Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Teachers’ preferred methods of learning about the topic of "student motivation" Leishman, Lorraine Kay 1992

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

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1992_fall_leishman_lorraine_kay.pdf [ 4.06MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0086575.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086575-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086575-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086575-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086575-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086575-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086575-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

TEACHERS' PREFERRED METHODS OF LEARNING ABOUT THE TOPIC OF "STUDENT MOTIVATION" by LORRAINE KAY LEISHMAN B.Ed. University of Lethbrldge, 1979  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education: Human Learning and Development) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1992 ©Lorraine Kay Leishman, 1992  In  presenting  degree freely  this  thesis  in partial  fulfilment  of the requirements  at the University  of British  Columbia,  I agree  available  copying  of this  department publication  or  for reference thesis  for scholarly  by his or  of this  and study.  thesis  I further  purposes  the Library shall  that  permission  may be granted  her representatives.  for financial  agree  that  gain  shall  >y/  •  It  is  for an advanced  not be allowed  it  for extensive  by the head  understood  make  that without  of m y  copying  or  my written  permission.  Department  of  /^TOfCtfii-  The University of British Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2/88)  ZZ/rt/'/Z  ^  : 7  '  a  Columbia  ^  f  />y£Xo  > fi,**^  '•  /  ^ > . / v , -x ''cO'-x.  ABSTRACT  In 1991, a needs assessment was conducted by the Southern Alberta Professional Development Consortium to determine teachers preferences for topics of professional development.  Eighty-eight percent of 3000 teachers chose  "Student Motivation" as their number one choice.  This study  and its questionnaire were specifically designed to accomplish two objectives: (1) to refine the general request for "Student Motivation" topic into specific topics desired by teachers, and (2) to gain some clarity on how teachers (in what formats) want to have this professional development delivered.  Teachers in this study revealed their general  preference for learning about student motivation in a collaborative manner.  However, a more formal (institutional)  classroom-like format was desired for some specific problems. There was evidence that teachers were not just choosing learning methods based on patterns associated with adult learners, but also in response to specific problems (without seeming to adhere to adult norms).  Recommendations for both  facilitators of professional development as well as those who are to be receiving it are included.  ii  TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER  PAGE i  ABSTRACT  ii  TABLE OF CONTENTS  1.  Ill  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  V« I f  LIST OF TABLES  \]\  LIST OF FIGURES  VH  THE PROBLEM  1  CONTEXT OF THE PROBLEM NEEDED DELIVERY FORMATS 2.  3.  REVIEW OF LITERATURE  4 13 15  SECTION 1: ADULTS AS LEARNERS  15  ADULTS AS GROWING AND DEVELOPING BEINGS  20  SECTION 2 : TEACHERS AS LEARNERS  23  METHODOLOGY  29  GENERAL PROCEDURES  29  DATA ANALYSIS  33  PROBLEMS IN DATA ANALYSIS  35  RATES OF RETURN AND RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS.37 4.  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  39  INTRODUCTION  39  SECTION 1: MODE-BY-MODE  41  MODE 1  45 iii  MODE 2  49  INDEPENDENT STYLE  50  MODE 3  54  MODE 4  56  MODE 5  57  MODE 6  58  MODE 7  59  COLLABORATIVE STYLE  61  MODE 8  65  MODE 9  66  MODE 10  67  MODE 11  70  INSTITUTIONAL STYLE  71  CONCLUSION TO SECTION 1  73  SECTION 2: SUB-GROUP INTERACTIONS  73  PROFICIENCY LEVEL X PREFERRED LEARNING STYLE.7 4  5.  PROFICIENCY LEVEL X LOCATION  82  PROFICIENCY LEVEL X SEX  83  STUDY RESULTS AND DEVELOPMENTAL TRENDS  84  CONCLUSIONS  86  STUDY BACKGROUND  86  MAJOR FINDINGS  87  RECOMMENDATION FOR APPLICATION  91  FINAL COMMENTS  92  REFERENCES  96 iv  APPENDICES  98  APPENDIX A: MAILINGS  99  1. QUESTIONNAIRE  100  2 . DIRECTIONS  101  3. COVER LETTER  102  APPENDIX B: BACKGROUND INFORMATION  103  1. PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN (SAPDC)  104  APPENDIX C: MOTIVATIONAL PILOT DOCUMENTS  105  1. COVER LETTER  106  2. TASK NUMBER ONE  10 7  3. TASK NUMBER TWO  108  4. RESPONSE SHEET FOR TASK TWO  109  v  LIST OF TABLES TABLE  PAGE  1 Preferred learning modes for first choices (PI)  42  2 Preferred learning modes for second choices <P2)  43  3 Preferred learning modes for third choices (P3)  44  4 Rankings of modes across PI, P2 and P3  45  5 Significant preferences for modes: independent style....51 6 Rankings of motivational problems: not an issue  57  7 Significant preferences for modes: collaborative style..60 8 Per/mode averages over PI, P2, and P3  62  9 Percentages choosing among the three styles  63  10 Significant preferences for modes: institutional style.72 11 Chi-square results: Prof. Level X Pref. Learning Style.75 12 Chi-square results: Prof. Level X Location  76  13 Chi-square results: Prof. Level X Sex  77  14 Percentages: years teaching across learning style  78  15 Chi-square results: Prof. Level X Years Teaching  79  \l\  LIST OF FIGURES  FIGURE  PAGE  1  Map of Al ber-ta: Locat i on of Zone 6  2  Map of Zone 6: Locat i on of School Juri sdi ctions  Vt!  , .2 .6  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, to Dr. Earle warnica, a heartfelt thanks for access to his input in the conception of this and to his office and its equipment during its preparation. Then, to Dr. Dave Whittaker, my advisor, a note of appreciation for his professionalism in supporting me in this long-distance project. Thanks for the trust. Thirdly, a thank you to the other committee members: Dr. John Allan, and Dr. Don Allison. Thanks for reading. And next, to Ms. Leanne Tedder, for her red pen, advice on computers and general well-being; and to Ms. Audrey Chykerda for her pen, too; the editorial comments were invaluable. And to my mother, Sylvia Leishman, for her belief in me, and for her financial and editorial assistance. And last, but not least, to my husband, Rene Peirens, who married me in the middle of all this, and perhaps despite all this. To these and many other patient friends: Thank you, all of you; your input has enriched my life.  VM|  CHAPTER ONE  THE PROBLEM Traditionally, the typical way to deliver to adults the opportunity for professional development has centered on an institutional approach (Seaman, 1989) where one person or group takes responsibility for the content, structure and objectives of the professional development activities while the recipients sit relatively passively as the receivers of the information.  This has been true in Southern Alberta, and,  according to the teachers here, this approach has had limited efficacy. It was their discontent with this style as the sole method of delivery that led to the project known as the "Southern Alberta Professional Development Consortium."  The  Consortium was formed in 1991 in order to guide professional development away from an institutional approach and toward more collaborative and individual approaches.  A major goal of  the project reflects this attempt to correct the Imbalance by stating simply that what is desired is "teachers teaching teachers." The initial needs assessment conducted in Southern Alberta's Zone 6 (see Figure 1)  tan educational boundary area  containing 31 school jurisdictions and 3000 teachers], revealed a significant request for professional development on student motivation.  Eighty-eight percent of 3000 teachers 1  /  /  /  ALBERTA  • Lethbrldge]  Figure 1; Location of Zone 6 in Albert;  chose "Student Motivation" as their number one choice (out o£ 20 choices) for professional development (p < .01). However, those in Zone 6 who are attempting to see that teachers get access to the information they want have some definite problems: 1.  Those in Zone 6 wanting to facilitate delivery do not  know how to give teachers what they want.  The methods of  delivery available other than an institutional approach seem only as limitless as is the imagination.  Plus, teachers have  individual problems in individual classes with individual students, and although the adult education literature clearly states that adults want to learn mainly to solve a specific problem (Cross, 1981; Knox, 1977; Tough, 1979) we need to know how to individualize solutions to these problems while avoiding the pitfalls that have "focussed on the individual [and] had little impact on change in the schools and on those teachers' peers" (Corwin and Edelfelt, 1977, p viii). 2.  The facilitators who want to increase professional  development also do not know, specifically, even what to give teachers on the topic of student motivation.  Although the  research base in the educational literature is large, so is the teachers' own experience in motivating students.  Do the  teachers primarily want increased access to educational literature; or do they primarily desire increased access to each other to share their expertise?  This second option  appears to have the agreement of some presenters of professional development seminars in Southern Alberta who 3  informally agree that it is difficult to get teachers to stop talking to each other about teaching once they get started. 3.  Thirdly, facilitators of professional development do  not know if it is they who should be doing the giving.  In  short, the role of the facilitating agency, apparently so overused in the past, is up for redefinition.  "Recent  inservices that have improved teaching ... may be characterized as Including Intelligent revision by participants. (Neil, 1988, p. 52). This piece of research will therefore attempt to shed some light on several questions, the major question being: How (in what formats) do teachers prefer to learn about the topic of "Student Motivation"? Questions secondary to the major question include, (1) In what formats do teachers prefer to learn about specific motivational problems that they have identified?, and (2) How does a teachers self-declared level of proficiency on specific motivational problems relate to their choice of how they wish to learn? The Context of the Problem There are three main factors that describe the context to the problem of teachers in Zone 6 receiving professional development on the topic of student motivation.  The first  deals with how resources have been utilized, the second deals with the process of presentation of these resources and the  4  third is in regards to the use of the literature on adult education. Imbalance in Utilization of Resources Lack of access to resources has been cited as a primary cause of failure of professional development attempts. (Cross, 1981). Basically there are four major sources of information available:  (1) speakers/experts on the topic; (2) the  research journals; (3) texts/books on student motivation; and (4) the teachers' own experience.  In this Zone 6 geographical  area, we do not have access to the people who are nationally or internationally recognized in the research field.  Distance  and financial constraints limit this access. Figure 2 shows Zone 6 divided into its 31 school jurisdictions.  Note the  geographical distances involved in order for schools to collaborate.  Note also that each of the 31 school  jurisdictions, sometimes overlapping in geographical area, have separate administrations and -in the case of separate and independent schools - have major differences in philosophy. These differences add distance as well, making it difficult for teachers to bridge gaps necessary to share speakers and goals.  In reference to the other three major sources of  information on motivating students, it is apparent that at the present time these resources are under-utilized. 1.  The research journals containing current educational  research on motivating students are housed in the university of Lethbridge, the only university in Zone 6. 5  Although some  of these journals are subscribed to by individual administrations, no systematic access to them by teachers is perceived.  There are time, distance and terminological  barriers to teachers using this rich resource.  A typical  terminological barrier, for example, is the teacher who, while stating the motivational problem as "this student does not listen and wants directions repeated," has no current way of knowing that the literature on "Verbal Learning and Behavior" contains guidance in structuring delivery such that short term memory does not get overloaded. 2.  Two major texts (Stlpek, 1988; Wlodkowski, 1991)  which carry an instructional approach to the subject of student motivation are on the market. worthwhile reading.  They are both  I have, however, presented material to  over 400 teachers, each time suggesting they order one of these texts, and as of yet the local bookstore which has the most advanced ordering system in Lethbridge, has reported no orders.  Is it that, as with the Stipek book, that the  teachers see its thinness (approximately 3/4 cm) and judge that $34.00 is just too much to pay?  Or is it merely some  other compounding factor like lack of time or hope? 3.  The last source mentioned -the wealth of information  on motivating children that lies in the minds and skills of practicing teachers- has to be the most astronomical in terms of quantity.  And of all the concerns expressed by teachers,  the most common one is lack of access to this resource.  In  Howey and Gardner's (1983) survey of American teachers - where  7  7S% of teachers categorized their professional development activities as "fair to bad" - lack of teacher involvement was most often cited as the reason for lack of satisfaction.  What  I and other presenters hear from teachers in Zone 6 is: "We do not have time to talk to each other at work.", or "I wish you had included more group discussion opportunities in your seminar."  Other presenters report teachers' desire to talk in  this way: "You have to really watch teachers: they'll talk all the time if you let them."  What I note, however, is that they  are on topic and motivated; thus signaling that this is a viable and worthwhile resource to utilize.  Under-utilizatlon  of resources, however, is only the first context to the problem.  Imbalance in Exposure to a Variety of Presentation Methods Professional development approaches - all whose objectives were in one way or another aimed at getting current educational research and thought into classrooms- to date have tended to have the following characteristics:  1) Mandatory 2) Institutional in character - objectives, planning, sequence and timing have largely been carried out by those other than the participants. 3) "One-shot" in that no follow-up to evaluate long-term efficacy has been the norm.  8  These approaches have basically been delivered through five methods; 1.  Educational research Is often enclosed into a program  or approach such as a new Science Curriculum or a new approach to teaching Social Studies and the teachers have received professional development on the program.  A teacher's access  to the actual research results that have guided the construction of the program, however, are limited; rather, the results are often communicated indirectly and included in the overall design of the program.  Thus teachers, although  exposed to current educational research, often do not realize that is what they are receiving.  I have heard seasoned staff  trainers remark that teachers "resist the full implementation" of a program, refusing to comply with certain aspects of the directions." A case example occurred in a trial mathematics program where experiencing spatial relations (Including distance) was the basic underpinning of the program.  A large ball of string  was included to indicate the length of a sidewalk to be laid. The teacher refused to unroll the string since it would "go out into the hallway and disrupt things" but rather said, "If this string were unrolled it would go clear through the door" an action which effectively denied the experience of the spatial relation.  students the  To me, being able to see  the research base within the program translated into willingness to comply with the program, whereas fellow-participants who did not know the research base  9  communicated unwillingness to comply with what seemed "picky, inconvenient details." 2.  Current educational research is often offered as part  of university courses; however, many teachers once leaving teacher preparation do not return to the university; and when they do it is most often not for independent study but for prepared coursework.  And secondly, being that adults are such  pragmatic and problem/task centered learners (Tough, 1971) they often do not take a course because they get more information than they want; being that they have a specific problem they want solved. 3.  Current educational research is often offered in  seminars to which teachers do travel voluntarily for professional development.  However, professional development  dollars, time constraints for the teachers, the dangers inherent in being the only one with a "new" approach, and no built-in follow-up all decrease implementation and are commonly reported by these teachers as reasons why they find this approach of limited use.  (Note: When designing the  questionnaire for this study I decided to delete these types of external seminars from the options for learning because their extremely external nature made them difficult to fit in with the goals of the Consortium.  In retrospect, however,  anything can be included if the effort is there; thus if this study were replicated, I would include this option.) 4.  A principal opportunity for delivery of research  information to teachers has been through the local University  10  teacher-preparation programs.  Yet, much time in this program  is required to give would-be teachers a sense o£ the history of development of educational theory.  In the  teacher-preparation program at this university (12 years ago) I received no exposure to current "hot-off-the-press" educational research nor have I spoken to anyone who received an emphasis on it.  Secondary sources were the primary sources  for papers and projects; with the emphasis being on lesson construction and classroom discipline skills.  Further, as a  result of lack of exposure during the B.Ed, years, is it possible that the teachers, as I did, lack the library research skills necessary to quickly locate on-topic research information helpful to their present teaching? 5.  The fifth method of delivery for professional  development in Southern Alberta has been an annual mandatory attendance two-day, teachers' convention containing short, one-shot (no follow-up) sessions.  Teachers have been vocally  complaining about this format for years, citing the short, temporary nature of the programs as a common concern or the lack of topics that apply to them.  Further, the convention is  structured so that the entire first morning and the last afternoon are given over to one speaker.  This year the  opening speaker received wide criticism, reportedly "Saying all he had to say in 5 minutes" and then went on to talk for another hour and a half.  Teachers reactions to being in a  mandatory situation with poor instruction is very negative.  11  So, we have had a professional development climate in this area where the method of presentation has been lecture-oriented and Institutional in character.  The content  has been selected by someone other than the people who are going to be using it with the children.  And the process of  learning that content has been short-lived. Seeming Lack of Adherence to Guiding Literature  About How Adults Prefer to Learn As discussed above, the major method of giving professional development to teachers in Zone 6 has been an institutional (top-down) one. Yet, Tough (1978) and others state that 75-80% of adults prefer learning projects that are self-directed or individual in nature. In essence, then, it appears that the most preferred mode of learning for adults has been least considered in the design of professional development activities for the teachers in Zone 6. So, if the well-established "truths" of adult education apply to teachers, our problem is not only that we have been over-using certain presentation modes. Nor Is it only that we have been under-involving teachers in the formation of objectives, sequencing or planning for their professional development but rather, more whollstically,  that we have been  ignoring the guidance of adult development; guidance that inherently suggests preferred modes of adult learning.  12  Explanation of Needed Delivery Format In choosing the best delivery formats for teachers to select from, the following tasks were identified: 1.  the task of addressing individual preference for  style of delivery: independent, collaborative, or institutional (Seaman, 1989). 2.  the task of giving teachers options through which  they can acquire the information they want, in ways they want, while not "forcing" them with narrow options into dependency on outside sources (for initiation and maintenance of the actual professional development activities).  Within the  consortium project there is approximately one year to initiate something that will maintain itself without Consortium involvement.  The professional development project ends in  1993. 3.  the task of helping teachers gain access to the vast  quantity of information on "Student Motivation," be that teacher-generated information or that found in the research literature. 4.  the task and responsibility of being guided by the  research literature on adult learning as I present recommendations to the school divisions as to the further development of school-based/self-initiated professional development projects. The present study fits with these four major delivery objectives, and is designed to give answers to questions about how teachers wish to learn, if they wish to learn in similar 13  ways to the general adult population, and if not, to identify differences that will facilitate an Improved professional climate for teachers in Zone 6.  14  CHAPTER TWO:  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  In searching for answers regarding how teachers want to receive their professional development or rather, in what modes teachers want to learn, it is important to consider teachers as part of two groups, one being within the other. First, teachers are part of the general group we would call adult learners and therefore should be subject to the generalizations pertaining to adult education and adult development. These considerations will be discussed in section 1.  Second, it is also important to consider teachers  as a subgroup of adult learners; learners with specific characteristics which may attenuate the application of some adult learning principals.  For example, Cross (1981) states  that "the college educated, with high status jobs, tend to prefer the lecture mode of learning significantly more than those without this education" (p. 206). Therefore, we might expect teachers to have differences in learning preference as a specific sub-group of adult learners.  The findings from the  literature on teachers and how they wish to learn will be discussed in section 2. Section 1: Adults as Learners Task/Problem-centered? PraamatIcally-orlented Although actual effective [educationl/teaching depends on being responsive to the learners in the actual programs, not 15  to adults in general (Knox, 1986), generalizations about adults have proven helpful in the design of effective adult education. The most undisputed result of research on the adult learner has to be the conclusion that adults are pragmatic learners (Cross, 1981, Seaman, 1989, Knox, 1989, Penland, 1979 in Cross, 1981).  Johnstone and Rivera (1965) summarize it  this way: [the] major emphasis in adult learning is on the practical rather than the academic; applied rather than the theoretical; skills rather than on knowledge or information, (p. 3) Tough (1971, p. 72) puts it similarly when he states that "most adult learning begins because of a problem or responsibility, or at least a question or puzzle- not because of a grand desire for a liberal education." Penland, 1979 (cited in Cross, 1981) whose study contains, according to Cross, the largest sample of adult learners to date, shows adult learners to be choosing 75% of projects as practical projects.  Thus, in the teaching of adults the  pragmatic focus is at the forefront.  It is, in a sense, one  of immediate-gratification: the skills gained are meant to be used now.  The trend in adult course selection also reflects  this. "When subject matter interests are tallied, practical how-to-do-it courses rank far above subjects that might be pursued because they satisfy intellectual curiosity" (Cross,  16  1981,  p.90).  In short, adults want to learn what they want to  learn in order to solve some sort- o£ Immediate problem. With this in mind, then, it appears vital to the success of any adult learning project that the adult's specific practical problems and values be taken into account when designing a curriculum.  Cross (1981) states that she has  never found an adult dissatisfied with this type of approach; i.e. that of being helped to successfully learn what it is they want to learn. Desire to be self-directed in selection and planning  of learning projects. The second major focus of adult learners appears to be their desire to be active agents in the selection and planning of their learning projects.  Tough (1989) states that 75-80%  of adults learning projects are self-directed.  Cross (1981)  states that 83% of adults in one of Tough's early samples, started a project under self-direction and that Tough's results generally reflect the research field in adults' preferences for learning mode. It is important to add clarification here, however. On the surface, these results suggest that adults generally prefer to learn alone.  This is not the case.  learning does not mean learning alone,  Self-directed  in Tough's studies it  was found that no fewer than four people were consulted in any of the self-directed learning projects, with the average number of people consulted being ten (p. 4). It is, I believe, important to state then, that the adult's tendency 17  toward self-directed learning does not mean a desire for isolated learning, but rather only means that the person who is in charge of setting the plan and objectives is the person doing the learning. A further illumination of the importance of an independent mode of learning is found in Cross' (1981) re-analysis of some of Tough's data.  She, very predictably,  found that 83% of Tough's huge sample of adults started a project singly because of the desire to use or apply the knowledge or skill and that 94% continued, persisting in the project "in anticipation of using the learning in a concrete and pragmatic way!"  It appears that there is some inherent  motivational quality to being involved in the planning.  Since  one of the major goals of the Consortium is to have professional development on-going without undue influence from "outside" agencies, it would seem important to have teachers quite heavily involved in the planning. To summarize then, in being guided by this literature, it would seem important to do two things when working with teachers: (1) to encourage teachers really to be in charge when they are planning to learn and (2) to invite them to learn not in isolation but to take advantage of resources. Thus, as I, a presenter of information to teachers, attempt to answer the question, "How do teachers want to learn about student motivation?" the research suggests I acknowledge their preferences, as adults, for being in charge of their  18  projects, while also being aware that being in charge of their learning projects does not exclude collaboration. One would also suspect that, if indeed the sampling of teachers reflects the research findings on adult education, that teachers would choose delivery/learning modes that would reflect a desire to be self-directed in their learning, while taking into account a preference for collaboration.  Chapter  4: Results and Discussion, sheds light on this issue.  Generalizations about Adults' Learning Preferences Seaman (1989) describes three categories which he claims encompass all adult modes of learning.  These categories are:  (1) independent where the learner directs the learning project; (2)collaborative, where the learner is directed by a group and contributes to the group direction; and(3)institutionalf where the individual's learning goals, objectives and pacing are the responsibility of some "expert" in the field.  The lecture method, for example, is usually  equated with the institutional approach.  These three  categories are widely accepted within the literature although they may be broken into smaller sub-categories and/or called by slightly different names (Brookfield, 1984; Cross, 1981; Knowles, 1989). For the purposes of this study, these three labels will be used: first, as guiding principals in the design of the mode section on the questionnaire; and secondly, as category titles to ease the discussion of clusters of learning modes  19  from the questionnaire.  The three categories will be referred  to as styles and any sub-categories will be referred to as modes.  Full description of their use in the questionnaire is  included in Chapter 3: Methodology. Several studies and reviews have been conducted to discover the distribution of adults across these styles by Tough (1971). In his major study on adults' learning projects (Tough, 1979) he reveals that 75-80% of adults would fall into the category of preferring the independent style.  Tough again  stresses what is very important here. The independent style does not mean learning in isolation but means those projects that the adults direct.  Cross (1981), upon reviewing Tough  and others, finds that another 7% of adults (in addition to Tough's findings)  would cluster into the institutional style.  What is interesting here is that when adults are asked what they would prefer; approximately 20-35% (Cross, 1981) say they would consider a lecture (institutional mode) as a favored way to learn the knowledge they seek; but, when it comes to the moment of choosing, they choose other more participation-oriented modes. In the remaining category, collaborative, we find approximately 13-18% of adult learners preferring to collaborate with other adults when deciding and learning what is to be studied. Adults as growing and developing beings Up to this point I have discussed adults' learning preferences as if the group of adults having these preferences 20  is relatively homogeneous.  They may have been making  different choices about how or what they were learning but I have been treating the choices as if they are basically the result of some random anomaly, like variation in general interest.  Making this type of generalization about childrens'  learning preferences would immediately bring up questions in the readers mind:  "How old is this child?" or perhaps, "What  stage of operations is this child at?"  There are questions of  this type worth asking about adults as well. Knox (1986) quotes six sources to support this statement: "There is ample and growing evidence that ego development continues well into adulthood (p. 24)." Many authors concur (Arlin, 1975; Bennet, C.K., 1991).  Taking ego development  into account puts adults 1 learning preferences in a very different light. Stages of ego development seem remarkably parallel to Seaman's three adult learning preferences.  Early stages of  ego development tend to be self-protective by nature, and are characterized by dependence and a need to either conform or to be seen as conforming (Knox, 1986).  One could easily project,  then, how adults at this stage of development might tend to choose learning modes that would provide them with opportunities for the conformity and dependence.  The  institutional mode described earlier could be seen as a likely first choice for those at this level.  Its inherent  "other-led" structure would allow an adult much opportunity to depend, conform and maintain high self-protection since the  21  learner's role in this institutional mode is passive.  Indeed,  initial research suggests that adults, including teachers, are commonly measured at "conformist" stages rather than "autonomous" and "integrated" [higher] stages of development (Corrigan, 1979). Higher levels of ego development are characterized by terms such as "autonomy, concern for communication and collaboration, and an increased awareness of one's own standards (Knox, 1986)."  The two other learning styles,  collaborative and independent,  conform with these descriptors  of higher levels of ego development.  Since ego development is  largely measured by instruments that keep track of how choices are made, it seems extremely logical to assume that adults' levels of development are at least partially directing their choices of learning mode. Research in this area is, however, in its infancy. Therefore, the reader is directed merely to be aware that as this study reveals adults demonstrating clear patterns in how they may wish to learn specific material, that what you may indeed be seeing is adults declaring their levels of ego development.  Also as we see variation across motivational  issues, where on one issue Teacher X is choosing an institutional method of learning whereas on another issue is choosing a collaborative one, we will be forced to wonder just what other factor(s) are operating, since, If ego development was the sole determiner, there would be no variation across motivational problems in terms of learning modes chosen. 22  The  final section in Chapter 4: Results and Discussion presents the test for developmental factors. Section 2: Teachers as Learners While we have not been inclined to look at how adults learn generally, certainly we have not frequently sought to connect what we know (or think we know) about how adults learn to inservice teacher education... (Corrlgan, 1979.  p. 114).  Two generalizations or recommendations were presented in the previous section in regard to adult learners: (1) that adult learners are pragmatic and problem-oriented and (2) that adult learners desire to be self-directed in the selection and planning of learning projects.  In the specific  case of teachers, these recommendations may be somewhat attenuated. Teachers and a Pragmatic, Task-centered Approach Cross (1981) states that well-educated potential learners [those thinking of taking adult education], those interested in college credit for college-level courses, and current adult education participants express more interest in general education than do most other adults (p. 206). Thus, with teachers we might suspect that, although there will certainly be a request for very practical topics and focus, that there will also be a focus on topics of a more general or theoretical nature.  23  The pragmatic nature of the adult, however, in the case of teachers, may well be more of an impediment to learning than a facilitator.  Neil (1985) in his comprehensive review  of the literature on inservice teacher education brings attention to an aspect of pragmatism in teachers1 learning that has not as yet been brought to light in any other reading I have done.  Neil listed their concerns as follows:  1. When is the job done, and how do I know? 2. Who's in charge? 3. Is time-tabling going to be altered? 4. Who's on my side? 5. Is this what they want me to do? 6. Will this inservice transgress any norms held by various interest groups? 7. Is this going to be an arduous task or quick and easy?(p. 50) Concern about pragmatics for teachers is clearly not limited to whether or not the topic addresses a practical problem they are encountering in their classrooms.  They have  political concerns about who is leading and who is with them and against them.  They have compliance concerns and perhaps  even self-confidence concerns about doing a good enough job. And they have concerns about the future consequences to themselves about being involved in this or that topic or issue.  These pragmatic concerns are qualitatively different  from those reported by Tough (1979) in his major studies of adults.  Perhaps it is because the adults in Tough's studies 24  were not grouped.  Whatever the reason, Neil's list of the  actual pragmatics that teachers consider suggests that teachers may have more practical considerations to be met in order for them to engage in the learning activities they desire.  Thus, the pragmatic element, which suggests an easy  method of determining learning needs when the population is a general adult one, is not so simple a directive when those adults are teachers. Because this thesis project has a mandate to report results back to the teachers themselves about what their school and division wants for professional development in student motivation, it therefore is important that - while acknowledging that certain practical considerations are beyond the scope of this study - that the learning options teachers will choose from are practical, i.e.  what they want.  Because  of the need for a "learner-centered" or practical emphasis in the content of the motivational problems, a pilot study was conducted.  A sample of teachers from Zone 6 was asked to  identify motivational problems that they see themselves or others having difficulty with and for which they would like to receive interesting and effective professional development. This pilot will be described in detail in the methodology section.  25  Teachers and a Desire to be Self-Directed  in the selection and planning of Learning Prelects There are many ways to look at this issue, and the research literature on teacher education does not directly address it. First is Knowles (1989) statement that "creative leaders realize that because of previous conditioning...that adults need help in learning to be self-directing" (p. 58). Joyce and Showers (1980) also note that critical aspects of a training event are not necessarily included even when teachers are involved in guiding the process. Neil (1980) also adds insight when he finds that " 'do-it-yourself inservice not address the multitude of factors... that are required to implement educational change institutionally." Harris (1981), however, publishes a correspondence-like package for individual teachers to learn about student motivation. Undercurrents in the literature clearly demonstrate that trainers or presenters really do not know how much to include teachers or even perhaps how to include them in the decision-making processes that lead to professional development activities.  Further, it is quite clear that  teachers may not even know how to include themselves. Interpreting the adult education literature for teachers' inservice, Peat and Mulcahy (1990) summarize others when they  26  state that "...teachers need to be engaged in identifying the content they need to learn, the skills they need to acquire, and the way they can best learn these skills." From the opinions in the literature and from listening to the Zone 6 teachers it is clear that there is agreement with Peat and Mulcahy. Neither a top-down approach (one which negates a teacher's input) produces on-going results; nor does an entirely teacher-led approach.  The obviousness of the  conclusion that come sort of collaboration is logical is a bit redundant. Embedded within the general ignoring of teachers' input into their own professional development is the specific lack of attention to proficiency level.  Cross (1981) and Ausabel  and Novack (cited in Neil, 1985) agree emphatically that "the most important aspect (which should be identified as a result of a needs assessment) is the learner's current proficiencies related to the program objectives."  Joyce and Showers (1988)  in their synthesis of teacher preparation literature express the same sentiment when they observe that "in teacher education it is virtually unknown to be aware of the specifics of skill level at the onset of training" (p. 381). If teachers are going to be appropriately involved with the implementation of their professional development and are, as the objectives of the Consortium state, going to be teaching each other, then their own levels of proficiency are critical.  The proficiency level of one teacher is a resource  for the next. 27  Because level of proficiency was stated as so critical by Cross (who is considered highly proficient in her own field of research and synthesis), the questionnaire in this study was revised to include it.  Because of this inclusion, the  research question regarding how teachers want to learn in order to receive their professional development becomes a question which seeks for a broader answer than just learning mode.  With proficiency level included in the questionnaire,  the study's focus shifted from purely descriptive and summative in nature, to one that Included a search for significant interactions between proficiency level and learning mode.  It became important to see if, for example,  those teachers of high proficiency (at certain of the motivational problems) tended to select certain modes of learning for those problems.  These results are reported in  Section 3 of Chapter 4.  28  CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY  General Procedures The original study was proposed to Dr. Earle Warnica, administrator of the Southern Alberta Professional Development Consortium, as a natural extension to an earlier needs assessment by the Consortium, (see Appendix B for Phase 1 action plan of the Consortium).  Dr. Warnica saw benefit to  the teachers in Zone 6 as well as the potential contribution to the Consortium's goals.  The Alberta Teacher's Association  was contacted to check for any impediments and no objections were raised.  The proposal was approved by the necessary  officials of the University of British Columbia to ensure its viability as an M.A. topic as well as its attention to "human subjects" criteria. A review of the literature on adult education was conducted in order to construct the questionnaire.  Eleven  options for "Mode of Preferred Learning" were included (most came directly from the available literature on how adults want to learn).  The review of literature also led to the  questionnaire having an unforeseen section, "Level of Proficiency." A pilot study was also conducted in order that the questionnaire would contain ten appropriate motivational problems.  Although a thorough (previous-to-this-study) review 29  o£ the motivational literature uncovered several well-researched motivational problems, the mandate of the Consortium to have teachers and their opinions central to professional development efforts necessitated going to those teachers for the real motivational problems that were important to them.  Five schools were polled: three by the  researcher during staff meetings, and two by checklist (see Appendix C) per the request of those schools' administrations. The top ten motivational problems were selected from among all responses, with the criteria that preferences high in importance to each of elementary (grades 1-6), junior high (grades 7-9), and high school (grades 10-12) were included on the questionnaire.  Please note that the sample was not  intended to be widely representative since the major thrust of this project was to identify preferred learning mode, not preferred motivational topic.  Nor were the problems selected  meant to be all-inclusive of the motivational problems confronting these teachers. It was assumed, however, that even though this would not be an exhaustive list of motivational concerns, that some would be seen as very legitimate and that some would be viewed as unimportant.  Therefore, on the questionnaire teachers were  given the opportunity to declare that an item was "not an issue" for them.  This option on the questionnaire both made  the results more useful to schools as well as improved the voluntary nature of the activity and was designed to decrease the demand characteristics of the tool (therefore, hopefully, 30  helping the teachers to have more "ownership" of this process). The questionnaire  went through several revisions as  individual teachers and other adults worked with it and the accompanying instructions.  Assistance was also received from  Dr. Warnica, Ms. Leanne Tedder, and Dr. Myrna Greene, Associate Dean of Education, University of Lethbridge. The questionnaire was mailed to the total population of teachers in Zone 6, in the first week of June, 1992. Confidentiality was assured in several ways.  The  questionnaires were number coded for school jurisdiction (district, division, county, RCSSD (Catholic), private, and band operated), as well as by school. The key was original and not written into the data base held on file in the University of Lethbridge.  Individuals also were given an option to  identify themselves by a code name no one else would recognize.  This code name feature was designed in order to  provide school jurisdictions with a way to recruit teachers for planning and participation in future inservices on motivation.  For example, teachers declaring high proficiency  and those expressing a constant struggle can be invited to participate in planning a seminar.  Because of the anonymity  they can refuse to participate without pressure, as well as participate without declaring their level of proficiency. Confidentiality of information to be returned to the schools and jurisdictions is also assured in that no school  31  will received another school's information; nor will one jurisdiction receive another's. A self-addressed envelope was included with the questionnaires and a deadline of 10 days after reception was set.  A cover letter explaining the nature of the study was  included. Other details necessary for human subjects criteria were included as well (see Appendix A.3).  The questionnaires  were received in the offices of either the Professional Development Consortium or the offices of Alberta Education. All replies were marked confidential and none were opened by anyone other than the researcher and the secretary of the Consortium. It was decided that no reminders would be given to the schools that did not readily respond.  The reason for this  lies in the philosophical underpinnings of the Consortium's mandate: to get the teachers initiating activities that will lead to effective professional development.  This, of course,  translates into a skewing of the sample toward the "keeners" or volunteers.  However, it was decided that these are exactly  the people that are likely going to be involved in teacher-initiated professional development.  So, although this  procedure removed some of the randomness of the sample, it was advocated because of the dual purpose of this study.  That  dual purpose being the mandate to serve the schools and teachers of zone 6 as well as to meet these requirements.  32  Data Analysis The raw data from each questionnaire were entered into the Macintosh program StatView SE + Graphics (Abacus Concepts, 1987) by the researcher. Some data from the questionnaire were collapsed into the three styles: independent, collaborative, and Institutional. Decisions as to what style was assigned were made as follows. Because on each motivational problem each person was asked to make a first, second and third choice as to how they would like to learn (what mode), each person therefore has three styles, one for their first choice preferences (Preference 1 [PU Style), one for their second (P2 Style) and their third (P3 Style). To receive a style rating, over one-half of the total responses for that choice episode (be it Pi, P2 or P3) had to fall in the Preferred Learning Modes that were identified as being within that style.  For example, if a teacher completed  his/her three choices on seven of the items and marked the other three items as "not an issue", then four responses would be required to indicate a style.  If four of their first  choices were placed under options 8, 9, 10, or 11, then a PI style of institutional was coded.  If four  of their second  choices fell under options 1 and 2 then a P2 independent style rating would be coded, and if four third choices were placed under options 3-7, their P3 style would be collaborative. When over one-half of the options did not fall under any one of the three mode assignments, a rating of 33  "No clear preference" was entered.  See Appendix A.l for a  copy of the questionnaire if further clarification is needed here. Data to be analyzed were selected in concert with my thesis advisor, Dr. David Whittaker, and were analyzed in two major ways. (1) descriptively, and (2) comparatively. Descriptive analysis largely took the form of reporting percentages.  Because of the need for this study to be used by  schools and divisions, It was decided that the results must be in a form readily intelligible to teachers and school administrators.  In addition, standard deviations and  significant deviations from the mean were calculated to identify which percentages warranted special attention.  In  conducting the second method of analysis, comparative, Chi-squares were performed In order to investigate some potential areas of significant interaction between proficiency level and other study variables. Missing data within questionnaires were handled "intelligently" in several ways by the computer program "Statvlew SE + Graphics:"  (1) on any item where no  Information was included, the program reports how many responses were missing for that item, but does not exclude that teacher's other responses in other cells of the spread sheet.  (2) Therefore, in the frequency tables and  Chi-Squares, sample sizes per cell vary.  Also It needs to be  understood that, in a sense, "missing data" were encouraged in this study.  If a motivational problem did not strike a 34  teacher as important to him/her they were encouraged not to do the item,  in order to correct for the unevenness of  preference per motivational item, and thus permit a standardized view of preference for learning mode, all percentages were calculated on the total number of teachers responding to that item not the total sample of teachers responding to the questionnaire. Because this Is rather convoluted to understand, a brief review and example are needed for clarity.  Recall that for  each motivational problem, the respondent was asked to choose among 11 modes of learning.  Recall, also, that there were 10  motivational problems on which to conduct these choices. What was important was that after data calculation one could look at the percentages of teachers choosing certain modes for one motivational problem and compare them to the percentages preferring learning modes on another motivational problem. Thus, for example, if 10 people responded to item 1 and all chose Mode 6, one would see "100%" recorded for Mode 6.  And,  if 20 people responded to Item 2, with 10 choosing Mode 6 and the other 10 choosing other modes, 50% would be recorded for Mode 6.  In this way the results reported in all the tables  were standardized.  The reader might like to refer to the  first three tables in Chapter Four at this point if further clarification is required.  Problems in Data Analysis At the onset of this study it was planned to report results using both the teacher and the school as units of 35  analysis.  The decision to use the school as a unit of  analysis was rescinded because of the disproportionateness of the responses per school.  Although many schools responded,  very few total staffs did.  Thus, were I to use the school as  a unit of analysis, in some cases a single teacher's responses would receive weightings as if an entire school responded in that way.  The results of an analysis of this type would be of  extremely limited use. Problems in wording of one of the demographic items made analysis as to rural and urban differences difficult.  Some  teachers thought I was asking for a record of their rural and urban teaching history, others thought I was asking about what the ratio of rural to urban students was, and still others thought I meant what I did mean: the location of their school. Thus, results of this variable are reported with low confidence. Rates of Return and Respondent Characteristics Of the 3000 questionnaires sent out, 665 (22%) teachers responded.  Six of these were unusable due to inaccurate  coding, and eight arrived too late for the data entry for this study (although they will be entered in order to serve the schools), leaving a total number of questionnaires entered at 651.  Of the 235 schools, 115 returned questionnaires (49%). In Zone 6, these 235 schools are administered by six  different jurisdictions.  An explanation of these six  jurisdictions and their response rates is as follows:  36  1.  Districts:  urban areas,  groups of schools located largely in  0£ the 52 schools in all the districts, 67% gave  some amount of reply to the questionnaire. 2.  Divisions:  and some are rural.  groups of schools where some are urban There is usually a large town which acts  as the center of the division.  Of the 71 schools located in  divisions, 42% replied. 3.  Counties:  groups of schools where all are either  very rural or are in small towns. The head offices of these are often found in the largest city within the area.  Of the  78 schools in all the counties, 38% replied. 4.  RCSSD or Catholic schools.  (Note: in Alberta,  Catholic schools are funded and operate much like the public schools do.)  Catholic schools are usually urban.  A Catholic  School Division is usually found within the same geographic boundaries as a District or Division.  Of the 23 schools in  all the Catholic Divisions, 74% replied. 5.  Private Schools:  These schools are non-Catholic  church-based schools usually located in an urban area. (They do not have to be church-based to be independent, but in Zone 6, all independent schools are.)  Of the 5 private schools in  Zone 6 who joined the consortium one year ago (8 did not), two replied, or  40%. Please note: Hutterite schools which  operate on Hutterite Colonies are not private schools but are directed as part of the County or District wherein they lie. 6.  Band Operated Schools:  schools are rural.  Located on reserve land these  Of the 7 band operated schools surveyed, 1 37  replied, or 17%. Please note that 2 band operated elementary schools were missed in the initial mail out.  These schools  will be approached at a later date in order to allow them to take part in the portion of this study that will only be reported back to the schools. Approximately 48% of the respondents were elementary teachers; 2% were ECS (Early Childhood Services -Kindergarten); and 25% each of both Junior and Senior high. In terms of the number of years respondents have been at one of these four levels, the mode was 4 years, with the distribution as follows: 56% of the sample had 10 years or less at their present level; 29% of the sample had between 11 and 20 years experience at the current level; and 15% of the sample had stayed at their current level over 20 years to a maximum of 34 years at one level. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents were female and forty-two percent were male.  Norms for the actual composition  of the Zone could not be located. The mode for the number of years the respondents have been in teaching was eight years, with the range being from one year to 38 years.  The sample distributed as follows:  23.3% had taught ten years or less; 35.2%, 11-20 years; 21.2%, 21-30 years; and 3.2% over 30 years.  38  CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Introduction In this chapter the results of the questionnaire are presented in two forms.  In Section 1 a mode-by-mode account of the full  sample of teachers* preferences for learning mode is given. Then, embedded in this first section are the discussions about preferred learning style.  To understand the reasoning behind  this structure, the reader is asked to recall that each style is made up of several modes and in this way reporting preferred learning style is a way of summarizing the results of preferred learning mode.  Also, because of the summative  nature of these three styles, the style sections will read much like conclusions. In Section 2 results from specified subsample groups will be presented.  Specified subsample Interactions include  various interactions between proficiency level and other variables in the study.  A Chi-square was performed with the  program Statview SE + Graphics to identify any significant differences.  Interactions within this section first discuss  the interactions and significant differences between Proficiency Level and Preferred Learning Style.  This is the  only interaction directly discussing the primary research question of this study regarding what modes teachers prefer to learn by.  The other interactions discussed involve  proficiency level, an area said to be crucial to surveying 39  adult learners, but chronically ignored by researchers (Cross, 1981). Sex;  These interactions include:  (1) Proficiency Level X  (2) Proficiency Level X Teaching Level (early childhood  services [ECS]), elementary, junior high or high school). Please note that elementary school in Alberta includes grades 1-6; junior high includes grades 7-9; and high school includes grades 10-12; (3) Proficiency Level X Location and (4) Study results and developmental trends.  Also, this section  discussing interactions includes teachers* first choices (Pi) for modes only. Interpretation Guide to Chapter 4 1.  The terms "Pi, P2, and P3" are used throughout the  chapter to indicate the pattern of teachers' preferences as they make their three choices of mode per motivational problem.  PI indicates teachers' collective first choices  across all 10 motivational problems, P2 their second choices, and P3 their third.  The reader is further encouraged to refer  to Appendix A where a copy of the directions and the questionnaire will give clarity to the task asked of the teachers. 2.  The 11 preferred learning modes were designed so as  to represent three styles of learning which, according to Seaman (1989), represent all styles of adult learning.  Modes  1 and 2 represent the independent style; modes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 represent the collaborative style; modes 8, 9, 10, and 11 represent the institutional style. Modes 6 and 7 have a note with them; "no research" in an attempt to delineate these 40  approaches from ones where although you may hear others' experiences, that experience is laced with research and is therefore institutional in nature.  Discussions of the  patterns of these styles within the data can be found after the last mode of a style.  Thus, independent style Is  discussed after Mode 2, collaborative after Mode 7, and institutional after Mode 11. 3. Standard deviations and significance levels for which mode was significant were calculated by hand because the Statview program could not do this with the way I entered the data.  The significance level was preset at (p. < .05). To  avoid unnecessary repetition, unless otherwise indicated, when something is said to be significant In this chapter it has tested as significant at (p_ < .05). Section 1 - Mode-by-mode In this section discussion of all learning modes will follow this pattern.  First, Tables 1, 2, and 3 will be  referred to and significant differences in preference across motivational problems will be discussed.  Any pattern or  suggestions of pattern across the three choices PI, P2, and P3 will be noted.  Second some references to the review of  research will be made, comparing findings and preparing for the conclusions In chapter 5.  This pattern of discussion will  continue for all 11 modes.  41  Table 1 Percentage of teachers choosing among learning modes for first choices (PI).  MOTIVATIONAL PROBLEM self-esteem disruptive students no task quality no goals poor organization high risk home problems avoid challenge won't work in class no homework/study Averages (in %)  Note. *p < .05  1  2 4 5 9 8 8 6 5 8 9 8  6.1  3 5 6 6 8 8 8 6  10*  4 5 4 4 4 6* 6*  7 8  4 4 5  7.2  4  P1 PREFERRED LEARNING MODE 4 6 7 5 8 10 4 11 33* 2* 3 10 27 13 12 2 14* 27 10 10 3 23 11 3 9 25 6 19 8V> 1 * H 7 15 3 18 4 11 13 20 14 2 12 23 15 2 10 24 12.1  2.7  9  23.9  9 4 3 5 5 5 4 4 4 5  4.1  4 4  10 22 23 17 20 19 32* 28 18 18 17  4.4  20.4  4 3 4 6* 5 4 4 6*  11 2 2 1 3 2 4 4 2 2 0.5 2.3  Table 2 Percentage of teachers choosing among learning modes for second choices (P2).  MOTIVATIONAL PROBLEM self-esteem disruptive students no task quality no goals poor organization high risk home problems avoid challenge won't work in class no homework/study AVERAGES (in %)  Note.  *P<.05.  1 5*  2 13*  3 7*  3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 4  10 11 11 10 12 9 11 9 9  3.6  10.5  **p<.oi  5 6 5 6 5 7* 5 5 5 5  P2 PREFERRED LEARNING MODE 4 7 8 6 5 4 12 11 15 14 6 13 18 5 13 10 16 12 6 12 15 17* 14 5 15 12 4 10 15 4 11 17 12 12 6 13 18 14 14 17 5 17 15 7* 15 13.6  4.6  12.4  14.9  9 12 6 11 6 12 8 14 8 7 12 5 18** 14 6 11 8 12 9 7 10 7  11.6  10 12 12 13 13 9* 14 14 12 10 10 11.9  11 2 1 2 2 1 4* 3 1 1 1 1.8  Table 3 Percentage of teachers choosing among learning modes for third choices (P3).  MOTIVATIONAL PROBLEM self-esteem disruptive students no task quality no goals poor organization high risk home problems avoid challenge won't work in class no homework/study AVERAGES (in %)  Note. *p<.05  1  2 4 4 3 3 4 2 3 4 4  6** 3.4  3 8 9 10 10 7 10 11 8 7 7  6 5 5 4 4 6 6 6 5 5  8.7  4.7  P3 PREFERRED LEARNING MODE 7 4 5 6 11 10 5 8 5 7 13 10 11 6 10 13 7 12 13* 9 11 8* 15* 9* 11 11 7 10 11 8 13 6 11 4 * 12* 12 11 6 9 13 14 11 7 10 10.8  6.1  9.4  12.7  8 8 8 9 9 11 10 12 11 11  14 13 11 13 11 11 11 12 14 11  10.2  12.1  13*  11  10  9  21  5 4 3 3 2  22* 20 17 17 18 15 17 17 15 17.9  6* 3 3 2 2 3.0  Modes l and 2 (independent style) Mode 1: Reflecting on own Experience No Internal significant differences were found with a two-tailed test of significance for any of the choices at Pi (see Table 1). According to this, reflecting on one's own experience is considered equally viable for any of the 10 motivational problems.  However, before one assumes that this  rather mundane choice pattern is indicative of an overall trend, how this mode ranks in popularity relative to the other modes needs to be considered.  Mode 1 ranks an average of 8.6  out of 11 (see Table 4 for the rankings across PI, P2, and P3).  Therefore, although teachers tend to choose this mode  with consistency across motivational problems, it is more the case that they are actually tending to "not" choose it consistently rather than having it be a high preference. Table 4 Rankings of the 11 preferred learning modes based on mean percentages of teachers' three choice episodes: first preference (PI), second preference (P2), and third preference (P3).  RANKING First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth Tenth Eleventh  Modes at P1 7 10 4 6 2 1 9 8 3 5 11  CHOICE EPISODES Modes at P2 7 4 6 10 9 2 8 3 5 1 11 45  Modes at P3 10 7 9 4 8 6 2 5 3 1 11  At P2, however, reflecting on one's own experience was seen as more preferred for motivating students who have such low self-esteem that they do not succeed.  Also, within the  group of teachers who chose this mode as their favorite third choice (P3), a significant number (p_ < .01) saw this mode as highly appropriate for motivating students to do school work at home, be it homework or study. Because of the variation within this mode, where the relationship to one motivational problem is seen as highly significant, a Mode by Problem interaction may be seen to exist.  Since this postulate is returned to again and again  throughout this thesis, some elaboration on the logic of this is in order.  First, this study was designed to answer the  question "In what modes do teachers desire the delivery of their professional development?"  When asking this question  and selecting the motivational problems to be used as examples of content, it was assumed that the content was relatively unimportant - except that the problems had to be realistic problems to the teachers (which was why the short pilot was done to select them).  With this "uniformity" assumption in  mind, then, it was predicted that certain problems would receive the rating "not an issue" much more often than other problems, indicating that different teachers have different problems.  However, once certain problems were dismissed as  unimportant it was also assumed teachers would consistently be choosing the same modes (along the normed lines established in the adult learning literature). 46  Although there are definite  similarities in the results of this study and those in the adult learning literature, there are some definite differences that have led, throughout the writing of this, to the postulate that there is a qualitatively different interaction occurring; an interaction beyond that between adult learning style and mode.  The following discussion is offered as  context for the reader. As was described in Chapter 1, Zone 6 teachers have received virtually all of their professional development through an institutional (lecture) mode regardless of the content or problem being addressed.  In disagreement with this  monotony, the research on learning style has alerted educators that certain people learn certain ways and that, these contingencies need to be taken into account when teaching them.  Then on a more "group-basis" the adult learning  literature points out generalizations regarding adult learners which also call to be heeded.  Now, if adults were making  their choices for learning mode on the basis of their personal learning style, be it a purely adult style or an individual one, then one would assume that their choices would be very consistent across problems, i.e. they would be choosing basically the same modes (and definitely the same styles) regardless of the problems to be addressed. that is not the case.  In this study  Although approximately 40 teachers  completed their questionnaires with the same mode choices for all 10 problems, the norm is wide variation among the  47  problems.  Certain modes consistently lend themselves to  certain problems and significantly less for others. When we teach children, it is such a given that we change approaches because of the content that to offer this as a worthwhile observation risks being "drenched in redundance". However, offer it I do.  Before the research on adult learning  began to uncover evidence of further development into adulthood, an almost blanket uniformity was assumed (and by some still is); a uniformity that became interpreted by presenters as a permission to dismiss the need for different approaches because one could leave the responsibility for the reorganization of the material up to the mature, adult learner. this.  The adult learner's needs are more complex than  Throughout this chapter it becomes increasingly clear  that "there is something going on" in terms of how teachers are choosing modes to fit certain problems.  I call this the  postulate that there exists a Mode by Problem interaction; an interaction that, although the "proof" lies beyond the sophistication of this study, points toward a conclusion that attention to what teachers are saying about what they want needs to be attention that goes beyond the selection of topics and into their active participation in how these topics are to be learned. I invite the reader to do two things while reading: (1) Read for the descriptive information about how teachers are making their choices- some of the significant differences and the patterns in the style choices do create some  48  interesting speculation; and (2)  Read with the postulate in  mind that maybe there is something about teaching and our task that makes us choose how to learn not merely on the basis of something personal or adult-related, but actually related to the problem we see as needing to be addressed. Now let us return to discussion of Mode 1, learning by reflection on my own experience.  Over the three choices PI,  P2, and P3, Mode 1 was chosen by 3.6%, 6.1%, and 3.4% respectively.  Other than noting it was slightly more  preferable as a second choice over a first and third choice, these results merely speak of a choice of preferred learning that is actually preferred by very small numbers: at PI, n = 20; at P2, n = 34; at P3, n = 19. Note:  PI, P2 and P3 are  overlapping categories (since one teacher was asked to make all three choices) and are not to be summed.  In other words  it is possible, for example, that the 20 teachers at PI are 20 of the 34 teachers at P2.  Thus the numbers choosing this mode  are very low. Mode 2: Reading and Applying Research by Myself When this mode's popularity was viewed across all motivational problems, it did not show as being any more popular for one motivational problem over another at PI.  At  PI this mode was ranked as fifth in overall popularity (see Table 4 ) . However, like what occurred in Mode 1, Mode 2 was significantly preferred (p_ < .05) at P2 as a learning mode for learning to motivate students whose self-esteem inhibits learning.  At P2 Mode 2 was ranked sixth. 49  That a significant  difference showed on the same motivational problem with both of these modes suggests a possibility that there is something about an independent pursuit that "matches" studying how to motivate students with low self-esteem.  At P3 no significant  preference was seen for this mode in one motivational problem versus another.  At P3 this mode was ranked seventh.  Caution is advised in viewing the popularity of Modes 1 and 2 in regard to an approach to making arrangements for professional development activities for self-esteem.  The  reader is urged to recognize the low ranking of these modes relative to the other nine modes still to be discussed.  A far  more responsive use of these data would be to include a self-directed option within a larger, perhaps collaborative, approach to self-esteem. Independent Style Combining the results of Modes 1 and 2 together we have what was defined in this study as an independent learning style (see Table 5). As was previously reported in Chapter 2, Cross (1981) stated that 49% of potential learners said that Independent study was an appropriate way for them to learn; although it was not necessarily their first choice. There is a large difference between how the teachers in this sample showed their preferences for Independent study: at Pi, 13.3 % of teachers chose an independent method; at P2, 14.1%, and at P3, 12.1 %.  And these percentages are not to be summed.  No  more than 14.1% of teachers chose an independent method for learning about any of the motivational problems presented. 50  Table 5 Significant preferences (+) or lack of (-) for the modes composing the independent style. INDEPENDENT MODES reflect/self research/self 1 2 MOTIVATIONAL PROBLEM self-esteem P2*+ disruptive students no task quality no goals poor organization high risk home problems avoid challenge won't work in class no homework/study P3**+  P2*+  P1*+  Note. *p < .05). **p < .01  To account for this disparity with any measured surety requires further research, however, two points seem important; one regarding the definition of independence and the second regarding the sample of problems teachers were asked to consider.  First, Cross* review of adult learning studies  reveals that most researchers have used Tough's definition of independent.  Tough's definition is revealed as Tough himself  says that in none of the cases of independent learning (in one of his studies) was any fewer than four people consulted during the course of the project (Tough, 1979, p.4). Thus, in the above statement about the 49% preferring independent study, it appears probable that Cross was using a different definition of independent than was used in this study, a 51  definition where "independent." includes collaboration,  in  this study, independent meant "without help or outside assistance"; in Cross* review and Tough's study, independent meant something like deciding on the project, objectives and directions independently and then utilizing resources accordingly. When the percentages from modes that include collaboration are considered, and the totally independent totals from Modes 1 and 2 are subtracted, a very different picture emerges.  At Pi, 51.7% of the sample chose methods of  professional development that, although Informal, included both self-direction and collaboration; at P2, 50.5% chose this way; at P3, 43.7%.  Thus it would appear possible that the  discrepancy between Tough's results and the results of the independent style in this study can be accounted for in terms of a difference in definition across the two studies. However, when other modes' results are summed (elements of this sample which match Tough's definition) the results of this study are in significant agreement with the norms of Tough's study in regard to collaboration. The second possible explanation for the huge discrepancy between Tough's percentages and the findings of this study might be in the motivational problems that the teachers were asked to consider. bias,  Perhaps what happened is a situational  these problems were actually collected from teachers on  a group basis, therefore perhaps the problems submitted would naturally not lend themselves to an independent approach. 52  Having this explanation have weight would mean accepting that there is a Mode by Problem interaction, the postulate that will be discussed repeatedly throughout. In the review of literature,  surprisingly,  I found no  reference to adult learning or teachers* professional development that was totally self-directed. however, in his study of principals (N = 55)  Davis (1976) did note that  13.3% of his sample listed "independent study" as their last preference.  At least three interpretive problems exist with  using this data to compare to this study. First, Davis, like many other researchers, did not include his definition of independent study. Second, although 13% said they least preferred independent study, 35% said they least preferred supervised reading, and 18% least preferred role playing.  So the ranking of independent study is unclear.  These examples make one think that Davis was investigating the types of activities within a professional development event, vs overall strategies for preferred learning.  And, third,  Davis made no mention if the principals in his study were active teachers. Because of the lack of clear norms, it is difficult to tell if the average of 6.1% of the teachers who chose to learn absolutely by themselves Is a result warranting some research attention.  If it is a rather high number relative to the  general population of teachers, one might speculate that perhaps there has been disillusionment of Zone 6 teachers in regard to healthy professional development and this has caused 53  some withdrawal.  If it is an especially low result, one might  speculate that problem solving in teaching (vs some other problem-solving profession) is a highly social affair.  If the  result is right on target, then we may be seeing the portion of adult learners that choose to learn absolutely alone.  Only  clearer definitions and further research will reveal these type of answers. Modes 3r 4r 5r 6r and 7 (collaborative style)  Mode, 3; Read and Discuss [the problem] With an "Expert" Relative or Friend In the PI choice episode (see Table 1) significant differences showed for two motivation problems; motivating students who are considered high risk, and motivating students who have home problems contributing to their academic difficulties.  At P2 this mode also showed significance on the  home problems item, adding strength to an assumption that there is something specific about this motivational problem that lends credence to a professional development approach which incorporates "expert" friends or relatives. No significant preferences for this mode showed at P3.  The low  ranking of this mode relative to the other modes, however, suggests caution in assuming that many teachers actually get their needs met by consulting a relative or friend.  Only an  average of 4.7% of the sample (n = 31) actually chose this mode in any one choice.  54  Seaman (1989) states that "asking a relative or friend [is] still [one of] the most popular ways for adults to attempt to learn something" (p. 79). And Penland (cited in Cross, 1981) In his large 1979 study of adults (reviewed in Cross, 1981) found that 75.2% of adults listed a relative or friend who is an expert among the top three most important resources to consult.  Relatives or friends in Penland's study  were rated higher than both books and a self-formed group of equals. The very low percentages of teachers who chose this as a method of professional development gives rise to some questions.  First, are we seeing a highly significant  population difference?  (Only 4.7% of teachers choose this  method and rank it 8th or 9th out of 11 while in a study of adults this method is ranked in the top three by over 75% of the population [Penland, 1979 in Cross 1981].)  Or, were the  questions different In the studies: with Penland asking about use of resources, and this study asking about how teachers would prefer to learn?  Or, alternately, is it that the  general adult population has little access to  more structured  methods of learning and therefore the differences in percentages can be accounted for by virtue of teachers experiencing wider choices?  A last option, and by no means  final, is to contend that this difference can be explained by some self-selection process where those choosing teaching as a profession are those who are less likely to consult friends and relatives.  Research potential abounds.  55  Mode 4:  Read and Discuss [the problem] With Own Staff  Mode 4 is ranked in the top 4 rankings across Pi, P2, and P3 (see Table 4). At Pi this mode is third, at P2 it is second and at P3 it is fourth.  An average of 12.2 % of the  population preferred this mode (N = 79) at each of these rankings for an appropriate mode no matter what motivational problem was considered.  Significant within-mode variations in  preferences did occur, however, on specific motivational problems. At PI this mode was seen as significantly less appropriate to deal with high risk students. (Teachers preferred to use Mode 10.)  Since it is common for high risk  students to be shared by several teachers, this result brings to mind questions regarding why teachers would not be seeing each other as valuable resources in solving these interactional problems. At P2 (see Table 2) this mode was seen as a significantly more desirable choice for motivating students who have poor organizational skills (who lose things, procrastinate, and lack time management skills).  In Table 6 this motivational  problem is second highest preferred when preference is defined by the number of times a motivational problem is not chosen as being "not an issue."  Seemingly contrary to this high  preference, at P3 this mode was favored significantly less often as a mode for learning about motivating students with poor organizational skills (see Table 3). However, recalling the high ranking of this mode overall, the low preference does 56  Table 6 Rankings of ten motivational problems based on "not an issue" r a t i n g s NOT AN ISSUE RANKING N=16 First N = 26 Second N = 32 Third N = 34 Fourth Fifth N = 35 N = 48 Sixth Seventh N = 63 Eighth N = 86 Ninth N = 113 N = 124 Tenth  MOTIVATIONAL PROBLEM no task quality poor organizational skills disruptive in class low self-esteem won't work in class home problems avoid challenge lack goals no homework/study high risk  Note. The more times a motivational problem was chosen as not an issue, the lower the ranking.  not carry as much contradiction as it would were the ranking low.  Also at P3 (see Table 3) is a positively significant  result where this mode was highly favored for learning about motivating students who have no goals for the future. Mode 5; Read About the Problem and Discuss it With Other ££a_£fs_ This mode is ranked 10th out of 11 (see Table 4), only to be "underpassed" by "taking a university course."  An average  of 7%, (48 teachers) chose this mode as their number one choice for at least one motivational problem.  Mode 5 was  considered a significantly poor choice for learning about interacting with high risk students at PI as well as students who avoid challenge at P3 (see Tables 1 & 3 respectively). 57  The most viable use among the average 7% who preferred this mode at all was at P2 (see Table 2) for motivating students to do more homework or study at home. The overall low ranking of this mode (ranked 10th) compared with the rather high ranking of the just-previous mode (ranked 3rd) presents an interesting contrast: the only difference between the two is what staff is used as a resource.  Speculation on what this may mean is included in  Chapter 5. Mode 6: Listen to Others' Experiences With the Same Problem but Receive no Educational Research on the TQPJC This mode and Mode 7 were constructed with the additional note about "no research" because of a comment by Cross (1981) that lack of access to resources is a number one impediment to learning.  Unfortunately, the questionnaire was not designed  with control items for both aspects of this mode so that when teachers have chosen this mode there is no way to tell if they are responding to the  "no research" portion, or to the  collaborative (first) portion of the item.  For the purposes  of this study it is assumed that teachers are responding to the collaborative nature of this item, considering the high response to other items of the same style. Ranked 4th out of 11 modes, Mode 6 was found to be significantly more preferred at Pi (see Table 1) as a professional development choice for learning about motivating students who have low quality work.  At P2 (see Table 2) Mode  6 did not show as significantly less or more preferred for any 58  of the motivational problems.  At P3, however, teachers  indicated a preference for using this mode to learn about motivating students who avoid challenge (see Table 3). When this mode is compared with the three previous collaborative modes (Modes 3, 4 & 5), it is noted that 3/3 of the previous modes were found to register positive significance on the same issue; high risk students (see Table 7). This suggests both that the issue of high risk students is important for professional development as well as suggesting that a collaborative approach is desired.  But in  contrast, in this mode's case, where teachers are being asked to listen to colleagues but not receive any research or contribute their own experience,  the rating for learning  about high risk students was the lowest for all the motivational problems. (Only 6% [N = 32] of teachers answering this item [N= 527]  wanted this mode as their first choice.)  Thus, even though Mode 6 is collaborative, something about it is seen as inappropriate for dealing with high risk students.  Mode 7; Share Your Experiences and Listen to others who Have the Same Experience Ranked first, first, and second for PI, P2, and P3 respectively (see Table 4), Mode 7 is the overall "winning" choice for a preferred learning mode.  The fact that this mode  showed as such a high preference across all three choice patterns suggests that it might make a good panacea for professional development; since the quest for panaceas seems such a popular pursuit.  However, looking further into the 59  Table 7 Significant preferences (+) or lack of (-) for the modes composing the collaborative style.  COLLABORATIVE MODES expert relative/friend own staff 4 3 MOTIVATIONAL PROBLEM self-esteem disruptive students no task quality no goals poor organization high risk home problems avoid challenge won't work in class no homework/study  other staff 5  listen/experiences 6  share experiences 7 P1*+  P2*+ P1*+  P1*+ P1*+, P2*+  P3*+ P2*+, P3 P3*+ P1*+ P1*+ P3*-  P3*+  P3*+  P2*+  Note: P1 = First Preference; P2 = Second Preference; P3 « Third Preference  results, one finds significant differences within this mode as to where it is seen as significantly appropriate as well as significantly inappropriate.  These variations should quell  any tendency to decide that this is the best method for everything.  At PI (see Table 1), this mode was seen as very  important in learning to motivate students whose self-esteem was so low it interfered with learning, but was seen as a relatively poor approach to use in learning to deal with the home problems that children bring with them to school.  At P2  (see Table 2) this mode was seen as equally appropriate for all motivational problems.  At P3 (see Table 3) a preference  was established for using this mode in learning to motivate students who have poor organizational skills. Mode 7 is the final of five collaborative modes, and patterns across these modes can now be examined.  See Table 7  for a visual summary of where significant preferences and lack of preferences occur across all of the collaborative modes for all of the motivational problems. The Collaborative Stvle A "per mode" weighting was calculated for each style comprised of the sum of the weightings of each of the five modes in this style.  A mode's weighting was calculated from  the modes' ranked positions across PI, P2, and P3. For example, if Mode 3 was ranked eighth relative to other modes, it received a weighting score of 4 indicating it was fourth from the bottom in rating. lower weighting.  In this way a lower score means a  Because there were different numbers of 61  modes In each style, a per mode average was calculated (see Table 8) . Table 8 Per/Mode averages over the three learning preference styles: P I , P2, P3.  STYLE Independent  Collaborative  Institutional  MODE 1 2  TOTAL OF RANKINGS: P I , P2, & P3 10 18  3 4 5 6 7  10 27 9 23 32  8 9 10 11  16 18 29 3  PER/MODE AVERAGE 9  20.2  16.5  Note: PI - First Preference; P2 = Second Preference; P3 - Third Preference  Of the three styles (independent, collaborative and institutional) the collaborative style received the highest weighting with each mode receiving an average of 20.4 ranking points relative to 9 ranking points for the Independent style and 16.5 for the institutional style. It would appear that a collaborative style is the overall favorite of this sample of teachers. Further support for this conclusion comes from the data base style ratings.  When the questionnaires were received  they were coded not only for preferred mode but for an overall  62  style as to the PI, P2, and P3 patterns of choices (see Table 9 ) , when teachers make their first choices (Pl), and their second choices (P2), they most often placed more than half of their responses in the collaborative style.  The  closeness of the results for the collaborative style and the institutional style at P3, makes a clear preference between those two styles at the third choice episode impossible. Table 9 Percentages of teachers choosing among three styles across the three choice episodes.  CHOICE EPISODE P1 P2 P3  INDEPEND. 8 7 7  COLLAB. 50 45 33  INSTTTU. 25 24 34  NO CLEAR PREFERENCE 17 24 27  Note: P1 - First Preference; P2 - Second Preference; P3 = Third Preference  Because of the questionnaire's design, respondents had an increasing chance of choosing other styles as they made their choices.  For example, on the self-esteem item, if a teacher  chose Mode 1 as her first choice and Mode 2 as her second choice, she could not choose an independent style as her third choice.  This is a flaw in this questionnaire.  flaw into perspective though is important.  To put this  First, it was the  teachers task to choose ranked choices, choices that would be mutually exclusive.  Secondly, although in the case of the  independent style, a teacher had less chance to choose it, the  63  other styles were not effected since they each had enough options that a teacher could choose all three modes entirely within one style.  The bias with the independent style,  however, may account for part of its overall lack of popularity.  It was also formatted differently on the  questionnaire (see Appendix A.l) and may have produced enough ambiguity to be avoided altogether.  It is clear, despite  these difficulties, that the collaborative mode is most preferred as both teachers' first and second choice. In Davis (1976), 61% of his sample of principals (N = 33) selected a discussion technique as their most preferred mode of Instruction.  Since discussion and collaboration seem  relatively equal in meaning these norms were used for comparison to this sample. collaborative.  At PI, 50% of the sample chose  At P2 the percentage was 45, and at P3, 33% of  the sample selected the collaborative mode.  These percentages  are markedly lower than Davis' principals' responses suggesting either a difference in definition or again, as was suggested earlier, a population difference since principals may not in fact be teachers.  64  Modes fir 9r 10r & 11 (institutional style) Mode 8:  Go to a Staff Meeting and Hear a Mini-Workshop  Presented by a Colleague Mode 8 is the first of the four modes comprising the institutional style and is ranked in eighth, seventh, and fifth positions respectively at PI, P2, and P3 (see Table 4). An average of 10.2% of the sample chose Mode 8 as their number one choice in any one of the ten motivational problems; 7.0% chose it as their second choice, and 4.1% chose it as their third choice.  These averages, however, obscure the  variability across motivational problems for this mode. Significant variation did occur in the teachers' preferences for the use of Mode 8. At Pi, Mode 8 was seen as a significantly poor choice for a way of learning about motivating students whose self-esteem is so low that they do not succeed (see Table 1). One further significance with Mode 8 was located at P3 where, out of all uses for Mode 8, using it to learn to increase homework and study was seen as the most positive (see Table 3). Mode 8 was added to this questionnaire because of the mandate of this study to report usable results back to teachers while adhering to the goal of the Southern Alberta Professional Development Consortium, that of "teachers teaching teachers."  Thus when I was looking for resources and  vehicles of communication already in the workplace, the staff meeting seemed a logical choice. 65  I wondered if teachers would  see the staff meeting as a really convenient place to put in some professional development or if they would view it as inappropriate. Mode 9;  Go to a District Workshop Designed and Taught bv  District Teachers Tying for fifth spot in overall ranking with Mode 2, Mode 9 is not that popular a overall (see Table 4). But a very surprising significant difference exists at P2 when one considers individual motivational problems (see Table 2). Mode 9 was significant (p_ < .01) as a preferred method of learning about how to interact appropriately with high risk students so as to motivate them.  This mode was not only  preferred most strongly for this problem (versus preference for use with other problems), but was also the most preferred mode (over all other modes) for dealing with interacting with high risk students.  In other words, this mode is most  preferred in two directions for this particular problem. Penland, 1979, (cited in Cross, 1981) says that 15% of adults prefer group-planned learning.  If Mode 9 is considered  most parallel to group-planned and the percentages are compared, the results are; at Pi, 4.4% of adults chose this, at P2, 11.6%, and at P3, 12.1% (see Tables 1, 2, & 3 respectively).  One of the connotations, however, about  group-planned learning, is that each person in the group participates in the planning.  Unfortunately, Penland did not  distinguish between an activity planned by one's peers and an activity planned with one's peers. 66  Therefore, any conclusions  from the comparison of these data with Penland's would be speculative at best. Thus the observation that the percentages are reasonably close is the only one possible. Mode 10: Go to a District Workshop Taught by an Expert Mode 10 was ranked in second position when the rankings for all three choice patterns (Pi, P2, and P3) were averaged (see Table 4). However, averages tend to obscure interesting differences. ranked 4th,  At PI this mode ranked second, at P2, this mode and at P3 this mode ranked 1st. When I was  entering the data I thought I might be seeing a tendency for teachers to choose other modes (and styles) for their first and second choices, but when they only had one choice left, they tended to choose a district workshop taught by an expert. The pattern of these rankings confirms this suspicion; for their first and second choices teachers tended to choose a collaborative style, principally by choosing Mode 7 (to share their experiences and listen to others with the same experience) or Mode 4 (do some reading and discuss it with their own staff) before they chose an institutional style with their third choices.  Calculation revealed 20.4% of teachers  or (N = 132) chose this mode as their first choice, 11.9% (N = 77) chose it as a second choice, and 17.9% (N = 117) of the teachers chose this Mode as their overall third choice. Individual-problem percentages ranged much wider,  from 9% (N  = 59) to 34% ( N= 221). Since this mode itself is highly favored by teachers as a third choice overall, there is likely a tendency for would-be 67  presenters to decide that this mode is only to be used when other modes have been dismissed or tried first. believe, would be misuse of these data.  This, I  What these data are  describing is a number of teachers who on average are stating their preference for this mode as being second or third after other modes.  When individual motivational problems are looked  at, however, the status or preference for this mode has significant variations (p_ < .05 and approaching .01). At PI, this mode is rated as the best choice for learning to interact with high risk students.  At P2, this mode is considered a  significantly poor choice for motivating students who have poor organizational skills.  And at P3, a district workshop  taught by an expert is seen as a significantly better choice for learning to motivate students who are disruptive in class. Tables 1, 2, and 3 display these results.  It would be  premature to decide that this mode is a relatively good one for every problem. Since this mode is so highly-favored by teachers, it is feasible to infer that any significances inside this mode might not merely be indicative of the popularity of the mode, but as well might be Indicating teachers' desire for professional development on the topics whose scores for this mode were significant in the positive direction.  With this  inference one would assume that the teachers of Zone 6 were requesting professional development on learning to Interact appropriately with high risk students.  68  At this point, some comparison of the results of responses to Mode 9 (a district workshop designed and taught by district teachers) and this mode (a district workshop designed and taught by an expert) provide some interesting discussion.  The only difference between Mode 9 (ranked  seventh at Pi) and Mode 10 (ranked second at PI) is who is teaching it. It is apparent that either teachers in Zone 6 do not consider other teachers in Zone 6 as experts or that they would not assume that they would be receiving expert information should teachers give the workshop.  Either of  these interpretations suggests that there may be some doubt among teachers in Zone 6 that they can provide satisfying professional development for themselves.  This postulate may  also be seen as supported upon comparing the results of Mode 5 with Mode 4. Here other teachers are much less preferred as collaborative partners.  This result, however, may also be a  convenience-motivated result where other teachers are less accessible than one's own staff. One further point of discussion, to add either fuel to a fire or a bit of confusion to what may be chaos, is to note the shifting in ranking patterns  when between these two  modes, 9 and 10 when teachers make their second choices. At P2, Mode 9 moves up two rankings and Mode 10 moves down two rankings making them about equal second choices.  To interpret  a bit, it is interesting that although teachers state they would first prefer a district workshop taught by an expert,  69  that, upon second reflection, they would choose one taught by district teachers almost as often.  Perhaps this merging in  ranking that occurs at P2 is similar to the choice-making phenomenon noted by Cross (1981) when she observed that 25-30% of "educated" adults will choose a lecture method as a preference for future learning, but when it comes time to actually choose the learning format, other methods are chosen. So, perhaps Modes 9 and 10 are closer in preference than the rankings suggest once we take into account that the Zone 6 teachers just may be so familiar with the district workshop, that they are choosing the familiarity aspect of Mode 10. For some additional comparison, Cross (1981) also states that "short-term conferences, institutes or workshops are the first choice of between 10 and 30% of potential learners" (p. 208).  Modes 8, 9 and 10 would most closely approximate the  group of modes in this definition.  Summing the percentages of  learners choosing these three modes, a total of 28.9% is arrived at.  With this total being within Cross' range it  gives support to the assumption that the results of this study may have some generalizability outside the study sample. Mode 11: Take a University Course Mode 11 was ranked 11th out of 11 at PI, P2, and P3, across all motivational problems.  Only an average of 2.3% (N  = 15) chose this as their first choice, 1.8%  (N = 12) chose  it as their second choice, and 3.0% (N = 19) chose it as their third choice.  70  Considering individual motivational problems, however, some significant differences did emerge,  significantly more  teachers chose this low-ranked mode for learning to interact with high risk students at both P2 and P3.  It was only on the  item regarding high risk students that this mode ever exceeded the preference for any other mode.  Table 1 shows the PI  ratings where Mode 5's popularity as an option is lower than taking a university course on this "students at high risk" item. Mode 11 is also the final mode in the set of four modes categorized as^institutional (Seaman, 1989). The Institutional Style Taking into account the sum of the rankings of the modes comprising this style, the institutional style is second to the collaborative style (see Table 8)  However, as with  individual modes, when individual motivational problems are considered there are definite circumstances where this style becomes very highly preferred.  Whether it becomes number one,  however, is a judgement call. Table 10 shows the patterns of significant differences in the three choice patterns (Pi, P2, and P3) for all 10 motivational problems for the institutional style.  Note the  distribution of the significant differences for problem number 6 (how to interact appropriately with high risk students). Notice that at Pi, P2, and P3, significant preferences show for using this mode with this problem.  71  Table 10 Significant preferences (+) or lack of (-) for the modes composing the institutional style.  INSTITUTIONAL MODES staff meet'g dist. wkshp (tchrs) dist.wkshp (expert) 9 10 8 MOTIVATIONAL PROBLEM self-esteem P1*disruptive students no task quality no goals poor organization high risk home problems avoid challenge won't work in class no homework/study P3*+  university 11  P3*+ P1*+ P2*P1*+  P2**+  P2*+, P3*+  P1*+  Note: PI - First Preference; P2 = Second Preference; P3 = Third Preference ; * p < .05  Also, by referring to Table 7 one can see that for the collaborative style, this same motivational problem also received three significance ratings at PI. Therefore, it would appear that the institutional style, at least for this one problem, (even though it is highly preferred) is still likely a second choice relative to the collaborative style (since the significant differences in the collaborative style are exclusively at Pi). Cross and Zusman (1979) state that classes and lectures are preferred by 20 - 35% of those with college educations, high incomes, and high status occupations.  If all  the modes in the institutional style are summed, since all Include the feature of a class and/or lecture the results can 72  be compared with Cross and Zusman's. At PI, 31.2% of teachers chose this style, at P2, 32,3% chose it, and at P3, 43,2% of teachers chose a lecture-based style.  These results show some  agreement with Cross and Zusman but also suggest the possibility that, in the case of teachers, the preference for the institutional style may be even higher than in the general adult population.  Knowles (1989) offers an interesting  perspective which may at least partially explain a slightly higher tendency for teachers to choose an institutional mode. He says that "[we must] realize that because of previous conditioning as dependent learners in their school experience, adults need initial help in learning to be self-directing" (p. 58).  When teachers are viewed as the group that has "gone to  school almost forever" one would assume that Knowles' speculation might apply even more intensely to teachers; thus explaining how teachers may be choosing a lecture method above the norms of a general adult population. Conclusion to Section 1 This section of the chapter has described a very large data base in an attempt to do several things.  One, to see if  the population of teachers tends to choose learning modes along the same lines as does the general adult population. Many similarities and several differences were discussed. Two, this section described how some of these learning modes were preferred for certain motivational problems, suggesting the presence of a Mode by Problem interaction.  73  Section 2: Sub-group interactions Specific sub-group interactions chosen for reporting are as follows: (1) Proficiency Level by Preferred Learning Style, (2) Proficiency Level by Location across all 10 motivational problems, (3) Proficiency Level by Sex; and (4) Study results indicating developmental trends. Tables 11, 12, and 13, respectively, show the results of Chi-square analysis for these Interactions.  Tables 14 and 15 show interactions  associated with developmental trends. Using Statview's program, it was possible to identify significant cells within a Chi-square without the square itself having an acceptable significance level. (Even though it is unusual for a cell to be significant without the square being significant).  Thus,  when the reader is interpreting any of these five tables, the reported "p." level is for the entire square.  If any of the  cells showed as significant these cells are significant at (EL < .05). Also, these five tables are the summary of only teachers' first choices (PI) in order to increase the power of the results. (Based on the assumption that the first choice is the strongest choice).  Teachers proficiency-level patterns at  P2 and P3 were not analyzed. Proficiency Level bv Preferred Learning Style This interaction is the last interaction reported in this study which directly addresses the main research question regarding teachers preferred modes of learning (for the purposes of professional development).  74  Table 11 shows the  Table 11 Chi-Square results for Proficiency Level X Preferred Learning Style across 10 motivational problems  self-esteem  Proficiency Level (PI) constant struggle occasional difficulty Chi square p= no cells signif.(X) p = .03  disruptive students no task quality no goals poor organization high risk home problems  p = .82 p = .21 p = .03 p-.11 p = .17 p = .09  avoid challenge  p = .004  won't work in class no homework/study  p = .05 p = .5  confident (-) collab (+)no clear preference  X X (+)no clear preference (-)no clear preference (-)independent (-)no clear preference (+)no clear preference (-)institutional (-)independent (+)independent (+)collaborative (-)collaborative (+)no clear preference (-)independent (+)independent X  Note: Cells of the Chi-square may be significant (p. < .05) even though t h e Chi-square is not. whole, is not.  Table  12  Chi-square results for Proficiency Level X Location across 10 motivational problems  self-esteem disruptive students  en  no task quality no goals poor organization high risk home problems avoid challenge won't work in class no homework/study  Chi square p= no cells signif. (X) p = .34 X p = .008 p p p p p p p p  = .21 = .91 = .80 = .44 = .54 = .52 = .51 = .45  Proficiency Level (P1) constant struggle occasional difficulty (+)URBAN (-)RURAL  X X X X X X X X  M s Cells of the Chi-square may be significant (p. < .05) even though the Chi-square, as a whole, is not.  confident  Table 13 Chi-scmare results for Proficiency I>v*1 X Sey *rross 10 motivational problems  MOTIVATIONAL PROBLEM self-esteem  Chi square p= no cells signif.(X) p = .08  disruptive students  p = .13  no task quality no goals poor organization high risk  p p p p  .43 .37 .27 .07  X X X  home problems avoid challenge won't work in class  p = .65 p = .51 p = .04  X X  no homework/study  p = .53  X  = = = =  PROFICIENCY LEVEL (PI confident constant struggle occasional difficulty (+)male (-)female (+)male (-)female  (+)male (-)female  (+)male (-)female  (-)male (+)female  Note: Cells of the Chi-square may be significant (p. < .05) even though the Chiwhole, is not.  (+) male ( - ) female  Table 14 Percentages of teachers in three years' categories r learning preference style across three choice episodes: Pl f PZ# St—IL3 LEARNING PREF. STYLES Independent  Choice Episodes PI P2 P3  YEARS' CATEGORIES 11-20YRS 0-10YRS 9.64 6.47 5.31 10.1 10.2 3.11  21 - 30 YRS 10.92 7.63 7.76  Collaborative  PI P2 P3  49.14 44.69 36.89  54.3 43.9 28.06  41.18 44.07 35.34  Institutional  PI P2 P3  23.28 22.57 34.67  23.35 24.75 35.2  29.41 22.88 31.9  No Clear Preference  P1 P2 P3  21.12 27.43 25.33  12.69 21.21 26.53  18.49 25.42 25  Table  15  Chi-square results for Proficiency Level X Three Categories of Years across 10 motivational problems  MOTIVATIONAL PROBLEM self-esteem disruptive students no task quality no goals poor organization high risk home problems avoid challenge won't work in class no homework/study  Chi square p= 0.002 0.004 0.01 0.02 0.95 0.29 0.07 0.33 0.5 0.39  no cells signif. (X)  YEARS' CATEGORIES 21-30 YRS 11-20 YRS 0 - 1 0 YRS c/s(+) c/s(-);conf(+) c/s(+);o/d(-) c/s(-) c/s(+);o/d(-) c/s(-) c/s(-);conf.(+)  X c/s(-) c/s(-);o/d(+) X X X  Note: Three proficiency levels are represented by: c/s = constant struggle; o/d = occasional difficulty; conf. = confident.  teachers' preferences across the styles for all 10 mot1vat1ona1 pr oblems. First, regarding the proficiency levels, it is interesting to note that no preferences for learning style compared significantly with any tendency to see a problem as a constant struggle.  In other words, having a preference for  learning independently, collaboratively or in an institutional manner had no predictive value as to whether a certain problem was going to be declared as a constant struggle. In contrast, consider the results under the "Confident" level of proficiency.  Not only are nine significant results  reported, but even though they are reported for separate motivational problems, there is consistency among them in terms of their direction of significance. puzzling interactions are among them.  Also, some quite  First in these is the  significance associated with the collaborative mode.  Recall  that the collaborative mode was established by these data as the most popular mode (and specifically for the self -esteem item).  Now consider that Table 11 is saying that those  choosing the collaborative mode for dealing with low self-esteem were least likely to report feeling confident about a certain motivational problem.  That the most popular  learning mode corresponds to a tendency not to declare confidence is a very puzzling result.  We do not know the  causal direction or even if there is one.  The only  explanation that comes to mind might be that, in reference to the self-esteem item, that when teachers were overwhelmingly  80  choosing a certain collaborative mode, that they were also expressing a need for professional development on this topic (versus just a preference for this mode should this topic be important). In this way the low confidence rating and the high preference can be understood.  Further down Table 11 exactly  the same circumstance arises with the item: "students who avoid challenge. Also in the "confident" column are positive correlations between having an independent style and a tendency to declare confidence.  However,  having no clear preference for learning  style was the most common choice for those who declared confidence.  To appreciate this result, the reader is asked to  recall the discrepancy between "no clear preference" and "collaborative" at Pi: only 17% of the sample at Pi showed no clear preference for learning style versus the 50% choosing collaborative (see Table 9). Turning to discussion of the final proficiency column (occasional difficulty) one finds that those reporting no clear preference tend not to report occasional difficulty. Also, those choosing an independent mode, also tend not to report occasional difficulty.  The only positive correlation  occurred with the collaborative mode, where, on one motivational problem, those reporting a collaborative mode tended more to declare occasional difficulty. As was previously mentioned, this is the end of the this chapter's discussion of learning mode and learning style. What follows are sub-sections which deal more peripherally  81  with the original research question in that they talk about level o£ proficiency: something seen as vital to include In order for teachers to be able to be presented with viable options for professional development. They are included for two reasons.  First, because of the desire to contribute to  norms on adults self-declared proficiency levels; something Cross (1981) noted as being chronically missing from needs assessments in adult education.  And second, they are included  because of the need to report usable results back to the teachers and schools used in this study.  Only by identifying  their self-declared proficiency levels will I be able to give the schools and teachers an accurate picture of to what degree they can be resources for each other (in-line with the Consortium's major goal of having teachers teaching teachers.) Proficiency Level by Location These results are reported with some trepidation since there was some apparent confusion over teachers' interpretations of the questionnaire item asking about their location.  This confusion was discovered when teachers from  the same school disagreed as to whether rural or urban applied to their situation.  With this in mind one significance is to  be reported from all the Chi-square analysis.  Table 12 shows  that in the case of motivating students who are disruptive in class urban teachers significantly more often report a constant struggle than do rural teachers.  This result seems  parallel with results reporting that urban schools experience  82  more behavior problems than do rural schools, but again this result is reported with hesitancy. Proficiency Level X Sex As indicated in Table 13, significantly more males expressed a constant struggle with motivating students with low self-esteem than did females.  This same sex difference  occurred when considering how to interact appropriately with students who are at high risk.  These results may mean that  the women responding to this questionnaire have some abilities that permit them more success than men for these two motivational problems, or it could mean that men are more likely to express that they have a constant struggle with things than women and/or women are less likely to express that they have a constant struggle. Females, significantly more often, expressed that they had occasional difficulty motivating students who will not work in class. At the "Confident" level of proficiency the three significant results were all in the same direction, perhaps suggesting a trend; males more often than females expressed confidence in motivating students who are disruptive in class, high risk to interact with, and who will not work while they are in class.  This result could mean that males  are more effective at strategies to motivate on these issues, or that males are merely more willing to attribute self-confidence to themselves than females.  83  Study results and developmental trends In chapter 2, a small section of the review of literature discussed how adults develop and I argued that stages of development could be seen as being very similar to the three styles of learning proposed by Seaman (1989); independent, collaborative, and institutional.  With this in mind I decided  to include an attempt to show a developmental trend in how adults made some of their choices in this study.  Having  omitted asking for the teachers' ages, the next best option was to use years teaching.  Because of the "looseness" of this  measurement of development I did not perform any significance tests on these data, but merely report it in Table 14 in the form of percentages of teachers in three age categories who report their preferences for learning style.  Reading across  the table one finds that the results are about the same for the three categories of years teaching.  There seems to be no  increase in use of the collaborative mode over years teaching; which would have been predicted by the adult development literature.  Nor does their seem to be any particular decrease  in the use of the institutional mode, another prediction which is logical considering the adult development literature.  In  fact, the largest change in percentage, occurs, ironically, in the "no clear preference" Pi row, where the 11-20 Yrs-teaching category chose a specific style much more often than they did not declare a style.  Thus, the attempt to show any  developmental trend most certainly failed.  84  A second attempt to show development (skill development) was conducted by comparing proficiency level to years teaching.  Table 15 shows some interesting, albeit information  which seems contradictory to a developmental hypotheses. It was assumed that as teachers spent more time in their professions that they naturally would tend to declare that they felt more confident; or, inversely, that as they got more experience they would tend to report less of a struggle with motivational problems.  Table 15 shows the opposite trend.  "Young" teachers (meaning those with 10 or less years experience) displayed a significant tendency over six of the ten motivational problems to not declare a constant struggle with these problems; and a positive tendency to declare confidence.  Whereas at the 21-30 year category, the older,  more experienced, teachers tended to report a constant struggle significantly more often, with no significant relationship with the "confidence" variable at all. These results suggest that other factors are operating.  85  CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Study Background The 3000 teachers in Zone 6, an educational boundary area in Southern Alberta (see Figures 1 and 2) have received most of their professional development through a lecture format. They also have not been active participants in the selection of topics to be included in the professional development. These problems and others were recognised at the Provincial Government level and funding was established for a three-year project "The Southern Alberta Professional Development Consortium."  This study was designed in response to a  Consortium need's survey where results stated that 88% of these teachers listed "Student Motivation" as their number one choice for professional development. The questionnaire designed in this study, and distributed to the same sample of teachers sought to identify how teachers would like to learn about the desired topic motivation."  "student  How the teachers would like to learn is referred  to as their "Preferred Learning Mode."  Several modes make up  a style, and there are three "Preferred Learning Styles" in this study: independent, collaborative, and institutional. These categories were selected from Seaman (1989) because of their inclusiveness of adults' learning patterns.  Teachers  were given 10 motivational problems and were asked to select, for each problem, their top three most-preferred modes of 86  learning.  What follows are the major conclusions drawn from  the results of teachers' choice patterns on these modes and within the three styles. Major Findings 1.  Teachers prefer to collaborate with each other rather  than go to a workshop when faced with most of the motivational topics included in this study.  Their favorite way to  collaborate, overall, was to listen to others with the same experience and share their own.  This mode of collaboration  (Mode 7) also contained a note with it indicating that there was "no research" as part of the option.  Unfortunately a  control item for this portion of Mode 7 was not Included. 2.  Teachers tend to choose an institutional way of  learning when they want to learn about students who are at high risk, and students who are bringing problems from home that interfere with learning.  The propensity to want an  expert and to go to a workshop is generally not expressed, however, until the collaborative options appear to be exhausted.  This approach does not become highly favored until  the teachers' third choices (P3). 3.  The independent style, where teachers were asked if  they wished to learn with no other people, was chosen by very few teachers (7%) (see Table 9) vs the 50% choosing collaborative.  However, of interest were two significant  positive correlations between the tendency to choose an independent style and the tendency to declare confidence on dealing with motivational problems (see Table 11). It seems 87  logical that these highly independent teachers would be valuable resources.  This study also contained a way to locate  these teachers and request their participation without revealing their identities. 4.  The considerable variation in how teachers want to  learn about individual motivational problems was a surprise. Based on the adult learning literature, it was predicted that once teachers had eliminated motivational problems that did not apply, that their choices of mode would be quite consistent across motivational problems. the case.  This was far from  A typical questionnaire had numbers "all over the  place"; there was very little consistency from one question to another (in terms of mode).  However, style consistency was  demonstrated suggesting that a significant number prefer to learn using some general method, but that certain problems bring up the need for refined technique.  This variation is  referred to throughout the thesis as the Mode by Problem Interaction postulate. And, although there are quite a few incidences where it looks like it Is true, it is way beyond the parameters of this study to do anything but interpret and speculate. 5.  Further research would be fascinating.  Despite teachers' preference for collaborative  learning generally, there were indications that teachers have some definite boundaries on who they want to collaborate with. The difference between their positive responses to working with their own staffs and their lack of preference for working with another staff were some of the largest differences  88  between closely-related modes in the study (Modes 4 and 5). Also, the difference in response to Mode 9 (a district workshop taught by district teachers) and Mode 10 (a district workshop taught by an expert) showed quite a remarkable lack of preference for being taught by fellow teachers. This last result, although it reflects on their collaborative boundaries, also gives rise to come concerns about teachers' opinions of each other's competence; or perhaps their opinions about whether another teacher has valuable enough experience to warrant their time. Of all issues raised in this thesis, this one is the most pertinent to the "half" of this project that has its roots in the schools of this study.  A major goal of the Consortium is  to have these teachers teaching each other. But, what if there exists significant deprecation of each others' experience?  What if a series of beliefs exist in  teachers that support their remaining isolated in their classrooms; beliefs about how "no one else has this same problem so how could they help me?"  It is well-accepted that  school change has to occur at the level of the individual. Were I to take this study one more step it would be to investigate teacher beliefs about other teachers' abilities to be of assistance, as well as the actual change mechanisms that staffs could use to change beliefs should there be a necessity. 6.  Teachers choices for how best to deal with a  motivational problem in a professional development setting  89  yielded percentages which enabled comparison to the adult learning literature.  The results are quite parallel for  teachers' and adults* preferences for learning in collaboration.  Teachers, however, tend to express more of a  desire for an institutional approach (where someone else is in charge of the overall objectives and planning) than do the adult samples cited.  Knowles' (1989) earlier comment  maintaining that teachers are so trained in being dependent learners that they are going to need help to initiate seems germane here.  Perhaps teachers would like to be more involved  in initiating but need some help in getting out of the role as dependent learner.  Yarger, (1980, p. 179) in a large  study of inservice preferences, emphatically states that "teachers do not want complete control over inservice education."  However, in terms of increasing their  participation, Yarger found that tangible rewards were less of an incentive than was thought.  Participation in the planning  served as a better motivator, just like Cross' (1981) adult sample persevered 94% of the time because of their having chosen the topic. 7.  Teachers who tended to have no clear preference for a  preferred learning style were the teachers who most often declared confidence in their abilities to handle certain motivational problems.  In other words, the lack of learning  style correlated most highly with being confident.  Does  having "no clear preference" mean that the teachers are more flexible?  And does this flexibility translate somehow into  90  greater confidence (and therefore) greater ability to motivate?  Another call for further research. Recommendation for Application  The hope is that would-be planners use these results to help them be responsive to teachers wants.  To do this  effectively the "panacea trap" must be avoided. trap works this way.  The panacea  When a significant result is found which  translates easily into practice, it is applied to all. Take for example the result that 23.9% of the sample chose Mode 7 as their #1 choice. significant.  Out of eleven modes that is quite  A panacea-trapped facilitator would use this  technique because it is the best "bet" for reaching the most teachers.  This makes just as much sense as surveying one's  dinner guests, finding out that 23.9 % like chicken, and therefore serving chicken because it has the highest percentage. A far wiser use of the result that 23.9% chose Mode 7 is to include activities in any professional development event where teachers get an opportunity to benefit from each others' experience.  Thus, viewing the mode preferences of this study  as if they are portions of a whole professional development event, will more likely ensure that individuals having different preferences for learning will find an approach that fits their preferences, and will not be subjected to "what the average wants."  91  Further Research Questions 1.  Do teachers hold beliefs that other teachers are good  sources of information that would typically be considered professional development? 2.  What activities can be conducted with teachers to help  them become initiators in their own professional development? 3. What activities with prospective or current leaders of professional development will be most effective in helping them to learn to be responsive to teachers (i.e. give up the institutional approach except in response to teachers' request for it)?  Final Comments That teachers have been receiving institutional expert-lead professional development is not a surprise when one looks at the literature on staff training. the gap in the research literature is this:  The essence of  attempts to  define how to deliver professional development have been using training and aspects of training as the independent variables and student achievement as the dependent variable all in the interests of improving student achievement. The by-pass of the actual teacher in the design of the professional development, as found in Zone 6, is reflected in the literature.  Virtually all attempts in the literature in  regard to training-to-create-student-achievement are 92  institutional in nature; wanting to find that perfect "teaching strategy." The field of teacher education needs to go through the same type of "overhaul" that the field of student education did when Plaget began talking about child development.  It  needs the same type of renovation that Vygotsky speaks of when he wants us to measure intelligence not in isolation but in concert with each other - In collaboration with each other. Just like Piaget points us to the child: Judy-Arin Krupp, president of Adult Development and Learning in Manchester, CT points us to the teacher (Sparks, 1991). She puts it this way. She says that she gets lots of teachers/administrators requesting self-esteem workshops for teaching students self-esteem.  And she always refuses, saying that she will be  glad to teach the teachers how to have higher self-esteem, but that she cannot give them a workshop on raising student self-esteem, because they cannot give away what they do not have. These types of changes are qualitatively different in nature from finding a new way to teach something. They require a "new" type of relationship between the person guiding the structure of the experience and the person participating in absorbing the content.  The person guiding is  no longer necessarily the content expert, but is more skilled In process. And the receiver needs to be different too.  93  We do not merely have an addition problem in professional development for teachers, in that we need to learn what- to add: we have a subtraction problem as well. Teachers need to lose their "pigeon-holed" view of what professional development is. Remember Knowles (1989) comment about adults being so conditioned as dependent learners that they have to be helped to get out of the rut? To reiterate something vitally important: to only attend to teaching former content experts process skills would be making the same mistake again.  If we only do this, then the  former content experts become present process experts and we still have the experts in one place and the teachers expecting to be passive in the other.  We must, if we are going to  succeed in maximizing the impact of professional development, address the gap that teachers have been telling us about for years. 1.  If we are in leadership roles in education we must  hear what teachers are saying about collaboration. 2.  We must be responsible around the messages of the  research and begin to see that it is not a linear relationship between a needs assessment and implementation of professional development. 3.  On a very practical level, we must stop our headlong  panic to get a presentation done - a panic which glues us to content and an institutional approach - and be responsible enough to give ourselves enough time to learn what the  94  literature is saying about how to respect the needs and abilities of adults in our educational care. 4.  And finally we must learn from the errors we have  made in teaching children down through the centuries. they want to learn; we know what over-control does.  We know  We know  they have different experiences and levels of expertise and that a vital component in having them bloom is using that experience and expertise to connect them to what is new to them. Let us hope we will be responsible to teachers with the knowledge we now have.  95  REFERENCES Abacus Concepts (1987). Statvlew SE + Graphics,. Abacus Concepts, Inc., Berkeley, CA. Arlin, P.K. (1975). Cognitive development in adulthood: a fifth stage? Developmental Psychology, 11(5), 602-606. Bennett, C.K. (1991). Staff development in light of Maslow's  theory. Journal of Staff Development. 12.(4), 10-14. Corrigan, D. (1979). Adult learning and its implications for inservice. In D. Hopkins (Ed.). Inservice Training  educational developmentT London.  croomheim;  112- 137  Corwin, R.G. and Edelfelt, R.A. (1977). Perspectives on organizations. Washington,D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Cross, K.P. (1981). Adults as learners: Increasing participation and facilitating learning. Jossey-Bass. Cross, K.P. & Zusman, A. (1979). The needs of nntradltlonal learners and the response of nontraditional programs. In C.B. Stalford (Ed.)An evaluative look at nontraditional postsecondary education^. Washington,D.C., National Institute of Education.  Davis, W . J . (1976). inservice staff development programs for school principals: Needs assessments and inservice programs. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 119 304) Johnstone, J.W., & Rivera, R.J. (1965). Volunteers of learning. Chicago: Aldine. Joyce, B., and Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservice training: The messages of research. Educational Leadership, 37(5), 379-385.  Joyce,B., & showers, B . (1988). student achievement through staff development. Longman, N.Y. Harris, L. A., & Smith, S. L. (1981). Individualizing Staff Development: Understanding Student Motivation: Management Guide for a Self-Instructional Module. A project supported by The California Community College Fund for the Improvement of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 211 531) Howey, K. R. & Gardner,  W. E. (1983). The education of 96  teachers: A look ahead. N.Y. Longman Knowles, M.S. (1989). The making of an adult educator. Jossey-Bass. Knox, A.D. (1977). Adult development and learning: A handbook on individual growth and competance in the adult years for education and helping professions. Jossey-Bass. Knox, A.D. (1986) Helping adults learn. Jossey-Bass. Neil, R. (1988). Inservice teacher education: Five common causes of failure. Action in Teacher Education,. 7_, 49-55. Peat, D., & Mulcahy, R.F. (1990). Effective staff development principles. The Canadian School Executive. May, pp 3-7 Seaman, D.F. (1989). Elective strategies for teaching adults. Merrill. Sparks, D. (1991). Honoring the individual within staff development: An interview with Judy-Arin Krupp. Journal of Staff Development, 12(4), 2-5. Stipek, D.J. (1988). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice. Prentice-Hall. Tough, A. (1971). The adult's learning projects: A fresh approach to theory and practice in adult learning. (2nd Edition). Ontarion Institute for Studies in Education. Tough, A. (1978). Major learning efforts: Recent future directions. In The Adult learner: Current issues in higher education. Wash.,D.C, American Association for Higher Education. Tough, A. (1979). Choosing to learn. In G. M. Healy and W. L. Ziegler (Eds.) The learning stance: Essays in celebration of human learning. Wash., D.C. National Institute of Education. Tough, A. (1989). Teaching about potential futures. Futures, 21(2), 222-224. Wlodkowski, R.J. (1991). Enhancing adult motivation to learn. Jossey-Bass Yarger, S.J., Howey, K.R., & Joyce, B.R. (1980). Inservice teacher education. Palo Alto: Booksend Laboratories. 97  APPENDICES  98  APPENDIX A: MAILINGS  1. QUESTIONNAIRE 2. DIRECTIONS 3. COVER LETTER  99  ;«teName  2.2<2*ojL.0_2-^$yi'o  'Total years teaching Present level(s): High, Jr. High, Elem., ECS (where you spend the majority of your time)  Rural/urban.. Gender  Years at this level Personal Level of Proficiency MOTIVATIONAL PROBLEM ffcM: Chock ( • ) yojg laval ol proficiency with UM motivational profaiam. Choow youi first, sacond, * ihkd ptefarancaa (or how you'd Kfct lo loawi mora (Uw prafarrad moda). EjUfDDlfi-'  This is not an issue m  Self Only 1 - trasrt-a^conttant struggM ' - I have occH«on*i.(Mlk:urty 3 . I lacl confidant wrtrHhig  I b i s is not Exercising regularly  <ir\ issue f l  This is not  I . Motivating students who have such low an issue ("1 self-esteem that they don't succeed.  Hvs is not an issue Ci  2. Motivating students who are disruptive.  This is not 3. Mouvatng students who don't care about an issue d the task/ quality of the work they da  Th's is not am issue f |  4. Motivating students who lack goats: could be for their own achievement or for their futures.  This is not tissue f l  5. Motivating students who have poor organizational skes: eg. lose things; procrastinate; lack time management  Tjiis is not an issue f l  C. The motivational problem of how to interact appropriately with high risk students.  1his is not an issue f l  Preferred Mode of Learning  7. The motivational problem ol what to do n order to best deal with lhe home I problems thai we see as conlrfcutxig to academic diflkuliies  /DO  (Choose one)  Read & discuss with ' expert* relative or friend  Rea will star  cuss Read 4<*scuss 'listen toother's Share; your M i to a si aff «Mth other experiences with experiences & •reeling & hear a staff(s) same problem ksten to others mini w a k shop (No research tfto nave same oiesentfdbya component) experience coleaguii (No R< March)  se flip over  for final questions  Go to a fount <io lo a (Tsim| I Take a workshop »«kihop laugi.J Uiiveis.fy designed & byan-e«p„r Course taught by district leathers  III  & discuss own  Listen to other's experiences with same problem (No research component)  Snare your experiences A tsten to others who have same experience  So to a staff meeting A hear a mini-workshop presented by a coleague  (Maftwaarch)  specific to your school and ping the teachers in Zone 6, your  Take a Go to a district Go to a district workshop taughl Unrversn y workshop by an'expert*. Courae designed A taught by district teachers  COMMON MOTJVAIIONAL PEQflUM is  Fine Chat* ( • ) K91C iaval of proficiency | «ttfi * » motivational profctwn 1 Tai aia* CIMOM your first, sacon*. ft trCrd prafaroncas lor how yot/d Mo to team mora (tha prararrarf mods .  Tfc» i\ 4 * not ii$'i« n  8. Motivating students who avoid chafe ige.  •v not i^« n  9. Motivating students who don't word in class.  TJMTTS  \ not  Preferred Mode of Learning  Personal Level of Proficiency 1 - this h a conatant ttruggkt ? - 1 hava occasional dtffinal) 3 - i faal confidant with Ma  1  2  3 Reflect ^s^"^  i  Reflect^" Research  Reflect^^-^^^  11. ^^"^  >HOt  Research  Research  ^ ^ ^  i^not  ^s^  Reflect ^ ^ " ^ ^^"^  10. Motivating students to do school work at home. (Homework and/or study).  Read A discuss with 'expert' relative or friend  Self Only (Choose one)  Research Reflect^  12. ^^"^  Research  You will receive results of tl your division. Thank you for division and your school.  DIRECTIONS FOR THIS QUESTIONNAIRE First, In front of the code number, please put a secret code name for yourself, something you will remember but no one else will recognize as you .* Second, please fill In the "statistics" at the top.(Total years teaching, etc.) Third, here are the directions for filling In the questionnaire: • there are 10 questions (with 2 optlonlonal spaces at the end) • you either omit the question "with the X in the box" or do the same four things to each question ' HERB'S T H E EXAMPLE 1. Please look where it says: "Exercising regularly". A check mark Is required under "Personal Level of Proficiency". In this category the author of the questionnaire "confessed" that she has a "1": a constant difficulty with this motivational problem.  "  2. Looking farther to the right, you'll see "Preferred Mode of Learning". Take a few moments to read the options beginning with. "Self Only" and ending with "Take a University Course." Now, notice the numbers: "1". "2", and "3" written in the boxes. Notice now that the number "1" indicates that she'd prefer to learn to exercise regularly by Sharing her experiences and listening to others who have the same experience.", etc. Now, notice number 2: number "2" indicates that her second choice to learn would be "Self Only", and that she'd prefer to "Read and apply research by myself' rather than "Reflect on own experience". And finally the number "3" indicates that her third choice would be "Go to a workshop taught by an expert". 3 . If the issue is unimportant, i.e. you don't see the motivational problem as an issue to you in your classrooms, place an X in the box O »nd do not do the rest of the Item. V ;  /  The ten motivational options Included below the example were collected from talking to teachers In your Zone. Although these options were selected as important, the list is not meant to be all-inclusive. TWO BLANK OPTIONS APPEAR AT THE END OF YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE. PLEASE FILL THEM IN IF ANY IMPORTANT ADDITIONAL OPTIONS OCCUR TO YOU and complete them as you would the 10 prepared options. Thank you for your time. We certainly hope the results of this when returned to you are helpful In promoting your successful participation in your own professional development. Sincerely.  Lorraine Leishman Researcher  Earle Warnica Executive Director. SAPDC  * For example, let's say your school wanted to Invite teachers from your area to conduct or attend a seminar on a certain motivational problem. With the help of the code names, those highly proficient or who stated that they had constant difficultly could be contacted and Invited to participate.  PLEASE MAIL THIS QUESTIONNAIRE BACK TO SAPDC IN THE ENVELOPE SUPPLIED NO LATER THAN  FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1992 lot  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF B R I T I S H  COLUMBIA  To the teachers of Zone 6: What follows is a questionnaire which, if you decide to complete it, will take approximately 10 minutes of your time. Your narticlpatton here, as with anv study undertaken In this Zone, is optional. Should you decide to complete this questionnaire, even though your school's consent was given by your superintendent, your personal consent is assumed. The purpose of this study is to help the teachers in Zone 6 with their professional development in two ways: (1) by aiding them in selecting professional development topics on student motivation ..ind (2) by assisting them in discovering their school-wide and jurisdiction-wide preferences for how they'd like that professional development delivered I.e. if they'd like to be more collaborative, or if they want the lecture method. You will receive a summary of your own school's preferences, your jurisdiction's (division, county etc.) results, and the average results across Zone 6. However, other than your superintendent and other staff members in your own school, no one will receive the results of your school. Further, you are asked for a CODE-name; your own name remaining anonymous. The data will be collected and analyzed by the researcher, Lorraine Leishman, who will also be using the results to complete an M.A. thesis in Educational Psychology and Special Education through the University of British Columbia. For the purposes of the M.A. all school-identifying and lurisdlctlon-ldentlfving information will l?e removed. You are cordially invited to contact her advisor, Dr. David Whittaker at 604-822-5351 or the researcher herself at 403-320-7573 in order to have any concerns or questions answered. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,  _ x^fti.-,  A ;.>;/? ^^;  Lorraine Leishman (B.Ed.)  10A  APPENDIX B: BACKGROUND INFORMATION  1. PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN: SOUTHERN ALBERTA PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONSORTIUM  103  PHASE I ACTION PLAN Approved by SAP DC. Board of Directors, June 17, 1 99 1.  The recommendations below are based on the needs assessment which was a multi-faceted process consisting of: 1. 2. 3.  visits by Executive Director, input via survey, from superintendents, principals, ATA groups, U of L, LRO, etc. "focus group" meetings of ATA members in 4 locations across Zone 6. quantitative analysis of needs assessment instrument (approximately 1 ,400 responses received).  The needs assessment identified action required in these areas: A. B. C.  General Interest Topics, Curriculum Implementation Topics, and, Other Considerations and Approaches.  It is recommended that the topics listed in Categories A, B, and C serve as Phase I Action Plan for the S.A.PD.C. and that a Phase II plan be developed based on a more complete needs assessment data analysis. A.  General Interest Topics 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1 0.  B.  Student Motivation Student Evaluation Teaching Thinking Skills Class Management/Discipline Behavioral Disorders Job Stress/Teacher Stress Learning and Teaching Styles Identifying Learning Disabilities Cooperative Learning Integration of Special Education Students  Curriculum Implementation Topics Elementary 1. 2. 3.  4.  Elementary Program Continuity Elementary Language Learning Elementary Math • Manipulatives • Diagnostic Program Curricular Applications of Computers lOf  APPENDIX C: MOTIVATIONAL PILOT DOCUMENTS 1. COVER LETTER 2. TASK NUMBER ONE 3. TASK NUMBER TWO 4. RESPONSE SHEET FOR TASK TWO  105  Dear Fellow Teachers, This is a request for you to spend approximately 10 minutes to help me with a component of the research on my master's program. This component was designed with the specific purpose of assisting you, your staff and other teachers in your zone with your professional development in student motivation. Your school will receive a summary of what its collective priorities are. This process began over a year ago when the Professional Development Consortium identified that 88% of teachers in Zone 6 wanted professional development on student motivation. This current request is a further refinement of that needs assessment on the topic of Student Motivation. These are the tasks I have chosen to help you focus on what you may want for professional development on "Student Motivation." Although you are welcome to do both tasks, YOUR DOING ONE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR MY PURPOSES. Thanks in advance for your help on my program, and I sincerely hope that my doing this project is of assistance to you  /CrP^?. Lorraine Leishman  (formerly Dingwell)  I Ob  TASK NUMBER ONE: Think of a particular student [or perhaps a composite] who epitomizes the student that you just can't seem to motivate to achieve. You are encouraged to describe your problems in motivating this student in any way that seems the most important to you. Here are some sample approaches: For some teachers it's clearly behavioral: "She doesn't do her homework." For some teachers it's clearly an interrelationship "thing": "Every time I approach his desk this "thing" happens and by the time I get there I know that he's braced himself so much that nothing I say will make a difference." For some teachers it's primarily an attitude "thing": "She's so sure she'll fail that she hardly puts in any effort, and when she does all she does is memorize." PLEASE WRITE DOWN ALL THAT COMES TO MIND. (NOTE: no penalties for lack of good paragraph construction..) PLEASE ALSO NOTE: A student with motivational problems may have poor marks, average marks or quite good marks and still be underachieving. Please focus on the type of student that you as an educator consider as very important for the focus of professional development.  107  TASK NUMBER TWO is to read the list below, add what you want to add, and then CHOOSE YOUR TOP TEN PRIORITIES for what you believe needs attention in future professional development. Please choose your top ten from your own and these 52 teacher-generated responses to this question: What Motivational problems need to be approached in a professional development activity? JUST WRITE THE NUMBER OF THE OPTIONS THAT ARE YOUR TOP IN THE TEN BOXES ON THE FACING PAGE. STUDENTS WHO: 1. lack goals 2. lack a hoae environment 3. lack skills 4. have low self-esteea 5. don't have homework 6. can't stay on task 7. don't care about the task 8. are not personally responsible 9. are always late 10. are ready to go 15 minutes before end of class 11. lack of quality in work 12. non-responsive to reasonable authority 13. bitch and whine 14. lie 15. use excuses 16. are on drugs 17. tre tired and/or hungry 18. who have parents who are supportive of 1-1B. 19. entertain their peers 20. expect to be entertained 21. lack respect for property, self, others.etc. 22. procrastinate 23. avoid challenge 24. blame 25. refuse to ask for help 26. are victims - "poor me* attitude 27. ire cheaters 28. don't work in class 29. who lack study skills 30. pay attention to relative performance: how well other are doing rather than attention to improvement. 31. never bring materials 32. never want to do homework 33. see no need to study: "What is this for?" 34. have sporadic attendance 35. aren't interested in anything ,»•  36. don't pay attention 37. never give themselves credit no matter how well they do 38. don't see education as important 39. are disruptive 40. have poor listening skills 41. have poor organizational skills (lose and can't find) 42. use excuses 43. are constantly late 44. are self-centered 45. respond negatively to any type of change 46. procrastinate 47. want to be done first 48. pass assignments but fail tests 49. refuse to ask for help 50. are too dependent 51. have a short fuse 52. teacher strategy needed for P.O. : interactive skills for teachers with high risk students: 'How can we expect them to interact with us appropriately if we aren't sure we're interacting with them appropriately?. 53. 54. 55. ETC.  Please select your top 10 choices for professional development topics from the list - MERELY WRITE THE NUMBER OF THE TOPIC BESIDE THE NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 10.  1-  I  I  2.  I  I  3.  I  I  4.  |  |  5.  I  1  6.  I  I  7.  1  I  s.  •  9.  •  IQ.  n  Thank you very much for participating in refining the professional development topics on Student Motivation. Thank you, as well, for your assistance on my Master's project.  /oS  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items