Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The Effects of learning and instructional style congruence in an adult education learning environment Rubidge, Nicholas Andrew 1979

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A2 R83.pdf [ 6.43MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055925.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055925-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055925-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055925-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055925-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055925-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055925-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055925-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055925.ris

Full Text

THE  EFFECTS  STYLE  OF  LEARNING  CONGRUENCE  AND  IN AN  LEARNING  INSTRUCTIONAL  ADULT  EDUCATION  ENVIRONMENT  by \  /  ANDREW  RUBIDGE  B . S c , London U n i v e r s i t y , 1968, University o f B r i t i s h Columbia,  M.Sc,  A  NICHOLAS  THESIS  SUBMITTED  THE  IN PARTIAL  REQUIREMENTS DOCTOR  FOR  OF  THE  1971.  FULFILLMENT DEGREE  OF  EDUCATION  in THE  F A C U L T Y OF  GRADUATE  STUDIES  (Department o f Adult Education, Faculty of Education, University o f B r i t i s h Columbia)  We  accept to  THE  this  thesis  the required  UNIVERSITY  OF  Nicholas  Andrew  conforming  standard  BRITISH  August, ©  as  COLUMBIA  1979 Rubidge,  1979  OF  In  presenting  an  advanced  the I  Library  further  for  his  of  this  written  thesis  degree shall  agree  scholarly  by  this  at  it  thesis  purposes  for  freely  permission  It  financial  The U n i v e r s i t y  A d u l t of  gain  79  11  20  Columbia  of  the  for  that  not  I agree  r e f e r e n c e and of  copying  by t h e Head o f  shall  requirements  B r i t i s h Columbia,  is understood  E d u c a t i o n  British  2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  of  for extensive  permission.  of  fulfilment  available  may be g r a n t e d  representatives.  Department  Date  the U n i v e r s i t y  make  that  in p a r t i a l  this  be a l l o w e d  or  that  study. thesis  my D e p a r t m e n t  copying  for  or  publication  without  my  ii ABSTRACT In away  from  recent  styles.  While  i n s t r u c t o r has caused  siorij  researchers  evidence This  that  between v a r i o u s  influence  learner  whether  learners'  related learning learner  have  been  a  significant  and towards  unable  trend  'student-centred'  the re-evaluation  controversy  of conclusive  investigate adult  has been  of the role of  i n the teaching to provide  profes-  conclusive  as to the e f f e c t o f d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e s .  lack  actions  there  'instructor-centred'  instructional an  years  learner  results  from  This  between  towards  study  was  developed  performance.  learning  a n d i n s t r u c t i o n was  Discrepancy learner's  the  the instructor's evaluation  The t h r e e  hypotheses  developed  were  scores  between  i n s t r u c t o r and  attifeude  towards  learning  be n e g a t i v e l y  to  the i n s t r u c t o r and  p a r t i c i p a t i o n and s a t i s f a c t i o n with and w i t h  inter-  and i n s t r u c t o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  congruence  experience,  will  probably  outcomes.  attitudes  to learner  1.  evidence  correlated  with  of that:  and i n s t r u c t i o n learner  satisfaction. 2.  Discrepancy learner's  scores  between  i n s t r u c t o r and  attitude  towards  learning  instruction with 3.  learner  Discrepancy learner's  be n e g a t i v e l y  persistence. between  i n s t r u c t o r and  attitude  towards  learning  will  be n e g a t i v e l y  the instructor's perception  learning  correlated  scores  instruction with  will  and  achievement.  and  correlated of  learner's  iii  No learning  instruments  and  were  instructional  therefore  two  developed  i n concert with  checked  the  the  instruments A  was  both  data;  mentioned was  on  the  this  data  collected  at  Community  College.  two  participants  offered  at  Community  the  less or  and  test-retest  design  sample  selected  Langara  at  and  research  the  by  the  hypotheses  Eric  from  Hamber  a  appear  indices  applica-  were  centres operated  random  the  socio-  repeated  38  in  instrument  items  consisted of  and  instrument  two  entire  Unreliable  education  and  instructor  of  test  to  I t would  incorporated the  r e q u i r e d to  the  three hypotheses  important  learning than  instructor  and  deleted.  were by  Vancouver  classes  total  of  centres of  learner  satisfaction  of  learning  strong positive and  Style  both Index  were  and  instruction  attitude  towards  t h e r e were  Instructional  instructor's  the  ticular  and  A  content  84  with classes  Vancouver  College.  towards  the  factor.  reliability  d i s c r e p a n c y between  tudes  significantly  participant  The  prior  were  who  e x p r e s s i o n and  unidimensional.  adult  None o f The  a  satisfaction  judges,  performed  unrotated  instrument  The  expert  of  was  measure  These measures  of  loaded  same p o p u l a t i o n .  The  638  first  would  learner's  for clarity  collect  through  the  or  number  analysis  were  above.  checked  tions  on  to  a  A l l items  indices  designed  economic  factor  study.  same d i r e c t i o n that  style  that  measures were developed.  consistency. during  available  learner's  appeared  either and  confirmed.  the  scores  be  participant  instruction.  correlations  learner  to  atti-  and  par-  between  instructor  considered  In  Learning  independently  iv  of  e a c h o t h e r , b u t when c o n s i d e r e d  as d i s c r e p a n c y  s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n was g r e a t l y Similarly,  i t appeared  the  learner's  not  to the d i f f e r e n c e  that  learner  a n d the i n s t r u e t o r ' s  learning ever, that  was r e l a t e d t o  toward l e a r n i n g and  i n a t t i t u d e between them.  r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e a r n e r  the  diminished.  persistence  attitude  scores,  The h y p o t h e s i z e d  achievement and l e a r n e r - i n s t r u c t o r  a n d i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e c o n g r u e n c e was r e j e c t e d .  i t would appear  that  these v a r i a b l e s  How-  were c o r r e l a t e d a n d  t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e measure o f congruence d i s g u i s e d t h e  significance of this relationship. R e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n s were g e n e r a t e d variables  that  predict  learning  learner  persistence,  related  to the instructor's  and i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e ,  and l e a r n e r  achievement.  socio-economic  measures o f i n s t r u c t o r and l e a r n e r  and  learner  previous  ficant and  o f l e a r n i n g and persistence,  method t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e measure o f i n s t r u c t o r -  correlation.  may d i s g u i s e  In t h i s study,  discrepancy differences  an o t h e r w i s e  both a c t u a l  were r e c o r d e d .  t o i d e n t i f y some i n s t r u c t o r - l e a r n e r  T h e s e e f f e c t s may have c o n f o u n d e d r e s e a r c h e r s who u s e d o n l y procedure that  signi-  (arithmetic)  As a r e s u l t , i t  r e l a t i o n s h i p s w h i c h o t h e r w i s e w o u l d n o t have b e e n  statistical  various  educational  satisfaction, learner  c o n g r u e n c e was d e r i v e d  was p o s s i b l e  and  that  achievement.  The learner  style, learner  Variables  status  e x p e r i e n c e were t h e m o s t p o w e r f u l p r e d i c t o r s instructional  to i d e n t i f y  congruence observed.  t h e work o f p r e v i o u s  one m e a s u r e o f c o n g r u e n c e a n d a required  a linear solution.  Future  V  studies  which attempt to f u r t h e r  instructor relationships anticipate  using  unravel  t h e complex  learner-  the n o t i o n o f congruence  and s e e k t o i d e n t i f y t h e s e c u r v i - l i n e a r  should  relationships.  vi  TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS  vi  L I S T OF TABLES  . .  L I S T OF FIGURES  .  x  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CHAPTER ONE  is  xi INTRODUCTION  .  1  CONGRUENCE  3  PURPOSES OF THE PRESENT STUDY  6  PLAN OF THE STUDY  7  CHAPTER TWO  9  SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE  ADULT EDUCATION IN THE CONTEXT OF LIFELONG LEARNING  10  INSTRUCTION OF ADULTS  15  CONGRUENCE  20  CONGRUENCE AND EDUCATION  22  PRESENT STUDY  30  HYPOTHESES  32  CHAPTER THREE  INSTRUMENTATION  SOCIO-ECONOMIC  34  DATA  34  LEARNER SATISFACTION INDEX  35  Learner  Satisfaction  Index R e l i a b i l i t y  Learner  Satisfaction  Index V a l i d i t y  LEARNING AND INSTRUCTIONAL STYLE INDEX L e a r n i n g and I n s t r u c t i o n a l Reliability L e a r n i n g and I n s t r u c t i o n a l Validity  Style  . . .  38  . . . .  39  °  42  Index 46  Style  Index ' 46  vii CHAPTER FOUR  Page 5Q  STUDY DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT  POPULATION  5.0  SAMPLE  52  EMPIRICAL INDICATORS  53  DATA COLLECTION  54  DATA CODING  58  LIMITATION OF THE STUDY  59  CHAPTER F I V E  RESULTS  60  DATA ANALYSIS PHASE ONE  60  C a l c u l a t i o n o f L e a r n i n g and S t y l e Index S c o r e s Calculation  Instructional  of Learner S a t i s f a c t i o n  61 Index  Scores Calculation  64 o f Congruence  Indicators  . . . .  DATA ANALYSIS PHASE TWO  67  Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Instructors Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f  67  Participants Participant-Instructor  64  70 Incongruence  . . . .  DATA ANALYSIS PHASE THREE  74 78  L e a r n e r S a t i s f a c t i o n and L e a r n i n g and I n s t r u c t i o n a l S t y l e Incongruence L e a r n e r P e r s i s t e n c e : and L e a r n i n g and I n s t r u c t i o n a l S t y l e Incongruence  84  L e a r n i n g A c h i e v e m e n t and L e a r n i n g a n d I n s t r u c t i o n a l S t y l e Incongruence  88  CHAPTER SIX  CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS- AND  CONCLUSIONS AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  Instrumentation  78  SUMMARY  92 92 92  Page Learner  Satisfaction  94  Learner  Persistence  96  Learner Achievement INFLUENCE"OF  98  SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS  Predictors  o f LISI Scores  Predictors  o f Learner  Score  • •  9  9  99  S a t i s f a c t i o n Index  • •  100  Predictors  o f Learner Persistence  101  Predictors  o f Learning Achievement  101  SUMMARY  104  REFERENCES  108  APPENDIXES A - Letter  from  Centre A d m i n i s t r a t o r s  B - Letter  from Researcher  C - B l i s h e n Codes o f A t y p i c a l  117 118  Job T i t l e s  . . . .  U9  D - Research  Instrument  (Instructor's version) . .  121  E - Research  Instrument  (Learner's version)  127  . . .  ix LIST  OF  TABLES Page  1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  8.  9.  10.  11.  12.  13.  Unrotated F a c t o r Loadings and T e s t Re-Test R e l i a b i l i t y o f L e a r n e r S a t i s f a c t i o n Index  . . . .  40  Unrotated F a c t o r Loadings and Test Re-Test R e l i a b i l i t y o f Learning and I n s t r u c t i o n a l S t y l e Index (LISI)  47  Comparison o f the Unrotated F a c t o r Loadings Observed d u r i n g the Development and F i n a l A p p l i c a t i o n o f Learning and I n s t r u c t i o n a l S t y l e Index (LISI) . . .  63  Comparison o f Unrotated F a c t o r Loadings Observed d u r i n g the Development and F i n a l Application o f the Learner 'Satisfaction Index - -  65  C o m p a r i s o n o f A c t u a l Mean D i f f e r e n c e s a n d D i s c r e p a n c y S c o r e Means b e t w e e n P a r t i c i p a n t s and t h e i r I n s t r u c t o r s  77  Pearson's C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s : Instructor, Learner, and Discrepancy LISI Scores and L e a r n e r S a t i s f a c t i o n Index  8  0  Summary o f R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s t o P r e d i c t Learners P r e f e r r e d L e a r n i n g and I n s t r u c t i o n a l S t y l e - L I S I Score Dependent V a r i a b l e  81  Summary o f R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s : . Score Dependent V a r i a b l e  82  Summary faction  LISI  Discrepancy  of Regression Analysis: Learner Index Score Dependent V a r i a b l e  Satis83  Pearson's C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s : Attendance Score with I n s t r u c t o r , Learner and Discrepancy LISI Scores  86  Summary o f R e g r e s s i o n Dependent V a r i a b l e  87  Analysis:  Attendance  Score  Pearson's C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s : Learning Score w i t h L e a r n e r , I n s t r u c t o r and D i s c r e p a n c y LISI Scores  89  Summary o f R e g r e s s i o n Dependent V a r i a b l e  90  Analysis:  Learning  Score  X  LIST  OF  FIGURES Page  1.  2.  A Comparison Pedagogy and  o f Assumptions Andragogy  Model to E x p l a i n Institutions  3.  Variable  4.  Study  Dropout  and  Processes of  from A d u l t  17 Education 25  Classification  Data  Collection  and  28 Organization  Chart  .  .  57  xi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  There i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t h a n k a l l t h o s e who h e l p e d study.  enthusiasm tion,  f o r me t o r e c o g n i z e a n d  a n d e n c o u r a g e d me t o c o m p l e t e  I owe a n enormous d e b t  particular,  space  o f thanks  t o my c o m m i t t e e , i n  t h e C h a i r m a n D r . B o s h i e r whose i n t e r e s t a n d was a c o n t i n u o u s  s o u r c e o f encouragement.  D r s . G. D i c k i n s o n a n d C. V e r n e r  directed  this  In a d d i research  a t v a r i o u s s t a g e s o f i t s d e v e l o p m e n t and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n their  a d v i c e d u r i n g the f o r m a t i v e phase proved  Thanks a r e a l s o  instrument's  reliability.  As an employed s t u d e n t  and more s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,  In a d d i t i o n and  I would l i k e  I would  like  who gave me e n c o u r a g e time o f f !  t o thank t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s  s t a f f o f t h e V a n c o u v e r Community C o l l e g e Community E d u c a t i o n  Program,  i n p a r t i c u l a r Mr. A l f G l e n e s k ,  L a w r e n c e F a s t a n d Thomas K e l l y Hamber p r o g r a m s . interrupt period data  t o be i n v a l u a b l e .  i n the t e s t i n g o f the research  t h a n k my s u p e r v i s o r , D r . Ron F a r i s ,  ment, s u p p o r t  and  due t o D r . D. R u s n e l l who i n a d d i t i o n t o  s e r v i n g on t h e committee a s s i s t e d  to  this  their  collection.  t o manage thanks  busy s c h e d u l e s  Without  during their  their  the data c o l l e c t i o n  the research  cheerfully  and D r s .  t h e L a n g a r a and a l l o w e d me t o  hectic  registration  t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n and  t o t h e 38 i n s t r u c t o r s  completed  who a d m i n i s t e r e d  These i n d i v i d u a l s  and a s s i s t e d w i t h  Principal,  help  I w o u l d n o t have been  process. and t h e i r  instrument.  able  I a l s o owe a d e b t o f 638 p a r t i c i p a n t s who  XXX  In  addition  like  t o thank  this  manuscript  tears. wife  started support,  repay.  Mrs. Pamela without  this  without study  I would  many  ever  who  I owe  typed  I should  least,  like  I would  h e r p a t i e n c e and  finished  a debt  I would  i t .  o f thanks  her to  to thank  never  my  have  on-going  To t h e s e that  also  and r e - t y p e d  i tbored  and without have  above,  admitting that  h e r encouragement  never  others,  mentioned  Widdifield  L a s t b u t b y no means  Pamela,  great  to those  and to a  I can  never  1  CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION  In 1919 the B r i t i s h M i n i s t r y o f R e - C o n s t r u c t i o n Report  (Waller, 1956) c i t e d  s a l and l i f e l o n g .  the need f o r e d u c a t i o n to be univer  D e s p i t e the f e r v o u r o f the authors o f t h i s  r e p o r t the n o t i o n o f l i f e l o n g e d u c a t i o n remained dormant u n t i l r e v i v e d a t UNESCO's Second World Conference (Montreal, 1960).  on A d u l t E d u c a t i o n  I t has s i n c e been v o c i f e r o u s l y endorsed a t  o t h e r world conferences  (Tokyo, 1972; N a i r o b i , 1976) and has  emerged as the 'master concept' education systems throughout  g u i d i n g the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f  the world.  C e n t r a l to the con-  c e p t o f l i f e l o n g e d u c a t i o n a r e the n o t i o n s t h a t :  education  does n o t terminate a t the end o f formal s c h o o l i n g b u t c o n t i n u e s throughout  an i n d i v i d u a l ' s l i f e ;  e d u c a t i o n encompasses a l l f o r -  mal and i n f o r m a l p a t t e r n s o f l e a r n i n g and t h e r e f o r e should be t o t a l l y i n t e g r a t e d ; as l i f e l o n g l e a r n i n g i s u n i v e r s a l i n nature i t r e p r e s e n t s the d e m o c r a t i z a t i o n o f e d u c a t i o n The  i n f l u e n t i a l Faure Report  (Dave, 1975) .  (1972, p. 181) noted  t h a t f o r t h e concept o f l i f e l o n g e d u c a t i o n t o be t r a n s l a t e d i n t o formal o p e r a t i o n s , b a r r i e r s impeding access to i n s t i t u t i o n s must be dismantled. tion  institutions  The r e p o r t recommended t h a t "educa-  and means must be m u l t i p l i e d  (and) made  2 more a c c e s s i b l e " . tion  According  s h o u l d be d i s p e n s e d  to Faure  (1972, p . 185) " e d u c a -  and a c q u i r e d through  a multiplicity  o f means". As Education (1972),  (Montreal,  a n d O.E.C.D.  requires  Clientele  19 63;  present, an  surveys  Dickinson,  London,  19 60)  and p a r t i c i p a t i o n  Verner  a n d Newberry,  planning  socio-economic  research  19 58)  socio-economic  (e.g.  process.  Boshier,  f o r the involvement  and i n s t r u c t i o n a l  largely  disparities  attract this  i n parti-  democratiza-  o f l e a r n e r s i n t h e programme  processes.  base, a r e problem-oriented  According  have a b r o a d  and l e a r n  t r e a t e d a s "empty v e s s e l s " ; t h e i r  t o Knowles  experiential  i n response  s e n c e o f i m m e d i a t e n e e d s and. p r o b l e m s .  resource  a l l show t h a t , a t  The s e c o n d e l e m e n t o f  (1970) a d u l t s a r e s e l f - d i r e c t e d ,  important  groups)  element o f d e m o c r a t i z a t i o n r e q u i r e s  t o be remedied;  calls  participation  forms o f a d u l t e d u c a t i o n  c i p a t i o n must be removed. tion  democratization  1969; Hanna, 1965; J o h n s t o n e a n d R i v e r a , 1965;  The f i r s t  situation  i n t h e lower  by F a u r e  of learners i n the adult education  institutional  elite.  on A d u l t  and c o n c e p t u a l l y developed  (1973, 1975) a n d o t h e r s ,  by p e o p l e  the involvement  1971;  a t t h e Second World C o n f e r e n c e  t h e e r o s i o n o f b a r r i e r s w h i c h impede  (particularly and  clarified  to the pre-  A d u l t s c a n n o t be  experience  c o n s t i t u t e s an  f o r p l a n n i n g and i n s t r u c t i o n .  When t r a n s l a t e d  into  adult education  operations,  demands f o r d e m o c r a t i z a t i o n h a v e become a s s o c i a t e d w i t h for de-institutionalization  (Illich,  calls  1970) a n d t h e d e s i r e t o  create e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s congruent  with  the l i f e  3 circumstances of p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s .  The F a u r e  major overseas  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s concerning  Russell,  Simmonds,  1972)  as w e l l  as p r o v i n c i a l  (e.g. A l b e r t a ,  1972;  British  Columbia,  in  1973;  Canada  Ontario, diverse their  1972)  f o r adults  (e.g.  studies  1974;  f l e x i b l e and  congruent  with  c i r c u m s t a n c e s and n e e d s . The  focus  second major step  of this  study  "adult-oriented"  i s on i n s t r u c t i o n , t h e  i n the a d u l t education  to i n s t r u c t i o n , democratization  requires  process.  As  applied  the c r e a t i o n o f  environments w i t h i n which the i n s t r u c t o r w i l l  b e h a v e i n a manner c o n g r u e n t w i t h of  education  a l l speak o f t h e need to c r e a t e  learning opportunities  life  adult  Report,  t h e n e e d s and  expectations  learners.  CONGRUENCE  The is  axiomatic  need t o c r e a t e and i m p l i e d  ture describing (Bryson,  1936;  and tion  Boshier,  fundamental concepts o f a d u l t  i t i s applied  The  notion  i t a t e understanding, o f phenomena.  L i n d e m a n , 1926).  litera-  education In a d u l t  t o programme p l a n n i n g  1976), and t h e d e s i g n  (Knowles, 1970)  environments  i n contemporary and h i s t o r i c a l  Knowles, 1970;  cation research  "congruent" l e a r n i n g  edu-  (Peters  a n d management o f i n s t r u c -  and t h e study o f d r o p o u t  (Boshier,  o f c o n g r u e n c e has b e e n e m p l o y e d  1973).  to  p r e d i c t i o n and c o n t r o l o f a b r o a d  facilrange  Notable a p p l i c a t i o n s o f congruence theory  have  4  occurred 1959),  i n the study  attitude-change  cognitive  dissonance  attraction It  of personality (McGuire, (Festinger,  (Lott and Lott,  has been  applied  satisfaction  and  instability.  the  i t i s suggested  need  ence;  to keep  i n Rogers  cribed  that  Thus,  that  (1959)  penchant  the adjustment.  strated extent  that  to which  ^receiver'. adjustment ance  education later that  'needs'  problem  was  the greater change  t o change  'incongruences'  reported  between  he argues,  with  with  experi-  importance  i sas-  attitudes  'source'  institutions because  varies  demon-  with the  personality  o f the degree  of  theory, conson-  press'. theory  (1971)  and  has v a r i o u s l y  education  have  i s congruent with the  (1938)  Boshier  I ti s  congruence  researchers  by Boshier  i n adult  occurs  personality  the congruence the  'environmental  1977; 1 9 7 8 ) .  stability  i s faced  consistent  as a function  and  non-participation  Dropout,  (1945)  d i r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n o f congruence  (Boshier,  that  f o r internal consistency.  the information  i s portrayed  A  i n Lecky's  S i m i l a r l y , i n Murray's  between  i s the fact  psychological  considerable  Attitude  a willingness  learner 1973).  the s e l f / o t h e r and s e l f / i d e a l - s e l f  a measure o f adjustment;  better  maximize  1964).  (Boshier,  t h e human o r g a n i s m  theory  1970),  to explain  o f congruence  that  et al,  and Backman,  settings  internal perceptions  t o t h e human  contended is  i n ways  (Rogers,  inter-personal  1960) a n d d r o p o u t  to the notion  behave  theory  1957) a n d  i n educational  human b e i n g s minimize  1968; Simons,  1965; S e c o r d  (e.g.Pervin,  Basic  and psychotherapy  occurs  to an  adult  amplified argued  because o f  and p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s .  some p a r t i c i p a n t s  feel  5 incongruent pants  i n some i n s t i t u t i o n s .  I n c o n g r u e n c e makes  v u l n e r a b l e to the e f f e c t s o f  'mediating'  t r a n s p o r t or weather d i f f i c u l t i e s ) The  hypothesized  relationships  i n v e s t i g a t e d by  c a p t u r e d by  person  t h e r e i s an o p t i m a l e n v i r o n m e n t and  (19 57)  suggested  a  'style'  style. based  behaviours;  or s e l f - o t h e r  intra-self, congruence.  dropout.  congruent  T h e r e f o r e , an  with  t h e i r own  a l e a r n e r and e n c e may  be  instructor  and  instructor  adopt  an  a l s o been used  and  incongru-  should  adopt  and  experience 'chance* such  as  style  both  as  congruattendance,  by  Quastel  (1979) t o  c o r r e l a t i o n between job s a t i s f a c t i o n  or absence of  those with  student,  achievement.  training  t r a i n i n g were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  jobs than  congru-  instructional  needs.  'low'  'high'  more d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h  needs f o r t r a i n i n g .  She  t h a t mental h e a l t h workers w i t h h i g h  training  incongruent  and were t h u s  i n t h e i r work s i t u a t i o n s  and  Quastel  showed t h a t community m e n t a l h e a l t h w o r k e r s w i t h for  four  Participant-environ-  (Oswald, 1 9 7 1 ) , so  learning  apparent  the presence  environ-  self-other  i n l e a r n e r behaviours  C o n g r u e n c e has e x p l a i n an  f o r each  incongruence  development h i s t o r y  reflected  satisfaction  t h a t f o r each  the l e a r n e r ' s p r e f e r r e d l e a r n i n g  However most i n s t r u c t o r s on  suggested  relevance i n learner p e r s i s -  ment m a t c h i n g i s s u p p o s e d t o r e d u c e ence i n d u c e d  dropout.  B o s h i e r were  t h e r e were b a s i c a l l y  ence s t a t e s which have p a r t i c u l a r  self-lecturer  who  (e.g.  person.  Boshier  tence or dropout  variables  'trigger'  neatly  ment an o p t i m a l  Cronbach  which  partici-  needs  needs their  argued felt ...  6 dissatisfied.  In Q u a s t e l ' s  measured d i r e c t l y ; invoked and  i t was  study,  " c o n g r u e n c e ' was  merely a hypothetical  job s a t i s f a c t i o n .  THE  PRESENT STUDY  Despite  the  work o f  Boshier  number o f  a u t h o r s whose c o n t r i b u t i o n s  and  (1964) d r o p o u t f r o m a d u l t  Davis  i n t r a n s i g e n t problem. work w h i c h r e v e a l s  s u c h as  e n c e has  organizational portant  learner  powerful  adult The  Furthermore,  and  e f f e c t s on  b e h a v i o u r and  there  of  and  learner  learner  and  The  the  s a t i s f a c t i o n and  states, vari-  Congru-  earlier  work satis-  e f f e c t s of  i n s t r u c t i o n a l phase  learner  im-  unexplored.  study c o n c e r n s the  the  previous  i t s i m p a c t on  c o n c e r n s the  instruction is related  achievement.  in  education dropout, l e a r n e r  they o p e r a t e d u r i n g  towards l e a r n i n g  an  personality,  i s to b u i l d on  w h i c h c o n g r u e n c e between i n s t r u c t o r and  the  but  Verner  education  achievement.  perception  a c h i e v e m e n t , and  education process.  learner  adult  a t t i t u d e change,  t h i s study  faction  tence,  is little  e d u c a t i o n processes remains l a r g e l y task  large  education remains  s a t i s f a c t i o n and  congruence to a d u l t  adult  the  were r e v i e w e d by  other c r u c i a l  linking  c o n g r u e n c e as  (1973) and  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between c o n g r u e n c e  variously defined,  ables  the  construct  t o a c c o u n t f o r a c o r r e l a t i o n between t r a i n i n g need  PURPOSES OF  as  not  of  extent  to  attitudes  to l e a r n e r  persis-  instructor's evaluation  of  7 It cerning  i s assumed t h a t  person —  the  this  t h a t b e h a v i o u r was  environment or  study as:  (S)  or  learner  ity  congruence  learner  persistence  (C _ ), S  and  Q  that  the  S or A  This rise  basis  of  PLAN OF  THE  chapters.  theses are  be  be  a  function  c s  _j)/  ( T j ) and (E).  (Cg_g),  of  personal-  self-other  congruence;  learners  (T ) L  E x p r e s s e d as  and  attitudes  an  equation,  view of  the  implications  theoretical units  of  and  congruence  gives  propositions  des-  i n t e r a c t i o n s some o f w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e d  the  study.  STUDY  The five  can  =  variable this  for  that:  t o a number o f  cribing  Lewin  personality  L e w i n ' s and  i s , intra-self  instruction  of  model proposed  of  self-instructor (  and  model s u g g e s t s P or  con-  (P), l e a r n e r s a t i s f a c t i o n  (A) w i l l  congruence between i n s t r u c t o r s towards l e a r n i n g  The  extension  behaviour  achievement (P^);  a function  B = f(p.E).  i s b a s i c a l l y an  stated  (1935) f o r m u l a t i o n  environment i n t e r a c t i o n s i s c o r r e c t .  (1935) s u g g e s t e d and  Levin's  work c o n d u c t e d f o r In Chapter  reported.  ment i s d e s c r i b e d  The  2 the  i s reported  literature  s u r v e y and  hypo-  research  instru-  development of  i n C h a p t e r 3.  sampling procedures,  t h i s study  The  the  population  d a t a c o l l e c t i o n and  research  in  selected, design  8  adopted are d i s c u s s e d results  are reported  presented  and  immediate  task  the  i n C h a p t e r 4. i n Chapter  study  5.,  The  Finally,  i s summarized  i s to review  data  literature  analysis  and  the c o n c l u s i o n s  i n Chapter  6.  are  The  r e l e v a n t to the  problem.  9  CHAPTER  SURVEY OF  This  review  through  the following  searches  o f t h e ERIC  200  items  matrix;  phic  data  at  New  from  York  as meeting  held  items were  identified;  the  literature  were  studies  based  sought; entry  Literature Adult the  education  need  noted;  in ion of  the notion  discussed  Science  f o r Behavioural Psychological  Journals  from  Research Abstracts  1968;  some  and r e l e v a n t  reviews o f  d) m a j o r  contributors  to the area  to the l i t e r a t u r e ;  populations  were  of lifelong  styles  i n which  largely  and communication  a n d e) ignored. reviewed. where  f o r adults i s  the l i t e r a t u r e  i s noted;  opin-  the a p p l i c a t i o n  to a d u l t  congruence  on  congruence,  i n a t t i t u d e change,  as applied  titled  was  learning,  i s discussed;  o f congruence  i n the section  o f t h e Key-  c) r e c e n t  of adults,  o f congruence  with  o f the b i b l i o g r a -  learning opportunities  and l e a r n i n g  the revelance  leadership  conducted  the requirements  included  i n the context  the i n s t r u c t i o n  which  were  i n the following categories  f o r expanded  instructional  System  points  on pre-adult  proportions,  computer-assisted  by t h e I n s t i t u t e  U n i v e r s i t y , which  were o t h e r  a)  a s s i s t e d search  1970 t o 1975 a n d S o c i a l  study  to manageable  strategies:  150  of  LITERATURE  reduced  b) a c o m p u t e r  bases  THE  Information  identified  word  was  TWO  and  education education;  i s  10  finally  the  hypotheses  ADULT EDUCATION  The to  be  of  clear  about year  of  that  come,  will  1971,  change While  to  be  1972). at  and  as  much  1900,  and  that  by  between  the  no  longer  be  learning  much.  Faure  require  suggested  that  to  whatever  society  The  more  appears  learn  is  (1967)  know end  of  to  Report  a  agreement  that  of  an  that  school  To  there  there  to  and  was in  will  the be  separation adulthood  they  skills  or  recognized  learning  i t  'information  available  discover  Be"  skills  holds,  chronological in  "Learning  new  future  was  present  access  expecta-  century,  more a d u l t s upgrade  appears  different  host  the  as  this  knowledge  increased  be  suggested  traditional  and  society  experiencing  i n 1967  presented.  EDUCATION  have  Further,  the  continuously The  will  as  may  to  to  are  contemporary  there  a c q u i s i t i o n of  valid,  ones.  adults  as  study  LIFELONG  futurists  Wiener  times  times  in  the  required  present  Kahn  for  C O N T E X T OF  100  1,000  and  is  Individuals  explosion'.  new  rate  what  (Toffler, is  THE  accelerating.  tions all  IN  selected  need to  is to  develop that  opportunities  as:  "education i s and w i l l be more and more a p r i m o r d i a l need f o r each i n d i v i d u a l , then not o n l y m u s t we d e v e l o p , e n r i c h a n d m u l t i p l y the s c h o o l a n d t h e u n i v e r s i t y , we m u s t a l s o t r a n s c e n t i t by b r o a d e n i n g t h e e d u c a t i o n a l functions to the d i m e n s i o n s o f s o c i e t y as a whole" (1972, p. 161).  A  'learning  society'  has  been  touted  as  a  state  that  11 will  b e a c h i e v e d when p r i n c i p l e s  cation)  are f u l l y  confused  implemented.  education  lifelong  or recurrent  from c r a d l e t o grave.  A l l edu-  involves learning but not a l l learning involves  t h e O.E.C.D.  e m a n a t i n g f r o m UNESCO  semantic  and c o n c e p t u a l  that education  education  difficulties  s h o u l d be s p r e a d  and n o t c o n c e n t r a t e d under d i f f e r e n t  into  i s p o r t r a y e d as o n l y  system.  However, d e s p i t e  n e a r l y a l l w r i t e r s agree  o u t over the f i r s t  circumstances  an i n d i v i d u a l ' s 25 y e a r s .  location, Recently  access  work c y c l e ,  so a v a r i e t y o f e d u c a t i o n a l  t o l e a r n i n g by r e a s o n cost o r previous  and p l u r a l i s t i c  emphasising  that adult  approach  participants  of their  educational  UNESCO member s t a t e s r e i n f o r c e d t h e i r  egalitatian  life-  Each a d u l t  a p p r o a c h e s may be r e q u i r e d t o e n s u r e t h a t p o t e n t i a l are not denied  education.  ( e . g . Dave, 1975, 1976) a n d  (1973, 1975) a d u l t e d u c a t i o n  element o f a l i f e l o n g  lives  the l i t e r a t u r e i s  ( o r e d u c a t i o n p e r m a n e n t e ) l a b e l m a c h i n e r y employed t o  In l i t e r a t u r e  time  l e a r n i n g ( o r edu-  learning represents a set of  or p r i n c i p l e s while  ensure the education o f people  one  Although  i t appears t h a t l i f e l o n g  philosophical beliefs  cation  of lifelong  geographic  level.  commitment t o a n  to l i f e l o n g  l e a r n i n g by  education:  " s h o u l d be a d a p t e d t o t h e a c t u a l c o n d i t i o n s o f e v e r y d a y l i f e and work a n d t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a d u l t l e a r n e r s , t h e i r age, f a m i l y , s o c i a l , o c c u p a t i o n a l o r r e s i d e n t i a l b a c k g r o u n d a n d t h e way i n w h i c h t h e s e i n t e r r e l a t e " (1976 Recommendation 3 . e ) .  I n t h e p a s t a d u l t e d u c a t i o n was c o n s i d e r e d educational  a marginal  e n t e r p r i s e ( C l a r k , 1958) i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e  education o f children.  T h i s may e x p l a i n t h e p a u c i t y o f  12 research  pertaining  to the education o f a d u l t s  cant p a r t i c i p a n t populations,  despite  which f o r i n s t a n c e  i n British  C o l u m b i a , may be a t l e a s t a s l a r g e a s t h e g r a d e s c h o o l tion pp.  and p r o b a b l y 13 — 263,-;.  I  considerably  larger  ^Dickinson,  e d u c a t i o n a r e t o be i m p l e m e n t e d , a n d e d u c a t i o n a l increased  and d i v e r s i f i e d ,  more r e s e a r c h  will  popula-  et at,  UNESCO's r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g  f  signifi-  (1973),  to l i f e l o n g  opportunities  be r e q u i r e d  to  ensure the e f f e c t i v e u t i l i z a t i o n o f resources a l l o c a t e d f o r the education of adults. Adults diverse  settings.  in  basic  four  learn  through a v a r i e t y o f a c t i v i t i e s  Little  suggests  situations.  An  that adult  learning  and i n occurs  adult:  "may l e a r n s p o n t a n e o u s l y a s a c h a n c e e v e n t occurs i n h i s environment ( f o r t u i t i o u s l e a r n i n g ) ; he may w i s h t o l e a r n a n d p u r s u e t h i s d e s i r e ( i n t e n t i o n a l l e a r n i n g ) ; he may s y s t e m a t i c a l l y d e s i g n a n d manage h i s own l e a r n i n g ( e d u c a t i o n by s e l f ) ; o r he may c a l l upon t h e services of a person o r i n s t i t u t i o n to design and manage t h e l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n f o r h i m ( e d u c a t i o n d i r e c t e d by o t h e r s ) " (1978, p . 4 ) .  Adults formal  thus l e a r n  instructional setting  natural  i n the natural (Jensen,  s o c i e t a l s e t t i n g may o c c u r  conversation  o r such l i k e .  s o c i e t a l and t h e  1964).  Learning  through reading,  While these everyday  may p r o v i d e e x c e l l e n t l e a r n i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s , enough i n s u c h a s e t t i n g t o s a t i s f y needs f o r c o n t i n u o u s societal  learning.  s e t t i n g occurs  instructional  i n the  television,  activities  few a d u l t s  learn  individual or societal .  Much l e a r n i n g  i n the n a t u r a l  as a r e s u l t o f c h a n c e .  The f o r m a l  s e t t i n g comes i n t o b e i n g when a n  educational  13 agent designs  a sequence o f events  Verner Boshier  (197 8)  processes: integral  chosen.  Knowles  and  During  the  Houle  program p l a n n i n g  are  f o l l o w e r s o f Gagne  instructional  instructor will  for  the e x e c u t i o n o f As  their  subsequently the  component l e a r n i n g t a s k s .  select  techniques  institutions  l e a r n e r s may  unless  be  denied  techniques,  appropriate  munity C o l l e g e t h a t no  access  have more o r  one  l e a r n e r s and  or  teaching  life  identified  The  that:  respond  (Verner,  institutionally to  Even  the l e a r n i n g t a s k s , a d o p t e d may  Task F o r c e  appropriate  less  circumstances,  'style'  Columbia appeared  s t y l e was  recommended  Methods a l s o be  their  teaching  f o r the l e a r n e r . in British  can o n l y  to l e a r n i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s .  s u i t a b l e p r o g r a m c a n be  instructional  suitable  a d u l t l e a r n e r s are able  i d e n t i f y programs c o n g r u e n t w i t h they w i l l  analyse  learning tasks.  to o r g a n i z e Therefore,  begins  step i s to  next  terms o f r e f e r e n c e , a d u l t e d u c a t o r s  prescribed.  be  design  the  (1965) t h e  to a d e f i n e d spectrum o f l e a r n e r needs.  though a  i n s t r u c t i o n but  instructional objectives.  most e d u c a t i o n a l  adopted  methods  translated into  objectives into  The  phase  n o t make a m a j o r  above argue t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n a l  when p r o g r a m g o a l s  1959)  and  (1972) do and  major  ( e v a l u a t i o n i s an  program, g o a l s d e v e l o p e d  (1970) and  and  i n v o l v e s two  instruction  between p r o g r a m p l a n n i n g  cited  (1973a)  a l l note t h a t a d u l t e d u c a t i o n  diagnosed,  specific  (1964), D i c k i n s o n  program p l a n n i n g  distinction  For  Booth  partcof both).  needs a r e  writers  and  to h e l p a d u l t s l e a r n .  to  on  not  t h e Com-  acknowledge  for a l l adult  14  "Community C o l l e g e s s h o u l d e n c o u r a g e a n d f o s t e r a wide v a r i e t y o f t e a c h i n g s t y l e s and i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods so t h a t .the t r a d i t i o n a l a n d o u t moded m a s t e r - p u p i l c o n c e p t o f l e a r n i n g may be r e p l a c e d b y a more c o o p e r a t i v e , more d e m o c r a t i c approach " (1974, p . 1 1 ) . Adult and  education  has t r a d i t i o n a l l y  involved i n the diagnosis o f learner-needs  adult  education.  concern  Indeed,  f o r the democratic  ments i s e v i d e n t  i n early  Kidd,  1973).  tization"  Although  scant  evidence  (Bryson,  literature  ( B o y l e a n d J a h n s , 1970;  t o b e done t h e "democra-. .  a t t h e programme p l a n n i n g  (at l e a s t conceptually)  of i t s adoption  suggests  is little  t h a t much a d u l t  because the i n s t r u c t i o n a l styles tion but  applied during  not universally  f o r adults  of adult  the program p l a n n i n g  educa-  process  the i n s t r u c t i o n o f  I t was t h i s k i n d o f s i t u a t i o n which, S t o c k  when n o t i n g  instructs  employed and t h e t e a c h i n g  Principles  adhered to during  level.  Much s o - c a l l e d  youth education  techniques  chosen a r e c h i l d - o r i e n t e d .  are widely  adults.  more t h a n  level  but there i s  a t the i n s t r u c t i o n a l  i o n resembles the 'teaching' o f c h i l d r e n . adult education  environ-  1936; L i n d e m a n , 1926) a n d  much r e m a i n s  Indeed, c a s u a l o b s e r v a t i o n  has p r e -  arrangement o f e d u c a t i o n a l  o f adult education  been accomplished  than  flexible  t h e s t r e s s o n needs d i a g n o s i s a n d a  contemporary a d u l t e d u c a t i o n  has  b e e n more  bemoaned  that:  "Researchers making a p o s i t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h e g e n e r a l t h e o r y o f t e a c h i n g have been few a n d f a r b e t w e e n . T h i s p a r t l y has been due t o t h e i n c o n c l u s i v e n a t u r e o f many o f t h e s t u d i e s , a n d p a r t l y due t o t h e d e n i g r a t i o n o f ' t e a c h i n g ' a s compared t o t h e n o t i o n o f ' l e a r n i n g ' " (1974, p . 1 1 5 ) .  15 Adult educators ional on  theory  indigenous  have been slow to d e v e l o p  to t h e i r  field.  the s u b j e c t o f a d u l t " l e a r n i n g " o r  1973)  often resort  facilitate  to a d i s c u s s i o n o f  understanding' of c h i l d  Thus s c h o l a r s w r i t i n g  "instruction"  education.  will  be  culties  to c o n s t r u c t c o n c e p t u a l learning  associated with  Instructional  and  procedures  led  learning  Snelbecker  term  psycho-educational  fact  a d u l t i n s t r u c t i o n o f t e n resembles  it  i s necessary  there are  to a d u l t e d u c a t i o n  are not widely (1972) and  adult  employed  o t h e r s note  settings.  into  account  child  the  f o r the  education.  concerning  Thus  assumptions  i n s t r u c t i o n of adults.  (e.g. Gagne and  i n the  field.  t h e r e has  theories peculiarly B r i g g s , 19 74)  However, as  been a p e r s i s t e n t  these  Kreitlow stress  on  inter-personal "climate" i n adult  Indeed, d u r i n g the t h i r d  e d u c a t i o n movement i d e n t i f i e d by  d y n a m i c s ' and  Diffi-  (1974) t o c o i n  instructional  t h e n e e d t o c r e a t e an o p t i m a l instruction  theory.  ADULTS  Although relevant  r e l e v a n c e to the  education i t  theory  partially  t o examine l i t e r a t u r e  w h i c h have p a r t i c u l a r  INSTRUCTION OF  d e s i g n and  to  and o p e r a t i o n a l  Instructional  translating  Kidd,  I f a d u l t educa-  i s to o c c u r w i t h i n the c o n t e x t o f l i f e l o n g  b r i d g e s which l i n k  (e.g.  t h e o r i e s developed  tion  necessary  instruct-  Cotton  epoch o f  (19 68)  the  'group  ' a d u l t e d u c a t i o n " w e r e - a l m o s t synonymous.  The  16  emphasis versy  on  group  within  ment  is  probably  has  listed  tion  the  still  is  dynamics adult  which  stem  The  explicit  major  rise  education  evident.  most  gave  the  the  to  participants  four  treat  today  contro-  but  work o f  'technological from  considerable  movement  need  in  to  Knowles  implications'  rapprocheas  (1970)  for  characteristics  a  of  who  adult the  adults  instruc-  adult  learner. Knowles to  distinguish  from  pedagogy  suggests priate  that  the  "art  "which  is  helping  the  science  of  teaching".  behaviours  behaviours  which,  exhibited  to  their  manager,  learning  process  instructor  cratic', his  or  assisting (see  pedagogical  resembles  styles  classroom. instructor's pation,  been  are  and  group  classified  by  a  their  facilitator  (1943)  determination  'autocratic'  or  goals as  and or  different  student  instructor  authors  'demo-  the  group-centred  emphasize  of  the  leader,  these  and  andrago-  differently in  democratic to  instruction.  Knowles'  with  of  likely  through  White's  behave  interaction,  various  as  appro-  number  are  'group-oriented'  likely  Knowles  and  learner  Therefore,  to  andragogical, is  primarily  Instructors  likely  behaviour  participants  parallels  learn"  .particularly  instructors,  L i p p i t t and  andragogy  adults  identified a  adult  1).  leaders.  student-student  acceptance, has  The  the  (1959)  instructor  'content-oriented' leadership  Fig.  Liveright's  by  acts  are  He  towards  instructor  resource  gical  adults.  attitude  andragogical  term  of  of  reflect  European  science  andragogical  when  the  and  instructors  The  for  .(1970) a d o p t e d  -  warmth a  style  particiand which  student-centred,  17 Fig.  1  A COMPARISON OF ASSUMPTIONS AND PROCESSES OF PEDAGOGY AND ANDRAGOGY Process  Assumptions  Elements  Pedagogy  Andragogy  Pedagogy  Andragogy  Selfconcept  Dependency  Climate Increasing self-directiveness  Authorityoriented Formal Competitive  Mutuality Respectful Collaborative Informal  Experience  Of l i t t l e worth  Learners a r e a r i c h resource for learning  By  teacher  Mechanism f o r mutual p l a n n i n g  Readiness  Developmental Diagnosis Biological development t a s k s o f s o c i a l o f needs Social roles Pressure  By  teacher  Mutual s e l f diagnosis  Orientatior Subject to l e a r n - centered ing  Planning  Sequenced i n Logic of t h e s u b j e c t terms o f r e a d i matter ness  Problem centered Design  Problem u n i t s  Content units Activities  Transmittal Experiential techniques techniques (inquiry)  Evaluation  By  teacher  Mutual r e - d i a g n o s i s o f needs M u t u a l measurement o f program  Source:  Knowles  indirect,  pedagogical,  fied  inclusive,  democratic,  (Solomon, B e z d e k a n d R o s e n b e r g , autocratic,  i s likely  between i n s t r u c t o r goals,  p. 45.  integrative,  participative  haviour  (1973),  restricted  1963).  The  c o n t e n t - o r i e n t e d i n s t r u c t o r ' s be-  t o emphasize i n s t r u c t o r and s t u d e n t s ,  talk,  interaction  instructor determination of  topic-relevant discussions - a style  as i n s t r u c t o r - c e n t r e d , d i r e c t ,  autocratic.  permissive or  dominative,  classi-  preclusive or  18  Although  A d u l t E d u c a t i o n has  c r e a s i n g number o f e x p e r i m e n t a l Rusnell, 1 9 7 1 )  and ting  the  impact  t h e r e has  of various  pant behaviour.  p u b l i s h e d an i n -  research projects (Dickinson  been a l a c k o f s t u d i e s  'instructional  Researchers  concerned  styles'  the  impact  oriented a  'style'" but  environments  literature  that  of  the r e s u l t s  of experimental  ( F l a n d e r s , 1 9 60)  centred  (Gvetzkow, K e l l y  and  others  i n s t u d e n t knowledge.  s e a r c h no  s i n g l e a p p r o a c h has  Indeed,  attributed  employed as most e x p e r i m e n t a l c r e a t e d environment designed of  the experiment.  empirical tional  ( 1 9 63)  and  styles  as  instructional student-  reflected  as  i f a study  technique', and  to r e s e a r c h  the  i n the f i e l d .  basis f o r teacher  d e f i n i t i o n s of both  by  best  c a n be  found  another  can  Nielson,  1974).  methodologies  s t u d i e s demand an specifically  student  note  instructor-centred  artifically  t o meet t h e  Heath and  t h a t t h e c u r r e n t s t a t e o f r e s e a r c h on  between b e h a v i o u r  Thus i n  needs  This environment i s o f t e n d i f f i c u l t  impossible to reproduce conclude  favour  t h a t d e n o u n c e s i t (Heath  Much c o n f u s i o n c a n be  of  child-  Despite a great deal of re-  'teaching s t y l e or  found  Rosenberg  been i d e n t i f i e d  means t o o p t i m i z e l e a r n i n g .  u s u a l l y be  to a s c e r -  inconclusive.  comparisions  McKeachie, 1 9 5 4 )  and  efforts  some s t u d i e s f a v o u r  increases  that acclaims a  are  Solomon, B e z d e k and  s t y l e have been i n c o n s i s t e n t ;  partici-  even i n h i g h l y - c o n t r o l l e d  the r e s u l t s  review,  on  w i t h p r e - a d u l t educa-  t i o n p o p u l a t i o n s have made more d e t e r m i n e d tain  investiga-  Nielson  the  (1974)  relation  achievement can not o f f e r  t r a i n i n g because o f s t e r i l e t e a c h i n g and  or  a c h i e v e m e n t and  an operaweak  19  research  designs.  effects  are  Further,  likely  to be  documented, s t r o n g economic s t a t u s . that  they  suggest that teaching  trivial  i n comparison with  H e a t h and  Nielson  pessimistically  resources  as  very  research  by  an  s t r a t e g i e s with  teacher nature  easily  of research  on  t h a t can  e m p h a s i s on  (1974) l a m e n t s t h e  teaching  student  not  be  In a n o t h e r r e v i e w  particular  o f a d u l t s , Stock  conclude  the major determinant o f  educator.  socio-  inappropriate  p e r f o r m a n c e i s s o c i o - e c o n o m i c s t a t u s and pulated  well  a s s o c i a t i o n s b e t w e e n a c h i e v e m e n t and  f u t u r e r e s e a r c h w o u l d c o n s t i t u t e an  a l l o c a t i o n of  style  styles  and  the  mani-  of  part-time  inconclusive  l e a r n i n g but  says  more work I s m a n d a t o r y . In t h e s e expressed derived Thelen stood  r e v i e w s and  elsewhere,  d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with  from i n a p p r o p r i a t e o r (I9 60)  area  of  suggested  I n s t r u c t o r and dimension  1  conflicting incomplete  t h a t one  i n s t r u c t i o n was  important  the  be  considered  have  conclusions  theory. and  Getzels  little  i n any  that this  and  under-  i n t e r a c t i o n between  l e a r n e r p e r s o n a l i t i e s and  should  researchers  the  'idiographic  instructional  environ-  ment. Many s t u d i e s o f contradictory  teaching  conclusions  (Lamke, 1951;  19 6 5 ) .  However i t i s l i k e l y  dictory  because they  separate  effects  variables.  The  'style*  from those  explanatory  Schmid,  1950;  t h a t many s t u d i e s were  portrayed  divorced  s t y l e s have r e s u l t e d i n  of  v a r i a b l e s as  Singh, contrahaving  environmental  power o f v a r i a b l e s i n v e s t i g a t e d  m i g h t have been enhanced i f r e s e a r c h e r s  had  more r e g a r d  to  person/environment  and  for  approach  by  an  interactive  writers  such  individual motives  be  that  a  Hunt  embodies  good  the  same  the  learners  be  most  satisfied  compatible  with  learning  ments  satisfied  learners  who  have  ing  style.  between style  found  an  In  and  and  style to  who  situation  instructors.  the  instructor's  The  notion of  or  that  that  each  experience, status.  are  is little  supposed evidence  instructional  style  suggests  that  instructional  arrange-  preferences.  The  drop-out)  "fits"  what  past  congruence  with  likely  instructor  this  learners  notion of  (least  there  need  promulgated  socio-economic  learning  Rather,  by  processes  However,  preferences. will  and  and  This  It is likely  determined  personality  assumptions  have  i n views  1975).  style  for a l l adults.  a l l adults  interactions.  is implicit  (1971;  learning  for learning,  Andragogy to  has  as  person/person  their  i s desired The  s h o u l d be  those  preferred  learn-  is a  'good-fit'  participant's  .'..teaching' s t y l e  most  learning  s h o u l d be  con-  gruent.  CONGRUENCE  and  predict  such  as  cribe  attitude  balance,  congruence  change  equilibrium,  various aspects of  Cronbach  (1957)  for  individual,  each  and  so  that  been  individual  used  or  i t would  be  an  explain  dissonance  incongruent  t h e r e was  to  preference.  consistency or  congruent  suggested  has  ideal  reasonable  to  Terms des-  systems. environment expect  that  21 if  i n d i v i d u a l s were n o t  t h e y w o u l d be discomfort. may  be  located within  u n c o m f o r t a b l e and Physical,  crucial  t o an  their ideal  attempt  emotional or  environment,  to r e s o l v e  or  psychological  individual's well  being.  reduce  environments  Festinger  (1957) showed t h a t when i n d i v i d u a l s e x p e r i e n c e an  incongruent  psychological  are  fortable as  and  quickly  tion  will  as  considering  state  ('cognitive attempt  possible.  the  e x i s t i n g frame o f  that during  dividuals,  there  any  is a  receiver  the  and  suggest  and  they  resolve  Tannenbaum that  the  uncom-  situation  (1967, p.  "changes i n  302)  evalua-  d i r e c t i o n of  increased  reference".  Further,  conthey  communication p r o c e s s between i n -  s o u r c e and  the  When c o n s i d e r i n g credibility  or  "complex s e r i e s o f  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  between the  Osgood and  always i n the  recognized  the  to a v o i d  a t t i t u d e change, noted  (attitude) are  gruity with  dissonance')  i n t e r a c t i o n s among  the  r e c e i v e r as w e l l  as  message".  factors  persuasiveness,  that  e f f e c t an  individual's  Simons, B e r k o w i t z and  Moyer.  that: "from s t u d i e s of o p i n i o n l e a d e r s i t would appear t h a t the ' i d e a l ' communicator i s b a s i c a l l y s i m i l a r to h i s a u d i e n c e , the d i f f e r e n c e s t e n d i n g i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f g r e a t e r c r e d i b i l i t y " (1970, p. ID.  Relevant s i m i l a r i t i e s a t t i t u d e change than ity  higher  r e a c h e d by  more e f f e c t i v e i n  receiver  emphasizes the  professional Travers  facilitating  'irrelevant similarities'.  b e t w e e n s o u r c e and  dissimilarity as  are  can  enhance change i f  credibility  status.  Dissimilar-  of  the  course,  Similar conclusions  (1970) when c o n s i d e r i n g  human  the such  were  information  22  processing.  He  perceptual this  system  capacity  logical noted  considered  was  limits  that  within  of The  settings  oughly  congruence  adult  as the  of  single  the  physiological  i n d i v i d u a l and  the  that  individuals  has  been  strive  shown  to  maintain  for  balance,  of  and  physio-  environment  congruence  and  between  enhanced.  self-consistency,  Rogers  (harmony  19 6 0 ' s  (1959)  occurring  interactions (1970)  and  Gagne  when  and in  adult  the  discussion  Recently  the  stability. consonance,  been  presence and  an  formal  thor-  of  self/other  the  need  emphasized  focussed  the  importance  create  of  and  cite  atmosphere'  However, the  an  importance  factors  'emotional  on  to  a  Thus V e r n e r  psychological and  instructional  i n s t r u c t o r and  learning.  environment  array  others).  i n s t r u c t i o n a l outcomes.  most  variables.  has  the  has  oneself)  highlighted  (1965)  for  broad  congruence,  noted  between  discussing  physical of  has  a  homeostatsis  between o n e s e l f  'conditions'  the  or  (harmony w i t h i n  education  In  internal psychological  equilibrium  congruence  determinants late  by  that  EDUCATION  (1971),  aspects  suggested  be  'climate'  Davison  He  information.  will  Knowles  optimal  individual's  communications  involves  learner.  an  degree  Adult setting  of  high  investigated.  intra-self  of  there  human p e n c h a n t  stability,  each  capacity  is a  CONGRUENCE AND  It  process  determined  where  individuals,  to  the  until  effects  of  person/environ-  ment and  person/person  been r e c o g n i z e d .  interactions  Much o f t h i s  i n adult  instruction  r e c o g n i t i o n flowed  from  through-  1  out  t h e 1960's and  1971;  1975;  1970's  (Cronbach,  M c K e a c h i e , 1974;  W a r r e n and W a r r e n ,  1977;  and  Rosenberg  teacher behaviour  to i n f l u e n c e  Heider,  et  al,  (19 63)  who  l e a r n e r outcomes.  extend  s t u d i e s be  the range  behaviour.  conducted  of variables  buting  to t h i s  interaction  characteristics hawa and  Fu  environment  alone.  on  opmental h i s t o r y socio-economic v a r i a b l e s would  consider  l e a r n e r may  the  have been  later,  They s u g g e s t e d sex,  the c l a s s r o o m  dif-  contrilearner  when Randclassroom  that  of  the d e v e l -  and  other  environment  In c o n c l u s i o n , they  to  personality,  p r e v i o u s knowledge l e v e l  r e s e a r c h on  de-  teacher  they r e c o g n i z e d the importance  i n t e r a c t with  sex  recommended  instructor or  o f c l a s s members, t h e i r  l e a r n i n g outcomes.  that further  They  to r e c o g n i z e t h a t  r a t h e r than  interaction.  status,  age,  to v a r y i n g  c o n s i d e r e d the e f f e c t s o f  learning,  charac-  to i n t e r a c t with  However, t e n y e a r s  (1973) a l s o  learner/instructor  affect  likely  and  investigated  Class size,  factors.  was  w i t h p e r s o n a l i t y measures  They a p p a r e n t l y f a i l e d  f e r e n c e s between i n s t r u c t o r  Rogers-  student  o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s were shown t o i n t e r a c t  that further  1967;  Hunt,  interactions  interact with  grees with v a r i o u s i n s t r u c t o r - s t y l e  1961;  Typical of a pre-adult  from person/person  t h a t o f Solomon, B e z d e k and  teristics  Proshansky,  S t e r n , 1970).  e d u c a t i o n s t u d y stemming  ways i n w h i c h  1957;  inter-  1  a c t i o n i s t ' views which changed the shape o f p s y c h o l o g y  has  and  recommended  the t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g process  i n t e r a c t i o n s between p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  should and  24  environmental individuals their  variables.  attempt  Secord  to m a i n t a i n  p e r c e i v e d s e l v e s , and  individuals. lected t o be  Incongruent  as f r i e n d s ,  and  and  Backman  their  likely  are u n l i k e l y  than  congruent  ceived  individual  as b e i n g  instructor  especially  incongruent.  other  t o be  or  Therefore incongruence affect  se-  individuals behav-  i f the change i s a l s o  and. l e a r n e r s h o u l d a d v e r s e l y  that  themselves,  r e l a t i o n s h i p s with  a b l e t o b r i n g about a change i n the a t t i t u d e  i o u r o f an  noted  congruence between  individuals  less  (19 65)  per-  between  learning  out-  comes . Studies  that simply  i n s t r u c t o r behaviours  seek to i d e n t i f y  or socio-economic  characteristics,  which c o r r e l a t e w i t h v a r i o u s i n s t r u c t i o n a l to r e s u l t extent and  in trivial  to which  outcomes a r e  likely  conclusions, unless  t h e r e i s c o n g r u e n c e between t h e  the  instructor  the l e a r n e r i s c o n s i d e r e d . The  by  or c o n f l i c t i n g  l e a r n e r and  Boshier  and  c o n g r u e n c e n o t i o n was  (1973; 1977)  dropout  who  behaviour.  tried  a p p l i e d to a d u l t e d u c a t i o n  to e x p l a i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n  Boshier suggested  that intra-self  s e l f / o t h e r congruence s t a t e s i n t e r a c t w i t h motives cipation  and  "mediating"  variables  to determine  Maslow's fest  ( F i g . 2) (19 54)  intra-self  sense]  and  and  the  from  settings.  t h a t d e f i c i e n c y - m o t i v a t e d £in  p a r t i c i p a n t s were more l i k e l y  incongruence  between t h e m s e l v e s participants  suggested  parti-  dropout  adult education classes occurring i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l H i s model  for  and  and  higher levels of  other c r u c i a l  instructor)  people  incongruence  (such as  t h a n were g r o w t h  to mani-  the  other  motivated  participants. state  effects  and  transport  drop  portrayed  o f i m b a l a n c e w h i c h makes  the  which  Boshier  o f "mediating"  trigger out.  such  I t i s these  the incongruence  states  that  non-participation  and a d u l t  education  institutions.  He e x p l a i n s  non-participation  behaviour  o f people  the lower  ences  by observing  are consciously  psychological  widely  MODEL  TO E X P L A I N  between  from  most  middle-class  environments  and experiences  that  discrepant  DROPOUT FROM A D U L T  - ^ I n t r a - s e l f I n c o n g r u e n c e +-  raotivation-  Intra-aelf  congruence  the socio-  education  insti-  p h y s i c a l and  with  the prefer-  participants.  EDUCATION  INSTITUTIONS  Incongruence  S e l f / l e c t u r e r Incongruence Self/ ?  "Growth"  parti-  2  ptSelf/student -^"Deficiency" motivation-  adult  potential  and employ  o f 'lower-class'  Fig.  —  people to  cipants  groups  incongruence  impel  variables  from  tutions  _  mediating  to  weather  results  economic  |  psychological  as adverse  which  (1978) h a s a r g u e d  a perceived  as a  the participant vulnerable  variables  difficulties.  Boshier  congruence  incongruence  Self/student  congruence  Self/lecturer  congruence  USelf/  ?  congruence  Model d e t a i l i n g h y p o t h e s i z e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s between m o t i v e f o r a t t e n d a n c e , c o n g r u e n c e , m e d i a t i n g v a r i a b l e s and d r o p o u t f r o m a d u l t e d u c a t i o n .  -PERSISTENCE  26 Socio-economic  and p e r s o n a l i t y  participants  and t h e i r  self-student  and s e l f - l e c t u r e  incongruent and  instructor  attltudinal  incongruence.  they  students. intra-  individuals  and p e r s i s t e r s ,  Similarly  Boshier  i n effecting 1965).  dropouts  'felt  significantly  the i n s t r u c t o r '  (1973),  a t home i n  fewer  dropouts  or with  other  when c o n s i d e r i n g b o t h  and i n t e r - p e r s o n a l c o n g r u e n c e , n o t e d  was s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  as f r i e n d s ,  students d i s c r i m i n a t e d bet-  with  'got on w e l l w i t h  earlier,  ( S e c o r d and Backman,  to which p a r t i c i p a n t s  t h e c l a s s ' o r ' g o t t o know' o t h e r  reporting  As n o t e d  (1968) i n a s t u d y o f n i g h t s c h o o l  t h a t the extent  ween d r o p o u t s  of Boshier's  t o be s e l e c t e d  as congruent  o r b e h a v i o u r a l changes  A l a m and W r i g h t noted  a r e sources  individuals are unlikely  a r e n o t as e f f e c t i v e  d i f f e r e n c e s among  that  dropping-out  s t u d e n t / e d u c a t i o n a l environment  incongruence. The usually  fixed.  physical Apart  setting from  i n which education occurs i s  v o i c i n g o b j e c t i o n s there i s l i t t l e  the  instructor  c a n do t o b r i n g a b o u t c h a n g e .  the  instructor  h a s been h i r e d  is  little  and s t u d e n t s  registered,  t h a t c a n be done t o i n f l u e n c e t h e e x t e n t  c o n g r u e n c e o c c u r s between i n s t r u c t o r to.their  Similarly  socio-economic  there  to which  and l e a r n e r w i t h  or personality  once  respect  characteristics.  However, i n s t r u c t o r s may e x e r c i s e some c o n t r o l variables Hall plore  influencing  (197 0)  conducted  the i n s t r u e t o r / l e a r n e r  over  interaction.  a s t u d y on a c o l l e g e p o p u l a t i o n t o e x -  the e f f e c t s o f t e a c h e r / s t u d e n t congruence on student  l e a r n i n g and noted  t h a t the o v e r a l l  discrepancy  s c o r e s were  inversely  c o r r e l a t e d w i t h l e a r n i n g which suggested t h a t  e n c e between t h e teaching  learner's  learner's  learning  outcomes as  the  the  i n s t r u c t o r a d o p t s an  the  learner's  and  therefore  and  learning  preferred and  attend  and  structor's  regularly.  with  likely  to e v a l u a t e  t h a n w o u l d be s i s t e n t with  the  s t y l e s are  style learners  the  learning  the  their learning  will  the  view of  suggest i t i s p o s s i b l e  displayed  in Fig.  is little  that  can  c h a n g e an  individual's  variables  are  the  feel dropout. in-  consistent  instructor is  s t y l e be  of  i n s t r u c t i o n and  a  the  learner. foregoing  to c l a s s i f y  outcomes) w i t h i n  incon-  the  re-  crucial  four  quad-  3.  Static variables there  likely  a c h i e v e m e n t more p o s i t i v e l y  of  rants  to  adopt r o l e s  their learning  (influencing learner  with  environment  congruent with  Casual observation  variables  adult  is  more l i k e l y  i n s t r u c t o r ' s expectations  literature  Where  l e a r n e r would  Therefore  case should  learner  satis-  However i f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l  w o u l d be  i n s t r u c t o r expectations.  the  the  incongruent,  s e c u r e and  teaching  expressed  achievement.  style,  the  learning  i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e congruent  secure w i t h i n  S i m i l a r l y where l e a r n i n g  that  s t y l e and  attendance,  in learning  learning  s t y l e s are  satisfied  instructor's  s t y l e would r e s u l t i n f a v o u r a b l e  c o u r s e and  satisfied  the  It is likely  i n s t r u c t o r ' s teaching  reflected i n learner  faction with  less  s t y l e and  s t y l e s h o u l d enhance l e a r n i n g .  c o n g r u e n c e between t h e  to f e e l  learning  congru-  be  are  those which are  done by  'score'.  On  'fixed'  the  adult  the  o t h e r hand  t h o s e v a r i a b l e s w h i c h may  educator  change i f  and to  dynamic the  28 Fig. VARIABLE  3  CLASSIFICATION Dynamic Variables  Static Variables  Single variables  1.  e.g.  Age Sex Years p r e v i o u s Education Occupation Income  2.  e.g.  Learners Preferred Learning Style Instructors Teaching S t y l e  Double variables (congruence) -"goodness of f i t "  3.  e.g.  Discrepancy between Learner/Instructor - Age - Years p r e v i o u s Education - Occupation - Income  4.  e.g.  D i s c r e p a n c y betweer Learner/Instructor " s t y l e " preference  individual variables  i s exposed.to a p p r o p r i a t e are  individual's may  be  o r may  likely  t o be  a t t i t u d e s o r values..  considered alone be  'learned  i n any  compared w i t h o t h e r  difference  (double o r  c o n s i d e r e d as  veys  (e. g.  associated  influence are  Quadrant 2 c o n t a i n s  reflect  (as  'single'  variables)  in. response  the be  analyses.  single relatively outcomes.  investigated 1965)  an  responses  i n d i v i d u a l s ' r e s p o n s e s and  Rivera,  Instructional  Dynamic  Each i n d i v i d u a l ' s  analysis  learner  habitually  J o h n s t o n e and with  r e s p o n s e s ' and  i n subsequent  Quadrant 1 c o n t a i n s  these v a r i a b l e s  environments.  congruence v a r i a b l e s )  a variable  a b l e s known t o  •  and  The  stable  vari-  effects  of  in clientele  sur-  are  be  known t o  outcomes. "dynamic" s i n g l e  variables.  r  These  variables  may  peer  group  ween  l e a r n e r and  tor's  pressure.  out-comes. less  to  be  Whether  predictive  These  between  single  than  single  or  goodness-of-fit betand  instruc-  instructional  variables  "congruence"  have  greater  variables  remains  the  These  instructor dynamic,  contains  instructor  also  4  result  double-variables  determining and  the  extent  l e a r n e r f o r each  single  variable.  the  (congru-  of  differ-  static  and  described  above.  process power o f  If static  schooling, occupation,  variance learner  i n learning satisfaction,  adult educators  'match' gruences  learners with account  instructors  on  the  to  static  to  instructors. variance necessary their  or  (e.g.  account  (which  need  basis of  scores  i s scant  age,  study  to  effects which  years  of  the  were  achievement) variables  However, the  the  variables  sex,  f o r most  these  than  on  powerful  dynamic  learner  use  between  literature  in this  p e r s i s t e n c e and  be  their  there the  (congru-  difference  potentially  income)  might  the  has  variables  outcomes  for less  s t a t e s i t may  double-variables  measuring  respect  congruence  relative  dynamic  from  learner with  instructional  reveals  gruence  static  contains  and  Although the  3  variable.  ence) .  then  these  utility  the  associated with  a r e : d e r i v e d by  Quadrant  of  not  of  training  learner's preferences  likely  or  experience,  seen.  ence) .  on  though  Irrespective  are  Quadrant  ence  changed  instructor,  preferences  or  be  to  i f 'static' 'dynamic'  'match'  con-  learners  preferred styles.  con-  If  and both  30  types  o f congruence  variance  PRESENT  (as  present  'preferred'  satisfaction,  ships  between  the basis  variables  primarily  and three  learner  persistence  developed  structured  learner/instructor  dependent  indexing  to  a  difference learner  achievement.  concern  congruence  exa-  congruence  variables:  and l e a r n e r  f o r the study  learner/instructor  notion  of  of static  determining  suggests  that  relation-  and these  belief  may  equation  variable; instructor also  'matching'  learners  o r dynamic  variables)  learning  such  o r : may through  preferred  a l l other  discrepancy b e made  prefer  provided  three  generating learning  to further  be  clarify  by Knowles  (19 70)  environments;  b u t i n .t h i s  be  study  congruence  states.  complished  regression  analysis.  In  the dependent  (including  learner/  independent.  This  will  equation.  An  the antecedents  learner/instructor through  be r e -  style will  will  that  also  a regression  variables  scores)  instructors  requires  andragogical  n o t be c o r r e c t ,  available  and  style preference  as t h a t  a l l learners  investigated  will  was  style)  Literature  this  study  score  vealed.  be  difficult.  variables. The  this  become  by a d i s c r e p a n c y  hypotheses  dependent  (on  implications  the r e l a t i o n s h i p between  Formal  f o r s i m i l a r amounts o f  STUDY  manifested  in  account  the administrative  The mine  states  will  also  The t h r e e  effort  of be a c -  hypotheses  31 concern purported  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between  discrepancies  t h r e e dependent v a r i a b l e s .  and  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between d i s c r e p a n c y faction,  persistence  account f o r small analyses w i l l variables  be  or  variance  conducted.  interactions  s c o r e s and  achievement are  amounts o f  and  place  If bi-variate learner  of  regression  clarify  the  i n those  . i n t e r a c t i o n s which e x p l a i n  ent  - learner  s a t i s f a c t i o n , persistence  ment.  The  relative learner  analysis w i l l  impact of  static  be  structured  and  nature  so  as  the and  dependachieve-  t o compare t h e .  dynamic c o n g r u e n c e s t a t e s  satisfaction, persistence  and  of  learner/instruetor  discrepancies variables  satis-  i n s i g n i f i c a n t or  further  These w i l l the  learner/instructor  achievement.  on  32 HYPOTHESES  As style  n o t e d , congruence between l e a r n e r s  and t h e i r i n s t r u c t o r ' s  positively  correlated with  satisfaction  and l e a r n e r  ent  selected  variable  i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e s h o u l d be  learning,  achievement,  persistence.  Therefore  and i n s t r u c t i o n .  t h e depend-  attitude  C o n g r u e n c e was c a l c u l a t e d  d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n i n s t r u c t o r and l e a r n e r same s c a l e .  learner  f o r t h i s s t u d y was a m e a s u r e o f c o n g r u -  e n c e b e t w e e n t h e i n s t r u c t o r ' s and l e a r n e r ' s learning  learning  1  A high discrepancy  towards as the  s c o r e s on t h e  s c o r e would i n d i c a t e h i g h i n -  congruence, w h i l e a zero d i s c r e p a n c y  s c o r e would  indicate  congruence. For  hypotheses t e s t i n g purposes independent  a b l e s were p a r t i c i p a n t s c o r e s on a l e a r n e r dex,  learner  persistence  (as i n d i c a t e d  of  the i n s t r u c t o r ' s perception  satisfaction i n -  by t h e i r  r e c o r d ) and t h e g r a d e awarded t h e l e a r n e r  vari-  attendance  (as an i n d i c a t i o n  o f each p a r t i c i p a n t ' s  learning  achievement). The  hypotheses developed  1.  Discrepancy  f o r t h i s s t u d y were a s  follows: s c o r e s between i n s t r u c t o r and  learner's  attitude  towards l e a r n i n g  tion w i l l  be n e g a t i v e l y  and i n s t r u c -  correlated with  learner  satisfaction. 2.  Discrepancy learner's  s c o r e s between i n s t r u c t o r and  attitude  towards l e a r n i n g and  instruction will learner  s c o r e s between i n s t r u c t o r  attitude  struction will the  towards  learning  be n e g a t i v e l y  instructor's perception  learning  correlated  with  persistence.  Discrepancy learner's  be n e g a t i v e l y  achievement.  and  and i n -  correlated of  learner's  with  34  CHAPTER  THREE  INSTRUMENTATION  O p e r a t i o n a l measures o f " l e a r n e r "learning  and I n s t r u c t i o n a l  hypotheses this  developed  s a t i s f a c t i o n " and  s t y l e " were r e q u i r e d t o t e s t t h e  for this  study.  Instruments  s t u d y were composed o f t h r e e d i s c r e t e  components.  instrument provided f o r the c o l l e c t i o n o f basic data,  another  f a c t i o n with  the c l a s s ,  and t h e r e m a i n i n g preferred  One  socio-economic  c o n s i s t e d o f an i n d e x t o measure l e a r n e r  t o measure t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s al  designed f o r  satis-  s e c t i o n was a n i n d e x  learning  and i n s t r u c t i o n -  style.  SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA  The i n s t r u m e n t d e s i g n e d (Appendix developed  D) a n d s t u d e n t  were p r e s e n t e d  Sample Q u e s t i o n s  including  The j u d g e s  data  Census  a t the A d u l t  Centre a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h  were e i t h e r  i n the department.  f a c u l t y members o r The j u d g e s  was  and c o d i n g c a t e g o r i e s  to a panel o f s i x e x p e r t judges  Education Research  students  instructor  E) s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  with r e f e r e n c e to other studies,  o f Canada i n f o r m a t i o n .  bia.  (Appendix  to c o l l e c t  Column  graduate  examined t h e i n s t r u m e n t  for  c l a r i t y o f e x p r e s s i o n and ease o f completion.  The questions  were r e v i s e d and again c i r c u l a t e d among the judges u n t i l i t was agreed t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n t o be c o l l e c t e d and the s t y l e o f q u e s t i o n would p r o v i d e data t h a t c o u l d be used to t e s t the study's hypotheses.  The t o t a l  instrument was completed  twice  w i t h an i n t e r v a l o f one week between a p p l i c a t i o n s by an undergraduate c l a s s so an i n d i c a t i o n o f the instrument's c o u l d be o b t a i n e d .  The r e l i a b i l i t y  reliability  o f the instrument was mea-  sured by comparing the r e s u l t s o f each a p p l i c a t i o n o f the instrument, to i d e n t i f y whether o r not the r e s u l t s A student's t - t e s t was performed  on each p a i r o f items u s i n g  the c o r r e l a t e d p a i r s formulas o f student's t. on an item d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,  ensure t h i s ,  I f the scores  the item was c o n s i d e r e d  u n r e l i a b l e and d e l e t e d from the instrument. most concerned  differed.  The c l a s s was  t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n be c o n f i d e n t i a l .  the students themselves  To  c r e a t e d t h e i r own  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers which they used on both instruments. Twenty-two students completed o n l y s i x completed did  the instrument t w i c e .  the socio-economic  However,  data twice, but these  p r o v i d e i d e n t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n on both o c c a s i o n s .  LEARNER SATISFACTION INDEX  I t was hypothesized t h a t congruence between l e a r n e r s and i n s t r u c t o r s would be p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h l e a r n e r satisfaction.  E v a l u a t i v e instruments a r e common i n the  l i t e r a t u r e  b u t m o s t  o r  a r e a .  c o n t e n t  a p p e a r  t o b e  to  e v a l u a t e  to  be  a d u l t  u s e  l e a r n e r s .  d e v e l o p e d  a n d  r e l i a b l e . s c h o o l  M o s t  t h i s  A  h a v e  s t u d y  a  o f  g r a d u a t e  U n i v e r s i t y i t e m s  ' l i k e d '  2.  o f B r i t i s h  t h a t  3.  A  p a n e l  ' s a t i s f i e d '  f i r s t  t h e s e  v a l i d i t y . c o n s t r u c t e d  a  d r a f t  o f  to  s t a t e m e n t  w e r e  t h e  t h e a  p o o l  r e s p o n d e n t  t h e p r e p a r a t i o n , i n s t r u c t i o n  d e v e l o p e d  a n d  f o r c l a r i t y  t h a t  s i n g l e  f o r m a t  a p p r o p r i a t e  a t  members  s u g g e s t e d  w i t h  s t u d e n t s  t o e n s u r e  s c a l i n g each  hoe  f o l l o w i n g  i t e m s .  g r a d u a t e  r e p r e s e n t e d A  ad  f a c u l t y  D e p a r t m e n t C o l u m b i a  t h e s t a t e m e n t s  a m b i g u i t y  4.  a n  o f  i n s t r u c t o r .  o f  o f  a n d  a n d p r e s e n t a t i o n o f  t h e  e d i t i n g  j u d g e d  f o r m  o r  i n d i c a t e d w h e t h e r  o r was  w i t h  s t u d e n t s  T h i r t y - s e v e n s t a t e m e n t s an  some  r e l i a b i l i t y  E d u c a t i o n  o r g a n i z a t i o n and  u n l i k e l y  c l a s s e s f o r p a r t - t i m e  L i k e r t - t y p e s c a l e was  t h e A d u l t  o f  a n d  t h e e v a l u a t o r o n  l i t t l e  d e v e l o p e d  p r o c e d u r e s .  g r o u p  i n  a r e g e n e r a l l y  e v a l u a t e d u s e  c o n s t r u c t e d b y  t h e f o l l o w i n g 1.  They  p r o g r a m  e v a l u a t i o n  o r c o l l e g e p r o g r a m s  p r o g r a m s  a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y  p a r t i c u l a r  f o r i n s t r u c t o r  f o r t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f  i n d e x "  F o r u s i n g  Some  f u l l - t i m e  o f much  " h a p p i n e s s b a s i s  v a l i d  a r e c o n s t r u c t e d f o r a  each  f a c u l t y a n d  l a c k  s t a t e m e n t  was  o f  c l e a r l y  d e v e l o p e d .  r e q u i r e d p a r t i c i p a n t st o  number  o f  c o n c e p t .  the.i n d e x  a n d  members  i n d i c a t e b y a  9  T h e r e s p o n d  c i r c l i n g  p o i n t L i k e r t  t h e  s c a l e  37 the  extent  with  to,which, they a g r e e d o r  the statement  e.g.  Strongly Disagree Time i s . 1 2 3 wasted.  Class often  A 9 point  s c a l e was  as  considered  i t was  seven p o i n t  that neither  s c a l e would a l l o w  respondents could  a neutral The  tion  sufficient  be a m b i v a l e n t  i n d e x was  s c a l e was  s e l e c t e d to  t e s t e d o n a sample  population  s t u d e n t s i n t h e Department o f  E d u c a t i o n and p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a d u l t  school  that  t o w a r d s some  c l a s s e s a t Vancouver T e c h n i c a l  night  vari-  response.  summer s c h o o l  Adult  a f i v e nor -  A s i t was p o s s i b l e  s t a t e m e n t s , an o d d number allow  Strongly Agree 7 8 9  Neutral 4 5 6  s e l e c t e d f o r the instrument  a n c e among r e s p o n s e s .  of  disagreed  centre  operated  educa-  School,  jointly  S c h o o l B o a r d a n d V a n c o u v e r Community  a  by V a n c o u v e r College.  T h e s e r e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d n o t t o i d e n t i f y themselves. by  The i n s t r u m e n t s were  someone o t h e r  ors  i n an a t t e m p t  The  total  than the r e g u l a r to maintain  sample c o n s i s t e d  o f whom 132 p r o v i d e d  instruct-  o f 139 p a r t i c i p a n t s  appropriately  i n s t r u c t i o n s o r missed  class  confidentiality.  i n s t r u m e n t s and 7 e i t h e r f a i l e d the  administered  completed  to understand  the second  T h e s e were e x c l u d e d f r o m t h e  analyses.  page.  38 5.  The  d a t a were f a c t o r a n a l y s e d .  estimate of by  simply  all  total  scale  should  the f i r s t  load  unrotated  items which f a i l e d  i n the  s i n g l e concept  final  version  negatively which  event)  class.  applications using  randomized w i t h  of  the p a i r e d  21  balance  included  (agreement  the  the ten  with  the  learn-  remaining  a positive attitude  towards  statements  the a i d o f a  table  Reliability  described earlier, on  a  negative statements,  i n which  total,  represented  d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with  order  In  the  random numbers.  S a t i s f a c t i o n Index  completed  graduate  was  The  on  remaining  ensure  w h i l e agreement w i t h  the event.  was  To  the instrument  indicated  appeared  they  worded s t a t e m e n t s  indicated  eleven  As  of  The  on  those  significantly  statements.  between p o s i t i v e and  Learner  item-scores,  Therefore,  i t e m s were d i s c a r d e d .  were s c r u t i n i z e d t o e n s u r e  of  computed  same d i r e c t i o n  factor. to l o a d  an  u n r o t a t e d f a c t o r were d i s c a r d e d .  sixteen  ing  that  s c o r e can be  summing ;a r e s p o n d e n t ' s  items  first  So  two  o c c a s i o n s by  The  differences  the  the f u l l  22 p a r t i c i p a n t s between r e s p o n s e s  t e s t were c a l c u l a t e d  comparison  research  formula  and  instrument i n an on  t values  f o r student's  under-  the  two  computed  t which  takes  39  into the be  account test  no  items  the t test  t-value  A  between  theless, duced,  variance. ficant  differences  knowledge  version  consisted Scale  t o have that  between  from  were  scores  of nineteen  I t was  responses  changed  1,  time but  error  there  statements  cast  that  one  f o rthe insufficient  was  Never-  intro-  amount o f  were  signi-  application  of the  'The c o u r s e has a  The d i f f e r e n c e s  t o measure  so t h e  no  the instructor  unreliable  There-  significantly.  on each #9  appli-  a significant  considered  be s u f f i c i e n t  except  should  significant  selected,  s i g n i f i c a n t i n those  considered  o f the index  was  to indicate  Table  there  If  statement.  f o r an indeterminable  'I think  were  that  statistically  some h i s t o r i c a l  of the subject'.  applications  the items  final  should  account  a n d #12  2.08  test.  f o r a l l statements  superficial*  between  than  As c a n be seen  instrument  so  attitudes  would  a  of scores.  t h e two i n s t r u m e n t to each  their previous  i t i s possible  which  between  of significance  applications  f o r their  assumed  responses  'two-tailed'  to forget  the pairs  i t was  not indicate  .05 l e v e l  on a  respondents  sive  should  had t o be g r e a t e r  difference  time  reliable,  o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s  difference.  week  were  significant differences  cations fore  the c o r r e l a t i o n between  i s too comprehen-  i n scores  two c a s e s  and discarded.  learner  and The  satisfaction :  on a 9 p o i n t  Likert  (see Appendix E ) .  Learner  Satisfaction It  was  Index V a l i d i t y  difficult  to e s t a b l i s h  the v a l i d i t y  of the  TABLE  UNROTATED  FACTOR  RELIABILITY  OF  1  LOADINGS  LEARNER  2. The  TEST  SATISFACTION  Statement 1. The i n s t r u c t o r i s seldom w e l l pared f o r c l a s s  AND  pre-  instructor i s enthusiastic  Unrotated Factor t Loadina Value df--=131 . 66 1.51  RE-TEST INDEX  t prob df=22 .14  .66  0.33  .75  0.72  .47  3.  I am r a t h e r d i s a p p o i n t e d w i t h t h i s course  .56  4.  T h i s i s one o f t h e p o o r e s t c o u r s e s I have t a k e n  .72  -1.27  .22  5.  I am n o t l e a r n i n g  .44  -1.31  .21  6.  This course i s helping sonally  me  .55  -1.11  .28  7.  The i n s t r u c t o r c r e a t e d l e a r n i n g environment  a bad  8. 9.  a n y t h i n g new per-  .77  0.00  1.00  The i n s t r u c t o r c a r e s about my progress i n the courses  .78  0.00  .95  The  .45  course i s too s u p e r f i c i a l  10.  Class  11.  I think the i n s t r u c t o r teaching  time i s o f t e n  wasted  12.  I t h i n k t h e i n s t r u c t o r has a compreh e n s i v e knowledge o f t h e s u b j e c t  -2.49  . 02  .52  0.87  .40  .72  1.36  .30  .63  2.63  . 02  13.  The i n s t r u c t o r e s t a b l i s h e d good r a p p o r t .63 w i t h everybody i n t h e c l a s s  1.65  .11  14.  I t h i n k t h e i n s t r u c t o r has t r i e d t o t e a c h me what I wanted t o l e a r n  .52  -0.37  .72  15.  The  .78  -0. 65  . 52  16.  I have no r e s p e c t  17.  The i n s t r u c t o r never has time t o h e l p individuals  .18.  I t h i n k we a l l had a chance t o c o n t r i - .47 bute to the s e l e c t i o n of o b j e c t i v e s f o r t h i s course  19.  The i n s t r u c t o r encourages p e o p l e t o express t h e i r ideas  59  0.53  0. 63  20.  I regret  70  1.10  0.28  21.  O v e r a l l I would r a t e t h i s c o u r s e as v e r y good  2.08,  enjoys  instructor i s helpful  taking  p<-05  f o r the i n s t r u c t o r  t h i s course  78 47  70  -0.00 0.79 -0.21  -1.16  1. 00 0.44 0. 84  0.26  Learner able it  Satisfaction  indices  f o r use with  was n o t p o s s i b l e  concurrent  analysis vable  have  behaviour  in  adult  the  study  positive  a  class  the  study  p<.006).  was  should  training  be a  the  resultant  the  instructor.  ween w h e t h e r adult  I n d e x was It  ment  itself  resultant  would  index.  event.  Attendance  reasonable  significant of adult  (r =  satisfaction with  that  contribute The p a n e l  (r=  df- 5 1 9 ,  between  taught  by bet-  instruction  Satisfaction  . 1 6 , df=  592,  of the test  to the face v a l i d i t y judged  that  and  study  any  Learner  the methodology  o f experts  hope  t h e amount  i n this  had received  significant  with  by an i n s t r u c t o r  observed  and the p a r t i c i p a n t s  expect  during  might  an event  i n  between  .11,  educators  received  to  satisfaction  and attendance  o r n o t an i n s t r u c t o r  contended  or not the  Index  education  statistically  was a l s o  a learner's  scores  obser-  a n d many c l a s s e s  i t seemed  The c o r r e l a t i o n  education  Satisfaction  to identify  whether  significant correlation  learner  recognized  correlation  trainers  i n adult  to the  The observed  statistically  Further,  was made  the learning  n o n - c r e d i t , thus  Satisfaction  i t was  i s optional,  between  of the instrument's  the c o l l e c t i o n and  indicate  with  programs  and attendance.  Learner  in  would  correlation  the  of  which  compar-  available,  o f the Learner  during  An a t t e m p t  was s a t i s f i e d  were  a  there  o f the v a l i d i t y  were  1971) prior  Therefore,  t o be sought  education  and r e l i a b l e  participants  (Dick and Hagerty,  o f the data.  participant  adult  o f the study.  an i n d i c a t i o n  Index would  A s no v a l i d  t o o b t a i n an estimate  validity  implementation that  Index.  each  p<.001). develop-  of the item f o r  42 clarity would  o f e x p r e s s i o n and  indicate  event.  While  validity, of  content  the respondent's these  indicators  correlations  I n d e x s c o r e s may  be  LEARNING AND  the s t a t i s t i c a l  considered  learning  significance Satisfaction  to p r o v i d e a measure o f l e a r n e r  event.  INSTRUCTIONAL STYLE INDEX  A number o f learning  s a t i s f a c t i o n with a  t h a t the Learner  satisfaction with a learning  to ensure i t  a r e n o t e x h a u s t i v e measures o f  i t would appear from  the observed  i n an a t t e m p t  (LISI)  s t u d i e s have t e s t e d whether  particular  environments are a p p r o p r i a t e f o r p a r t i c u l a r  ality  types o r conceptual  1969;  Crew, 1968;  1972;  Murphy,  Gill,  1969,  levels  1973;  ( e . g . Ampene,  Hill,  Procaccini,  1971;  Instruments  developed  appropriate  f o r adults participating  activities.  For  this  for this  study,  an  1969;  Borger,  Hunt, 1971;  Santmire,  type of  19 73;  person-  Leuder,  1970).  s t u d y were n o t  i n part-time  instrument  was  considered  learning  required that  c o u l d measure the e x t e n t to which p a r t - t i m e a d u l t p a r t i c i p a n t s preferred  their  instructors  'instructor-centred' Likert-type  s c a l e was  t o assume a  'student-centred'  approach to i n s t r u c t i o n . c o n s t r u c t e d u s i n g the  Therefore,  following  1  I t s h o u l d be n o t e d D r s . B o s h i e r and F i e l d i n g c o n t r i b u t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the development o f L I S I .  or a  43 procedures. 1.  Seventy-four or  items r e p r e s e n t i n g 'andragogical',  'pedagogical' a t t i t u d e s towards l e a r n i n g and  i n s t r u c t i o n were generated ing',  through  'brainstorm-  r e f e r e n c e to the l i t e r a t u r e and o t h e r  scales. 2.  Four f a c u l t y members and graduate a d u l t education checked  the statements f o r  c l a r i t y and l a c k o f ambiguity  3.  students o f  to ensure t h a t  each statement  was c l e a r l y and simply worded.  Each statement  was typed on a separate  card.  A group o f seventeen.'judges  was con-  s c r i p t e d from the f a c u l t y and graduate i n adult education.  Each judge  s o r t e d the statements groups;  3 x 5  students  independently  i n t o the f o l l o w i n g f i v e  those where agreement with the statement  would i n d i c a t e a 'Highly A n d r a g o g i c a l " , gogical',  'Andra-  'Pedagogical' o r 'Highly P e d a g o g i c a l '  a t t i t u d e towards i n s t r u c t i o n and l e a r n i n g . Those items which they were unable  to s o r t  into  any one o f these c a t e g o r i e s were c o n s i d e r e d neutral.  Items which some judges  s o r t e d as  pedagogical and o t h e r s as a n d r a g o g i c a l were d i s c a r d e d , as were those judged In a l l , 64 statements s o r t i n g processes.  to be n e u t r a l .  remained f o l l o w i n g t h i s  These were examined and  e d i t e d by the judges f o r c l a r i t y o f e x p r e s s i o n .  The  first  draft  o f the index  20 5 n i g h t s c h o o l "technical  summer Data a)  participants  School, Vancouver  participants  i n Weekend  school  were  Some i t e m s either  therefore  Data  further which  were  initially  not l i k e l y  factor  of  above  and  a l l responses  i t appeared  twenty  retained  items  .3 b e c a u s e  one  were  was  though  they  i n the view  were then  completed  were d i s c a r d e d ,  f o r the f i n a l E).  first  factor  items  the data  ten items  the  Items  than  cycle  to  Items  on  Twenty-two  (see Appendix even  o f items.  o n more  further  another  were  among  i n an attempt  discarded.  d i s c a r d e d and A  and  they  attitudes  significantly  were  item.  instruction.  analyzed  discarded.  the index  were  f o r each  to d i s c r i m i n a t e  t h e number  factor  which  leaving  frequency  holding different  re-factored. during  and  calculated  significantly  also  i n U.B.C.  'motherhood' statements  d i d not load  loading  and  Institute,  follows:  were  reduce  unrotated  Seminars  deviation  learning  were  Vocational  end o f the s c a l e ;  respondents towards  by  a t Vancouver  d i s c a r d e d had n e a r l y  represented  b)  as  standard  distributions  at  completed  programs.  analyzed  Means,  was  version  Several d i d not  of the  items load  judges,  t h e s e o f To  s t a t e m e n t s  l e a r n i n g o r  d e t e r m i n e  S t y l e  c o u l d  to  75  t u t e .  u n d e r s t o o d ,  u n a b l e  and  and  p a r t i c i p a t e d i n  u p g r a d i n g  s p e a k i n g  T h e r e  were  c o m p l e t e d  r e s p o n d e n t s  had  i n s t r u c t i o n s  t h a t  was  t h e the  e a r l i e r  i n  no to  d i f f i c u l t y  o r  the  S i x t y - f i v e  w e r e a  l a r g e l y  v o c a t i o n a l  e v i d e n c e  on  i n d i c a t e t h a t  u n d e r s t a n d i n g  p h r a s i n g  o f  r-espondent-s  p a r t i -  Respondents  i n s t r u m e n t  s t u d e n t s  I n s t i -  t h e s e  a l l i t e m s .  the  f u r -  t h a t  development.  c l a s s .  t h a t  p r o v i d i n g  e n s u r e  i n s t r u m e n t  complete  n o n - E n g l i s h  to  a  Vancouver  V o c a t i o n a l  n o t  to  accompanying  c l a s s e s a t  Vancouver  c o m p l e t e d  p o p u l a t i o n  t e s t e d on  had  the  a  I n s t r u c t i o n a l  the  i t was  t a k e n  o f  i n d i c a t i o n s '  and  by  was  p a r t i c i p a n t s  i n  completed  Care  c i p a n t s  forms  be  S c h o o l  'good  L e a r n i n g  p a r t i c i p a n t s i n  T e c h n i c a l  s t a g e s  the  t h e . t a r g e t group  i n s t r u c t i o n s t h e r  be  i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e .  whether  Index  s i m i l a r  s h o u l d  the  t h o s e the the  s t a t e m e n t s ,  were  p r o f i c i e n t  E n g l i s h .  The  i n s t r u c t o r s ' v e r s i o n o f  s t r u c t e d  u s i n g  the  the  f i r s t  was  c o n s i d e r e d  the  f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e o f  (see  p e r s o n  same  Appendix  r a t h e r  t h a t  D).  t h i s  the  t e s t was  con-  s t a t e m e n t s  r e - w r i t t e n  t h a n  p e r s o n .  t h i r d  change the  would  m o d i f i e d  not  i n  I t a l t e r  v e r s i o n  46 L e a r n i n g and As  Instructional  Style  described earlier,  ment was  completed  enrolled  i n an u n d e r g r a d u a t e  computed on  on  two  Reliability  the complete  o c c a s i o n s by class.  research  t h e same 22  Student's  t was  The  paired  comparison  used which takes i n t o  account  instru-  students  t-tests  t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e r e s p o n s e s  a p p l i c a t i o n o f the t e s t . Student's  Index  were  on  each  formula f o r  the  correlations  between t h e p a i r s o f s c o r e s . T h e r e were no on e a c h  significant  d i f f e r e n c e s between s c o r e s  a p p l i c a t i o n o f the instrument except  q u e s t i o n s o n l y a t t h e end o f c l a s s ' , to  meet t h e needs o f i n d i v i d u a l  admits 'Covers  making a m i s t a k e  #16  a l l the m a t e r i a l  i n a course curriculum'. indicated  that  and  The  discarded. teen  The  statements  L e a r n i n g and  final  differences  Instructional  Style  Index  I n d i c a t o r s o f L e a r n e r and ( L I S I ) v a l i d i t y were n o t e a s y m e t h o d o l o g y was opportunities  signifi-  i t e m s were  v e r s i o n o f the index c o n s i s t e d o f  c a s t on a 9 p o i n t L i k e r t  designed  f o r the seventeen  six-  (see A p p e n d i x E ) .  Validity  Instructional  to s e l e c t .  to ensure  Scale  #19  obtained  s c o r e s b e t w e e n a p p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t were These f o u r u n r e l i a b l e  plans  'Never  i n f r o n t o f the whole c l a s s ' ,  cant i n these four cases.  ive  'Allows  'Changes l e s s o n  participants',  t values f o r these f o u r statements in  #5  f o r #2  The  Style  Index  index development  t h e r e were a number o f  e x p e r t judges  t o make s u b j e c t -  e v a l u a t i o n s o f the instrument's f a c e v a l i d i t y .  As  no  TABLE UNROTATED  FACTOR  RELIABILITY  OF  LOADINGS  LEARNING  STYLE  A good  2  INDEX  AND  AND  TEST  INSTRUCTIONAL  (LISI)  Unrotated Factor Loading  Instructor:  RE-TEST  t Value  <f/=204  t Prob. df =21  Creates a formal atmosphere  classroom  A l l o w s q u e s t i o n s o n l y a t the of class L e t s p a r t i c i p a n t s .set t h e i r objectives  I s the a b s o l u t e a u t h o r i t y on content  10 .  Make i t c l e a r he/she i s the a u t h o r i t y i n the c l a s s  11 .  D i s c o u r a g e s p a r t i c i p a n t s from c h a t t i n g d u r i n g c l a s s time  12 .  D e v e l o p s an atmosphere  13.  L e t s students s e t course goals  14.  P r e s e r v e s law and o r d e r i n the classroom  15.  I s the only s u b j e c t expert i n the classroom  19. 20.  in front  L e t s the p a r t i c i p a n t s d e c i d e what t h e y want t o l e a r n Encourages g e n e r a l c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s Covers a l l the m a t e r i a l i n a course curriculum Uses p a r t i c i p a n t s as whenever p o s s i b l e  >  2.08  . 03  .13  1.14  .26  .39  0.55  .59  .52  2.4  .02  '.63  1.39  ' .17  .48  0.70  .49  .32  1.16  .87  .11  1.56  .13  .62  0.15  .88  .37  0.25  .80  .68  0.15  .88  .21  0.24  .81  .46  1.94  .06-  .52  1.6  .12  .54  2.88  .01  .52  0.27  .78  .32  0.93  .36  .39  4.31  -01  .52  0.49  .6.2  i n f o r m a l classroom  Never admits making a mistake o f the whole c l a s s  t  2.55  behaviour  C o n d u c t s c l a s s around the needs and s k i l l s o f each p a r t i c i p a n t  18.  .43  course  D i s c o u r a g e s q u e s t i o n s because they can l e a d the c l a s s o f f the t o p i c  17.  . 32  from  Changes l e s s o n p l a n s to meet the needs of individual participants  16.  1.0  own  Discourages a d u l t students u s i n g h i s / h e r f i r s t name  S e t s d e f i n i t e s t a n d a r d s of in his/her class  .57 end  'contact e x p e r t s '  P  < -05  48  comparable v a l i d  and r e l i a b l e  i n d i c e s were a v a i l a b l e ,  n o t p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n measures o f L I S I v a l i d i t y data c o l l e c t i o n  phase o f t h e s t u d y .  i n d i c a t i o n s o f the Learner v a l i d i t y w o u l d be s o u g h t study.  Previous  Style  between a r e s p o n d e n t ' s  environments.  In t h i s  that  o f the  t h a t t h e r e w o u l d be a age a n d L I S I  s c o r e b e c a u s e o l d e r a d u l t s f e e l more c o m f o r t a b l e learning  to the  Index  the implementation  research suggested  negative correlation  prior  I t was r e c o g n i z e d  and I n s t r u c t i o n a l  during  i t was  study  i n structured  t h e r e was a  significant  n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n L I S I a n d age, s u g g e s t i n g older  respondents  activities did  their  that  p r e f e r r e d more s t r u c t u r e o r t e a c h e r - c e n t r e d  i n their  'preferred learning  younger peers  {r=  m i g h t a l s o be h y p o t h e s i z e d of post-secondary  environments'  than  -.29, df = 627, p < . 0 0 1 ) .  It  that individuals with a great deal  e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e w o u l d be more  to a c c e p t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  for their  learning,  and would  f o r e p r e f e r a s t u d e n t - c e n t r e d e n v i r o n m e n t and so g a i n LISI scores while  those  respondents  with  less  willing therehigh  previous  learn-  i n g e x p e r i e n c e w o u l d p r e f e r more s t r u c t u r e d e n v i r o n m e n t s a n d t h e r e f o r e have lower correlation  LISI scores.  positive  between h i g h e s t e d u c a t i o n a l achievement and L I S I  s c o r e was o b s e r v e d same p o p u l a t i o n  t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  in.the  ( r = .17, df = 634, p < . 0 0 1 ) .  These i n d i c a t o r s  of construct validity  exhaustive b u t the l a c k o f other cross-scale  reliability  of  style.  learning  This hypothesized  instruments  or v a l i d i t y  Nevertheless  checks  are not  p r e c l u d e d any  with other  t h e f a c e v a l i d i t y and  measures-  c o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n L I S I a n d age a n d y e a r s o f e d u c a t i o n and t h e t e s t , to and  be s u f f i c i e n t  retest  to indicate  reliability  were  post-secondary considered  t h a t L I S I would p r o v i d e a  r e l i a b l e measure o f a l e a r n e r ' s p r e f e r r e d l e a r n i n g  valid style.  50  CHAPTER  STUDY D E S I G N  The  hypotheses  selected  Community  College  term.  the intent of this  not  As  congruence  iated  with  was  night  adult  chapter,  data  collected  i n s t r u c t o r s i n two during  was  learner  i s  satisfaction  or  assoc-  and  a correlational  and l i m i t a t i o n s o f the study  fall  whether  classroom  the design,  from  Vancouver  t h e 1975  to i d e n t i f y  education  of the learner,  In t h i s  using  centres  study  persistence,  evaluation  implementation  tested  school  i n normal  selected.  MANAGEMENT  p a r t i c i p a n t s and  learner  instructor  AND  were  randomly  FOUR  design  organization, are  described.  POPULATION  The college in  continuing  vocational,  general est  population education  i n t e r e s t courses.  Services,  the f a l l  drawn  program  term  This  administration  administered  Education  was  t e c h n i c a l and academic  and b u s i n e s s  program  in  study  study  a t the Langara  i n 1975.  which  a  community  included  classes  subjects  as w e l l  involved  general  classes  by Vancouver  from  i n the night  Community and E r i c  College, Hamber  as inter-  school Community  Centres  The Langara  total  enrollment i n general i n t e r e s t  Campus was  6,081  y e a r , o f w h i c h 1,762 interest pants  courses  f o r an  average  term.  Hamber h a d  courses  f o r an a v e r a g e  term."*"  The  class  of  1,114  registrations  enrollment of  24 d u r i n g t h e  program i n c l u d e d s h o r t c l a s s e s w i t h  higher average  program.  course,  class  size  some p a r t i c i p a n t s may the e n r o l l m e n t t o t a l  number o f i n d i v i d u a l varied that  the e f f e c t s o f  classes with  classes  fewer  drop  fic  and  is likely  than  w o u l d n o t be  ten s e s s i o n s .  i n attendance  may  after fall  o r may  N e v e r t h e l e s s , to reduce to s i m p l i f y  s t u d y was  I n s t r u c t o r s and  f o r the  than  total  courses  I t was  considered  identified  in  Further, there i s a  the Christmas and w i n t e r  n o t be  very  the  the  vacation i n  terms.  i n d i c a t i v e of  the i n f l u e n c e o f  This incon-  'historical  t h e management o f t h e s t u d y ,  population for this  and  sessions.  fall  i n more  to exceed  In a d d i t i o n ,  to f i f t y  incongruence  post-vacation dropout  error'  one  that continue over both  gruence.  have r e g i s t e r e d  participants.  i n l e n g t h from  noticeable  i n the Langara  129  i n 45  which account  one  partici-  2,7 61 e n r o l l m e n t s i n  h i g h e n r o l l m e n t s , such as f i l m evenings,  As  general  Business Administration pro-  a total  i n t h e 1975/76 y e a r w i t h  at  1975/76  c l a s s e n r o l l m e n t o f 36  The  courses  Langara  c o u r s e s d u r i n g the  r e g i s t r a t i o n s were r e c e i v e d i n 48  d u r i n g the f a l l  gram a t E r i c  i n 184  courses  the  speci-  d e f i n e d as:  participants  i n general  interest  B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n c o u r s e s o f between  Enrollment S t a t i s t i c s d e n c e w i t h V.C.C.  obtained through  personal  correspon-  52  20  and  and  40  Eric  College  hours Hamber  during  duration  offered  Campuses  by  the  fall  at  the  Vancouver  term  of  Langara  Community  1975.  SAMPLE A  random  s a m p l e was  To  ensure  randomness,  at  Hamber  that  met  tion  were  ment  using  a  were  drawn  from  sample  the  assigned  instructors of  refused  general  of  per  class,  classes  cipate  but  included  classes  ence  and  for 44  from  classes with  slightly  Langara  were  participate  total  inclusion  numbers. 21  participants  the  sample  and  between  Langara  classes  cancelled  Another  As  a  and  45  in'the  classes  popula-  result, Three  in  the  at  Langara  an  population.  drawn w i t h o u t  Hamber.  more  study,  average than  to  do  the  average program,  so  descriptive from  of  Eric  21.3  sample class is a  selected and  one  instructor  instructors  enrollment  reported  21  refused  in  final  the were  participate.  class  at  the  50  replace-  23  classes  Langara  so  the  final  consisted class  of  20  enrollment  percent  of  the  population. Of  The  to  or  classes  and  random  interest  255  two  number  of  from  criteria  Langara  and  total  a  table  classes 12.7  a l l 39  drawn  and  from  instructor  permitted  h i m s e l f , so sections Hamber 385  his  data  of  the  consisted  on  per  class  enrollments, consequence  of  Hamber refused class this  of  for  class.  particular  the  to to  parti-  class  are  only.  eighteen  enrollments  in  program,  analysis  participants,  participants average  the  reporting  an  average  The  differ-  and  the  for  the  procedure  53 a d o p t e d  a t  b o t h  s e m i n a r s  or.  t r a t i o n s  i n  c l a s s  L a n g a r a  f i l m e a c h  c l a s s  the  'average'  the  p o p u l a t i o n  with  EMPIRICAL  h y p o t h e s e s  Learner  s a m p l e d  with  d e v e l o p e d  the  i n f o r m a t i o n accuracy  of  r e g i s t e r  t o w a r d s  of  as  of  a  i n d i v i d u a l  ' c l a s s ' .  Regis-  to  c a l c u l a t e  the  t o t a l  ten  s e m i n a r s ,  with  ten  s e m i n a r , t h u s  w o u l d  be  recorded  s i g n i f i c a n t l y  T h e s e  ' c l a s s e s '  t h i s  study.  i n d i c a t o r s  f o r  was  t h i s  w e r e  as  r a i s i n g  excluded  f r o m  attended  by  t o t a l  number  was these  study  e n t r i e s .  I n s t r u c t i o n  on  No  I n s t r u c t i o n a l  the  of  a v a i l a b l e  t e s t  f r o m  c l a s s  the  the  r e s e a r c h e r  T h e s e  d i s c r e p a n c i e s  m e a s u r e d  as  I n d e x  the  a  w e r e w e r e  of  i n s t r u c t i o n . To  c h e c k  c o n d u c t e d  l a t e r  a t  random c o m p a r e d  n o t e d .  A t t i t u d e s  Learning  (LISI).  of  p r o p o r t i o n  c l a s s e s  P a r t i c i p a n t with  h o u r s  r e g i s t e r s .  p e r i o d .  and  of  h o u r s  s e l e c t e d  S t y l e  to  number  r a n d o m l y  I n s t r u c t o r was  u s e d  p a r t i c i p a n t  r e g i s t e r s ,  the  b e t w e e n  as  the  obtained  w e r e  study.  d e f i n e d  h e a d c o u n t s  t h r o u g h o u t  C o n g r u e n c y  each  f o r  f o l l o w i n g  of  t i m e s  i n  summed  s e r i e s  s i z e .  p e r s i s t e n c e  unobtrusive  a  s e r i e s  scheduled  p a r t i c i p a n t s ,  c l a s s  c l a s s  This  w e r e  Thus  100  are  A  INDICATORS  The  the  s e s s i o n  e n r o l l e d  one  Hamber.  s e s s i o n s  enrollment.  p a r t i c i p a n t s  and  A  t o t a l  and index  54 s c o r e was  calculated  individual of  items  and  f o r each respondent  i t e m s c o r e s and  completed.  indicated  by  summing  the  C o n g r u e n c y between  e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t was  w h i c h t h e r e was  d i v i d i n g by  by  number  instructors  the e x t e n t  to  agreement between t h e i r t o t a l L I S I  scores.  Participant  S a t i s f a c t i o n was  faction  Index  culated  by  dividing  by  'learning used  A  the L e a r n e r ' s  t o t a l index item  t h e number o f i t e m s  of Learner's  the c o n c l u s i o n o f  were a s k e d  was  (LSI).  summing i n d i v i d u a l  Instructor's'perception At  m e a s u r e d on  as  scores  rank  the each  i n the c l a s s .  the measure o f  c e p t i o n of the L e a r n e r ' s  the  cal-  and  completed.  the course,  achievement'  s c o r e was  Learning  t o e v a l u a t e and  Satis-  Achievement. instructors student's Rank i n  instructor's  Learning  class  per-  Achievement.  DATA COLLECTION  Once c l a s s e s their trator  instructors  received  introducing  the second  class  t o be  and  included  a- l e t t e r  endorsing  a l l instructors  had  from  been i d e n t i f i e d , the c e n t r e  the study received  r e s e a r c h e r e n l i s t i n g c o o p e r a t i o n and  adminis-  (Appendix a letter  A).  from  At the  d e t a i l i n g the e x t e n t  to  which  p a r t i c i p a t i o n w o u l d  (Appendix  B).  they  w i l l i n g  were  I n s t r u c t o r s  the  i n s t r u c t o r s w o u l d the  p a r t i c i p a t e .  In  and  o u t l i n e d  and  to  e x p l a i n  d i d  w o u l d . b e  not  u n s u i t a b l e  Hamber, to  n o t  agreed the  two  37)  a t  t o  i n  a  to  b o t h  t h a t  commit-  manner  each  to  i n s t r u c t o r  to  p r o v i d e  g e n e r a l  i n t e r e s t  he  h i s  f e l t  another  p a r t i c i p a t e f o r  the  o t h e r  do  c e n t r e s  f e l t  t h e i r  r e q u i r e d  Langara  study;  to  i t was  met  t e a c h i n g  p e r s o n a l  i n s t r u c t o r s e x p r e s s e d  r e f u s e d  c o m p l e t i n g  q u a s i - f o r m a l  be  w h e t h e r  ensure c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y .  the  the  as  by  f u l f i l  p a r t i c i p a t e s i n c e  f o r  i n d i c a t e  study  l e t t e r  w o u l d  to  p a r t i c i p a t e and but  to  r e s e a r c h e r  they  taken  w i s h  p a r t i c i p a t e (n=  they  to  the  the  more, l i k e l y  a d d i t i o n ,  agree  A t  t o r s  i f  r e c o r d - k e e p i n g  r e q u i r e d  o f  i n s t r u c t o r i n  d i d  r e f u s e d  be  s t e p s  c l a s s e s E r i c  copy  i n f o r m a t i o n  One gram  s i g n e d  study  w e r e  e x t r a  p a r t i c i p a t e i n  r e t u r n i n g  to  a  to  and  ment  i n v o l v e  so  c l a s s two  reasons.  r e s e r v a t i o n s ,  a l l o w e d  h i m s e l f .  e x p r e s s e d  p r o -  h i s  c l a s s  A l l o t h e r  one to  i n s t r u c -  t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s  to  p a r t i c i p a t e . I n s t r u c t o r s t h i r d t h a t  c l a s s the  r e s e a r c h a d u l t had  next  c l a s s  a s k i n g  i n s t r u m e n t s  w e r e  b e e n  forewarned. t h e r e  no  p a r t i c i p a n t s completed  e x c l u d e d  ' p a i r w i s e '  from  i n f o r m a l  to  w o u l d  i n d i c a t e be  be  more the  o v e r t the the  note to  d u r i n g  the  t h e i r  s t u d e n t s  i n t e r r u p t e d w h i l e  a d m i n i s t e r e d .  D u r i n g  w e r e  an  them  s e s s i o n  p a r t i c i p a n t s w o u l d  i n s t r u m e n t a l l  s e s s i o n  r e c e i v e d  l i k e l y  I t to  was  c o o p e r a t e  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  d i s p l a y s  o f  i n s t r u m e n t . a n a l y s i s .  f e l t  o f  the t h a t  i f the  d i s p l e a s u r e , M i s s i n g  they  data  and was  56  At  Vancouver  for  Community  the  third  Education  class  registration  forms  Each  name i n t h e . l i s t  and  i n t h e sample  indicating  student  were  Class  Each  i n a similar The  fourth  class  data  interest centre  research session.  collection classes,  instruments  while  t h e Head  instruments,  page,  w h i c h was  their  name d i d n o t a p p e a r  sent  they  registered  instrument.  participants classes,  This  identification class  number  instrument the participant's  with  the code  instruments  completed  centre  Teacher  were  during the  asked  with  a t the Eric  t o remove  their  name,  nights.  i n t h e sample 3 85 w e r e high  that  itself. i n the twenty  255 w e r e  t h e r e were  o f eighteen  present rate  and to note  o f whom  Although  received  the instruction  registered  sample  Hamber  t h e sample o f  on the instrument  interest  apparent  f o r the general  As p a r t i c i p a n t s  407 p a r t i c i p a n t s  collection  Administration  were  collection.from  were  identified  i n the general  on data  four part  The r e s e a r c h e r p e r s o n a l l y a d m i n i s t e r e d  a t the Langara  were  student  fashion.  their  classes  a  Instructor  Administration classes.  There  after  made o f a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s .  sets o f the research  itself.  registrations  collected for  page and i d e n t i f i e d  supervised the data  Business  were  o n e was p e r s o n a l i z e d w i t h  on the instrument  identified  the  and a l i s t  session  the centre,: night o f class,  name o n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n number  registers  few  are accepted  the third  was a l l o c a t e d  number.  prepared.  After  and c l a s s  class  College very  Services classes  session.  each  number,  Community  529  Business  to complete  o f absentism  pre-  the  (31%) b y t h e  57  f o u r t h  week  w i t h d r a w a l s c a r d s .  f e l t  c l a s s  done  t h i s  s o r t i n g  t h e i r  o nt h e f i r s t  p r o c e s s  n i g h t  n e e d s  s t y l e  d u r i n g  a n d  t h e f i r s t i n t o  w i t h  v e r y  a  STUDY  DATA  COLLECTION  b u t  r e f l e c t e d  r e g i s t r a t i o n w a s l i t t l e  c o u n s e l l i n g  4  A N D ORGANIZATION-  CHART  ACTIVITY I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of  Population  I  Sample S e l e c t i o n  —  1 month p r i o r t o c l a s s commencement  —  J-  1 week p r i o r to s t a r t o f class  A l l i n s t r u c t o r s r e c e i v e a l e t t e r from — c e n t r e a d m i n i s t r a t o r e n l i s t i n g support for the study  I  A l l i n s t r u c t o r s r e c e i v e l e t t e r from r e s e a r c h e r o u t l i n i n g the study and their responsibilities  Researcher meets with i n s t r u c t o r t o d i s c u s s study  Instructors return participate'  Instructors receive informal reminder  I  Students complete instrument Class  'agreement to research  Instructor evaluations registers collected  Second c l a s s  Third class  and c l a s s  session  session  Fourth c l a s s  All  observations  t  i n d i c a t e  a s s i s t a n c e .  Fig.  few  c l a s s  i n t e r e s t s . I  d i d n o t  w h e r e  o r  r e g i s t r a t i o n  i n c o n g r u e n c e ,  a tV . C . C .  o fc l a s s  t r a n s f e r s  i nt h e  themselves  o u t p r o c e s s  o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l s e l e c t i o n  t oc l a s s  a p p a r e n t  t o s o r t  w i t h  due  b yc h a n g e s  become  t e n d  c o n g r u e n t  t h a t  p e r s o n a l i t y the  g o a l s  p a r t i c i p a n t s  appears  was  i s p r o b a b l y  n o t y e t r e f l e c t e d  A sc o u r s e  c l a s s e s , t h a t  o fc l a s s e s  session  remaining  Final class  classes  session  58 A t t e n d a n c e random  to  check  t a i n e d  by  the  i n s t r u c t o r s and  the  p r o v i d e d  A l l b u t  program  a t  i n s t r u c t o r s  i n  n o t  p r o v i d e  a l l the  a r e  i n c l u d e d  the  E r i c  r e c o r d s  end  c l a s s ,  w i t h  each  Hamber  d a t a  o f  the  a t t e n d a n c e  the  p r o v i d e d  m a i n -  r e c o r d s  B u s i n e s s  u s a b l e  i n t e r e s t c o u r s e s  r e q u i r e d .  p o s s i b l e  a t  p a r t i c i p a n t ' s l e a r n i n g  i n s t r u c t o r i n  g e n e r a l  the  where  keypunched  t a b u l a t i o n  o f  i n f o r m a t i o n  Data  i n ..the  a t  f o r  A d m i n i -  d a t a .  S i x  Langara  d i d  t h e s e  c l a s s e s  a n a l y s i s .  as  a t  Computing  the  each  U.B.C.  The  o c c u p a t i o n s  was  to  used  o c c u p a t i o n  o r  p r e v i o u s  u n e m p l o y e d  o r  had  r e s p o n d e n t s  c o n s i d e r e d  r e c o r d  d i d by  two  c o n s i d e r e d  to  r e f l e c t  s i b i l i t i e s  o f  the  the  the  o c c u p a t i o n s appear  judges more  the  and  s t u d y  coded  C e n t r e . to  A  o r  a w a r d e d  a c c u r a t e l y  p o s i t i o n d e s c r i b e d .  p r e s e n t l y  o f  B l i s h e n  the  the  the  spouse. t h e i r  index.  They  B l i s h e n  d u t i e s  These  o b v i o u s o f  d e s c r i p t i o n s o f  i n .the and  f o r  p r e s e n t  were  o c c u p a t i o n  d a t a ,  Index  r e s p o n d e n t s ' i f they  was  s i m p l e  check  Socio-Economic  o c c u p a t i o n  n o t  s c o r e  c o n d u c t e d  B l i s h e n  r e t i r e d and gave  which  raw  v a r i a b l e was  e r r o r s .  o c c u p a t i o n  c o l l e c t e d f o r  p o s s i b l e b o t h  keypunching  were  o f  a l l c l a s s e s  CODING  r e c o r d e d  Some  the  f o r  a t t e n d a n c e  r e s e a r c h e r  one  wherever  A l l  and  the  n o t e d  o f  A t  t h e i r s u b j e c t i v e r a n k i n g  s t r a t i o n  were  r e l i a b i l i t y  i n s t r u c t o r s .  achievement.  DATA  p a t t e r n s  and  c o d i n g  code r e s p o n -  d e c i s i o n s  59 are  shown  i n Appendix  LIMITATIONS  OF  In from  a lack  error  STUDY  any f i e l d  o f study  o f c o n t r o l , which  and t h e r e b y  ficant  reduce  population  duration The  tested  increase  identified school  i n an urban  the variance  of identifying  due t o signi-  identified  f o r this  study  i s restricted  upon  the instruments  used  and only  f o r the.i i n s t r u m e n t  It  be wrong  cance,  since  instruments precise  to conclude  selected  relationships. i s  researchers  that  were  inappropriate  unable  to identify  While drawn  these  to these  are cognizant  problems issues  of this  or  results i s  a  not verified.  i s o f no  signifi-  be t h a t t h e  insufficiently  existing  are true to ensure  study's  number o f  Further,  would  be  t o t h e sample  used.  congruence  could  the constructs.  e f f e c t s were  an a l t e r n a t i v e hypothesis  and so were  attention  congruence  only  i n time.  empirical  t o measure  population  of hypothesized  many  o f the study's  the results are generalizable  number  restricted  20 a n d 40  study  to a limited  Therefore,  may  o f between  the a p p l i c a t i o n o f a great  This  was  at a particular point  i n d i c a t o r s and the v a l i d i t y  dependent  f o r the study  programs  area  propositions  through  indicators. those  may  a r e problems r e s u l t i n g  the likelihood  participants i n night  hours  there  relationships. The  to  THE  C.  significant  of a l l studies, that  future  limitations.  60 CHAPTER  F I V E  RESULTS  The w h e t h e r s t y l e  Previous sonal  p u r p o s e  c o n g r u e n c e  and  l e a r n e r  primary  b e t w e e n  i n s t r u c t o r ' s  of  the  t h i s  l e a r n e r ' s  t e a c h i n g  s t y l e  s a t i s f a c t i o n , p e r s i s t e n c e r e s e a r c h  on  incongruence  c o n g r u e n c e  may  a l s o  study  has  to  l e a r n i n g  a s s o c i a t e d  l e a r n i n g i n d i c a t e d  i n f l u e n c e  d e t e r m i n e  p r e f e r r e d  i s  and  was  w i t h  a c h i e v e m e n t . t h a t  v a r i o u s  i n t e r p e r -  o u t c o m e s  of  i n s t r u c t i o n . This T h e r e the  w e r e  chapter  three  c o m p u t a t i o n  (LISI) p a n c y data  scores,  of  scores.  The  c o l l e c t e d  to  r e g r e s s i o n  w h i c h  p h a s e s  s i n g l e  s a t i s f a c t i o n ,  the  The  Learner  and  Index  the  compare  and  c o n t r a s t  d o u b l e  p e r s i s t e n c e  i n i t i a l  a n a l y s i s  were  generated  then to  (congruence) and  the;  data  The  f i r s t  I n s t r u c t i o n a l  S a t i s f a c t i o n  h y p o t h e s e s  of  a n a l y s i s .  was  equations and  the  r e s u l t s  s e c o n d  DATA  The  to  Learners  p a r t i c i p a n t s . of  p r e s e n t s  the  d i s c r e -  socio-economic  t e s t e d  v a r i a b l e s  Index  and  Hamber  examine  i n v o l v e d  S t y l e  scores, of  a n a l y s i s .  and  and  the  L a n g a r a  a  s e r i e s  e x t e n t  p r e d i c t  to l e a r n e r  a c h i e v e m e n t .  ANALYSIS  d e v e l o p m e n t  PHASE  of  the  ONE  two  i n d i c e s  c o n s t r u c t e d  61  for  t h i s s t u d y was  indices during  were r e - e x a m i n e d and the study  structure faction theses  d e s c r i b e d i n an  retested  be o b s e r v e d .  I n d e x s c o r e s were t h e n  students  achievement',  with  and  computed.  To  correlated  with  'attendance',  and  'student  required.  a d o p t e d was  the d i f f e r e n c e  between t h e  f o r each v a r i a b l e ,  instructor.  and  Instructional  discrepancy  Calculation  o f L e a r n i n g and  obtained  through  Instructional Learning  that all  Style and  the  the  participant  measure o f  instructor  data  learner's  analysis  The  between learner  Learning Index  process  and  Style  Index  preferred  and  the :  Style  638  I n d e x was  negatively  scored  same d i r e c t i o n , a r e s p o n d e n t ' s summing a c r o s s a l l i t e m s .  total  valid  only  w i t h a l l items  i f the  loading  index i n the  Scores  learning  of the L e a r n i n g  c o u l d be o b t a i n e d by  unidimensional  learner  between t h e  ( L I S I ) c o m p l e t e d by  Instructional  s c o r e w o u l d be  congruence  and  Satisfaction  Instructional  the application Index  their  section.  o n c e t h e p o s i t i v e l y and coded i n the  The  Index, L e a r n e r  in this  A measure o f  The  of  s c o r e s were c a l c u l a t e d .  r e s u l t s are reported  and  hypo-  satisfaction', a  incongruence  I n Phase One Style  Satis-  the g r e a t e r the d i f f e r e n c e  scores, the g r e a t e r the  and  was  so  factor  t e s t the  'rating of  ' c o n g r u e n c e ' was  these  collected  Learner  instructors  measure o f  scores  These  the data  LISI  c o n g r u e n c y between t h e  w o u l d be  section.  to determine whether o r not a s i m i l a r  could s t i l l  that  earlier  style  and  participants.  designed  so  statements total The  proved  were  score  resultant to  be  same d i r e c t i o n  on  62  t h e  f i r s t  u n r o t a t e d  d e v e l o p m e n t  o f  f a c t o r .  T h i s  t h e L e a r n i n g  a n d  h a d been  t h e c a s e  I n s t r u c t i o n a lS t y l e  N e v e r t h e l e s s ,  t h e i n s t r u m e n t  c h e c k  o r n o t t h e f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e o b s e r v e d  whether  i n s t r u m e n t ' s c o l l e c t e d  d e v e l o p m e n t  d u r i n g As  o b s e r v e d a l l  d u r i n g  i t e m s  f i r s t  seen  mean  r a t h e r  t h a n  e n t s  d i d n o t r e s p o n d  m i n g  t h e s c o r e s r e s p o n d e d  t h e  t h e sum  o f  t h e y  s c o r e  than  to  d i f f e r e n c e i n a t t i t u d e a n d  s c o r e h a d  s o u r c e  the  mean  n o t  r e s p o n d  were  would  o n  a n d  d i v i d e d b y b o t h  o n  was  i t e m  b y  t h e i t e m s .  a s  s e v e r a l  The  r e s p o n d -  t h e i n s t r u m e n t s . i n f a v o u r  c o n s i d e r  Sum-  o f  two  t h o s e  r e s -  a t t i t u d e s toward a l l  t h e i n d e x .  However a  s o would  o n e  l o w e r  t o t a l  b e a t t r i b u t e d  i n c r e a s e t h e  a n a l y s i s .  However,  t h e number  o f  would  t h e same  f r o m  t h e  d e r i v e d  I t was  i t e m s  t h a t  e a c h  e a c h  i n d e x  c o n s i d e r e d  t h e a n a l y s i s .  v a r i a n c e  i f  p r e f e r a b l e t o d e l e t i n g r e s p o n d e n t s  t o e v e r y  o n  t o  t h e d a t a  h a v e  w i t h  r e s p o n d e n t ' s  d i f f e r e n c e c a n n o t  e r r o r i s removed. b e  s t u d y .  r e p e a t e d  a  t h e r e f o r e h a s  T h i s  s u b s e q u e n t  completed, o f  i t e m s ,  t h e o t h e r .  t o e r r o r i n a n y  pondent t h i s  two  u s e d  s t r o n g p o s i t i v e  i t e m  t o t a l  was  F o r example,  r e s p o n d  t h e  d a t a  d i r e c t i o n  s c o r e  t h e r e s p o n s e s  i t e m .  t h e  was  T h e r e f o r e ,  s c o r e s  d u r i n g  t h i s  development  t h e r e f o r e b i a s  i n d i c a t i n g  o f  t o  t h e f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e  t o a l lt h e i t e m s  would  t o w h i c h  o f  w i t h  i n t h e same  m i s s e d  due  phase  T a b l e . 3,  r e s p o n d e n t  a  i n e f f e c t  638).  v a l u e  t o e v e r y  b o t h  i t e m s  (n=  Index.  f a c t o r a n a l y s e d  I n s t r u c t i o n a lS t y l e I n d e x t h e mean  pondents  f r o m  f a c t o r  c a l c u l a t i n g  who  r e m a i n e d  l o a d i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y  a n d  a g a i n  t h e i n s t r u m e n t ' s  u n r o t a t e d  L e a r n i n g  was  t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  c a n b e  d u r i n g  r e s -  s c o r e ,  t h a t who  a n d  u s i n g d i d  T h e r e s u l t a n t  TABLE COMPARISON OBSERVED  O F T H E UNROTATED DURING  A P P L I C A T I O N  LOADINGS  A N D FINAL  O F LEARNING A N DINSTRUCTIONAL INDEX  (LISI)  Instructor:  "pfn5? Pinal Application ~ t e d  d  Creates a formal atmosphere 2.  FACTOR  T H E DEVELOPMENT  STYLE  A Good  3  /  6  3  a  c  t  7  classroom  Lets p a r t i c i p a n t s set t h e i r objectives  F  loading Instrument Development <f/=204 o  r  .45  .57  '.29  .13  .37  .39  .45  .63  . 50  .43  own  3.  Discourages a d u l t students u s i n g h i s / h e r f i r s t name  4.  I s the a b s o l u t e a u t h o r i t y on content  5.  Sets d e f i n i t e standards o f in his/her class  6.  D i s c o u r a g e s q u e s t i o n s because they c a n l e a d the c l a s s o f f the t o p i c  .43  .32  7.  Conducts the c l a s s around the needs and s k i l l s o f each p a r t i c i p a n t  .21  .11  8.  Makes i t c l e a r he/she i s the a u t h o r i t y i n the c l a s s  . 55  .62  9.  D i s c o u r a g e s p a r t i c i p a n t s from c h a t t i n g d u r i n g c l a s s time  .33  .37  10.  Develops an i n f o r m a l c l a s s r o o m atmosphere  .38  .68  11.  Lets students s e t course g o a l s  .38  .21  12.  P r e s e r v e s law and o r d e r i n the c l a s s room  .48  .46  classroom "  .47  .52  .31  .52  .26  .32  .20  . 52  13.  1  14. they* 15.  6  wlVtT&  p  "  e  «  course  behaviour  the  tS d6Cide  Encourages g e n e r a l c l a s * * i ' discussions Uses p a r t i c i p a n t s a= • whenever p o s s i b l e " t experts' c  16.  X  from  i  a  s  c  s  o  n  t  e  Eigenvalue Percentage  v a r i a n c e accounted  for  2 60 47. 1%  3.66 20.40%  64  LISI  s c o r e s had  a mean o f  6.02  and  a standard  deviation  of  0.94.  Calculation  of Learner  In a l l , 635 Satisfaction Style that in  Index.  Satisfaction participants  As w i t h  Index, the L e a r n e r  I n d e x s c o r e c o u l d be Responses to t h i s factor All This  structure  items  loaded  indicated  significantly  ents  had  responded  item  scores without  n o t p r o v i d e an score.  scale by  Therefore,  the  completed.  resultant  a mean o f  Calculation  7.43  computed as  and  as  Learner  s c o r e and  the  the  development.  and  factor. a  several  index,  summing  responses  Satisfaction deviation  Index  of  the  Index  the  would  Index s c o r e  t h e mean s c o r e o f  total  respond-  Satisfaction  Satisfaction  of  items scores  0.98.  Indicators c o n g r u e n c e s c o r e s were  the a b s o l u t e d i f f e r e n c e  instructor's  responses.  unrotated  As  the  coded  to check  for missing  Learner  Instructor-participant culated  on  so  Satisfaction  unidimensional,  a standard  o f Congruence  were  instrument's  summing i t e m s .  Learner  was  Learner  the- f i r s t  was  compensating  items  analysed  the  on  developed  summing i t e m  to a l l items  each respondent  had  by  appropriate total  The  phrased  Learner  Instructional  I n d e x was  a respondent's  revealed during  s c o r e c o u l d be o b t a i n e d not  negatively  calculated  the  the  t h e L e a r n i n g and  i n d e x were f a c t o r  that  Scores  completed  Satisfaction  when p o s i t i v e l y and  t h e same d i r e c t i o n ,  Index  or discrepancy  student's  s c o r e on  the  cal-  between same  the  TABLE COMPARISON OBSERVED  4  O F UNROTATED  DURING  A P P L I C A T I O N  FACTOR  T H EDEVELOPMENT  O F THE.LEARNER  LOADINGS A N D FINAL  SATISFACTION  INDEX u n r o t a t e a F a c t o r Loading' Final Instrument Application Development df=635 df=131 The for  i n s t r u c t o r i s seldom w e l l class  2 .  The  instructor is  3 .  I am r a t h e r d i s a p p o i n t e d w i t h t h i s course  4 .  T h i s i s one o f I have taken  enthusiastic  the  poorest  courses  5 .  I am  not  6 .  This  course i s helping  7 .  The i n s t r u c t o r c r e a t e d environment  8 .  The i n s t r u c t o r c a r e s about my i n the c o u r s e  9 .  C l a s s t i m e i s o f t e n wasted  learning  prepared  anything me  new personally  a bad  learning progress  m  . 2 9  .6 6  . 4 2  .6 0  . 7 1  . 5 6  . 6 3  . 7 2  .5 1  . 4 3  . 3 5  .5 5  . 4 8  . 7 7  . 4 3  . 7 8  . 5 2  . 5 5 •  1 0 .  I t h i n k the i n s t r u c t o r e n j o y s  . 5 6  . 7 2  1 1 .  The i n s t r u c t o r e s t a b l i s h e d good r a p p o r t w i t h everybody i n the c l a s s  . 6 4  . 6 3  1 2 .  I t h i n k the i n s t r u c t o r has t r i e d t e a c h me what I wanted to l e a r n  . 7 0  . 5 2  . 7 4  . 7 8  1 3 .  The  1 4 .  I have no  1 5 .  The i n s t r u c t o r never has individuals  1 6 .  1 7 .  teaching  to  instructor i s helpful respect  for this  instructor  time to  help  I t h i n k we a l l had a chance to c o n t r i bute to the s e l e c t i o n o f o b j e c t i v e s for t h i s course The i n s t r u c t o r encourages p e o p l e express t h e i r ideas  1 8 .  I regret  1 9 .  O v e r a l l I would r a t e v e r y good  taking  to  t h i s course t h i s course  as  Eigenvalue  Percentage o f  the v a r i a n c e accounted  for  . 5 7  . 7 8  . 4 5  . 4 7  . 2 6  . 4 7  . 4 5  .5 9  . 5 2  . 7 0  . 6 0  . 7 0  5 . 3 3  1 2 . 3 6  6 7 . 9 %  3 3 . 4 %  66 variable. a  For  25 y e a r  w o u l d be  example t h e d i s c r e p a n c y  old participant 25 —  discrepancy responses  47  of  = 22;  22  age,  achievement,  recorded  indicate  the magnitude o f  i n which the  cating was is  observed actual to  to respond  the  the  behaviours.  arithmetic  that  -10  actual  o v e r a l l responses  and  In f a c t  magnitude of  the d i s c r e p a n c y  and  present  participant  and  not  in the  scores  the  direcindi-  scores  hypotheses, that  i t  should  dictate  s c o r e s were shown positives  example,  with  incongruence  between t h e s e  or  t h e mean o f zero,  those as two  of  as  negatives  the c a l c u l a t i o n  s c o r e w o u l d be  t h e r e was  and  and  participant  itself  including  For  Learner the  study's  were c o n g r u e n t  instructor.  rating of  calculated  incongruence,  difference  following  T h i s method o f  I f the d i s c r e p a n c y  differences,  f o r the  These d i s c r e p a n c y  occurs.  to the  t h e means w o u l d be m i s l e a d i n g . and  not  incongruence  show t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e  +10  a  student's  to the v a r i a b l e  incongruence  incongruence  the magnitude o f  the  or  of f u l l - t i m e  If either  s c o r e was  according  years  income, and  as m i s s i n g d a t a .  since  and  Blishen  c o n g r u e n c e between i n s t r u c t o r  selected  instructor  school, highest educational  family  failed  the d i s c r e p a n c y  between  'age'.  education,  response  tion  old  instructor's  Index s c o r e .  had  f o r age  i s a difference,  number o f c h i l d r e n ,  Style  instructor  question,  i s , there  of high  income, t o t a l  Instructional or the  years  sex,  year  s c o r e s were c a l c u l a t e d  post-secondary  occupation,  h i s 47  between t h e  Discrepancy  part-time  that  to the v a r i a b l e  variables:  and  score  of  a  indicating the  t h e mean o f participants  the  67  and  t h e i r  score'  i n s t r u c t o r  value  d i f f e r e n c e  i s '10'.  f o r e a c h was  a l s o  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  o f  v a r i a b l e ,  t h e  to  t h i s  E r i c  to  a s s i s t  w i t h  Hamber  A N A L Y S I S  s e c t i o n  a n d  t o  o f t h i s  i n c l u d e d  a s  i s t i c s  o f  L a n g a r a  chapter.  i n d e p e n d e n t  t h e extent  c o u l d  p r e d i c t  and  i n s t r u c t o r  the  r e p o r t i n g  the  i n s t r u c t o r s  recorded  PHASE  'discrepancy  a r i t h m e t i c )  t o a s s i s t  i n t h e  TWO  i n s t r u c t o r s  samples.  t h e c o n g r u e n c e  s e c t i o n s  ( o r  t h e s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  r e s p e c t  d e t e r m i n e  a n d  t h e  results.  c o m p a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  the  t o  t h e a c t u a l  c a l c u l a t e d  DATA  In  I n a d d i t i o n  o f  l e a r n e r  e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e d u r e ,  d i s c u s s e d these  student  w e r e  analyses  p e r f o r m a n c e .  s e p a r a t e l y  g r o u p s  l a t e r  t o  c h a r a c t e r -  l e a r n e r  t h e s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  i s presented  data  p e r s i s t e n c e , To  s i m p l i f y  d e s c r i p t i o n  from  t h a t  i n  p r o v i d e d  i n  s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  s a t i s f a c t i o n ,  o f  a r e b e t w e e n  i n r e g r e s s i o n  these  presented  p a r t i c i p a n t s  d i f f e r e n c e s  I n a d d i t i o n ,  t o w h i c h  a n d  i s  T h e s e data  e f f e c t s  v a r i a b l e s  data  o f  o f  t h e  p a r t i c i p a n t s .  S o c i o - E c o n o m i c Of E r i c study,  Hamber  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  t h e t w e n t y who  nineteen  o f  i n s t r u c t o r s  e x p r e s s e d a t L a n g a r a  a  I n s t r u c t o r s a t L a n g a r a  w i l l i n g n e s s a n d  eighteen  a n d nineteen  t o c o o p e r a t e a t E r i c  i n t h e  Hamber  a t  68  completed  the socio-economic section  of the research  instru-  ment. The years  and t h e i r  instructors tors  a v e r a g e age o f t h e Hamber i n s t r u c t o r s ages  from  from  26 t o 67 y e a r s .  The L a n g a r a  than t h e i r  instructors  Hamber c o u n t e r p a r t s  instruction  i n managerial or professional  faculty  are recruited  titioners  teach general  offer  instruction  which  they a r e knowledgeable,  interest  i n a particular  instructors  achievement completing  appear  i s male  dominated.  or subject  expertise  area i n  i s not neces-  t o b e some d i f f e r e n c e s  o f t h e two s a m p l e s  previous educational ranged less  experience.  than grade  Hamber who h a d c o m p l e t e d  completed  had c o m p l e t e d  at least  whom h a d s t u d i e d  The h i g h e s t instructor  a university  full-time  to their educational who  reported  degree as w e l l as  Two Hamber  instructors  school, while the others  12 y e a r s o f s c h o o l .  full-time  between  t e n , t o s i x a t Langara and seven  eight years i n high  received.some  with regard  f r o m one L a n g a r a  some o t h e r t e r t i a r y q u a l i f i c a t i o n .  had  The  age o r s e x b i a s e d . There would  only  areas.  programs a t Langara  skill  their  provides  and e x p e r i e n c e d p r a c -  i n t h e b u s i n e s s community, w h i c h  t h o s e who  sarily  subject  ranged These  a s t h e Hamber p r o g r a m  from s u c c e s s f u l  While  at  ages  23 t o 53 y e a r s w i t h a mean o f 37.7 y e a r s o l d . a r e n o t unexpected  instruc-  t e n d e d t o be  as t h e i r  differences  the  A l l Hamber  were m a l e , w h i l e e l e v e n o f t h e " 2 1 L a n g a r a  were f e m a l e .  younger  ranged  was 47.3  In addition,  post-secondary t r a i n i n g , f o r more t h a n f i v e y e a r s .  seven  three of As might  69  be  expected  of  occupations, commitment more  had  studied  had  a  (61  seven  at  than  five  of  had  studied  least  five  reflects  their  gram  in  business,  been  an  accepted  have  less  training reflect  the  where  Blishen  instructors  who  reported  spouses  70.00  or  differences Hamber  eight  are  most  while  The  two for  five  of  instructors  index;  l i k e l y  per  index,  cent  two to  while  done  so  of  had  fact  were  male  with  managerial  more  than  half  of  the  Hamber  pro-  learning  has  in  industry,  more  part-time do  of  groups  status the  not  training.  these  only of  for  backgrounds  Langara  Hamber  the  years.  as  22  were  rated  per  similar  cent status.  occupations spouses. that or  Langara  of  Hamber  occupations  occupations  only due  at  Eleven  five  the  pattern  Langaraiinstructors with  and  between  present  had  in  occupational  76  their  had  advancement  education  their  instructors  full-time,  part-time  development  to  remainder  educational  plus  differences  the  least  Instructors  personal  part-time  training.  these  in  significant  Langara  years at  a  and  academic  difference  Blishen  compared  instructors  occupations,  the  years  years.  least  and  instructors  of  over  respect  on  four  full-time  some  the  The  at  while  by  Langara  three  management were  for  full-time  measured  the  six  experience  with  of  studied  for  job',  same  above  had  traditional  instructors  or  Five  milieu.  model  the  There  60.00  training..  The  traditional 'on  made  part-time,  working  managerial  had  studied  years.  or  cent)  completed  whom h a d  professional  per  for  and more had  (72  years,  part-time  cent)  with  majority  part-time  stronger  per  Ten  the  to  for  individuals  a l l  rated  These the  professional instructors  70  were* f e m a l e . compensated examined.  This  family gross  higher  cent of  family  t h a n $17,000, and  reported  none o f  certificate  i t appeared that  o f whom had program.  had  None o f  i n any  c o u r s e s on  and  teaching  only  L a n g a r a and  centre.  In  384  assist  i n the  in  l a t e r sections  where t h e  adults  $17,000. faculty  Hamber  i n the  and  teaching  had  f i v e reported  had  faculty  certificates  of  completed  a  any  participating  none o f w h i c h were p a r t  are  the  of  Participants  enrolled  i n twenty  socio-economic  described  interpretation of  of  i n nineteen classes  this section  these p a r t i c i p a n t s  the  excess  Hamber f a c u l t y had  adults,  the  program.  T h e r e were 2 54  of  than  diplomas or  the  Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  at  reported  incomes i n  than the  teaching  received  Forty-  gross  three  Langara  i n some t r a i n i n g  teacher t r a i n i n g ,  held  the  in instruction  formal  credit  Income' i s  reported  less  be  Incomes were  only  family  them r e c e i v e d  participated  two  should  $25,000, w h i l e h a l f  gross  f i v e Langara i n s t r u c t o r s  adults,  instructors  incomes i n e x c e s s o f  $25,000 and  s e v e n had  'Gross F a m i l y  Gross F a m i l y  Langara  less  more f o r m a l , t r a i n i n g  a  variable  instructors  than t h e i r Lanagara c o u n t e r p a r t s .  the  incomes o f  Overall  as  among t h e  Hamber i n s t r u c t o r s '  Hamber i n s t r u c t o r s of  bias  f o r when t h e  significantly three per  sex  of  the  and  at  the  classes Eric  characteristics  compared so  as  congruency e f f e c t s  t h i s chapter.  Only those  d i f f e r e n c e s , i n d i s t r i b u t i o n were  Hamber  to noted  variables  statistically  71  significant  are discussed.  Of  t h e 634 p a r t i c i p a n t s  economic s e c t i o n cent)  who c o m p l e t e d  o f the research instrument,  were male a n d 286 (45.1 p e r c e n t )  statistically  significant difference  the socio-  34 8  (54.9 p e r  female.  T h e r e was a  i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f 2  participants £)<.0001).  Nearly  were women of  those  by s e x a n d p r o g r a m c e n t r e two-thirds o f those  (62.4 p e r c e n t ) w h i l e  enrolled  was e x p e c t e d  (x  = 4 9 . 9 , df - 633,  enrolled  two-thirds  a t E r i c Hamber w e r e men.  a t Langara  (66.4 p e r c e n t ) This  difference  as t h e program emphasis a t each c e n t r e  differs.  The  Hamber p r o g r a m p r o v i d e s t r a i n i n g i n M a n a g e r i a l  Skills  and  therefore attracts  aspirations,  i n d i v i d u a l s with managerial  t h e m a j o r i t y o f whom a r e male, w h i l e women a r e t h e most participants offered  i n a g e n e r a l i n t e r e s t program such  a t Langara.  Four  participants  usual  as that  a t Langara  were  six-  t e e n y e a r s o l d a n d two were 73, a n d t h e mean age f o r L a n g a r a participants participant est  was 34.9 a n d t h e m e d i a n was 29.5.  The y o u n g e s t  i n t h e Hamber p r o g r a m was s e v e n t e e n  and t h e o l d -  61 y e a r s o l d .  3 2.1 y e a r s  a n d m e d i a n 30.2 y e a r s o l d .  differences type, with  The mean a g e f o r Hamber p a r t i c i p a n t s was  c a n be a s c r i b e d  Once a g a i n  to the differences  these  i n program  t h e Hamber p r o g r a m a p p e a l i n g t o a n a r r o w e r age  range o f i n d i v i d u a l s  a t the s t a r t o f t h e i r managerial  These were a l s o e n c e s between p a r t i c i p a n t s  statistically  careers.  significant differ-  a t Hamber a n d L a n g a r a  with  respect  to  t h e i r " h i g h e s t e d u c a t i o n a l a c h i e v e m e n t " , a n d t h e number  of  years  completed  o f f u l l - t i m e and p a r t - t i m e  post-secondary  training.  A t both  centres, the highest educational achieve-  ment r e p o r t e d b y p a r t i c i p a n t s to those w i t h a u n i v e r s i t y qualification. of  p r o g r a m a s more t h a n  and  f o r students  more t h a n  enrolled  t h e 99 p a r t i c i p a n t s training,  enrolled  i n t h e Langara  education.  a part-time basis, with  more t h a n  with  (p<.0001). post-  o n l y one y e a r f i v e years o f  In a d d i t i o n ,  75 L a n g a r a  some p o s t - s e c o n d a r y  35 completing  p a r t - t i m e a n d 31 c o m p l e t i n g  participants  g r a d e 12, compared  2 9.3 p e r c e n t h a d c o m p l e t e d  reported receiving  level  who h a d some f u l l - t i m e  20.2 p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d c o m p l e t i n g  participants  tertiary  i n t h e Hamber p r o g r a m  a t Langara  f u l l - t i m e post-secondary  on  d e g r e e p l u s some o t h e r  they had completed  secondary  no f o r m a l s c h o o l i n g  60 p e r c e n t o f t h e L a n g a r a  47 p e r c e n t o f t h o s e Of  from  However i t w o u l d seem t h a t t h e g e n e r a l  e d u c a t i o n was h i g h e r  reported  ranged  training  o n e o r two y e a r s  f o u r o r more y e a r s o f p a r t - t i m e  training. T h e r e w e r e 111 p a r t i c i p a n t s a t E r i c reported  completing  some f u l l - t i m e  63 o f whom h a d c o m p l e t e d f o u r y e a r s o r more.  Hamber p r o g r a m w e r e e n r o l l e d and  143 h a d c o m p l e t e d  secondary  study,  of part-time  ranged  training,  a n d 35 had c o m p l e t e d  a l l participants  i n the  i n a part-time c e r t i f i c a t e  a t l e a s t one y e a r  of part-time  3 6 o f whom h a d c o m p l e t e d  more t h a n  postfour  years  r e p o r t e d by p a r t i c i p a n t s were c o d e d  t o the B l i s h e n o c c u p a t i o n a l index and those  from  program,  study.  . Occupations according  post-secondary  one o r two y e a r s  In addition,  Hamber who  Labourers,  T r a n s p o r t a t i o n except  Railway  ratings (index  73  #27.72) t o P r o f e s s o r s As  w o u l d be  tion  (r =  expected  .32,  a c h i e v e m e n t and present  surprising index.  Principals  B l i s h e n index  r a t i n g of  post-secondary  scored  higher  mean B l i s h e n s c o r e  positive  a c h i e v e m e n t and  p<.001) and  gross  between t h e  family  the  Hamber and  Hamber c o u n t e r p a r t s ,  not  be  hold.  a t an  personal  income  enjoying The  between  strong  enough t o  between the two  Blishen  Index, and  ratings  and  not  career  d i d not  and  Therefore,  differ  as  .03).  younger than  the  earning  would  positions  despite  they  expected  t h e r e f o r e more  respect  their  they  p a t h s and  likely  significant  t o r a t i n g s on  o b v i o u s c o r r e l a t i o n s between the  y e t maximized t h e i r  levels  in their  groups w i t h  income l e v e l s ,  595,  discriminate  i t seems l i k e l y . t h a t  employment h i s t o r i e s , salaries.  there  .13,df =  568,p<  t h e maximum emoluments f o r t h e  to r e c e i v e higher  a  highest  ( r=  .01, df =  was  47.27 and  Hamber p a r t i c i p a n t s were o l d e r , w o u l d be  t o have l o n g e r  ferences  the 'Blishen  populations.  therefore stage  not  In a d d i t i o n ,  income  ( *=  not  Langara  earlier  Langara  i t is  a mean o f  L a n g a r a p a r t i c i p a n t s t e n d e d t o be  w o u l d be  respondent's  f o r Langara p a r t i c i p a n t s  correlation  c o r r e l a t i o n was  correla-  educational  training  f o r Hamber p a r t i c i p a n t s .  educational  However t h i s  positive  r a t i n g s on  (median = 49.56) compared w i t h  a significant  #76.01).  t h e r e f o r e as p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e  t h a t they  4 6.95  (index  p<.001) b e t w e e n h i g h e s t  more f o r m a l  The  median o f was  the  College  t h e r e was.a s i g n i f i c a n t  505,  occupation,  p r o g r a m had  4 9.40  df=  and  dif-  the  Blishen  L a n g a r a p a r t i c i p a n t s had  potential,  significantly  their  from t h e i r  actual  Hamber  income  74  counterparts.  P a r t i c 1 p a n't- I n s t r u e t o r Recall the  effects  were  of  that  in Fig.  single  classified  as  Incongruence  and  being  3  double static  preferred  "style").  Variables  4  3 required  the  of  Fig.  There  were  calculated  incongruence larger  the  gruence.  between  These  interpreting  indicated student  that  for  Instructor 4 0 years regard  to  older  which  old. sign or  has  difference) older  than  age)  a  in  greater  calculated  by  had  a  and  scores.  magnitude  of  degree of  subtracting score,  scores, higher  3  the  instructors.  the  participant's  difference  (e.g.  quadrants  of  their  between which  dynamic  discrepancy  measure and  drawn  variables  or  classified  the  Instructor  a  inconthe  therefore,  negative  score  The  than  number the  characteristic.  63  Thus  the  can  be  years  to -23  was the  illustrated old.  23. sign  the The  Jones.  follows:  score,  participant  or  Smith which the  ( i . e . the  d i r e c t i o n of  t h e i n s t r u c t o r was  was has  no  instructor  "actual-difference"  i n d i c a t i n g that  participant  as  Participant  age-discrepancy  ( i . e . whether  younger)  was  the  actual  was  regard  (e.g.  provide  were  situation  Jones  (congruence)  c a l c u l a t i o n of  score  from  the  that  The  is  scores  score  d i s t i n c t i o n was  participants  discrepancy  instructor's when  to  a  score, the 23  years  75  DISCREPANCY ("CONGRUENCE") SCORE  AGE Instructor Jones 63  Table  Participant Smith  yrs.  40 y r s .  5 presents  quadrant tional  23 yrs:.  discrepancy  3 o f F i g . 3.  ACTUAL DIFFERENCE SCORE  Also  scores  -23 y r s .  f o r v a r i a b l e s shown i n  shown a r e L e a r n i n g  S t y l e Index d i s c r e p a n c y  scores  and I n s t r u c -  classified  i n quadrant  4 o f F i g . 3. Instructors but  t e n d e d t o be o l d e r t h a n  t h e age d i f f e r e n c e s r a n g e d c o n s i d e r a b l y .  were 4 7 y e a r s  younger than  their  p a n t was 50 y e a r s  older.  -10.39 y e a r s  a standard  discrepancy had  the p a r t i c i p a n t s ,  with  instructors,  In general, than  their  A c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s r a n g e d f r o m -7 t o 5 w i t h  ordinal  the discrepancy  and t h e i r  instructor's  a c h i e v e m e n t was 2.11 o n t h e s c a l e .  years  participants.  a mean o f -1.73  s c o r e mean was 2.11 o n t h e  t h a t the average o f the absolute  participant's  higher  the instructors  s c a l e o f h i g h e s t e d u c a t i o n a l achievement.  indicated  partici-  d e v i a t i o n o f 16.93, w h i l e t h e  s c o r e mean was 16.25.  1.89), w h i l e  a n d one  The a c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e mean was  more e d u c a t i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  (S.D.  Two p a r t i c i p a n t s  d i f f e r e n c e between  scores of educational I n s t r u c t o r s t e n d e d t o have  'highest educational achievement o f f u l l - t i m e and p a r t - t i m e  1  training  However, t h e r e was c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a n c e  s c o r e s and thus than  where t h e i n s t r u c t o r h a d a t l e a s t  full-time  post-secondary  than  more  the p a r t i c i p a n t s .  i n these  114 c a s e s  training  This  scores,  f i v e years  from  more  d i d the p a r t i c i p a n t ,  to  t e n p a r t i c i p a n t s who  instructor. on  The a c t u a l  average  full-time  t r a i n i n g than  mean was  -1.59, w h i c h  indicates  t h e i r students, while 2.11.  reporting  their that  1.59 more y e a r s o f the average  of  T h e r e was a s i m i l a r r a n g e r e -  f o r years of part-time post-secondary  93 p a r t i c i p a n t s than  y e a r s more t h a n  the i n s t r u c t o r s had r e c e i v e d  d i s c r e p a n c y s c o r e s was ported  had f i v e  at least five  training,  with  training  less  years  t h e i r i n s t r u c t o r and n i n e p a r t i c i p a n t s  reported  five  y e a r s more p a r t - t i m e t r a i n i n g t h a n d i d t h e i r i n s t r u c t o r . actual  mean d i f f e r e n c e  i n number o f y e a r s  secondary  t r a i n i n g was -1.99 y e a r s w h i l e  s c o r e was  2.56 y e a r s .  and  h a d more e d u c a t i o n ,  As t h e i n s t r u c t o r s they  also  tended  Blishen  ratings  of t h e i r occupations.  Blishen  ratings  ranged  mean d i s c r e p a n c y noted  from  post-  t h e mean d i s c r e p a n c y tended  t o be  to achieve  s c o r e o f 14.30.  reported earning  older  higher  The d i f f e r e n c e i n  -45.98 t o 25.86 w i t h a n  actual  T h e r e was a s i m i l a r t r e n d  with respect to the d i f f e r e n c e s  participant  part-time  i n income l e v e l s .  $25,000 l e s s  than  one r e p o r t e d e a r n i n g b e t w e e n $20,000 a n d $25,000 more  the  instructor.  on  tors  earned  about  mean d i s c r e p a n c y average was  mean d i f f e r e n c e was  the s c a l e which would i n d i c a t e  total  $4,000 more t h a n s c o r e was  3.71 p o i n t s o n t h e s c a l e , The  than  -2.31 p o i n t s  t h a t on average  the i n s t r u c -  the p a r t i c i p a n t s .  3.71, w h i c h i n d i c a t e s  d i s c r e p a n c y among  One  the i n s t r u c t o r ,  and  The a c t u a l  The  The  that the  i n s t r u c t o r s and p a r t i c i p a n t s  o r b e t w e e n $6,000 a n d $8,000.  e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e r e was c o n g r u e n c e b e t w e e n  the i n s t r u c t o r ' s and p a r t i c i p a n t ' s a t t i t u d e s  towards  learning^  77 TABLE 5 COMPARISON OF ACTUAL MEAN DIFFERENCES AND DISCREPANCY SCORE MEANS BETWEEN PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR INSTRUCTORS  Variable  n  Range  Actual Mean  Discrepancy .Score Mean  Age  594  -47 to 50  -10. 39  16. 23  Highest E d u c a t i o n a l Achievement  602  - 7 to  5  - 1.73  2. 11  Number o f C h i l d r e n  554  - 5 to  7  - 0.92  1. 79  Yrs. F u l l - T i m e Post-Secondary  441  - 5 to  5  - 1.59  2. 40  Yrs. Part-Time Post-Secondary  469  - 5 to  5  - 1.99  2. 56  B l i s h e n Rating o f Occupation  455 -45.98 to 25. 86  -12. 95  14. 30  Personal Income  567  -12 to 11  - 2.31  3. 71  T o t a l Family Income  508  -12 to 10  - 3. 20  4. 32  LISI  605  - 0.42  1. 12  -1.24  to  3. 29  and i n s t r u c t i o n was d e f i n e d as the d i s c r e p a n c y between i n s t r u c t o r and p a r t i c i p a n t LISI s c o r e s . ranged from -4.24 to 3.29.  These d i f f e r e n c e s  The mean d i f f e r e n c e was -.43,  which i n d i c a t e s t h a t the i n s t r u c t o r s achieved higher on LISI than d i d t h e i r p a r t i c i p a n t s .  scores  The mean d i s c r e p a n c y  score was 1.12, which i n d i c a t e s t h a t on average the magnitude o f d i f f e r e n c e among p a r t i c i p a n t ' s and t h e i r i n s t r u c t o r ' s LISI scores  was 1.12 points, on the 9 p o i n t LISI s c a l e .  data suggest  These  that i n s t r u c t o r s reported a s l i g h t l y greater  p r e f e r e n c e f o r s t u d e n t - c e n t r e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e s than d i d  78 their  participants.  DATA A N A L Y S I S  There were and  these  are  Satisfaction Learner  three  examined and  P e r s i s t e n c e and  tional  Incongruence.  Style  Learner  Satisfaction  and  Achievement  and  Learning  for  sections;  Instructional  Learning  Learning  proposed  following  and  Incongruence,  THREE  hypotheses  i n the  Learning  PHASE  this  Learner  Style  Incongruence,  Instructional  and  and  Learning  study  Style  and  Instructional  Instruc-  Style  Inco n g r u ehc e The  first  hypothesis  suggested  that:  " D i s c r e p a n c y s c o r e s between i n s t r u c t o r and l e a r n e r a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s l e a r n i n g and instruction w i l l be n e g a t i v e l y correlated with learner satisfaction".  This  hypothesis  pancy a so  scores  was  with  investigated  Learner  s i g n i f i c a n t negative the  hypothesis  product-moment) Satisfaction  rejected. LISI  scores  was  Satisfaction  a  correlating  Satisfaction  correlation  between  Index  There Learner  was  by  was  Index  was  The  .04  correlation  which  scores was  significant positive Index  scores  and  both  discre-  scores.  expected  discrepancy  LISI  not  Although  none  resulted  (Pearson and  Learner  significant.  correlation the  between  Instructor's  (r= p<  .13, df~ .003) L I S I  s c o r e s  by  601, p < .001) a n d s c o r e s .  e i t h e r  i n d i c a t e  Thus  s t r u c t o r s  f o r  t e n d e d  to  have  d i s c r e p a n c y  s c o r e s  h i g h  L I S I  w o u l d  s c o r e s  were have  -0.249, df=  604, p<.001).  T h e r e  h a v e was  d i s c r e p a n c y  f a c t i o n  Index  a n e g a t i v e and  L I S I  r e l a t i o n s h i p  was  s u g g e s t  l e a r n e r s  t h a t  n o t  i n s t r u c t o r s were  i e n c e  than  t h a n  w e r e  l e a r n e r ' s p r e f e r r e d  t e a c h i n g not  s t y l e w o u l d  c o n f o u n d i n g  t i o n s  s c o r e s  w i t h T h i s  and  l e a r n e r s w i t h (and  w h i l e  t h o s e  w i t h  s c o r e s  (and  a r e  c o r r e l a t i o n between  the  r e c o r d e d  l e s s  The  h i g h  low  s a t i s f i e d  a c h i e v e d  h y p o t h e s i s  l e a r n i n g  W h i l e  i n c r e a s e d  m i g h t t h a n  L I S I  e x p e r -  s c o r e s  c o n g r u e n c e the  t h i s  l e a r n i n g  l o w e r  s t y l e and  S a t i s -  s c o r e s  the  t h a t  s a t i s f i e d ) .  L e a r n e r  L I S I  w i t h  L I S I  l e s s  s i g n i f i c a n t , i t h i g h e r  L I S I  s a t i s f i e d  d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s .  r e s u l t i n  s u g g e s t  t h e r e  the  t h a t  i n -  students  between  i n s t r u c t o r ' s  L e a r n e r  S a t i s f a c t i o n  c o n f i r m e d . C l e a r l y  and  L I S I  a r e As  t h e i r  s c o r e s .  w e l l  p a r t i c i p a n t s who  t h e i r i n s t r u c t o r .  c l a s s .  t h a n  a r e  s t a t i s t i c a l l y  t h e i r  was  s c o r e s  a c t u a l  who  s t y l e s ,  the  d i s c r e p a n c y  Thus  l a r g e r d i s c r e p a n c y  a l s o  w o u l d  s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t  t h e i r l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e )  s c o r e s  s c o r e s  l e a r n e r s  (r=  the  L I S I  l o w e r  s c o r e s  w i t h  t e a c h i n g  634,  L I S I  c a l c u l a t e d , p a r t i c i p a n t s  d i s c r e p a n c y  low  was  h i g h  p a r t i c i p a n t s , w h i c h  h i g h e r  r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n  have  t h a t  s a t i s f a c t i o nw i t h  L I S I  s c o r e s  a p p e a r  s t u d e n t - c e n t r e d  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  when  n e g a t i v e  i t w o u l d  i n s t r u c t o r s o r  p r e f e r e n c e s  p o s i t i v e l y  p a r t i c i p a n t ' s ( r = .11, df=  were  a number  h y p o t h e s i z e d l e a r n e r s who  o f  f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g  r e l a t i o n s h i p . p r e f e r  The  c o r r e l a -  s t u d e n t - c e n t r e d  80 TABLE 6 PEARSON'S CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS: DISCREPANCY L I S I  SCORES AND  LISI  LEARNER-SATISFACTION  Learners LISI  LSI Learners  INSTRUCTOR, LEARNER,  AND  INDEX  Instructors LISI LISI Discrepancy  .11***  Instructors LISI  .13**  -0.04*  LISI Discrepancy  .04*  -0.25**  0.22**  LISI Actual Difference  .02*  0.73**  -0.72**  -0.33**  * df = 60 2, p> .1 ** ***  df df  = 602, = 635,  p<.001 p<.003  environments are not l i k e l y  to enjoy  an a u t h o r i t a r i a n  t o r , w h i l e l e a r n e r s who  indicate  centred  be w e l l s a t i s f i e d  e n v i r o n m e n t may  instructor.  The  of Hypothesis  in  c o r r e l a t i o n matrix  One  between L e a r n e r  Satisfaction  i f variables e f f e c t s on  instructorstudent-centred  produced d u r i n g the  The  learner  satisfaction  i t was  equation with Learner  matrix  test  variables  •  shown  also contained a large  inter-correlations  learner satisfaction.  t h e complex v a r i a b l e  so  i t was  had m u l t i p l e  I n an  effort  to  i n t e r a c t i o n s which e x p l a i n decided  Satisfaction  t o employ a r e g r e s s i o n I n d e x s c o r e s as  a l l o t h e r a v a i l a b l e measures  pendent v a r i a b l e s .  a  (other than LISI scores)  unravel  e n t and  by  I n d e x s c o r e s and  number o f a p p a r e n t l y s i g n i f i c a n t  or p a r t i a l  p r e f e r an  r e v e a l e d a l a r g e number o f c o r r e l a t i o n s  a l l q u a d r a n t s o f F i g . 3.  not c l e a r  they  instruc-  In a d d i t i o n ,  (quadrant  1-4)  the as  dependinde-  other regression analyses  81 were performed  i n order to i d e n t i f y whether or not  economic congruence or incongruence  socio-  between Learner  I n s t r u c t o r c o u l d a l s o be confounding  and  the hypothesized  relation-  s h i p between L e a r n i n g and I n s t r u c t i o n a l S t y l e d i s c r e p a n c y scores and Learner  Satisfaction.  F i r s t a stepwise r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s was with l e a r n e r s L I S I s c o r e  (quadrant 2) as the dependent  v a r i a b l e and a l l the l e a r n e r s socio-economic pendent  (quadrant 1 ) .  attendance  were s e l e c t e d d u r i n g the f i r s t  gether produced  variables inde-  The f o l l o w i n g f o u r v a r i a b l e s :  e d u c a t i o n a l achievement, age, completed,  conducted  an v o f .412,  highest  and years h i g h s c h o o l f o u r steps and t o -  w h i l e a l l the  socio-economic 2  v a r i a b l e s c o n s i d e r e d together i n c r e a s e d the v  v a l u e by o n l y  TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS TO PREDICT LEARNERS PREFERRED LEARNING AND  INSTRUCTIONAL -STYLE - LISI SCORE DEPENDENT VARIABLE  Highest E d u c a t i o n a l Achievement  0. 25  2 r 0..063  Age  0. 34  0 .112 .  -0 .19  Attendance  0. 37  0 .149 .  -0 .16  Years High School Completed  0. 41  0..170  0 .15  V  Analysis of Variance:  Beta 0 . 22  Regression A g a i n s t R e s i d u a l F = p<  .001  6.28,  82  0.0189 f o r a t o t a l  r  v a l u e  2  o f  0.1885.  p a r t i c i p a n t s  w i t h  l e a r n i n g  i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e s h a d  a n d  t h e g r e a t e s t  t i o n a l  a c h i e v e m e n t ,  p l e t e d  more  more  y e a r s  w e r e  o f  younger,  s c h o o l i n g  r e g r e s s i o n  a t t e n d e d  than  4) a s t h e d e p e n d e n t  q u a d r a n t s  1-3  v a r i a b l e s  b e i n g  s c o r e s  (Table  a c h i e v e m e n t  r e s u l t e d  TABLE SUMMARY  L I S I  O F REGRESSION  h a d  com-  p r e f e r r e d  d i s c r e p a n c y  s c o r e s  a l lv a r i a b l e s  i n  s o c i o - e c o n o m i c L I S I  h i g h e s t  d i s c r e p a n c y e d u c a t i o n a l  i n s t r u c t o r ' s age,  t r a i n i n g a n d  e d u c a -  i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e s .  v a r i a b l e a n d  s c o r e s ,  a n d  p a r t i c i p a n t s who  I n s t r u c t o r ' s income,  p o s t - s e c o n d a r y  l e v e l s o f  i n a s i m i l a r s e t o f  d i s c r e p a n c y  t h a t  s t u d e n t - c e n t r e d  l e s s ,  I d e n t i f i e d a sp r e d i c t o r s o f  8).  7 shows  f o r  h i g h e r  a n a l y s i s w i t h  (quadrant  time  p r e f e r e n c e  i n s t r u c t o r - c e n t r e d l e a r n i n g a n d The  T a b l e  y e a r s  i n c o m e d i s c r e p a n c y  f u l l -  were  t h e  8  ANALYSIS:  L I S I  DISCREPANCY  SCORE  DEPENDENT  VARIABLE M u l t i p l e Q u a d r a n t Instructor's Personal Highest Educational Discrepancy Score Instructor's  Income  Age  A n a l y s i s  Income  T.  Beta  1  0.33  0. 108  -0.35  3  0.43  0. 188  0.37  1  0.47  0. 222  -0.30  1  0.49  0. 241  0.17  3  0.51  .0. 261  0.15  Achievement  Years Full-Time Post-Sec. Personal  2  T.  Training  Discrepancy  o f V a r i a n c e :  ..  R e g r e s s i o n  A g a i n s t p<  R e s i d u a l  .001  F -  8.62,  83  variables  s e l e c t e d during the f i r s t  five  steps of the analy2  sis.  Together  Satisfaction step  29.  istics  I t w o u l d seem t h a t  = 0.26).  Learners  these socio-economic  1) a n d d i f f e r e n c e s  (quadrant  Learner  Satisfaction  3) a r e more  scores,  another  Learner  Satisfaction  33 v a r i a b l e s  than  score.  i t seemed l i k e l y  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may  until  character-  p r e d i c t o r s o f L I S I and L I S I d i s c r e p a n c y s c o r e s  As  The  (r  Index s c o r e was n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e e q u a t i o n  (quadrant  powerful is  t h e y p r o d u c e a n r o f 0.51  that participants  also p r e d i c t Learner  personal  Satisfaction  r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s was c o n d u c t e d  with  Index s c o r e as t h e dependent  produced  Index  variable.  a m u l t i p l e r o f .61 a n d  accounted  TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS:  LEARNER  SATISFACTION INDEX SCORE  DEPENDENT VARIABLE Multiple Quadrant  2  V  V  Beta  Instructors Total Personal Income  1  .17  .03  1.42  Attendance  1  . 26  .06  .07  Years Full-Time Post-Sec. Training  1  .31  .09  -0.09  Years Part-Time Post-Sec. Training  1  .35  . 13  .19  Instructors Occupation  1  .38  .14  -1.87  Instructors LISI Score  3  .41  .17  1.99  Score  Analysis of Variance:  R e g r e s s i o n A g a i n s t R e s i d u a l F = 4.05, p<.001  84  37  f o r  per  Index  c e n t  s c o r e s .  o c c u p a t i o n  y e a r s  produced  per  o f  While  v a r i o u s  m o d e r a t e l y f a c t i o n n o t  the  c o u l d  L e a r n e r  some  a  y e a r s  income, o f  p o s t - s e c o n d a r y  a c c o u n t e d  17  f o r  S a t i s f a c t i o n Index  l e a r n e r  s c o r e s .  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w e r e  both  L I S I  and  L e a r n e r  S a t i s f a c t i o n Index  i n c o n g r u e n c e  p r e v i o u s  and  v a r i a b l e s  and  L e a r n e r  L e a r n e r  p e r s o n a l  p a r t - t i m e  .41  v. o f  p r e d i c t o r s o f  from  The  second  " D i s l e a w i l p e r  c r e p a r n e r l be s i s t e  to  the  S a t i s -  s c o r e s e x t e n t  d i d t h a t  r e s e a r c h .  L e a r n i n g  and  I n s t r u c t i o n a l S t y l e  o f  t h e s i s  was  e s i z e d  that' i n  o t h e r s  t o t a l  o b s e r v e d  as  the  number  o f  .05  l e v e l However  -.06,  (r= was  emphasis  not  i t c o u l d  s t u d e n t - c e n t r e d  l e s s  t h a t :  t h i r t e e n s e s s i o n s  r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n  r e j e c t e d .  be  and  e x p r e s s e d  the  a  t e n  the  was a t  proposed  n c y s c o r e s b e t w e e n i n s t r u c t o r and a t t i t u d e towards l e a r n i n g and i n s t r u c t i o n n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h l e a r n e r n c e " .  was  n e g a t i v e  S i g n i f i c a n c e  h y p o t h e s i s  w e r e  s c o r e  would  S a t i s f a c t i o n  e  a t t e n d a n c e  t h e r e  i n  p r e d i c t L I S I  p e r c e n t a g e  t h e s i z e d and  v a r i a n c e  c l a s s e s  a t t e n d a n c e as  m u l t i p l e  P e r s i s t e n c e  I n c o n g r ue'nc  As  a  e x p e c t e d  L e a r n e r  l e a r n e r  f u l l - t i m e and  s c o r e s ,  to  on  w i t h  i n s t r u c t o r and  Index  be  s c o r e ,  p o w e r f u l  appear  v a r i a n c e  i n s t r u c t o r v a r i a b l e s o f  L I S I  t r a i n i n g c e n t  the  The  and  a t t e n d a n c e ,  o f  and  number  o f  c l a s s e s  c l a s s e s . L I S I df=  l e a r n i n g importance  The  490,  attended  h y p o -  d i s c r e p a n c y  o b t a i n e d a l s o  l o n g ,  s c o r e s  . 0 5 < p < . 10) so  have  the been  hypoh y p o t h -  environment a t t r i b u t e d  .  to  85 attendance  in class,  relationship  between  student-centred ficant both  learners  learning  LISI  LISI  learning  environment  learners an  low  than  tically  LISI  between  when  seem  Further, taught  by  scores.  discrepancy  attitude  the  expected less  scores.  enrolled  have  discrepancy  For  with  by  high  (and  would  an  LISI  low  scores  scores high  high  enrolled  LISI  attendance)  congruence  learning the  one  LISI  LISI  class  i t  low  scores LISI  attendance.  in a  vice  signi-  with  low  low  and  scores  scores would and  the  calculated,  the  with  and  by  statis-  to  participants  with  more  these  decreased  high  created  taught  observed  instructor  discrepancy  instructor with scores  with  participants  taught  high  than  as  that  who  attended  towards  that  students  seem  i n s t a n c e , i n any  participants  regularly  class  students an  that  Further,  in a  would  by  correlation.  i t would  to measure  introduced error  Therefore,  those  s c o r e s were  student  of  than  not  and  student-centred  However,  and  style  a  signi-  and  p^.OOl).  i n classes  were  towards  scores  p < . 003)  environment,  enrolled  attitude  instructors  instructor  attend  taught  less  used  would  While  LISI  490,  formula  be  scores  class  an'egatike  attendance 521,  n=  be  statistically  preferred  relationships  the  n =  the  would  LISI  they  learning  LISI  A  that  instructional ficance  that  -.12,  scores.  high  positive  between  -.16,  in classes  significant  would  ( r =  participants  with  same d e g r e e  ( r=  attended  instructor-centred  instructors  it  indicated  enrolled  frequently  observed  scores  who  and  environment.  score  learners  obtained  t h e r e f o r e there would  attendance  c o r r e l a t i o n was  instructors  who  and  class have  versa.  low It  86 was t h e i n t e n t g r u e n c e pep  d f t h i s study  se b e t w e e n i n s t r u c t o r s  attendance.  While  a negative  gruence between l e a r n e r s learning than  their individual  To  a regression  analysis  related  incon-  respect to to  attendance  respect to learning  s c h o o l completed  independent  11, i n s t r u c t o r s '  and  and d i s c r e p a n c y  score the  (quadrants  1-4).  As c a n  of participants'  income, y e a r s  i n age, t o g e t h e r  of participants'  i n class,  and d i s c r e p a n c y  57 p e r c e n t o f t h e v a r i a n c e i n a t t e n d a n c e rating  that  instructor  rating  instructor's  attendance  with attendance  and t h e s t u d e n t ,  achievement,  characteristics  the p a r t i c i p a n t s '  was c o n d u c t e d  variables  i n Table  instructors  effect  was o b s e r v e d ,  instructor with  i d e n t i f y the socio-economic  socio-economic  for  and t h e i r  would  style.  dependent v a r i a b l e ,  learning  relationship  preferences with  may a s s i s t i n p r e d i c t i n g  seen  and l e a r n e r s  a n d i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e was l e s s  instructional  be  to i d e n t i f y whether o r n o t con-  learning  of high accounted  score with the achievement  alone  TABLE 10 PEARSON'S CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS: INSTRUCTOR, LEARNER AND Learner LISI Attendance Score * df  -.12*  = 521, p< .003;  DISCREPANCY L I S I  Instructor LISI -.16**  **df  ATTENDANCE SCORE WITH  LISI Discrepancy -.06***  = 490, p<.001;  SCORES LISI Actual Difference .01***  ***  not significant  87  TABLE SUMMARY  O FREGRESSION  11  ANALYSIS:  ATTENDANCE  SCORE  DEPENDENT  VARIABLE M u l t i p l e r  Quadrant Rating of Student  Achievement  Instructors Personal Years Age  High  School  Discrepancy  A n a l y s i s  2  64  . 41  .51  1  69  .48  .48  1  ,73  . 53  3  .75  . 57  Income  Completed  Score  o f  V a r i a n c e :  R e g r e s s i o n  A g a i n s t F  a c c o u n t i n g  f o r  t h a t  l e a r n e r s  a b l y  e v a l u a t e d  I n s t r u c t o r s they  saw  b u t e d  41 p e r who  income,  i n  appear  to  y e a r s  and  i n s t r u c t o r .  a t t e n d e d  c o n s i s t e n t who  n o t e d  s c h o o l  F o r  perhaps the  w i t h t h a t  completed o f  i n s t a n c e , o f  the  The  age  congruence  v a r i a b l e s  p a r t i c i p a n t s r e s p e c t . Simons,  by  T h i s  B e r k o w i t z  d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s  s c o r e  the  l e a r n e r  was  i n c l u d e d  P a r t i c i p a n t s  p r o v i d e d  income  p e r s o n a l  d i s c r e p a n c y  i n s t r u c t o r s ' income  because  r e l e v a n t  c l a s s c o n t r i -  b e t w e e n  r e g r e s s i o n .  d o not.  p a r t i c i p a n t s  i n s t r u c t o r ' s and  f a v o u r -  who  o t h e r  t a u g h t  o f  i n  s u g g e s t s  more  those  those  r e g u l a r l y when  those  a r e  a t t e n d a n c e  e q u a t i o n ;  V a r i a n c e  T h i s  a r e  f a v o u r e d  awarded.  . 24  p<.0001  40.14,  v a r i a n c e .  t h a t  degree  s t e p  c l a s s more  which  o r  -.21  R e s i d u a l  f r e q u e n t l y  h a v e  'marks'  the  second  i n s t r u c t o r , s t a t u s  the  h i g h  b er e l a t e d t o  the  t o  r e g r e s s i o n  may  d u r i n g  the  c l a s s e s  f r e q u e n t l y ,  the  o f  =  t h e i r i n s t r u c t o r than  would  d i r e c t l y  i n c l u d e d  a t t e n d  by  m o s t  c e n t  Beta  t h a t  a h i g h  income  a n i n d i c a t i o n f i n d i n g and  M o y e r  e n h a n c e  o f  was (1970)  the  88  ' c r e d i b i l i t y o f the source such as p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a t u s ' would f a c i l i t a t e  a t t i t u d e change.  It i s interesting  to,note  t h a t L I S I d i s c r e p a n c y score was i n c l u d e d i n the r e g r e s s i o n equation d u r i n g step s i x ( m u l t i p l e r .78) and Learner f a c t i o n Index s c o r e on s t e p nine  Satis-  (multiple r .81).  L e a r n i n g Achievement and L e a r n i n g and I n s t r u c t i o n a l  Style  Incongruence The  t h i r d hypothesis suggested  that:  "Discrepancy scores between i n s t r u c t o r and l e a r n e r a t t i t u d e s towards l e a r n i n g and i n s t r u c t i o n w i l l be n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the i n s t r u c t o r ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f the l e a r n e r ' s l e a r n i n g achievement". T h e r e f o r e L I S I d i s c r e p a n c y scores should be n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the mark awarded the student by the i n s t r u c t o r , expressed  as a percentage and r e f e r r e d to as ' l e a r n i n g s c o r e ' .  I t should be noted  t h a t l e a r n i n g score was a s u b j e c t i v e  measure d e r i v e d by r e q u e s t i n g i n s t r u c t o r s to e v a l u a t e and rank each p a r t i c i p a n t ' s l e a r n i n g achievement, and may not a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t the p a r t i c i p a n t ' s a c t u a l achievement.  The c o r r e l a t i o n  between L I S I d i s c r e p a n c y and the i n s t r u c t o r ' s e v a l u a t i o n o f the student was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y df  significant  (v - -.005,  - 4 94, p<.49) and t h e r e f o r e t h i s hypothesis was not con-  firmed. T h i s hypothesis should not be r e j e c t e d a l t o g e t h e r as t h e r e was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y  s i g n i f i c a n t negative  correlation  between l e a r n i n g score and L I S I a c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e socres ( r = -.12,. d f — 494, p<.003).  T h i s would suggest  t h a t when  89 the  participant  instructor, while of  when  LISI  the instructor  Therefore  incongruence in  LISI  may  LISI  score  participants i twould  and n o t j u s t  scores  were h i g h e r  appear  the magnitude  be an a d d i t i o n a l  significant relationship  so  LISI  i twould  not  related  However, between  of learner's  and l e a r n i n g  seem t h a t  scores  a learner's  to the instructor's  t h e r e was  instructors'LISI  n = 495, p < . 0 0 1 ) , w h i c h w o u l d instructors than  tended  to rate  d i d t h e i r more  CORRELATION  LEARNER,  Learner LISI Learning Score  AND  .17***  significant;  df  5 2 5 , p < .33)  learning of the  that  style  was  learner.  scores  ( r-  .17,  student-centred  participants  more  favourably  colleagues.  12 . L E A R N I N G ,SCORE  DISCREPANCY  LISI  Discrepancy LISI  WITH  SCORES  LISI Actual Difference  -.00*  ~k ~k  not  between the  significant correlation  suggest  Instructor LISI  0.02*  •k  observed  the  Further,  ( r-= - . 0 2 , df=  COEFFICIENTS:  INSTRUCTOR  that  learning  performance.  t r a d i t i o n a l teacher-centred  TABLE PEARSON'S  high  influencing  and l e a r n i n g  their  than  score,  of the incongruence  evaluation  scores  learning  the direction of the  preferred  a statistically  of the  higher  factor  there  learner's  a high  was  that  appraisal  no  that  were awarded  instructor's was  than  d i d n o t award  the instructor's  the participant,  scores.  scores  -.12** "k "k ~k  =  495, p<.003;  df  =  495, p<.001  90  TABLE SUMMARY  OF  13  REGRESSION ANALYSIS:  LEARNING  SCORE  DEPENDENT  VARIABLE Multiple T  Quadrant Attendance Age  Score  Discrepancy  Years Part-Time Post-Sec. Years High S c h o o l  Discrepancy  Completed  H i g h e s t E d u c a t i o n a l Achievement Discrepancy Analysis  of Variance:  Regression  r  2  Beta  1  . 64  .41  .73  3  .67  .44  -.29  3  .68  .47  .08  1  . 70  . 49  .13  3  .71  . 51  -.13  Against  Residual  F =  25.36,  pC.001  It  was  also  learners  noted  who  significant (r=  attend  .49, n =  Index  As  factor ment  ( r> =  i t seemed  which  determined  were  that  scores,  years  achievement  high  discrepancy  524, p {  there  those was  a  and l e a r n i n g  score  (higher  rated  Learner  favourably  .001).  i n s t r u c t o r - l e a r n e r congruence  instructional instructor's  (Table  rating  13).  completed,  score  style  conducted  post-secondary  school  rate  students  themselves  . 2 0 , df=  learning score of part-time  r e g u l a r l y , as  Satisfied  a r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s was  years  favourably  between attendance  scores)  t o l e a r n i n g and  predicting and  most  503, p < . 0 0 1 ) .  the instructor  respect  instructors  class  correlation  Satisfaction by  that  was  not the  o f student  to identify  Attendance training  only achieve-  variables  score,  age,  discrepancy  and h i g h e s t  accounted  with  educational  f o r 51 p e r c e n t  of  the  v a r i a n c e  ( m u l t i p l e  accounted  f o r  there  a  was  crepancy no and  41  per  v  .71),  cent  of  and  l e a r n i n g  l e a r n i n g  score  l e a r n e r s  f a v o u r a b l y  the  score  than  who  (r=  those  who  =  df=  the  -.15,  df  a c t u a l 486,  same  w e r e  attendance I t  c o r r e l a t i o n  b e t w e e n .05,  were  (r  w h i c h  v a r i a n c e .  s i g n i f i c a n t n e g a t i v e  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e  r a t e d  o f  age  e i t h e r  =  alone  n o t a b l e  t h a t  b e t w e e n  486,  Thus  t h e m s e l v e s  y o u n g e r  age  d i s -  p<.001),  d i f f e r e n c e  pK.,12)'. as  i s  score  or  i n  but  ages  i n s t r u c t o r s more  o l d e r .  92 CHAPTER SIX  CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND  This concluding chapter sections: In  the f i r s t  this and  1) C o n c l u s i o n s  study  section  Is divided  a n d Recommendations,  methodology and r e s u l t s  CONCLUSIONS AND  first  struments  developed  presented  concern  a n d 2) Summary. from  In t h e second  are b r i e f l y  reiterated.  conclusions that are presented f o r this  section  RECOMMENDATIONS  study.  The s e c o n d  the i n f l u e n c e o f learning  s t y l e congruence on l e a r n e r s a t i s f a c t i o n , and  two m a j o r  and d i s c u s s e d , a s a r e t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s  recommendations f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h .  The  into  t h e c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t c a n be drawn  are presented  the purpose,  SUMMARY  concern i n -  s e t o f conclusions  and i n s t r u c t i o n a l  learner persistence  l e a r n e r achievement.  Ins t r u m e n t a t i o n .  developed faction  T h e r e were t h r e e components t o „ t h e r e s e a r c h  instrument  to c o l l e c t  satis-  index,  socio-economic The  the data  f o rthis  study;  l e a r n i n g and i n s t r u c t i o n a l  learner  style  index,  questionnaire. procedure  adopted  to develop  the Learner  and a  Satisfaction Index  I n d e x and  ( L I S I ) was  t h e L e a r n i n g and  designed  to ensure  the face v a l i d i t y  i n d i c e s a s a number o f e x p e r t j u d g e s s e l e c t i o n and instruments the f i r s t i t was  unrotated factor  concluded  the v a l i d i t y  data c o l l e c t i o n  the  .11, df=  validity  index  of  individual  Satisfaction  519, p< .006)  1,  2,  items.  The  3,  the  Likert-type  4), therefore,  Other  a s an  Satisfaction  are pleased with  their  during  learning  correla-  Learner  Attendance  indication of  experience.  age  (v =  (v =  between L I S I and  .17, df"  these r e l a t i o n s h i p s provide p o s i t i v e  that  There  a s i g n i f i c a n t n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n L I S I and  achievement  the  f r e q u e n t l y than  was  .29, df = 627, p < . 0 0 1 ) , and  the  Index, i t i s l i k e l y  attend class less  by  indicators  significant  I n d e x and  i s offered  o f the L e a r n e r ' s  educational  these  s c o r e c o u l d be o b t a i n e d  phase o f the s t u d y .  unsatisfied adults w i l l t h o s e who  these  t h e s e i n s t r u m e n t s were s o u g h t  t i o n between L e a r n e r ' s (r=  (see T a b l e s  that a total  of  Both  Style  t o be u n i d i m e n s i o n a l w i t h r e s p e c t t o  summing t h e s c o r e s on of  c o n t r i b u t e d to  p h r a s i n g o f the items.  appeared  Instructional  highest  634, p < . 0 0 1 ) . indications of  Learner's  Both LISI  validity. The  reliability  of both  i n d i c e s and  the  socio-  e c o n o m i c s e c t i o n o f t h e r e s e a r c h i n s t r u m e n t was  checked  t h e t e s t - r e t e s t method on a sample f r o m a n o t h e r  population  prior  to implementation  of the study.  A l l unreliable  by  items  were d e l e t e d . The research  procedures  instrument  adopted  to ensure  d u r i n g the development of  its validity  and  reliability  the and  94  t h e s u b s e q u e n t o b s e r v a t i o n s a r e by theless, the  i t was  instrument  test  concluded and  the  the hypotheses  in  the f i e l d  instruments instrument without  developed  s h o u l d be  learning  valid  and  time  both  and  reliable  ability  to determine from  LISI  style  sought  as  sufficient  research  instruments such  teaching  an  style  o b s e r v a t i o n would  program a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .  index  s h o u l d be  to i t s v a l i d i t y  whether i n s t r u c t o r  of  to  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  instructor's  f o r r e s e a r c h e r s and  and more e v i d e n c e  validity  the development o f  consuming c l a s s r o o m  instructional  and  never-  study.  a research p r i o r i t y .  further  Learner  t h e r e i n was  for this  t h a t can m e a s u r e an  requiring  predicted  indices  o f a d u l t e d u c a t i o n and  be m o s t u s e f u l , The  t h a t the r e l i a b i l i t y  two  T h e r e a r e few  no means e x h a u s t i v e ;  developed and  teaching style  relican  be  score.  Satisfaction The  first  hypothesis  stated that:  " D i s c r e p a n c y s c o r e b e t w e e n i n s t r u c t o r and l e a r n e r ' s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s l e a r n i n g and i n s t r u c t i o n w i l l be negatively correlated with learner s a t i s f a c t i o n " . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was h y p o t h e s i s was  rejected.  not confirmed  ween L I S I s c o r e s and ficant both  positive  suggest  their  t o be  directed  the  this  interactions T h e r e were  instructor.  bet-  signiand  T h i s would  prefer student-centred  i n s t r u c t o r s more f a v o u r a b l y t h a n by  that  between l e a r n e r s a t i s f a c t i o n  instructor's LISI scores.  t h a t l e a r n e r s who  rated  as a r e s u l t o f  learner satisfaction.  correlations  l e a r n e r ' s and  I t seems l i k e l y  environments  t h o s e who  prefer  Instructors with high  LISI  scores  (which  toward  student-centred instruction)  fied  participants  traditional It  indicate  that  (discrepancy  that  attitude  g e n e r a l l y h a d more  t h a n d i d i n s t r u c t o r s who  instructional  i s likely  t h e y have a p o s i t i v e  satis-  assumed a more  r o l e a s i n d i c a t e d b y low L I S I s c o r e s .  t h e method  adopted  t o measure congruence  s c o r e ) between i n s t r u c t o r ' s and l e a r n e r ' s L I S I  scores confounded  these  individually  significant  relationships.  For instance, consider the e f f e c t s o f the f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t o r p a i r s w i t h an i n s t r u c t o r who learner with a high LISI  learner-  has a h i g h L I S I :  score, which i s a s s o c i a t e d with  a high  learner  satisfaction,  w o u l d have a low measure o f  learner  incongruence;  w h i l e a l e a r n e r w i t h a low L I S I s c o r e ,  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h low l e a r n e r  satisfaction,  measure o f i n s t r u c t o r - l e a r n e r instructor  would have a h i g h  incongruence.  satisfaction  instructor  s c o r e s , now  LISI incongruence  l e a r n e r h a s low I n c o n g r u e n c e , learner  However,  had a low L I S I s c o r e , t h e s i t u a t i o n  the l e a r n e r w i t h h i g h L I S I , which i s s t i l l high  instructor-  i s reversed;  associated with  h a s a h i g h measure o f w h i l e t h e low L I S I but s t i l l  scoring  h a s a low m e a s u r e o f  w o u l d seem t h a t t h e h y p o t h e s i s  that  there  be a s i m p l e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n i n s t r u c t o r - l e a r n e r  however,  and l e a r n e r i t may  satisfaction  b e wrong  should  LISI  con-  i s appropriately rejected;  to conclude  t h a t t h e r e i s no  s h i p between l e a r n e r ' s L I S I s c o r e s , i n s t r u c t o r s ' and  learner-  satisfaction. It  gruence  i f the  the magnitude o f the incongruence  the e x t e n t to which l e a r n e r s express  LISI  relationscores  between t h e s e s c o r e s and their  satisfaction  with  96  the  l e a r n i n g  t o r  student  e v e n t . l e a r n i n g  s a t i s f a c t i o n i s  a  and  w h e t h e r  the  c o n t r i b u t e d In i n s t r u c t o r  a t t e m p t  the  scores  i n v e s t i g a t i o n  scores  can  i s  case,  the  of  be  u s e d t h i s  of  of  i d e n t i f y  the of  p o s i t i v e  and  l e a r n e r  d e t e r m i n e  to  p r e d i c t w o u l d  w h e t h e r  or  i s  there  the  a n a l y s i s  f a c t o r  that  hypothesis. b e t w e e n  s a t i s f a c t i o n  p r o v e  l e a r n e r  not  a  r e l a t i o n s h i p  w h e t h e r  i n s t r u c -  on  c o n f o u n d e d  f i r s t  l e a r n e r  of  c o n g r u e n c e  t h a t  the  to  e f f e c t s  i n c o n g r u e n c e  the  index  the  s t y l e  e f f e c t  r e j e c t i o n  a d d i t i o n ,  LISI  to  i n t e r a c t i v e d i r e c t i o n  to  s t u d i e s  i n s t r u c t i o n a l  should  s i g n i f i c a n t  ther  Future  d e s e r v e s  i n s t r u c t o r s  LISI  s a t i s f a c t i o n . u s e f u l  i n  f u r -  the  I f  t h i s  s e l e c t i o n  i n s t r u c t o r s .  Learner  P e r s i s t e n c e The  s e c o n d  hypothesis  s t a t e d  that:  "Discrepancy scores b e t w e e n i n s t r u c t o r and l e a r n e r ' s a t t i t u d e towards l e a r n i n g and i n s t r u c t i o n w i l l be n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with l e a r n e r p e r s i s t e n c e " . This  hypothesis  a d u l t to the  p o p u l a t i o n  a d u l t  of  i s  s i s t e n c e  tween  the  a  I t  i s  o r  to  t h a n  a t t e n d a n c e .  w o u l d  the  l e a r n e r ' s  r e f l e c t e d  the  the i s  t h a t the  a l s o  to  an  commitment  a t t i t u d e  t o w a r d l e a r n i n g  a t t e n d a n c e  or  a v e r a g e  e f f e c t s  f o r  t e r m  b e t w e e n  the  l e a r n e r  t h a t  p r e f e r r e d  i n  d i f f e r e n c e  p o s s i b l e  I t  s h o r t  i n s t r u c t o r ' s  be  and  seem  the  i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r i n s t r u c t o r  I t  comparatively  e i t h e r  l i k e l y  p a t t e r n s ,  was  l e a r n e r ' s  with  i n s t r u c t i o n  more  l e a r n e r s .  courses  r e j e c t e d .  education,  r o l e  s t y l e  and  was  of be  p o s s i b l e  per-  i n s t r u c t o r s l e n g t h  of  i n c o n g r u e n c e r e f l e c t e d t h a t  a  i n  s i m i l a r  these bethe s e t  o f  c o n f o u n d i n g  d e s c r i b e d  f o r  i n s t r u c t o r s ' a t t e n d a n c e a to  the  the  to a  t i o n a l  to  t h e r e  w i l l  i n  be  and  s c o r e ,  low  s t u d i e s  o f  c o u r s e  s i o n  o f  b e t w e e n  the  L I S I o f  s i o n t h e r e  i n  the  a r e  be  f a c t o r  and  s c o r e ,  l e a r n e r  i s  a  i n d i c a t e  a r e  p r e p a r e d  a  low  w o u l d As  s t u d i e s  f a c t o r  i n  and  be  a  f o r  to  s h o u l d  emphasis i n s t r u c -  i n s t r u c t o r  where h i g h  a t t e n d a n c e f o r  was  an L I S I  s c o r e s  the  m e a s u r e  o f  i n c o n g r u -  not  v e r i f i e d ,  d i d  i n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t s such  as  as  the  o r  f o r  i n d i v i d u a l the  p e r s i s t e n c e  i n c o n g r u e n c e  d e c i -  a c c o u n t  w h e t h e r  i n f l u e n c i n g the  l e n g t h  C o n g r u e n c e  n o t  s i g n i f i c a n t l y examine  the  p e r s i s t e n c e  i n c o n g r u e n c e . s c o r e s  • \ .'.  same  i d e n t i f y w h e t h e r  i n f l u e n c i n g the  as  so  who  p a r t i c i -  each  w i t h  s c o r e  h i g h  the  e x p e c t  t h i s h y p o t h e s i s  a t t e n d a n c e  l e s s  l e s s  p e r c e i v e  low  L I S I  conducted i n  p l a c e  t h e r e f o r e  s c o r e s ,  and  i n d i v i d u a l e x p e r i e n c i n g  v a r i o u s  a r e  s t u d e n t s  i n s t r u c t o r L I S I  F u t u r e  c o u r s e  o f  t h e r e  a  L I S I  i n d i v i d u a l e x p e r i e n c i n g  s c o r e s .  the  i s  who  S i m i l a r l y , i n s t r u c t o r s  i n c o n g r u e n c e  s h o u l d  l e a r n e r  v a r i a t i o n s  L I S I  a t t e n d a n c e .  f u t u r e  o r  and  w i t h  l e a r n i n g ,  However,  l e a r n e r  i n s t r u c t o r had  L I S I  t h e i r own  t r a d i t i o n a lm a n n e r  o f  low  c o r r e l a t e d  i n s t r u c t o r s who  r a n g e  was  l e a r n e r s '  l e a r n e r s  and  as  i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e p l a c e  r e g u l a r l y .  h i g h  the  environments  l e a r n i n g  c l a s s  a  Both  t h a t  r e g u l a r l y .  than  more  h a v e  i f the  l e a r n e r  a  has  w i l l  the  c l a s s  a  a t t e n d  i n s t r u c t o r  i n d i c a t e s  c l a s s r o o m  a t t e n d a n c e  pants  w h i l e  on  t h i s h y p o t h e s i s  n e g a t i v e l y  l e a r n e r - c e n t r e d  a t t e n d  r o l e  s c o r e s  T h i s  l e a r n e r - c e n t r e d  c l a s s  w e r e  r e s p o n s i b i l i t yf o r  e m p h a s i s  adopt  ence  f o r  f o r  h y p o t h e s i s .  s c o r e s  s c o r e s .  a c c e p t  l i k e l y  f i r s t  L I S I  p r e f e r e n c e  l e s s  on  f a c t o r s e x i s t s  l e n g t h d e c i -  w h e t h e r  d i r e c t i o n  98 of  the., i n c o n g r u e n c e  s h i p  b e t w e e n  and  the  l e a r n e r  Learner  t h i r d  i t e e  the  the  a c t u a l  However,  d i f f e r e n c e there  t h i s  m e a s u r e  be  c o n c l u d e d  can  b e t w e e n  the  i n s t r u c t o r ' s i n f l u e n c e d them.  ing  than  a c h i e v e m e n t  s e l v e s .  This  m o s t  when  the  i n c o n g r u e n c e  to  the  the  t h e m s e l v e s of  l e a r n e r s  c o u l d  f a v o u r a b l y  be  as  and  LISI  t h o s e  the  higher  l e a r n e r s  per  se  was  who  not  e v a l u a t i o n  However  the  s i g n i f i c a n t l y  l e a r n e r s r a t e d  LISI  scores  f a c t attend  b e t w e e n  with  they  the  be-  i n c o n g r u e n c e  s u b j e c t i v e  of  as  Therefore  i n c o n g r u e n c e  higher o f  m e a s u r e d  score.  the  was  than  r e s u l t  hypothesis  c o r r e l a t i o n  scores  LISI  no  i n s t r u c t o r s '  l e a r n i n g o f  was  the was  negative  l e a r n i n g  with a  and  a c h i e v e m e n t .  o f  there  and  p a r t i c i p a n t  d i r e c t i o n r a t e d  score  i n s t r u c t o r ' s  l e a r n i n g of  scores,  m a g n i t u d e  the  c a l c u l a t e d  l e a r n e r s '  s i g n i f i c a n t  the  was  i n c o n g r u e n c e  i n s t r u c t o r s '  r e l a t e d  the  l e a r n i n g  c o n g r u e n c e  and  I n s t r u c t o r s scores  r a t e d  r e l a t i o n -  that:  LISI  with  t h a t  r a t i n g  by  a  of  p a r t i c i p a n t ' s  t h e i r  between  was  l e a r n e r s '  s i g n i f i c a n t l y  LISI  b e t w e e n  scores  tween  s t a t e d  i n c o n g r u e n c e  c o r r e l a t i o n  r e j e c t e d .  of  the  screpancy scores b e t w e e n i n s t r u c t o r and l e a r n e r ' s t i t u d e t o w a r d s l e a r n i n g and i n s t r u c t i o n w i l l be g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with the i n s t r u c t o r ' s r c e p t i o n of l e a r n e r ' s l e a r n i n g a c h i e v e m e n t " .  discrepancy  was  LISI  l e a r n e r - i n s t r u e t o r  hypothesis  i n s t r u c t o r - l e a r n e r  s i g n i f i c a n t  i t  of  of  A c h i e v e m e n t  "D a n p  as  m e a s u r e  s i g n i f i c a n c e  a t t e n d a n c e .  The  When  c o n f o u n d i n g the  l o w e r  the  l e a r n -  than  t h a t c l a s s  them-  i n s t r u c t o r s m o s t  r e g u l a r l y  a n d a s was  noted,  i n v e r s e l y  c o r r e l a t e d .  On  r a t i n g  more  may  b e  responding  f o r  i n s t r u c t o r - c e n t r e d  f u l  o f  to  more  study  b e t w e e n  h a s  o t h e r  nature  o f  shown  t h a t  INFLUENCE  l e a r n e r drawn  P r e d i c t o r s  a s  who  score,  o f  l e a r n e r  p r e f e r  r e l a t i o n s h i p  a c h i e v e m e n t  a n d  t o l e a r n i n g  i n d i c a t e d  t o b e  r e s p e c t -  l e a r n i n g .  s i g n i f i c a n t  r e s p e c t  a s was  p r e f e r e n c e  more  l e a r n e r s  i n  LISI  a  t o b e  student  c a n b e  above,  e x a m i n e d  t o t a l l y  a n d  t h e r e  b e f o r e  t h e  r e v e a l e d .  CHARACTERISTICS  were  scores,  l e a r n e r were  o f LISI  index  a  w i t h  n e e d  LISI  analyses  o f LISI The  t h a t  a n d  p r e d i c t o r s  p r e d i c t o r s  a n a l y s i s  p r e d i c t  these  s a t i s f a c t i o n and  o f  equations  p e r s i s t e n c e ,  s e c t i o n s ;  r a t i n g  SOCIO-ECONOMIC  t h a t  f r o m  was  r e l a t i o n s h i p  Regression v a r i a b l e s  there  However  h y p o t h e s e s  OF  l o w e r  w i t h  a r e l i k e l y  incongruence  s t y l e .  t h i s  h a v e  t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i r  i n s t r u c t o r - l e a r n e r  r e m a i n  who  than  w e r e  t h e i n s t r u c t o r  l e a r n e r s  ( o r s e r v i l e )  t h e i n s t r u c t o r ' s  i n s t r u c t i o n a l  t h a t  l e a r n i n g  a n d attendance  hand,  students  t o t h e f a c t  o f  score  t h e o t h e r  those  t h e i n s t r u c t o r  accept  This  f a v o u r a b l y  LISI  generated l e a r n e r  t o  s a t i s f a c t i o n ,  a c h i e v e m e n t s .  presented score,  p r e d i c t o r s  i n t h e  p r e d i c t o r s o f  i d e n t i f y  l e a r n e r  T h e  c o n c l u s i o n s  f o l l o w i n g o f  l e a r n e r  p e r s i s t e n c e ,  a c h i e v e m e n t .  scores  v a r i a b l e s p r e d i c t o r s  i d e n t i f i e d through o f  l e a r n e r ' s  LISI  t h e score  r e g r e s s i o n w i t h a l l  100 l e a r n e r were:  h i g h e s t  y e a r s were f o r  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( F i g .  h i g h  e d u c a t i o n a l  s c h o o l  e x p e r i e n c e d t h e i r own  f r e q u e n t l y a t t i t u d e s  l e a r n i n g  and  p r e f e r r e d  were  a l s o  4)  v a r i a b l e s  was o f  e x p e r i e n c e ( h i g h e s t d u r i n g y o u t h  income two  f i r s t  How w i t h  r e s p e c t  p o s s i b i l i t y  might  backgrounds  and  I n s t r u c t o r s  might  p a r t i c u l a r a r e  i s  o f  and the  f o r  m i n i m i z e  s t y l e s and  group  o f  l e a r n e r s .  tenuous"-  r e s e a r c h .  adopt  and  income)  p o s t - s e c o n d a r y  w e r e  congruence s e l e c t e d  e q u a t i o n .  h i g h  L I S I  environments.  t h e i r  w i t h  a p p r o p r i a t e  However, .need  i n c o n g r u e n c e One  i n d i v i d u a l s whose o f  to  be  t h e s e  a  the  s c o r e s  i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e ?  an  Thus  e s p e c i a l l y a t  l e a r n e r - i n s t r u c t o r  c o n v e r s a n t  3,  i n s t r u c t o r  f u l l - t i m e  t h a t  These  (Fig..  l e a r n e r - c e n t r e d  s i m i l a r to  become  s c o r e the  w i t h  a t t e n d  l e a r n e r s .  e x p e r i e n c e ,  i n v o l v e matching  a l s o  to  environments.  r e g r e s s i o n  a s s o c i a t e d  a r e  need  l e a r n e r - i n s t r u c t o r  o f  p r e f e r e n c e  ages  the  8),  l e a r n e r ' s  l e a r n i n g and  t e n t a t i v e and  subsequent  s t e p s  e d u c a t o r s to  i n s t r u c t i o n a l  age,  who  a c c e p t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  younger  Table  and  I n d i v i d u a l s  to  d i s c r e p a n c y  (see  independent a t t e n d a n c e ,  7).  f e e l  w i t h  e d u c a t i o n a l  l e v e l  n o t  achievement  f i v e  i n d i c a t e s a can, .adult  L I S I  m e a s u r e s  p r e v i o u s  p o s t - s e c o n d a r y which  and  T a b l e  p r e p a r e d  would,  1,3)  age,  s t u d e n t - c e n t r e d  when  e d u c a t i o n a l  and  were  dependent  and  the  (see  a s s o c i a t e d  S i m i l a r l y q u a d r a n t  so  quadrants  achievement,  completed l e a r n e r s  3,  e d u c a t i o n a l  l e a r n e r s .  v a r i e t y  s t y l e f o r  o f any  recommendations  i n v e s t i g a t e d  i n  101 P r e d i c t o r s of Learner S a t i s f a c t i o n Index Score Socio-economic v a r i a b l e s were i d e n t i f i e d the r e g r e s s i o n  equation as p r e d i c t o r s of l e a r n e r  with the a d d i t i o n o f i n s t r u c t o r ' s L I S I score  (Income, occupation) were  P r e d i c t o r s o f Learner  satisfaction  (see Table 9).  V a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d to the socio-economic s t a t u s o f instructor  through  the  included.  Persistence  Learner achievement alone accounted f o r 41 per o f the v a r i a n c e  i n attendance.  Learner achievement w i t h  the s i n g l e v a r i a b l e s , i n s t r u c t o r s income and school  completed, and  the double  years of  (congruence) v a r i a b l e  d i s c r e p a n c y , accounted f o r 7 5 per cent o f the v a r i a n c e persistence The  (see Table  (and  age  age in  appear to be r e l a t e d  As noted e a r l i e r , o l d e r i n s t r u c t o r s  t h e r e f o r e more h i g h l y paid) p r e f e r r e d  instructor-centred  environments i n which r e g u l a r attendance i s u s u a l l y The  high  11).  i n s t r u c t o r ' s income and  to l e a r n e r p e r s i s t e n c e .  cent  required.  r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s supports t h i s view.  P r e d i c t o r s of L e a r n i n g Achievement The  previous regression a n a l y s i s i d e n t i f i e d  the  most powerful p r e d i c t o r o f attendance as l e a r n e r achievement (learning score).  So c o n v e r s e l y ,  when p r e d i c t i n g  learner  achievement, i t would be expected t h a t attendance score would be  i t s most powerful p r e d i c t o r .  This was  the  case.  102  Attendance scores. and  accounted  The  the  single  double  scores  per  the  Tentatively, awarded  a  an  is  similar  part-time has at  been every  whose  learner-instructor  persistence  to  ment.  A l l previous  effect  congruence  may  which  the  have  achievement respect  to  instructor  must  attend  class  or  were  the  learner-instructor  instructor's studies  which  related  extent  to  congruence  rating  of  learner  relied  on  one  which does  achieve-  measure  of  by  the  learner's  in  was  difference  s a t i s f a c t i o n to  not  disguised  of  not  c o n g r u e n c e was  identify significant relation-  rating  486,  taught  to  For  =  learner  with an  be  class  educational  such  13).  failed  gruence.  df  the  a  to  71  opportunity.  appear  age  Once  for  Table  wishes  experience  is different. course,  (see  selecting  highest  achievement  accounted  score  learning  part-time  educational  who  in  completed,  years  attendance  consider  but  variance  school  age,  learner  own,  l i t e r a t u r e suggested,  ships  a  and  i d e n t i f i e d , of  learner  the  that  the  high  learning  age  learning  of  highest  whose  his  While to  years  with  in  grade might  instructor to  and  variance  cent  variables  together  i t appears  high  by  per  variable,  training,  discrepancy of  64  (congruence)  post-secondary  cent  for  instance,  the  learning  statistically  i n age p<.12).  was  relationship achievement  of  measuring  between and  s i g n i f i c a n t when  correlated However  method  the  with  instructor's  their the  learner's  con-  difference actual  score  c o r r e l a t i o n between  (r=  .05,  learning  103  score and (p=  age  d i s c r e p a n c y was  df=  -.15,  486,  p<.001).  statistically significant T h i s would suggest t h a t there i s  a e u r v i - l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n s t r u c t o r ' s r a t i n g o f l e a r n e r achievement and respect age  to age.  l e a r n e r - i n s t r u c t o r congruence w i t h  Instructors  r a t e d l e a r n e r s who  as themselves more f a v o u r a b l y  e i t h e r younger or o l d e r  than those l e a r n e r s who  than themselves.  the confounding e f f e c t i n t r o d u c e d  were the same were  Another example of  when measuring congruence  i s observed i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the  instructor's rating  of l e a r n e r achievement  learning  ( l e a r n i n g score) and  i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e congruence. between l e a r n i n g score and ( r=  - . 0 0 5 ,  df=  i n l e a r n e r and  494,  The  hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p  LISI d i s c r e p a n c y was  p<.49).  not  However, the a c t u a l  i n s t r u c t o r scores on LISI was  r e l a t e d w i t h l e a r n e r achievement  (v  and  =-.12,  observed difference  negatively  df=  494,  cor-  p<.003).  Thus l e a r n e r s w i t h lower LISI scores than t h e i r i n s t r u c t o r r e c e i v e d more r e c o g n i t i o n  f o r t h e i r .learning achievement than  d i d l e a r n e r s whose LISI scores exceeded those o f t h e i r instructors. I t i s l i k e l y t h a t p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h e r s who  relied  s o l e l y on e i t h e r the d i s c r e p a n c y score c o r r e l a t i o n s or d i f f e r e n c e score c o r r e l a t i o n s may s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s and hypotheses on  actual  have f a i l e d to i d e n t i f y  erroneously rejected,or  confirmed  the b a s i s o f Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n procedures.  I t would seem t h a t i n f u t u r e r e s e a r c h  on  interpersonal  con-  gruency e f f e c t s , r e s e a r c h e r s must r e c o g n i z e t h a t the method of c a l c u l a t i n g incongruence may  disguise  significant correlations  104  and  so  these  should  consider  statistical  curvi-linear relationships  procedures  to  be  that  will  allow  exposed.  SUMMARY  In away  from  recent  This  as  lack  actions that  to  of  have  the  between  e f f e c t of  investigate adult  learners'  was  related  the  learning student  to  and  attitudes  in  performance.  significant  to  trend  "student-centred"  the  of  the  teaching  provide  role  profes-  conclusive  probably and  results  Researchers  study  with  the  The  three  attempted that  developed  the  learning  and  have  factors  was  between  towards  inter-  instructor characteristics  environmental This  from  to  instructor and  may  and  instruction  satisfaction with  instructor's  hypotheses  evaluation  developed  were  that: 1.  Discrepancy and  scores  learner's  instruction  of  different instructional styles.  p a r t i c i p a t i o n and  experience,  a  towards  unable  congruence  learner  been  re-evaluation  outcomes.  outcomes.  whether  the  learner  identify personality learning  and  evidence  various learner  has  controversy been  conclusive  influence  affect  of  While  caused  researchers  evidence  to  styles.  i n s t r u c t o r has  sion,'  there  "instructor-centred"  instructional an  years  between  attitude  will  be  instructor  towards  negatively  learning  and  correlated  105 w i t h 2.  l e a r n e r s a t i s f a c t i o n .  D i s c r e p a n c y  l e a r n e r ' s  and  i n s t r u c t i o n w i l l  i n s t r u c t i o n w i l l w i t h  p e r c e p t i o n  o f  f a c t i o n  t h e r e f o r e  judges, and  who  c o n t e n t  the  and  d u r i n g  i n  the  same  d i r e c t i o n on  appear  t h a t  b o t h  s o c i o - e c o n o m i c i n d i c e s  i n s t r u m e n t r e p e a t e d items  was  w e r e  the  t o  t h i s  above.  checked  f o r  a  Both  number  c l a r i t y  f i r s t  l o a d e d  The  o f  through the  a same  e x p r e s s i o n  performed  A  p r i o r  i n c o r p o r a t e d o f  the  I t  w o u l d  i n s t r u c t o r the  two  e n t i r e  t e s t - r e t e s t d e s i g n p o p u l a t i o n .  and  r e s e a r c h  p a r t i c i p a n t and  r e l i a b i l i t y  e x p e r t  f a c t o r .  u n i d i m e n s i o n a l .  i n s t r u m e n t  t h e s e  s i g n i f i c a n t l y  u n r o t a t e d  c o l l e c t  s a t i s o f  o f  f a c t o r a n a l y s i s was  i n d i c e s were  data;  w i t h  w o u l d  l e a r n e r ' s  d e v e l o p e d .  A l l items  d e s i g n e d  achievement.  by  .  U n r e l i a b l e  d e l e t e d . The  c o l l e c t e d  l e a r n i n g  a v a i l a b l e t h a t  c o n c e r t  A  a p p l i c a t i o n s on  were  i n s t r u c t o r ' s  i n s t r u m e n t s  study.  mentioned  l e a r n i n g  n e g a t i v e l y  l e a r n e r ' s  i n  c o n s i s t e n c y .  was  the  m e a s u r e s  to  i n s t r u m e n t  be  i n s t r u m e n t s  d e v e l o p e d  the  i n s t r u c t o r  i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e o r  two  checked  p e r s i s t e n c e .  a t t i t u d e towards  c o r r e l a t e d  l e a r n i n g and  l e a r n i n g  n e g a t i v e l y  b e t w e e n  and  m e a s u r e  were  s c o r e s  l e a r n e r ' s  no  be  l e a r n e r  and  were  i n s t r u c t o r  a t t i t u d e towards  w i t h  D i s c r e p a n c y  There  m e a s u r e s  b e t w e e n  and  c o r r e l a t e d 3.  s c o r e s  a t  d a t a two  r e q u i r e d  a d u l t  to  t e s t  e d u c a t i o n  the  c e n t r e s  hypotheses o p e r a t e d  w e r e by  Vancouver  106  Community 638  College.  participants  offered  The s a m p l e c o n s i s t e d  selected  College during  with  of 8 4 classes  a t random f r o m a t o t a l  a t t h e L a n g a r a and E r i c  Community  of 38 classes  Hamber c e n t r e s o f V a n c o u v e r  the f a l l  t e r m i n 1975.  None o f t h e t h r e e h y p o t h e s e s were c o n f i r m e d . d i s c r e p a n c y between i n s t r u c t o r ' s learning the  of either  towards l e a r n i n g strong p o s i t i v e both learner  the  the p a r t i c i p a n t  and i n s t r u c t i o n . correlations  important  s a t i s f a c t i o n and  scores considered  that  the  learner's  and  not to the d i f f e r e n c e  learner  and t h e i n s t r u c t o r ' s  hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p learner-instructor rejected.  were c o r r e l a t e d  that  r e l a t e d to learning The  achievement and  and i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e these  congruence variables  t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e measure o f  the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h i s  predict  was  b e t w e e n them.  R e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n s were g e n e r a t e d variables  scores,  diminished.  toward  i t would appear t h a t  and t h a t  congruence d i s g u i s e d  attitude  between l e a r n e r  learning  However,  persistence  i n attitude  independ-  as d i s c r e p a n c y  s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n was. g r e a t l y i t appeared  than  I n p a r t i c u l a r t h e r e were  between l e a r n e r  and i n s t r u c t o r L I S I  towards  or the i n s t r u c t o r  o f e a c h o t h e r , b u t when c o n s i d e r e d  Similarly,  was  attitudes  and i n s t r u c t i o n a p p e a r s t o be l e s s  attitude  ently  and l e a r n e r  The  learning  learner  persistence,  and l e a r n e r  related  to the i n s t r u c t o r ' s  relationship. to i d e n t i f y  and i n s t r u c t i o n a l achievement.  socio-economic  measures o f i n s t r u c t o r and l e a r n e r  Variables  status  previous  e x p e r i e n c e were t h e most p o w e r f u l p r e d i c t o r s  style, that  and v a r i o u s  educational of learning  and  107 i n s t r u c t i o n a l and  l e a r n e r  s t y l e ,  f i c a n t  s a t i s f a c t i o n , l e a r n e r  m e t h o d  c o n g r u e n c e  through  was  c o r r e l a t i o n .  w h i c h  d e r i v e d In  t h i s  d i s c r e p a n c y  d i f f e r e n c e s  was  p o s s i b l e  i d e n t i f y some  to  r e l a t i o n s h i p s  w h i c h  e f f e c t s may  w o u l d have  r e s e a r c h e r s  who  s t a t i s t i c a l  procedure  s t u d i e s  w h i c h  used  t h a t to  r e l a t i o n s h i p s  expect  seek  to  one  both  an  o f  As  the  m e a s u r e  f u r t h e r  w o r k o f  a  r e s u l t ,  n o t i o n  b e e n o f  the o f  i t  c o n g r u e n c e observed.  p r e v i o u s  c o n g r u e n c e  l i n e a r  u n r a v e l  the  i d e n t i f y these  a  have  s i g n i -  ( a r i t h m e t i c )  i n s t r u c t o r - l e a r n e r o t h e r w i s e  i n s t r u c t o r -  o t h e r w i s e  a c t u a l  recorded.  r e q u i r e d  u s i n g  m e a s u r e  d i s g u i s e  c o n f o u n d e d  i n s t r u c t o r and  may  w e r e  not  o n l y  attempt  the  study,  and  T h e s e  p e r s i s t e n c e ,  a c h i e v e m e n t .  The l e a r n e r  l e a r n e r  and  s o l u t i o n . c o m p l e x  a F u t u r e  l e a r n e r -  c o n g r u e n c e  s h o u l d  c u r v i - l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  108  REFERENCES  Alam,  M., a n d E . N. W r i g h t . A S c h e d u l e 10 P r o j e c t . 1968.  Alberta. A Future of Queen's P r i n t e r ,  A Study o f Night School Dropout. Toronto: Board of Education Press,  Choices. 1972.  A  Choice  of  Futures.  Edmonton:  Ampene, E . R. "Teaching Styles i n Adult Basic Education." i n G r i f f i t h , ed. Literacy Discussion. Adult Basic Education 11. I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e f o r A d u l t L i t e r a c y Methods, S e p t e m b e r 1973, V o l . 3, No. 3, p p . 191-205. B o r g e r , V. "The P r e d i c t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n B e t w e e n t h e E g o - S t a g e and G r o u p - R e v e l a n t A s p e c t s o f P e r s o n a l i t y and Learner S a t i s f a c t i o n and L e a r n e r A c h i e v e m e n t on t h e B a s i s o f the Degree o f Congruence i n T e a c h e r - S t u d e n t Dyads i n A d u l t Learning Groups." Unpublished Ph.D.. d i s s e r t a t i o n , W i s c o n sin University, 1969. B o s h i e r , R. "An I n s t r u m e n t a n d C o n c e p t u a l Model f o r the Pred i c t i o n and D i a g n o s i s o f D r o p o u t f r o m E d u c a t i o n a l Institutions." Wellington: Department o f U n i v e r s i t y Extension, Victoria University of Wellington, 1971. . "A P s y c h o l o g i c a l S t u d y o f A d u l t E d u c a t i o n Participat i o n and D r o p o u t . " Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Vic-, t o r i a U n i v e r s i t y o f W e l l i n g t o n , New Zealand, 1973a. . " E d u c a t i o n a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n and D r o p o u t : A Theoretical Model." Adult Education. Summer, 1 9 7 3 b , V o l . 23, No. 4, p p . 255-283. "Motivational Orientations Re-visited: Life-Space M o t i v e s and the E d u c a t i o n P a r t i c i p a t i o n S c a l e . " Adult Education. 1977, V o l . 1 7 , No. 2, p p . 89-115. "A C o n c e p t u a l and M e t h o d o l o g i c a l Perspective Concerning R e s e a r c h on P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n A d u l t E d u c a t i o n . " Unp u b l i s h e d monograph b a s e d on a s p e e c h g i v e n to the Graduate Colloquium, Department o f S e c o n d a r y and A d u l t E d u c a tion, Northern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y , DeKalb, Illinois, M a r c h 17, 1978. B o y l e , P. G., a n d I . R. J a h n s . "Program Development and a t i o n . " i n R.. M. S m i t h , G. F . A k e r , a n d J . R. K i d d , Handbook o f A d u l t E d u c a t i o n . New York: MacMillan, pp. 59-74.  Evalueds. 1970, .  109  B r i t i s h Columbia. Towards the L e a r n i n g S o c i e t y . Report on the Task Force on the Community C o l l e g e i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Victoria: (Research and Development D i v i s i o n , Department o f Education) Queen's P r i n t e r , August, 1974. Bryson, L. 1936.  A d u l t Education.  New  York:  American Book Company,  C l a r k , B. The M a r g i n a l i t y o f A d u l t E d u c a t i o n . Chicago: Center f o r the L i b e r a l Education f o r A d u l t s , 19 58. Cotton, W. E. On Behalf o f A d u l t E d u c a t i o n . A H i s t o r i c a l Examination o f the Supporting L i t e r a t u r e . Boston: Center f o r the Study of L i b e r a l Education f o r A d u l t s , 1968. Crew, J . L. "An I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f P e r s o n a l i t y P r o f i l e Congruence Between P u p i l s and Teacher as a P r e d i c t o r o f Course Achievement." Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Maryland, 19 68. Cronbach, L. J . "The Two D i s c i p l i n e s o f S c i e n t i f i c Psychology." American P s y c h o l o g i s t . 1957, No. 12, pp. 671-684. Dave, R. H. No. 1.  L i f e l o n g E d u c a t i o n and School C u r r i c u l u m . U. I. E. Hamburg: UNESCO - I n s t i t u t e f o r Education, 1973.  Dave, R. H„, ed. R e f l e c t i o n s on L i f e l o n g E d u c a t i o n and the School. U. I. E.. No. 3, Hamburg: UNESCO - I n s t i t u t e f o r Education, 1975. mon  . Foundations Press, 197 6.  of L i f e l o n g Education.  Dick, Walter, and Nancy Hagerty. l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y . New  Oxford:  Perga-  Topics i n Measurement: ReYork: McGraw-Hill, 1971.  D i c k i n s o n . G., ed. A d u l t Education i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Vancouver: A d u l t Education Research Centre, F a c u l t y o f Education, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h ^ C o l u m b i a , 1973. Teaching A d u l t s , A Handbook f o r I n s t r u c t o r s . Toronto: New Press, 1973a. D i c k i n s o n , G., and D. R u s n e l l . "A Content A n a l y s i s o f A d u l t Education." A d u l t E d u c a t i o n . 1971, V o l . 21, No. 3, pp. 177-185. D i c k i n s o n , G., and C. Verner. Community S t r u c t u r e and P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Adult. E d u c a t i o n . Vancouver: F a c u l t y of Educat i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h : C o l u m b i a , 19 69. Dubin, R.  Theory B u i l d i n g .  New  York:  Free Press, 19 69.  110 Duncan, S., and D. W. F i s k e . Fact-to-Fact Inter action: R e s e a r c h , Methods and T h e o r y . H i l l s d a l e , New J e r s e y : L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m A s s o c i a t e s , 197 7. F a u r e , E. ( C h a i r m a n ) . L e a r n i n g To Be, t h e W o r l d o f E d u c a t i o n Today and Tomorrow. The R e p o r t o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n on t h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n : Paris, UNESCO, 1972. F e s t i n g e r , L. Illinois:  A Theory o f C o g n i t i v e Dissonance. Row, P e t e r s o n , 1957.  Evanston,  F l a n d e r s , N. A. T e a c h e r I n f l u e n c e , P u p i l A t t i t u d e s and A c h i e v e ment. F i n a l Report. Minnesota: Cooperative Residential P r o j e c t No. 397, U n i v e r s i t y o f M i n n e s o t a , 1960. Gagne, R. M. The C o n d i t i o n s o f L e a r n i n g . R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , 19 65. Gagne, R. M., Design.  and New  New  York:  Holt,  L. J . B r i g g s . P r i n c i p l e s of Instructional York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , 1974.  G e t z e l s , J . W., and H. A. T h e l e n . "The C l a s s r o o m Group as a U n i q u e S o c i a l System." i n B. N e l s o n , e d . The F i f t y - N i n t h Yearbook o f the N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r the Study o f Educat i o n , Chicago"! Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1960, pp. 53-83. G e t z e l s , J . W., and E . G. Guba. " P e r s o n a l i t y and T e a c h e r Effectiveness: A Problem i n T h e o r e t i c a l Research." Journal of Educational Psychology. 1955, No. 3, pp. 344 .  336-  Gill,  K. F. "An I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f C o n g r u e n t and I n c o n g r u e n t V a l u e Systems Between C o l l e g e S t u d e n t s and T e a c h e r s as i t A f f e c t s Student E v a l u a t i o n . " U n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. dissertation, Northern I l l i n o i s University, 1973.  Gill,  M. P. R e l a t i o n s h i p Between P a t t e r n o f A c h i e v e m e n t and S e l f - I d e a l Congruence. U.S., E d u c a t i o n a l R e s o u r c e s I n f o r m a t i o n C e n t e r , ERIC Document ED 047 329, F e b r u a r y 1971.  G l a s e r , B. G., and A. S t r a u s s . The D i s c o v e r y o f G r o u n d e d Theory: S t r a t e g i e s f o r Q u a l i t a t i v e Research. Chicago: A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g , 1967. Gordon, I . J . , ed. C r i t e r i a f o r T h e o r i e s o f I n s t r u c t i o n . W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.: A s s o c i a t i o n f o r S u p e r v i s i o n and C u r r i c u l u m D e v e l o p m e n t , 19 68. Gvetzhow, H., E . L. K e l l y , and W. M c K e a c h i e . C o m p a r i s o n o f R e c i t a t i o n D i s c u s s i o n and  "An E x p e r i m e n t a l T u t o r i a l Methods  I l l  i n  C o l l e g e  19 5 4 ,  H a l l ,  V o l .  Teaching." 45,  J o u r n a l  o fE d u c a t i o n a l  Psychology.  p p . 193-209.  D . T . "The E f f e c t Student L e a r n i n g i n t i o n a l Psychology.  o fT e a c h e r - S t u d e n t C o l l e g e C l a s s e s . " 1970, V o l . 61, p p .  C o n g r u e n c e Upon J o u r n a l o f Educa205-213.  Hanna, I . " A d u l t E d u c a t i o n Students." Rewley House Papers, Oxford Delegacy f o r E x t r a Mural S t u d i e s , 1965-1966, p p . 14-43.  Heath,  R . W., a n d M . A . N i e l s o n . "The R e v i e w B a s i s f o r P e r f o r m a n c e - B a s e d Teacher E d u c a t i o n . " R e v i e w o f E d u c a t i o n a l Research. F a l l 1974, V o l . 44, N o .4, p p . 463-484.  Heider, F . The Psychology o fI n t e r p e r s o n a l York: W i l e y a n d S o n s , 19 6 1 .  R e l a t i o n s .  N e w  H i l l ,  L .E . " A S t h e i r R e l a t i P e r c e p t i o n o Syracuse U n i  t u d y o fL e v e l s o fC o n c e p t u a l F u n c t i o n i n g and o n s h i p t oS t u d e n t A c h i e v e m e n t and Student f Teachers." U n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , v e r s i t y , 19 6 9 .  Houle,  C . 0. The Bass, 1972.  Hunt,  D . E . Matching M o d e l s i n E d u c a t i o n : The C o o r d i n a t i o n o f T e a c h i n g Methods w i t h Student C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Toronto: The O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e o fS t u d i e s i n E d u c a t i o n , 1971.  Design  o fE d u c a t i o n .  San  "The B-F-E Paradigm f o r Theory, Canadian P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. J u l y  J o s s e y -  Research and P r a c t i c e . " 19 7 5 , V o l . 1 6 , N o . 3 ,  18 5 - 1 9 7 .  pp.  I l l i c h ,  F r a n c i s c o :  I . D e - S c h o o l i n g  S o c i e t y .  N e wYork:  Harper  and  Row,  1970.  Jensen, G . "How A d u l t E K n o w l e d g e o fo t h e r l i n e s o fa n E m e r g i n G. J e n s e n , A .A .L i ton, D . C . : A d u l t 1964,  d D g v E  u c a i s c F e r i d u c  t i i g a  i p e h t  o n l i n l d t a i o n  Borrow e s . " o f U n i n d W. A s s o c  s and Reformulates A d u l t E d u c a t i o n : O u t v e r s i t y Study. E d i t e d b y C .H a l l e n b e c k . W a s h i n g i a t i o n o f the U.S.A.,  p p . 105-111.  Johnstone, J .W . C . , and R . J . R i v e r a . V o l u n t e e r s f o r L e a r n i n g . A Study o fthe E d u c a t i o n a l P u r s u i t s - o f AmericanA d u l t s . Chicago: A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g , 1965. Kahn,  Kidd,  H . ,and A . J. W i e n e r . S p e c u l a t i o n o n the next M a c M i l l a n , 1967. J .R . 1973.  H o wA d u l t s  Learn.  The Year 200 0, A F r a m e w o r k f o r T h i r t y - T h r e e Years. N e w York:  N e wYork:  A s s o c i a t i o n  Press,  112 L e a r n i n g and S o c i e t y . f o r A d u l t Education, 1963.  Toronto:  Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n  Knowles, M. S. The Modern P r a c t i c e of A d u l t E d u c a t i o n : Andragogy Versus Pedagogy. New York: A s s o c i a t i o n Press, 1970. . "Issues i n A d u l t L e a r n i n g Psychology." October 19 73, V o l . 1, No. 5. Jaipur, India: of A d u l t Education, U n i v e r s i t y o f Rajasthan.  Prasar. Department  K r e i t l o w , B. W. "Theories o f A d u l t L e a r n i n g . " i n C. K l e v i n s , ed. M a t e r i a l s and Methods i n A d u l t Education. New York: Klevens P u b l i c a t i o n s Inc., 1972, pp. 233-240. Lamke, T. A. " P e r s o n a l i t y and Teaching Success." J o u r n a l of Experimental E d u c a t i o n . 1951, V o l . 20, pp. 217-259. Lecky, P. S e l f C o n s i s t e n c y : A Theory o f P e r s o n a l i t y . York: I s l a n d Press, 1945.  New  Leuder, E. J . A Study of the P r e d i c t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n Between Congruency Measures Based on Work-Emotionality Theory and the Achievement and S a t i s f a c t i o n i n A d u l t I n s t r u c t i o n a l Groups. U.S., E d u c a t i o n a l Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 060 4 24, A p r i l 197 2. L e v i n e , M. A C o g n i t i v e Theory o f L e a r n i n g . Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s , 1975.  New  Jersey:  Lewln, K. Hill,  New  York:  A Dynamic Theory of P e r s o n a l i t y . 1935.  McGraw-  Lindeman, E. The Meaning o f A d u l t E d u c a t i o n . New York: New R e p u b l i c Inc., 19 26 (Republished i n Montreal by Harvest House L t d . , 1961). L i p p i t t , R., and R. K. White. "The ' S o c i a l Climate' o f C h i l d ren's Groups." i n R. G. Barker, J . S. Kounin, . and.H.. F. Wright, eds. C h i l d Behaviour and Development. New York: McGraw-Hill, 194 3, pp. 48 5-508. L i t t l e , D. " A d u l t L e a r n i n g and Education: A Conceptual Model." A Paper presented to the A d u l t Education Research Conference, San Antonio, Texas, A p r i l 1978. L i v e r i g h t , A. A. S t r a t e g i e s o f Leadership i n Conducting A d u l t Education Programs. New York: Harper and Row, 19 59. London, J . , R. Wenkert, and W. 0. Hagstrom. A t t i t u d e s Towards A d u l t Education by S o c i a l C l a s s . Report on P r o j e c t #1017. Berkeley: Survey Research Center, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press, December 19 63.  113 Lott,  J . A.., a n d B. E . L o t t . "Group C o h e s i v e n e s s as I n t e r personal Attraction: A Review o f R e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h A n t e c e d e n t and Consequent V a r i a b l e s . " Psycho1ogica1 Bulletin. 1 9 6 5 , V o l . 64, No. 4, p p . 259-309.  M c G u i r e , W. J . "The N a t u r e o f A t t i t u d e s a n d A t t i t u d e C h a n g e . " i n G. L i n d z e y , a n d E . A r o n s o n , e d s . The Handbook o f Social Psychology. Reading, Massachusetts: AddisonW e s l e y , 1968, V o l . 3, p p . 1 3 6 - 3 1 4 . McKeachie, W. J . Psychology. M a s l o w , A . H. a n d Row,  "Instructional 1 9 7 4 , V o l . 25,  M o t i v a t i o n and 19 54.  Psychology." pp. 161-194.  Personality.  New  Annual  York:  Review  Harper  M u r p h y , P. D. "Conceptual Systems and.Teaching U n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. dissertation, University 1969.  Styles." of Minnesota,  M u r r a y , H. A. E x p l o r a t i o n s i n P e r s o n a l i t y . University Press, 1938.  York:  New  of  Oxford  Nie,  N. H. , C. H. D. H. B r e n t . 2d. e d . New  H a l l , J . G. J e n k i n s , K.. S t e i n b r e n n e r , a n d S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c i a l S c i e n c e . York: M c G r a w - H i l l , 19 7 5 .  O.  E.  C D . Recurrent Education: A Strategy for Lifelong Learning^ Paris: O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Economic C o o p e r a t i o n and Development, 1973.  O.  E.  C. D. Recurrent Education: Trends and I s s u e s . Paris: O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Economic C o o p e r a t i o n and Development, 1975.  Ontario. The L e a r n i n g S o c i e t y . Report of Post-Secondary Education i n Ontario. o f Government S e r v i c e s , 1972.  t h e C o m m i s s i o n on Toronto: Ministry  O s g o o d , C. E . , a n d P. H. T a n n e n b a u m . "The P r i n c i p l e o f Cong r u i t y i n t h e P r e d i c t i o n o f A t t i t u d e C h a n g e . " i n M. F i s h b e i n , ed. Readings i n A t t i t u d e Theory and Measurement. New Y o r k : W i l e y a n d S o n s , 1967, pp. 301-311. O s w a l d , R. C . " C o n c e p t u a l L e v e l as a D e t e r m i n a n t o f T e a c h e r B e h a v i o u r and A t t i t u d e s i n a N o n - S t r u c t u r e d Type o f Learning Activity." U n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. dissertation, Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y , 1971. P e r y i n , L . A. "Performance and S a t i s f a c t i o n as a F u n c t i o n o f I n d i v i d u a l Environment F i t . " Psychological Bulletin. 1 9 6 0 , V o l . 57, p p . 4 0 3 - 4 1 5 .  114 P e t e r s , J . M., and R. B o s h i e r . " A d u l t Needs, I n t e r e s t s and Motives." i n C. KIevens, ed. M a t e r i a l s and Methods i n C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n . New York: Klevens P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1976, pp. 197-212. P r o c a c c i n i , J . "A Study o f the R e l a t i o n s h i p o f the Congruence o f I d e o l o g i c a l Systems o f Teachers and P r i n c i p l e s and Teacher Ratings o f P r i n c i p a l s ' E f f e c t i v e n e s s . " Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , The C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y o f America, 1971. Proshansky, H. M., W. H. I t t e l s o n , and L. G„ R i v l i n , eds. Environmental Psychology: Man and His P h y s i c a l S e t t i n g . New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1967. Quastel, L. "Need F o r T r a i n i n g and Job S a t i s f a c t i o n i n Community Mental H e a l t h Workers." Unpublished M.A. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979. Randhawa, B. S., and L. L. W. Fu. "Assessment and E f f e c t o f Some Classroom Environment V a r i a b l e s . " Review o f Educat i o n a l Research. 1973, V o l . 43, No. 3, pp. 303-321. Rogers, C. R. "A Theory o f Therapy, P e r s o n a l i t y , and I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s , as Developed i n the C l i e n t Centered Framework," i n S. Koch, ed. Psychology: A Study o f Science. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959, pp. 184-2 Rogers-Warren, A., and S. F. Warren, eds. E c o l o g i c a l Perspect i v e s i n Behaviour A n a l y s i s . B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1977. R u s s e l l , S i r L i o n e l (Chairman)... A d u l t E d u c a t i o n : A P l a n f o r Development. Great B r i t a i n : S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e f o r Educ a t i o n and Science, 1973. Santmire, T. E. "An I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the Role o f Student Conc e p t u a l L e v e l and Teacher Radiated Environment i n A c h i e v e ment. " Unpublished Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Rochester, 1970. Schmid, J . " F a c t o r A n a l y s i s o f P r o s p e c t i v e Teacher's D i f f e r ences." J o u r n a l o f Experimental Education.. 1950, V o l . 18 pp. 287-320. Secord, P. F., and C. F. Backman. "An I n t e r p e r s o n a l Approach to P e r s o n a l i t y . " i n Maher, ed. Progress i n Experimental P e r s o n a l i t y Research. 197 0, V o l . 2, pp. 91-125. Slmmonds, E. J . (Chairman). L i f e l o n g E d u c a t i o n . W e l l i n g t o n : New Zealand N a t i o n a l Commission f o r UNESCO, October, 1972. Simons, H. W., N. N. Berkowitz, and R. J . Moyer. "Similarity C r e d i b i l i t y , and A t t i t u d e Change: A Review and a Theory." Psychological B u l l e t i n . 1979, V o l . 73, No. 1, pp. 1-16.  115 Singh, A. H. " I n t e r e s t s , Values and P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s o f Students S p e c i a l i z i n g i n D i f f e r e n t F i e l d s o f Study i n University." Unpublished M. A. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f London, England, 1965. Snelbecker, G. E. L e a r n i n g Theory, I n s t r u c t i o n a l Theory, and Psycho e d u c a t i o n a l Design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974. Solomon, D., and H. L. M i l l e r . : E x p l o r a t i o n i n Teaching S t y l e s . Report o f P r e l i m i n a r y I n v e s t i g a t i o n s and Development o f Categories. Chicago: Center f o r the Study o f L i b e r a l Education f o r A d u l t s , 19 61. Solomon, D., W i l l i a m E. Bezdek, and L a r r y Rosenberg. Teaching S t y l e s and L e a r n i n g . Chicago: Center f o r the Study o f L i b e r a l Education f o r A d u l t s , 19 63. Stern, G. G.  People i n Context.  New York:  Wiley, 1970.  Stock, A. K. "Teaching S t y l e s and Learning-Research S t r a t e g i e s and Models, with S p e c i a l Reference to the Part-Time Teacher o f A d u l t s . " S t u d i e s i n A d u l t E d u c a t i o n . October 1974, V o l . 6, No. 2, pp. 115-124. T o f f l e r , A.  F u t u r e Shock.  New York:  Bantam, 1971.  . L e a r n i n g f o r Tomorrow., The Role o f the F u t u r e i n Education. New York: Random House, 1972. Travers, Robert M. W. Man's Information System. Pennsylvania: . Chandler, 1970.  Scranton,  UNESCO. World Conference on A d u l t Education, Montreal, August 21-31, 19 60: F i n a l Report. Paris: UNESCO, 1960. 1972:  T h i r d World Conference on A d u l t Education, Tokyo, F i n a l Report. Paris: UNESCO, 197 2.  Recommendation on the Development o f A d u l t Education. Adopted by the General Conference o f UNESCO a t i t s 19th S e s s i o n , N a i r o b i , October 26 - November 30, 1976. Paris: UNESCO, 1976. Verner, C. "A Conceptual Scheme f o r the I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f Processes.'.' A d u l t E d u c a t i o n Theory and MethodWashington: Adult Education A s s o c i a t i o n , February, 1959. Verner, C , and A. BoOth. A d u l t E d u c a t i o n . New York: f o r A p p l i e d Research In Education, T 9 6 4 . Verner, C , and G. S. Davis, J r . "Completions A Review o f Research." Adu11 Educa110n. V o l . 14, pp. 157-176.  Centre  and Drop-Outs: S p r i n g 1964,  116 Verner, C , and C. V.. Davison., Psychological Factors i n Adult L e a r n i n g and I n s t r u c t i o n . F l o r i d a : Research Information P r o c e s s i n g Center, Department o f A d u l t Education, F l o r i d a State U n i v e r s i t y , 1971. Verner, C , and J . S. Newberry, Jr.. "The Nature o f A d u l t Participation." Adult Education. Summer 1958, V o l . 7, pp. 208-222. Waller, R. D. A Design F o r Democracy. Press, 1956.  New York:  Association  Whaley, R. W. "Pressures from E x p o n e n t i a l Increases i n Knowledge." i n G. Kerry Smith, ed. Current Issues i n Higher E d u c a t i o n 19 65. Washington, D. C : A s s o c i a t i o n o f Higher Education, 1965, pp. 107-111.  Appendix  Blishen  Codes  of Atypical  Job  C  1  1  9  Titles —  Respondents D e s c r i p t i o n of Jobs  Blishen Occupation Category  Index  Operations  Services to Management  Business  67. 28  Manager  " A s s i s t a n t " p r i n t i n g shop, Handle Accounting, v a r i o u s o t h e r d u t i e s , some c o m p u t e r work  Clerical  occupations  4 2 . 98  Payroll clerk shoremen  Clerical  occupations  4 2 . 98  Secretary/Translator: English/French  Clerical  occupations  4 2 . 98  Soils  Draftsman  - B.C.  Technician  &  Long-  Draftsman  Swimming I n s t r u c t o r p a r t - t i m e ( p r e v i o u s j o b coded) Dental  coded  Nursing Aides  Assistant  Temporary  not  Assistants  Clerical  Secretary  57. 82  or  occupations  3 2 . 14  4 2 . 98  F u l l - t i m e M a n a g e r & Owner o f L o g S c a l i n g B u s i n e s s w i t h 12 employees  Owners & Managers F o r e s t r y & Logging  44. 00  Senior  Clerical  4 2 . 98  Clerk,  Accounting  occupations  6 0 . 42  M a n a g e r o f Tow O p e r a t i o n i n charge o f 7 s t a f f - Inbound & Outbound t r a f f i c  Office  T e c h n i c i a n f o r B.C. T e l Microwave Department  Radio & T e l e v i s i o n ment O p e r a t o r s  S e c r e t a r y t o 2 men: Manager & A s s . Manager, C r e d i t Union  Stenographer  President  O w n e r s & M a n a g e r s , M i s c e l - 5 8 . 29 l a n e o u s M a n u f a c t u r i n g Companies  of Holding  Company  Manager  Equip-  5 1 . 51  5 1 . 96  #  .120  Labourer - i n v o l v e d i n Welding, Metalworking Sawing, D r i l l i n g and g e n e r a l assembly o f aluminium doors f o r commercial i n s t i t u t i o n s Bank T e l l e r  occupations  30. 60  Bookkeeper & C a s h i e r  49. 55  S o c i a l Welfare Worker  55. 62  Scaler - sort parcels i n Warehouse  Warehousemen & F r e i g h t Handlers  29. 18  Yardmen/Trainmen with C.N.R.  Labourers Transport  28. 03  Manager & S u p e r v i s i o n o f 8 f l o o r o f f i c e b l o c k , respons i b l e f o r heat, maintenance, cleaning & h i r i n g of cleaning staff, leasing, etc.  Owners & Managers Miscellaneous Services  45. 48  In t r a i n i n g as C y t o t e c h n o l o g i s t s with Cancer c o n t r o l agency o f B.C.  M e d i c a l & Dental ian  Technic-  48. 74  C l i n i c a l Laboratory  Medical ian  Technic-  48. 74  !Community Worker  Technician  Railway  & Dental  Appendix D  Research Instrument  (Instructor's version)  Scores on n e g a t i v e LSI and L I S I items, marked with an asterix  (*), are r e v e r s e d when c a l c u l a t i n g t o t a l  score, t h a t i s a 9 score on item one  index  i s recorded as a 1.  DO NOT  WRITE YOUR NAME OF THIS SHEET  122-  ,  Category  No.  What i s your i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e ? We a l l t e a c h i n a d i f f e r e n t way so there are no r i g h t o r wrong answers! P l e a s e examine each statement and c i r c l e the number t h a t most n e a r l y r e p r e s e n t s your AGREEMENT o r DISAGREEMENT w i t h the statement. Strongly Strongly D i s a g r e e N e u t r a l Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 *  1. I c r e a t e a formal classroom atmosphere 2. I l e t p a r t i c i p a n t s s e t t h e i r own  objectives  3. I d i s c o u r a g e a d u l t students from u s i n g f i r s t name 4... I am the a b s o l u t e a u t h o r i t y on content 5t  7. I conduct c l a s s e s around the needs s k i l l s o f each p a r t i c i p a n t  v9.  my  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 *  can 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 * and 1 2 3 4  5 6 7 8 9  the a u t h o r i t y i n the 1 2 3  4. 5 6 7 8  9*  I d i s c o u r a g e p a r t i c i p a n t s from c h a t t i n g d u r i n g c l a s s time  1 0 . I develop an i n f o r m a l classroom atmosphere 11.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 *  I s e t d e f i n i t e standards o f behaviour i n my c l a s s  I make i t c l e a r I am class  5 6 7 8 9  course  6. I d i s c o u r a g e q u e s t i o n s because, they l e a d the c l a s s o f f the t o p i c  8.  1 2 3 4  I l e t students s e t course g o a l s  1 2 . I p r e s e r v e 'Law and Order' i n the classroom 13.. I am the o n l y s u b j e c t e x p e r t i n the c l a s s room  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4  5 6 7  89  . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 *  14 . I l e t the p a r t i c i p a n t s d e c i d e what they wane to l e a r n 15:. I encourage g e n e r a l c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s 1 6 . I use p a r t i c i p a n t s as 'content e x p e r t s ' whenever p o s s i b l e '  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4  5  6 7 8 9  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  123 REMEMBER THAT YOUR RESPONSES ARE CONFIDENTIAL 1.  What i s your sex  2. 3.  [ ' ] Male  [  | Female  What i s your age?  f  | Years  Number o f c h i l d r e n  | | (Write none i f you do not have any c h i l d r e n ) .  4.  What i s the h i g h e s t education q u a l i f i c a t i o n you hold? (Check one box o n l y ) •  f | No formal  education.  |  | Completed elementary school  only.  [  j Completed Grade 10 o r 11 (but not 12).  |  | Grade 12 o r f o r e i g n e q u i v a l e n t .  [ ( Post secondary or trade q u a l i f i c a t i o n only, (e.g. V o c a t i o n a l School Diploma, Journeymans q u a l i f i c a t i o n , Business Diploma, e t c . ) j | P a r t o f U n i v e r s i t y degree o r diploma.  5.  |  | U n i v e r s i t y degree o r diploma o n l y .  |  | U n i v e r s i t y degree o r diplomai and some other t e r t i a r y q u a l i f i c a t i o n (e.g. B.A. and Journeymans c e r t i f i c a t e ) . L i s t here a l l t h e formal e d u c a t i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s you have. (Please w r i t e them o u t i n f u l l as i n i t i a l s are hard to i d e n t i f y ) . 1. 2. 3. 4.  For O f f i c e use o n l y .  124 6*  Check below the t o t a l number o f years o f formal education you have completed. HIGH SCHOOL OR EQUIVALENT |  | 8 years  [ | 9 years f~~jlO years f [ l l years  f"~|l2 years f~"]l3 years POST SECONDARY SCHOOLING OR TRAINING F u l l Time  • • • • •  P a r t Time  • •  •  1 year  Write here the name o f the i n s t i t u t i o n ( s ) where you r e c e i v e d post secondary educatiorj  2 years 3 years 4 years  •  5 years o r more  I f you a r e working f o r a s a l a r y o r wages e x a c t l y what k i n d of work do you do? (Please be s p e c i f i c as to your work and s t a t u s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n , e.g. Foreman s u p e r v i s i n g 13 men i n a t r u c k i n g f i r m : S a l e s a s s i s t a n t i n a small hardware s t o r e : E x e c u t i v e S e c r e t a r y to the P r e s i d e n t o f a manufacturing company w i t h 50 0 employees). I f you a r e r e t i r e d , i n v o l v e d i n household d u t i e s o r a r e not working p l e a s e w r i t e N.A. (not a p p l i c a b l e ) and go on to the next q u e s t i o n .  8.  I f you are NOT c u r r e n t l y working f o r s a l a r y o r wages p l e a s e note here the k i n d o f work you d i d p r i o r to your marriage, r e t i r e m e n t , e t c . (Please be very s p e c i f i c as to your work and s t a t u s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . )  125 9j  I f your spouse i s working f o r s a l a r y o r wage what k i n d o f work does he/she do.( (Please be very s p e c i f i c ) .  10.  In the box below w r i t e the l e t t e r which r e p r e s e n t s your gross (personal) income category. Do n o t count your spouses' income o r income earner by o t h e r members o f your family. A  Nil  A  B  $5000 or under  B  C  $5001  -  7000  C  D  $7001  -  9000  D  E  $9001  -  11,000  E  F  $11,001  -  13,000  F  G  $13,001  -  15,000  G  H  $15,001  -  17,000  H  I  $17,001  -  19,000  I  J  $19,001  -  21,000  J  K  $21,001  -  23,000  K  L  $23,001  -  25,000  L  M 11.  Over 25, 000  Category  . M  In the box below w r i t e the l e t t e r which r e p r e s e n t s your gross f a m i l y income ( i . e . your income and your spouses income). I f you a r e the o n l y person i n your f a m i l y working f o r wages or s a l a r y your answers to t h i s g u e s t i o n w i l l be the same as your answer to the p r e v i o u s g u e s t i o n . A  Nil  A  B  $5000 o r under  B  C  $5001  -  7000  C  D  $7001  -  9000  D  E  $9001  -  11,000  E  F  $11,001  -  13,000  F  G  $13,001  -  15,000  G  H  $15,001  -  17,000  H  I  $17,001  -  19,000  I  J  $19,001  -  21,000  J  K  $21,001  23,000  K  L M  $23,001  -  25,000  L  •over 25, 000  M  Category  126  REMEMBER YOUR N7AME IS NOT REQUIRED ON THIS QUESTIONNAIRE  12.  Do you have a teaching c e r t i f i c a t e ? If Y E S , please g i v e d e t a i l s r  13.  r  Have you ever taken courses on teaching If  Date  'YES', p l e a s e f i v e  Title  adults?  details:  F u l l o r No. o f Qualification Institution Training issued i f O f f e r i n g ' -Course P a r t Time Days any  Appendix E  Research Instrument  (Learner's v e r s i o n )  Scores on n e g a t i v e LSI and LISI items, marked w i t h an asteris  (*), are r e v e r s e d when c a l c u l a t i n g  score, t h a t i s a 9 score on item one  t o t a l index  i s recorded as a 1  128 DO NOT  WRITE YOUR NAME ON  THIS SHEET  Category  No.  This s e c t i o n w i l l attempt to i d e n t i f y your " i d e a l " i n s t r u c t o r , and the type o f .learning 'environment' you p r e f e r . There are no r i g h t or wrong answers! Please examine each statement and c i r c l e the number t h a t most n e a r l y r e p r e s e n t s your AGREEMENT or DISAGREEMENT w i t h the statement. Strongly Disagree  A GOOD INSTRUCTOR:  Strongly Neutral Agree  1.  Creates a formal classroom atmosphere  2.  Lets p a r t i c i p a n t s s e t t h e i r own o b j e c t i v e s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  3.  Discourages a d u l t students from u s i n g h i s / h e r f i r s t name  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9*  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  9*  4.  Is the a b s o l u t e a u t h o r i t y on course c o n t e n t l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  9*  5.  Sets d e f i n i t e standards of behaviour i n his/her class  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  9*  Discourages questions because they l e a d the c l a s s o f f the t o p i c  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  9*  6. 7.  can  Conducts c l a s s e s around the needs and s k i l l s o f each p a r t i c i p a n t  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  Makes i t c l e a r he i s the a u t h o r i t y i n the class  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  Discourages p a r t i c i p a n t s from c h a t t i n g d u r i n g c l a s s time  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9*  10.  Develops an i n f o r m a l classroom atmosphere  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  11.  Lets students s e t course goals  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  12.  Preserves  13.  Is the o n l y s u b j e c t expert i n the c l a s s room  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9*  L e t s the p a r t i c i p a n t s decide what they want to l e a r n  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  15.  Encourages general c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  16.  Uses p a r t i c i p a n t s as whenever p o s s i b l e  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  8. 9.  14.  'Law  and Order'  i n the classroom 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  9*  9*  'content e x p e r t s '  1-2.9  HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THIS CLASS? Please examine each statement and c i r c l e the number t h a t most n e a r l y r e p r e s e n t s your AGREEMENT o r DISAGREEMENT with the statement. Remember t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s f o r r e s e a r c h purposes only; and w i l l .not be made a v a i l a b l e to e i t h e r the c o l l e g e administration or i n s t r u c t o r s . PLEASE BE HONEST Statement  Strongly Strongly Disagree N e u t r a l Agree  1.  The i n s t r u c t o r i s seldom w e l l prepared for class  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 *  2.  The i n s t r u c t o r i s e n t h u s i a s t i c  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  3.  I am r a t h e r d i s a p p o i n t e d with  4.  This i s one o f the poorest  t h i s course  courses  I have  taken  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 *  5.  I am not l e a r n i n g anything  6.  This course  7.  The i n s t r u c t o r c r e a t e d a bad l e a r n i n g environment The i n s t r u c t o r cares about my progress i n  8.  new  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  i s h e l p i n g me p e r s o n a l l y  the course 9. 10. 11. 12.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 *  *  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  *  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  C l a s s time i s o f t e n wasted  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  I t h i n k the i n s t r u c t o r enjoys teaching 1 2 3 4 The i n s t r u c t o r has e s t a b l i s h e d good r a p p o r t with everybody i n the c l a s s 1 2 3 4  5 6 7  *  89  5 6 7 8 9  I t h i n k the i n s t r u c t o r has t r i e d to teach me what I wanted to l e a r n  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  13.  The i n s t r u c t o r i s h e l p f u l  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  14.  I have no r e s p e c t f o r t h i s i n s t r u c t o r  15. 16.  The i n s t r u c t o r never has time to h e l p ...\ -,.;_ individuals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 * I t h i n k we a l l have a chance to c o n t r i b u t e to the s e l e c t i o n o f the o b j e c t i v e s f o r t h i s course 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  17.  The i n s t r u c t o r encourages people to express t h e i r ideas  18.  I r e g r e t t a k i n g t h i s course  19.  Over a l l I would r a t e t h i s course good  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  *  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 as very 1 2 3 4 5  6 7 8 9  *  13 0 REMEMBER THAT YOUR RESPONSES ARE CONFIDENTIAL 1.  What i s your sex  2.  What Is your age?  3.  Number o f c h i l d r e n  1  ) Male  | f  | Female "j Years  (Write none i f you do n o t have any c h i l d r e n ) . 4.  What i s the h i g h e s t e d u c a t i o n q u a l i f i c a t i o n you hold? (Check one box o n l y ) .  [  ( No f o r m a l  education.  ) \ Completed elementary school  only.  [ 1 Completed Grade 1 0 o r 1 1 (but not 1 2 ) . |  j Grade 1 2 o r f o r e i g n e q u i v a l e n t .  [ [ Post secondary or t r a d e q u a l i f i c a t i o n o n l y , (e.g. V o c a t i o n a l School Diploma, Journeymans q u a l i f i c a t i o n , Business Diploma, e t c . ) |  | P a r t o f U n i v e r s i t y degree o r diploma.  [~^| |  5.  U n i v e r s i t y degree o r diploma o n l y . | U n i v e r s i t y degree o r diploma and some o t h e r t e r t i a r y q u a l i f i c a t i o n (e.g. B.A. and Journeymans c e r t i f i c a t e ) .  L i s t here a l l t h e formal e d u c a t i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s you have. (Please w r i t e them o u t i n f u l l as i n i t i a l s a r e hard to i d e n t i f y ) . 1. 2.  3. 4.  '  ; ;  ;  •  \  ^  For O f f i c e use o n l y .  v  131 Check below t h e t o t a l number o f years o f formal e d u c a t i o n you have completed. HIGH SCHOOL OR EQUIVALENT |  | 8 years  [~| 9 years f (lO years [ { l l years  P*]l2 years [ |l3 years POST SECONDARY SCHOOLING OR TRAINING F u l l Time  P a r t Time  • • •  •  •  •  D  •  •  •  1 year  Write here the name o f the i n s t i t u t i o n ( s ) where you r e c e i v e d p o s t secondary education  1  2 years 3 years "4 years  5 years o r more.  I f you a r e working f o r a s a l a r y o r wages e x a c t l y what k i n d o f work do you do? (Please be s p e c i f i c as t o your work and s t a t u s i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , e.g. Foreman s u p e r v i s i n g 13 men i n a t r u c k i n g f i r m : S a l e s a s s i s t a n t i n a small hardware s t o r e : E x e c u t i v e S e c r e t a r y to the P r e s i d e n t o f a manufacturing company w i t h 50 0 employees). I f you a r e r e t i r e d , i n v o l v e d i n household d u t i e s o r a r e n o t working p l e a s e w r i t e N.A. (not a p p l i c a b l e ) and go on to the next g u e s t i o n .  I f you are NOT c u r r e n t l y working f o r s a l a r y o r wages p l e a s e note here t h e ~ k i n d o f work you d i d p r i o r to your marriage, r e t i r e m e n t , e t c . (Please be very s p e c i f i c as t o your work and s t a t u s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . )  132 I f your spouse i s working f o r s a l a r y o r wage what k i n d o f work does he/she do. , (Please be v e r y s p e c i f i c ) .  In the box below w r i t e the l e t t e r which r e p r e s e n t s your g r o s s (personal) income c a t e g o r y . Do n o t count your spouses' income o r income earner by o t h e r members o f your family. A  Nil  A  B  $5000 o r under  B  C  $5001  -  7000  C  D  $7001  -  900 0  D  E  $9001  11,000  E  F  $11,001  -  13,000  F  G  $13,001  15,000  G  H  $15,001  -  17,000  H  I  $17,001  -  19,000  I  J  $19,001  21,000  J  K  $21,001  -  23,000  K  L  $23,001  -  25,000  L  M  Category  M  Over 25 ,000  In the box below w r i t e the gross f a m i l y income ( i . e . your income and your income).  spouses  I f you a r e the o n l y person i n your f a m i l y working f o r wage or s a l a r y your answers to t h i s q u e s t i o n w i l l be the same as your answer to the p r e v i o u s g u e s t i o n . A  Nil  A  B  $5000 o r under  B  C  $5001  -  7000  C  D  $7001  -  90 00  D  E  $9001  -  11,000  E  F  $11,001  13,000  F  G  $13,001  -  15,000  G  H  $15,001  -  17,000  H  I  $17,001  19,000  I  J  $19,001  -  21,000  J  K  $21,001  23,000  K  L  $23,001  25,000  L  •M  -  over 25 ,0 00  M  Category  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055925/manifest

Comment

Related Items