02 .36 .63* .56 discouraging/encouraging .27 -.13. .06 .82* boring/stimulating .43 .35 .31 .61* Percentage of variance accounted for 44.5 18.0 11.0 6.7 Percentage of cumulative • variance accounted for 44.5 62.5 73.4 80. 1 57 'evaluation'. As well, two items loaded more than .40 on the second factor. These loadings were perhaps due to the idea that an active weekend is a good one. The second factor was comprised of four pairs with a low of .63 and a high of .83. This 'organization' factor accounted for 18 percent of the variance and seemed to be a f a i r l y pure factor. The t h i r d factor grouped three items with loadings of .63 to .85 which seemed to isolate an 'evaluation' factor. With strong loadings on useful, purposeful, and valuable, this factor was predicted in the proposed schema and accounted for 11 percent of the variance. The fourth factor contained only two items: discouraging/encouraging (.82) and boring/stimulating (.61). It accounted for only 6.7 percent of the variance and was la b e l l e d 'encouragement'. These four factors ' a c t i v i t y ' , 'evaluation', 'organization' and 'encouragement' accounted for a t o t a l of 80.1 percent of the variance. As discussed e a r l i e r , f i v e items in t h i s scale were untested by judges, so there had been some concern about the a b i l i t y to develop s u f f i c i e n t l y descriptive items. Therefore the high loadings 1 increased confidence in the instrument as did the alpha lev e l s (see Table 8). Factor loadings-'I AM' The t h i r d semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l concept was, 'AS A CUSO 58 Table 9 Factor Analysis: I AM I terns Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor ' S u i t i ' 'Evalu' 1 F l e x i ' 'Activ* Alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s .88 .73 .82 — u n r e l i a b l e / r e l i a b l e .81* .01 . 1 1 .12 incapable/capable .72* .17 .19 .33 unsuitable/suitable .71* .43 -.04 .03 intolerant/tolerant .69* .13 .31 .17 uncooperat ive/cooperative .69* .35 .31 -.28 i n s i g n i f i c a n t / s i g n i f i c a n t .62* .26 .05 .59 useless/useful .57* .44 .34 .23 unimportant/important .57* .38 .02 .47 unquali f ied/quali f ied .06 .85* .19 .04 i n s e n s i t i v e / s e n s i t i v e .36 .63* -.01 .24 incompetent/competent .46 .62* .28 . 1 6 i n e f f e c t i v e / e f f e c t i v e .41 .44* -.15 .33 r i g i d / f l e x i b l e . 1 3 .05 .80* -.01 inert/dynamic .25 . 1 1 .74* .42 stagnant/innovat ive .04 .51 .54* .41 passive/act ive .10 .13 .26 .74* Percentage of variance accounted for 46.8 9.6 7.3 6.5 Percentage of cumulative variance accounted for 46.8 56.4 63.7 70.2 59 VOLUNTEER I AM ... '. The scales broke into four factors (Table 9). The f i r s t accounted for 46.8 percent of the variance and grouped 8 of the 16 items. Its loadings ranged from .57 to .81 and formed the ' s u i t a b i l i t y ' factor. It seemed to combine the 'worth' concept suggested in the a p r i o r i groupings with the 'character' items. In other words, i t seemed an indicator of whether participants had the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to be a good cooperants. The second factor was an 'evaluation' factor. Four factors had loadings ranging from .44 to .85, with the middle two in the low .60's. Two factors with low loadings also loaded at .47 and .59 on the ' s u i t a b i l i t y ' factor. This second factor was concerned with professional q u a l i f i c a t i o n s (competent, 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 concerned with a more general personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . ' F l e x i b i l i t y ' , the t h i r d factor, grouped three items with loadings of .54 to .80 and accounted for 7.3 percent of variance. It seemed closely related to the fourth ' a c t i v i t y ' factor which contained only one item with a loading of .74. The interconnectedness of ' f l e x i b i l i t y ' and ' a c t i v i t y ' is clear when we note that the two items in ' f l e x i b i l i t y ' with the weakest loadings also have loadings in the low f o r t i e s on the ' a c t i v i t y ' factor. It i s unusual to leave a single item factor, but in t h i s case i t seemed advisable three 'forced' factors were considerably more scrambled than the solution shown here. Because the single-item factor was ' a c t i v i t y ' , generally an important factor in semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l research, and 60 a c c o u n t e d f o r 6.5 p e r c e n t o f t h e v a r i a n c e , i t was r e t a i n e d . In t o t a l 70.2 p e r c e n t o f t h e v a r i a n c e was a c c o u n t e d f o r . The f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d a c c o u n t e d f o r 68.0 (CUSO I S ) , 70.29 (I AM) and 80.29 (WEEKEND WAS) p e r c e n t o f t h e v a r i a n c e . R e l i a b i l i t y The n a t u r e o f t h e CUSO weekend, and t h e m o b i l i t y o f t h o s e p r e s e n t , c o u p l e d w i t h t h e s m a l l 'n' p r e s e n t , made i t d i f f i c u l t t o c a r r y - o u t , a t e s t / r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y p r o c e d u r e . I n s t e a d t h e i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t s was e x a m i n e d by g e n e r a t i n g c o e f f i c i e n t a l p h a s t a t i s t i c s f o r e a c h a g g r e g a t e d s c a l e . C o e f f i c i e n t a l p h a s f o r t h e e l e v e n f a c t o r s o f t h e s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s j u s t d e s c r i b e d a r e d i s p l a y e d i n T a b l e s 7, 8, and 9. The a l p h a l e v e l s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e i t e m s c o m p r i s i n g t h e f a c t o r s were i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t . I n t h i s s e n s e , t h e s e s c a l e - r a t i n g s o f t h e c o n c e p t s were r e l i a b l e . R a t i n g l o g i s t i c s The s e v e n t h page o f t h e w r i t t e n e v a l u a t i o n s t a r t e d w i t h a r e q u e s t t o r a t e f i v e e l e m e n t s o f t h e weekend r e l a t e d t o ' a r r a n g e m e n t s ' o r ' l o g i s t i c s ' : p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s , t r a v e l a r r a n g e m e n t s , f o l d e r m a t e r i a l s , s i t e and m e a l s . A f i v e p o i n t s c a l e was u s e d : PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING FEATURES OF THE WEEKEND PLANNING PROCESS VERY POOR POOR FAIR GOOD VERY GOOD P a r t i c i p a n t s c i r c l e d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e r a t i n g . The c o e f f i c i e n t a l p h a f o r t h e a g g r e g a t e s o f t h e s e f i v e s c a l e s was .65. 61 R a t i n g l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s On t h e b o t t o m h a l f o f t h e same page and f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g two p a g e s p a r t i c i p a n t s were a s k e d t o r a t e v a r i o u s l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s . E a c h i t e m was c a s t on two 6 - p o i n t s c a l e s . The f i r s t was a r e s p o n s e t o , "how i m p o r t a n t y o u f e e l t h e y were t o t h e P r e - 0 ?". T h i s q u e s t i o n was a s k e d on b e h a l f o f CUSO and was n o t p a r t of t h i s s t u d y . The s e c o n d was, "hdw;' s a t i s f i e d y ou a r e w i t h t h e way t h e y were d o n e ? " . BURNING QUESTIONS ' VERY MODERATELY SLIGHTLY SLIGHTLY MODERATELY VERY UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT VERY MODERATELY SLIGHTLY SLIGHTLY MODERATELY VERT .DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED A g a i n , t h e a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e s were c i r c l e d . The f i r s t i t e m was u s e d f o r CUSO's p l a n n i n g f o r f u t u r e p r o g r a m s r a t h e r t h a n t h i s r e s e a r c h . The s c o r e s o f t h e 20 ' s a t i s f a c t i o n ' i t e m s when summed o v e r and a v e r a g e d p r o d u c e d a c o e f f i c i e n t o f .71. P l a n n e d f o l l o w - u p The l a s t page a s k e d t h r e e q u e s t i o n s . F i r s t was, "Which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g do y o u p l a n t o do, i f a n y ? " . I t was f o l l o w e d by n i n e p o i n t s w h i c h c o u l d be c i r c l e d . T h i s l i s t was d e v e l o p e d w i t h h e l p of one o f t h e l o c a l CUSO s t a f f t o r e p r e s e n t t h e t y p e s o f recommended f o l l o w - u p s . The g r o u p i n g o f t h e s e a n s w e r s tr r e s u l t e d i n a n i n e - p o i n t s c a l e w i t h an a l p h a c o e f f i c i e n t of .67. The n e x t a s k e d , " I s t h e r e a n y t h i n g e l s e y o u p l a n t o d o ? " . F i n a l l y , " I s t h e r e a n y t h i n g e l s e you w o u l d l i k e f r o m CUSO-B.C.?, f i n i s h e d t h e e v a l u a t i o n . The f o r m e r was c o d e d as a s i m p l e y e s / n o i t e m w h i l e t h e l a t t e r was not u s e d i n t h i s s t u d y . 62 Measuring A f f i n i t y to Group This was designed to assess the degree of attachment to the group. Saturday evening, was free time with a number of non-compulsory a c t i v i t e s . Using an alphabetized l i s t , a simple attendance check was done at fixed intervals in the main a c t i v i t y areas. Recordings were to be made hourly between 8:15 p.m. and 1:15 a.m. As the researcher was also the organizer and was often counting heads for other purposes, this was less obtrusive than i t might seem. Measuring Helpfulness This consisted simply of recording the names of those who volunteered for the structured tasks of the small groups (eg: recorder or reporter). These opportunities were i d e n t i f i e d before hand to avoid any chance the researcher 'noticed' the treated group more. Estimating Participant Contribution The last instrument focussing on the weekend was a magnitude estimation of participant contribution (Appendix 5). This instrument was designed to have st a f f estimate which participants contributed the most to the weekend retreat. Participants were l i s t e d alphabetically with a l i n e opposite their name, as indicated below. The instructions asked the staff member to choose the participant who contributed the most to the weekend and assign that person a score of 100. Then they were to estimate the r e l a t i v e contribution of a l l other pa r t i c i p a n t s . The example indicates the rating for a person who contributed approximately 75 percent as much as the reference or 6 3 ' b a s e l i n e ' i n d i v i d u a l . John Smith — - 75 [TJQ A c t u a l F o l l o w - u p The f i n a l measure was a t e l e p h o n e f o l l o w - u p u s i n g a s e m i -s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w . I t s main p u r p o s e was t o a s c e r t a i n w h i c h ' i n t e n d e d ' b e h a v i o u r s were a c t u a l l y c a r r i e d o u t . The f o l l o w i n g i s an o u t l i n e o f t h e p o i n t s c o v e r e d d u r i n g t h e c a l l . T e l e p h o n e c a l l g u i d e - " J u s t a c h e c k t o see y o u g o t t h e f o l l o w - u p p a c k a g e and t o see how y o u ' r e d o i n g on y o u r f o l l o w - u p t o p r e - o r i e n t a t i o n " - a l l o w them t o v o l u n t e e r any i n f o r m a t i o n - p o i n t s t o c h e c k f o r : - t a l k e d t o r e t u r n e d c o o p e r a n t s - t a l k e d t o r e g i o n a l s t a f f - t a l k e d t o n a t i o n a l s t a f f - p r o j e c t groundwork -met w i t h l o c a l c o m m i t t e e - m o t o r c y c l e c o u r s e - c o l l e c t e d r e c i p e s - t o o k a f i r s t a i d c o u r s e - j o i n e d CUSO - c o n t a c t e d o t h e r a p p l i c a n t s - c o n t a c t e d f o r e i g n n a t i o n a l s - f u r t h e r r e a d i n g 64 Before the c a l l the researcher reviewed the individual's responses to the question on the evaluation, "which of the following i f any do you plan to do?" After the participants had given their responses to the i n i t i a l open ended question, their responses to the evaluation's questions were used as prompts. F i n a l l y , the researcher remarked that other participants had found cer t a i n lines of a c t i v i t y were useful. Then those on the above l i s t were read out and the participant responded to each item. 65 CHAPTER FIVE METHOD Random Assignment A l i s t of 64 applicants e l i g i b l e to attend the weekend was compiled. Those who had previously served with CUSO were eliminated because with such a small expected 'n' t h i s group was judged to be too d i f f e r e n t from the larger group in their approach to the organization and i t s a c t i v i t i e s . The l i s t was divided into singles and couples. This procedure was adopted as i t would have been impossible to assign one member of a couple to the control and the other to the experimental group. A master l i s t was ordered alphabetically, singles f i r s t , then couples. A coin was tossed to decide whether the f i r s t or second name was to be c i r c l e d . The second name was c i r c l e d and a l l subsequent even-numbered names. Couples were considered to be one name. Then the coin was tossed again to see which was to be the control; the uncircled names became the control group. Two separate l i s t s were developed, one for the control, one for the experimental group. Past experience t o l d organizers that at least half of the applicants would be unable to attend for various reasons. Characteristics of Sample Of the 64 potential participants who received the i n i t i a l needs assessment, 23 completed the evaluation instrument, 10 from the treated and 13 from the control group. Because of the time lag between i n i t i a l contact and the weekend, some had received notices they couldn't be placed overseas by CUSO and so 66 had dropped out. Participants ranged in age from 20 to 63 years and possessed a variety of technical and professional s k i l l s including carpentry, teaching and engineering. They l i v e d in r u r a l communities, small towns and large c i t i e s throughout B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada. The treatment group had five males and five females while the control group had seven males and six females. A l l had been interviewed and recommended for postings overseas with CUSO. None had been allocated to s p e c i f i c postings, but most had an idea of p o s s i b i l i t i e s being pursued on their behalf. A l l attended a pre-orientation weekend retreat which was voluntary but an important part of CUSO's program to prepare them for overseas work. Five were not available for the follow-up six to eight weeks afte r the retreat. Administering 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 previously received a notice asking them to reserve the weekend in question (Appendix 1A). For organizational purposes both control and treated groups received the same notice (Appendix 1B) and confirmation of r e g i s t r a t i o n (Appendix 1C). In addition the treated group par t i c i p a t e d in a two-stage consultation process. By including the needs assessment with the registation form a prompt return was assured. Within two weeks almost a l l forms of those planning to attend had arrived. A t o t a l of 15 forms arrived from the treated group. A review of the forms and a computing of the average score per item helped the researcher design the weekend's a c t i v i t e s . A note was made on each needs 67 assessment indicating how i t s contribution affected planning. Actual Follow-up Follow-up phone c a l l s were completed with a l l but one of the treatment group. Between the period of treatment and the weekend three potential participants dropped out from the treatment group because they were informed they could not be placed overseas. One member of the experimental group who could not be contacted by phone received a similar treatment in a face-to-face interview during the weekend. There were many reasons other than t h i s research which required the organizer to talk p r i v a t e l y with various members of the groups so thi s conversation did not seem out-of-place. Learning A c t i v i t y Throughout the weekend both groups were treated the same. During the introduction the coordinator/researcher explained that the collaboration process was undertaken to help produce a good pre-orientation. Care was taken to explain that the group collaborated with was chosen at random, "If you weren't consulted i t s because your l a s t name starts with A for Adam rather than B for Brown." Participants were to l d that t h i s study was for the researcher's masters thesis as well as CUSO's inter e s t s . It was emphasized that the purpose was to evaluate pre-orientation planning, not the par t i c i p a n t s . The outline used by the researcher is reproduced in Appendix 2. An in v i t a t i o n for questions prompted only requests for the results from other educators. 68 Data Co l l e c t i o n Written Instrument On Sunday morning during a planned break between two parts of an a c t i v i t y , the evaluation instrument was handed out and completed. The points made in the introduction were b r i e f l y summarized and the importance of having complete and honest responses emphasized. Eleven completed instruments were returned from the control group, nine from the treatment and thirteen from the resource group. The l a t t e r were used for the organization's evaluation and the testing of scale v a l i d i t y . The responses of the resource group were co l l e c t e d to help validate the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l instruments. An additional three participant and two resource person responses were received later by mail. A f f i n i t y to Group On Saturday night the attendance check went as planned except the f i r s t check (8:15 p.m.) was cancelled because the group was widely scattered. Helpfulness During the weekend the groups were treated i d e n t i c a l l y . No one but the researcher knew who was in which group. Whenever there was a formal opportunity to help ( i e : recorder, reporter), the researcher noted who volunteered to take on each task. Participant Contribution In the week following the weekend, each of the three r e c r u i t i n g staff for the region were asked to estimate the contribution made by each par t i c i p a n t . Only two did so, as the 69 th i r d was uncomfortable with the instrument. Actual Follow-up Six to eight weeks after the weekend, each participant was phoned to find out what preparation a c t i v i t i e s had been undertaken since the weekend. Four could not be reached and another was eliminated because he had received n o t i f i c a t i o n he wouldn't be placed that year. In a l l , ten controls and eight treated participants were included. This completed the data gathering process. 70 CHAPTER 6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS RESULTS The five instruments used to measure the effects of collaboration produced data which had to be coded in s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t ways. The processes used to prepare the data from each are outlined below. Control and treated group mean scores were compared using the pooled t-test for a one-sided test of hypothesis with independent groups (see Duncan, Knapp and M i l l e r , 1977, p. 79). The pooled analysis was used as the F-tests indicated that the variances within the 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 . Because of differences among the five instruments used to measure the ef f e c t s of treatment, each one w i l l be dealt with successively in reporting the r e s u l t s . A l l figures quoted are from Table 10. Written Instrument The written instrument was broken down into sections: Issues, A c t i v i t i e s , L o g i s t i c s , Planned Follow-up and Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Scales. Scales were produced to r e f l e c t the nature of the information gained in each section. F i r s t , responses on each item were given a numerical equivalent. For instance 'Issue' items were rated one to six with one being 'very d i s s a t i s f i e d ' and six being 'very s a t i s f i e d ' (see Coding Schedule, Appendix 4 for d e t a i l s on other items). Mean 'Issue' item scores were derived by summing participants' responses to the nine items (see Appendix 3) and dividing by nine. 71 This scale (Issues) was used as a model and similar scales grouped the ratings for L o g i s t i c s (5 items) and A c t i v i t i e s (20 items). By t h i s grouping procedure i t was possible to calculate mean scores for each individual on the scales and compare the means of the two groups. A Planned Follow-up scale (9 items) was also developed which described how many follow-up a c t i v i t i e s the participants planned to undertake. The factors i d e n t i f i e d through Varimax analysis of the three semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s produced eleven more scales. The l e v e l of significance for a l l t-tests was set at .1 as t h i s type of exploratory research must be more wary of Type II than of Type I errors. It seemed more important to discover any tendencies rather than to be concerned only with very s i g n i f i c a n t differences. Despite t h i s caution, no s i g n i f i c a n t difference was found between the mean scores of the treated and control groups for any of the scales. Table 10 shows that although the treated group scored higher on 14 of the 18 items, none reached the .1 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . A f f i n i t y to Group The participants could have been present at zero to four points during the Saturday night s o c i a l i z i n g . There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the mean number of times individuals from the two groups were present. The treated group spent s l i g h t l y but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time with the larger group than did the control group. 72 Table 10 Comparison of Mean Scores Control Treatment F t Group Group Ratio Value X SD X SD Evaluation Measures Issues(M=6) 5.01 .44 5.12 .57 1 .66 .26 Activities(M=6) 5.25 .32 5.36 .29 1 .96 .44 Logistics(M=5) 4.58 .75 4.09 .38 3 .91 - .94 Plan. Follow(M=9) 1 .47 .23 1 .48 . 1 1 4 .35 .00 Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l CUSO IS(M=7): 5.95 .73 6.00 .36 3 .97 .09 Evaluation 6.05 .77 6.04 .45 2 .91 - .02 F l e x i b i l i t y 5.85 .89 5.98 .44 4 . 1 2 .20 A c t i v i t y 5.92 .74 5.93 .56 1 .77 .02 WEEKEND WAS(M=7): 6.25 .63 6.28 .45 1 .93 .06 Act i v i t y 6.20 .97 6.35 .51 3 .62 .21 Evaluat ion 6.28 .58 5.97 .80 1 .87 - .58 Organization 6.48 .53 6.50 .45 1 .37 .04 Encouragement 6.15 .74 6.60 .39 3 .59 .85 I AM(M=7): 6.23 .57 6.10 .43 1 .76 - .29 S u i t a b i l i t y 6.34 .66 6.15 .46 2 .04 - .39 Evaluat ion 6.21 .66 6.05 .64 1 .08 - .29 F l e x i b i l i t y 6.07 .72 6.23 .52 1 .91 .29 Act i v i t y 5.50 1 .24 5.60 .69 3 .66 — . 1 1 Behaviour Helpfulness(M=1) .08 .28 .75 .46 2 .57 1 .98 + + Group Aff.(M=4) 2.67 1 .00 2.00 1 .22 1 .50 - .67 Act. Follow(M=12) 2.66 1 .37 5.28 1 .79 1 .72 1 .79** Follow/Learn(M=7) 2.25 .96 3.71 1 .38 2 .04 1 .36* Follow/Cuso(M=3) .41 1 .57 .66 .78 1 .38 1 .70* Contrib.(M=100) 41.1 35.9 58.5 17.4 4 .23 .66 * t> 1.32, df=16, p<. 1 0 (One-t a i l e d test) ** t> 1.74, df=l6, p<.05 (One-t a i l e d test) ++ t> 1.72, df=21, p<.05 (One-t a i l e d test) M= maximum score possible 7 3 Helpfulness With th i s instrument, which i d e n t i f i e d which individuals offered to help as recorders or reporters during the weekend, a s i g n i f i c a n t difference was found between treatment and control groups. This tendency of the treated group to be more helpful was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l . Participant Contribution The magnitude estimation ratings were converted to a number between 1 and 100 which represented where the 'X' was placed on the l i n e . Some participants received two scores, others were rated by only one of the two s t a f f . - Those who received two scores were assigned an average of the two. Again, a t-t'est was done comparing the two group means. Two staff members f i l l e d in the sheets seven days after the workshop. Its main draw-back as an instrument is that neither judge knew everyone, so each tended to remember her previous acquaintances. As well, one staff member refused to p a r t i c i p a t e . This person's p a r t i c i p a t i o n would have balanced the l a t t e r problem somewhat as the three r e c r u i t i n g s t a f f would have contributed and have balanced each others prejudices to a degree. This led to low confidence in this instrument. But, in any event, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the magnitude estimation scores (Contribution) assigned the treated and untreated groups. Actual Follow-up Three separate t-tests were done on the follow-up data. The f i r s t compared the mean number of behaviours mentioned by the participants during the follow-up phone c a l l . The second 74 grouped only behaviours which could be said to demonstrate a f f i n i t y to CUSO and the t h i r d compared the behaviours which could be classed as learning-related. The telephone follow-up found that the treated group undertook s i g n i f i c a n t l y more follow-up actions than did the control group. An i n i t i a l comparison of the number of follow-up behaviours (Actual Follow-up) produced a t-value of 1.79, s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l . When t h i s variable was broken down into two categories 'Follow/CUSO' r e f l e c t i n g a f f i n i t y to the organization (joining committees, buying a membership) and the 'Follow/Learn' indicating learning behaviours ( c o l l e c t i n g recipes, contacting returned cooperants for information), the differences remained s i g n i f i c a n t at the .1 l e v e l . Hypotheses Reviewed These findings are pertinent to the hypotheses established in Chapter 1. Adults who parti c i p a t e in the planning of a learning a c t i v i t y : 1. - w i l l have more posit i v e feelings and take a more active part in the learning 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 evaluate the sponsoring agency more p o s i t i v e l y than those who don't p a r t i c i p a t e and w i l l take a more active role in i t . 3. - w i l l express more posit i v e feelings towards their own a b i l i t i e s in areas dealt with during the learning a c t i v i t y than w i l l those who don't p a r t i c i p a t e . 4. - w i l l take a more active role in their own learning after the a c t i v i t y than w i l l those who don't p a r t i c i p a t e . 75* Hypothesis 1 There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the treated and control groups concerning their s a t i s f a c t i o n with how issues were covered, the l o g i s t i c s of the weekend, the learning a c t i v i t i e s , or the pre-orientation weekend. Thus hypothesis number one was rejected. Hypothesis 2 There were di f f e r e n t results for 'a f f e c t i v e ' and 'behavioural' aspects of attitudes. There was no difference in how the two groups evaluated CUSO AS A DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (affective measure), yet members of the collaborating group were more l i k e l y to undertake behaviours associated with CUSO after the weekend. No difference was found concerning whether they chose to spend free time with the group on the weekend. Because of the behavioural findings, hypothesis number two was accepted with reservations. Hypothesis 3 No s i g n i f i c a n t difference was found between the two groups in how they evaluated themselves as volunteers (I AM). Therefore hypothesis number three was rejected. Hypothesis 4 No difference in participant contribution (Contribution) was found, but as noted, the administration of this instrument was flawed. The collaborating group offered to help (Helpfulness) s i g n i f i c a n t l y more times than did the control group. They also undertook s i g n i f i c a n t l y more follow-up a c t i v i t i e s (Actual Followup) than did the control, for both learning (Follow/Learn) 76 and a f f i l i a t i n g with the organization (Follow/CUSO). As a r e s u l t , hypothesis number four was accepted. DISCUSSION As noted, the results for the 'affect' section of the study lead to d i f f e r e n t conclusions than those derived from instruments measuring actual behaviour. The dominant result was that 'collaboration' appeared to have no effect on the attitudes of participants and only a minor impact on their behaviour. The data were gathered within the framework of a defensible experimental design so these results merit close attention. This s i t u a t i o n - the lack of s i g n i f i c a n t differences between treated and control groups - i s not unusual, and leads to two l i n e s of conjecture. Either the treatment had no effect and the results were a f a i r and v a l i d manifestation of that fact or, the treatment had an e f f e c t but the instruments were defective or too insensitive to detect differences between the groups. Both 'explanations' merit attention. Treatment Had No Effect? The results indicate that collaborative program planning had l i t t l e or no influence on how people evaluated the program (affecti v e component). This finding puts in doubt l i t e r a t u r e claiming that 'ownership' of a program i s increased through p a r t i c i p a t i o n in planning and that t h i s increase i s r e f l e c t e d in a more posit i v e view of the learning experience. In this regard, McLoughlin (1971) as well as Rosenblum and Darkenwald (1983), mentioned the p o s s i b l i t y that the treated group might have designed such a good program the control group f e l t 77 e n t i r e l y s a t i s f i e d with i t . Certainly, in t h i s study the o v e r a l l evaluation was very p o s i t i v e . For instance, when evaluating t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n with the way the general issue areas were dealt with, the treated group had a mean score of 5.01 on a 6 point scale while the treated group had a mean score of 5.12. Throughout the evaluation, s i m i l a r l y high scores were found (See Table 10). Some research has found ' p o s i t i v i t y bias' in evaluating public figures and examined the implications of t h i s bias for instrumentation (Lau, Sears, & Centers, 1979). Perhaps a similar phenomenon i s a f f e c t i n g the results of .studies in adult education. A general s a t i s f a c t i o n with the quality of a well-planned program produces a po s i t i v e 'response set' which overshadows subtle differences 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 their needs would probably be similar or the same. This suggests that a programmer could consult a randomly selected subgroup of learners and s t i l l produce a program sa t i s f a c t o r y to the larger group. How small that subgroup may be can only be a subject of conjecture without further research. It might also be said that when repeating a program with a number of comparable groups, the e f f o r t and expense of i n i t i a t i n g a collaborative process with each of the groups may not be necessary for high learner s a t i s f a c t i o n . There is also the question of learner expectations. McLoughlin (1971) and Rosenblum and Darkenwald (1983) both suggested that the extent to which learners expected to be consulted might have an influence on how much they are affected 78 by an opportunity to p a r t i c i p a t e . It may be that consultation becomes an issue only in retrospect i f learners find the program did not meet the i r needs and inte r e s t s . This situation might be summed up by suggesting that planners who know their c l i e n t e l e well might not have to 'collaborate' to the same degree as programmers new to their material or c l i e n t e l e . The other point concerning learner expectations refers to the desire for consultation as an end in i t s e l f . In organizations where democratic p r i n c i p l e s are important, individuals expect to be kept informed and consulted on decisions. Anyone involved in committee work has said or heard, "I have no problems with the decision that was taken but would appreciate being informed in advance when similar issues are to be resolved." If this were a factor, one would expect i t to be very apparent in a volunteer-based membership organization such as CUSO. Yet participants in thi s study were r e l a t i v e l y new to CUSO and probably had not established such expectations. Indeed, many of the treated group seemed surprised yet appreciative of e f f o r t s made to discover their needs and interests. In contrast, no control participant said the weekend would have been more successful i f participant needs were explored more c a r e f u l l y . Treatment had an Undetected Effect? Because attitude i s d i f f i c u l t to measure there has been s i g n i f i c a n t concern expressed about the danger of making a Type II error (McLoughlin, 1971; Rosenblum and Darkenwald, 1983). To avoid t h i s eventuality, t h i s study developed the concept of 79 attitude, devised a number of tests rather than relying on one instument, and set the levels of significance quite low ( . 1 ) . Yet no s i g n i f i c a n t difference was found between the 'aff e c t i v e ' responses of treated and control respondents. There are several possible explanations for th i s lack of difference, i f we were to assume there was a difference but i t went undetected. Nature of Participants? The participants in t h i s study were not t y p i c a l of adult learners and CUSO i s not the usual sponsoring i n s t i t u t i o n . A l l were present v o l u n t a r i l y and motivated to learn because the weekend was designed to prepare them for roles they could expect as part of an overseas assignment. As well, the selection process which led them to be chosen for overseas work assured they were more adaptable, cooperative and s e l f - d i r e c t i n g than average. This recruitment pattern may have masked the treatment e f f e c t . Certainly i t was possible that because participants had already given a good deal of time and energy to get as far as the weekend's a c t i v i t i e s , the need for 'congruence' would lead them to p o s i t i v e l y evaluate events associated with CUSO. How could they dedicate two years of their l i f e to an organization which they did not consider highly? The evaluation of the previous year's pre-orientation weekend was also quite p o s i t i v e . This is 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 might be more ea s i l y detected in groups who had negative attitudes towards learning rather that in those habitually s a t i s f i e d with their learning a c t i v i t i e s . 80 Design Defect? Other studies have emphasized e f f o r t s to keep the content and process of learning in treatment and control groups equivalent (Cole & Glass, 1977; McLoughlin, 1971; Rosenblum & Darkenwald, 1983). This study had the two groups pa r t i c i p a t e in the same learning a c t i v i t y to eliminate a form of ' h i s t o r i c a l ' contamination. In this regard, i t might be interesting to do a series of studies dealing with collaboration in planning, but also with participatory techniques. A l l studies reviewed in the l i t e r a t u r e , including t h i s one, had both groups undertake the learning program planned by the collaborating " group. As ambitious as' i t i s , a f a c t o r i a l or Solomon four-group design which isolated these factors would be very enlightening. Graphically such a design would look l i k e t h i s : R P PL 0(1) R= random assignment R P 0(2) P= p a r t i c i p a t i o n in planning R PL 0(3) PL= program which resulted from R 0(4) planning This i s important because the e f f e c t s of lack of consultation during planning might be compounded by an absence of pa 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. In t h i s study, differences evoked by collaborative planning (or the lack thereof) might have been blunted by the fact everyone experienced participatory i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques. 81 Treatment Defect? It is also possible that the experimental treatment was not adequate to produce differences s i g n i f i c a n t enough to be detected by pen and paper t e s t s . While considerable care was taken when developing the treatment instrument (see Chapter 4), i t i s possible that the treatment did not amount to a 'collaboration experience' in the minds of learners. Because the treatment produced e f f e c t s on some of the behavioural measures, t h i s explanation lacks c r e d i b i l i t y . But i t does draw attention to questions concerning the nature of consultation, collaboration or participation' in the program planning context. Measurement Defect? The lack of difference between the treated and untreated groups on written measures may r e f l e c t r e a l i t y ; the l i t e r a t u r e has long-established the lacuna between response on written instruments and actual behaviour (Campbell, 1963; Triandis, 1971). But the findings of t h i s study suggest that whatever i s measured by semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s and s a t i s f a c t i o n ratings has l i t t l e u t i l i t y for educators interested in behaviour change. Implications of Behavioural Differences Perhaps the most interesting findings of t h i s study concerned how 'collaboration' influenced actual behaviour. These differences were s i g n i f i c a n t both during the learning a c t i v i t i e s (Helpfulness) and follow-up (Actual Follow-up) to the weekend. In some ways, such findings overshadow the lack of s i g n i f i c a n t differences on the 'affective' aspect of a t t i t u d e . Ultimately, educators are more interested in what the learner 82 does after "education" than what they say they are going to do or how s a t i s f i e d they are. No matter how refined the methodology, opinions, " do not provide direct information about the meaning of the opinion and do not permit automatic prediction to subsequent behaviour: the investigator s t i l l has to make inferences from the data" (Kelman, 1961, p. 59). The differences between the self-report instruments and the other measures lead us to reexamine the types of instruments used to measure attitudes. Future studies should explore ways to establish the behavioural indicators of attitudes, as t h i s seems to be the most promising avenue. 83 REFERENCES Aiken, L.R. (1980). Attitude measurement and attitude research. In D.A. Payne (Ed.), Recent Developments in  Af f e c t i v e Measurement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1-24. A l l p o r t , G. (1967). Attitudes. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 3-13. Bacharach, P. (1967). The theory of democratic e l i t i s m : a  c r i t i q u e . Boston: L i t t l e , Brown. Bergevin, P. (1963). Adult education procedures: A handbook of  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 . Greenwich, Conn.: Seabury Press. Boshier, R.W. & C o l l i n s , J . (1982). E.P.S scale factor structure and socio-demographic correlates for 12,000 learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 2 (2), 163-77. Botkin, J.W., Elmandjra, M., & Malitza, M. (1979). No l i m i t s  to learning: Bridging the human gap. Toronto: Pergamon Press. Boyle, P. (1958). Planning with p r i n c i p l e s . Adult Education, 8(1), 22-24. Boyle, P. (1981). Planning better programs. New York: McGraw-H i l l . Brown, L.A., J r . , & S e l l , G.R. (1977). A statewide survey of adult learners: Program awareness, nonenrolled participants  and intention to e n r o l l . Lincoln, Nebr.: University of Mid-America.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service number ED 159 479). Brundage, D. & MacKeracher, D. (1980). Adult learning p r i n c i p l e s and their application to program planning. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education. Calhoun, C.J. (1980). Democracy, autocracy, and intermediate association in organization: F l e x i b i l i t y or unrestrained change. Sociology, J_4(3), 345-364. Callaway, H. (1980). The analysis of an educational setting-An anthropological approach. In M. Wesseler (Ed.) Participatory learning and rural development: Working  papers. Witzenhausen, West Germany: Deutches In s t i t u t fur tropische und subtropische Landwirtschaft, 35-43. 84 Campbell, D.T. (1963). Social attitudes and other acquired behavioural d i s p o s i t i o n s . In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A  study of science, Vol. 6. New York: McGraw-Hill. Campbell, D.T. & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. In N.L. Gage (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 171-246. Chisman, R. (1976). Attitude, psychology, and the study of public opinion. University Park, Penn.: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Clawson, D. & Fantasia, 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 Society, J_2(5), 671-668. Cohen, A.R. (1967). A t t i t u d i n a l consequences of induced discrepancies between cognitions and behaviour. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude 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: quality of working l i f e and adult education. Convergence, XV(1), 5-16. Cole, J. & Glass, J.C. (1977). The effect of adult student p a r t i c i p a t i o n in program planning and achievement, retention and attitude. Adult Education, 27(2), 75-88.' Cook, S.W. & S e l l t i z , C. (1967). A multiple-indicator approach to attitude measurement. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurment. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Cross, K.P. (1981). Adults as learners: Increasing 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 learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. CUSO. (1984). A beginner's guide to CUSO. Vancouver: B.C. Preorientation Report. Dahl, R. (1956). A preface to democratic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 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 planning. Journal  of Applied Behavioral Research, 7, 466-492. Derber, C. (1983). Managing professionals. Theory and  Society, J_2(5), 671-680. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to  the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan. 85 Douglah, M. (1970). Some perspectives on the phenomenon of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Adult Leadership, 20, 88-98. Dubery, S.N. (1971). Powerlessness and mobility orientation among disadvantaged blacks. Public Opinion Quarterly, 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 for the health sciences. New York: John Wiley and Son. Durkheim, E. (1933). The d i v i s i o n of labour in society. (G. Simpson, Trans.). New York: The Free Press. E l i a s , J . and Merriam, S. (1980). Philosophical foundations  of adult education. Malabar, F l o r i d a : Robert E. Krieger. Faure, E., Herrera, 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. Paris: UNESCO. Ferguson, M. (1980) The aquarian conspiracy: Personal and  s o c i a l transformation in the 1980s. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher. Fishbein, M. (1967). Attitude and prediction of behaviour. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and  measurement. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Fre i r e , P. (1976) Education, the practice of freedom. London: Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative. Gagne, R.M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rd e d i t i o n ) . Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Gibb, J. (1964). Climate for trust formation. In Bradford, L.P., Gibb, J.R., & Benne, K.D. (Eds.), T-group theory and  laboratory method: Innovation in re-education. New York: Wiley. Gross, S.J. & Norman, CM. (1975). Attitude-behaviour consistency: A review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 39(3), 358-68. H a l l , B., G i l l e t t e , A. & Tandon, R. (Eds.). (1982). Creating  knowledge: A monopoly. New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia. Hall J.L. & Leidecker, K. (1981). Is Japanese style management anything new? A comparison of Japanese style 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 attitude research. In G.F. Summers (Ed.), Attitude measuremnt. Chicago: Rand McNally, 235-53. Houghland, J.G., J r . , & Christenson, J. A. (1983). Religion and p o l i t i c s : The relat 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 . Sociology of Social Research, 4, 392-403. Houle, CO. (1972). The design of education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Huden, D.P. (1981). Lifelong learning in r e l a t i o n to production. In M. Wesseler (Ed.), Participatory learning  and rural development-Working plans. Witzenhausen, West Germany: Deutsches I n s t i t u t fur tropische und subtropische Landwirtschaft, 83-90. Johnstone, J.W.C. & Rivera, R.J. (1973). Volunteers for  learning. Chicago: Aldine. Kassam, Y. & Mustafa, K. (1982). Participatory research: An  emerging alternative methodology in s o c i a l science  research. New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia. Relman, H. (1961). Process of opinion change. Public Opinion  Quarterly, 25, 57-78. Kenny, W.R. & Hanisch, D.L. (1982). A developmental approach to research and practise in adult and continuing education. Adult Education, 3_3 ( 1 ) , 29-54. Kerlinger, F.N. (1964). Foundations of behavioural research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education (rev. ed.). Chicago: Association Press/Follet. Kolb, D.A. & Fry, R. (1975). Towards an applied theory of experiential learning. In C L . Cooper (Ed.), Theories of  group processes. 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. Lapier, R.T. (1967). Attitudes versus actions. In M. Fishbein, Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: John Wiley, 26-31. 87 Lau, R.R., Sears, P.O., & Centers, R. (1979). The ' p o s i t i v i t y bias' in evaluation of public figures: evidence against instrument a r t i f a c t s . Public Opinion Quarterly, 43(3), 347-358. Levinson, D.J. (1958). The Relevance of Personality for P o l i t i c a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n . Public Opinion Quarterly, 22(1), 3-10. Lewis, N. (Ed.). (1971). The new Roget's thesaurus in  dictionary form. New York: Putnam. Lindeman, E.C. (1961). The meaning of adult education. Montreal: Harvest House. London, J. (1960). Program development in adult education. In M.S. Knowles (Ed.) Handbook of adult education in the  United States. Washington, D.C: Adult Education Association of the U.S.A., 66-76. Lutz, P.C. (1973). Alienation as a concept in the s o c i a l sciences: A trend report and bibliography. Current  Sociology, 21, 1-115. Maguire, M.A. & Pascale, R.T. (1978). Communication, decision-making and implementation among managers in Japanese and American managerial companies in the United State. Sociology and Social Research, 63(1), 1-23. . Mahoney, E.R. & Richardson, J.G. (1979). Perceived so c i a l status of husbands and wives: The e f f e c t s of labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n and occupational prestige. Sociology and  Social 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). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper Row. McDaniel, R.R., J r . , & Ahmos, D.D. (1980). Participatory management: An executive alt e r n a t i v e for human service organizations. 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 adult learner in program planning. Adult Education, 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 adults in education: A  force f i e l d analysis. Boston: The Center for Studies in Li b e r a l Education for Adults. 88 Newberry, J.S., J r . (1959). Participants and p a r t i c i p a t i o n in adult education. In E. deS Brunner, D. Wilder, C. Kirchner & J.S. Newberry J r . , An overview of adult  education research. Chicago: Adult Education Association of U.S.A. Oppenheim, F.E. (1978). 'Power' r e v i s i t e d . The Journal of  P o l i t i c s , 40, 589-618. Osgood, C , Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The Measurement  of Meaning. Urbana: University of I l l i n o i s Press. Osgood, C , Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1971). Attitude measurement. In G. F. Summers (Ed.), Attitude  Measurement. Chicago: Rand McNally. Parsons, T. (1963). On the concept of influence. Public  Opinion Quarterly, 27(1), 63-82. Prewitt, K., Eulau, H. & Zisk, B. (1966). P o l i t i c a l s o c i a l i z a t i o n and p o l i t i c a l r oles. Public Opinion  Quarterly, 30(4), 569-582. R i t t e r , U.P. (1981). Why-why not-and how: Student participation-Student involvment in the decisions concerning the teaching-learning process. In M. Wessler (Ed.), Participatory learning and rural development:  Working papers. Witzenhausen, West Germany: Deutches In s t i t u t fur tropische und subtropische Landwirtschaft, 35-43. Rogers, C. (1957). Personal thoughts on teaching and learning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 3, 241-43. Rosenberg, M. (1956). Some determinants of public apathy. Public Opinion Quarterly, J_8(4), 349-61. Rosenberg, M. & Hovland, C. (1960). Cognitive, a f f e c t i v e and behavioural components of attitudes. In C. Hovland & M. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude, organization, and change. New Haven,Conn.: Yale University Press, 1-14. Rosenblum, S. & Darkenwald, G. (1983). E f f e c t s of adult learner p a r t i c i p a t i o n in course planning on achievement and s a t i s f a c t i o n . Adult Education Quarterly, 3_3,(3), 147-153. Rosow, I. (1965). Forms and functions of adult s o c i a l i z a t i o n . Social Forces, 44, 35-45. Rotter, J . (1971). External control and internal control. 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 . American  Socio l o g i c a l Review, 24, 783-91. Semberger, F.M. (1972). Selected e f f e c t s of the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of adults in program planning. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , F l o r i d a State University. (From Dissertation  Abstracts International, 34, 550A.) Smith, R.M. & Haverkamp, K.K. (1977). Toward a theory of learning how to learn. Adult Education, 28(1), 3-21. Sykes, J.B. (Ed.). (1982). The concise Oxford dictionary of  current English. (7th ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sylvester Mawson, CO. (Ed.). (1940). The Roget dictionary of  synonyms and antonyms. Garden City, N.Y.: Garden City Books. Templeton, F. (1966). Alienation 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 findings. Public Opinion Quarterly, 30(2), 249-61. Thayer, L. (Ed.). (1976). A f f e c t i v e education: Strategies for  experiential learning. La J o l l a , Cai.: University Assoc iates. Triandis, H.C (1971). Attitude and attitude change. New York: Wiley. Urdang, M. (1982). A model of in-sevice program c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and participant attitudes. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Rutgers University. (From Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 768A.) Vedros, K.R. (1979). The nominal group technique as a participatory planning method in adult education. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . F l o r i d a State University. (From Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 3056A.) Verba S. & Brody, R.A. (1970). P a r t i c i p a t i o n , policy preference, and the war in Vietnam. Public 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 for adult education. Washington, D.C: Adult Education Association. Walsh, E. & Craypo, C. (1979). Union oligarchy and the grassroots; The case of the teamsters defeat in farmworker organizing. Sociology of Social Research, 63_(2), 255-68. 90 Waniewicz, I. (1973). Demand for part-time learning in  Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Educat ion. Watt, E.D. (1981). Rousseau rechaufee- Being obliged, consenting, p a r t i c i p a t i n g and obeying oneself. The Journal  of P o l i t i c s , 3, 707-19. Welden, E.J. (1966). Program planning and program effectiveness in university r e s i d e n t i a l centers. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Chicago. A P P E N D I X 1C 93 Needs Assessment In order to design the Pre-0 a c t i v i t i e s , I need your comments on issues which CUSO considers should be dealt with during pre-orientation. HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH YOUR PRESENT LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE FOLLOWING? Circ l e one response for each item. 1. Your motivation for going overseas with CUSO. VERY MODERATELY DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED SOMEWHAT HODERATELT VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED 2. Your expectations of the CUSO experience. VERY MODERATELY DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED • SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIE SOMEWHAT MODERATELY VERT SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED 3. CUSO's history, objectives and programs in Canada and overseas. VERY MODERATELY DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED SOMEWHAT 01SSATISF1ED SOMEWHAT MODERATELY VERT SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED 4. CUSO's policies and procedures and how they w i l l affect you. VERY MODERATELY DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED SOMEWHAT MODERATELY VERY SATISFIED SAT1SFIED SATISFIED 5. Your role in the CUSO community in Canada and overseas. VERY MODERATELY DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED SOMEWHAT MODERATELY VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED 6. Health and nutrition overseas. VERY HODERATELT DISSATtSFIED DISSATISFIED SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIE SOMEWHAT MODERATELY VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED 7. Cross-cultural awareness and communication. MODERATELY DISSATISPIED SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT MODERATELY VERT DISSATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED 8. Development issues in Canada and the Third World. VERY MODERATELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT MODERATELY VERY DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIE! 9. Individual concerns other than the issues mentioned (specify) VERY MODERATELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT MODERATELY VERT DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED 18 HOURS PRIORITIES After 'basic needs' are taken care of, we'll have about 18 hours available on the weekend. Think about how much time you'd ideally l i k e to devote to each of the 9 items. 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 fractions to specify which parts of a particular objective 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 ENDS Which c o m b i n a t i o n of a c t i v i t i e s would provide the b e s t 'means' t o learn about t h e s e 9 i s s u e s . AGAIN, PRETEND YOU HAVE 18 HOURS, AND DECIDE HOW MANY YOU'D LIKE TO SPEND IN EACH OF THE FOLLOWING: L e c t u r e s S l i d e / t a l k s F i l m s S m a l l group d i s c u s s i o n s R eading P a r t i c i p a t i n g i n s k i t s / r o l e p l a y . ... Watching s k i t s / r o l e p l a y s D i s c o v e r y - t y p e l e a r n i n g (participative group e x e r c i s e s t o 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 w i t h r e t u r n e d 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 r e c r e a t i o n ( s p o r t s / p a r t i e s ) I n d i v i d u a l recreationCsports/private time) O t h e r ( n o t eating and sleeping ! ) S p e c i f y 18 HOURS 95 SKILL SHARING 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. 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 the group eg: m o t o r c y c l e c a r e , 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 western women 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. FINAL REQUEST Send i n your comments as soon as p o s s i b l e . I hope t h a t the " r o y a l we" of t h e s e l e t t e r s w i l l soon become a r e a l "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 p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . I know i t ' s h a r d to 'put a number' on t h e s e t h i n g s , but i t ' s the e a s i e s t way t o b a l a n c e i n p u t from a number of p e o p l e . F e e l f r e e t o add any comments or q u e s t i o n s . Thanks f o r y o u r c o o p e r a t i o n and i d e a s . P l e a s e l e t me know when you can be r e a c h e d by phone as I ' l l be c a l l i n g you f o r f o l l o w - u p . FOR MY PLANNING IT'S ESSENTIAL THAT I GET THIS FORM BACK BY MAY 15TH. P l e a s e send i t back AS SOON AS POSSIBLE or r i s k the : A. Wrath of a d i s g r u n t l e d program c o o r d i n a t o r . B. Pathos of a l o v e l e s s program 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 of an u n i n f o r m e d program c o o r d i n a t o r . D. Boredom of a program which d o e s n ' t r e f l e c t y our n e e d s / i n t e r e s t s . CHOOSE ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE, WHICHEVER WORKS FOR YOU. 96 APPENDIX 2  N o t e s f o r I n t r o d u c i n g E v a l u a t i o n P o i n t s t o B r i n g Out - e v a l u a t i o n i s more f o r m a l t h a t u s u a l f o r CUSO b e c a u s e o f my p e r s o n a l b a c k g r o u n d has l e a d me t o b e l i e v e i n t h e v a l u e of e v a l u a t i o n s - t h e f i n d i n g s w i l l be u s e d f o r my t h e s i s , a s t u d y o f t h e e f f e c t s o f i n v o l v i n g p e o p l e i n t h e p l a n n i n g o f t h e p r o g r a m - f i l l i n g i n t h e e v a l u a t i o n i s o p t i o n a l , b u t a p p r e c i a t e d - p l e a s e n o t e t h e f r o n t p a r a g r a p h ; a g a i n i t l o o k s r a t h e r o f f i c i a l , b u t I can t o a s s u r e y ou t h i s e v a l u a t i o n i s u s e d o n l y t o compare g r o u p s , n o t t o e v a l u a t e i n d i v i d u a l s - i f y o u f e e l we m i s s e d t h e p o i n t o r you would l i k e t o a d d s o m e t h i n g , f e e l f r e e t o c r i t i c i z e , add comments o r w r i t e a l l o v e r t h e m a r g i n s and a t t h e b o t t o m - p l e a s e b e l i e v e me when I say t h e y a r e r e a d and u s e d 97 APPENDIX 3 Self-report Instrument EVALUATION C U S O P R E - O R I E N T A T I O N CAMP SQUAMISH May 25-27 - 1984 I understand that this evaluation is designed to evaluate the program and NOT me or my involvement. I understand my name is required to help in this process but that nothing I write in i t w i l l affect my position in 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 for each item. 1. Your m o t i v a t i o n for go ing overseas wi th CUSO. K M T HODERATELT SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT HODERATELT VERT DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED » » T I S P I E D S A T I S F I E D SATISFIED 2. Your e x p e c t a t i o n s of the CUSO e x p e r i e n c e . VERT MODERATELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT HODERATELT VERT DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D 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 o v e r s e a s . 4. CUSO's p o l i c i e s and p r o c e d u r e s and how they w i l l a f f e c t y o u . VERY MODERATELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT MODERATELY VERY IISSAT1SFIED DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED SATISFIED S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D VERY MODERATELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT HODERATELT VERY DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED SATISFIED S A T I S F I E D SATISFIED 5. Your r o l e in the CUSO community in Canada and o v e r s e a s . VERY HODERATELT SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT HODERATELT VERY DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D SATISFIED 6. H e a l t h and n u t r i t i o n o v e r s e a s . VERY MODERATELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT HODERATELT . VERY DISSATISTIED DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED SATISFIED S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D 7. C r o s s - c u l t u r a l awareness and comnunicat:' o n , MODERATELY SOMEWHAT OlfSA-ISFIED DISSATISFIED DISSATISFI J> SATTIFJB, SArfSm* SATIST'D 8 . Development i s s u e s in Canada and the T h i r d W o r l d . VERY MODERATELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT HODERATELT VERT DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED SATISFIED S A T I S F I E D SATIS M E I 9. I n d i v i d u a l concerns o ther than the i s s u e s ment ioned ( s p e c i f y ) VERT HODERATELT SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT HODERATELT VFPY DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED SATISFIED S A T I S F I E D SATISFIED Any other comments? Please elaborate, especially i f you were d i s s a t i s f i e d with anything. I N S T R U C T I O N S F O R T H E N E X T T H R E E P A G E S I n t h i s s e c t i o n , I ' d l i k e y o u t o e v a l u a t e t h r e e t h i n g s . T h e f i r s t i s CUSO a s a d e v e l o p m e n t a g e n c y . I w a n t y o u t o m a k e y o u r j u d g e m e n t s u s i n g t h e v a r i o u s d e s c r i p t i v e s c a l e s p r o v i d e d . T h e f i r s t s c a l e i s " u n i m p o r t a n t . . . . i m p o r t a n t " . I f y o u f e e l o n t h i s s c a l e t h a t CUSO a s a d e v e l o p m e n t a g e n c y i s C L O S E L Y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h " u n i m p o r t a n t " c h e c k a s f o l l o w s : U n i m p o r t a n t \ / : '• : : : : I m p o r t a n t O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , i f y o u f e e l C U S O a s a d e v e l o p m e n t a g e n c y i s S L I G H T L Y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h " i m p o r t a n t " c h e c k a s f o l l o w s : U n i m p o r t a n t : : : : : : I m p o r t a n t Y o u m a y c h e c * . a n y w n e r e a l o n g t h e s c a l e ( i n t h e s p a c e s ) a s l o n g i a s y o u i n d i c a t e y o u r i m p r e s s i o n o f CUSO a s a d e v e l o p m e n t a g e n c y . W o r k r a p i d l y . T h e r e a r e n o r i g h t o r w r o n g a n s w e r s . D o n ' t p u z z l e o v e r y o u r a n s w e r s . J u s t i n d i c a t e y o u r f i r s t a n s w e r . P l e a s e a n s w e r A L L i t e m s . AS A DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CUSO IS . unimportant ' ' ' ' ' * important incompetent : : : : : : competent noncooperative . . . . . . cooperative • • * • • • inactive : : : : : : active irresponsible : : : : : : responsible non-exploitive : : : : : ; exploitive inert : : : ; : : dynamic rigid : : : : : . flexible useless . , : : : : : : useful insignificant : : . : . . significant unfair : : : . : : : fair stagnant : : : : : : innovative incapable : : : : : : capable inefficient . . . . . . efficient • * • • • • ' dependent : : : : : : independent intolerant . . . . . . tolerant • • • • • • Any other comments? 101 A S A P R E - O R I E N T A T I O N T H I S WEEKEND WAS w o r t h l e s s : : ' • ' " v a l u a b l e i n e f f i c i e n t : : : : : : e f f i c i e n t b o r i n g . . . . . . s t i m u l a t i n g i n c o n s i s t e n t c o n s i s t e n t • • • • • • • • • • • • s l u g g i s h : : : : : : e n e r g e t i c c o n f u s i n g : : : : : : e n l i g h t e n i n g u n o r g a n i z e d : : : : : : o r g a n i z e d p u r p o s e l e s s : : : : : : p u r p o s e f u l d i s c o u r a g i n g : : : . : : : e n c o u r a g i n g u n a w a r e : : : : : : a w a r e h u m d r u m : : : : ' : : e x c i t i n g u n i m p o r t a n t : : : : : : i m p o r t a n t d u l l : : : : : : i n t e r e s t i n g i n a c t i v e : : : : : : a c t i v e u s e l e s s : : : : : : u s e f u l i n s i g n i f i c a n t : : : : : : s i g n i f i c a n t A n y o t h e r c o m m e n t s ? 102 A S A C U S O V O L U N T E E R I A M p a s s i v e u s e l e s s u n q u a l i f i e d u n r e l i a b l e i n e r t u n i m p o r t a n t i n c o m p e t e n t i n s e n s i t i v e s t a g n a n t i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n c a p a b l e i n t o l e r a n t u n s u i t a b l e u n c o o p e r a t i v e i n e f f e c t i v e r i g i d a c t i v e u s e f u l q u a l i f i e d r e l i a b l e d y n a m i c i m p o r t a n t c o m p e t e n t s e n s i t i v e i n n o v a t i v e s i g n i f i c a n t c a p a b l e t o l e r a n t s u i t a b l e c o o p e r a t i v e e f f e c t i v e f l e x i b l e A n y o t h e r c o m m e n t s ? 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 rate the following as to how important you f e e l they are to a Pre-0 and how s a t i s f i e d you are with the way they were done. Write N/A i f you did not attend. Please specify workshops where appropriate. BURNING QUESTIONS V E R Y MODERATELY S L I G H T L Y UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT U N I M P O R T A N T S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T VERY MODERATELY S L I G H T L Y S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y . D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D SCULPTURING V E R Y . MODERATELY S L I G H T L Y . UNIMPORTANT U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T V E R Y MODERATELY S L I G H T L Y S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D BEGINNER'S GUIDE TO CUSO ' V E R Y MODERATELY S L I G H T L Y UNIMPORTANT U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T V E R Y MODERATELY S L I G H T L Y S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D D.E.F.O.G.O. " V E R Y • MODERATELY S L I G H T L Y UNIMPORTANT U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T V E R Y M O D E R A T E L Y S L I G H T L Y S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D 104 FUNDRAISING ' VERY MODERATELY S L I G H T L Y UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y IMPORTANT. I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T VERY MODERATELY S L I G H T L Y S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y . D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D N U T R I T I O N / F I T N E S S V E R Y MODERATELY S L I G H T L Y UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT U N I M P O R T A N T S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T V E R Y M O D E R A T E L Y S L I G H T L Y S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D M E D I C A L / S T R E S S ' V E R Y MODERATELY S L I G H T L Y UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT U N I M P O R T A N T S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T V E R Y MODERATELY S L I G H T L Y S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D REGIONAL. (Specify) V E R Y . M O D E R A T E L Y S L I G H T L Y U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T V E R Y M O D E R A T E L Y S L I G H T L Y S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y . D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D BAFA BAFA game " V E R Y MODERATELY S L I G H T L Y UNIMPORTANT U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T V E R Y MODERATELY S L I G H T L Y S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y . D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D SPECIAL INTERES'' (Specify) " V E R Y M O D E R A T E L Y S L I G H T L Y UNIMPORTANT U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T S L I C H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T V E R Y M O D E R A T E L Y S L I G H T L Y S L I C H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y U D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D SPORTS " V E R Y MODERATELY S L I G H T L Y UNIMPORTANT U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T V E R Y MODERATELY S L I G H T L Y S L I C H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y . D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D AD HOC SESSION (Specify) " V E R Y M O D E R A T E L Y S L I G H T L Y U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T V E R Y M O D E R A T E L Y S L I C H T L Y S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y - D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D 105 PARTY V E R Y MODERATELY S L I G H T L Y UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT U N I M P O R T A N T S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T V E R Y MODERATELY S L I G H T L Y S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y . D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D INTERNATIONAL FOOD V E R Y M O D E R A T E L Y S L I G H T L Y U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T V E R Y M O D E R A T E L Y S L I G H T L Y S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D CUSO's ROLE IN DEVELOPMENT ' V E R Y M O D E R A T E L Y S L I G H T L Y UNIMPORTANT U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T V E R Y M O D E R A T E L Y S L I C H T L Y S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y . D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D UNPREPARED CUSC V E R Y • M O D E R A T E L Y S L I G H T L Y U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T S L I C H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T V E R Y M O D E R A T E L Y S L I G H T L Y S L I C H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y _ D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D " V E R Y M O D E R A T E L Y S L I G H T L Y GOOD/BAD/ WELL-I U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T MEANT S L I C H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T VERY M O D E R A T E L Y S L I G H T L Y S L I C H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y _ D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D PLANNING YOUR OWN PRE-O " V E R Y M O D E R A T E L Y S L I C H T L Y U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T S L I G H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T V E R Y M O D E R A T E L Y S L I C H T L Y S L I C H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y L - D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D STAFF IN-VOLVEMENT " V E R Y M O D E R A T E L Y S L I G H T L Y UNIMPORTANT U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T S L I G H T L Y - M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T V E R Y M O D E R A T E L Y S L I G H T L Y S L I C H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y . D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D R.O. INVOLVE-MENT " V E R Y ' M O D E R A T E L Y S L I G H T L Y U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T U N I M P O R T A N T S L I C H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T I M P O R T A N T V E R Y M O D E R A T E L Y S L I G H T L Y S L I C H T L Y M O D E R A T E L Y V E R Y . D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D D I S S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D S A T I S F I E D 1 0 6 ' Which of the following do you i Please TAKE A MEMBERSHIP WITH CUSO COLLECT RECIPES JOIN MY LOCAL COMMITTEE IN CANADA READ MORE DISCUSSIONS WITH R.V.s Is there anything else you plan to an to do, i f any? ;ircle your response or responses. TAKE A MOTORCYCLE COURSE TAKE A FIRST AID COURSE JOIN MY LOCAL COMMITTEE OVERSAS PROJECT GROUNDWORK IN MY COMMUNITY Is there anything else you would l i k e from CUSO-B.C? 107 APPENDIX 4 CODING SCHEDULE Column V a r i a b l e Codes 1-3 s e r i a l number 4 t r e a t m e n t / c o n t r o l c o n t r o l = 1 t r e a t m e n t = 2 r e t u r n e d v o l u n t e e r = 3 s t a f f = 4 5-6 b l a n k ISSUE 7 M o t i v a t i o n v e r y d i s s a t i s f i e d = 1 8 E x p e c t a t i o n s m o d e r a t l y d i s s a t i s f i e d = 2 9 CUSO's h i s t o r y / o b j e c t i v e s somewhat d i s s a t i s f i e d = 3 10 CUSO's p o l i c i e s / p r o c e d u r e s somewhat s a t i s f i e d = 4 11 Your r o l e i n CUSO community m o d e r a t e l y s a t i s f i e d = 5 12 H e a l t h and n u t r i t i o n v e r y s a t i s f i e d = 6 13 C r o s s - c u l t u r a l a w a r e n e s s 14 Development i s s u e s 15 I n d i v i d u a l c o n c e r n s 16-18 b l a n k 19-34 AS A-DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CUSO IS ... From t h e l e f t : 19 u n i m p o r t a n t / i m p o r t a n t f i r s t blank=1 20 i n c o m p e t e n t / c o m p e t e n t s e c o n d blank=2 21 n o n c o o p e r a t i v e / c o o p e r a t i v e t h i r d blank=3 22 i n a c t i v e / a c t i v e f o u r t h blank=4 23 i r r e s p o n s i b l e / r e s p o n s i b l e f i f t h b l ank=5 24 n o n - e x p l o i t i v e / e x p l o i t i v e s i x t h blank=6 25 i n e r t / d y n a m i c 26 r i g i d / f l e x i b l e 27 u s e f u l / u s e l e s s 28 i n s i g n i f i c a n t / s i g n i f i c a n t 29 u n f a i r / f a i r 30 s t a g n a n t / i n n o v a t i v e 31 i n c a p a b l e / c a p a b l e 32 i n e f f i c i e n t / e f f i c i e n t 33 d e p e n d e n t / i n d e p e n d e n t 34 i n t o l e r a n t / t o l e r a n t 35-36 b l a n k 37-52 AS A PREORIENTATION THIS WEEKEND WAS ... . As f o r CUSO IS 37 w o r t h l e s s / v a l u a b l e 38 i n e f f i c i e n t / e f f i c i e n t 39 b o r i n g / s t i m u l a t i n g 40 • i n c o n s i s t a n t / c o n s i s t a n t 41 s l u g g i s h / e n e r g e t i c 42 c o n f u s i n g / e n l i g h t e n i n g 43 u n o r g a n i z e d / o r g a n i z e d 44 p u r p o s e l e s s / p u r p o s e f u l 45 d i s c o u r a g i n g / e n c o u r a g i n g 46 unaware/aware 47 h u m d r u m / e x c i t i n g 48 u n i m p o r t a n t / i m p o r t a n t 49 d u l l / i n t e r e s t i n g 50 i n a c t i v e / a c t i v e 51 u s e l e s s / u s e f u l 52 i n s i g n i f i c a n t / s i g n i f i c a n t 53-54 b l a n k 55-70 AS A CUSO VOLUNTEER I AM ... 55 p a s s i v e / a c t i v e As f o r 'CUSO 56 u s e l e s s / u s e f u l 57 u n q u a l i f i e d / q u a l i f i e d 58 u n r e l i a b l e / r e l i a b l e 59 i n e r t / d y n a m i c 60 u n i m p o r t a n t / i m p o r t a n t 61 i n c o m p e t e n t / c o m p e t e n t 62 i n s e n s i t i v e / s e n s i t i v e 63 s t a g n a n t / i n n o v a t i v e 64 i n s i g n i f i c a n t / s i g n i f i c a n t 65 i n c a p a b l e / c a p a b l e 66 i n t o l e r a n t / t o l e r a n t 67 u n s u i t a b l e / s u i t a b l e 68 u n c o o p e r a t i v e / c o o p e r a t i v e 69 i n e f f e c t i v e / e f f e c t i v e 70 r i g i d / f l e x i b l e 71-72 b l a n k 73-77 LOGISTICS v e r y poor=1 73 P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s poor=2 74 T r a v e l a r r a n g e m e n t s f a i r = 3 75 F o l d e r m a t e r i a l s good=4 76 S i t e v e r y good=5 77 M e a l s 78-79 b l a n k s 80 C a r d number CARD NUMBER 2 1-3 s e r i a l number 4 t r e a t m e n t / c o n t r o l - see c a r d one 5-6 b l a n k 109 7-46 A C T I V I T I E S 7-8 B u r n i n g q u e s t i o n s ODD NUMBERS: 9-10 S c u l p t u r i n g v e r y unimportant=1 11-12 B e g i n n e r ' s g u i d e t o CUSO m o d e r a t e l y u n i m p o r t a n t = 2 13-14 D.E.F.O.G.O. s l i g h t l y u n i m p o r t a n t = 3 15-16 F u n d r a i s i n g s l i g h l t y i m p o r t a n t = 4 17-18 N u t r i t i o n / f u n d r a i s i n g m o d e r a t e l y i m p o r t a n t = 5 19-20 M e d i c a l / s t r e s s v e r y i m p o r t a n t = 6 21-22 R e g i o n a l s e s s i o n s 23-24 B a f a b a f a EVEN NUMBERS: 25-26 S p e c i a l i n t e r e s t v e r y d i s s a t i s f i e d = 1 27-28 S p o r t s m o d e r a t e l y d i s s a t i s . = 2 29-30 Ad hoc s e s s i o n s s l i g h t l y d i s s a t i s f i e d = 3 31-32 P a r t y s l i g h t l y s a t i s f i e d = 4 33-34 I n t e r n a t i o n a l f o o d m o d e r a t e l y s a t i s f i e d = 5 35-36 CUSO's r o l e i n d e v e l o p m e n t v e r y s a t i s f i e d = 6 37-38 U p r e p a r e d CUSO 39-40 Good/Bad/Well Meant 41-42 P l a n n i n g y o u r own p r e - o 43-44 S t a f f i n v o l v e m e n t 45-46 R.V. i n v o l v e m e n t 47 b l a n k 48-59 PLANNED FOLLOW-UP 48 Take a membership w i t h CUSO u n c i r c l e d = 1 49 C o l l e c t r e c i p e s _ c i r c l e d = 2 50 J o i n C a n a d i a n l o c a l c o m m i t t e e 51 Read more 52 D i s c u s s i o n s w i t h R.V.s 53 Take a m o t o r c y c l e c o u r s e 54 Take a f i r s t a i d c o u r s e 55 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 56 P r o j e c t groundwork i n my community 57 I s t h e r e a n y t h i n g e l s e y ou p l a n t o do? n o t h i n g = l something=2 58 I s t h e r e a n y t h i n g e l s e y ou would l i k e from CUSO-B.C? as above 59 b l a n k 60-61 Age 62 B l a n k 63 Sex male-1 female=2 64 b l a n k 65 Near s t a f f p e r s o n yes=1 110 no=2 66 b l a n k 68 A t t e n d e d d e v e l o p m e n t e d u c a t i o n s e r i e s As above 69 b l a n k 70 H e l p f u l n e s s No=0 Yes=1 71 b l a n k 72 A f f i n i t y t o g r o u p Once=l Twice=2. T h r i c e = 3 F o u r times=4 80 C a r d number CARD NUMBER THREE 1-3, s e r i a l number 4 t r e a t m e n t / c o n t r o l See c a r d 1 5-6 b l a n k Membership w i t h CUSO 7-18 ACTUAL FOLLOWUP 7 c o n t a c t e d a r e t u r n e d c o o p e r a n t no=0 8 c o n t a c t e d r e g i o n a l s t a f f yes=1 9 c o n t a c t e d n a t i o n a l s t a f f 10 p r o j e c t groundwork 11 c o n t a c t e d l o c a l c o m m i t t e e 12 t o o k m o t o r c y c l e c o u r s e 13 c o l l e c t e d r e c i p e s 14 t o o k a f i r s t a i d c o u r s e 15 j o i n e d CUSO 1 16 c o n t a c t e d o t h e r a p p l i c a n t s 17 c o n t a c t e d f o r e i g n n a t i o n a l s 18 f u r t h e r r e a d i n g I l l Appendix 5 PARTICIPANT CONTRIBUTION MEASURE Which candidate contributed the MOST to the pre-orientation weekend? Write the name below. NAME 0 25 50 75 100 Assume the above-named person's contribution i s worth 100 points. Now, IN RELATION TO THE PERSON JUST IDENTIFIED, how much did the remaining candidates contribute? Please mark each l i n e to show the extent of the individual candidate's contribution TO THE PRE-ORIENTATION WEEKEND. Remember, this not an evaluation of the candidate i n general, just his or her contribution to the weekend. Mark an 'X' anywhere along each l i n e . 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 this evaluation i s to compare two groups, not individuals. If you l i k e , you may c l i p off the part with the names after you have f i l l e d in the l i n e s . I only need the f i r s t name, the one equal to 100 points. Thank you for your help. Gayle NOTE: In order to assure the anonymity of those cooperating in this study the names have been removed from this instrument. As well, many of the lines have been omitted. This instrument was two pages long and was printed on 8*5 by 14 paper. APPENDIX 6 9 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^ U S 0 NO ? NO ? 112 A J O -I 3 X5 l S i 7 la 3 6 3/ 9 2 0 3 ^ A ) 3 3 / o *3 3 ^ 1 ^ 3 k 113 1 NO I X 3 H S 1 2 7* / / 1 X / 0 V NO 1 3 i t / 7 18 I ? XV AJO-^7 ll 3 3 M 3 (, f) S Pi C k S o \JoiUNTE 5R T 114 Am • 9 O NO NO ? AJO-/ 3 X 7 xa I 7 18 3 6 3/ 8 2 0 3 * 3 3 / o X3 IS 3 L 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055862/manifest

Comment

Related Items