Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effects of a fee or its absence on enrollment and attendance in an adult education program Baker, Gary Wayne 1978

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A8 B34.pdf [ 6.25MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055949.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055949-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055949-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055949-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055949-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055949-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055949-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055949-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055949.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECTS OF A FEE OR ITS ABSENCE ON ENROLLMENT AND ATTENDANCE IN AN ADULT EDUCATION PROGRAM by GARY WAYNE BAKER B . P . E . , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Co lumbia , 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department o f A d u l t Educat ion ) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d s tandard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August , 1978 (c) Gary Wayne Baker , 1978. In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia , I a g ree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s tudy . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i thout my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f CA^At^KX ( — - ^ t The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5 i ABSTRACT Adu l t educators acknowledge that one of t h e i r g reates t cha l lenges i s to develop s t r a t e g i e s that inc rease p a r t i c i p a t i o n by members of the lower soc io -economic groups i n a d u l t educat ion p r o -grams. To develop such s t r a t e g i e s adu l t educat ion researchers must s y s t e m a t i c a l l y modify or remove b a r r i e r s to p a r t i c i p a t i o n and study the r e s u l t i n g e f f e c t s . A f requent l y named b a r r i e r to p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s c o s t . Knowledge concerning the impact o f fees on enro l lment and attendance i s incomplete . Consequently t h i s study examined the extent to which soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s i n t e r a c t e d to determine enrol lment and attendance behav ior when fees were m o d i f i e d f o r l e i s u r e - o r i e n t e d adu l t educat ion courses . Three hypotheses were t e s t e d . 1 . There are s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s o c i a l , eco -nomic, demographic, or m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c i p a n t s e n r o l l e d i n fee and non - fee courses . 2 . There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of p a r t i c i p a n t s e n r o l l e d i n fee and non- fee courses . 3 . There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the attendance behavior of p a r t i c i p a n t s e n r o l l e d i n fee and non - fee courses . This was e s s e n t i a l l y a c o r r e l a t i o n a l study but i t had c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a q u a s i - e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n . However, u n l i k e a q u a s i - e x p e r i m e n t a l des ign which sometimes i n v o l v e s random assignment of sub jec ts to treatment groups, t h i s study invo lved random a s s i g n -ment of courses to a fee and non - fee c o n d i t i o n . Seven hundred and twenty-one a d u l t s e n r o l l e d i n one of 51 l e i s u r e - o r i e n t e d courses i i o f f e r e d at G u i l d f o r d Park and C loverda le Community Schools i n Sur rey . On the second s e s s i o n of each course p roc to rs admin is te red two q u e s t i o n n a i r e s : the E . P . S . (Bosh ie r , 1971) and a soc io -economic/ demographic q u e s t i o n n a i r e . A d a i l y attendance record was mainta ined f o r each course . The data was analyzed us ing a v a r i e t y of u n i v a r i a t e , b i v a r i a t e , and m u l t i v a r i a t e s t a t i s t i c a l techniques s u i t e d to the a n a l y s i s of nomina l , i n t e r v a l , o r d i n a l , and dichotomous d a t a . The r e s u l t s supported the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s . There d i d not appear to be an important o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e between the soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n fee and non - fee courses . The o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e s were of l i t t l e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e va lue i n the determinat ion of whether d i f f e r e n t fee s t r a t e g i e s a t t r a c t e d p a r -t i c i p a n t s w i t h d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Removal of the r e g i s t r a t i o n fee d id not appear to r e s u l t i n g reater p a r t i c i p a t i o n by members of the lower soc io -economic groups, as compared to t h e i r p a r -t i c i p a t i o n i n fee courses . Removal of the fee appeared to b e n e f i t the t r a d i t i o n a l ' m i d d l e - c l a s s ' p a r t i c i p a n t s , but d id l i t t l e to a t t r a c t the t r a d i t i o n a l non -par t i c ipant—members of the lower socio-economic, groups. I t appeared that the absence of a fee was a powerfu l i n d u c e -ment which inc reased gross enro l lment . Both soc io -economic and m o t i -v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s i n f l u e n c e d enrol lment behav io r ; however, no s i n g l e v a r i a b l e accounted f o r l a r g e amounts of va r iance i n fee s t a t u s . S o c i o -economic v a r i a b l e s accounted f o r more of the fee s t a t u s v a r i a n c e than d i d m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . Attendance i n fee courses was s i g n i f i -c a n t l y b e t t e r than attendance i n non - fee courses . The f i n d i n g s i i i conf i rmed that both soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s accounted f o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n attendance behav io r . I n d i v i d u a l s w i t h the most e d u c a t i o n , h igher persona l and f a m i l y incomes, more dependants, and prev ious p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n adu l t educat ion programs had the best a t t e n -dance. Socio -economic v a r i a b l e s accounted fo r more v a r i a n c e i n a t t e n -dance behavior than d i d m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . However, m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s were more powerful p r e d i c t o r s of attendance behav ior than they were of enrol lment b e h a v i o r . Removal of the r e g i s t r a t i o n fee can be a powerfu l t o o l to i nc rease enrol lment of the t r a d i t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a n t . However, t h i s study confirmed that both enro l lment and attendance behav iors are complex phenomena stemming from m u l t i v a r i a t e o r i g i n s . I t appears that attempts to inc rease p a r t i c i p a t i o n by members of lower soc io -economic groups w i l l r e q u i r e more than p r o v i d i n g ' e n t i t l e m e n t 1 . The r e s u l t s support the c o n c l u s i o n that persona l and envi ronmental v a r i a b l e s which impel or i n h i b i t p a r t i c i p a t i o n must be mod i f ied i f members of a l l s o c i o -economic groups are to b e n e f i t from p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n l e i s u r e - o r i e n t e d adu l t educat ion programs. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF FIGURES v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i x Chapter I. INTRODUCTION • • • 1 The Problem 1 Purpose of Study 2 S i g n i f i c a n c e of Study . . . . 3 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms 3 P l a n of Study 4 I I . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND THE INTRODUCTION OF THE STUDY HYPOTHESES . 6 E d u c a t i o n a l En t i t l ement 6 Adul t Educat ion P a r t i c i p a n t s 7 Attendance Behavior 9 Fees and The i r E f f e c t s 11 The Hypotheses 14 I I I . METHOD 15 Design 15 Subjects 16 Procedure 16 Inst rumentat ion 19 Data A n a l y s i s 21 IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF FEE AND NON-FEE PAYERS 24 Socio-economic and Demographic Data 24 Page M o t i v a t i o n a l O r i e n t a t i o n Data 30 Test of Hypothesis I 33 V. ENROLLMENT PATTERNS AND FEE STATUS 39 Test of Hypothesis I I 39 I n t e r a c t i o n Between P r e d i c t o r s of Enrol lment i n Fee Versus Non-Fee Courses 40 V I . ATTENDANCE PATTERNS AND EXPLORATION OF ATTENDANCE BEHAVIOR 55 Test of Hypothesis I I I 55 D i s c u s s i o n of Hypothesis I I I 56 I n t e r a c t i o n Between P r e d i c t o r s of Attendance Behavior 56 V I I . SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND SIGNIFICANCE 69 Summary 69 Conclusions 75 S i g n i f i c a n c e 77 REFERENCES 79 APPENDICES 82 A. DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY SCHOOL, COURSE, DAY, FEE STATUS, NUMBER OF SESSIONS/COURSE, OFFICIAL ENROLLMENT, AND STUDY ENROLLMENT 83 B. STAFF LETTERS AND INSTRUCTIONS 87 L e t t e r To S e c r e t a r i a l S t a f f 88 L e t t e r To I n s t r u c t o r s 89 P r o c t o r I n s t r u c t i o n s 90 P r o c t o r ' s In t roductory Comments 91 P r o c t o r ' s Course Data Sheet 92 C o l l e c t i o n Of Attendance Data 93 v i Page C. QUESTIONNAIRES 94 Socio-economic Ques t ionna i re : Non-Fee Course 95 Socio-economic Q u e s t i o n n a i r e : Fee Course 104 D. VARIABLE CODES FOR THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC QUESTIONNAIRES . . . 113 E. TABLES OF RESULTS FOR SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF FEE AND NON-FEE PAYERS 121 1. D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Age Group' 122 2. D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Country of B i r t h . . . 123 3. D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Years of Residence i n Neighbourhood 124 4. D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Neighbourhood of Residence 125 5 . D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by M a r i t a l Status . . . . 126 6. D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Years of Elementary and Secondary Schoo l ing 127 7. D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Years of Post -Secondary Schoo l ing 128 8. D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by The i r Present Work Status 129 9. D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Persona l Income . . . 130 10. D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by the Number of Persons Employed i n Household . . . . 131 1 1 . D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Fami ly Income . . . . 132 12. D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Number of Prev ious Courses Attended 133 1 3 . D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by T rave l Time To and From Course 134 v i i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Number of C h i l d r e n i n Family and by Number of C h i l d r e n Supported F i n a n c i a l l y 26 2. D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Type of Accommodation . . 27 3. D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Amount of Monthly Housing Payment 28 4. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Fee and Non-Fee Payers by The i r Response to the Question "Should a course such as the one you are now t a k i n g , have a r e g i s t r a t i o n fee?" 29 5. E . P . S . Factor Loadings and Var iance Accounted f o r A f t e r Orthogonal R o t a t i o n . . . . . 32 6. Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s , and t - v a l u e s fo r Fee and Non-Fee Payers on Twenty O r d i n a l V a r i a b l e s 34 7. Test of S i g n i f i c a n c e fo r Nominal C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Between Fee and Non-Fee Payers 35 8. R e l a t i v e Power of V a r i a b l e s P r e d i c t i n g Fee Versus Non-Fee Payer Enrol lment Behavior 45 9. R e l a t i v e Power of V a r i a b l e s P r e d i c t i n g Fee Versus Non-Fee Payer Attendance Behavior . . . 59 10. R e l a t i o n s h i p Between E . P . S . Factors and Attendance Behavior 66 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES F igure Page 1. Enrol lment Behavior as P r e d i c t e d by the I n t e r a c t i o n of Var ious Socio -economic and M o t i v a t i o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 43 2 . Per cent Attendance of Fee and Non-Fee Payers by Course Sess ion 55 3 . Attendance Behavior as P r e d i c t e d by the I n t e r a c t i o n of Var ious Socio -economic and M o t i v a t i o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 57 4. Schematic Summary of Study Method and Resu l t s 71 i x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank my research a d v i s o r , Dr. Roger B o s h i e r , f o r h i s encouragement, pat ience and guidance i n d i r e c t i n g t h i s study to com-p l e t i o n . I am a l s o indebted to Dr. Gary D ick inson and Dr. John Larsen f o r adv ice g iven dur ing v a r i o u s stages of t h i s s tudy . S p e c i a l thanks are due to Dr. Don McKinnon, Superv isor of Community Educat ion , School D i s t r i c t #36 (Surrey) f o r opening f a c i l i t i e s and ar rang ing f i n a n c i a l support fo r t h i s s tudy . I thank E l l i o t t Gr ieve and B r i a n Luckock, the Community Educat ion Coordinators at G u i l d f o r d Park and C loverda le Community Schools f o r t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n , he lp and suppor t . I thank my f r i e n d s and f e l l o w students J im M o r r i s o n , Dolores V o l c z , Diane M o r r i s o n , David F i e l d i n g , Joe Gubbels , Joan B e n t l e y , Frances Ost , Mar ia H e t t i n g e r , G a i l R i d d e l l , Ruth Robinson, Coleen F r a s e r , Shar L e v i n e , and Bruce Barnes , who a s s i s t e d w i t h a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . Teresa T e n i n s c i and Chinh Lee of the U .B .C . Computing Centre s t a f f are thanked f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e w i t h the a n a l y s i s of t h i s data and t h e i r guidance through the i n t r i c a c i e s of AID I I I . Most important of a l l , I thank my w i f e f o r her encouragement and understanding . \ CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem Adul t educat ion p a r t i c i p a t i o n research has t r a d i t i o n a l l y focused on d e s c r i p t i v e s t u d i e s of p a r t i c i p a n t s and n o n - p a r t i c i p a n t s . I t appears that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a d u l t educat ion programs i n g e n e r a l , and l e i s u r e - o r i e n t e d programs i n p a r t i c u l a r , i s p r i m a r i l y engaged i n by the middle and upper soc io -economic groups. Past research has a l s o i d e n t i f i e d numerous b a r r i e r s to p a r t i c i p a t i o n . One f r e q u e n t l y named b a r r i e r i s c o s t . The lower one 's soc io -economic s t a t u s , the g reate r cost becomes a b a r r i e r to p a r t i c i p a t i o n . However, a l l soc io -economic groups appear to cons ider cost to be a b a r r i e r (Johnstone & R i v e r a , 1965; M i l l e r , 1967) . Adu l t educators f r e q u e n t l y acknowledge that one of t h e i r g reatest cha l lenges i s to develop s t r a t e g i e s that i n c r e a s e p a r t i c i -p a t i o n by members of the lower soc io -economic groups. To develop such s t r a t e g i e s adu l t educat ion researchers must s y s t e m a t i c a l l y modify or remove b a r r i e r s and study the r e s u l t i n g e f f e c t s upon p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Th is study used a c o r r e l a t i o n a l design which approximated a q u a s i - e x p e r i m e n t a l research design to examine e f f e c t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an assumed b a r r i e r to p a r t i c i p a t i o n — c o s t . There were three reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g ' c o s t ' as the b a r r i e r to be s t u d i e d . 1 . Cost to the p a r t i c i p a n t can be s y s t e m a t i c a l l y c o n t r o l l e d by the researcher and a d m i n i s t r a t o r . 2 . The e f f e c t s of cost on enro l lment and attendance pat te rns are not c l e a r l y understood. 3 . Educators and r e c r e a t i o n a l i s t s are becoming more aware of 2 the need f o r and va lue of ' e d u c a t i o n a l e n t i t l e m e n t ' (Faure, 1972; Nash, 1965) . However, accompanying t h i s awareness i s a concern that implementat ion of e d u c a t i o n a l e n t i t l e m e n t would only b e n e f i t t r a d i t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the middle and upper soc io -economic groups. Purpose of Study This study had three main purposes. F i r s t , i t examined s o c i o -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of fee and non - fee paying p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a l e i s u r e - o r i e n t e d adu l t educat ion program. This ex -aminat ion was undertaken to exp lore two q u e s t i o n s . 1. Did. d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t between the soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of fee and non - fee paying p a r t i c i p a n t s ? The answer to t h i s quest ion i n d i c a t e d whether d i f f e r e n t fee s t r a t e g i e s a t t r a c t e d p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h d i f f e r e n t soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . This i n f o r m a t i o n could be of va lue to a d u l t educat ion a d m i n i s t r a t o r s at tempt ing to modify or inc rease enrol lment p a t t e r n s . 2. When both fee and non- fee courses were o f f e r e d , d i d non-fee courses ' a t t r a c t ' a g reater p r o p o r t i o n of p a r t i c i p a n t s from the lower soc io -economic s t a t u s groups than fee courses? The answer to t h i s quest ion i n d i c a t e d whether the absence of a r e g i s t r a t i o n fee r e s u l t e d i n g reater p a r t i c i p a t i o n by members of lower soc io -economic groups as compared to t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n fee courses . The second purpose was to determine whether d i f f e r e n c e s ex -i s t e d between enrol lment pat te rns of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n fee and non - fee courses . 3 The t h i r d purpose of t h i s study was to examine whether d i f f e r -ences e x i s t e d i n attendance pat te rns of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n fee and non - fee courses . This examinat ion was undertaken to exp lo re the q u e s t i o n , "D id d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t between the attendance pat te rns of fee and non - fee paying p a r t i c i p a n t s ? " . S i g n i f i c a n c e of Study This study i s u s e f u l to adu l t educators f o r these reasons. I t added to knowledge concerning the i n f l u e n c e of r e g i s t r a t i o n fees on enrol lment and attendance pat te rns of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n l e i s u r e - o r i e n t e d adu l t educat ion programs. I t showed a d u l t educators how removal of r e g i s t r a t i o n fees might i n f l u e n c e enrol lment and attendance b e h a v i o r . I t demonstrated whether ' f r e e ' a d u l t educat ion courses a t t r a c t e d p a r -t i c i p a n t s w i t h soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s the same as or d i f f e r e n t from those of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n ' f e e pay ing ' adu l t edu -c a t i o n courses . I t enhanced understanding of r e l a t i o n s h i p s between soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c i p a n t s , p a r -t i c u l a r l y as they i n f l u e n c e d enrol lment and attendance p a t t e r n s . I t prov ided i n f o r m a t i o n which cou ld guide f u t u r e s t u d i e s concerning the impact of fees on p a r t i c i p a t i o n . D e f i n i t i o n of Terms The f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n s were used i n t h i s s tudy . 1. Ve rner ' s d e f i n i t i o n of adu l t educat ion was adopted: "The a c t i o n of an e x t e r n a l educat ion agent i n purpose-f u l l y o rde r ing behav ior i n t o planned sys temat ic e x -per iences that can r e s u l t i n l e a r n i n g fo r those f o r whom such a c t i v i t y i s supplemental to t h e i r pr imary r o l e i n s o c i e t y and which i n v o l v e s some c o n t i n u i t y i n an exchange r e l a t i o n s h i p between the agent and the l e a r n e r so that the e d u c a t i o n a l process i s under con -s tant s u p e r v i s i o n and d i r e c t i o n " (1962, p. 2 ) . 2. An adu l t was de f ined as an i n d i v i d u a l e ighteen years of age or o l d e r on the second s e s s i o n of the course fo r which he had r e g i s t e r e d . 3 . Enro l lment : A person was e n r o l l e d i f he attended the second s e s s i o n of the course and completed two ques t ionna i res a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s s tudy . 4. Attendance: Attendance was def ined as be ing present f o r any one or more of the course s e s s i o n s . Attendance data was on ly mainta ined f o r i n d i v i d u a l s who could be matched w i t h t h e i r enro l lment q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . P l a n of Study Chapter I g ives an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the problem, s t a t e s the purpose and s i g n i f i c a n c e of the study and def ines terms used. Chapter I I reviews l i t e r a t u r e p e r t i n e n t to t h i s study and in t roduces the hypotheses. The l i t e r a t u r e reviewed concerns e d u c a t i o n a l e n t i t l e m e n t , adu l t edu-c a t i o n p a r t i c i p a n t s , attendance b e h a v i o r , and fees and t h e i r e f f e c t s . Chapter I I I descr ibes the research d e s i g n , the sub jec ts i n v o l v e d i n t h i s s tudy , the procedures used to c o l l e c t d a t a , the three ques t ionna i res used , and the computer programs used f o r data a n a l y s e s . Chapter IV desc r ibes the soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s u b j e c t s . I t a l so presents the t e s t of Hypothesis I and a d i s c u s s i o n of the r e s u l t s of t h i s t e s t . Chapter V presents the t e s t of Hypothesis I I , a d i s c u s s i o n of the r e s u l t s of t h i s t e s t , and a d i s c u s s i o n of the AID I I I a n a l y s i s on p a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as p r e d i c t o r s of enrol lment i n fee or non- fee courses . Chapter VI presents the t e s t of Hypothesis I I I , a d i s c u s s i o n of the r e s u l t s of t h i s t e s t , and a d i s c u s s i o n of the AID I I I a n a l y s i s on p a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as p r e d i c t o r s of attendance behav io r . Chapter VI I conta ins a summary of the s tudy , study c o n c l u s i o n s , and a d i s c u s s i o n of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the f i n d i n g s . 6 CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND THE INTRODUCTION OF THE STUDY HYPOTHESES E d u c a t i o n a l En t i t l ement The concept of e d u c a t i o n a l en t i t l ement i s not new to Western S o c i e t y . P l a t o , i n a statement about educat ion s a i d , " D i f f e r e n t i a l treatment on the b a s i s of mer i t i s i n e s c a p a b l e , but that f a i r n e s s r e -qu i res that f i r s t a l l be given the oppor tun i t y to develop those m e r i t -o r i o u s q u a l i t i e s " (B lacks tone , 1974, p . 1 6 5 ) . By the middle of the e ighteenth century , i t was g e n e r a l l y agreed that elementary educat ion was a r i g h t (Rosentha l , 1966, p . 5 1 1 ) . Free secondary educat ion was almost an u n i v e r s a l r i g h t i n Europe and North America by 1920. The UNESCO repor t " L e a r n i n g to Be" (Faure , 1972) s t a t e d that an i n d i v i d u a l ' s e d u c a t i o n a l needs i n v o l v e d s o c i a l , s c i e n t i f i c , t e c h n o l o g i c a l , a r t i s t i c , v o c a t i o n a l , manual, and p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n . Furthermore, the l e v e l and content of the educat ion to which a person had a r i g h t depended upon the e d u c a t i o n a l needs of the i n d i v i d u a l and the s o c i e t y . E d u c a t i o n a l e n t i t l e m e n t l i t e r a t u r e i s now focused on the r i g h t to u n i v e r s a l post -secondary educat ion (The Carnegie Commission Report , 1973; Rosentha l , 1966; Norton , 1964; Tesconi & H u r i v i t z , 1974; Harvey & Lennards, 19 73) . Throughout the l i t e r a t u r e on post -secondary e d u c a t i o n a l e n t i t l e m e n t , i t was g e n e r a l l y acknowledged that t u i t i o n costs were a b a r r i e r to post -secondary educat ion which should be removed. The Carnegie Commission Report (1973) and Benson & Hodgkinson (1974) were emphatic on t h i s p o i n t . They s t a t e d that w e a l t h , or the l a c k of i t , was the g reates t deter rent to p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n post -secondary e d u c a t i o n . Other f r e q u e n t l y mentioned b a r r i e r s to p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n post -secondary edu-c a t i o n were age, s o c i a l c l a s s , and geographic l o c a t i o n . 7 The r i g h t to c o n t i n u i n g educat ion was supported i n the e n t i t l e m e n t l i t e r a t u r e (Faure, 1972; Carnegie Commission, 1973; R o s e n t h a l , 1966; C ross , 1974) . P e r t i n e n t to t h i s study was the f a c t that en t i t l ement l i t e r a t u r e r e f e r r e d not only to l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d to v o c a t i o n a l o r academic goals but a l s o to l e i s u r e - o r i e n t e d adu l t educat ion as components of c o n t i n u i n g e d u c a t i o n . L e i s u r e -o r i e n t e d or genera l i n t e r e s t / r e c r e a t i o n a l l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s , as they were a l s o c a l l e d , i n c l u d e d s o c i a l , c u l t u r a l , a r t i s t i c , p h y s i c a l , and l i f e s k i l l s educat ion (Johnstone & R i v e r a , 1965; Nash, 1965; MacLean e t . a l . , 1972) . Johnstone & R i v e r a (1965) i n d i c a t e d that genera l i n t e r e s t , l e i s u r e - o r i e n t e d , and r e c r e a t i o n a l l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s accounted f o r approx imately 48 percent of a l l adu l t educat ion programs i n the Un i ted S t a t e s . However, they concluded that these courses were a luxury of the wea l thy . Furthermore, there was an u n w i l l i n g n e s s on the par t of lower soc io -economic groups to p a r t i c i p a t e i n n o n - v o c a t i o n a l programs. They saw t h i s l a c k of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n l e i s u r e - o r i e n t e d programs by members of lower soc io -economic groups as a c r i t i c a l cha l lenge f a c i n g adu l t educators . They suggested: " there i s a reasonably s t rong case fo r the content ion that the lower c l a s s e s i n our s o c i e t y could b e n e f i t the most from i n s t r u c t i o n f o r use of l e i s u r e The paradox i s that the segment of the popu la t ion which may r e a l i z e the g reates t increment of f ree time i n an age of automation i s , on the one hand, the l e a s t w e l l - p r e p a r e d to handle i t , and on the o t h e r , the l e a s t l i k e l y to t u r n to c o n t i n u i n g educat ion to develop and expand i t s spare - t ime i n t e r e s t " (1965, p . 2 2 ) . Adul t Educat ion P a r t i c i p a n t s Three v a r i a b l e s seemed to d i s t i n g u i s h adu l t educat ion p a r -t i c i p a n t s from n o n - p a r t i c i p a n t s — e d u c a t i o n , o c c u p a t i o n , and income 8 (Johnstone & R i v e r a , 1965; Booth, 1961; Brunner , e t . a l , 1959) . P a r -t i c i p a n t s g e n e r a l l y had more formal educat ion than n o n - p a r t i c i p a n t s . P a r t i c i p a n t s were u s u a l l y more l i k e l y to have w h i t e — c o l l a r jobs than b l u e - c o l l a r j o b s ; they were a l s o more l i k e l y to have h igher incomes than n o n - p a r t i c i p a n t s . P a r t i c i p a n t s a l s o tended to be younger than the average n o n - p a r t i c i p a n t w i t h males and females p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n n e a r l y equal numbers (Johnstone & R i v e r a , 1965) . The m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c i p a n t s v a r i e d c o n -s i d e r a b l y . In the Un i ted S t a t e s , Johnstone & R i v e r a (1965) found that men were more concerned w i t h v o c a t i o n a l g o a l s , w h i l e women tended to e n r o l l i n courses more o f t e n i n response to home, f a m i l y l i f e , and l e i s u r e time i n t e r e s t s . In Canada, D ick inson (1966) repor ted that over 75 per cent of i n d i v i d u a l s e n r o l l e d i n general i n t e r e s t courses were female. Johnstone & R i v e r a (1965) repor ted that women were more i n -c l i n e d to take courses to expand t h e i r s o c i a l hor i zons or to get away from t h e i r d a i l y r o u t i n e s . S i m i l a r r e s u l t s were repor ted i n Canada (Haag, 1976; B o s h i e r , 1977) . Both Bosh ie r (1977) and Johnstone & R i v e r a (1965) repor ted younger men were l e s s i n c l i n e d to have l e i s u r e -centred goals than o l d e r men. The p a r t i c i p a n t s ' s o c i a l s t a t u s a l s o i n f l u e n c e d the type of courses i n which they were l i k e l y to e n r o l l . Johnstone & R i v e r a (1965) repor ted both men and women from lower soc io -economic s t a t u s groups were l e s s i n c l i n e d to e n r o l l i n l e i s u r e - o r i e n t e d courses than h igher s o c i o -economic s ta tus p a r t i c i p a n t s . S i m i l a r r e s u l t s were reported by Haag (1976) and Bosh ier (1977) . People at the lower end of the s o c i o -economic s c a l e tended to e n r o l l i n courses to l e a r n s k i l l s that helped them to cope w i t h everyday l i v i n g . Boshier (1977) a l s o concluded that 9 low soc io -economic p a r t i c i p a n t s were mote l i k e l y mot ivated by economic c o n d i t i o n s to change d e f i c i e n t e d u c a t i o n , income, and occupat ion con -d i t i o n s . I n d i v i d u a l s at the upper end of the s c a l e e n r o l l e d fo r persona l development and the enrichment of spare t ime . Douglah (1968) and Johnstone & R i v e r a (1965) concluded that adu l t educat ion was c l e a r l y a middle and upper c l a s s phenomenon. This was p a r t i c u l a r l y t rue f o r l e i s u r e - o r i e n t e d and genera l i n t e r e s t courses . Johnstone & R i v e r a e x p l a i n e d : " P a r t of t h i s tendency can be exp la ined by the f a c t that l e a r n i n g and educat ion are perce ived and evaluated i n radically d i f f e r e n t ways by people on d i f f e r e n t rungs of the s o c i a l l a d d e r . Lower c l a s s a d u l t s not on ly va lue h igher e d u c a t i o n a l attainment l e s s , but they assess the worth of educat ion s t r i c t l y i n terms of the t a n g i b l e advantages which can be gained from hav ing i t . They see l i t t l e va lue i n o b t a i n i n g knowledge f o r i t s own sake Indeed f o r the t y p i c a l lower c l a s s a d u l t , the concept of ' l e a r n i n g ' and spare time enjoyment convey q u i t e oppos i te meanings" (1965, p.21) M i l l e r (1967) attempted to c reate a model to i d e n t i f y c r u c i a l v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n . H is ' f o r c e - f i e l d a n a l y s i s ' was based on the r e s u l t s of prev ious p a r t i c i p a t i o n s t u d i e s , Maslow's m o t i v a t i o n a l t h e o r i e s , and the known s o c i o - e d u c a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the va r ious soc io -economic groups. H is framework supported the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d by p a r t i c i p a t i o n researchers and suggested p o s s i b l e i n t e r -r e l a t i o n s h i p s between c l u s t e r s of v a r i a b l e s . For M i l l e r the essence of p a r t i c i p a t i o n research was t h i s i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p . He mainta ined that " u n t i l we begin a search f o r s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n s t e a d of s t a t i c c a t e g o r i e s , our data on m o t i v a t i o n leaves us h e l p l e s s . . . " (1967, p . 2 ) . Attendance Behavior Verner & Davis (1964) reviewed 30 s t u d i e s that attempted to 10 d i f f e r e n t i a t e between p e r s i s t e r s and dropouts . In t h e i r o p i n i o n most of these s t u d i e s were unsys temat ic , fragmented, u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d , or incomparable . Verner & Davis c l a s s i f i e d 26 v a r i a b l e s i n these s t u d i e s i n t o two main groups: persona l f a c t o r s such as sex , age, i n t e l l i g e n c e and m o t i v a t i o n ; and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s such as t ime, p l a c e , and leng th of course . They concluded that age, e d u c a t i o n , m a r i t a l s t a t u s , o c c u -p a t i o n , income and r a t e of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n appeared to be most r e l a t e d to attendance p e r s i s t e n c e . However, the research was not c l e a r as to the extent of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s . D i c k i n s o n & Verner (1967) repor ted that f i r s t at tenders had lower attendance p e r s i s t e n c e than r e p e a t e r s . They a l so found that a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d between p e r s i s t e r s and dropouts by o c c u -p a t i o n , w i t h housewives be ing the most p e r s i s t e n t a t t e n d e r s . They found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n attendance p e r s i s t e n c e by sex , e d u c a t i o n , years of res idence i n the community, or by t r a v e l t i m e . However, age, m a r i t a l s t a t u s , and number of dependents d i d i n f l u e n c e at tendance. The o l d e r marr ied p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h c h i l d r e n were the most p e r s i s t e n t a t t e n d e r s . D ick inson & Verner a l s o repor ted that the best attendance occurred i n short (under ten sess ions ) genera l i n t e r e s t courses . Alam & Wright (1968) a l s o reviewed attendance p e r s i s t e r and dropout l i t e r a t u r e . Although many i n f l u e n c e s were i d e n t i f i e d , r e l a t i o n -sh ips repor ted were u s u a l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t . Comparisons were compl icated by i n c o n s i s t e n t d e f i n i t i o n s of p e r s i s t e n c e and dropout . N e v e r t h e l e s s , they concluded that the p e r s i s t e r was not very d i f f e r e n t from the dropout. D i f f e r e n c e s that d i d e x i s t were s m a l l and of l i t t l e v a l u e . I f a theme can be drawn from the attendance l i t e r a t u r e , i t i s 1.1 that v a r i a b l e s which i n f l u e n c e d enrol lment and p e r s i s t e n c e were s i m i l a r . A defect a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the above s t u d i e s was that they i n v o l v e d u n i v a r i a t e or b i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s . Bosh ie r (1973) argued that dropout stemmed from m u l t i v a r i a t e o r i g i n s . He suggested that dropout was a complex phenomenon determined by the extent to which p a r t i c i p a n t s achieved a 'goodness of f i t ' w i t h t h e i r environment. Thus, h i s congru -ence model suggested that dropout occur red as a r e s u l t of an i n t e r a c t i o n of m o t i v a t i o n a l , p s y c h o l o g i c a l , soc io -demograph ic , and ' s u b - e n v i r o n -menta l ' mediat ing v a r i a b l e s . Bosh ie r suggested that u n i v a r i a t e or b i -v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of p e r s i s t e n c e was naive because s i n g l e v a r i a b l e e f f e c t s o f t e n disappeared when m u l t i v a r i a t e e f f e c t s were examined (such as i n r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n s ) . One v a r i a b l e which i n f l u e n c e d attendance p e r s i s t e n c e was excluded from t h i s p o r t i o n of the l i t e r a t u r e rev iew. This v a r i a b l e was the r e g i s t r a t i o n f e e . Although i t s e f f e c t s on p a r t i c i p a t i o n and dropout were probably mediated by other v a r i a b l e s , the r e g i s t r a t i o n fee was c l e a r l y of cons iderab le s i g n i f i c a n c e . Unfor tunate ly i t has not been the sub ject of determined study . I t s i n f l u e n c e on enrol lment and attendance p e r s i s t e n c e i s d i scussed i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . Fees and The i r E f f e c t s Adul t educat ion f i n a n c i n g has been a t r a d i t i o n a l t o p i c of d i s c u s s i o n and debate. There have been arguments f o r and aga ins t va r ious f i n a n c i n g s t r a t e g i e s , but i t i s almost u n i v e r s a l l y agreed that there i s a l a c k of funding f o r adu l t e d u c a t i o n . C la rke (1958) concluded that adu l t e d u c a t i o n ' s f i n a n c i a l problems stemmed from i t s ' m a r g i n a l i t y 1 . 12 He s t a t e d t h a t : " one of the s t r i k i n g features of a d u l t educat ion i n t h i s count ry , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y , i s that adu l t educat ion agencies have very l i t t l e freedom to develop on t h e i r own terms. They are n e a r l y always dependent r a t h e r than i n -dependent, l o c a t e d w i t h i n l a r g e o r g a n i z a t i o n s that are mainly concerned w i t h other t a s k s . Adu l t educat ion programs, w i t h i n u n i v e r s i t i e s , p u b l i c s c h o o l s , t rade un ions , museums, and l i b r a r i e s a l l share t h i s dependency. Furthermore, adu l t educators are handicapped i n becoming e s t a b l i s h e d because t h e i r aims and programs are not i n t e g r a l l y r e l a t e d to the core tasks of the parent o r g a n i z a t i o n . W i t h i n a d u l t edu -c a t i o n , both programs and educators a r e , i n a word, m a r g i n a l " (1958, p . l ) . Most a d u l t educat ion programs are c reated through a combin-a t i o n of l o c a l and p r o v i n c i a l ( s ta te ) f i n a n c i n g , f e d e r a l a i d , and student t u i t i o n or r e g i s t r a t i o n f e e s . Kempfer & Wood (1952) i n d i c a t e d that taxes pa id approximately n i n e t y per cent of the costs of a d u l t edu-c a t i o n programs i n more than f i f t y per cent of the adu l t educat ion i n s t i -t u t i o n s surveyed i n the Uni ted S t a t e s . They concluded that the p r i n c i p l e of f r e e p u b l i c educat ion f o r a d u l t s had widespread acceptance. In h i s Uni ted States s tudy , Olds (1952) repor ted that s t a t e a i d had a d i r e c t and p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on enrol lment i n adu l t educat ion programs. Programs supported l a r g e l y by s t a t e a i d e n r o l l e d a much h igher p r o p o r t i o n of the a d u l t s i n t h e i r d i s t r i c t s than d i d programs supported l a r g e l y by other sources . Olds noted the lowest r a t e s of enro l lment i n d i s t r i c t s where fees or t u i t i o n s were the main source of suppor t . He found that i n two schools where no fees were charged, more low income a d u l t s e n r o l l e d than i n three schools which obta ined 40 per cent or more of t h e i r income from f e e s . The f i v e programs s t u d i e d by Olds were l e i s u r e - o r i e n t e d . He observed t h a t : " a low or no fee p o l i c y does not i n i t s e l f i nsu re the f u l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the l e a s t educated groups i n the com-munity" (1952, p . 5 3 ) . 13 and that " h igh fees tend to l i m i t the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the lower income, l e s s educated peop le , who are perhaps most i n need of adu l t educat ion" (1952, p . 1 0 1 ) . Furthermore, " p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s on fees can be improved through adequate i n f o r m a t i o n on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a d u l t s who are e n r o l l e d and those who are not e n r o l l e d , i n c l u d i n g m o t i v a t i o n s , income, e d u c a t i o n , age, and sex" (1952, p . 1 0 1 - 1 0 2 ) . Johnstone & R i v e r a (1965) repor ted that both p a r t i c i p a n t s and n o n - p a r t i c i p a n t s cons idered the fee to be a b a r r i e r to e n r o l l m e n t . In t h e i r survey the fee was i d e n t i f i e d as a b a r r i e r to enrol lment 33 per cent more o f t e n by persons of low soc io -economic s ta tus than by i n d i -v i d u a l s of medium soc io -economic s t a t u s . Furthermore, i n d i v i d u a l s of medium soc io -economic s ta tus i d e n t i f i e d the fee as a b a r r i e r twenty per cent more o f t e n than persons i n the upper soc io -economic group. Johnstone & R i v e r a reported that 43 per cent of i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h h i g h p a r t i c i p a t i o n ' r e a d i n e s s ' and 48 per cent of the study p o p u l a t i o n s t a t e d they cou ld not a f f o r d adu l t educat ion programs. Younger a d u l t s were found, on the average, to be four teen per cent more l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y f i n a n c i a l con -s i d e r a t i o n s as a b a r r i e r to enro l lment than middle -aged and o l d e r a d u l t s . I t has a l s o been argued that fees i n f l u e n c e attendance and dropout r a t e s . Tobert (1936) contended that a moderate fee s t i m u l a t e s at tendance. Wright (1952) observed that i n 35 adu l t educat ion programs w i t h h igher f e e s , attendance was b e t t e r than i n 118 adu l t educat ion programs w i t h lower f e e s . She concluded that adu l t educat ion programs that charged fees had s u b s t a n t i a l l y g reater h o l d i n g power than those wi thout f e e s . Olds (1952) a l s o concluded that fees cou ld r e s u l t i n g reater p e r s i s t e n c e . There have been few attempts to e x p l a i n purported i n f l u e n c e of fees on enrol lment and at tendance. Lamoureux (1975) d i scussed two 14 consumer p r i c i n g theor ies which cou ld have p o s s i b l e a p p l i c a t i o n to adu l t educat ion fee p o l i c i e s . The 'economic demand theory ' s t a t e s the h igher the p r i c e charged, the l e s s the q u a n t i t y people w i l l buy. The 'consumer behavior theory ' s t a t e s there i s no s imple e x p l a n a t i o n of how p r i c e s i n f l u e n c e a b u y e r ' s purchase d e c i s i o n s . This theory assumes that p r i c e i s on ly one of many i n t e r a c t i n g v a r i a b l e s which i n f l u e n c e a purchase. Elements of both t h e o r i e s can be i d e n t i f i e d i n the conc lus ions of Olds (1952) and Wright (1952). The Hypotheses In t h i s study an a n a l y s i s was conducted to determine the e f f e c t of the r e g i s t r a t i o n fee on enrol lment and attendance b e h a v i o r . Th is m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s was not based on any d e d u c t i v e l y der i ved model ; ra ther , i t was an e x p l o r a t o r y attempt to c reate a model to e x p l a i n fee paying behav ior and the impact of fees on enro l lment and attendance b e h a v i o r . Such a model cou ld a s s i s t the adu l t educat ion a d m i n i s t r a t o r to develop fee p o l i c i e s that inc rease enrol lment and thus expand ' e n -t i t l e m e n t ' to general i n t e r e s t programs. With courses randomly ass igned i n t o a fee and non- fee c o n d i t i o n , data was c o l l e c t e d and analyzed to t e s t the f o l l o w i n g hypotheses: I. There are s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s o c i a l , economic, demographic, or m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c i -pants e n r o l l e d i n fee and non- fee courses . I I . There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of p a r t i c i p a n t s e n r o l l e d i n fee and non- fee courses . I I I . There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the attendance behav ior of p a r t i c i p a n t s e n r o l l e d i n fee and i n non - fee courses . CHAPTER I I I 15 METHOD Design This was e s s e n t i a l l y a c o r r e l a t i o n a l study but had charac te r -i s t i c s of a q u a s i - e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n . However, u n l i k e a q u a s i - e x p e r i -mental des ign which can i n v o l v e random assignment of sub jec ts to t r e a t -ment groups, t h i s study i n v o l v e d random assignment of courses to a fee and non - fee c o n d i t i o n . The s i t u a t i o n can be por t rayed as f o l l o w s : R X. 0 1 X. 0 -c 1 1 1 3 R X . . 0 - X . . 0 . c i i 2 i i 4 This diagram employs nomenclature prov ided by Campbell & Stanley (1963). i n d i c a t e s the random assignment of courses to a ' f e e ' (X. ) or ' n o n - f e e ' ( X . . ) c o n d i t i o n . 0 , and 0 o were i n i t i a l obse r -i i i 1 2 v a t i o n s of p a r t i c i p a n t s undertaken dur ing the second s e s s i o n of t h e i r fee or non - fee courses . Note that sub jec ts were not randomly ass igned to fee or non - fee courses ; r a t h e r they s e l e c t e d t h e i r course presumably on the b a s i s of t h e i r own needs and i n t e r e s t s and i n f o r m a t i o n conta ined i n the brochure . Observat ion 3 (0^) and Observat ion 4 (0^) i n v o l v e d the mon i to r ing of attendance behav iour . In Campbell & S t a n l e y ' s nomen-c l a t u r e , R means randomizat ion of sub jec ts to treatment groups. To r e i n f o r c e the f a c t that i n t h i s study courses and not sub jec ts were randomized, the l e t t e r ' c ' i s used to i n d i c a t e that randomizat ion of courses o c c u r r e d . Because the presence (X^) or absence ( X ^ ) of a fee was hypothes ized to have an e f f e c t immediately p r i o r to and a f t e r the act of en ro l lment , i t i s por t rayed both before and a f t e r the i n i t i a l 16 o b s e r v a t i o n s . Subjects Subjects fo r t h i s study were 721 a d u l t s e n r o l l e d i n 51 courses sponsored by the Community Educat ion Department of School D i s t r i c t #36 (Surrey , B. C ) . There were twenty courses at G u i l d f o r d Community School and 39 courses at C loverda le Community School (see Appendix A f o r course a d d i t i o n s and c a n c e l l a t i o n s ) . A l l courses began the week of A p r i l 2 1 , 1975. Appendix A shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of sub jec ts by s c h o o l , course , day of course , fee s t a t u s , number of sess ions per course , o f f i c i a l number of sub jec ts e n r o l l e d , and a c t u a l number of sub jec ts who met the e n r o l l -ment c r i t e r i a per course . Procedure G u i l d f o r d Community School and C loverda le Community School were chosen f o r t h i s study because of t h e i r s i z e , l o c a t i o n and past fee p o l i c y . In both schools a p o l i c y of p r o v i d i n g both fee and non - fee courses had been i n e f f e c t f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s . Thus, i t was p o s s i b l e to manipulate r e g i s t r a t i o n fees wi thout changing e s t a b l i s h e d schoo l board p o l i c i e s . P r i o r to 19 75 the d e c i s i o n to impose a fee was based on some ' r a t i o n a l e ' . In t h i s program - Spr ing 1975 - i t was made randomly. The Community Educat ion Coord inators at both schools were approached and a t o t a l of 59 courses s e l e c t e d f o r the s tudy . To be i n c l u d e d i n the study each course had to meet three c r i t e r i a : the course had to be on the schoo l s i t e ; the course had to have four or more s e s s i o n s ; the course could not have a p r e - a s s i g n e d r e g i s t r a t i o n f e e . In some ins tances the Community School Coord inators had ass igned a course as ' n o n - f e e ' at the request of the i n s t r u c t o r . Twenty courses were s e l e c t e d at G u i l d f o r d Community School and 39 courses at C loverda le Community S c h o o l . Each course was l i s t e d and ass igned a s e r i a l number. A t a b l e of random numbers was then used to a s s i g n each course to a fee or non-fee c o n d i t i o n . There were 29 fee courses and 30 non - fee courses . ' F e e ' courses were then a l l o c a t e d a fee by the Community Educat ion Coord inators i n accordance w i t h schoo l board p o l i c y . A l l 59 courses inc luded i n the study were then l i s t e d i n the Surrey Community Educat ion and Recreat ion Program Brochure (Spr ing 1975) i n a manner that was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h courses o f f e r e d at o ther community schools and r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s . Approximately one week p r i o r to the r e g i s t r a t i o n week of A p r i l 2 1 , 19 75, a copy of the brochure was mai led to every household i n Sur rey . No minimum enrol lment c r i t e r i o n was s e t . N e v e r t h e l e s s , one non - fee and n ine fee courses were c a n c e l l e d on r e g i s t r a t i o n n igh t as no p a r t i c i p a n t s r e g i s t e r e d f o r them. The r e g i s t r a t i o n fee f o r the twenty fee courses that d i d cont inue ranged from s i x to four teen d o l l a r s . The mean r e g i s t r a t i o n fee f o r both schools was $9.10 w h i l e the mode was $8.00 per fee course . At G u i l d f o r d Community School the mean r e g i s -t r a t i o n fee f o r the ten fee courses was $ 8 . 9 0 . The mean r e g i s t r a t i o n fee f o r the ten fee courses a t C loverda le Community School was $ 9 . 3 0 . A l e t t e r (Appendix B) was sent to s e c r e t a r i a l s t a f f at the schoo l board o f f i c e and at both community schools e x p l a i n i n g the purpose of the study and o u t l i n i n g d e s i r e d responses should they r e c e i v e quest ions concerning fee p o l i c i e s . No complaints were reported con -ce rn ing the r e g i s t r a t i o n fee at e i t h e r s c h o o l . A l e t t e r (Appendix B) was a l s o sent to each i n s t r u c t o r o u t l i n i n g the aims of the research and the procedures to be fo l lowed dur ing the s tudy . N e i t h e r the s e c r e t a r i a l 18 s t a f f , nor the course i n s t r u c t o r s were t o l d that the t rue aim of the study was to determine the e f f e c t of the r e g i s t r a t i o n fee on enro l lment and attendance behav io r . Every e f f o r t was made to insu re that p a r t i c i -pants were a l s o unaware of the t rue aims of the s tudy . P r i o r to the s t a r t of the s tudy , t h i r t e e n p roc to rs were r e c r u i t e d and b r i e f e d on t h e i r r o l e s . P r a c t i c e sess ions were h e l d where p roc tors r o l e - p l a y e d procedures a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of instruments and developed responses to be used when answering s u b j e c t s ' q u e s t i o n s . Each p r o c t o r rece i ved s tandard ized i n s t r u c t i o n s (Appendix B) and a t imetab le o u t l i n i n g h i s a c t i v i t i e s . P roc to rs admin is tered the E . P . S . and socio-economic/demographic ques t ionna i res on the second s e s s i o n of each course . Subjects were t o l d that the ques t ionna i res were c o n f i d e n t i a l and anonymous. However, because of the need to subsequently match attendance data w i t h data y i e l d e d by the soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , i t was necessary to be ab le to i d e n t i f y the sub jec ts i n each course . The procedures designed to accompl ish t h i s were not foo lp roo f and some sub jec ts were concerned that the ques t ionna i res were not anonymous (See Appendix B: P r o c t o r ' s In t roductory Comments). P r o c t o r s were i n s t r u c t e d to i d e n t i f y these sub -j e c t s , who were then excluded from the s tudy . Hypothesis I was tes ted us ing data from both the soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . In a l l , 721 sub jec ts were deemed to have s a t i s f i e d the enrol lment c r i t e r i a . Th is represented 63.92 per cent of the t o t a l number of p a r t i c i p a n t s r e g i s t e r e d i n the 51 courses . Four hundred and n i n e t y - n i n e sub jects were e n r o l l e d i n non- fee courses and 222 sub jec ts i n fee courses . This data was used to t e s t hypothes is I I . To t e s t hypothes is I I I a d a i l y attendance record was mainta ined fo r each 19 c l a s s . D e t a i l s of the s t r a t e g i e s employed to main ta in adequate a t -tendance data are descr ibed i n the ' L e t t e r to the I n s t r u c t o r s ' and ' C o l l e c t i o n of Attendance Data ' (Appendix B ) . Ins t rumentat ion To t e s t hypothes is I two ques t ionna i res were a d m i n i s t e r e d . The f i r s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e was the Educat ion P a r t i c i p a t i o n Sca le ( E . P . S . ) developed by Bosh ie r (1971) . The second was designed to c o l l e c t s o c i o -economic data on p a r t i c i p a n t s (Appendix C ) . This q u e s t i o n n a i r e a l s o conta ined quest ions concerning prev ious adu l t educat ion p a r t i c i p a t i o n and a t t i t u d e s towards f e e s . There were two ve rs ions of t h i s q u e s t i o n -n a i r e : one fo r non - fee payers and the other fo r fee payers . Bosh ie r (1971) developed the E . P . S . to i n v e s t i g a t e Hou le ' s (1961) c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of m o t i v a t i o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n of a d u l t educat ion p a r t i c i p a n t s . The 1971 v e r s i o n of the E . P . S . has 48 items that measure the extent to which c e r t a i n reasons i n f l u e n c e d an i n d i v i d u a l to e n r o l l i n an adu l t educat ion program. Bosh ier used 233 randomly chosen p a r t i c i -pants i n h i s f i r s t study i n W e l l i n g t o n , New Zea land . He used a s i x week t e s t r e - t e s t study w i t h a d i f f e r e n t sample to t e s t the r e l i a b i l i t y of the E . P . S . A l l items were s i g n i f i c a n t at the .001 l e v e l . The E . P . S . thus appears to be a r e l i a b l e t e s t . R i d d e l l (1977) , Bosh ie r (1977) , Haag (1976) , and Mo r s ta in & Smart (1974) have t e s t e d the E . P . S . i n North America and t h e i r r e s u l t s prov ide genera l support f o r the o r i g i n a l Bosh ie r (1971) s tudy . The soc io -economic ques t ionna i res were p i l o t - t e s t e d w i t h approx imately 75 p a r t i c i p a n t s i n two adu l t educat ion courses at Queen E l i z a b e t h High Schoo l , Sur rey . Fo l l ow ing t h i s p i l o t t e s t both the fee 20 and non - fee ques t ionna i res were e d i t e d to c l a r i f y or remove poor l y worded q u e s t i o n s . The f i n a l form contained 30 i t e m s . The 27 v a r i a b l e s l i s t e d below were common to both the non - fee payer and fee payer v e r s i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . 1 . Sex 2 . Age 3 . Country of B i r t h 4 . Years of res idence i n Canada 5 . Years of res idence i n neighbourhood 6 . Neighbourhood of res idence 7. M a r i t a l s t a t u s 8. Years of elementary and secondary s c h o o l i n g 9 . Years of post -secondary s c h o o l i n g 10. Type of post -secondary s c h o o l i n g 1 1 . Present work s t a t u s 12 . Past work s t a t u s 13 . D e s c r i p t i o n of present occupat ion 14. Pe rsona l income 1 5 . Number of persons employed i n household 16. Family income 17. Number of c h i l d r e n i n f a m i l y 18 . Number of c h i l d r e n supported f i n a n c i a l l y 19 . Type of accommodation 20. Type of payment: rent or mortgage 2 1 . Amount of monthly housing payment 22 . Residence s t a t u s of young a d u l t s 23 . Number of cars owned by f a m i l y 24. Prev ious adu l t educat ion p a r t i c i p a t i o n 2 5 . Number of prev ious courses attended 26. T rave l time to and from course 27 . Knowledge of study Three a d d i t i o n a l quest ions were asked of both the non - fee payers and fee payers . These quest ions were: Fee Payers 1 . Was the r e g i s t r a t i o n fee f o r t h i s course pa id f rom: your persona l income, your f a m i l y income, or another source? 2 . Should a course , such as the one you are now t a k i n g , have a r e g i s t r a t i o n f e e : yes or no? 21 3 . Above what fee would you have cons idered i t too expensive to take t h i s course? Non-Fee Payers 1 . Would you have r e g i s t e r e d f o r t h i s course i f you were r e q u i r e d to pay a f e e : yes or no? 2 . I f y e s , above what fee would you have cons idered i t too expensive to take t h i s course? 3 . Should a course , such as the one you are now t a k i n g , have a r e g i s t r a t i o n f e e : yes or no? A f t e r the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were c o l l e c t e d , each q u e s t i o n n a i r e was coded to show a p a r t i c i p a n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number, the schoo l of . en ro l lment , the course , the day of the course , and the fee s t a t u s of the c o u r s e . Upon study of the completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , data from s e v e r a l quest ions was found to be incomplete or incomprehens ib le . These quest ions were: ' t ype of post -secondary e d u c a t i o n ' , ' p a s t work s t a t u s ' , ' d e s c r i p t i o n of present o c c u p a t i o n ' and ' r e s i d e n c e s t a t u s of young a d u l t s ' . Consequently , data der i ved from these quest ions was excluded from the a n a l y s i s . Data A n a l y s i s Seven hundred and twenty-one sets of ques t ionna i res were analyzed to t e s t hypothes is I. To t e s t hypothes is I I the enrol lment data of a l l 721 sub jec ts was a n a l y z e d . The attendance p e r s i s t e n c e data of 439 sub jec ts was analyzed to t e s t hypothes is I I I . The 439 sub jec ts i n c l u d e d i n the t e s t of hypothes is I I I were e n r o l l e d i n courses w i t h s i x s e s s i o n s . The d e c i s i o n to exclude courses of other lengths was made on the b a s i s of D i c k i n s o n ' s (1966) f i n d i n g that attendance p e r s i s t e n c e 22 v a r i e d as a f a c t o r of course l e n g t h . For the purposes of t h i s study the f i r s t s e s s i o n was not i nc luded i n the attendance d a t a . This was done to accommodate course changes by sub jec ts and to o b t a i n a s t a b l e accurate r e g i s t r a t i o n l i s t from the course i n s t r u c t o r s . Hence, a t -tendance data was based on the second and subsequent s e s s i o n s . The number of sess ions per course f o r the purposes of t h i s study was one l e s s than the o f f i c i a l number of sess ions per c o u r s e — f i v e . A l l data concerning en ro l lment , E . P . S . , soc io -economic s t a t u s , and attendance was coded and keypunched (See Appendix D f o r data coding s c h e d u l e s ) . B lanks were used to i n d i c a t e m i s s i n g or uncomprehensible d a t a . The data was analyzed us ing the I . B . M . 360/168 s e r i e s computer at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Computer Cent re . The U .B .C . Computer Cent re ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e Contingency Tabu la t ion S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s Package (MVTAB) was used to o b t a i n frequency counts and h o r i z o n t a l percentages f o r a l l soc io -economic , en ro l lment , E . P . S . , and attendance p e r s i s t e n c e d a t a . MVTAB was a l s o used to generate b i v a r i a t e t a b l e s from nominal soc io -economic , en ro l lment , and attendance d a t a . O r d i n a l data which met assumptions f o r c o r r e l a t i o n was analyzed us ing the T r i a n g u l a r Regress ion Package (TRP). The INMSDC subrout ine of TRP was used to generate means, standard d e v i a t i o n s , and c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i c e s . The subrout ine T-TEST was used to t e s t f o r d i f f e r e n c e s between the main scores of fee payers and non- fee payers . Raw E . P . S . data was f a c t o r analyzed us ing FAN. E . P . S . f a c t o r scores were inc luded i n TRP runs and analyzed us ing OSIRIS (AID I I I ) . The OSIRIS I I I subrout ine AID I I I (Automatic I n t e r a c t i o n Detector ) developed by Sonquist e t . a l . (19 71) was w e l l s u i t e d to a n a l y s i s i n -v o l v i n g numerous dichotomous and/or nominal v a r i a b l e s . This s t a t i s t i c a l 23 a n a l y s i s package was chosen to exp lore p o s s i b l e i n t e r a c t i o n s between v a r i a b l e s that i n f l u e n c e d enrol lment and attendance b e h a v i o r . 24 CHAPTER IV CHARACTERISTICS OF FEE AND NON-FEE PAYERS Socio -economic and Demographic Data In a l l , 721 sub jec ts met the c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h i s s tudy . Two hundred and e i g h t y - f i v e sub jec ts (39.53 per cent) were e n r o l l e d at G u i l d f o r d Community School and 439 (60.47 per cent of the study popu la t ion ) at C loverda le Community S c h o o l . One hundred and f i f t y - n i n e sub jec ts (22.05 per cent) were male and 562 sub jec ts (77.95 per cent) were female. The average age of the sub jec ts was 36.47 years (S .D . = 14.02 years) . - ' - Approximately t h r e e - q u a r t e r s of the sub jec ts were born i n Canada. S l i g h t l y more than 89 per cent were from c o u n t r i e s where E n g l i s h was the o f f i c i a l language. The average length of res idence i n Canada was 31.65 years (S .D . = 15.04 y e a r s ) . The average leng th of res idence i n the s u b j e c t ' s present neighbourhood was 11.10 years (S .D . = 10.69 y e a r s ) . N inety per cent of the p a r t i c i p a n t s l i v e d w i t h i n the boundaries of School D i s t r i c t #36 (Sur rey ) . The remainder l i v e d i n the Greater Vancouver Reg ional D i s t r i c t w i t h the except ion of two sub jec ts who commuted from V i c t o r i a . F i ve hundred and e leven p a r t i c i p a n t s (70.87 per cent) were m a r r i e d . One hundred and four teen (15.81 per cent) were not m a r r i e d . Seventy (9 .71 per cent) were e i t h e r separa ted , d i v o r c e d , or widowed (Appendix E ) . 1. Where deemed p e r t i n e n t , t a b l e s of the u n i v a r i a t e v a r i a b l e s d iscussed i n Chapter IV have been compi led . I f they are not i nc luded i n the text of Chapter IV, they are l o c a t e d i n Appendix E. 25 Four hundred and twenty - four p a r t i c i p a n t s (58.81 per cent) had completed twelve years of elementary and secondary s c h o o l i n g . The average number of years of s c h o o l i n g was 11.10 years (S .D . = 1.77 y e a r s ) . Three hundred and n i n e t y - t h r e e sub jec ts (54.51 per cent) had completed one or more years of post -secondary e d u c a t i o n . The average number of years of post -secondary s c h o o l i n g f o r these i n d i v i d u a l s was 1.55 years (S .D . = 2.00 y e a r s ) . Approximately o n e - t h i r d of the sub jec ts were housewives w i t h no employment ou ts ide the home. Another t h i r d of the sub jec ts i n d i c a t e d that they were employed f u l l - t i m e outs ide the household . The average persona l income of the sub jec ts was $5,999.78 (S .D . = $ 5 , 5 2 0 . 1 0 ) . One hundred and s i x t y - t w o sub jec ts (22.47 per cent) repor ted persona l incomes of l e s s than $500 per y e a r . Two hundred and e ighty p a r t i c i p a n t s (38.83 per cent) repor ted there was only one income earner i n t h e i r household . Two hundred and f o r t y sub jec ts (33.29 per cent) s t a t e d there were two income earners i n t h e i r household . In a l l , 348 of the sub jec ts (48.27 per cent) s t a t e d there were two or more income earners i n the household . The average number of income earners per household was 1.72 persons (S .D , = 1.05 persons ) . The average fami l y income was $15,664.30 (S .D . = $ 6 , 9 0 8 . 6 2 ) . Approximately 31 per cent of the sub jec ts had no c h i l d r e n (Table 1 ) . The p a r t i c i p a n t s had an average of 1.68 c h i l d r e n (S .D . = 1 . 5 2 ) . S l i g h t l y more than a t h i r d of the sub jec ts repor ted that they had no c h i l d r e n to support f i n a n c i a l l y . The average number of c h i l d r e n supported f i n a n c i a l l y was 1.37 (S .D . •= 1 . 3 4 ) . TABLE 1 D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Number of C h i l d r e n i n Family and by Number of C h i l d r e n Supported F i n a n c i a l l y Number of C h i l d r e n n Per cent Number of C h i l d r e n Supported F i n a n c i a l l y n Per cent 0 224 31.07 0 254 35.23 1 104 14.42 1 124 17.20 2 162 22.47 2 157 21.78 3 138 19.14 3 106 14.70 4 45 6.24 4 27 3.74 5 16 2.22 5 10 1.39 6 6 .83 6 - -7 or more 5 .69 7 or more 2 .28 no response 21 2.92 no response 41 5 .68 721 100.00 721 100.00 Four hundred and t h i r t y - t w o p a r t i c i p a n t s (59.92 per cent) l i v e d i n s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s . One hundred and e i g h t y - e i g h t p a r t i c i -pants (26.07 per cent) p a i d r e n t ; the remainder pa id a mortgage, had f ree accommodation, or owned t h e i r accommodation o u t r i g h t . The average monthly payment fo r housing was $186.70 (S .D . = $130.97) . Table 2 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of sub jec ts by type of accommodation. Table 3 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of sub jec ts by the amount of t h e i r monthly housing payment. 27 TABLE 2 Distribution of Participants by Type of Accommodation Type of Accommodation n Per Cent Mobile Home 11 1. 53 Apartment or Condominium 75 10. 40 Townhouse 19 2. 64 Duplex or Triplex 27 3. 74 Single Family Dwelling 432 59. 92 Acreage 138 19. 14 No response 19 2. 63 721 100. 00 28 TABLE 3 D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Amount of Monthly Housing Payment Amount of Monthly Payment i n D o l l a r s n Per cent 0 132 18.31 $ 1 - 1 0 0 47 6.52 $101 - 200 222 30.79 $201 - 300 159 22.05 $301 - 400 59 8.18 $401 - 500 17 2.36 $501 - 600 1 .14 $601 or more 3 .42 No response 81 11.23 721 100.00 Approximately 45 per cent of the sub jec ts owned two or more motor v e h i c l e s . Another 45 per cent owned only one automobile w i t h the remainder s t a t i n g they owned no motor v e h i c l e s . The average number of motor v e h i c l e s per f a m i l y was 1.49 v e h i c l e s (S .D . = .80 v e h i c l e s ) . The sub jec ts were almost evenly d i v i d e d between those who had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n prev ious adu l t educat ion courses (46.88 per cent) and those who had not p a r t i c i p a t e d p r e v i o u s l y (48.54 per c e n t ) . Of the sub jec ts who had attended adu l t educat ion courses b e f o r e , 137 (40.53 per cent) had attended one course . In a l l , approximately 82 per cent of the 29 prev ious at tenders had attended one, two, or three courses . The average number of courses p r e v i o u s l y attended by a l l of the sub jec ts was 1.13 courses (S .D . = 1.84 c o u r s e s ) . The average repor ted t r a v e l time to and from the course s i t e was 16.48 minutes (S .D . = 10.27 mimutes) . Fewer than one i n f i v e of the sub jec ts took more than twenty minutes to t r a v e l to the course . Of the 222 sub jec ts who p a i d a f e e , 204 (91.89 per cent) i n d i c a t e d they p a i d from persona l or f a m i l y incomes. The remainder had t h e i r fees pa id by a w e l f a r e agency; were pensioners and t h e r e f o r e p a i d no f e e s ; or had t h e i r fees pa id by some other source . One hundred and seventy -seven of the fee payers (79.73 per cent) i n d i c a t e d that adu l t educat ion courses ' shou ld have a r e g i s t r a t i o n f e e ' . T h i r t y - s i x of the fee paying s u b j e c t s (16.22 per cent) i n d i c a t e d there should be no fee w h i l e f i v e (2 .25 per cent) had 'no o p i n i o n ' on t h i s quest ion and four sub jec ts (1.80 per cent) d i d not answer t h i s q u e s t i o n . TABLE 4 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Fee and Non-Fee Payers by The i r Response to the Quest ion "Should a course , such as the one you are now t a k i n g , have a r e g i s t r a t i o n f e e ? " Fee Payers Non- •Fee Payers Response to Quest ion n Per cent n Per cent Yes 177 79.73 185 37.07 No 36 16.22 254 50.90 No o p i n i o n 5 2.25 20 4 . 0 1 No answer 4 1.80 40 8.02 222 100.00 499 100.00 30 When asked i f there should be a f e e , 185 non- fee payers (37.07 per cent) s a i d ' y e s ' and 254 (50.90 per cent) s a i d ' n o ' . Twenty non - fee payers (4 .01 per cent) had 'no o p i n i o n ' w h i l e 40 (8.02 per cent) d i d not respond to t h i s quest ion (Table 4 ) . Three hundred and n i n e t y non- fee payers (78.16 per cent) i n d i c a t e d they were prepared to pay a r e g i s t r a t i o n f e e . N i n e t y - f o u r (18.84 per cent) s a i d they would not pay a r e g i s t r a t i o n fee to at tend the course f o r which they had e n r o l l e d . The f i f t e e n remaining non - fee payers (3 .01 per cent) d i d not answer the q u e s t i o n . Fee payers and non - fee payers , who i n d i c a t e d that they were prepared to pay a r e g i s t r a t i o n f e e , were asked to i n d i c a t e the maximum fee they would pay f o r a l e i s u r e - o r i e n t e d adu l t educat ion course . The mean t h r e s h o l d fee f o r fee payers was $15.79 (S .D . = $9.07) w i t h the mode be ing $10.00 . The mean t h r e s h o l d fee f o r non - fee payers was $13.83 (S .D . = $8.90) w i t h the mode being $10.00. This d i f f e r e n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t ( t = 2 . 4 4 , df = 562, p< . 0 5 ) . M o t i v a t i o n a l O r i e n t a t i o n Data M o t i v a t i o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n data was c o l l e c t e d on 690 of the 721 sub jects us ing B o s h i e r ' s (1971) Educat ion P a r t i c i p a t i o n S c a l e . This data was sub jected to p r i n c i p a l components a n a l y s i s and or thogonal r o t a t i o n . Orthogonal r o t a t i o n was chosen because i t maximizes a l a c k of c o r r e l a t i o n between f a c t o r s . C a t t e l l ' s (1966) scree t e s t , which examines e igenva lues , i n d i c a t e d that the c l e a r e s t s t r u c t u r e would be produced by r o t a t i o n of the f i r s t f i v e f a c t o r s . The r e s u l t i n g s t r u c t u r e was s i m i l a r to that obta ined by Bosh ier & R i d d e l l (1978), Bosh ie r (1977), Haag (1976), and Mors ta in & Smart (1974). Items l o a d i n g .40 or more f o l l o w i n g r o t a t i o n were inc luded i n each f a c t o r . The f i v e m o t i v a t i o n a l 31 o r i e n t a t i o n f a c t o r s were named: 1 : Job Advancement, 2: S o c i a l Contact , 3 : E x t e r n a l E x p e c t a t i o n s , 4: E s c a p e / S t i m u l a t i o n , and 5 : Cogn i t i ve  I n t e r e s t . Table 5 presents the i tems , l o a d i n g s , and va r iance accounted f o r by each f a c t o r . Factor 1 : Job Advancement was concerned w i t h a need to improve s k i l l s that would enhance an i n d i v i d u a l ' s employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s . Factor 2 : S o c i a l Contact r e l a t e d to a need to e s t a b l i s h or ma in ta in s o c i a l and persona l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Factor 3 : E x t e r n a l Expectat ions was concerned w i t h m o t i v a t i o n to pursue adu l t educat ion as a r e s u l t of p r e s s u r e s , requi rements , or i n s t r u c t i o n s from i n d i v i d u a l s or agencies w i t h which the subject was a s s o c i a t e d . Subjects who attended f o r reasons a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Factor 3 were t r y i n g to f u l f i l l the expectat ions of others (Bosh ie r , 1973) . Factor 4: Escape/St imulat ion r e l a t e d to the need to escape from a p a r t i c u l a r environment or to seek s t i m u l a t i o n . Factor 5 : Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t c o n s i s t e d of items r e l a t e d to l e a r n i n g f o r i t s own sake . TABLE 5 E.P .S . Factor Loadings and Var iance Accounted f o r A f t e r Orthogonal R o t a t i o n Items and Factor Groups II I V 20 To Increase ray competence l n ay Job .71* - .06 - .01 .08 .04 3 l o secure p r o f e s s i o n a l advancement .63* - .03 .04 - .03 .07 11 To give me higher s t a t u s i n my Job .65* .25 .32 .05 .02 38 To meet some formal requirements .64* - .26 .19 - .05 - .02 27 To c l a r i f y what I want to be doing 5 years from p.ov .60* - .11 - .01 .18 .11 33 To comply v i t h my employers p o l i c y .56* - .15 .23 - .04 - .10 2* To prepare f o r s e r v i c e to the community .56* - .13 .23 .10 .18 32 To improve my a b i l i t y to serve mankind .54* - .41* .08 .04 .26 14 To acquire a knowledge that w i l l help cic w i t h other e d u c a t i o n a l courses .54* - .12 .07 .12 .32 16 To keep up with competition .54* - .05 .35 .20 - .10 22 To help me earn a degree, diploma or c e r t i f i c a t e .52* .06 .39 .05 .08 39 To maintain or improve my s o c i a l p o s i t i o n .49* - .43* .17 .10 - .04 34 To keep up w i t h others .43* - .26 .36 .17 - .08 4 Become more e f f e c t i v e as a c i t i z e n .40* - .07 .26 .10 .36 12 To supplement a narrow previous education .39 .24 .25 .26 .30 2 To share a common i n t e r e s t - .15 .27 .23 - .07 .14 21 To gain i n s i g h t i n t o myself and ay personal problems .32 - .33 - .07 .24 .32 25 To gain i n s i g h t ' i n t o human r e l a t i o n s .32 - .41* .01 .17 .36 15 To f u l f i l a need f o r personal a s s o c i a t i o n s and f r i e n d s h i p s .17 - .43* .12 .36 .19 37 To take p a r t i n an a c t i v i t y which i s customary i n the c i r c l e s i n which I move .39 - .43* .16 - .07 - .01 45 To improve my a b i l i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e i n community work .41* - .50* .15 .13 .25 28 To become acquainted w i t h congenial people .09 - .55* .24 .31 .17 35 To improve my s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s .22 - .56* .39 .22 .12 19 To p a r t i c i p a t e i n group a c t i v i t y .10 - .65* .08 .31 .15 44 To make new f r i e n d s .05 .67* .19 .26 .13 47 To comply v i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s from someone e l s e .18 .12 .61* - .04 .12 46 To comply v i t h the f a c t that people w i t h s t a t u s & .09 p r e s t i g e attend a d u l t education c l a s s e s .18 - .19 .60* - .01 42 To comply v i t h the suggestions of someona e l s e .02 - .17 .57* .08 - .04 36 To carry out the e x p e c t a t i o n s of soceone v i t u formal a u t h o r i t y .43* - .18 .54* - .05 - .01 48 To a s s i s t me when I go overseas .18 - .10 .54* - .04 .10 6 Carry out recommendations of some a u t h o r i t y .29 .16 .54* .06 .17 17 To meet members of the opposite sex .07 - .20 .48* .14 - .05 40 To escape an unhappy r e l a t i o n s h i p .01 - .•11 .45* .15 - .04 10 To be accepted by others .27 .04 .45* .37 - .02 9 To overcome the f r u s t r a t i o n of day to day l i v i n g .06 _ .15 - .02 .73* .01 5 To get r e l i e f from boredom - .08 - .03 .06 .72* - .03 31 To get a break i n the r o u t i n e of hose or work - .04 - .40* .04 .61* .06 26 To have a fev hours away from r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s - .02 - .39 .01 .59* - .04 13 To.stop myself becoming a 'cabbage' .20 - .12 - .08 .56* .20 23 To escape t e l e v i s i o n .06 .02 .26 .52* - .04 29 To provide c c o n t r a s t to the resc of my l i f e .14 - .26 .13 .46* .27 18 To escape the i n t e l l e c t u a l narrowness of my occupation .24 .11 .16 .41* .12 8 To s a t i s f y an e n q u i r i n g mind - .03 _ .04 .01 .08 .70> 1 To seek knowledge for i t s ovn sake .01 - .06 .07 - .11 .67' 43 To l e a r n Just f o r the sake of l e a r n i n g - .11 - .23 - .08 .15 .54' 7 Respond to the f a c t th.'.t I am surrounded by people who continue to l e a r n .26 - .26 - .02 .21 .46' 41 To provide a concrasc to my previous education .24 - .01 .27 .26 .36 30 To obcaia some immediate p r a c t i c a l b e n e f i t .14 .08 .07 - .07 .24 Sum of pquared f a c t o r - l o a d i n g 3 d i v i d e d by aum of commur.alities .29 .19 .19 .19 .13 Variance accounted f o r 22.62 7.94 4.82 3.90 3.56 Cumulative variance accounted f o r 22.62 30.56 35.38 39.28 42.84 33 Although f a c t o r load ings are of i n t e r e s t , they do not r e v e a l the extent to which p a r t i c i p a n t s are e n r o l l e d f o r each o r i e n t a t i o n . Summing over items i s one technique to generate ' f a c t o r s c o r e s ' that r e v e a l the extent to which p a r t i c i p a n t s were e n r o l l e d f o r a p a r t i c u l a r o r i e n t a t i o n (Bosh ie r , 1977) . F i ve f a c t o r scores were thus der i ved by summing over items and d i v i d i n g by the number of items i n a f a c t o r (to produce a mean). These are l i s t e d below i n decreas ing order of i n f l u e n c e on p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Mean Factor Scores Factor 5 : Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t 5 .31 Fac to r 4 : Escape/St imula t ion 3.55 Fac to r 2 : S o c i a l Contact 3 .33 F a c t o r 1 : Job Advancement 2.44 Fac to r 3 : E x t e r n a l Expectat ions 1-72 As the f a c t o r scores i n d i c a t e , the sub jec ts were most mot ivated to p a r t i c i p a t e f o r reasons of Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t and l e a s t mot ivated by E x t e r n a l E x p e c t a t i o n s . Test of Hypothesis I Hypothesis I s t a t e d , "There are s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s o c i a l , economic, demographic, or m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c i p a n t s e n r o l l e d i n fee and non- fee c o u r s e s " . There were n ineteen o r d i n a l (or i n t e r v a l ) v a r i a b l e s and seven nominal v a r i a b l e s used to compare fee and non - fee payers (Tables 6 & 7 ) . D i f f e r e n c e s between the means of o r d i n a l data ( t - t e s t s ) and c h i - s q u a r e t e s t s of nominal data i d e n t i f i e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s (p< .05) on 'number of c h i l d r e n i n f a m i l y ' , 'amount of monthly housing payment' , Factor 2: S o c i a l Contact , Factor 5 : Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t , and ' t ype of accommo-d a t i o n ' . D i f f e r e n c e s i n ' t ype of accommodation' and Factor 2 : S o c i a l  Contact were h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p< . 0 1 ) . 34 TABLE 6 Means, Standard Deviations, and t-values for Fee and Non-Fee Payers on Twenty Ordinal Variables. Fe e Non- Fee V a r i a b l e Name n - 222 n - 499 X S.D. X S.D. t-value df t - P r o b a b i l i t y * Age 35.86 y r 14.46 36.30 y r 13.82 - .49 704 .63 Years of residence i n Canada 30.62 y r 15,44 32.11 y r 14.85 1.21 699 .22 Years of residence i n neighbourhood 10.21 y r 10.45 11.51 y r 10.79 1.50 698 .13 Years of secondary s c h o o l i n g 11.20 y r 1.67 11.06 y r 1.82 - .95 705 .35 Years of pose-secondary s c h o o l i n g 1.66 y r 2.14 1.50 y r 1.94 - 1.00 700 .32 P e r s o n a l income $6382 5546 $5826 5506 - 1.18 635 .24 Number employed i n household 1.63 .999 1.77 1.07 1.64 660 p< .10 Family income $15585 6927 $15699 6909 .19 618 .83 Number of c h i l d r e n 1.52 1.34 1.75 1.59 1.95 482* * p< .05 Number of c h i l d r e n supported 1.26 1.27 1.41 1.37 1.40 678 .16 Monthly housing payment $202.57 139.28 $179.76 126.70 - 2.04 638 p< .05 Number of cars owned by f a m i l y 1.52 .85 1.48 .77 - .49 680 .63 Number of previous courses 1.07 2.03 1.16 1.75 .53 353** .61 T r a v e l time 16.27 min 9.76 16.57 min 10.50 .35 705 . 72 Factor 1 : Job Advancement - .0570 .91 .0113 1.02 .87 434* * .39 F a c t o r 2 : S o c i a l Contact - .1574 1.05 .0632 .97 2.66 684 p< .01 Factor 3 • : E x t e r n a l E x p e c t a t i o n .0151 1.15 - .0082 .93 - .26 325* * .77 Factor 4 : Escape/Stimulation .0127 .95 - .0016 1.02 - .17 • 684 .84 Factor 5 : C o g n i t i v e I n t e r e s t - .1120 .95 .0559 1.02 2.02 684 p< .05 Threshold Fee *** $15.79 9.07 $13.83 8.90 2.44 562 p< .05 * two tailed test. ** T-TEST uses more than one formula for performing t-tests. The most general formula assumes that the parent population approaches normality. This assumption applied to a l l of the variables except those marked by '**'. In these cases a more sensitive version of the f i r s t assumption applied. The assumption is that the population variances are equal. *** Not included in the test of Hypothesis I. 35 TABLE 7 Test of S i g n i f i c a n c e fo r Nominal C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Between Fee and Non-Fee Payers V a r i a b l e Name X 2 df P r o b a b i l i t y Sex .08 1 .77 Type of Accommodation 17.86 6 p< .01 Prev ious P a r t i c i p a t i o n .70 2 .71 Country of B i r t h 13.28 12 .35 M a r i t a l Status 19.09 11 p< .10 Present Work Status 18.25 11 p< .10 Payment: Rent or Mortgage .55 2 .76 Non-fee payers had s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c h i l d r e n than fee payers . Fee payers p a i d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more per month fo r t h e i r accommodation than non - fee payers . Fee payers were more s t r o n g l y mot ivated by the need f o r S o c i a l Contact than were non- fee payers . Fee payers were s i g n i f i -c a n t l y l e s s mot ivated by Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t than were non - fee payers . Fee payers were more l i k e l y to l i v e i n apartments, dup lexes , and s i n g l e f a m i l y dwe l l ings than non- fee payers ; non- fee payers were more i n c l i n e d to l i v e on acreage, i n mobi le homes, and i n townhouses than fee payers . In view of the f a c t that t h i s research was e s s e n t i a l l y e x p l o r a -t o r y , i t was considered appropr ia te to examine s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between v a r i a b l e s at the p < . 1 0 l e v e l . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between fee payers and non- fee payers at t h i s l e v e l occur red on ' m a r i t a l s t a t u s ' , 'p resent work s t a t u s ' , and 'number of persons employed i n the h o u s e h o l d ' . 36 Non-fee payers were more l i k e l y s i n g l e , widowed, marr ied l e s s than four y e a r s , or marr ied f i f t e e n or more y e a r s . Fee payers were more l i k e l y to be separa ted/d ivo rced , marr ied between f i v e and n ine y e a r s , or l i v i n g common-law than were non- fee payers . Fee payers were more l i k e l y to work f u l l - t i m e or to be r e t i r e d than non - fee payers . Non-fee payers were more l i k e l y to work p a r t - t i m e , be unemployed, be s e l f - e m p l o y e d , or be housewives than were fee payers . Non-fee payers were s l i g h t l y more i n c l i n e d to be from households w i t h three or more persons employed. For Hypothesis I the l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e was set at p < . 0 5 . There fo re , the hypothes is was accepted f o r the f i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s l i s t e d below and r e j e c t e d f o r the other 21 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t e s t e d : Number of c h i l d r e n i n f a m i l y Amount of monthly housing payment Type of accommodation Fac to r 2 : S o c i a l Contact Factor 4: Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t Thus, non - fee payers and fee payers d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on three of the 21 socio-economic/demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and on two of the f i v e m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Soc io -economic , demographic, and m o t i v a t i o n a l data was c o l l e c t e d to permit i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of fee and non- fee payers . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d on f i v e of the 26 v a r i -ab les s t u d i e d . Non-fee payers had on the average .23 more c h i l d r e n than fee payers . Non-fee payers p a i d $23/month more f o r accommodation than fee payers . Fee payers were more i n c l i n e d than non - fee payers to occupy a p a r t -ments, duplexes , or s i n g l e f a m i l y homes. Non-fee payers tended to occupy mobi le houses, townhouses, or acreage. 37 Non-fee payers and fee payers had s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s on only three of the 21 socio -demographic v a r i a b l e s s t u d i e d . In g e n e r a l , p a r t i c i p a n t s i n non- fee courses appeared to be from the same s o c i o -economic group as p a r t i c i p a n t s i n fee courses . The absence of a fee d i d not appear to r e s u l t i n g reater p a r t i c i p a t i o n by members of the lower soc io -economic groups. Fee payers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y to p a r t i c i p a t e to s a t i s f y S o c i a l Contact needs than non - fee payers (p< . 0 1 ) . Non-fee payers were more i n c l i n e d to p a r t i c i p a t e to s a t i s f y Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t needs than fee payers (p< . 0 5 ) . Although no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between fee and non- fee payers on the m o t i v a t i o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n s Job Advancement, E x t e r n a l E x p e c t a t i o n s , or Escape/St imulat ion i t i s noteworthy that both groups scored low on these f a c t o r s . Low scores i n d i c a t e d that the sub jec ts were not s t r o n g l y mot ivated to p a r t i c i p a t e by these m o t i v a t i o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n s . E a r l i e r i n t h i s chapte r , the r e s u l t s of quest ions concerning ' t h r e s h o l d f e e s ' , 'who should p a y ' , and ' w i l l i n g n e s s to e n r o l l i f there was a f e e ' were p resented . These quest ions were a t t i t u d i n a l i n nature and not i nc luded i n the t e s t of Hypothesis I. Approximately n ineteen per cent of the non- fee payers i n d i c a t e d they were not prepared to pay a f e e . I f t h i s v a r i a b l e was an accurate p r e d i c t e r of behav io r , enro l lment i n t h i s program would have been t h i r t e e n per cent l e s s had a l l the courses been ass igned a r e g i s t r a t i o n f e e . On the other hand, a p p r o x i -mately 87 per cent of the p a r t i c i p a n t s e i t h e r paid or were prepared to pay a f e e . However, approximately 41 per cent of the sub jec ts ( s i x t e e n per cent of the fee payers and 55 per cent of the non- fee payers) i n d i c a t e d there should be no f e e . These r e s u l t s revea led that d i f f e r -38 ences i n attitude towards fee payment existed within the non-fee and fee paying groups, as well as between these groups. Despite these a t t i t u d i n a l differences, there were few socio-economic and motivational differences between non-fee and fee payers. 39 CHAPTER V ENROLLMENT PATTERNS AND FEE STATUS Test of Hypothesis I I Enrol lment data was c o l l e c t e d on 721 s u b j e c t s . There were 499 s u b j e c t s (69 .21 per cent) e n r o l l e d i n non - fee courses and 222 (30.79 per cent) e n r o l l e d i n fee courses . The 499 non - fee payers were e n r o l l e d i n 31 courses . The mean number of sub jec ts per non - fee course was 16.10 s u b j e c t s . The 222 fee payers were e n r o l l e d i n 20 fee courses . The mean enrol lment per fee course was 11.10 s u b j e c t s . A comparison of the enrol lment pat te rns i n the 31 non - fee courses and the twenty fee courses revea led that the mean enrol lment i n non- fee courses was 45.05 per cent g reater than i n fee courses . The percentage d i f f e r e n c e i n the enrol lment i n fee versus non- fee courses was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Based on the r e s u l t s obta ined i n t h i s s tudy , Hypothesis I I was accepted . Non-fee courses had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g reater enrol lment than fee courses . The fee s t a t u s of a course had a profound e f f e c t on enro l lment r a t e s . Not only d id non - fee courses a t t r a c t s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r numbers of p a r t i c i p a n t s but non - fee courses were l e s s l i k e l y to be c a n c e l l e d due to poor en ro l lment . Nine fee courses had to be c a n c e l l e d w h i l e only one non- fee course was c a n c e l l e d . I t i s apparent that removal of the r e g i s t r a t i o n fee can be a powerfu l t o o l to improve enro l lment i n a d u l t educat ion programs. Why were more p a r t i c i p a n t s a t t r a c t e d to non- fee as compared to fee courses? Un fo r tu nate l y , there were no c l e a r answers to t h i s q u e s t i o n . As i n d i c a t e d i n Chapter IV, soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l s i m i l a r i t i e s between non- fee payers and fee payers appeared to be AO greater than the d i f f e r e n c e s . Although d i f f e r e n c e s were noted between fee and non - fee payers w i t h regard to t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards fees and t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s to pay, there were no i n d i c a t i o n s as to why these d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d . Nor was there evidence to support the c o n c l u s i o n that members of lower soc io -economic groups were more i n c l i n e d to e n r o l l i n non - fee courses . I n t e r a c t i o n Between P r e d i c t o r s of Enrol lment  i n Fee versus Non-Fee Courses Despi te t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n enrol lment pat te rns i n fee and non - fee courses , a n a l y s i s of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of fee and non - fee payers d i d not r e v e a l major d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups (Chapter I t must be r e c a l l e d that the fo rego ing a n a l y s i s was e s s e n t i a l l y b i -v a r i a t e and c o n s i s t e d of t e s t i n g the s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between v a r i a b l e means ( t - t e s t s ) and frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s (X^). P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a d u l t educat ion has been purported to occur due to a complex i n t e r a c t i o n of many v a r i a b l e s (Boshier 19 73) . Thus i t was decided to examine the i n t e r a c t i o n s between v a r i a b l e s i n an attempt to e x p l a i n fee s t a t u s enro l lment b e h a v i o r . To pursue v a r i a b l e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s r e l a t e d to enro l lment i n a fee or non - fee course the m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s a l g o r i t h m embodied i n the AID I I I package of OSIRIS I I I was used. Apart from i t s a b i l i t y to detect i n t e r a c t i o n s between v a r i a b l e s , AID I I I was w e l l s u i t e d to present purposes s i n c e the independent v a r i a b l e s inc luded a mixture of nomina l , o r d i n a l , and i n t e r v a l d a t a . Moreover, i t appeared that the e f f e c t s of some v a r i a b l e s may have been mediated by the e f f e c t s of other v a r i a b l e s . This i s the c l a s s i c problem i n c o r r e l a t i o n which l e d McNemar (1969) to co in the term ' suppresso r ' e f f e c t to descr ibe a s i t u a t i o n where the e f f e c t s of 41 one v a r i a b l e are mediated by or suppressed by the i n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t s of o ther v a r i a b l e s . I t i s t h i s k i n d of reasoning which u s u a l l y leads researchers to use a r e g r e s s i o n procedure capable of d e t e c t i n g i n t e r -a c t i v e and ' p a r t i a l ' e f f e c t s of independent v a r i a b l e s on a dependent v a r i a b l e . AID I I I was a l s o w e l l s u i t e d to t h i s a n a l y s i s because many of the independent v a r i a b l e s i n t h i s study f a i l e d to meet the assump-t i o n s f o r c o r r e l a t i o n — t h e hear t of r e g r e s s i o n . Concerning t h i s , Bosh ie r (1977a) s a i d : "The heart of AID I I I i s the a b i l i t y to search among a set of p r e d i c t o r s f o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which inc rease the r e s e a r c h e r ' s a b i l i t y to account f o r va r iance i n the dependent v a r i a b l e . Each p r e d i c t o r i s s p l i t dichotomously i n a manner which m a x i -mizes the v a r i a n c e accounted f o r The p o p u l a t i o n i s d i v i d e d , through a s e r i e s of b i n a r y s p l i t s , i n t o a mutua l l y e x c l u s i v e s e r i e s of subgroups. Every obse rva t ion i s a member of one of the subgroups. Each group i s chosen so that at each step the two means account f o r more of the sum of squares ( reduc ing the p r e d i c t i v e e r r o r ) than the means of any other subgroups." "The AID I I I a n a l y s i s i s not l i k e f a c t o r or r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . In s o c i a l research main e f f e c t s are not n e c e s s a r i l y the same or even present i n a l l pa r t s of a p o p u l a t i o n or sample. F u r t h e r -more, i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s may be of complex k inds a f f e c t i n g on ly some subgroups i n the popu la t ion AID I I I r e v e a l s these subgroup e f f e c t s and i s w e l l s u i t e d to e x p l o r a t o r y research where i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n a model are not e x a c t l y s p e c i f i e d . AID I I I f o rma l i zes and makes e x p l i c i t e x p l o r a t i o n s i n data so they can be judged, repeated and t e s t e d on other popu lat ions and samples. I t a l s o enables the researcher to d ismiss p r e d i c t o r s that don ' t e f f e c t the dependent v a r i a b l e . " AID I I I employed a nonsymmetrical branching process to d i v i d e the study p o p u l a t i o n i n t o a s e r i e s of groups that were e i t h e r ' h i g h ' or ' l o w ' on the dependent v a r i a b l e (F igure 1 ) . In t h i s case the dependent v a r i a b l e was fee versus non- fee paying s t a t u s . Group 1 represents the t o t a l study p o p u l a t i o n (n = 721); i t shows the mean ' y ' (dependent 42 v a r i a b l e : fee versus non - fee paying s t a t u s ) as equal to 1 . 6 9 . The dependent v a r i a b l e ' f e e versus non - fee paying s t a t u s ' was coded 1 = fee payer and 2 = non - fee payer . Each box below Group 1 i s a group numbered i n the order i n which AID I I I dichotomously s p l i t the p r e d i c t o r w i t h the next h i g h e s t percentage of v a r i a n c e . That i s , the p r e d i c t o r next best ab le to inc rease the b e -h a v i o r p r e d i c t a b i l i t y . Below each box i s the name of the p r e d i c t o r ( independent v a r i a b l e ) on which the next dichotomous s p l i t o c c u r r e d . The B a s i c Sum of Squares/Total Sum of Squares x 100 shows the percentage of va r iance i n the dependent v a r i a b l e accounted f o r by that independent v a r i a b l e s p l i t . Each box conta ins three l i n e s . The f i r s t l i n e i d e n t i f i e s the v a r i a b l e ca tegor ies encompassed by that group. The second l i n e g ives the number of sub jec ts ' n ' l i n that group and l i n e three g ives the ' y ' va lue ( f e e - s t a t u s mean) f o r sub jec ts i n that group. Groups that cou ld not be s p l i t f u r t h e r have a double bottom l i n e on t h e i r box. This i n d i c a t e s that no a d d i t i o n a l va r iance cou ld be accounted fo r by f u r t h e r s p l i t t i n g o f . t h a t group. In some cases i t was not p o s s i b l e due to space c o n s t r a i n t s to i n c l u d e a l l the v a r i a b l e ca tegor ies on l i n e one of the box. Where t h i s happened, l i n e one i s preceded by an ' * ' and a number code i s used to i d e n t i f y coding c a t e g o r i e s . Refer to Appendix D to t r a n s l a t e these codes to a c t u a l v a r i a b l e v a l u e s . 1 . In F igures 1 and 3 , ' n ' and ' y ' were c a p i t a l i z e d to main ta in l e g i b i l i t y dur ing photo reduc t ion . FIGURE 1 Enrollment Behavior aa Predicted by the Interaction of Various Socio-Economic and Motivational Characteristics I N C O M E • H - 2 0 . N - 2 : v - 1 . 7 ; 1 ^ • J.5.O.? 9- > 1 1. - 16 Y - l.'ll TOTAL VARIANCE EXPLAINED = 35.0% C o 44 The researcher can set the c r i t e r i o n f o r ' s p l i t t i n g ' so i n some respects AID I I I resembles stepwise r e g r e s s i o n . Because t - t e s t s and comparison of nominal data der i ved from fee and non - fee payers d i d not r e v e a l a coherent p a t t e r n of d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups, the AID I I I a n a l y s i s was e s s e n t i a l l y e x p l o r a t o r y (Tables 6 & 7 ) . AID I I I was i n s t r u c t e d to cont inue s p l i t t i n g independent v a r i a b l e s u n t i l a l l p o s s i b l e meaning i n the data had been r e v e a l e d . This r e s u l t e d i n a l a r g e number of s p l i t s . Although some of the s p l i t s accounted f o r only s m a l l amounts of v a r i a n c e , i t was p o s s i b l e to detect s e v e r a l i n t e r -a c t i o n s between independent v a r i a b l e s which determined fee versus non-fee pay ing enrol lment behav io r . Seventeen of the 27 p r e d i c t o r s were s p l i t 27 times to c rea te 54 groups. Twenty-eight of these groups were f i n a l . In a l l , 35 per cent of the v a r i a n c e i n the dependent v a r i a b l e was exp la ined by the p r e d i c t o r s s t u d i e d . Of the seventeen p r e d i c t o r s s p l i t , the f i v e most powerfu l were 'day of c o u r s e 1 , ' f a m i l y income' , 'neighbourhood of r e s i -d e n c e ' , ' t ype of accommodation' , and E . P . S . Factor 5 : Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t . In sequence these p r e d i c t o r s accounted f o r 16.57 per cen t , 13.43 per cent , 10.57 per cent , 8.57 per cent and 6.86 per cent of the exp la ined va r iance i n fee versus non - fee payer s t a t u s . These f i v e p r e d i c t o r s accounted f o r 56 per cent of the exp la ined va r iance or 19.6 per cent of the t o t a l va r iance (Table 8 ) . TABLE 8 R e l a t i v e Power of V a r i a b l e s P r e d i c t i n g Fee Versus Non-Fee Payer Enrol lment Behavior 45 P r e d i c t o r Number of P a r t i t i o n s P r o p o r t i o n of Var iance Exp la ined Per cent of Exp la ined Var iance Day of Course 2 .058 16.57 Family Income 4 .047 13.43 Neighbourhood of Residence 3 .037 10.57 Type of Accommodation 2 .030 8.57 Factor 5 : Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t 2 .024 6.86 Country of B i r t h 2 .021 6.00 Age 2 .020 5 .71 Persona l Income 1 .017 4.86 Sex , 1 .012 3.43 T r a v e l Time 1 .012 3.43 Factor 2 : S o c i a l Contact 1 .012 3.43 Years of Residence i n Neighbourhood 1 ' .011 3.14 Factor 3 : E x t e r n a l Expectat ions 1 .011 3.14 Factor 4: Escape/St imulat ion 1 .010 2.86 Number of Cars Owned by Family 1 .010 2.86 Number of C h i l d r e n Supported F i n a n c i a l l y 1 .010 2.86 Number of Prev ious Courses Attended 1 .080 2.28 Years of Residence i n Canada 0 None 0 M a r i t a l Status 0 None 0 Years of Secondary School ing 0 None 0 Years of Post -Secondary Schoo l ing 0 None 0 Present Work Status 0 None 0 Number Employed i n Household 0 None 0 Payment: Rent or Mortgage 0 None 0 Amount of Monthly Housing Payments 0 None 0 Fac to r 1 : Job Advancement 0 None 0 Prev ious P a r t i c i p a t i o n 0 None 0 27 .350 100.00 . 46 'Fami l y income' had four p a r t i t i o n s w h i l e 'neighbourhood of r e s i d e n c e ' had three p a r t i t i o n s . These p r e d i c t o r s accounted f o r appro -x imate ly one -quar te r of the dichotomous s p l i t s and one -quar te r of the exp la ined v a r i a n c e . In t o t a l , t h i r t e e n soc io -economic v a r i a b l e s and four m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s accounted f o r 29 .3 per cent and 5 .7 per cent of the v a r i a n c e r e s p e c t i v e l y . No s i n g l e v a r i a b l e accounted fo r a l a r g e p o r t i o n of the exp la ined v a r i a n c e . Smal l amounts of the t o t a l v a r i a n c e were accounted f o r by each of the seventeen v a r i a b l e s s p l i t . With AID I I I i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r a v a r i a b l e to i n t e r a c t w i t h other v a r i a b l e s i n d i f f e r e n t ways, depending on the va lue of the v a r i -a b l e . For example, ' h i g h ' persona l income may have i n t e r a c t e d w i t h another v a r i a b l e d i f f e r e n t l y than ' l o w ' persona l income. The a b i l i t y to i d e n t i f y these d i f f e r e n t i n t e r a c t i o n s i s a s t r e n g t h of AID I I I . Because AID I I I was i n s t r u c t e d to cont inue s p l i t t i n g p r e d i c t o r s i n search of a l l p o s s i b l e meaning, there were many groups w i t h only a few s u b j e c t s . Th is g r e a t l y compl icated the r e s u l t s and was one reason why Sonquist e t . a l . (1971) exhorts researchers to o b t a i n a l a r g e ' n ' when us ing AID I I I . Consequently , a d e c i s i o n was made to focus the p r e s e n -t a t i o n and d i s c u s s i o n of the r e s u l t s on groups of approximately twenty or more s u b j e c t s . Two main s p l i t s occurred on the p r e d i c t o r s ' t ype of accommo-d a t i o n ' and 'day of c o u r s e ' . The f i r s t s p l i t on ' t ype of accommodation' produced Group 2 w i t h 564 sub jec ts who l i v e d i n mobi le homes, a p a r t -ments/condominiums, townhouses, d u p l e x e s / t r i p l e x e s , or s i n g l e f a m i l y dwel l ings and Group 3 w i t h 157 sub jec ts who l i v e d on acreage (or who d i d not answer the q u e s t i o n ) . The sub jec ts i n Group 2 were more i n c l i n e d to 47 be fee payers (y = 1.65) w h i l e the sub jects i n Group 3 were more i n c l i n e d to be non- fee payers (y = 1 . 8 ) . The second s p l i t on 'day of course ' p a r t i t i o n e d Group 2 i n t o Groups 4 and 5 . Group 4 had 173 sub jec ts who e n r o l l e d i n courses he ld on Monday. The 391 sub jec ts i n Group 5 e n r o l l e d i n courses h e l d on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. The sub jec ts i n Group 4 were more i n c l i n e d to be fee payers (y = 1.53) when compared to the sub jec ts i n Group 5 who were more i n c l i n e d to be non - fee payers (y = 1 . 7 1 ) . Groups 3 , 4, and 5 head the three main branches of s u b j e c t s . Each of these main branches w i l l be presented and d iscussed i n tu rn as they appear from l e f t to r i g h t i n F igure 1 . Three major branches emanated from Group 4. Subjects i n these branches mani fested the f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : Branch A ( I n c l i n e d to be fee payers) Group 35 n=22, y=L.68 f a m i l y incomes between $16001 - 26000 and over $28000 (or d i d not answer) . Group 29 n=52, y=1.5 were born i n Canada or the U .S .A . Group 25 n=65, y=1.41 l i v e d w i t h i n the boundaries of Sur rey , Lang ley , A lde rg rove , or D e l t a . Group 16 n=79, y=1.35 were female. Group 10 n=108, y=1.43 persona l incomes of $2001 - 20000 ( o r d i d not respond to t h i s q u e s t i o n ) . Group 4 n=173, y=1.53 attended a course on Monday. 48 Group 43 n=21, y=1.8 Group 17 n=29, y=1.65 Group 10 n=108, y=1.43 Group 4 n=173, y=1.53 Branch B (Less i n c l i n e d to be fee payers) - had low S o c i a l Contact m o t i v a t i o n . were male . - pe rsona l incomes of $2001 - 20000 (or d i d not respond to t h i s quest ion) - attended a course on Monday. Branch C ( I n c l i n e d to be non - fee payers) Group 41 n=39, y=1.87 Group 33 n=53, y=1.77 Group 11 n=65, y=1.69 Group 4 n=173, y=1.53 - had low Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t m o t i v a t i o n . - t r a v e l l e d fo r s i x or more minutes to the s i t e of the course . - pe rsona l incomes from $0 - 2000. - attended a course on Monday. An overview of these branches revealed that sub jec ts i n Branch A were more i n c l i n e d to be fee payers than were sub jec ts i n Branch B, who were more i n c l i n e d to be fee payers than sub jec ts i n Branch C. Wi th in a l l three branches there were subbranches w i t h sub jec ts who d i sp layed e i t h e r very ' h i g h ' or very ' l o w ' v a l u e s . Four major branches emanated from Group 5. Three of these branches had sub jec ts who were i n c l i n e d to pay a f e e , w h i l e the other branch had sub jec ts who were more i n c l i n e d to be non- fee payers . The sub jec ts i n these four branches mani fested the f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : 49 Branch D ( I n c l i n e d to be fee payers) Group 47 - had h igh Escape/St imulat ion n=18, y = i . 44 m o t i v a t i o n . Group 38 - between 2 8 - 6 2 years of age n=32, y = i . 25 (or d i d not answer t h i s quest ion) Group 12 - had low Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t n=48, y = i . 37 m o t i v a t i o n . Group 6 - attended a course on Thursday. n = l l l . , y - i .54 Branch E ( I n c l i n e d to be fee payers) Group 37 - f a m i l y incomes between $8001 - 28000 n=49, y=1.79 (or d i d not respond to t h i s q u e s t i o n ) . Group 31 - wide range of E x t e r n a l Expectat ions n=57, y=1.71 m o t i v a t i o n (or d i d not respond) . Group 13 - had h igh Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t m o t i v a t i o n n=63, y - 1 . 6 6 Group 6 - attended a course on Thursday. n = l l l . , y=1.54 Branch F (Less i n c l i n e d to be fee payers) Group 26 - l i v e d i n a duplex , t r i p l e x , or n=46, y - 1 . 4 3 s i n g l e f a m i l y home. Group 18 - l i v e d i n G u i l d f o r d , Newton or n=69, y - 1 . 5 5 Whal ley . Group 14 - f a m i l y incomes over $10001 n=106 ; , y - 1 . 6 4 (or d i d not answer t h i s q u e s t i o n ) . Group 8 - l i v e d i n the neighbourhood l e s s than n=127, y=1.7 s i x years . Group 7 n=280, y=1.78 - attended a course on Tuesday or Wednesday. 50 Branch G ( I n c l i n e d to be non- fee payers) Group 9 - l i v e d i n neighbourhood between s i x -n=153, y=1.85 45 years and 51 - 55 years (or d id not respond) . Group 7 - attended a course on Tuesday or n=280, y=1.78 Wednesday. The major branches of Group 5 had numerous subbranches w i t h sub jec ts w i t h e i t h e r very h igh or very low ' y ' v a l u e s . Very h igh ' y ' va lues were i d e n t i f i e d i n Groups 15 , 19 and 27. Low ' y ' va lues were i d e n t i f i e d i n Groups 30, 46, 36, and 5 0 . . Two major branches emanated from Group 3 ; both branches had sub jec ts w i t h a h igh i n c l i n a t i o n . t o e n r o l l i n non - fee courses . Subjects i n these branches mani fested the f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : Branch H ( I n c l i n e d to be non- fee payers) Group 53 - between the ages of 28 - 32, n=16, y=1.93 3 8 - 5 2 , or 58 - 72 y e a r s . Group 45 - f a m i l y incomes between $12001 - 20000, n=22, y=1.77 $22001 - 24000, or over $28000 (or d i d not' respond) . Group 22 - p r e v i o u s l y attended s i x or more adu l t n=28, y=1.64 educat ion courses (or d i d not respond) . Group 21 - l i v e d w i t h i n the boundaries of S.D.#36, n=151, y=1.83 Lang ley , or Coqui t lam. Group 3 n=157, y=1.80 - l i v e d on acreage (or d i d not answer t h i s q u e s t i o n ) . 51 Branch I ( I n c l i n e d to be non - fee payers) Group 23 n=123, y=1.87 p r e v i o u s l y attended fewer than s i x a d u l t educat ion courses . Group 21 n=151, y=1.83 l i v e d w i t h i n the boundaries of S.D.#36, Lang ley , or Coqui t lam. Group 3 n=157, y=1.80 l i v e d on acreage (or d i d not respond) . Al though the groups i n Branches H and I g e n e r a l l y had a h i g h ' y ' v a l u e , there were s e v e r a l subbranches w i t h groups of sub jec ts who were more i n c l i n e d to pay a f e e . In p a r t i c u l a r these were sub jec ts w i t h low f a m i l y incomes (Group 44) and s u b j e c t s who l i v e d i n C lay ton H i l l or who d i d not respond (Group 20) . economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n f l u e n c e d the sub jec ts to e n r o l l i n e i t h e r a non- fee or fee s t a t u s course . Seventeen v a r i a b l e s accounted f o r 35 per cent of the t o t a l v a r i a n c e . Although both s o c i o -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c o n t r i b u t e d to the p r e d i c t i o n of enrol lment i n e i t h e r a fee or non - fee course , soc io -economic c h a r -a c t e r i s t i c s had a g reater i n f l u e n c e than m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The o v e r a l l impress ion of these f i n d i n g s was one of complex i n t e r a c t i o n s that were i n many p laces s u b t l e or obscure. Al though the independent v a r i a b l e s accounted fo r 35 per cent of the t o t a l v a r i a n c e , no admin-i s t r a t i v e l y u s e f u l p r o f i l e of fee and non - fee payers was revea led by the AID I I I a n a l y s i s . However, some r e l a t i o n s h i p s are worthy of d i s c u s s i o n . exp la ined v a r i a n c e was 'day of c o u r s e ' . Why t h i s p a r t i c u l a r v a r i a b l e i n f l u e n c e d enrol lment i s not known. The p r e d i c t o r ' f a m i l y income' was These r e s u l t s were complex. They i n d i c a t e d that both s o c i o -The p r e d i c t o r that accounted fo r the g reatest amount of 52 i n v o l v e d i n four s p l i t s and accounted fo r the second h i g h e s t amount of exp la ined v a r i a n c e . In three of these s p l i t s , i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h h igher f a m i l y incomes were more l i k e l y to be e n r o l l e d i n non - fee courses . The reasons f o r t h i s f a c t are not known. Perhaps i t cou ld be that h igher income earners see ' f r e e ' courses as a r e t u r n f o r t h e i r h igher tax c o n t r i b u t i o n s . Johnstone & R i v e r a (1965) repor ted that members of the lower soc io -economic groups considered cost to be a g reate r b a r r i e r to p a r t i c i p a t i o n than d i d any other soc io -economic group. Yet i n t h i s s tudy , i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h the lowest incomes were more i n c l i n e d to pay f e e s . Perhaps these i n d i v i d u a l s judged the q u a l i t y of the course by i t s c o s t , i n s p i t e of the f a c t that a l l courses were sponsored by the same agency. Why 'neighbourhood of r e s i d e n c e ' i n f l u e n c e d fee s t a t u s i s a l s o u n c l e a r . No pat te rns were apparent i n the i n t e r a c t i o n s of t h i s v a r i a b l e w i t h other v a r i a b l e s . Nor was there much meaning to the i n f l u e n c e of the v a r i a b l e ' t ype of accommodation' . I n d i v i d u a l s who l i v e d on acreage g e n e r a l l y had lower accommodation costs and e n r o l l e d i n non - fee courses . Many of these people were ' f a r m e r s ' or 'hobby farmers ' and i t i s p o s s i b l e that t h i s could be a c lue to t h e i r e n r o l l -ment b e h a v i o r . The m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t was an important v a r i a b l e i n e x p l a i n i n g enro l lment b e h a v i o r . However, i n the two s p l i t s on t h i s v a r i a b l e the r e s u l t s were d i f f e r e n t . Subjects w i t h average or longer t r a v e l t imes and who had s t rong Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t m o t i v a t i o n were more i n c l i n e d to be fee payers than were sub jec ts who t r a v e l l e d the same length of time but who had low Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t m o t i v a t i o n . When 53 low Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t m o t i v a t i o n was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h 'age ' and 'day of course ' the sub jec ts were more i n c l i n e d to be fee payers . Why these i n t e r a c t i o n s occurred i s not c l e a r . 'Country of b i r t h ' s p l i t t w i c e . In both cases n a t i v e Canadians were more i n c l i n e d to e n r o l l i n non - fee courses than were immigrants . Th is may be a m a n i f e s t a t i o n of the 'something f o r n o t h i n g ' m e n t a l i t y f r e q u e n t l y mentioned by Canadian p o l i t i c i a n s and the p r e s s . The v a r i a b l e ' age ' a l s o s p l i t t w i c e . In one case the young were more i n c l i n e d to be fee payers and i n the other case the young were more i n c l i n e d to be non - fee payers . In the one s p l i t on ' s e x ' , females were more i n c l i n e d to be fee payers . One v a r i a b l e was conspicuous by i t s absence i n the r e s u l t s — ' y e a r s of secondary s c h o o l i n g ' . Johnstone & R i v e r a (1965) repor ted that i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h more educat ion tend to p lace a h igher va lue on c o n t i n u i n g educat ion and l e i s u r e - o r i e n t e d l e a r n i n g . There fo re , i t was a n t i c i p a t e d that i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h more educat ion would be more i n c l i n e d to pay a f e e . Th is was not the case . Only two of the f i v e v a r i a b l e s i d e n t i f i e d as be ing s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i n the b i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s (Chapter IV) of fee payer and non -fee payer c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were of importance i n e x p l a i n i n g va r iance i n t h i s m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s . These v a r i a b l e s were ' t ype of accommodation' and E . P . S . Factor 5 : Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t . This r a i s e s major concerns about the use of b i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s to p r e d i c t enro l lment b e h a v i o r . This study has shown that non - fee courses a t t r a c t e d s i g n i f i -c a n t l y more p a r t i c i p a n t s than d i d fee courses . Although the study f a i l e d to i d e n t i f y any c l e a r reasons fo r t h i s e f f e c t , i t appears that s o c i o -economic s t a t u s d i d not have a s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e on a p a r t i c i -p a n t ' s d e c i s i o n to e n r o l l i n a fee versus non - fee course . In s p i t e of the f a c t that t h i s study employed many of the t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i o -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s used to p r e d i c t enro l lment b e h a v i o r , 65 per cent of the t o t a l v a r i a n c e was unexp la ined . 55 CHAPTER VI ATTENDANCE PATTERNS AND EXPLORATION OF ATTENDANCE BEHAVIOR Test of Hypothesis III Attendance behavior data was co l l e c t e d on 439 subjects enrolled i n courses with s i x sessions (See Chapter I I I ) . There were 297 non-fee payers (67.65 per cent) and 142 fee payers (32.35 per cent). A com-parison of the attendance patterns i n the 21 non-fee courses and the 15 fee courses revealed that the mean attendance i n non-fee courses was 3.59 sessions (S.D. = 1.42); the mean attendance of fee payers was 4.02 sessions (S.D. = 1.23). Thus, fee payers attended s i g n i f i c a n t l y more sessions than non-fee payers (p< .01). Based on this t - p r o b a b i l i t y Hypothesis III was accepted. Fee payers had s i g n i f i c a n t l y better attendance than non-fee payers. FIGURE 2 Per cent Attendance of Fee and Non-Fee Payers by Course Session 100 90 cu o c cd c CD C CL) O U CU P-80 r 70 60 50 0 Fee Payers n=142 Non-Fee Payers n=297 2 3 4 Session Number 56 D i s c u s s i o n of Hypothesis I I I Why d i d fee payers and non- fee payers have s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t attendance behavior? The answer to t h i s quest ion probably l i e s i n the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s of the fee and non - fee payers . However, as observed i n the com-p a r i s o n of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the t e s t of Hypothesis I, the s i m i -l a r i t i e s between the soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of fee and non- fee payers were more pronounced than the d i f f e r e n c e s . S i g -n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were observed on f i v e of the 23 v a r i a b l e s examined fo r the t e s t of Hypothesis I. An examinat ion of these d i f f e r e n c e s f a i l e d to i n d i c a t e why fee and non - fee payers had d i f f e r e n t attendance b e h a v i o r . S ince the sub jec ts i n the t e s t of Hypothesis I I I were a l a r g e subgroup of the sub jec ts s t u d i e d i n Hypothesis I, i t was decided that l i t t l e a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n would be obta ined by doing a b i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of the attendance subgroup's soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l d a t a . Rather , the soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l data were analyzed us ing the AID I I I program of OSIRIS I I I i n order to exp lore the antecedents of attendance behavior w i t h i n a m u l t i v a r i a t e paradigm. I n t e r a c t i o n Between P r e d i c t o r s of Attendance Behavior In F igure 3 the dependent v a r i a b l e was 'at tendance b e h a v i o r ' . The p o s s i b l e range f o r t h i s v a r i a b l e was from ' 1 ' to ' 5 ' which i n d i c a t e d the number of course sess ions attended by the p a r t i c i p a n t s . Group 1 represents the t o t a l study p o p u l a t i o n (n = 439) . A l so shown i n Group 1 i s the mean score f o r the dependent v a r i a b l e (y = 3 . 7 2 ) . Each box below Group 1 was a group numbered i n the order i n which AID I I I d i c h o t -omously s p l i t the p r e d i c t o r account ing fo r the next h ighes t percentage FIGURE 3 Attendance Behavior as Predicted by the Interaction of Various Socio-economic and Motivational Characteristics ATTEHDA rJCE I 439 3.72 HON TUES H - 278 Y - 3.56 •2-7.9-15 N - 229 t - 3.44 GUILDFORD N - 49 1 - 4.12 TOTAL VARIANCE EXPLAINED - 42.6% U l —J 58 of v a r i a n c e . The f i r s t l i n e i n each box i d e n t i f i e s the coding c a t e -gor ies fo r that group. The second l i n e gives the number of sub jec ts ' n ' i n that group and l i n e three g ives the ' y ' va lue (dependent mean) fo r sub jec ts i n that group. Groups that could not be s p l i t f u r t h e r have a double bottom l i n e . In some cases i t was not p o s s i b l e due to space c o n s t r a i n t s to i n c l u d e a l l of the p r e d i c t o r va lues on l i n e one. Where t h i s o c c u r r e d , l i n e one i s preceded by an ' * ' and a number code i s used to i d e n t i f y coding c a t e g o r i e s . Refer to Appendix D to t r a n s -l a t e these codes to a c t u a l v a r i a b l e v a l u e s . F i ve m o t i v a t i o n a l and 23 soc io -economic v a r i a b l e s were i n -c luded i n the AID I I I a n a l y s i s . C o l l e c t i v e l y , e ighteen independent v a r i a b l e s were s p l i t dichotomously 28 t imes to c reate 56 groups. In a l l 42.6 per cent of the t o t a l v a r i a n c e i n the dependent v a r i a b l e was accounted f o r by the p r e d i c t o r s s t u d i e d . Of the e ighteen p r e d i c t o r s s p l i t , the f i v e most important were: 'neighbourhood of r e s i d e n c e ' , ' f a m i l y income' , 'number of persons employed i n h o u s e h o l d ' , ' years of secondary s c h o o l i n g ' , and ' f e e s t a t u s ' . In sequence these p r e d i c t o r s accounted f o r 13.15 per c e n t , 9.62 per cen t , 8.45 per cen t , 7.98 per cen t , and 7.98 per cent of the exp la ined va r iance i n attendance b e -h a v i o r . These f i v e v a r i a b l e s accounted f o r 47.18 per cent of the exp la ined va r iance or 2 0 . 1 per cent of the t o t a l v a r i a n c e (Table 9 ) . TABLE 9 R e l a t i v e Power of V a r i a b l e s P r e d i c t i n g Fee Versus Non-Fee Payer Attendance Behavior 59 P r e d i c t o r Number of P a r t i t i o n s P r o p o r t i o n of Var iance Exp la ined Per cent of Exp la ined Var iance Neighbourhood of Residence 3 .056 13.15 Family Income 3 .041 9.62 Number Employed i n Household 2 .036 8.45 Years of Secondary Schoo l ing 3 .034 7.98 Fee Status 2 .034 7.98 M a r i t a l Status 1 .031 7.28 Day of Course 1 .026 6.10 Factor 3 : E x t e r n a l Expectat ions 2 .025 5.87 Factor 5 : Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t 2 .023 5.40 Factor 4: Escape/St imulat ion 1 .022 5.16 Factor 1 : Job Advancement 1 .017 3.99 Fac to r 2: S o c i a l Advancement 1 .014 3.29 Years of Residence i n Canada 1 .013 3.05 Persona l Income 1 .013 3.05 Years of Residence i n Neighbourhood 1 .012 2.82 Amount of Monthly Housing Payment 1 .012 2.82 Number of Prev ious Courses Attended 1 .009 2 .11 Number of C h i l d r e n Supported F i n a n c i a l l y 1 .008 1.88 Country of B i r t h 0 None 0.00 Sex 0 None 0.00 Age 0 None 0.00 Years of Post -Secondary School ing 0 None 0.00 Present Work Status 0 None 0.00 Type of Accommodation 0 None 0.00 Payment: Rent or Mortgage 0 None 0.00 Prev ious P a r t i c i p a t i o n 0 None 0.00 T r a v e l Time 0 None 0.00 Number of Cars Owned by Family 0 None 0.00 28 .426 100.00 60 As i n d i c a t e d i n Table 9 , 'neighbourhood of r e s i d e n c e ' , ' f a m i l y income' and ' years of secondary s c h o o l i n g ' each had three p a r t i t i o n s . These three p r e d i c t o r s accounted f o r 33 1/3 per cent of the s p l i t s and 30.75 per cent of the exp la ined v a r i a n c e . In t o t a l , f i v e m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s accounted f o r 23 .71 per cent of the exp la ined v a r i a n c e w h i l e t h i r t e e n soc io -economic v a r i a b l e s accounted fo r 76.29 per cent of the exp la ined v a r i a n c e . No s i n g l e v a r i a b l e accounted f o r a l a r g e p o r t i o n of the exp la ined va r iance i n at tendance. Smal l amounts of t o t a l v a r i -ance were accounted f o r by each of the e ighteen v a r i a b l e s that entered the a n a l y s i s . S ince AID I I I was i n s t r u c t e d to cont inue s p l i t t i n g p r e d i c t o r s i n search of a l l p o s s i b l e meaning, there were many groups w i t h only a few s u b j e c t s . Consequently , i t was decided to focus t h i s d i s c u s s i o n on groups of approximately twenty or more s u b j e c t s . Two main s p l i t s occurred on 'day of course* and 'neighbourhood of r e s i d e n c e ' . The f i r s t s p l i t on 'day of course 1 produced Group 2 w i t h 278 sub jec ts who attended a course on Monday or Tuesday and Group 3 w i t h 161 sub jec ts who attended a course on Wednesday or Thursday. The sub jec ts i n Group 2 had poorer attendance (y = 3.56) than sub jec ts i n Group 3 (y = 4 . 0 1 ) . The second s p l i t on 'neighbourhood of r e s i d e n c e ' p a r t i t i o n e d Group 2 i n t o Groups 4 and 5 . Group 4 had 229 sub jec ts who l i v e d i n every neighbourhood except G u i l d f o r d and Richmond. Group 5 had 49 sub jec ts who l i v e d i n G u i l d f o r d . The sub jec ts i n Group 4 had poorer attendance (y = 3.44) than sub jects i n Group 5 (y = 4 . 1 2 ) . Groups 3 , 4 and 5 marked the s t a r t i n g po int of the three main branches of sub jec ts i d e n t i f i e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s . Each of these main branches w i l l be presented and d iscussed i n tu rn as they appear from l e f t to 61 r i g h t i n F igure 3 . Two major branches emanated from Group 4. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sub jec ts i n these branches are l i s t e d below. Branch A ( I n c l i n e d to have poor attendance) Group 26 n=57, y=3.31 Group 21 n=64, y=3.45 Group 17 n=81, y=3.27 Group 12 n=102, y=3.09 Group 10 n=112, y=3.21 Group 8 n=124, y=3.34 Group 7 n=193, y=3.58 Group 4 n=229, y=3.44 - monthly accommodation payments of $0 - 400. - l i v e d i n the community f o r one to twenty y e a r s . - had average to h igh S o c i a l Contact m o t i v a t i o n . - l i v e d i n Newton, Whal ley , Sunnyside, C l o v e r d a l e , Lang ley , D e l t a , Burnaby/ Vancouver, New Westminster , or Coqui t lam. - had one or more i n d i v i d u a l s employed i n household (or d i d not respond) . - were non - fee payers . were engaged, m a r r i e d , or had been marr ied (or d i d not respond) . l i v e d i n a l l areas except G u i l d f o r d and Richmond. There were subbranches of Branch A w i t h very good or very poor at tendance. Group 6 had 36 s i n g l e sub jec ts w i t h below average at tendance. In Groups 16, 46 and 56 there was a p a t t e r n of very poor at tendance. These sub jec ts had h igh Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t m o t i v a t i o n (Group 5 6 ) , low E x t e r n a l Expectat ions m o t i v a t i o n (Group 4 6 ) , and low S o c i a l Contact mot i va t ions (Group 16) . Subjects w i t h low Job Advancement m o t i v a t i o n (Group 48) had poor at tendance. Subjects who were non - fee payers and who had no one employed i n the household had e x c e l l e n t attendance (Group 1 1 ) . 62 Branch B ( I n c l i n e d to have good attendance) Group 31 n= 37, y=4.51 Group 29 n=57, y=4.21 Group 9 n=69, y=4.01 Group 7 n=193, y=3.58 Group 4 n=229, y=3.44 - had e leven to t h i r t e e n years of secondary s c h o o l i n g . - f a m i l y incomes between $2001 - 22000 and $24001 - 28000. - were fee payers . - were engaged, m a r r i e d , or had been marr ied (or d i d not respond) . - l i v e d i n a l l areas except G u i l d f o r d and Richmond. Although Branches A and B emanated from Group 4, they had very d i f f e r e n t attendance b e h a v i o r . Branch A sub jec ts g e n e r a l l y had l e s s than average attendance w h i l e Branch B sub jec ts had b e t t e r than average at tendance . Branch C emanated from Group 5 . Subjects i n Branch C g e n e r a l l y had above average at tendance. Group 41 n=14, y=4.42 Group 36 n=28, y=3.92 Group 35 n=43, y=4.27 Group 5 n=49, y=4.12 Branch C - had twelve or t h i r t e e n years of secondary s c h o o l i n g . - had h igh Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t m o t i v a t i o n . - had low E x t e r n a l Expectat ions m o t i v a t i o n . - l i v e d i n G u i l d f o r d . Group 3 had one major branch that on the fou r th s p l i t formed two s m a l l e r branches. G e n e r a l l y , the major branch and the two s m a l l e r 63 branches had subjects with better than average attendance. The major branch has been l a b e l l e d 'DE' and the two smaller branches l a b e l l e d 'D' and 'E'. The subjects i n these branches manifested the following c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : Branch D Group 32 - non-fee payers. n=40, y=3.52 Group 24 - have one or n=55, y=3.76 fewer children. Branch E Group 39 n=32, y=4.56 Group 25 n=53, y=4.26 - previously attended one to f i v e courses (or did not re-spond) . - have two to four children (or did not respond). Group 22 n=108, y=4.00 Group 19 n=139, y=4.16 Group 15 n=144, y=4.11 Group 3 n=161, y=4.01 Branch DE - l i v e d i n Guildford, Newton, Whalley, or Sunnyside. - family incomes of more than $4001 (or did not respond to th i s question). - had ten to thirteen years of secondary schooling (or did not respond to th i s question). - attended a course on Wednesday or Thursday. There were several subbranches of these branches with subjects who had either very good or very poor attendance. Group 14 with seventeen subjects who had less than nine years of secondary schooling, Group 44 with s i x subjects who had very low personal incomes, and Group 18 with f i v e individuals who had low family incomes a l l had poor attendance. Subjects i n Group 45 with middle to high personal incomes, subjects i n Group 33 who were fee payers, and subjects i n Group 23 who l i v e d i n 64 C l o v e r d a l e , Lang ley , D e l t a , Burnaby/Vancouver, and Coquit lam (or d i d not respond to t h i s quest ion) a l l had good at tendance. The i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s i d e n t i f i e d by the AID I I I a n a l y s i s revea led that both m o t i v a t i o n a l and soc io -economic p r e d i c t o r s i n f l u e n c e d attendance behav io r . . E ighteen of the 28 v a r i a b l e s that were examined accounted f o r 42.6 per cent of the t o t a l v a r i a n c e . As was i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r f i v e m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s accounted f o r 23.71 per cent of the exp la ined v a r i a n c e w h i l e t h i r t e e n soc io -economic v a r i a b l e s accounted f o r 76.29 per cent of the exp la ined v a r i a n c e . The reasons behind the presence and i n f l u e n c e of some of the v a r i a b l e s i s u n c l e a r . Attendance was poorest on Monday w i t h a gradual improvement through Tuesday and Wednesday and the best attendance on Thursday. The reason f o r t h i s i n f l u e n c e i s unknown. I t may be that the need to 'escape ' was g reate r as the week advanced, however the v a r i a b l e Escape/St imulat ion was not i d e n t i f i e d as a p r e d i c t o r of a t t e n -dance behav io r . The v a r i a b l e 'neighbourhood of r e s i d e n c e ' a l s o had a s t rong i n f l u e n c e on at tendance, but the d i r e c t i o n of the i n f l u e n c e v a r i e d . In one case i t was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h b e t t e r than average a t t e n -dance, w h i l e i n another case i t was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h poorer a t tendance . The v a r i a b l e 'number employed i n household ' a l s o i n f l u e n c e d attendance i n d i f f e r e n t ways. When a s s o c i a t e d w i th non- fee payment, sub jec ts who had no one employed i n the household had b e t t e r than average at tendance . When a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l e s s than average ' years of secondary s c h o o l i n g ' , those i n d i v i d u a l s from households w i t h one or fewer i n d i v i d u a l s employed had poor at tendance. 65 M o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s accounted fo r more s p l i t s and more of the exp la ined v a r i a n c e (10.1 per cent) i n the p r e d i c t i o n of attendance than they d i d i n the p r e d i c t i o n of enro l lment behavior (5 .7 per c e n t ) . I n d i v i d u a l s i n Group 16 w i t h low S o c i a l Contact m o t i v a t i o n had poorer attendance behav ior than sub jec ts i n Group 17 w i t h average to h igh S o c i a l Contact m o t i v a t i o n . However both Groups 16 and 17 had l e s s than average attendance behav io r . I n d i v i d u a l s w i t h low S o c i a l Contact m o t i -v a t i o n (Group 1 6 ) , low to average E x t e r n a l Expectat ions m o t i v a t i o n (Group 4 6 ) , and average to h igh Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t m o t i v a t i o n (Group 56) had very poor at tendance. I n d i v i d u a l s w i t h low S o c i a l Contact m o t i -v a t i o n , low to average E x t e r n a l Expectat ions m o t i v a t i o n , and low Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t m o t i v a t i o n (Group 57) had b e t t e r attendance behav ior than the prev ious groups but s t i l l had below average at tendance. I n d i -v i d u a l s w i t h h igh E x t e r n a l Expectat ions m o t i v a t i o n (Group 47) had only a s l i g h t l y b e t t e r than average attendance behavior (y = 3 . 8 0 ) . In Branch C the i n t e r a c t i o n between the m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s E x t e r n a l  Expectat ions and Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t produced the same genera l t rend i n attendance behavior (Groups 35, 36 and 37) . Subjects w i t h low to average E x t e r n a l Expectat ions m o t i v a t i o n and low Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t m o t i v a t i o n had b e t t e r attendance than sub jec ts w i t h low to average E x t e r n a l Expec- t a t i o n s m o t i v a t i o n and average to h igh Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t m o t i v a t i o n . An overview of the f i v e E . P . S . f a c t o r s d i d not r e v e a l a c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between m o t i v a t i o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n s and a t t e n -dance behav io r . The d i r e c t i o n of i n f l u e n c e of the E . P . S . f a c t o r s are summarized i n Table 10. This t a b l e i s i n t e r p r e t e d as f o l l o w s : The ' f a c t o r score meaning' has regard to the d i r e c t i o n of load ings on the f i v e f a c t o r s . Therefore an i n d i v i d u a l w i t h a ' l o w ' f a c t o r score 66 meaning was l e s s mot ivated by that f a c t o r . An i n d i v i d u a l w i t h a ' h i g h ' f a c t o r score meaning was more mot ivated by that f a c t o r . The r e l a t i o n s h i p s between ' f a c t o r score meaning' and 'at tendance behav io r ' were deduced from the AID I I I a n a l y s i s . TABLE 10 R e l a t i o n s h i p Between E . P . S . Factors and Attendance Behavior E . P . S . Factor Score Meaning Attendance Factor (degree of mot ivat ion ) Behavior Job Advancement lower poor h igher good S o c i a l Contact lower poor h igher good E x t e r n a l Expectat ions lower poor/good h igher poor/good Escape/St imulat ion lower h igh Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t h igher poor/good lower poor/good Although most of the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the p r e d i c t o r s were s u b t l e or obscure , s e v e r a l c l e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p s were i d e n t i f i e d . Fee payers had b e t t e r attendance behavior than non- fee payers : the one except ion be ing sub jec ts who had the h ighest f a m i l y incomes. Gen-e r a l l y sub jec ts who had some or a l l of the f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s had the best attendance behav io r . - sub jec ts w i t h the most years of secondary s c h o o l i n g . - sub jec ts w i t h h igher pe rsona l incomes. - sub jec ts w i t h h igher f a m i l y incomes. - sub jec ts who had attended prev ious courses . - sub jec ts w i t h more c h i l d r e n to support f i n a n c i a l l y . This a n a l y s i s i d e n t i f i e d a complex i n t e r a c t i o n of s o c i o -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s that i n f l u e n c e d at tendance. The v a r i a b l e s i d e n t i f i e d as i n f l u e n c e s of attendance d i d not complete ly c o i n c i d e w i t h the v a r i a b l e s i d e n t i f i e d i n e a r l i e r s t u d i e s . These r e s u l t s supported Verner & Davis (1964) i n that ' i n c o m e ' , ' e d u c a t i o n ' , and ' m a r i t a l s t a t u s " were s t rong p r e d i c t o r s of at tendance. However, t h i s study d i d not i d e n t i f y 'age ' as impor tant . Nor d i d the r e s u l t s of t h i s study c o i n c i d e w i t h those of D ick inson & Verner (1967). In the present study 'age ' d i d not have a s t rong i n f l u e n c e on at tendance, whereas educat ion d i d . D ick inson & Verner repor ted that 'age ' d i d i n f l u e n c e attendance and that educat ion d i d n o t . The f a c t that d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s were obta ined i n t h i s a n a l y s i s from the r e s u l t s of e a r l i e r s t u d i e s was not s u r p r i s i n g . This was a m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s which examined i n t e r -a c t i o n s between v a r i a b l e s as p r e d i c t o r s of at tendance, whereas past s t u d i e s tended to use u n i v a r i a t e or b i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s . A r e c u r r i n g theme of past research has been the s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the v a r i a b l e s that i n f l u e n c e d enrol lment and at tendance. In t h i s s tudy , of the ten most important v a r i a b l e s that i n f l u e n c e d enrol lment and attendance only four v a r i a b l e s i n f l u e n c e d both enrol lment and a t t e n d -ance. They were 'neighbourhood of r e s i d e n c e ' , 'day of c o u r s e ' , E . P . S . Factor 5 : Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t , and ' f a m i l y income' . The ways i n which these v a r i a b l e s i n t e r a c t e d w i t h other v a r i a b l e s and the i n f l u e n c e they had on enrol lment and attendance d i f f e r e d g r e a t l y . Although 42.6 per cent of the t o t a l va r iance i n attendance was i d e n t i f i e d , there remained a cons iderab le amount of unexpla ined v a r i a n c e . The soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s u t i l i z e d , a l though comprehensive, have only p a r t i a l l y exp la ined the attendance behavior i n fee and non - fee courses . 69 CHAPTER VII SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE Summary This study had three main purposes. F i r s t , i t examined soc io-economic and motivat ional c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of fee and non-fee paying par t i c ipant s i n a l e i su re -or i en ted adult education program. This exam-i n a t i o n was undertaken to explore two questions. 1. Did dif ferences ex i s t between the socio-economic and mot ivat ional c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of fee and non-fee paying par t ic ipants? 2. When both fee and non-fee courses were programmed, d id non-fee courses a t t rac t a greater proport ion of par t i c ipant s from the lower socio-economic status groups than fee courses? The second purpose was to determine whether dif ferences existed between enrollment patterns of par t i c ipant s i n fee and non-fee courses. The t h i r d purpose of th i s study was to examine whether dif ferences existed i n attendance patterns of par t i c ipant s i n fee and non-fee courses. Knowledge concerning the impact of fees on enrollment and attendance i s incomplete, so th i s study examined the extent to which var iab les i n t e r -acted to determine enrollment and attendance behavior. The mul t ivar i a te analys i s used herein was not based on any deductively derived model, but was exploratory i n nature. Courses were randomly assigned into a fee and non-fee condi t ion and three hypotheses examined. 1. There are s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the s o c i a l , economic, demo-graphic, or mot ivat ional c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of par t i c ipant s enro l led i n fee and non-fee courses. 70 2. There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of p a r t i c i p a n t s e n r o l l e d i n fee and non- fee courses . 3 . There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the attendance behavior of p a r t i c i p a n t s e n r o l l e d i n fee and non- fee courses . F igure 4 s c h e m a t i c a l l y summarizes the study design and r e -s u l t s . This study was e s s e n t i a l l y c o r r e l a t i o n a l but had c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a q u a s i - e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n . However, u n l i k e a q u a s i - e x p e r i m e n t a l design which sometimes invo l ves random assignment of sub jec ts to t r e a t -ment groups, t h i s study i n v o l v e d random assignment of courses to a fee and non - fee c o n d i t i o n . F i f t y - n i n e courses were a d v e r t i z e d i n the Spr ing (1975) Community Educat ion brochure which was d i s t r i b u t e d by m a i l to a l l households i n School D i s t r i c t #36 (Sur rey ) . Seven hundred and twenty -one a d u l t s e n r o l l e d i n one of 51 courses . On the second s e s s i o n of each course p roc to rs admin is tered two q u e s t i o n n a i r e s : the E . P . S . (Bosh ie r , 1971) and a soc io -economic q u e s t i o n n a i r e . A d a i l y attendance record was mainta ined f o r each course . The data was analyzed us ing a v a r i e t y of u n i v a r i a t e , b i v a r i a t e , and m u l t i v a r i a t e s t a t i s t i c a l techniques s u i t e d to the a n a l y s i s of nomina l , i n t e r v a l , o r d i n a l , and dichotomous d a t a . FIGURE 4 Schematic Summary of Study Method and Results FEE COURSES 20 courses f i n a l 59 l e i sure-or iented adult education courses randomly assigned NON-FEE COURSES 31 courses f i n a l o M 00 rH 00 CNl w r- 00 II o o w Z o c_> M w H r J 00 Pi r J W o o > Pi a S5 M W Pi oo H o o w o PM H -Oi H u PH O w H H o o < H <! Q Enrollment Attendance Subject Charac ter i s t i c s Behavior Behavior FEE PAYERS N = 222 N = 222 N = 142 - fewer ch i ldren - higher accommodation costs - higher S o c i a l Contact LOWER ENROLLMENT BETTER ATTENDANCE motivation - lower Cognit ive Interest motivation - d id not l i v e on acreage x = 11.10 students per course x = 4.02 sessions 23 Explained Explained s i m i l a r variance variance charac te r i s t i c s 35 per cent 42.6 per cent NON-FEE PAYERS N = 499 N = 499 N = 297 - more ch i ldren „ - lower accommodation costs HIGHER POORER - lower Soc i a l Contact — ^ ENROLLMENT ATTENDANCE motivation - higher Cognitive Interest motivation - l i v e d on acreage x = 16.10 students per course x = 3.59 sessions 72 The m o t i v a t i o n a l data c o l l e c t e d i d e n t i f i e d f i v e m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s . Mean Factor Score Fac to r 1 : Job Advancement 2.44 Factor 2: S o c i a l Contact 3 .33 Factor 3 : E x t e r n a l Expectat ions 1.72 Factor 4: Escape/St imulat ion 3.55 Fac to r 5 : Co gn i t i ve I n t e r e s t 5 .31 The extent to which sub jec ts were e n r o l l e d f o r a p a r t i c u l a r o r i e n t a t i o n was i n d i c a t e d by the mean f a c t o r s c o r e . The sub jec ts were most m o t i -vated by Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t and l e a s t mot ivated by E x t e r n a l E x p e c t a t i o n s . In the t e s t of Hypothesis I there were n ineteen o r d i n a l v a r i -ab les and seven nominal v a r i a b l e s used to compare fee and non - fee payers . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s at the p< .05 l e v e l were i d e n t i f i e d on 'number of c h i l d r e n ' , 'amount of monthly housing payment' , Factor 2: S o c i a l  Contact , Factor 5 : Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t , and ' t ype of accommodation' . Non-fee payers had s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c h i l d r e n than fee payers . Fee payers pa id s i g n i f i c a n t l y more per month f o r t h e i r accommodation. Fee payers were more h i g h l y mot ivated by the need f o r S o c i a l Contact than non- fee payers . Fee payers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s mot ivated by Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t than non - fee payers . Fee payers were more l i k e l y to l i v e i n apartments, duplexes , t r i p l e x e s , and s i n g l e f a m i l y dwe l l ings than non - fee payers , who were more i n c l i n e d to l i v e i n mobi le homes, townhouses, or on acreage. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between fee and non - fee payers were observed at the p < . 1 0 l e v e l f o r ' m a r i t a l s t a t u s ' , 'p resent work s t a t u s ' , and 'number employed i n h o u s e h o l d ' . Non-fee payers were more l i k e l y to be s i n g l e , marr ied l e s s than four y e a r s , or marr ied f i f t e e n or more y e a r s . Fee payers were more l i k e l y to be separa ted/d ivo rced , mar r ied between f i v e and n ine y e a r s , or to be l i v i n g common-law. Fee payers were more l i k e l y to be working f u l l - t i m e , w h i l e non - fee payers were more l i k e l y to work p a r t - t i m e or to be housewives. Fee payers were s l i g h t l y more i n c l i n e d to be from households w i t h one or two i n d i v i d u a l s employed. Non-fee payers were s l i g h t l y more i n c l i n e d to be from households w i t h three or more persons employed. Hypothesis I was accepted f o r the f i v e v a r i a b l e s that were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t at the l e v e l of p < . 0 5 . Hypothesis I was r e -j e c t e d f o r the other 21 v a r i a b l e s tes ted f o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between fee and non- fee payers . Comparison of mean scores f o r fee and non - fee payers and examinat ion of frequency counts on nominal v a r i a b l e s suggested that s i m i l a r i t i e s between fee and non - fee payers g e n e r a l l y outweighed d i f f e r e n c e s . The absence of a fee d i d not appear to r e s u l t i n an inc r ease i n enrol lment by members of lower soc io -economic groups. Seven hundred and twenty-one sub jec ts were i n c l u d e d i n the t e s t of Hypothesis I I . There were 499 (69.21 per cent) sub jec ts e n r o l l e d i n non- fee courses and 222 (30.79 per cent) e n r o l l e d i n fee courses . The mean enrol lment i n non- fee courses was 16.10 sub jec ts and the mean e n -ro l lment i n fee courses was 11.10 s u b j e c t s . Non-fee courses a t t r a c t e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y more sub jects per course than fee courses . Consequently Hypothesis I I was accepted. Non-fee courses had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g reater enro l lment per course than fee courses (F igure 4 ) . F a i l u r e to i d e n t i f y major s i n g l e v a r i a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of fee and non- fee paying 74 p a r t i c i p a n t s l e d to the use of AID I I I to exp lore m u l t i v a r i a t e i n t e r -a c t i o n s that i n f l u e n c e d fee s t a t u s . Twenty-seven v a r i a b l e s were examined i n t h i s AID I I I a n a l y s i s . In a l l , 35 per cent of the t o t a l va r iance i n the dependent v a r i a b l e was exp la ined by the p r e d i c t o r s s t u d i e d . Seven-teen independent v a r i a b l e s c o n t r i b u t e d to the p r e d i c t i o n of fee s ta tus e n -ro l lment b e h a v i o r . The f i v e most powerfu l were 'day o f c o u r s e ' , ' f a m i l y income' , 'neighbourhood of r e s i d e n c e ' , ' t ype of accommodation' , and Factor 5 : Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t . In sequence these p r e d i c t o r s accounted f o r 16.57 per cen t , 13.43 per cen t , 10.57 per cen t , 8.57 per cent and 6.86 per cent of the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e i n fee versus non - fee enrol lment s t a t u s . In t o t a l , t h i r t e e n soc io -economic v a r i a b l e s accounted f o r 2 9 . 3 per cent of the t o t a l v a r i a n c e , w h i l e four m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s a c -counted f o r 5 .7 per cent of the t o t a l v a r i a n c e . Although the AID I I I a n a l y s i s i d e n t i f i e d three d i s t i n c t groups of p a r t i c i p a n t s , the d i f f e r -ences were s u b t l e . Hypothesis I I I was tes ted w i t h data der i ved from 439 sub jec ts who e n r o l l e d i n courses of s i x sess ions d u r a t i o n . There were 29 7 (67.65 per cent) non - fee payers and 142 (32.35 per cent) fee payers . The mean attendance i n non- fee courses was 3.59 s e s s i o n s , w h i l e the mean attendance i n fee courses was 4.02 s e s s i o n s . Fee payers attended more c l a s s sess ions than non - fee payers (p< . 0 1 ) . Hypothesis I I I was accepted . Fee payers had s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r attendance than non - fee payers . However, examinat ion of the soc io -economic or m o t i v a t i o n a l data revea led l i t t l e about which v a r i a b l e s might have exp la ined t h i s b e h a v i o r . Thus AID I I I was again employed; t h i s time to exp lore the p o s s i b i l i t y that i n t e r a c t i o n s between soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l 75 v a r i a b l e s might e x p l a i n d i f f e r e n c e s i n attendance behav io r . F i ve m o t i v a t i o n a l and 23 soc io -economic v a r i a b l e s were i n -vo lved i n t h i s AID I I I a n a l y s i s . E ighteen v a r i a b l e s were found to con-t r i b u t e to the p r e d i c t i o n of attendance behav io r . C o l l e c t i v e l y , they accounted f o r 42.6 per cent of the t o t a l va r iance i n the 'a t tendance ' v a r i a b l e . The f i v e most powerfu l p r e d i c t o r s were 'neighbourhood of r e s i d e n c e ' , ' f a m i l y income' , 'number employed i n h o u s e h o l d ' , ' years of secondary s c h o o l i n g ' , and ' f e e s t a t u s ' . C o l l e c t i v e l y , these v a r i a b l e s accounted f o r 47.18 per cent of the exp la ined v a r i a n c e . Although both soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s con -t r i b u t e d to the p r e d i c t i o n of attendance behav io r , soc io -economic v a r i -ab les were dominant. However, m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s were s t ronger p r e d i c t o r s of attendance behavior than they were of enrol lment b e h a v i o r . Conclus ions The r e s u l t s of t h i s study support the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s . 1 . There d i d not appear to be an important o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e between the soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n fee and non - fee courses (F igure 4 ) . The o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e s were of l i t t l e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e value i n the determinat ion of whether d i f f e r e n t fee s t r a t e g i e s a t t r a c t e d p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l charac -t e r i s t i c s . 2 . Removal of the r e g i s t r a t i o n fee ( i n essence, p r o v i d i n g en t i t l ement ) d id not appear to r e s u l t i n greater p a r t i c i p a t i o n by members of the lower soc io -economic groups, as compared to t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n fee courses . Removal of the r e g i s t r a t i o n fee appeared to b e n e f i t the t r a d i t i o n a l ' m i d d l e - c l a s s ' p a r t i c i p a n t s , but d i d l i t t l e to a t t r a c t the t r a d i t i o n a l 76 non -par t i c ipants—members of the lower soc io -economic groups. 3 . I t appeared that the absence of a fee was a powerfu l inducement which inc reased gross e n r o l l m e n t . Thus, non - fee courses had fewer c a n c e l l a t i o n s than fee courses . 4. I t appeared that both soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s i n f l u e n c e d a p a r t i c i p a n t ' s enro l lment i n a fee or non - fee course . The antecedents of fee s t a t u s were complex. No s i n g l e v a r i a b l e accounted f o r l a r g e amounts of va r iance i n fee s t a t u s . 5 . Attendance i n fee courses appeared to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than attendance i n non - fee courses . Removal of the r e g i s t r a t i o n fee appeared to r e s u l t i n poorer at tendance. However, even i n ' f r e e ' courses , p a r -t i c i p a n t s attended more than 70 per cent of the course s e s s i o n s . 6. I t appeared t h a t both soc io -economic and m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s accounted f o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n attendance b e h a v i o r . This i s not a nove l c o n c l u s i o n ; i t supports other s t u d i e s such as those by Bosh ier (1973) and Johnstone & R i v e r a (1965). I t appeared that i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h more e d u c a t i o n , h igher persona l and f a m i l y incomes, more dependants, and more f requent p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n prev ious adu l t educat ion programs had the best at tendance. Those i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h l e s s e d u c a t i o n , lower incomes, fewer dependants, and no prev ious p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n adu l t educat ion programs had poorer at tendance. The antecedents of attendance were complex and no s i n g l e v a r i a b l e accounted f o r l a r g e amounts of va r iance i n attendance behav io r . I t appeared that soc io -economic v a r i a b l e s accounted f o r more va r iance i n attendance than d i d m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . 7. I t appeared that m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s were more powerful p r e -d i c t o r s of attendance behavior than they were of enro l lment i n fee and non - fee courses . 77 S i g n i f i c a n c e What i s the s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s study f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n research and adu l t educat ion a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ? The man ipu la t ion of r e g i s -t r a t i o n fees can d r a m a t i c a l l y a l t e r the enrol lment pat te rns of p a r t i c i -p a n t s . The adu l t educat ion a d m i n i s t r a t o r has a powerfu l t o o l to change enrol lment p a t t e r n s . However, as a s t ra tegy to inc rease p a r t i c i p a t i o n by the t r a d i t i o n a l n o n - p a r t i c i p a n t , the manipu la t ion of fees appeared to have l i t t l e e f f e c t . Th is i s an argument aga ins t en t i t l ement fo r l e i s u r e - o r i e n t e d adu l t educat ion programs. Although 35 per cent of the v a r i a n c e i n enrol lment behavior was e x p l a i n e d , no s i n g l e v a r i a b l e was dominant. Th is again demonstrated the need f o r m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s . However, even w i t h m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s , 65 per cent or the v a r i a n c e was unexp la ined . There are s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e exp lanat ions f o r t h i s r e s u l t . Perhaps i n d i f f e r e n t c i r cumstances , i . e . h igher f e e s , the v a r i a b l e s s t u d i e d might have been ab le to p r e d i c t more of the v a r i a n c e . There i s the p o s s i b i l i t y that ' o t h e r ' v a r i a b l e s might have accounted f o r more of the v a r i a n c e , but what they might have been i s unknown. Perhaps the d e c i s i o n to e n r o l l was e x i s t e n t i a l i n n a t u r e , evoked by some chance encounter . Al though 42.6 per cent of the va r iance i n attendance was ex -p l a i n e d , 57.4 per cent of the va r iance remained unexp la ined . Perhaps people were more i n c l i n e d to use what they pa id f o r ; or the f a c t that the course was ' f r e e ' may have adverse ly i n f l u e n c e d the performance of the i n s t r u c t o r , thus evoking the i n f l u e n c e of i n t r a - c l a s s r o o m v a r i a b l e s . I t may a l s o be p o s s i b l e that d i f f e r e n t unknown v a r i a b l e s accounted f o r the remaining v a r i a n c e . 78 This study conf i rmed that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s a complex phenomenon stemming from m u l t i v a r i a t e o r i g i n s . I t appears that attempts to i n -crease p a r t i c i p a t i o n by members of lower soc io -economic groups w i l l r e q u i r e more than p r o v i d i n g ' e n t i t l e m e n t 1 . Us ing terminology from the M i l l e r (1967) f o r c e - f i e l d a n a l y s i s , i t appears that e f f o r t s to inc rease p a r t i c i p a t i o n by members of lower soc io -economic groups w i l l r e q u i r e m o d i f i c a t i o n of both persona l and envi ronmental v a r i a b l e s which impel or i n h i b i t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n l e i s u r e - o r i e n t e d a d u l t e d u c a t i o n . 79 REFERENCES Alam, M. & Wr ight , E .N . A Study of Night School Drop Outs. A Schedule Ten P r o j e c t , Research S e r v i c e s , Board of Educat ion , C i t y of Toronto, 1968. Benson, C. & Hodgkinson, H. Implementing the Learn ing S o c i e t y . San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s , 19 74. B l a c k s t o n e , W. Human R i g h t s , E q u a l i t y and Educat ion . In T e s c o n i , C. and H u r i v i t z , M. (Ed.) Educat ion For Whom? New York : Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1974, 159 - 174. Booth , A. A Demographic C o n s i d e r a t i o n of N o n - P a r t i c i p a t i o n . Adu l t  Educat ion , 1961, 1 1 , 4 , 223 - 229. B o s h i e r , R.W. M o t i v a t i o n a l O r i e n t a t i o n s of Adu l ts Educat ion P a r t i c i -pants : A Fac to r A n a l y t i c E x p l o r a t i o n of Hou le ' s Typology. Adul t  Educat ion , 1971, 21 , 3 - 26. B o s h i e r , R.W. 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 Dropout: A T h e o r e t i c a l Model . Adu l t Educat ion , 1973, 23, 4, 255 - 282. B o s h i e r , R.W. M o t i v a t i o n a l O r i e n t a t i o n s R e - V i s i t e d : L i f e - S p a c e Mot ives and the Educat ion P a r t i c i p a t i o n S c a l e . Adul t Educat ion , 1977,. 27, 89 - 115. B o s h i e r , R.W. T r a n s i t i o n From Chi ldhood to Adul thood: A L o n g i t u d i n a l  Study of A t t i t u d e Change Over Four Years . Paper Presented at the Adul t Educat ion Research Conference ( A . E . R . C ) , M i n n e a p o l i s , 1977a. B o s h i e r , R.W. & R i d d e l l , B .G. Educat ion P a r t i c i p a t i o n Sca le Factor S t r u c t u r e f o r Older A d u l t s . Adul t Educat ion , 1978 ( i n p r e s s ) . Brunner , E . ; W i l d e r , D . S . ; K i r c h n e r , C . ; & Newberry, J . S . J r . An Overview of Adu l t Educat ion Research. Washington: Adul t Educat ion A s s o c i a t i o n of the U. S . A . , 1959. Campbel l , D.T. & S t a n l e y , J . C . Quas i -Exper imenta l and Exper imenta l  Designs f o r Research. Chicago: Randy McNa l l y , 1963. Carnegie Commission of Higher Educat ion . Towards a Learn ing S o c i e t y . New York: M c G r a w - H i l l , 19 73. C a t t e l l , R.B. The Scree Test f o r the Number of F a c t o r s . M u l t i v a r i a t e  B e h a v i o r a l Research, 1966, 1 , 2 , 245 - 276. C l a r k e , B.R. The M a r g i n a l i t y of Adult Educat ion . (Notes and Essays , No. 20) Chicago: Centre fo r the Study of L i b e r a l Educat ion f o r A d u l t s , 1958. 80 Cross , P. Learn ing S o c i e t y . Co l lege Board Review, 19 74, 9 1 , 1 - 4 . D i c k i n s o n , G. Pa t te rns of P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a P u b l i c Adul t N ight School  Program, Unpublished Masters T h e s i s , U . B . C , 1966. D i c k i n s o n , G. & Verner , C. Attendance Pat te rns and Drop Outs i n Adu l t N ight School C l a s s e s . Adul t Educat ion , 1967, 28 , 1 , 24 - 33. Douglah, M. Some P e r s p e c t i v e s on The Phenomenon of P a r t i c i p a t i o n . Adu l t Educat ion , 1970, 20, 2 , 88 - 98 . Faure, E. (Chairman) Learn ing To Be. P a r i s : UNESCO & Harrap , 1972. Haag, U. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Foundations of Motives f o r P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n  Adul t Educat ion . Unpublished Masters T h e s i s , U . B . C , 1976. Harvey, E. & Lennards, J . Key Issues i n Higher E d u c a t i o n . Research  and Educat ion S e r i e s / 3 . 1973. Houle , C O . The I n q u i r i n g Mind . Madison: U n i v e r s i t y of Wiscons in P r e s s , 1961. Johnstone, J .W.C . & R i v e r a , R . J . Vo lunteers For L e a r n i n g . Chicago: A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1965. Kempfer, H. & Wood, W. F inanc ing Adul t Educat ion i n S e l e c t e d Schools  and Community C o l l e g e s . Washington: Federa l S e c u r i t y Agency B u l l e t i n Number 8, 1952. Lamoureux, M. Threshold P r i c i n g i n U n i v e r s i t y Cont inu ing Educat ion . Unpubl ished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U . B . C , 1975. MacLean, J . ; Deppe, T . ; & C a r l s o n , R. Recreat ion i n American L i f e . Belmont: Wadsworth P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1972. McNemar, Q. P s y c h o l o g i c a l S t a t i s t i c s . New York: John W i l e y , 1969. M i l l e r , H.L . P a r t i c i p a t i o n of Adul ts i n Educat ion : A F o r c e - F i e l d A n a l y s i s . (Occas ional Paper No. 14) . B r o o k l i n e Massachusset ts : Center f o r the Study of L i b e r a l Educat ion f o r A d u l t s , 1967. M o r s t a i n , B.R. & Smart, J . C . Reasons f o r P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Adu l t Educat ion Courses: A M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s of Group D i f f e r e n c e s . Adul t Educat ion , 1974, 24, 2 , 8 3 - 9 8 . Nash, J . R e c r e a t i o n : P e r t i n e n t Readings. Dubuque: Wra. C. Brown Company P u b l i s h e r s , 1965. Nor ton , J . C r i t i c a l Issues i n American P u b l i c Educat ion . In the Horace Mann Lecture S e r i e s . P i t t s b u r g h : U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h P r e s s , 1964. 81 O lds , E .B . F inanc ing Adul t Educat ion i n Amer ica 's P u b l i c Schools and  Community C o u n c i l s . Washington: N a t i o n a l Commission on Adul t Educat ion F inance , Adu l t Educat ion A s s o c i a t i o n of U. S . A . , 1952. R o s e n t h a l , A. T u i t i o n - F r e e C o l l e g e : P a r a l l e l and P e r s p e c t i v e . The  E d u c a t i o n a l Record, 1966, F a l l , 159 - 174. Sonqu is t , J . A . ; Baker , E . L . ; & Morgan, J . N . Searching For S t r u c t u r e . Ann Arbor , M ich igan : I n s t i t u t e For S o c i a l Research, 1971. T e s c o n i , C. & H u r i v i t z , M. ( E d . ) . Educat ion For Whom? New York : Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1974. Tobert , J . K . The Establ ishment of an Adul t Schoo l . New York : The MacMi l lan Company, 1936. 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 of Processes f o r Adul t Educat ion . Washington: Adu l t Educat ion A s s o c i a t i o n of the U. S . A . , 1962. Verner , C. & D a v i s , G. Completions and Drop Outs: A Review of Research. Adult Educat ion , 1964, 14, 3 , 158 - 173. Wr ight , G. P e r s i s t e n c e of Attendance i n Adul t Educat ion C l a s s e s . Washington: Uni ted States O f f i c e of E d u c a t i o n , C i r c u l a r 353, 1952. 82 APPENDICES APPENDIX A DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY SCHOOL, COURSE, DAY, FEE STATUS, NUMBER OF SESSIONS/COURSE, OFFICIAL ENROLLMENT, AND STUDY ENROLLMENT 84 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Subjects by S c h o o l , Course, Day, Fee S t a t u s , Number of Sess ions/Course, O f f i c i a l E n r o l l m e n t , and Study Enro l lment School and Course Name Day Fee Status Number of Sess ions O f f i c i a l Enrol lment Study Enrol lment GUILDFORD COMMUNITY SCHOOL 1. Yoga #1 M F 10 20 15 2 . ESP M F 6 30 27 3 . Aquariums M F 6 4 1 4. Piano M NF 6 25 12 5 . Yoga #2 M F 6 15 11 6. S t a i n e d - G l a s s * T NF 6 20 10 7. P leasure Boat ing T F 6 9 5 8. H a i r s t y l i n g T F 6 24 22 9. Decoupage T F 6 6 6 10. Typing T NF 6 32 22 11 . Map and Compass T NF 8 24 14 12. As t ro logy ** T NF 6 24 19 13. Drawing W NF 6 38 12 14. S t a i n e d - G l a s s * W NF 6 18 10 15. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Cooking W F 6 8 7 16. Ceramics W NF 6 28 20 17. G u i t a r *** W F 6 13 7 18. O i l P a i n t i n g Th NF 6 23 8 19. As t ro logy ** Th NF 6 31 17 20. S t a i n e d - G l a s s * Th NF 6 16 10 21 . Chinese Cooking Th F 10 30 30 SUBTOTALS NF=11 F=10 21 21 21 438 285 * Two S t a i n e d - G l a s s courses were o r i g i n a l l y scheduled, one on Tuesday, the other on Wednesday. Both courses were over subscr ibed so a t h i r d course was created to accommodate the e x t r a p a r t i c i p a n t s on Thursday. ** The Thursday As t ro logy course was over s u b s c r i b e d . Thus a second course was c reated to accommodate the e x t r a p a r t i c i p a n t s on Tuesday. *** G u i t a r was o r i g i n a l l y scheduled to s t a r t the f i r s t week of the program. However the f i r s t s e s s i o n was delayed one week and the course length reduced to f i v e s e s s i o n s . The sub jec ts i n t h i s course were inc luded i n the enrol lment a n a l y s i s , but excluded from the attendance d a t a . 85 School and Course Name Day Fee Number of O f f i c i a l Study Status Sessions Enrol lment Enro l lment CLOVERDALE COMMUNITY SCHOOL 1 . Dog Obedience M F 10 48 16 2 . Music i s f o r You 2 M NF 6 5 2 3 . 10 Speed Repai rs M NF 4 16 7 4. "Vegetable Gardening M NF 4 61 51 5 . O i l P a i n t i n g M F 6 8 7 6. Taxidermy 3 M NF 10 21 7 7. Ceramics M NF 6 37 19 8. Q u i l t i n g M NF 6 37 26 9 . M e t r i c s i s f o r You M NF 6 30 15 10. Yoga #1 M F 6 18 13 11. Garden Pests T NF 6 19 17 12. Yoga #2 T F 6 6 1 13. V e g e t a r i a n Cooking T NF 6 24 9 14. Horsecare T NF 6 28 23 15. Log House B u i l d i n g 4 T NF 6 28 21 16. B a t i k i n g T NF 6 16 10 17. Chinese Cooking T NF 10 30 28 18. Sewing T . F 6 16 15 19. Flower Ar rang ing T NF 6 18 15 20. Square Dancing 5 T F 6 15 3 2 1 . Photography W " NF 6 28 25 22 . Beauty Care 6 W NF 6 30 20 23. Rod B u i l d i n g W F 6 9 8 24. Woodworking ? Th F 6 9 9 25. As t ro logy 26. Candle Making 8 Th NF 6 20 18 Th NF 6 12 5 27. Square Dancing Th F 6 32 9 28. F l y Tying 9 Th F 10 (6) 13 10 29 . Bar tending 1 0 Th NF 8 (6) 22 12 30. Women's F i t n e s s 11- Th NF 6 34 15 SUBTOTALS 30 NF=20 30 690 436 F-10 TOTALS A » B > C 51 NF=31 51 1128 721 F=20 1. Dog Obedience was over s u b s c r i b e d , hence a second course was scheduled . The author was not informed of t h i s change, consequently the second course was not inc luded i n the s tudy . 2. Music i s For You was c a n c e l l e d by the i n s t r u c t o r on the t h i r d s e s s i o n . Therefore t h i s course was not inc luded i n the attendance a n a l y s i s . 86 3 . The i n s t r u c t o r and sub jec ts i n Taxidermy were h o s t i l e to the p r o c t o r s . Consequently the attendance data was incomplete and i n a c c u r a t e . Taxidermy was excluded from the attendance a n a l y s i s . 4. The Log House B u i l d i n g Course was moved from the schoo l f o r the f i f t h and s i x t h s e s s i o n s . Hence t h i s course was excluded from the a t t e n -dance a n a l y s i s . 5 . The time fo r Square Dancing was f r e q u e n t l y changed by the i n s t r u c t o r . Consequently the attendance data was incomple te . Th is course was excluded from the attendance a n a l y s i s . 6. Beauty Care was reduced from s i x to f i v e sess ions by the i n s t r u c t o r . Hence t h i s course was excluded from the attendance a n a l y s i s . 7. Woodworking was o r i g i n a l l y scheduled f o r Tuesday. At the choice of the i n s t r u c t o r and students i t was rescheduled f o r Thursday. 8. The i n s t r u c t o r v o l u n t a r i l y added an e x t r a s e s s i o n to the Candle Making courses . Consequently t h i s course was excluded from the attendance study . 9 . F l y Tying was o r i g i n a l l y scheduled f o r ten s e s s i o n s . However, by mutual consent of the students and i n s t r u c t o r t h i s course was reduced to s i x s e s s i o n s . I t was there fo re inc luded i n the attendance a n a l y s i s . 10. Course reduced from e igh t to s i x sess ions by i n s t r u c t o r . Inc luded i n attendance a n a l y s i s . 11 . The i n s t r u c t o r moved the l o c a t i o n of Women's F i t n e s s s e v e r a l t i m e s , hence attendance data was incomplete . This course was not i nc luded i n the attendance a n a l y s i s . A. A l l courses were evening courses , except f o r Garden Pests and Yoga #2 at C loverda le Community School which were at 10:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. r e s p e c t i v e l y . B. A l l courses were h e l d once a week w i t h the except ion of Yoga #1 at G u i l d f o r d which was he ld twice a week. C. F i f t y - n i n e courses were inc luded i n the s tudy : 20 at G u i l d f o r d School and 39 at C loverda le Schoo l . One course , Low Cost Family H o l i d a y s , was c a n c e l l e d at G u i l d f o r d f o r l a c k of e n r o l l m e n t . Two courses were added which r e s u l t e d i n a t o t a l of 21 courses . At C loverda le School n ine courses were c a n c e l l e d due to poor e n r o l l m e n t . They were C rochet ing , Outdoor S k e t c h i n g , Conservat ion and Outdoor Educat ion , S i l k Sc reen ing , Women's F i t n e s s (Wednesday), F igure Drawing, Taxidermy: Mammals, Popular G u i t a r , and Open C r a f t s . Thus 30 courses were inc luded i n the s tudy . APPENDIX B STAFF LETTERS AND INSTRUCTIONS Letter To Secretarial Staff Letter To Instructors Proctor Instructions Proctor's Introductory Comments Proctor's Course Data Sheet Collection Of Attendance Data 88 L e t t e r To S e c r e t a r i a l S t a f f Dear : You are probably aware that many courses w i l l be o f f e r e d at 'no charge' dur ing the Spr ing Community Educat ion Serv ices Program at G u i l d f o r d Park and C love rda le Community Schoo ls . The i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h i s l e t t e r w i l l be of he lp to you when answering quest ions you may r e c e i v e concerning the fee p o l i c y at these c e n t r e s . The Surrey School Board has approved a ' s p e c i a l p r o j e c t ' to in t roduce a mixed f e e — n o n - f e e program to G u i l d f o r d Park and C l o v e r -dale Community Schoo ls . This program i s s i m i l a r to the program p r e s e n t l y i n operat ion at Holy Community Schoo l . Approximately o n e - h a l f of the courses w i l l have a ' f e e ' ; the remaining courses w i l l be ' f r e e ' . A v a r i e t y of a c t i v i t i e s are a v a i l a b l e i n both fee and non - fee courses . The a f f e c t s that t h i s p r o j e c t has on p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s be ing c a r e f u l l y eva luated and w i l l i n f l u e n c e f u t u r e programming d e c i s i o n s . To he lp us gauge the p u b l i c response to t h i s p r o j e c t , would you p lease keep a record of a l l i n q u i r i e s you have concerning the fee p o l i c y at these two s c h o o l s . P l e a s e record the d a t e , the name and telephone number of the i n q u i r e r . A lso record your o p i n i o n as to that i n d i v i d u a l ' s response: i . e . s a t i s f i e d w i t h answer, unders tand ing , upset , e t c . P lease submit your record of c a l l s to Margaret ( s e c r e t a r y to the Superv isor of Community Educat ion Serv ices ) on A p r i l 30th . Thank you f o r your c o - o p e r a t i o n . Should you have any quest ions p lease c a l l Don McKinnon or you may contact me at Yours s i n c e r e l y , Gary Baker , Adu l t Educat ion Research Centre . 89 L e t t e r To I n s t r u c t o r s Dear ( I n s t r u c t o r ' s name) : The Adu l t Educat ion Research Centre at U .B .C . i s conduct ing a study of the Spr ing Community Educat ion Program. This study i s be ing done w i t h the support and c o - o p e r a t i o n of the Surrey School Board. Two quest ions w i l l be examined. 1 . What type of people at tend community educat ion programs and why do they attend these programs? and 2 . What are the attendance pat te rns of these i n d i v i d u a l s ? To exp lore the f i r s t quest ion the program p a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l be asked to complete a q u e s t i o n n a i r e . We p lan to admin is te r t h i s ques t ionna i re dur ing the second week of the program ( A p r i l 28 - May 2 ) . Your c o - o p e r a t i o n would be a p p r e c i a t e d . A surveyor w i l l in t roduce h i m s e l f / h e r s e l f to you at the s t a r t of your c l a s s . We would l i k e the q u e s t i o n n a i r e to be admin is tered approximately 15 minutes a f t e r the c l a s s s t a r t s . I t w i l l take 20 -25 minutes to complete. You are encouraged to p lan your c l a s s a c -c o r d i n g l y . In each of the remaining c l a s s sess ions a surveyor w i l l v i s i t your c l a s s to take a ' f o r m a l r o l l c a l l ' . Again your c o - o p e r a t i o n would be a p p r e c i a t e d . The surveyor w i l l contact you to determine how he/she might take t h i s attendance w i t h a minimum of i n t e r r u p t i o n . You are s t i l l encouraged to m a i n t a i n your attendance r e g i s t e r . Should you have any quest ions about t h i s study or how i t i s being conducted p lease c a l l Don McKinnon or Gary Baker Thank you i n advance f o r your c o - o p e r a t i o n . Don McKinnon, Superv isor of Community Educat ion . Gary Baker , Adul t Educat ion Research Cent re . Proctor Instructions CHECK LIST Pick-up questionnaires and pencils from the community school coordinator's o f f i c e 15 minutes before f i r s t c l a s s . Locate room and introduce yourself to the instructor. Arrange to administer questionnaire approximately 15 minutes a f t e r the class s t a r t s . Administer questionnaire : - record Time In - present introductory comments - d i s t r i b u t e questionnaires - answer questions - c o l l e c t questionnaires - thank participants and instructor - record Time Out Record number of completed questionnaires (number of p a r t i c i -pants) on Data Sheet. Include comments: i . e . problem questions, complaints about loss of class time, etc. Bundle questionnaires with COURSE DATA SHEET ON TOP (use rubber bands). Take completed questionnaires to coordinator's o f f i c e and run to your next class! Repeat steps 2 - 6 . 91 Proctor's Introductory Comments Good evening! My name is . I am a volunteer surveyor from the Adult Education Research Centre at U.B.C. The Adult Education Research Centre, with the co-operation of the Surrey School Board, is studying the Surrey Community Education Program. We hope to find the answers to two questions. 1. What type of person enrolls in community education courses? 2. Why do people enroll in these courses? This information w i l l be of great help in planning future community education programs. To answer these questions we obviously need your help and co-operation. You can help by completing this two part questionnaire. (HOLD IT UP FOR THEM TO SEE.) Believe me i t is shorter than i t looks! This, questionnaire is confidential - your name is not required. If you would like to take part in this study, please raise your hand and I w i l l give you the questionnaire. Should you need a pencil, I have some here. INSTRUCTIONS 1. At different times during the study, i t w i l l be necessary for us to separate the two parts of the questionnaire. You can help us match the parts together again by writing the LAST 3 DIGITS of your telephone number in the top RIGHT CORNER of the f i r s t white page and the f i r s t yellow page. (HOLD UP A SAMPLE.) By using these numbers i t is not very likely that we w i l l have two question-naires with the same number. *-NOTE: Should they suspect that this reveals their identity, t e l l them i t would be almost impossible to trace them from the 3 numbers, even i f we wanted to. 2. Start with the white part. Read the instructions and the headings at the top of each page carefully. Do the questions quickly ... your f i r s t response is the best! 3. When you have finished the f i r s t part, go directly to the yellow part. Be frank. If you have any questions or problems, please ask for help. THANK YOU for your time and help. If you would like to see the results of this study, c a l l the community school coordinator's office and leave your name and address. We w i l l then send a summary of the results to you. 92 Proctor ' s Course Data Sheet SCHOOL IDENTITY NUMBER COURSE INSTRUCTOR ROOM NUMBER APPROXIMATE # IN CLASS CLASS TIME TIME IN , TIME OUT TOTAL TIME NUMBER IN COURSE NUMBER OF QUESTIONNAIRES COMPLETED COMMENTS 93 C o l l e c t i o n Of Attendance Data School D i s t r i c t #36 requires each instructor to maintain an accurate attendance record i n an o f f i c i a l r e g i s t e r . Copies of the re g i s t r a r for each course xrere obtained by the two Community Education Coordinators following the second session of each course. These were then turned over to the author. The r e g i s t e r s were then used to cross match the subjects to th e i r questionnaires. This was done by matching the l a s t three d i g i t s of t h e i r telephone numbers. In some cases sex, age, and neighbourhood were used to make the match. Attendance was then checked for each course on each session. A proctor or the author v i s i t e d each course and took attendance. This record was double checked at that time against the instructor's attendance record. APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRES Socio-economic Questionnaire: Non-Fee Course Socio-economic Questionnaire: Fee Course 95 Socio-economic Questionnaire: Non-Fee Course COMMUNITY SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE NOTE - CONFIDENTIAL No name required. Please be frank! Are you male or female? (Put a check mark (v") i n the c o r r e c t box.) Male L] Female 1 I What i s your b i r t h d a t e ? (Please w r i t e i t i n the box.) Day Month Year 3. a) What i s your country of b i r t h ? (Please w r i t e i t i n the box.) b) I f you were NOT born i n Canada, how many years have you l i v e d i n t h i s country? years 4. a) How long have you l i v e d i n t h i s community? years b) In which neighbourhood do you l i v e ? (Please check the correct box.) G u i l d f o r d Newton Whalley Sunnyside - White Rock Cloverdale Other. ( Name i t on the l i n e below. ) • U • 96 - 2 -5 . What i s your PRESENT m a r i t a l s ta tus? (Check only one box . ) Never marr ied ^—1 Separated or d i vorced \~1 n Widowed 1 1 Marr ied 0 - 4 years • n Marr ied 5 - 9 years 1 — ' Mar r ied 10 - 14 years I 1 Mar r ied 15 - 19 years L—I Mar r ied 20 or more years I—1 Other (P lease desc r ibe on the l i n e below) I—I 6. How many years of elementary and h i g h schoo l have you completed? 4 or l e s s • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 97 3 -7. a) How many months or years of o c c u p a t i o n a l , academic, t e c h n i c a l , v o c a t i o n a l , or c l e r i c a l t r a i n i n g and educat ion have you com-p l e t e d s i n c e l e a v i n g h igh school? ^ For example: attended a c l e r i c a l , t e c h n i c a l , v o c a t i o n a l , or academic s c h o o l ; took an apprent i cesh ip program; or e n r o l l e d i n a company job t r a i n i n g program. None 1 - 6 months 7 - 1 2 months 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years 7 years 8 or more years U • • • • • • • • • I f you checked "None", go d i r e c t l y to ques-t i o n #8. b) P lease l i s t ALL the c e r t i f i c a t e s , d ip lomas , degrees , t i c k e t s , e t c . that you have rece i ved f o r t h i s t r a i n i n g and educat ion . A l s o name the s k i l l s or sub jec ts l e a r n e d . Examples C e r t i f i c a t e s , Diplomas, Degrees, t i c k e t s , e t c . earned S k i l l or Subject S e c r e t a r i a l diploma Journeyman t i c k e t Bachelor of Educat ion t yp ing weld ing teach ing 98 - 4 -8. Which of the f o l l o w i n g statements MOST CLOSELY desc r ibes your PRESENT working s ta tus? Work f u l l - t i m e at household d u t i e s Have household d u t i e s and work p a r t - t i m e Work f u l l - t i m e f o r a s a l a r y , wage or commission Unemployed, l o o k i n g f o r a f u l l - t i m e job Temporar i ly l a i d - o f f Se l f -employed R e t i r e d R e t i r e d , but working p a r t - t i m e F u l l - t i m e student Student and work p a r t - t i m e • • • • • • • • NOTE - I f you have never worked f o r a s a l a r y , wage, or commission, p l a c e a check mark i n t h i s j j and go d i r e c t l y to quest ion #10. 9. P lease d e s c r i b e i n d e t a i l the most recent work f o r which you earned a wage, s a l a r y , or commission. For example: foreman i n a warehouse, r e s p o n s i b l e f o r 20 workers or p a r t - t i m e j a n i t o r f o r an insurance company. 99 - 5 -10. What was YOUR PERSONAL GROSS income i n 1974? Inc lude wages, investment income, s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e or unemployment b e n e f i t s , and f a m i l y al lowance b e n e f i t s . under $500 $501 - 1000 $1001 - 2000 $2001 - 4000 $4001 - 6000 $6001 - 8000 $8001 - 10,000 $10,001 - 12,000 $12,001 - 14,000 $14,001 - 16,000 $16,001 - 18,000 $18,001 - 20,000 over $20,000 • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11. How many i n d i v i d u a l s i n your household were employed, e i t h e r f u l l - t i m e or p a r t - t i m e i n 1974? . 100 - 6 -12. What was your FAMILY'S GROSS income i n 1974? T o t a l the incomes of ALL the people counted i n quest ion #11. I f you are the only wage earner i n your f a m i l y , your answer to t h i s quest ion w i l l be the same as your answer to quest ion #10. • l e s s than $2000 $2001 - 4000 $4001 - 6000 $6001 - 8000 $8001 - 10,000 $10,001 - 12,000 $12,001 - 14,000 $14,001 - 16,000 $16,001 - 18,000 $18,001 - 20,000 $20,001 - 22,000 $22,001 - 24,000 $24,001 - 26,000 $26,001 - 28,000 $28,001 - 30,000 over $30,000 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 101 - 7 -13. a) How many children do you have? None • 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 U 5 • 6 • 7 or more • b) How many children are f i n a n c i a l l y supported on your FAMILY'S income. 14. Do you l i v e i n a Condominium or apartment Townhouse Duplex or t r i p l e x Single family house Single family house on more than one acre Mobile home • • • • • • 102 - 8 -15. the monthly rent or mortgage payment i n your Rent Mortgage None • • $1 - 50 • • $51 - 100 • • $101 - 150 • • $151 - 200 • • $201 - 250 • • $251 - 300 • • $301 - 350 • • $351 - 400 • • $401 - 500 • • $501 - 600 • • $601 - 700 • • over $700 • b) I f you are a young adu l t or teenager and you l i v e w i t h your p a r e n t s , do you pay rent? Yes EZ1 No {Z3 16. How many cars do you and your spouse own? 103 - 9 -17. a) Did you at tend a n igh t schoo l or r e c r e a t i o n course i n 1973 or 1974? Yes Hj No nu b) I f y e s , p lease i n d i c a t e how many courses you attended i n those y e a r s . 18. How long w i l l i t take you to t r a v e l home a f t e r t h i s s e s s i o n ton ight ? minutes 19. a) Would you have r e g i s t e r e d f o r t h i s course i f you were r e q u i r e d to pay a fee? • Yes No • b) I f y e s , above what fee would you have considered i t too ex -pensive to take t h i s course? $ 20. Should a course , such as the one you are now t a k i n g , have a r e g i s t r a t i o n fee? Yes No • • 21. Were you aware that a study was be ing made of the Spr ing Community Educat ion Program (night schoo l program) before you attended the f i r s t sess ion? Yes No • • Socio -economic Q u e s t i o n n a i r e : Fee Course COMMUNITY SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE NOTE - CONFIDENTIAL No name r e q u i r e d . P l e a s e be frank.' Are you male or female? (Put a check mark ( v ) i n the c o r r e c t box. ) What i s your b i r t h d a t e ? (P lease w r i t e i t i n the box . ) Day Month Year a) What i s your country of b i r t h ? (P lease w r i t e i t i n the box . ) b) I f you were NOT born i n Canada, how many years have you l i v e d i n t h i s country? years a) How long have you l i v e d i n ' t h i s community? years b) In which neighbourhood do you l i v e ? (P lease check the c o r r e c t box. ) G u i l d f o r d Newton Whalley Sunnyside - White Rock C loverda le Other. ( Name i t on the l i n e below. ) • • • • • • 105 - 2 5 . What i s your PRESENT m a r i t a l s t a t u s ? (Check only one box . ) Never marr ied I 1 Separated or d i vo rced Widowed I — f Marr ied 0 - 4 years Mar r ied 5 - 9 years I — I Marr ied 10 - 14 years I — 1 Marr ied 15 - 19 years i I M a r r i e d 20 or more years 1 — I Other (P lease desc r ibe on the l i n e below) I — I 6. How many years of elementary and h igh schoo l have you completed? 4 or l e s s • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 106 - 3 -a) How many months or years of o c c u p a t i o n a l , academic, t e c h n i c a l , v o c a t i o n a l , or c l e r i c a l t r a i n i n g and educat ion have you com-p l e t e d s i n c e l e a v i n g h igh school? For example: attended a c l e r i c a l , t e c h n i c a l , v o c a t i o n a l , or academic s c h o o l ; took an apprent i cesh ip program; or e n r o l l e d i n a company job t r a i n i n g program. None | | I f you checked "None", go d i r e c t l y to ques-6 months 7 - 1 2 months 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years 7 years 8 or more years • • • • • • • • • • t i o n #8. b) P lease l i s t ALL the c e r t i f i c a t e s , d ip lomas, degrees, t i c k e t s , e t c . that you have rece i ved f o r t h i s t r a i n i n g and e d u c a t i o n . A l so name the s k i l l s or sub jec ts l e a r n e d . C e r t i f i c a t e s , Diplomas, Degrees, t i c k e t s , e t c . earned Examples S e c r e t a r i a l diploma Journeyman t i c k e t Bachelor of Educat ion S k i l l or Subject t yp ing weld ing teach ing 107 - 4 -8. Which of the f o l l o w i n g statements MOST CLOSELY descr ibes your PRESENT working s t a t u s ? Work f u l l - t i m e at household du t ies Have household d u t i e s and work p a r t - t i m e Work f u l l - t i m e f o r a s a l a r y , wage or coromission Unemployed, l o o k i n g f o r a f u l l - t i m e job Temporari ly l a i d - o f f Se l f -employed R e t i r e d R e t i r e d , but working p a r t - t i m e F u l l - t i m e student Student and work p a r t - t i m e NOTE - I f you have never worked f o r a s a l a r y , wage, or commission, p lace a check mark i n t h i s j J and go d i r e c t l y to ques t ion #10. • • • • • • • • • • 9 . P lease descr ibe i n d e t a i l the most recent work f o r which you earned a wage, s a l a r y , or commission. For example: foreman i n a warehouse, r e s p o n s i b l e f o r 20 workers or p a r t - t i m e j a n i t o r f o r an insurance company. 108 - 5 -10. What was YOUR PERSONAL GROSS income i n 1974? Inc lude wages, investment income, s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e or unemployment b e n e f i t s , and fami ly al lowance b e n e f i t s . under $500 $501 - 1000 $1001 - 2000 $2001 - 4000 $4001 - 6000 $6001 - 8000 $8001 - 10,000 $10,001 - 12,000 $12,001 - 14,000 $14,001 - 16,000 $16,001 - 18,000 $18,001 - 20,000 over $20,000 • • • • • • • U • • • • • 11. How many i n d i v i d u a l s i n your household were employed, e i t h e r f u l l - t i m e or p a r t - t i m e i n 1974? , , 109 - 6 -12. What was your FAMILY'S GROSS income i n 1974? T o t a l the incomes of ALL the people counted i n quest ion #11. I f you are the only wage earner i n your f a m i l y , your answer to t h i s ques t ion w i l l be the same as your answer to quest ion #10. l e s s than $2000 $2001 - 4000 $4001 - 6000 $6001 - 8000 $8001 - 10,000 $10,001 - 12,000 $12,001 - 14,000 $14,001 - 16,000 $16,001 - 18,000 $18,001 - 20,000 $20,001 - 22,000 $22,001 - 24,000 $24,001 - 26,000 $26,001 - 28,000 $28,001 - 30,000 over $30,000 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 110 - 7 -13. a) How many c h i l d r e n do you have? None • 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 or more • b) How many c h i l d r e n are f i n a n c i a l l y supported on your FAMILY'S income? 14. Do you l i v e i n a Condominium or apartment Townhouse Duplex or t r i p l e x S i n g l e f a m i l y house S i n g l e f a m i l y house on more than one acre Mobi le home • • • • • • I l l - 8 -15. a) What i s the monthly r e n t or mortgage payment i n your household? Rent Mortgage None • • $1 - 50 • • $51 - 100 • • $101 - 150 • • $151 - 200 • • $201 - 250 U • $251 - 300 • • $301 - 350 • • $351 - 400 • U $401 - 500 • • $501 - 600 • • $601 - 700 • • over $700 • • b) I f you are a young adu l t or teenager and you l i v e w i t h your p a r e n t s , do you pay rent? Yes Q No • 16. How many cars do you and your spouse own? - 9 -112 17. a) Did you at tend a n igh t schoo l or r e c r e a t i o n course i n 1973 or 1974? Yes No • • b) I f y e s , p lease i n d i c a t e how many courses you attended i n those y e a r s . 18. How long w i l l i t take you to t r a v e l home a f t e r t h i s s e s s i o n ton ight? minutes 19. Was the r e g i s t r a t i o n fee f o r t h i s course p a i d f rom: Your persona l income Your f a m i l y income Other: (P lease s p e c i f y on the l i n e below) • • • 20. a) Should a course , such as the one you are now t a k i n g , have a r e g i s t r a t i o n fee? Yes No • • b) Above what fee would you have considered i t too expensive to take t h i s course? 2 1 . Were you aware that a study was be ing made of the Spr ing Community Educat ion Program (night schoo l program) before you attended the f i r s t sess ion? Yes No • • APPENDIX D VARIABLE CODES POR THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC QUESTIONNAIRES 114 V a r i a b l e Codes fo r the Socio -economic Quest ionnai res V a r i a b l e Name V a r i a b l e Codes V 1 Day- 1 — Monday 2 = Tuesday 3 = Wednesday 4 = Thursday V 2 Fee 1 = Fee 2 No Fee V 3 Sex 1 = Male 2 = Female V 4 Age 1 = 18 - 22 years 2 = 23 - 27 years 3 = 28 - 32 years 4 = 33 - 37 years 5 = 38 - 42 years 6 = 43 - 47 years 7 = 48 - 52 years 8 = 53 - 57 years 9 = 58 - 62 years 10 = 63 - 67 years 11 = 68 - 72 years 12 73 - 77 years 13 = 78 - 82 years 14 = 83 - 87 years 15 = No Response V 5 Country of B i r t h 1 = Canada 2 = U.S .A . 3 Other E n g l i s h Speaking 4 = France, Belgium 5 = S p a i n , P o r t u g a l 6 = I t a l y , Greece, Y u g o s l a v i a 7 = Sweden, F i n l a n d , Norway, Denmark Germany, A u s t r i a , H o l l a n d , Sw i t ze r land 8 = Poland 9 = Czechos lovak ia , Hungary, Romania B u l g a r i a 10 = North A f r i c a and Midd le East 11 = P a k i s t a n , I n d i a , Cey lon , Bangladesh 12 = Far East 13 = L a t i n America 14 = No Response 115 V a r i a b l e Name V a r i a b l e Codes V 6 Years of Residence i n 1 = 1 - 5 years Canada 2 = 6 - 1 0 years 3 = 11 - 15 years 4 = 16 - 20 years 5 = 21 - 25 years 6 = 2 6 - 3 0 years 7 = 31 - 35 years 8 = 36 - 40 years 9 = 41 - 45 years 10 = 46 - 50 years 11 = 51 - 55 years 12 = 56 - 60 years 13 = 61 - 65 years 14 = 66 - 70 years 15 = 71 - 75 years 16 = 76 - 80 years 17 = No Response V 7 Years of Residence i n 1 = 1 - 5 years Neighbourhood 2 = 6 - 1 0 years 3 = 11 - 15 years 4 = 16 - 20 years 5 = 21 - 25 years 6 = 26 - 30 years 7 = 31 - 35 years 8 = 36 - 40 years 9 = 41 - 45 years 10 = 46 - 50 years 11 = 51 - 55 years 12 = 56 - 60 years 13 No Response V 8 Neighbourhood 1 = G u i l d f o r d , R i v e r s i d e , Br idgeview of Residence 2 = Newton, S u l l i v a n , Fleetwood 3 = Whalley 4 = Sunnyside, White Rock, Douglas 5 = C l o v e r d a l e , Por t K e l l s 6 = Langley , F t . Lang ley , A ldergrove 7 D e l t a 8 = Richmond 9 = New Westminster 10 = Burnaby, "Vancouver 11 = Coqui t lam, Por t Coqui t lam, P o r t Moody, Maple Ridge 12 = Kennedy, Cedar H i l l s 13 = Clayton H i l l 14 = Outside Surrey 15 = Surrey General 16 = No Response 116 V a r i a b l e Name V a r i a b l e Codes V 9 M a r i t a l Status 1 = Never M a r r i e d 2 = Separated/Divorced 3 = Widowed 4 = H a r r i e d 0 - 4 years 5 = M a r r i e d 5 - 9 years 6 = M a r r i e d 10 - 14 years 7 = Mar r ied 15 - 19 years 8 = M a r r i e d 20 or more years 9 = Common-law 10 = Engaged 11 = Other 12 = No Response V 10 Years of 4 = 4 or l e s s Elementary and 5 = 5 Secondary Schoo l ing 6 = 6 7 = 7 8 = 8 9 = 9 10 - 10 11 = 11 12 = 12 13 = 13 14 = No Response V 11 Years of Post -Secondary 0 = 0 1 = 1 2 = 2 3 = 3 4 = 4 5 = 5 6 = 6 7 = 7 8 = 8 or more 9 = No Response V 12 Present Work Status 1 = F u l l - T i m e Housework 2 = Par t - T ime & Housework 3 = F u l l - T i m e 4 = Unemployed 5 = Temporar i ly L a i d - o f f 6 = Sel f -Employed 7 = R e t i r e d 8 = R e t i r e d & Par t - T ime 9 = F u l l - T i m e Student 10 = Student & Par t - T ime 11 = Par t - T ime 12 = No Response 117 V a r i a b l e Name V a r i a b l e Codes V 13 Persona l Income 00 = $0 - 500 01 = $501 - 1000 02 = $1001 - 2000 04 = $2001 - 4000 06 = $4001 - 6000 08 = $6001 - 8000 10 = $8001 - 10,000 12 = $10,001 - 12,000 14 = $12,001 - 14,000 16 $14,001 - 16,000 18 = $16,001 - 18,000 20 = $18,001 - 20,000 22 = $20,001 and over 23 = No Response V 14 Number of 0 = 0 Persons Employed 1 = 1 i n Household 2 = 2 3 = 3 4 = 4 5 = 5 6 6 7 = 7 8 = 8 9 = 9 10 — No Response V 15 Family Income 2 — Less than $2000 4 = $2001 - 4000 6 = $4001 - 6000 8 = $6001 - 8000 10 = $8001 - 10,000 12 = $10,001 - 12,000 14 = $12,001 - 14,000 16 = $14,001 - 16,000 18 = $16,001 - 18,000 20 = $18,001 - 20,000 22 = $20,001 - 22,000 24 = $22,001 - 24,000 26 = $24,001 - 26,000 28 = $26,001 - 28,000 30 = Over $28,001 31 = No Response 118 V a r i a b l e Name V a r i a b l e Codes V 16 Number of C h i l d r e n 0 = 0 Supported 1 = 1 F i n a n c i a l l y 2 = 2 3 = 3 4 = 4 5 = 5 6 = 6 7 = 7 or more 8 = No Response V 17 Type of Accommodation 1 = Mobi le Home 2 = Apartment/Condominium 3 = Townhouse 4 = Duplex/Tr ip lex 5 = S i n g l e Family Home 6 = Acreage 7 = No Response V 18 Type of Payment: 0 = None Rent or Mortgage 1 = Rent 2 = Mortgage 3 = No Response V 19 Amount of Monthly 0 = $0 Housing Payment 1 =$1 - 100 2 =$101 - 200 3 =$201 - 300 4 =$301 - 400 5 =$401 - 500 6 =$501 - 600 7 =$601 or more 8 = No Response V 20 Number of Cars 0 = 0 Owned by Family 1 = 1 2 = 2 3 = 3 4 = 4 5 = 5 6 = 6 7 = 7 8 = 8 9 = 9 10 = No Response 119 V a r i a b l e Name V a r i a b l e Codes V 21 Prev ious 0 _ 0 Adul t Educat ion 1 = Yes P a r t i c i p a t i o n 2 = No 3 = No Response V 22 Number of P rev ious 0 = 0 Courses Attended 1 1 2 = 2 3 = 3 4 = 4 5 = 5 6 = 6 7 = 7 8 = 8 9 = 9 10 = 10 11 = 11 12 = 12 13 = 13 14 = 14 15 = 15 16 16 17 = 17 18 = 18 19 = 19 20 = 20 21 No Response V 23 T r a v e l Time 5 1 5 minutes To and From Course 10 = 6 - 10 minutes 15 = 11 - 15 minutes 20 = 16 - 20 minutes 29 = 21 - 29 minutes 30 = 30 - 99 minutes 31 = No Response 120 V a r i a b l e Name V a r i a b l e Codes V 24 Job Advancement 1 = - 3 . 1 to - 9 . 9 25 S o c i a l Contact 2 = - 2 . 6 to - 3 . 0 V 3 - 2 . 1 to - 2 . 5 V 26 E x t e r n a l Expecta t ions 4 = - 1 . 6 to - 2 . 0 5 — - 1 . 1 to - 1 . 5 V 27 Escape S t i m u l a t i o n 6 = - .6 to - 1 . 0 V 28 Cogn i t i ve I n t e r e s t 7 = - . 1 to - .5 8 = 0 9 = . 1 to .5 NOTE: V 24 - 28 ALL HAVE THE 10 .6 to • 1.0 SAME CODE. 11 = 1.1 to 1.5 12 = 1.6 to 2 .0 13 = 2 . 1 to 2 .5 14 2.6 to 3 .0 15 = 3 . 1 to 9.9 16 No Response V 29 Attendance 0 = 0 1 = 1 2 = 2 3 = 3 4 = 4 5 = 5 9 = No Response APPENDIX E TABLES OF RESULTS FOR SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF FEE AND NON-FEE PAYERS 122 TABLE 1 D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Age Group Age Group n Per cent 18 - 22 y r s . 83 11 .51 23 - 27 y r s . 156 21.64 28 - 32 y r s . 121 16.78 33 - 37 y r s . 66 9.15 38 - 42 y r s . 60 8.32 43 - 47 y r s . 67 9.29 48 - 52 y r s . 63 8.74 53 - 57 y r s . 31 4.30 58 - 62 y r s . 20 2.77 63 - 67 y r s . 17 2.36 68 - 72 y r s . 10 1.39 73 - 77 y r s . 3 .42 78 - 82 y r s . 2 .28 83 - 87 y r s . 7 .97 No Response 15 2.08 721 100.00 123 TABLE 2 D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Country of B i r t h Country n Per cent Canada 548 76.01 U. S . A . 17 2.36 Other E n g l i s h Speaking 80 11.10 S p a i n , P o r t u g a l 1 .14 I t a l y , Greece, Y u g o s l a v i a 3 .42 Sweden, Norway, F i n l a n d , Denmark, Germany, A u s t r i a , Ho l land 45 6.24 Poland 4 .55 Czechos lovak ia , Hungary, Romania, B u l g a r i a 1 .14 North A f r i c a and Midd le East 1 .14 P a k i s t a n , I n d i a , Cey lon , Bangladesh 4 .55 Far East 6 .83 L a t i n America 3 .42 No Response 8 1.11 721 100.00 124 TABLE 3 D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Years of Residence i n Ne i ; jhbourhood Years Residence n Per cent 1 - 5 305 42.30 6 - 10 113 15.67 11 - 15 67 9.29 16 - 20 98 13.59 21 - 25 52 7.21 26 - 30 33 4 .58 31 - 35 10 1.39 36 - 40 4 .55 41 - 45 8 1.11 46 - 50 4 .55 51 - 55 5 .69 56 - 60 1 .14 No Response 21 2 .91 721 100.00 125 TABLE 4 D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Neighbourhood of Residence Neighbourhood n Per cent G u i l d f o r d , R i v e r s i d e , Br idgev iew 130 18.03 Newton, S u l l i v a n , Fleetwood 133 18.45 Whalley 132 18.31 Sunnyside, White Rock, Douglas 112 15.53 C l o v e r d a l e , Por t K e l l s 119 16.50 Lang ley , F t . Lang ley , A ldergrove 29 4.02 D e l t a , Richmond 17 2.36 New Westminster 3 .42 Burnaby, Vancouver 12 1.66 Coqui t lam, P o r t Coqui t lam, Por t Moody, Maple Ridge 4 .55 Kennedy, Cedar H i l l s 6 .83 C layton H i l l 3 .42 Outside Surrey 4 .55 Surrey General 14 1.94 No Response 3 .42 721 100.00 126 TABLE 5 D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by M a r i t a l Status Status n Per cent Not Mar r ied 114 15.81 Separated or Divorced 44 6.10 Widowed 26 3 . 6 1 Mar r ied 1 - 4 y r s . 105 14.56 M a r r i e d 5 - 9 y r s . 131 18.17 Mar r ied 10 - 14 y r s . 74 10.26 Mar r ied 15 - 19 y r s . 56 7.77 Mar r ied 20 or more years 145 20 .11 Common-law 7 .97 Engaged 3 .42 Other 3 .42 No Response 13 1.80 721 100.00 127 TABLE 6 D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Years of Elementary and Secondary Schoo l ing Years n Per cent 4 years or l e s s 12 1.66 5 years 3 .42 6 years 9 1.25 7 years 5 .69 8 years 34 4.72 9 years 38 5.27 10 years 92 12.76 11 years 90 12.48 12 years 339 47.02 13 years 85 11.79 No Response 14 1.94 721 100.00 128 TABLE 7 D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Years of Post -Secondary Schoo l ing Years n Per cent 0 309 42.86 1 147 20.39 2 77 10.68 3 44 6.10 4 52 7 .21 5 34 4.72 6 15 2.08 7 8 1.11 8 or more 16 2.22 No Response 19 2.64 721 100.00 129 TABLE 8 D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Thei r Present Work Status Status n Per cent F u l l - T i m e Housework 239 33. 15 Housework and Par t - T ime Employment 78 10. 82 F u l l - T i m e Employment 261 36. 20 Unemployed 32 4. 44 Temporar i ly L a i d - O f f 7 • 97 Sel f -Employed 27 3 . 74 R e t i r e d 38 5 . 27 Par t - T ime Employment, but R e t i r e d 4 • 55 F u l l - T i m e Student 5 • 69 Par t - T ime Employment 2 • 28 Student w i t h Par t - T ime Employment 20 2. 77 No Response 8 1. 11 721 100.00 130 TABLE 9 D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by P e r s o n a l Income Income Group i n D o l l a r s n Per cent $ o - 500 162 22.47 $ 501 - 1,000 41 5.69 $ 1,001 - 2,000 54 7.49 $ 2,001 - 4,000 85 11.79 $ 4,001 - 6,000 50 6.93 $ 6,001 - 8,000 66 9.15 $ 8,001 - 10,000 49 6.80 $10,001 - 12,000 44 6.10 $12,001 - 14,000 32 4.44 $14,001 - 16,000 19 2.64 $16,001 - 18,000 24 3.33 $18,001 - 20,000 10 1.39 $20,001 or more 1 .14 No Response 84 11.65 721 100.00 131 TABLE 10 D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by the Number of Persons Employed i n Household Number Employed n Per cent 0 34 4.72 1 280 38.83 2 240 33.29 3 71 9.85 4 27 3.74 5 6 .83 6 2 .28 , 9 2 .28 No Response 59 8.18 721 100.00 132 TABLE 11 D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s by Family Income Income Group i n D o l l a r s n Per cent $ o - 2,000 7 .97 $ 2,001 - 4,000 34 4.72 $ 4,001 - 6,000 34 4.72 $ 6,001 - 8,000 38 5.27 $ 8,001 - 10,000 39 5.41 $10,001 - 12,000 64 8.88 $12,001 - 14,000 90 12.48 $14,001 - 16,000 66 9.15 $16,001 - 18,000 66 9.15 $18,001 - 20,000 53 7.35 $20,001 - 22,000 31 4.30 $22,001 - 24,000 27 3.74 $24,001 - 26,000 23 3.. 19 $26,001 - 28,000 18 2.50 $28,001 or more 30 •4.16 No Response 101 14.01 721 100.00 133 TABLE 12 Distribution of Participants by Number of Previous Courses Attended Number of Courses n Per cent 0 350 48.54 1 137 19.00 2 105 14.56 3 38 5.27 4 23 3.19 5 13 1.80 6 8 1.11 7 3 .42 8 1 • 1 4 9 1 .14 10 1 .14 11 1 .14 12 1 .14 16 1 .14 20 1 .14 No Response 37 5.13 721 100.00 134 TABLE 13 Distribution of Participants by Travel Time To and From Course Time in Minutes n Per cent 1 - 5 110 15.26 6-10 153 21.22 11 - 15 166 23.02 16 - 20 156 21.64 21 - 30 28 3.88 30 - 99 94 13.04 No Response 14 1.94 721 100.00 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055949/manifest

Comment

Related Items