Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Effects of pre-testing commercial pesticide applicators prior to engaging in a short adult education… Hlatky, Robert M. 1973

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973_A8 H53_8.pdf [ 4.23MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101495.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101495-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101495-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101495-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101495-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101495-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101495-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101495-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101495.ris

Full Text

THE  EFFECTS OF PRE-TESTING COMMERCIAL PESTICIDE APPLICATORS PRIOR TO ENGAGING IN A SHORT ADULT EDUCATION ACTIVITY by ROBERT M. HLATKY  B.Sc.(Agr.) U n i v e r s i t y  of B r i t i s h  Columbia, May 1969  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in  the F a c u l t y of Education  We a c c e p t required  this  t h e s i s as conforming  t o the  standard  THE  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October,  1973  In p r e s e n t i n g an  this thesis  advanced degree at  the  Library  I further for  shall  by  his  of  this thesis  written  p u r p o s e s may  be  for f i n a n c i a l gain  Adult  Education  18,1973.  Columbia  shall  the  requirements  Columbia,  for reference  extensive  g r a n t e d by  permission.  Sept.  British  the  I t i s understood  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada  Date  University•of  permission for  representatives.  Department of  f u l f i l m e n t of  make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e  agree that  scholarly  the  in partial  that  not  and  copying of Head o f my  be  I agree  that  study.  this  thesis  Department  copying or  for  or  publication  allowed without  my  ABSTRACT  The purposes  o f t h i s study were t o determine  the r e l a t i o n s h i p s  of p a r t i c i p a n t s o c i o - e c o n o m i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o t h e p o s t - t e s t , vestigate  to i n -  the e f f e c t s of p r e - t e s t i n g i n a short-term adult education  programme, and t o a s s e s s the i n f l u e n c e o f p r e - c o u r s e u t i l i z a t i o n o f the handbooks on p r e - t e s t and p o s t - t e s t  scores.  The study was c a r r i e d out on a group  o f 324 commercial  c i d e a p p l i c a t o r s who a t t e n d e d 16 i n d i v i d u a l s h o r t  courses  pesti-  conducted  i n 1972 by the B r i t i s h Columbia Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e as a means of u p g r a d i n g t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s ' knowledge o f t h e s a f e and p r o p e r uses o f pesticides.  The d e s i g n used was a m o d i f i c a t i o n  c o n t r o l group  o f the p r e - t e s t / p o s t - t e s t  type w i t h 135 i n d i v i d u a l s a s s i g n e d t o the treatment  con-  d i t i o n and 189 a s s i g n e d t o t h e c o n t r o l . Three hypotheses were t e s t e d i n t h e s t u d y . p r i m a r y concern attempted cipants  significantly  The h y p o t h e s i s o f  t o determine whether p r e - t e s t i n g the p a r t i -  improved  t h e i r post-test scores.  A second hypo-  t h e s i s was t e s t e d t o determine whether a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between the s o c i o - e c o n o m i c v a r i a b l e s and t h e p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s . was t e s t e d  A f i n a l hypothesis  t o determine whether the i n t e n s i t y o f p r e - c o u r s e handbook  u t i l i z a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u e n c e d p r e - t e s t and p o s t - t e s t mean  scores.  No d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t due t o s i g n i f i c a n t t r e a t m e n t - c o n t r o i d i f f e r e n c e s were observed i n t h e v a r i a b l e s : cipants, proportion  area of o r i g i n of p a r t i -  o f s a l a r y earned from p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n , p r e v i o u s  ii  iii attendance at BCDA sponsored short courses, previous attendance at r e lated, non-BCDA short courses, and number of p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n c e r t i f i c a t e s held.  The control group were of s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher age, had  a longer period of residence i n Canada, and had more experience as p e s t i cide applicators than the treatment group.  The e f f e c t s of each of these  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s upon the post-test was n e g l i g i b l e because of t h e i r low i n d i v i d u a l c o r r e l a t i o n with the post-test scores.  The three variables;  previous attendance at BCDA sponsored short courses, previous attendance at related non-BCDA short courses, and number of p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n c e r t i f i c a t e s held, exhibited a s i g n i f i c a n t l y high degree of mutual i n t e r correlation.  This indicated the variables were measuring a common factor  such as a need to p a r t i c i p a t e . Both educational fluenced  l e v e l and pre-test scores s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n -  the post-test mean score although the influence of the l a t t e r  was d e f i n i t e l y more pronounced. The i n t e n s i t y of handbook u t i l i z a t i o n p o s i t i v e l y influenced  only  the post-test mean score of those p a r t i c i p a n t s who received no pre-test. This indicated the pre-test was a better means of improving the posttest mean score than pre-course d i s t r i b u t i o n of the handbooks.  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  For t h e i r guidance, c r i t i c i s m , and encouragement I am indebted to the members of my thesis committee,  Dr. J . E. Thornton, Dr. H. R„  MacCarthy, Dr. G. J . Dickinson, and Dr. Coolie Verner. I would l i k e to thank Mr. Chet Nielson and Mr. B. F. Vance f o r granting me permission to conduct this study at the series of p e s t i c i d e applicators' short courses conducted by t h e i r  iv  department.  TABLE OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  •  «  e  «  »  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS JLXST OF TABLES  B  *  o  o  9  0  t  >  o  i  >  a  o  (  >  o  o  o  «  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . «  o  LIST OF FIGURES  «  «  o  «  «  o  a  ©  <  »  o  '  »  «  <  »  «  o  9  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Legislation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  H i s t o r y o f t h e B r i t i s h Columbia Department A g r i c u l t u r e ' s S h o r t Courses . . . . . . Purpose o f t h e Study  . . . . . . . . . . .  Hypotheses  . . . . . . . . . .  LITERATURE REVIEW  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Evaluation i n Adult Education A c t i v i t i e s Design of E v a l u a t i o n Studies Effects S lJUlUU3.iry Plan  of Pre-testing •  •  o  a  c  o f t h e Study  REFERENCES  •  e  >  »  .  . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . .  e  o  o  a  o  a  o  v  e  o  a  *  « . » • . « *  o  o  »  *  o  o  (  »  o  »  »  o  »  i  >  CHAPTER I I METHODOLOGY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Introduction Hypotheses  . . . . . . . . . . .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  o  .  .  .  .  Instruments Used . .  ©  «  ©  ©  Groups Under Study . D e s i g n o f the Study Data C o l l e c t i o n  . .  Analysis  o f Data  . .  Summary  . . .  O  REFERENCES  . . .  O  9  O  O  a© ©  O  a©oa• ©  CHAPTER I I I SOCIO-ECONOMIC VARIABLES Introduction Age  9  0  0  0  . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . a  ao  a• •  Length o f R e s i d e n c e i n Canada  •  O  9  • •  Ct  Area of O r i g i n of P a r t i c i p a n t s Educational Proportion  Level  . .  of Salary  o« a o a © •  Earned from P e s t i c i d e  Application  Y e a r s o f E x p e r i e n c e as a P e s t i c i d e A p p l i c a t o r Employment S t a t u s  . .  . . . . •  «a»•• ©  ©  •  Attendance o f R e l a t e d S h o r t Courses and Number o f P e s t i c i d e A p p l i c a t i o n C e r t i f i c a t e s Held . . . . Summary  ..o.................^  CHAPTER IV PRE-TESTING AND Introduction  HANDBOOK UTILIZATION ..  . . . . . . . .  a© .  9  a*• •  R a t i o n a l e f o r Combining Groups o f S i m i l a r E x p e r i m e n t a l Conditions . . . . s s a a o o © *  9  vii Page Effects of Handbook U t i l i z a t i o n  48  Source of and P a r t i c i p a n t Use of Pre-course Handbooks Pre-test Scores  . . . 49  ............  51  C e r t i f i c a t i o n Examination  . 52  Post-test  . . . . . .  Analysis of the Means  55  Regression Analyses Separation Summary  54  . . . . . .  60  of Pre-test and Educational Level E f f e c t s . . . .  6S  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  .  66  . . . . . .  69  CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . Introduction  69  Summary  69  Conclusions  . . . . . . . .  Recommendations  . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . .  2  7  ?4  BIBLIOGRAPHY LITERATURE CITED  .  . . . . . .  7 7  . . . . .  7 9  RELATED LITERATURE APPENDIX 1 - Pre-test Instrument .  8  0  APPENDIX 2 - Variable Means, Sample Sizes, and Results of t-tests by Treatment Condition  84  APPENDIX 3 - Correlation Matrix  85  APPENDIX 4 - Analysis of Variance of Pre-test and Post-test Scores of the 3 Landscape Treatment Courses  86  APPENDIX 5 - A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f P o s t - t e s t Scores o f t h e 3 C o n t r o l Courses o f the N o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l and Nonf o r e s t r y Vegetation Control Topic . APPENDIX 6 - A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e Treatment Groups  o f P r e - t e s t Scores o f t h e 6  LIST OF TABLES  Schedule of Short Courses and Treatments Given to P a r t i c i p a n t s , 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Participants By Length of Residence i n Canada . . . . . . . . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Participants By AjT63. Of OlT l^XXX o a o o a o a o o o o v a  a e o  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Participants By Portion of Income Obtained From the Application  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Participants By Years of Experience  .  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Participants By F u l l or Part-time Employment Status . . . . . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Participants By Employment Status . . . . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Participants By Previous BCDA Course Attendance  ..  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Participants By Previous Attendance at Related Non-BCDA Sponsored Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Participants By Previous C e r t i f i c a t e s Held . . . . . Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients of Three Measures of P a r t i c i p a t i o n . . . . . . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Participants By Source of Pre-course Handbooks . . . . . . . . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Participants By Pre-course Handbook Use . . . .  .  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Participants i n the Treatment Condition By Pre-test Scores . . . .  ix  X  Table 15  16  17  18  Page Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Participants C e r t i f i c a t i o n Scores  By  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Participants Post-test Score .  By  53  Means, Standard Deviations, Sample Sizes and Correlated t - t e s t Results of Pre-test and Post-test Data for Treatment Group Sample Size, Standard Deviations, Means and t test Results Obtained from Pre-test and Posttest Scores from Treatment and Control Groups of Each Course Topic  19  Results  20  Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t s for Variables Found to be S i g n i f i c a n t Contributors to Post-test Variance  21  of Regression Analyses  Correlation Coefficients of Selected Variables  56  56  5 8  ^  ^ ^5  LIST OF FIGURES  Figure  Page  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Participants By A^6  o  a  ©  ©  a  ©  f  t  o  a  o  e  «  o  o  ©  ©  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Participants Educational Level . . . . . .  xi  ©  ©  ^ ©  By .  ©  ©  «  •  ©  ©  CHAPTER  I  INTRODUCTION  P r i o r to the Second World War  pesticides were i n rather l i m i t e d use  because of t h e i r moderate effectiveness on the target species or t h e i r extreme mammalian t o x i c i t y .  As a r e s u l t of the search for an i n s e c t i c i d e to control  the Colorado potato beetle i n Europe, a Swiss s c i e n t i s t , Paul Muller, discovered  the i n s e c t i c i d a l properties of a compound which was  known as DDT.  The  to become  f a c t that i t had high t o x i c i t y to most insects but compara-  t i v e l y low t o x i c i t y to mammals resulted i n i t s being heralded as a miracle insecticide.  Increasing  quantities of t h i s , and  c l o s e l y related substances  of the same group of chlorinated hydrocarbons were produced and used on a g r i c u l t u r a l land, f o r e s t s , waters, and backyard gardens during the decades following the It was  two  war.  then discovered  that these chemicals were not only extremely  toxic to many f i s h and birds but were d i s t u r b i n g l y persistent i n the b i o sphere.  I t i s t h i s property as well as misinformed applications  resulted i n the dangerous, undesirable ment. 1962,  buildup of residues  i n the  that environ-  Since the p u b l i c a t i o n of Rachel Carson's book, S i l e n t Spring, i n the general public i s becoming increasingly aware of the  scientific  community's scant knowledge of the t o t a l e f f e c t s of pesticides i n general and i s demanding a more knowledgeable, temperate use of them. L e g i s l a t i o n alone i s not an e f f e c t i v e means of curbing misuses because uninformed applicators can abuse even the most c a r e f u l l y worked out procedures with safe materials.  There i s a need to give commercial a p p l i -  cators e x p l i c i t i n s t r u c t i o n s i n the proper use and handling of p e s t i c i d e s ,  1  2  p a r t i c u l a r l y as these materials  a f f e c t the natural environment.  L e g i s l a t i o n and Regulation Man's a b i l i t y to deal e f f e c t i v e l y with competing pests has been one of the major reasons f o r h i s successful existence  on t h i s planet.  Various  types of p e s t i c i d e s , including fungicides, herbicides, i n s e c t i c i d e s , m i t i cides, nematocides, and rodenticides have become u s e f u l tools i n combatting man's enemies. Pesticides have become necessary i n the production of a g r i c u l t u r a l crops and i n the improvement of conditions  of l i v i n g .  These demands have  caused a s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n the use of the materials.  As a r e s u l t of  increased usage both the general public and the s c i e n t i f i c community have become concerned about the detrimental ment.  e f f e c t s of pesticides on the environ-  In an e f f o r t to a l l a y t h e i r concern, governments are attempting to  r e s t r i c t the use of these p o t e n t i a l l y dangerous substances to competent applicators. Regulations respecting the sale or provision of services involving the use or a p p l i c a t i o n of pesticides i n B r i t i s h Columbia were enacted under the Pharmacy Act i n 1969.^  Administration  of these became the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  of the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Agriculture  (BCDA).  The regulations provide f o r the c e r t i f i c a t i o n of p e s t i c i d e a p p l i cators i n seven c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s ; Agricultural-crop Pest Abatement; Forest or Forest-product Pest Abatement; Non-agricultural  and Non-forestry Vegetation Control;  3  Landscape and Garden Pest Abatement; Mosquito and B i t i n g - f l y Abatement; Structural Pest Abatement;  and  F i s h , B i r d , and W i l d l i f e Management. C e r t i f i c a t i o n i n the seventh c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s provided i n conjunction with the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch of the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Recreation and Conservation.  The l a s t named c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was not con-  sidered i n t h i s study because of i t s peculiar and highly s e l e c t i v e nature. C e r t i f i c a t e s i n a l l categories are issued upon the successful completion of an examination  administered by the BCDA.  wide, standard examination sidered here.  There i s a separate, province-  for each of the s i x categories that were con-  The c e r t i f i c a t e s are v a l i d for three years, a f t e r which the  applicator must rewrite the q u a l i f y i n g  examination.  Although pesticides have been used i n t h i s province f o r many decades there has formerly been no organized means of transmitting r e l i a b l e , f a c t u a l information to commercial users of these products, with the exception of farmers.  In 1969,  the BCDA introduced a series of short courses  for commercial p e s t i c i d e applicators.  Since that time t h i s province's  applicator education programme has led those of the other provinces. the number of p a r t i c i p a n t s has  designed  increased r a p i d l y since 1969,  Although  there has been  no independent, objective evaluation carried out on any aspect of these short courses.  History of the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Agriculture's Short Courses The purpose of the p r o v i n c i a l government's l e g i s l a t i o n i s three-fold: to protect the public and the environment; to promote the proper and  4  knowledgeable use of p e s t i c i d e s ; and to provide a means of developing a corps of competent p e s t i c i d e applicators.  Towards these objectives, the BCDA has  conducted an annual series of short i n s t r u c t i o n a l courses, since the l e g i s l a t i o n was introduced i n 1969. These are held at various locations throughout the province, and deal with topics relevant to the various categories of c e r t i f i c a t i o n .  When candidates apply to attend the short courses, the  Department d i s t r i b u t e s to each of them a packet of p e s t i c i d e usage handbooks to enable the candidates to be informed p a r t i c i p a n t s .  This packet of hand-  books i s considered v i t a l to the successful completion of the examination. The courses are from two to f i v e days i n length.  Attendance i s not a manda-  tory prerequisite f o r w r i t i n g the examination, although approximately 80 percent of the candidates d i d so during the f i r s t three series from 1969 to 1971.  Immediately  conducted  upon conclusion of each short course the  pertinent examination was administered to the applicants. The o r i g i n a l content of these courses was directed s o l e l y towards the material contained i n the examination.  This narrow intent has evolved  i n t o the broader objective of producing an educated, competent corps of a p p l i cators possessing a larger body of information concerning the safe and knowledgeable use of p e s t i c i d e s .  The courses now include pertinent material  concerning s p e c i f i c problem areas peculiar to the geographical l o c a t i o n of the short course and the candidates. emphasized  This broader scope of content i s  by extended question periods.  Purpose of the Study No aspects of the BCDA's programme have been evaluated since i t s inception i n 1969. A search of the l i t e r a t u r e has also revealed that no  5  comparable evaluation  studies have been attempted on s i m i l a r p e s t i c i d e  education programmes elsewhere. The major purposes of t h i s study were: 1.  to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  of the candidates to post-test 2.  scores;  to investigate the e f f e c t s of pre-testing i n a short-term adult  education programme; and 3.  to assess the influence of pre-course u t i l i z a t i o n of the hand-  books on pre-test and post-test  scores.  Hypotheses From these purposes three formally stated hypotheses were derived. These a r e : 1.  that a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between socio-economic variables and  the post-test scores.  These variables were: the participant's age, educational  l e v e l , previous attendance at s i m i l a r BCDA short courses, previous attendance at s i m i l a r courses sponsored by organizations  other than the B.C. government,  p e s t i c i d e applicator's c e r t i f i c a t e s previously held, i n t e n s i t y of use and study of the handbook before the course, length of experience i n the a p p l i cation of p e s t i c i d e s , proportion of income earned from p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n during the previous year, and length of residence 2.  that pre-testing the p a r t i c i p a n t s p r i o r to p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n  the short course improved t h e i r post-test scores; 3.  i n Canada;  and  that the i n t e n s i t y of pre-course handbook u t i l i z a t i o n  p a r t i c i p a n t pre-test and post-test mean scores.  influenced  LITERATURE REVIEW Evaluation i n Adult Education  Activities  Adult education agencies  i n general have not applied the concept  of s c i e n t i f i c evaluation of t h e i r programmes.  Although adult  educators  are becoming increasingly aware of t h i s facet of t h e i r profession there are s t i l l a great number who  adhere to Essert's opinion that "adult  education stands on i t s own merits.  In the f i n a l analysis there i s no 2  need for elaborate schemes of evaluation."  Wilder seems to a f f i r m t h i s  conviction by s t a t i n g "...the programs of adult education were regarded  3 as a good i n themselves, a good not to be doubted,"  but continues i n an  optimistic note, i n d i c a t i v e of an increasing number of adult  educators:  Only i n recent years have the questions a r i s e n as to whether the goals, i m p l i c i t and assumed for so long, were i n fact as important as imagined, and more important, whether they were being measureably attained. In crass terms, was the huge investment of time and money bringing commensurate returns?^ Although adult educators appear to maintain an apparent aversion to s c i e n t i f i c evaluation through adequately be c r i t i c i s e d ad_ nauseam.  designed  research, they should not  I t w i l l s u f f i c e to conclude with the words of  Brunner that: . . . i n terms of the number involved, the man hours m i l l i o n s of adults spend i n the pursuit of knowledge and i n proportion to the costs, there i s shockingly l i t t l e research i n adult education.^ When such research i s conducted i t i s found that: In some academic c i r c l e s i t i s popular to discount [fundamental] research [although]...a  6  7  program b u i l t on an assumed knowledge of a community and i t s p o p u l a t i o n ; and o f p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s and t h e i r needs, almost i n v a r i a b l y w i l l be b e t t e r than a program b u i l t on hunches. Brunner sums up the i s s u e w i t h a c h a l l e n g e :  "The  moral  i s t h a t we  need  r e s e a r c h , and r e s e a r c h pays."^ A l t h o u g h many a d u l t e d u c a t o r s a r e a t t e m p t i n g s c i e n t i f i c e v a l u a t i o n s , little  i s a c t u a l l y b e i n g done beyond a mere s c r a t c h i n g o f the s u r f a c e .  Many i n s t i t u t i o n s s t i l l  c o n s i d e r the a t t a i n m e n t o f a r b i t r a r y  g o a l s t o be t h e i r p r i m a r y e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i o n . by Freeman, who  attendance  W i l d e r mentions a study  m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t o 54 J e w i s h Community C e n t e r s which  q u e r i e d the d i r e c t o r s as t o the c r i t e r i a which they used  t o determine  the  g s u c c e s s of a d u l t programmes. In  a study conducted  Banta  Attendance  was  the most f r e q u e n t l y mentioned.  on the seven p u b l i c j u n i o r c o l l e g e s i n C o l o r a d o ,  found t h a t a l l used  the growth i n t o t a l e n r o l l m e n t as t h e i r  primary  9 s o u r c e o f d a t a f o r e v a l u a t i n g a d u l t programmes.  Axling investigated  e v a l u a t i o n of e x t e n s i o n programmes by county agents  the  i n Washington S t a t e . ^  F o r t y p e r c e n t of the monthly r e p o r t s s u b m i t t e d by County E x t e n s i o n Agents e v a l u a t e d t h e i r programmes by q u a n t i t a t i v e measures a l o n g , whereas o n l y seven p e r c e n t made any s o r t o f judgements about of  changes i n the  behaviour  participants.  S i m i l a r q u a n t i t a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s a r e p l e n t i f u l i n the 11 12 13 l i t e r a t u r e as e x e m p l i f i e d by J o h n s t o n and P o r t e r , Long, Shearon, 14 15 McNair, and K e r s e y . While  t h e r e i s some m e r i t i n m a i n t a i n i n g attendance  records,  p a r t i c u l a r l y s i n c e these c o n s t i t u t e the f i n a n c i a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n of p r o grammes, t h e r e i s l i t t l e tallies.  Critics  e v a l u a t i v e b e n e f i t i n these gross numerical  l i k e W i l d e r q u e s t i o n the p r o c e d u r e  t e c h n i q u e by a s k i n g :  as an e v a l u a t i v e  8  ...what good are the attendance figures by themselves i n terms of other goals of adult education? Simply to know adults attend gives no idea of who they are, why they attend, or what happens as a r e s u l t of t h e i r attending. Attendance data are necessary to begin to answer t j * questions, but there must be other data too.  e s e  He goes on to suggest that: ...evaluation studies should describe participants c a r e f u l l y . This i s necessary for two reasons: (a) the p a r t i c i p a n t s might have c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which would explain the success or f a i l u r e of the program and (b) i t would make i t possible to duplicate the study and know whether or not p a r t i c i p a n t s i n various programs are s i m i l a r . ^ These data can be further used i n r e l a t i n g " p a r t i c i p a t i o n . . . t o occupation, educational l e v e l , ethnic background, career a s p i r a t i o n s , or any number 18 of variables or combination  thereof."  for s t r i c t l y descriptive purposes.  However, these data are valuable  They only provide the evaluator with  background information concerning the p a r t i c i p a n t s .  The r e a l need i n  adult education i s fundamental research u t i l i z i n g adequate experimental designs and s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . Whether the evaluation i s conducted  " i n terms of changes brought  about i n the learner, the e f f i c i e n c y of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l plan and processes, 19 or the impact of the program on the community" i t must be "viewed with 20 respect to i t s own objectives," as "evaluation i s defined as the process of determining the extent to which educational objectives have been 21 attained." One of the major d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered i n the evaluation of educational programmes i s "the lack of clearly-defined c r i t e r i a f o r 22 determining the q u a l i t y of behavioral change effected i n people."  Thiede  points out the u n d e s i r a b i l i t y of attempting an evaluation without determining clear objectives:  9  While i t i s possible to b u i l d programs on the basis of content, methods and resources a v a i l a b l e , i t i s not possible to evaluate such a program on any other basis than a c l i e n t 'happiness index'.23 The needs for evaluation, therefore, seem to be a set of c l e a r l y defined objectives which can be used as a means of measuring the change that occurs during an educational a c t i v i t y .  Gone are the days when evalu-  ation of adult education programmes consisted of completing c h e c k l i s t or a s a t i s f a c t i o n s c a l e .  a post-session  What the d i s c i p l i n e needs now are  c a r e f u l l y designed research studies which set out to probe the behavioural changes  which are produced as a r e s u l t of an educational a c t i v i t y .  Design of Evaluation  Studies  The importance of c a r e f u l l y c o n t r o l l e d research designs i s emphasized by Hyman's assertion that "introduction of a c o n t r o l group changes the e n t i r e view of the nature of program evaluation and leads to a f u l l y 24 s c i e n t i f i c study."  This design need not be of the conventional pre-test/ 25 post-test c o n t r o l group type as described by Campbell and Stanley i f one i s attempting  to determine the e f f e c t s of p r a c t i c e and test s e n s i t i z a t i o n : An equivalent c o n t r o l group...does not provide an estimate of the e f f e c t of pretesting i n s e n s i t i z i n g subjects to the subsequent program, because the c o n t r o l group has been pretested but has not been exposed to any p a r t i c u l a r form of stimulation...a conventional s o l u t i o n . . . i s to divide the...experimental group into two equivalent subgroups...both (of which) receive the program or treatment. One group, however, does not receive the pretest. Then, by comparison of the f i n a l scores of the two groups, one can estimate the s p e c i f i c influence on the experimental group of t e s t i n g i n producing some d i s t o r t e d magnitude of change, r e s u l t i n g from both sheer p r a c t i c e and from sensitization.26  10  A l t h o u g h i t i s d e s i r a b l e to employ an e q u i v a l e n t designing  a study i t may  be  In such a case wisdom and  impossible  or e x t r e m e l y d i f f i c u l t  judgment may  gramme e f f e c t from non-programme  c o n t r o l group when  be  effect.  required  to do  so.  to d i s t i n g u i s h p r o -  27  E f f e c t s of P r e - t e s t i n g Blaney and McKie i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t s of p r o v i d i n g pants at a c o n f e r e n c e w i t h b e h a v i o u r a l l y  partici-  s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s of the  activity  28 immediately p r i o r to i t s commencement. entitled 150  "New  two-day c o n f e r e n c e  Management Techniques f o r E d u c a t o r s " and was  public school  pants who  The  received  administrators.  I t was  attended  determined t h a t those  the o b j e c t i v e s d i d s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r on a  p o s t - t e s t than d i d those who  d i d not  r e c e i v e the o b j e c t i v e s .  i n v e s t i g a t o r s assumed t h a t " s i n c e a c r i t e r i o n t e s t based upon  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n would be  s i m i l a r i n e f f e c t to p r e s e n t i n g  by  particicriterion  Another  group r e c e i v e d a p r e - t e s t immediately p r i o r to the c o n f e r e n c e .  s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s c l o s e l y resembled such o b j e c t i v e s . . . the  was  The  behaviourally  pre-test  the  statement  29 of o b j e c t i v e s . "  Siace  the group who  received  the b e h a v i o u r a l l y  o b j e c t i v e s demonstrated a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t i n p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s assumed t h a t  the group who  similarly significant  received  they  o n l y a p r e - t e s t would demonstrate a  result.  While t h e r e are many s t u d i e s which r e p o r t an i n c r e a s e l e d g e and  stated  r e l a t e d f a c t o r s such as  favourable  which r e p o r t e i t h e r n e g l i g i b l e or n e g a t i v e r e p o r t a study conducted on U n i t e d  a t t i t u d e s , there  results.  i n knoware  Swartz and  S t a t e s Army servicemen who  others  Winograd  were  i n d o c t r i n a t e d p r i o r to engaging i n manoeuvers r e l a t e d to the use  of  11  nuclear weapons.  The p a r t i c i p a n t s completed a pre-test p r i o r to the  i n d o c t r i n a t i o n and a post-test upon i t s completion. ledge was  An increase i n know-  observed on some items while only a marginal increase was  on others.  They concluded that the "information...which had an  noted  intimate  r e l a t i o n to the s o l d i e r ' s i n d i v i d u a l protection appeared to be most r e a d i l y 31 assimilated"  while other material was  A s i m i l a r mixed e f f e c t was  l e s s r e a d i l y retained.  noted by Canter while evaluating a 32  human r e l a t i o n s t r a i n i n g programme for i n d u s t r i a l supervisors.  I t was  noted that the s e n s i t i z a t i o n e f f e c t s of pre-testing varied i n d i r e c t i o n . Pre-testing enhanced change i n some variables and reduced i t i n others, while providing a s l i g h t o v e r a l l reduction i n e f f e c t s . Wilson and B o n i l l a analyzed  the e f f e c t s of r e - t e s t i n g i n an evalu33  ation study of the e f f e c t s of an exchange-of-persons programme. found that there was  I t was  a difference i n response of less than one percentage  point between those interviewed  twice and those interviewed  only once.  An elaborate study of the p r a c t i c e and s e n s i t i z a t i o n e f f e c t s of 34 pre-testing was  described by Lana.  He investigated the r e l a t i o n of these  e f f e c t s to the time i n t e r v a l between pre-test and treatment, and to the time i n t e r v a l and number of post-tests a f t e r treatment, was  immediate or delayed, and whether or not there was  whether post-testing cumulative post-  t e s t i n g , no s i g n i f i c a n t pre-test e f f e c t s were demonstrated. Rieken u t i l i z e d a control group design to evaluate a volunteer work camp group i n an e f f o r t to determine the e f f e c t s of practice and s e n s i 35 tization.  He found that pre-testing negatively s e n s i t i z e d the experi-  mental group, which resulted i n a resistance to the stimulation which they subsequently received.  Solomon, while i n v e s t i g a t i n g the influence of  12  pre-testing i n s e n s i t i z i n g experimental subjects to t r a i n i n g i n s p e l l i n g , 36 obtained  a s i m i l a r negative  result.  He further speculated  pre-testing either disturbed the p a r t i c i p a n t s emotionally  that the  or caused them  to repeat on the post-test errors they had made on the pre-test. Terman and M e r r i l l , i n a c l a s s i c study on a revised version of the Stanford-Binet  I.Q.  of the t e s t , a f t e r one  test,found that the administration of p a r a l l e l forms to a few days, resulted i n an increase of only  three  37 I.Q. was  points.  Only a small p r a c t i c e e f f e c t was  evident when r e - t e s t i n g  done with the same form. Hovland e_t a l conducted  during World War  an evaluation of o r i e n t a t i o n films used  II at two m i l i t a r y camps u t i l i z i n g a before-after 38  at one camp and an after-only design at the other.  I t was  determined  that pre-testing spuriously reduced the amount of change observed. attempted to explain t h i s phenomenon by suggesting a f t e r procedure the men the questions  are stimulated  design  that " i n the  They  before-  to be consistent i n t h e i r answers to  the second time, e i t h e r because the men  remember their former  answer and seek to be consistent or because, having once been forced to 39 give an answer, t h e i r opinion tends to be c r y s t a l l i z e d and Perhaps one of the best means of reducing i s "by subtle and disguised t e s t s , or by obscuring a larger questionnaire. test items and  repeated."  the e f f e c t s of pre-testing the s i g n i f i c a n t items i n  The subjects would be less aware of the s p e c i f i c  their content, would f i n d them less easy to remember,and  would not become so attentive to s p e c i f i c aspects of the program which i n 40 more obvious t e s t i n g would have been made s a l i e n t . " The e f f e c t of pre-testing on learner behaviour i s an area i n the d i s c i p l i n e of adult education which has never been adequately investigated.  13  It i s s i g n i f i c a n t  t h a t most of the  items which appear i n t h i s  literature  r e v i e w were o b t a i n e d from s o u r c e s o t h e r than those s p e c i f i c a l l y d e a l i n g adult education.  Previous f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e that p r e - t e s t i n g e f f e c t s  e i t h e r p o s i t i v e l y or n e g a t i v e l y  influence  i s a d e f i n i t e need f o r s t u d i e s w i t h i n  the  with may  the r e s u l t s of a p o s t - t e s t . adult education d i s c i p l i n e  d e t e r m i n e , c o n c l u s i v e l y , the e f f e c t s of p r e - t e s t i n g on b o t h a t t i t u d e  There to and  knowledge s c a l e s .  Summary Perhaps the b e s t means of summing up a t i o n research  the m a r g i n a l s t a t e of  i n a d u l t e d u c a t i o n i s to quote from S u t t o n , a f t e r he  a r e v i e w of r e s e a r c h  on  the  evalucompleted  topics  The s t a t u s of e v a l u a t i o n r e s e a r c h may be summarized as f o l l o w s : 1. The m a j o r i t y of s t u d i e s are h i g h l y l o c a l i z e d and [ t h e i r ] v a l u e . . . i s l i m i t e d t o the program s t u d i e d . 2. Many s t u d i e s are s e v e r e l y l i m i t e d by weakness of d e s i g n and of s a m p l i n g , inadequacy of the d a t a , and inadequacy of the a n a l y s i s o f the d a t a t h a t were o b t a i n e d . 3. Some s t u d i e s , a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20 p e r c e n t of those reviewed, y i e l d e d f i n d i n g s t h a t are generalizable. 4. Some s t u d i e s , a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20 p e r c e n t ...may w e l l s e r v e as models d i r e c t l y , or w i t h minor r e m e d i a t i o n , f o r e v a l u a t i o n r e s e a r c h i n adult education. 5. A few s t u d i e s , not more than 15 p e r c e n t ...made fundamental c o n t r i b u t i o n s to the g e n e r a l t h e o r y of a d u l t e d u c a t i o n , or to the e v a l u a t i o n of a d u l t e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s . ^  P l a n of the  Study  Chapter I I c o n s i s t s of the methodology employed i n the  study.  It  14  includes the design of the study, the hypotheses  that were tested, the  instruments that were developed and u t i l i z e d , a description of the 16 groups and the methods of data c o l l e c t i o n and analysis.  Chapter I I I  reports and analyzes the data following the outline presented f o r Chapter II with respect to the socio-economic data.  Chapter IV s i m i l a r l y treats  the pre-testing and handbook u t i l i z a t i o n data.  Chapter V summarizes  the r e s u l t s , develops the conclusions drawn from these, and makes recommendations f o r improvements i n future studies.  REFERENCES  1.  B.C. Government, " R e s p e c t i n g S e r v i c e s I n v o l v i n g t h e Use or A p p l i c a t i o n of P e s t i c i d e s . " Pharmacy A c t . Order i n C o u n c i l R e g u l a t i o n No. 115(1969).  2.  Paul E s s e r t , C r e a t i v e Leadership of Adult Education. P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1951), p.161.  3.  David  4.  Ibid.  5.  Edmund deS. Brunner, " A d u l t E d u c a t i o n and I t s R e s e a r c h Needs," A d u l t E d u c a t i o n , X, No. 4, 1960, pp.218-227.  6.  I b i d . , p.219.  7.  I b i d . , p.226.  8.  Wilder,  9.  C O . Banta, "Sources o f Data f o r Program E v a l u a t i o n , " A d u l t V, No. 4, 1955, pp.227-230.  10.  H.L. A x l i n g , " E v a l u a t i o n o f County E x t e n s i o n Programs By County Agents i n Washington S t a t e " (M.Sc. T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n , Summary Produced by A g r i c u l t u r a l E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e , Washington S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Pullman, Washington, 1959).  11.  M e s c a l J o h n s t o n and Ward P o r t e r , "An E v a l u a t i o n o f the M a r k e t i n g P r o j e c t f o r Consumers i n the M e t r o p o l i t a n A r e a o f L i t t l e Rock" (Arkansas A g r i c . E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e M i s c e l l a n e o u s P u b l i c a t i o n , No. 88, 1965).  12.  Huey B. Long, "A Summary R e p o r t : A d u l t E d u c a t i o n P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n B r e v a r d County, F l o r i d a , " A d u l t E d u c a t i o n J o u r n a l , XIX, No. 1, 1967, pp.34-42.  13.  Ronald W. Shearon, " E v a l u a t i n g A d u l t B a s i c E d u c a t i o n L e a d e r s h i p , 19, No. 1, 1970, pp.15-24.  14.  Robert E. McNair, " F u l f i l l i n g 1970, pp.183-185.  (New York;  E . W i l d e r , An Overview o f A d u l t E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h , ed. E . deS. Brunner (Washington: A d u l t E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n o f t h e U.S.A., 1959), p.244.  op_. c i t . , p.250.  Programs," A d u l t  Our M i s s i o n , " A d u l t L e a d e r s h i p ,  15  Education,  19, No.6,  16  15.  Harry A. Kersey, J r . , "An A d u l t E d u c a t i o n Program f o r Seminole I n d i a n s i n F l o r i d a , " A d u l t L e a d e r s h i p , 19, No.9, 1971, pp.281-2, 310.  16.  Wilder, l o c . c i t .  17.  I b i d . , p.251.  18.  Ibid.  19.  C o o l i e V e r n e r and A l a n Booth, A d u l t E d u c a t i o n (New York: The Center f o r A p p l i e d Research i n E d u c a t i o n , I n c . , 1964), p.96.  20.  Ann L i t c h f i e l d , L.A. Marx, and A. S t e j s k a l , " E v a l u a t i o n o f the 1966 A d u l t E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n N a t i o n a l Conference Program," A d u l t L e a d e r s h i p , 15, No. 8, 1967, p.287.  21.  W i l s o n T h i e d e , " E v a l u a t i o n and A d u l t E d u c a t i o n , " A d u l t E d u c a t i o n : O u t l i n e s o f an Emerging F i e l d o f Study, e d s . G a l e Jensen, A.A. L i v e r i g h t , and W a l t e r H a l l e n b a c h ( C h i c a g o : A d u l t E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n o f t h e U.S.A., 1964), p.304.  22.  E . J . Boone and J . Duncan, "Needed Research i n E x t e n s i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i v e O r g a n i z a t i o n , " A d u l t E d u c a t i o n , X I I , No. 2, 1963, p.89.  23.  T h i e d e , op_. c i t . ,  24.  H.H. Hyman, C R . W r i g h t , and T.K. Hopkins, A p p l i c a t i o n o f Methods o f E v a l u a t i o n ( B e r k e l e y and L o s A n g e l e s : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , 1962), p.25.  25.  Donald  26.  Hyman, op_. c i t . , p.31.  27.  I b i d . , p.24.  28.  J.P. Blaney and D. McKie, "Knowledge o f Conference O b j e c t i v e s and E f f e c t Upon L e a r n i n g , " A d u l t E d u c a t i o n J o u r n a l , XIX, No. 2, 1969, pp.98-105.  29.  I b i d . , p.101.  30.  Shephard Schwartz and B e r t o n Winograd, " P r e p a r a t i o n o f S o l d i e r s f o r Atomic Manoeuvers," J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l I s s u e s , X, No. 3, 1954, pp.42-52.  31.  I b i d . , p.52.  p.294.  T. Campbell and J u l i a n C. S t a n l e y , E x p e r i m e n t a l and Q u a s i E x p e r i m e n t a l Designs f o r Research ( C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y and Co., 1970), pp.13-24.  17  32.  Ralph R. Carter, J r . , "The Use of Extended Control-Group Designs i n Human Relations Studies," Psychol. B u l l . , 48, No. 4, 1951, pp.240-347.  33.  E.C. Wilson and F. B o n i l l a , "Evaluating Exchange of Persons Programs," Public Opin. Quart., XIX, 1955, pp.20-30, c i t e d by Hyman, op. c i t . , p.33.  34.  Robert E. Lana, "Pretest-Treatment Interaction E f f e c t s i n A t t i t u d i n a l Studies," Psychol. B u l l . , 56, No. 4, 1959, pp.293-300.  35.  H.W. Riecken, The Volunteer Work Camp: A Psychological Evaluation (Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Press, 1952), pp.101-102, c i t e d by Hyman, op_. c i t . , p. 32.  36.  R.L. Solomon, "An Extension of the Control Group Design," Psychol. B u l l . , 46, No. 2, 1949, pp.143-145.  37.  L.T. Terman and M.A. M e r r i l l , Measuring I n t e l l i g e n c e (Boston: HoughtonM i f f l i n , 1937), pp.43-44.  38.  C a r l Hovland, A.A. Lumsdaine, and F.D. S c h e f f i e l d , Experiments On Mass Communication (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949), pp.311-313.  39.  I b i d . , p.312.  40.  C.Y. Glock, " P a r t i c i p a t i o n Bias and Re-Interview E f f e c t i n Panel Studies" (Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1952), c i t e d by Hyman, op. c i t . , p.37.  41.  E.W. Sutton, "Analysis of Research On Selected Aspects of Evaluation i n Adult Education" (Tallahassee, F l o r i d a State U n i v e r s i t y , 1967), p.303.  CHAPTER II  METHODOLOGY Introduction  This chapter d e t a i l s the procedures used to obtain and analyze the data.  The hypotheses are restated at the outset, followed by a d e s c r i p t i o n  of the data-gathering  instruments u t i l i z e d i n the study.  The groups under  study are then described with respect to t h e i r s i z e , l o c a t i o n , and mental condition.  This i s followed by a discussion of the  employed and the method of c o l l e c t i n g the data.  experi-  design  The chapter concludes  with a d e t a i l e d account of the s t a t i s t i c a l procedures performed on the data to test the research hypotheses.  Hypotheses This study attempted to test three major hypotheses. of primary concern was  The hypothesis  that pre-testing the short course p a r t i c i p a n t s had  a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t upon post-test scores.  That i s , the post-test mean  scores f o r the treatment groups would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than those of the c o n t r o l group, provided  that the o v e r a l l post-test mean scores were  s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the pre-test means.  Another hypothesis tested  was  that a r e l a t i o n s h i p existed between the personal variables and the post-test mean score.  The t h i r d hypothesis of concern was  that use by p a r t i c i p a n t s  of pre-course handbook material had a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e e f f e c t upon the pre-test and post-test means.  18  19  Instruments  Used  Although eight d i f f e r e n t  i n s t r u m e n t s were u t i l i z e d d u r i n g t h i s  o n l y two were developed s p e c i f i c a l l y (Appendix Columbia  la) was completed  for i t .  study  The P e r s o n a l Data Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  by a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s who wrote t h e B r i t i s h  Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e ' s c e r t i f i c a t i o n e x a m i n a t i o n d u r i n g t h e  p e r i o d January 10 t o June 9, 1972.  T h i s i n s t r u m e n t was developed  specifi-  c a l l y f o r t h e study t o p r o v i d e s e l e c t e d i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s ' p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e and o t h e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s . The  second  instrument c o n s i s t e d of t h i r t y  sampled" from t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n examinations c o u r s e topics."** tered  items w h i c h were " i t e m  and were common t o a l l s i x s h o r t  T h i s i n s t r u m e n t c o n s t i t u t e d t h e p r e - t e s t and was a d m i n i s -  t o a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e treatment groups  (Appendix l b ) .  The f i n a l s i x i n s t r u m e n t s u t i l i z e d were the c e r t i f i c a t i o n which were a d m i n i s t e r e d a f t e r each c o u r s e by t h e BCDA.  examinations  The l e n g t h o f exami-  n a t i o n f o r each c l a s s i f i c a t i o n v a r i e d from 155 t o 232 i n d i v i d u a l i t e m responses.  I n t e r s p e r s e d w i t h i n these examinations were t h e 30 responses  which were u t i l i z e d f o r t h e p r e - t e s t s . the same f o r a l l groups S i n c e these examinations  I t was t h e s e 30 responses which were  t h a t were s c o r e d t o p r o v i d e t h e p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s . a r e i n c u r r e n t use by t h e B r i t i s h Columbia  ment o f A g r i c u l t u r e they a r e u n a v a i l a b l e f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h i s  Depart-  study.  Both t h e P e r s o n a l Data Q u e s t i o n n a i r e and t h e 30-item p r e - t e s t were completed  by s e v e r a l graduate s t u d e n t s i n the A d u l t E d u c a t i o n Department t o  t e s t the i n s t r u c t i o n s and items f o r c l a r i t y and t o gauge the l e n g t h o f time required  f o r c o m p l e t i o n of t h e i n s t r u m e n t s by t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s .  p o s s i b l e t o attempt  I t was n o t  a t r u e p i l o t study on an e q u i v a l e n t sample as t h e r e was  20  no p r e r e g i s t r a t i o n from which t o s e l e c t such a group and the e n t i r e group for  t h e s i x months ending June 30, 1972 was u t i l i z e d  sample which comprised  Groups Under  the p a r t i c i p a n t s f o r t h i s s t u d y .  Study  The BCDA's s h o r t consisted  f o r the temporal  c o u r s e programme f o r the f i r s t  o f 16 c o u r s e s conducted  at various locations  s i x months of 1972 in British  T a b l e I enumerates the l o c a t i o n s , d a t e s , t o p i c s c o v e r e d , conditions course. cides.  applied,  experimental  and number o f c e r t i f i c a t i o n a p p l i c a n t s  The p a r t i c i p a n t s were t y p i c a l l y  commercial  Columbia.  f o r each  applicators  short  of p e s t i -  The c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u s i o n o f p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s study were  dance a t t h e 1972 s e r i e s o f s h o r t of A g r i c u l t u r e periods.  c o u r s e s and c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e Department  c e r t i f i c a t i o n examination during the post-course  examination  As p e r m i t t e d by t h e l e g i s l a t i o n , s e v e r a l p a r t i c i p a n t s  the e x a m i n a t i o n  a t two d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s .  Only t h e f i r s t  o b t a i n e d from t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s  was  would undoubtedly  by u n c o n t r o l l e d  be i n f l u e n c e d  atten-  utilized,  completed  s e t of data  as the subsequent  data  m a t u r a t i o n and p r e - t e s t i n g  effects. The  category w i t h the greatest  and Garden P e s t Abatement.  number o f a p p l i c a n t s  Participants  was Landscape  t o t a l l e d 99 i n c o u r s e s h e l d a t  S u r r e y , V i c t o r i a , N o r t h Vancouver, and Vancouver.  The f i r s t  these groups were a s s i g n e d the treatment  and g i v e n both  and p o s t - t e s t condition.  (n=47).  This  condition  The r e m a i n i n g 52 a p p l i c a n t s  pre-test  were a s s i g n e d the c o n t r o l  arrangement p r o v i d e d two s e p a r a t e c o n d i t i o n s  e q u a l numbers o f i n d i v i d u a l s i n each.  three of  with  nearly  TABLE 1 SCHEDULE OF SHORT COURSES AND TREATMENTS GIVEN TO PARTICIPANTS, 1972.  Treatments Topic Landscape and Garden Pest Abatement Forest, or Forest-product Pest Abatement Non-agricultural and Non-forestry Vegetation Control A g r i c u l t u r a l - c r o p Pest Abatement S t r u c t u r a l Pest Abatement Mosquito and B i t i n g - f l y Abatement  Location Surrey Victoria North Vancouver Vancouver Nanaimo, V.I. Parksville,V.I. Vancouver Kamloops Prince George Nelson Abbotsford Kelowna North Vancouver North Vancouver Kamloops Abbotsford  Dates Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Apr. Jun. Feb. Feb. Mar. Apr. Feb. Feb. Mar. Mar. May May  10-11 17-18 23-24 27-28 9-10 8- 9 3- 4 28-29 1- 2 19-20 14-18 21-25 21-22 21-22 1- 2 8- 9  Pre-test  Post-test  + + +  + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  + +  + + +  Adjustments ) Pooled, to ) form one I treatment  ) Pooled, to ) form one ) control  No. Participants 12 21 14 52 41 34 12 9 17 31 17 23 10 12 8 11  22  The  Forest  or F o r e s t - p r o d u c t s  Abatement c o u r s e conducted a t Nanaimo  which a t t r a c t e d 41 c a n d i d a t e s r e c e i v e d c o n t r o l counterpart Of  the  a t P a r k s v i l l e was  four N o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l  the  treatment c o n d i t i o n .  a t t e n d e d by and  34  candidates.  Non-forestry  Vegetation  s h o r t c o u r s e s h e l d a t Vancouver, Kamloops, P r i n c e George, and which a t t r a c t e d 12, group r e c e i v e d  9,  17 and  Its  Control  Nelson,  31 a p p l i c a n t s r e s p e c t i v e l y , the Vancouver  the treatment c o n d i t i o n because of budget r e s t r i c t i o n s which  prevented p r e - t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  a t the o t h e r  outlying locations.  T h e r e were 40 c a n d i d a t e s f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n a t the A g r i c u l t u r a l crop P e s t Abatement c o u r s e s conducted at A b b o t s f o r d was  composed of 17 a p p l i c a n t s who  received  and  Kelowna.  The  former  the treatment c o n d i t i o n , w h i l e  the remainder comprised the c o n t r o l group. A somewhat d i f f e r e n t assignment to treatment or c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n was  employed a t the S t r u c t u r a l Pest  Since  o n l y one  course covering  Abatement c o u r s e h e l d at N o r t h Vancouver.  t h i s t o p i c was  s c h e d u l e d , the p a r t i c i p a n t s  were d i v i d e d i n t o treatment or c o n t r o l groups, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , upon r e g i s t e r i n g a t the door. a c o n t r o l group of The  T h i s produced a treatment group of 10  i n d i v i d u a l s and  12.  e i g h t a p p l i c a n t s who  r e g i s t e r e d a t the Mosquito and  Abatement c o u r s e a t Kamloops were a s s i g n e d c o n t r o l f o r t h i s group was  Biting-fly  the treatment c o n d i t i o n .  sampled a t A b b o t s f o r d  and was  composed of  The 11  individuals.  D e s i g n of the  The  Study  basic design  f o r t h i s study was  a m o d i f i c a t i o n of Campbell  and  23  Stanley's  Separate-Sample P r e t e s t - P o s t t e s t D e s i g n .  were g i v e n  a p r e - t e s t p r i o r to the s h o r t  The  course and  only  groups r e c e i v e d  The  Data Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  s i x t e e n s e p a r a t e s h o r t c o u r s e groups t o t a l l i n g 324 c o u r s e s were two  days i n l e n g t h , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n  groups  a p o s t - t e s t upon i t s  c o n c l u s i o n , whereas the c o n t r o l groups were g i v e n the P e r s o n a l  treatment  the p o s t - t e s t . sample c o n s i s t e d  individuals. of the two  c e r t i f i c a t i o n examination p e r i o d  noon of the The  final  i n a l l cases o c c u r r e d  conducted long.  the a f t e r -  day.  b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e between the d e s i g n  Campbell and  on  of  A l l short  f o r A g r i c u l t u r a l - c r o p Pest Abatement a p p l i c a t o r s which were f i v e days The  Both  Stanley's  utilized  Separate-Sample P r e t e s t - P o s t t e s t D e s i g n i s  absence h e r e of r a n d o m i z a t i o n i n sample s e l e c t i o n . i n d i v i d u a l s c o u l d not be treatment c o n d i t i o n s .  i n t h i s study  achieved  I t was  not  nor  and  the  Random sampling  of  t r u l y random assignment of groups t o  p o s s i b l e to a s s i g n i n d i v i d u a l s t o groups  as each p e r s o n a t t e n d e d the c o u r s e o f h i s c h o i c e w i t h o u t p r e r e g i s t r a t i o n . For  the same r e a s o n i t was  randomly, and  i t was  impossible  f i n a n c i a l l y impossible  of the Lower F r a s e r V a l l e y and o f the Mosquito and The to be  to a s s i g n groups to  treatments  t o p r e - t e s t any  Vancouver I s l a n d a r e a s ,  group  w i t h the  e n t i r e group of a p p l i c a n t s  In l i g h t  statistical  f o r 1972  was  of t h i s assumption i t was  of n e c e s s i t y  t e c h n i q u e s i n the  a n a l y s i s of  p o s s i b l e t o use  s e v e r a l which add  t h i s study.  The  periods  considered of  such  inferential  data.  In a d d i t i o n to those f a c t o r s enumerated by t h e r e are  exception  B i t i n g - f l y Abatement c o u r s e conducted at Kamloops.  the sample, drawn from a more or l e s s i n f i n i t e p o p u l a t i o n  samples.  outside  to the v a l i d i t y  Campbell and  of t h i s d e s i g n  Stanley  as employed i n  of a c t u a l e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n l a s t e d f o r l e s s  24  than two days i n a l l courses except the two 5-day A g r i c u l t u r a l - c r o p Pest Abatement courses.  This short period between pre-test and post-test should  have prevented any s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s of h i s t o r y or maturation from i n t e r f e r i n g with the r e s u l t s obtained.  The personal data gathered provided a  means of determining any differences which may have existed between the i n d i v i d u a l s of various groups.  This design was considered the best possible  for the conditions of this study.  Data C o l l e c t i o n P a r t i c i p a n t s at the eight short courses assigned to the treatment condition, as w e l l as those of the control groups at the Landscaping and Garden Pest Abatement course held at Vancouver and the S t r u c t u r a l Pest Control course at North Vancouver were required to r e g i s t e r at the door, supplying t h e i r name, address, and employer's name.  At that time the eight  treatment groups were issued the Personal Data Questionnaire and the t h i r t y item pre-test.  The two control groups were issued only the Personal Data  Questionnaire.  Adequate time was then a l l o t t e d f o r completion of these,  about twenty minutes.  They were then c o l l e c t e d p r i o r to the s t a r t of the  short courses. P a r t i c i p a n t s of the s i x remaining control groups received the Personal Data Questionnaire with t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n f o r B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Agriculture c e r t i f i c a t i o n form which was d i s t r i b u t e d a f t e r the short courses concluded and immediately p r i o r to the c e r t i f i c a t i o n examination.  The  Personal Data Questionnaires were c o l l e c t e d as completed, and the c e r t i f i c a t i o n examinations d i s t r i b u t e d . The large c e r t i f i c a t i o n examinations d i s t r i b u t e d by the BCDA  25  c o n s i s t e d o f two p a r t s , a closed-book p o r t i o n from which the p r e - t e s t was  o b t a i n e d , and w i t h which t h i s study was  open-book s e c t i o n . o n e - h a l f hours and adequate  A l t h o u g h t h e r e was  concerned, and  time l i m i t  an  of two  and  imposed upon the e n t i r e e x a m i n a t i o n , t h i s became f l e x i b l e ,  time was  a l l o w e d f o r c o m p l e t i o n of the c l o s e d - b o o k  T h i s f l e x i b l e time l i m i t was completed  an o f f i c i a l  30-item  section.  important i n ensuring that a l l candidates  the p o s t - t e s t r e g a r d l e s s of e d u c a t i o n a l , p h y s i o l o g i c a l , o r  p s y c h o l o g i c a l handicaps. P a r t i c i p a n t s were t o l d not t o w r i t e t h e i r names on e i t h e r  the  P e r s o n a l Data Q u e s t i o n n a i r e or the p r e - t e s t , and t h a t the d a t a r e q u e s t e d would be used o n l y t o o b t a i n c o u r s e means. coded  on the back of the f i r s t page.  Each was  s y s t e m a t i c a l l y dot  These i n s t r u m e n t s , f o r the t e n  groups  which r e c e i v e d them a t the time o f r e g i s t r a t i o n , were m a i n t a i n e d i n the o r d e r which corresponded  t o the o r d e r o f names on the r e g i s t r a t i o n s h e e t s .  F o r the r e m a i n i n g c o n t r o l groups  the d o t s corresponded  the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n form.  to d o t s l o c a t e d  T h i s code a l l o w e d each  on  instrument  to be i d e n t i f i e d so t h a t p r e - t e s t and P e r s o n a l Data Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s c o u l d be matched w i t h the c e r t i f i c a t i o n e x a m i n a t i o n which c o n t a i n e d the 30 ments of the p o s t - t e s t .  I t was  thought  t h a t t h i s anonymity would  more a c c u r a t e p e r s o n a l d a t a and would reduce any a n x i e t y produced c o m p l e t i n g an unexpected  p r e t e s t , a l t h o u g h t h i s was  unproven and  ele-  produce by i s mere  conjecture.  A n a l y s i s of Data A l l d a t a o b t a i n e d from t h i s study were punched onto computer c a r d s and a n a l y s e d a t the U.B.C. Computer C e n t r e u t i l i z i n g  the IBM  360/67 computer.  26  The  following  detail. unless out,  two c h a p t e r s w i l l d e s c r i b e  t h e r e s u l t s o f the a n a l y s e s i n  The a n a l y s e s were conducted a t the 5 p e r c e n t l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e , otherwise i n d i c a t e d .  the p e r s o n a l  To e n a b l e i n f e r e n t i a l s t a t i s t i c s  v a r i a b l e s d a t a were n u m e r i c a l l y  c a r r i e d out on the n u m e r i c a l v a l u e s . i n numerical scores  t o be c a r r i e d  coded, and a n a l y s e s were  The p r e - t e s t  and p o s t - t e s t  resulted  which r e p r e s e n t e d t h e number o f c o r r e c t l y answered  r e s p o n s e s o f a p o s s i b l e t o t a l o f 30 i t e m s . The  first  p r o c e d u r e c a r r i e d out on the d a t a was t h e p r o d u c t i o n  b i v a r i a t e t a b l e s and t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f c h i - s q u a r e s t a t i s t i c s variables.  These were produced by u t i l i z i n g  M u l t i v a r i a t e Contingency Tabulations The  U.B.C. T r i a n g u l a r  and  t h e 1972 r e v i s i o n o f t h e U.B.C.  R e g r e s s i o n Package produced a c o r r e l a t i o n regressions  f o r selected variables.  a n a l y s e s were c a l c u l a t e d on the t r e a t m e n t ,  the t o t a l groups i n d e p e n d e n t l y .  ables  f o r selected  programme.  m a t r i x and c a l c u l a t e d s i m p l e and m u l t i p l e Multiple regression  of  the c o n t r o l ,  Both t h e numbers o f independent  vari-  and t h e l e v e l s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e were v a r i e d i n an attempt t o determine  which v a r i a b l e s c o n t r i b u t e d A separate regression  most s i g n i f i c a n t l y  t o the p o s t - t e s t  variance.  a n a l y s i s was made w i t h emphasis on t h e amount o f hand-  book u t i l i z a t i o n by p a r t i c i p a n t s . T h i s programme a l s o c a l c u l a t e d c o r r e l a t e d t - t e s t s between t h e p a i r s of p r e - t e s t / p o s t - t e s t eight  means o b t a i n e d from t h e 30 items from each o f t h e  treatment groups.  T h i s a n a l y s i s attempted t o determine whether each  t r e a t m e n t , taken s e p a r a t e l y a significant  increase  between t h e p r e - t e s t  and i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f t h e o t h e r s ,  i n scores.  Also  had produced  t o be t e s t e d was the d i f f e r e n c e  and the p o s t - t e s t means o b t a i n e d from p o o l i n g t h e  common 30 items a c r o s s  the eight  treatment  groups.  27  Pairs of treatment  and c o n t r o l post-test means for each of the  s i x topics were compared separately by the a p p l i c a t i o n of non-correlated t-tests i n an e f f o r t to a s c e r t a i n the e f f e c t s due to treatment topic.  The treatment  for each  and c o n t r o l group means were each combined to produce  a p a i r of grand means which were subjected to a further non-correlated t - t e s t to determine the o v e r a l l e f f e c t of the treatment To allow a comparison of treatment  on post-test scores.  and c o n t r o l mean scores for each  of the continuous, i n t e r v a l v a r i a b l e s a f i n a l set of non-correlated t-tests were calculated on these means.  The variables considered to be  continuous  and i n t e r v a l were the following: p a r t i c i p a n t age, educational l e v e l , previous attendance at s i m i l a r BCDA short courses, previous attendance at s i m i l a r courses sponsored by organizations other than the p r o v i n c i a l government, number of p e s t i c i d e applicator's c e r t i f i c a t e s previously held, i n t e n s i t y of pre-course handbook u t i l i z a t i o n , length of experience i n the a p p l i cation of p e s t i c i d e s , proportion of wages earned from p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n during the previous year, and length of residence i n Canada, Four one-way analyses of variance were computed on the pre-test and post-test means u t i l i z i n g the U.B.C. BMD:X64 computer programme package. The f i r s t of these to be calculated was  carried out on the means obtained  from the scores of the 30-item pre-test to determine whether the three Landscape and Garden Pest Abatement treatment pre-test knowledge.  groups possessed  comparable  Non-rejection of t h i s test would allow them to be  pooled into one group.  A l i k e procedure was  followed for both the post-test  r e s u l t s of these three groups and the post-test r e s u l t s obtained from the three Non-agricultural, Non-forestry Vegetation Control c o n t r o l groups. The fourth analysis of variance was  calculated on the pre-test mean scores  28  of the s i x topics which were assigned the treatment condition.  This c a l c u -  l a t i o n allowed inferences to be made as to the d i s p a r i t y of the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' pre-course knowledge.  Summary The data were analyzed i n two sections.  The f i r s t i s the analysis  of the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' socio-economic data which provided  a rationale f o r  pooling groups having s i m i l a r course topics and experimental conditions.  It  also permitted c o r r e l a t i o n s to be made between the socio-economic v a r i a b l e s and the post-test scores.  These data also allowed treatment-control  compari-  sons to be made for each v a r i a b l e , which permitted the dismissal of r i v a l hypotheses based upon treatment and control differences alone. The second portion of the analysis examined the mean scores from the common 30-item pre-test and post-test.  obtained  Examination of pre-test and  post-test means allowed the t e s t i n g of the assumption that the post-test mean scores would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the pre-test scores.  Once  t h i s was established the treatment post-test means were s t a t i s t i c a l l y compared with the control post-test means i n an e f f o r t to determine whether the former were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the l a t t e r .  E s t a b l i s h i n g t h i s , the pre-test  scores and the socio-economic variables were included i n multiple analyses to determine whether the pre-test contributed t i o n of variance  to the post-test scores.  regression  the greatest propor-  To test the f i n a l hypothesis, the  e f f e c t of the pre-course handbook use upon the pre-test and post-test was analyzed.  scores  REFERENCES  T.R. Husek and K. S i r o t n i k , Item Sampling i n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , C e n t r e f o r t h e Study of E v a l u a t i o n of I n s t r u c t i o n a l Programs, O c c a s i o n a l Report No. 2 (Los A n g e l e s : U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , 1967). Donald T. Campbell and J.C. S t a n l e y , E x p e r i m e n t a l and Q u a s i E x p e r i m e n t a l Designs f o r Research ( C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y and Co., 1970), pp.53-54.  29  CHAPTER I I I  SOCIO-ECONOMIC VARIABLES  Introduction  The  s e r i e s o f s h o r t c o u r s e s sponsored  by the BCDA f o r the f i r s t  h a l f o f 1972 a t t r a c t e d 324 p a r t i c i p a n t s who were w i l l i n g t o undertake t h e p e s t i c i d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n examination.  The p a r t i c i p a n t s e n r o l l e d i n 16  i n d i v i d u a l s h o r t c o u r s e s , w i t h a t l e a s t one group o c c u r r i n g i n t h e treatment and  c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n o f each o f t h e s i x t o p i c s .  w i t h t h e socio-economic  d a t a w h i c h were c o l l e c t e d  means o f t h e P e r s o n a l Data Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  This chapter s h a l l d e a l from  (Appendix  t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s by  l a ) . The v a r i a b l e s  d i s c u s s e d a r e : age o f p a r t i c i p a n t s ; l e n g t h o f r e s i d e n c e i n Canada; p a r t i c i p a n t s ' a r e a o f o r i g i n ; e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l ; p o r t i o n o f income o b t a i n e d  from  the a p p l i c a t i o n o f p e s t i c i d e s d u r i n g t h e p r e v i o u s y e a r ; y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e ; f u l l o r p a r t - t i m e employment s t a t u s ; s e l f - e m p l o y e d attendance  a t BCDA sponsored  non-BCDA sponsored  o r employee; p r e v i o u s  courses; previous attendance  at related  s h o r t c o u r s e s ; and number o f c e r t i f i c a t e s h e l d .  The means, sample s i z e s , and t h e r e s u l t s o f t - t e s t s c a r r i e d o u t on the socio-economic  v a r i a b l e means by e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n f o r the p e r s o n a l  v a r i a b l e s a r e i n Appendix 2.  A l s o c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s Appendix a r e s i m i l a r  r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d f o r t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s ' u s e o f t h e handbooks, t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n examinations, in  Chapter  and t h e p r e t e s t and p o s t - t e s t d a t a which w i l l be d i s c u s s e d  IV.  The c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x c o n t a i n i n g the Pearson  C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s o b t a i n e d from c o r r e l a t i n g i n t e r v a l v a r i a b l e s i s i n Appendix 3. 30  t h e twelve  Product-Moment continuous,  These d e s c r i p t i v e d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d  31  to a l l o w comparisons to be made between the e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s and to reduce  t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a c c e p t i n g c o n f l i c t i n g hypotheses  uncontrolled  t r e a t m e n t - c o n t r o l d i f f e r e n c e s accounted  pre-test/post-test  that  for significant  differences.  Age  F i g u r e I shows t h a t o n l y 5.9 p e r c e n t o f the treatment of the c o n t r o l i n d i v i d u a l s were 19 y e a r s o f age or l e s s . number o f b o t h the treatment 20 to 29 y e a r range.  (48.9%) and the c o n t r o l  The remainder  o f the treatment  and 3.2 p e r c e n t  The g r e a t e s t  (32.3%) were i n the group was  distributed  as f o l l o w s : 20.7 p e r c e n t were 30 t o 39; 10.4 p e r c e n t were 40 t o 49; and 14 p e r c e n t were 50 y e a r s o r more; w h i l e 21.7 p e r c e n t o f t h e r e m a i n i n g  control  group were 30 t o 39; 23.8 p e r c e n t were 40 t o 49; and 19 p e r c e n t were over 50. The  o v e r a l l ages ranged  and  c o n t r o l means were 32.5 and 37.6 y e a r s An independent  produced  from 16 t o 73, w i t h a mean o f 35.5 y e a r s .  t - t e s t conducted  Treatment  respectively.  on the d i f f e r e n c e o f the two means  a v a l u e o f 3.59 which was s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .05 l e v e l .  This led  to the r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the means were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y different.  The age v a r i a b l e was c o r r e l a t e d  w i t h the p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s t o  produce a Pearson  Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t o f -0.13.  results indicated  t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e r e was a s l i g h t  tendency  These  f o r t h e younger  p a r t i c i p a n t s t o o b t a i n h i g h e r s c o r e s on the p o s t - t e s t , and t h e r e was  signi-  f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the ages of the two e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s , the s m a l l r-value obtained i n d i c a t e d s c o r e s was  negligible.  t h a t the o v e r a l l e f f e c t of age upon the p o s t - t e s t  FIGURE 1 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY AGE TREATMENT  CONTROL Range (Years) 8(5.9%)  6(3.2%) 19 or less  66(48.9%)  61(32.3%) 20 to 29 28(20.7%)  41(21.7%) 30 to 39  14(10.4%)  45(23.8%) 40 to 49  19(14.1%)  36(19.0%) 50 or over  MEANS: Treatment =32.5 Control =37.6 t =3.59; df = 322; p< .01  TOTALS: Treatment = 135 Control = 189  33  Length  o f Residence  i n Canada  Closely related r e s i d e n c e i n Canada  t o the age o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s was t h e i r l e n g t h o f  ( r = 0.71).  I t was found  t h a t 7.4 p e r c e n t o f the t r e a t -  ment and 2.7 p e r c e n t o f t h e c o n t r o l i n d i v i d u a l s had r e s i d e d i n Canada f o r a period of f i v e years or l e s s had  lived  (Table 2 ) .  Of t h e former  group, 54.1 p e r c e n t  i n t h i s c o u n t r y f o r an i n t e r v a l o f from 6 t o 25 y e a r s and 38.5  p e r c e n t f o r a g r e a t e r p e r i o d , w h i l e 34.2 p e r c e n t o f t h e c o n t r o l group had resided  i n t h e c o u n t r y f o r t h e 6 t o 25 p e r i o d and 63.1 p e r c e n t f o r a l o n g e r  time. A t - s t a t i s t i c was c a l c u l a t e d on t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e treatment mean o f 26.2 and t h e c o n t r o l mean o f 32.8 y e a r s .  T h i s produced  4.3 which was s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .01 l e v e l and r e s u l t e d o f t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s w h i c h proposed different.  a value of  i n the r e j e c t i o n  t h a t t h e means were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y  T h i s v a r i a b l e , i n d e p e n d e n t l y , had l i t t l e  i n f l u e n c e on t h e  p o s t - t e s t r e s u l t s because o f i t s h i g h i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e age v a r i a b l e (r = 0.71) and i t s low c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s  ( r = -0.086).  Area of O r i g i n of P a r t i c i p a n t s  The  g r e a t e s t number o f p a r t i c i p a n t s were born i n E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g  c o u n t r i e s , w i t h 83.6 p e r c e n t o f the treatment  and 87.6 p e r c e n t o f t h e c o n t r o l  i n d i v i d u a l s o r i g i n a t i n g from t h e s e a r e a s  (Table 3 ) .  d u a l s , 84.5 p e r c e n t were born i n Canada.  Only 16.4 p e r c e n t o f the treatment  and  Of t h e s e 277 i n d i v i -  12.7 p e r c e n t o f t h e c o n t r o l groups were born i n n o n - E n g l i s h  areas. produced  speaking  A c h i - s q u a r e s t a t i s t i c computed on the t r e a t m e n t - c o n t r o l p r o p o r t i o n s a v a l u e o f 0.6 which f a i l e d  to r e j e c t  the n u l l hypothesis that the  34  TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN CANADA  %  No  Total  Control  Treatment  Years  No  '%  No  %  26 o r more  52  38.5  118  63.1  170  52.8  6-25  73  54.1  64  34.2  137  42.5  5 or less  10  7.4  5  2.7  15  4.7  322  100.0  135  Total  100.0 (41.9)  100.0 (58.1)  187  No Response = 2(0.6%) Means:  Treatment = 26.2 Control =32.8  t = 4.3; d f = 320; p< .01  TABLE 3 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY AREA OF ORIGIN  Area of O r i g i n  Treatment No  English speaking Non-English speaking Total  Total  Control  %  No  %  No  %  112  83.6  165  87.3  277  85.8  22  16.4  24  12.7  46  14.2  323  100.0  134  100.0 (41.5)  189  Chi-square = 0.6; d f = l ; N.S. No Response = 1(0.3%)  100.0 (58.5)  •  35  d i f f e r e n c e s i n observed  p r o p o r t i o n s were due t o chance a l o n e .  Educational Level  I t i s apparent the treatment completed  from F i g u r e 2 t h a t l i t t l e  d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d between  and c o n t r o l groups i n t h e number o f p a r t i c i p a n t s who had  all,  or p a r t o f , a h i g h s c h o o l programme.  f o r t h e treatment  The observed  percentages  and c o n t r o l groups were 67.2 and 64.3 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  6.7 p e r c e n t o f t h e treatment  group o c c u r r e d i n t h e 5 t o 8 y e a r  w h i l e 16 p e r c e n t o f t h e c o n t r o l was found  i n t h i s range.  group, 19.7 p e r c e n t had r e c e i v e d some p o s t - s e c o n d a r y p e r c e n t o f t h e treatment  had a c h i e v e d a s i m i l a r  category,  Of t h e c o n t r o l  e d u c a t i o n , w h i l e 26.1  level.  The mean l e v e l o f e d u c a t i o n was 11.9 y e a r s f o r t h e treatment years f o r the c o n t r o l .  coefficient  and 11.2  A t - v a l u e o f 2.59, which was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01  l e v e l , was o b t a i n e d from The  Only  the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f t h i s mean d i f f e r e n c e .  o b t a i n e d from c o r r e l a t i n g e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l w i t h t h e p o s t -  t e s t s c o r e s was 0.36 and was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l .  This indicates  t h a t t r e a t m e n t - c o n t r o l d i f f e r e n c e s o f y e a r s o f s c h o o l i n g may have had some i n f l u e n c e on t h e p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s .  P r o p o r t i o n o f S a l a r y Earned  from P e s t i c i d e  Application  S i x t y - s e v e n o f the 324 s h o r t c o u r s e p a r t i c i p a n t s f a i l e d  to i n d i c a t e  the p r o p o r t i o n o f income o b t a i n e d d u r i n g t h e p a s t twelve months which was d e r i v e d from  the a p p l i c a t i o n of p e s t i c i d e s  responded, t w o - t h i r d s  ( T a b l e 4 ) . Of those who  (67.1 %) o f t h e c o n t r o l and 58.6 p e r c e n t of the t r e a t -  ment r e p o r t e d t h a t none o f t h e i r  income was o b t a i n e d from t h i s s o u r c e because  FIGURE 2 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL  TREATMENT  Range (Years Completed)  CONTROL  30(16.0%)  9(6.7%) 5-8 48(35.8%)  64(34.0%) " 7 / 9-11 57(30.3%)  42(31.4%) 12 35(26.1%)  37(19.7%) 13 or more  MEANS: Treatment = 11.9 Control = 11.2 t = 2.59; df = 320; p< .01.  TOTALS: Treatment = 134 Control = 187 No response = 2  11  37  they were e i t h e r unemployed or were s t a r t i n g i n the b u s i n e s s . (25.3%) of the former from t h i s s o u r c e and income.  One-third  group r e p o r t e d t h a t p a r t of t h e i r 7.6  One-quarter  income was  derived  p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d i t as a c c o u n t i n g f o r a l l of  (32.3%) of the l a t t e r group r e p o r t e d some, and  r e p o r t e d a l l t h e i r income d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d was  o b t a i n e d from  their  9.1  percent  these  endeavours. The mean s a l a r y p e r c e n t a g e s 30.8  f o r the treatment  and  mean d i f f e r e n c e produced  28.1  r e c e i v e d from p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n  f o r the c o n t r o l .  A t - t e s t c a l c u l a t e d on  a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t v a l u e of 0.72  which f a i l e d  r e j e c t the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e s e means d i d not d i f f e r  r of 0.11  this  to  significantly.  C o r r e l a t i o n of t h i s v a r i a b l e w i t h t h e p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s produced s i g n i f i c a n t Pearson  was  a non-  which i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e s e v a l u e s v a r i e d  i n d e p e n d e n t l y of the p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s .  Y e a r s of E x p e r i e n c e as a P e s t i c i d e A p p l i c a t o r  Over o n e - f i f t h i t e m and were e x c l u d e d  (21.7%) of t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s f a i l e d from  (31.6%) o f the treatment pesticide applicators; e x p e r i e n c e ; and one-half  the a n a l y s e s  Approximately  group r e p o r t e d no p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e as one-half  the r e m a i n i n g  (52.1%) r e p o r t e d one  16.3  to t h i s one-third  commercial  to t e n y e a r s of  p e r c e n t , more than 10 y e a r s .  Almost  (49.4%) of the c o n t r o l group had no p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e , o n e - t h i r d  (34.9%) had  one  to t e n y e a r s , and  mean y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e were 5.2 control.  (Table 5 ) .  t o respond  15.7  f o r the treatment  T h i s mean d i f f e r e n c e produced  were s t a t i s t i c a l l y  similar.  p e r c e n t had more than 10 y e a r s . and  a t - v a l u e of 0.32  4.9  f o r the  i n d i c a t i n g the means  T h i s v a r i a b l e a l s o d i s p l a y e d a v e r y weak  c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s  ( r = 0.07).  The  38  TABLE 4 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY PORTION OF INCOME OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICATION OF PESTICIDES  P o r t i o n of Wage  Total  Control  Treatment  %  No  %  No  %  9  9.1  12  7.6  21  8.2  Part  32  32.3  40  25.3  72  28.0  None  58  58.6  106  67.1  164  63.9  Total  99  100.0 (38.5)  158  100.0 (61.5)  257  100.0  No All  No Response = 67(20.7%) Means:  Treatment = 30.8 Control = 28.1  t = 0.72; d f = 255; N.S.  TABLE 5 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE  Years of Experience  Treatment  Control  %  No  No  Total  %  No  %  11 o r more  19  16.3  26  15.7  45  15.8  1-10  61  52.1  58  34.9  119  42.1  None  37  31.6  82  49.4  119  42.1  100.0 (58.7)  283  100.0  Total  117  100.0 (41.3)  No Response Means:  166  = 41(21.7%)  Treatment = 5.2 Control =4.9  t = 0.32; d f = 281; N.S.  39  Employment  Status  S i x t e e n p e r c e n t of the treatment  group were employed as commercial  p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t o r s on a f u l l - t i m e b a s i s , w h i l e 84 p e r c e n t were p a r t - t i m e (Table 6 ) .  A s i m i l a r p r o p o r t i o n was observed  percent responding One-fourth  i n the c o n t r o l , w i t h 17.6  as f u l l - t i m e and 82.4 p e r c e n t as p a r t - t i m e  o f the t o t a l number of p a r t i c i p a n t s were e x c l u d e d  p o r t i o n s because of t h e i r f a i l u r e to respond computed on t h e s e v a l u e s produced i n d i c a t e d the observed  to t h i s item,  applicators. from  these  pro-  A chi-square  a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t v a l u e of 0.02 which  p r o p o r t i o n s were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t  from  each o t h e r . A mere 7.8 p e r c e n t o f the treatment 92.2 p e r c e n t were employed by someone e l s e was composed o f 17.2 p e r c e n t of the former classification.  The seventeen  i t e m were e x c l u d e d  from  r e m a i n i n g d a t a produced  group were s e l f - e m p l o y e d , (Table 7 ) .  a v a l u e o f 5.1.  The c o n t r o l group  and 82.8 p e r c e n t o f the l a t t e r  i n d i v i d u a l s who f a i l e d  the a n a l y s i s .  while  t o respond  to t h i s  A c h i - s q u a r e computed on the Although  a t the f i v e p e r c e n t l e v e l i t i s improbable  t h i s v a l u e was  significant  that the f u l l - t i m e or part-time  employment s t a t u s v a r i a b l e , i n d e p e n d e n t l y , had much e f f e c t on the p o s t - t e s t results.  Pearson  Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s to t e s t the  c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e s e employment s t a t u s v a r i a b l e s and the p o s t - t e s t r e s u l t s were not computed as the employment s t a t u s v a r i a b l e s a r e n e i t h e r continuous nor i n t e r v a l .  Attendance  a t R e l a t e d Short Courses  Certificates Only  and Number of P e s t i c i d e  Application  Held 21.5 p e r c e n t o f the treatment  and 18 p e r c e n t of the c o n t r o l  40  TABLE 6 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY FULL OR PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT STATUS  Status  Treatment  Control  %  No  Total  %  No  No  %  Full-time  17  16.0  24  17.6  41  16.9  Part-time  89  84.0  112  82.4  201  83.1  100.0 (43.8)  136  100.0 (56.2)  242  100.0  106  Total  C h i - s q u a r e = 0.02; d f = 1; N.S. No Response o r Unemployed = 82(25.3%)  TABLE 7 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS  Status  Treatment  Control  Total  No  %  No  10  7.8  31  17 .2  41  13.3  Employee  119  92.2  149  82 .8  268  86.7  Total  129  100.0 (41.7)  180  100 .0 (58 • 3)  309  100.0  Self-employed  Chi-square No Response  %  = 5.1; df = 1 ; p < .05 = 17(5.3%)  No  %  41  groups had p r e v i o u s l y p a r t i c i p a t e d whereas o n e - f o u r t h participated  (25.9%) of the former  second  ( T a b l e s 8 and  to the f i r s t  c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e was  0.3  short  courses  p e r c e n t of the l a t t e r  The  e n t i r e group of 324  individuals  to respond  to the  removed from a l l a n a l y s e s i n t h i s s u b - s e c t i o n .  to r e j e c t  p r o p o r t i o n s were due  a t t e n d e d a mean of 0.2  signifi-  e n t i r e l y to random chance.  0.2  c o n d i t i o n had  a t t e n d e d a mean of  non-BCDA c o u r s e s , w h i l e the c o n t r o l group  c o u r s e s of b o t h t y p e s .  mean d i f f e r e n c e s between treatment  and  non-BCDA c o u r s e p a r t i c i p a t i o n produced s i g n i f i c a n t a t the f i v e p e r c e n t l e v e l the p o s t - t e s t , produced  A  the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  i n d i v i d u a l s of the treatment  p r e v i o u s BCDA c o u r s e s and  had  by a g r i c u l t u r a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s  c a l c u l a t e d f o r b o t h v a r i a b l e s but n e i t h e r proved  cant, thereby f a i l i n g  The  9).  17.6  i t e m , w h i l e two p a r t i c i p a n t s f a i l e d  and were c o n s e q u e n t l y  observed  and  i n s i m i l a r c o u r s e s sponsored  o t h e r than the BCDA. responded  i n s i m i l a r BCDA sponsored  A t - t e s t c a l c u l a t e d on  the  c o n t r o l i n d i v i d u a l s on p r e v i o u s a t v a l u e of 2.24  which was  only  T h i s v a r i a b l e , when c o r r e l a t e d  a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t r v a l u e of 0.07  which  with  suggested  t h a t i t d i d not c o n t r i b u t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o the v a r i a n c e of the p o s t - t e s t . I t was  not n e c e s s a r y  t o conduct  a t - t e s t on the p r e v i o u s BCDA  sponsored  c o u r s e p a r t i c i p a t i o n t r e a t m e n t - c o n t r o l d i f f e r e n c e as t h i s e q u a l l e d z e r o . T h i s v a r i a b l e a l s o c o r r e l a t e d n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h the p o s t - t e s t ( r = 0.08). From T a b l e 10 i t can be seen t h a t of the 323  participants  who  p r o v i d e d the number of BCDA p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n c e r t i f i c a t e s p r e v i o u s l y h e l d , almost  t h r e e - f o u r t h s (73.1%) of the treatment  of the c o n t r o l group a d m i t t e d of the treatment  and  20.1  h a v i n g none.  and  four-fifths  T h i s meant t h a t 26.9  (79.9%)  percent  p e r c e n t of the c o n t r o l p a r t i c i p a n t s h e l d one  or  42  TABLE 8 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY PREVIOUS BCDA COURSE ATTENDANCE  Previous Attendance  Treatment  %  No Participation  Total  Control  %  No  No  %  29  21.5  34  18.0  63  19.4  No p a r t i c i pation  106  78.5  155  82.0  261  80.6  Total  135  100.0 (41.7)  189  100.0 (58.3)  324  100.0  Chi-square Means:  = 0.4; df = 1; N.S.  Treatment = 0.2 Control =0.2  TABLE 9 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY PREVIOUS ATTENDANCE AT RELATED , NON-BCDA SPONSORED COURSES  Previous Attendance Participation  Treatment  Control  %  No  No  Total  %  No  %  35  25.9  33  17.6  68  21.1  No p a r t i c i pation  100  74.1  154  82.4  254  78.9  Total  135  100.0 (41.9)  187  100.0 (58.1)  322  100.0  Chi-square No Response Means:  = 2.7; df = 1; N.S. = 2(0.6%)  Treatment = 0.3 Control =0.2  t = 2.24; df = 320; p< .05.  43  TABLE 10 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY PREVIOUS CERTIFICATES HELD  Total  Control  Treatment  Certificates Held  No  %  No  %  No  1 or more  36  26.9  38  20.1  74  22.9  None  98  73.1  151  79.9  249  77.1  100.0 (41.5)  189  100.0 (58.5)  323  100.0  Total  134  Chi-square No Response  %  = 1.7; df = 1 ; N.S. = 1(0.3%)  Means: Treatment Control  = 0.4 =0.3  t = 1.13; df - 321; N.S.  TABLE 11 PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF THREE MEASURES OF PARTICIPATION Previous BCDA Course Attendance Previous BCDA Course Attendance  Certificates Held  1.00  Previous non-BCDA Sponsored Course Attendance  .28**  C e r t i f i c a t e s Held  .54**  ** S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l .  Previous non-BCDA Sponsored Course Attendance  1.00 .40**  1.00  44  more o f these c e r t i f i c a t e s . held the  The mean numbers o f c e r t i f i c a t e s  were 0.4 f o r t h e treatment and 0.3 f o r the c o n t r o l . former group h e l d  6 and two o f t h e l a t t e r h e l d  previously  One i n d i v i d u a l i n  4 each.  A chi-square  computed on t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s h o l d i n g p r e v i o u s c e r t i f i c a t e s i n the  respective  e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s produced a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t  1.7 w h i c h i n d i c a t e d statistically  that  similar.  t h e o b s e r v e d r a t i o s i n b o t h c o n d i t i o n s were A t - t e s t conducted on t h e d i f f e r e n c e  mean v a l u e s p r o v i d e d a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t reject  the n u l l hypothesis that  results  o f t h e two  r e s u l t o f 1.13 which f a i l e d t o  t h e means were s t a t i s t i c a l l y  A l t h o u g h t h e number o f c e r t i f i c a t e s h e l d post-test  v a l u e of  correlated  similar.  s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h the  ( r = 0.17) t h e r e was no d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t due t o  assignment o f e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n  as b o t h the c h i - s q u a r e and t h e t - t e s t s  were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t . The by  number o f BCDA and non-BCDA  a l l the i n d i v i d u a l s  courses of s i m i l a r content attended  of the study c o r r e l a t e d  a t t h e .01 l e v e l  H i g h e r c o e f f i c i e n t s o f 0.54 and 0.4, r e s p e c t i v e l y , of  these v a r i a b l e s  (Table 11).  was c o r r e l a t e d  were o b t a i n e d when each  w i t h t h e number o f c e r t i f i c a t e s h e l d  Both were s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .01 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .  These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e correlated  ( r = 0.28),  that  t h e s e t h r e e measures were h i g h l y  and p r o b a b l y measured t h e same f a c t o r  of need t o p a r t i c i p a t e  inter-  such as a g e n e r a l measure  r e s u l t i n g from e i t h e r an i n t e r e s t i n the s u b j e c t  matter or a p r o f e s s i o n a l  need t o a c q u i r e a d d i t i o n a l  c e r t i f c a t e s , and know-  ledge, consequently r e s u l t i n g i n increased attendance at s i m i l a r courses.  i  short  45  Summary  T h i s c h a p t e r c o n s i s t s o f the a n a l y s i s o f t h e s o c i o - e c o n o m i c data.  The f i r s t v a r i a b l e c o n s i d e r e d was age o f p a r t i c i p a n t s .  The con-  t r o l mean age o f 37.6 y e a r s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than the treatment mean o f 32.5 y e a r s a t the .01 l e v e l . have l i t t l e cantly  T h i s v a r i a b l e was c o n s i d e r e d t o  e f f e c t upon t h e p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s s i n c e i t d i d n o t s i g n i f i -  c o r r e l a t e w i t h them.  As expected,  l e n g t h o f residence i n Canada  was h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h age ( r = 0.71). significantly  c o r r e l a t e w i t h the p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s .  r e s i d e n c e was 26.2 y e a r s The g r e a t e s t numbers  f o r t h e treatment  The mean l e n g t h o f  and 32.8 y e a r s  f o r the c o n t r o l .  o f p a r t i c i p a n t s were b o r n i n E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g coun-  t r i e s , w i t h 83.6 p e r c e n t o f the treatment originated  This v a r i a b l e also d i d not  from these a r e a s .  and 87.6 p e r c e n t  A chi-square s t a t i s t i c  of the c o n t r o l  c a l c u l a t e d upon  the p r o p o r t i o n s was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t . Mean e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l was 11.9 y e a r s y e a r s f o r the c o n t r o l .  f o r the treatment  and 11.2  T h i s d i f f e r e n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .01 l e v e l .  S i n c e t h i s v a r i a b l e c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h the p o s t - t e s t a t the .01 l e v e l i t had some i n f l u e n c e upon the p o s t - t e s t . Mean p r o p o r t i o n o f p r e v i o u s y e a r ' s s a l a r y d e r i v e d from a p p l i c a t i o n was 30.8 p e r c e n t f o r the treatment  pesticide  and 28.1 p e r c e n t f o r the  control.  T h i s d i f f e r e n c e was n o t l a r g e enough t o produce a s i g n i f i c a n t  t-value.  The treatment had a mean o f 5.2 y e a r s p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e and  the c o n t r o l 4.9 y e a r s . not s i g n i f i c a n t .  A t - s t a t i s t i c c a l c u l a t e d on these means was a l s o  Slightly  over f o u r - f i f t h s  the c o n t r o l were o p e r a t i n g as  of both  the treatment and  p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t o r s on a p a r t - t i m e  basis.  Only  7.8 p e r c e n t o f the former and 17.7 p e r c e n t o f t h e l a t t e r  were s e l f - e m p l o y e d , p o r t i o n produced  t h e remainder  were employees.  a chi-square value s i g n i f i c a n t  Although  on t h e p o s t - t e s t .  and t h e c o n t r o l had p r e v i o u s l y p a r t i c i p a t e d  i n a mean o f 0.2 BCDA-sponsored s h o r t c o u r s e s . previously participated  The treatment  group  i n a mean o f 0.3 s i m i l a r courses sponsored by  groups o t h e r than t h e BCDA w h i l e the c o n t r o l p a r t i c i p a t e d i n 0.2. number o f c e r t i f i c a t e s a l r e a d y h e l d was 0.4 f o r t h e treatment f o r the c o n t r o l . ficant  t-value.  pro-  a t the .05 l e v e l , i t  was c o n s i d e r e d t h a t t h i s v a r i a b l e had no d i r e c t e f f e c t Both t h e treatment  this  N e i t h e r o f t h e s e mean d i f f e r e n c e s produced  The  and 0.3  a signi-  A h i g h degree o f i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n was observed f o r  these t h r e e v a r i a b l e s which p r o b a b l y measured a common f a c t o r such as a g e n e r a l need t o p a r t i c i p a t e .  CHAPTER IV  PRE-TESTING AND HANDBOOK UTILIZATION  Introduction  This chapter deals with the data obtained from the i n d i v i d u a l s as a r e s u l t of their p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the short courses.  The f i r s t considera-  t i o n i s given to a r a t i o n a l e which allowed the combining similar topic and treatment.  of groups of  The r e s u l t s discussed i n t h i s chapter are  p r i m a r i l y those which were obtained from combining groups with each other and combining  the eight treatment  the eight control groups with each  other to form one treatment and one control group.  It explores the source  from which p a r t i c i p a n t s obtained the pre-course handbooks and the amount of use to which they were put.  Also analyzed are the pre-test, the p o s t - t e s t ,  and the c e r t i f i c a t i o n examination mean scores. a regression analysis which attempts influenced the post-test scores.  The chapter concludes with  to determine which factor primarily  Special emphasis was given to the e f f e c t  of the pre-test upon the post-test.  Rationale f o r Combining Groups of Similar Experimental Condition The concern of t h i s chapter i s with the influence of varied e x p e r i mental conditions upon the post-test and not with non-significant differences among groups of s i m i l a r experimental condition. Therefore, the data are presented as one treatment and one control for each of the s i x t o p i c s . the three Landscape and Garden Pest Abatement treatment courses and the 47  Both  48  three  c o n t r o l c o u r s e s of the N o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l , N o n - f o r e s t r y  C o n t r o l were combined. and  I t was  considered  that  Vegetation  the t h r e e combined Landscape  Garden P e s t Abatement c o u r s e s were s i m i l a r s i n c e a l l r e c e i v e d  same e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n and p r e - t e s t and F - r a t i o s of  a one-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e  p o s t - t e s t mean s c o r e s 0.42  among the means  and  0.95  the p o s t - t e s t means of the  significant  A s i m i l a r r a t i o n a l e and  three  on b o t h  the  resulted i n non-significant overall  r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n d i c a t i n g no  (Appendix 4 ) .  the  groups a s s i g n e d  the N o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l , N o n - f o r e s t r y  Vegetation  n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l F - r a t i o of 0.26  t e s t conducted  the c o n t r o l  Control  difference on  condition  of  t o p i c produced a  (Appendix 5 ) .  E f f e c t s of Handbook U t i l i z a t i o n A r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s was all  324  p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h p r e - t e s t as  v a r i a b l e deleted list  from the a n a l y s i s .  the dependent v a r i a b l e and The  percent  of the r e s u l t i n g e x p l a i n e d  variance  I t i s apparent t h a t the e x t e n t  handbook m a t e r i a l was  utilized  but  had  no  to which the  increased  The  In the  handbook use  s i g n i f i c a n t a t the  p o s i t i v e l y influenced  This suggests that these m a t e r i a l s scores  was  percent.  the  certificates  added to the e q u a t i o n w i t h an  to 14.7  p r e - t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.27 level.  the number of  of the p r e - t e s t v a r i a n c e .  the i n t e n s i t y of handbook use was  post-test  f i r s t v a r i a b l e removed from  of p o t e n t i a l independent v a r i a b l e s was  h e l d , which accounted f o r 9.5 step  c a l c u l a t e d on the d a t a c o l l e c t e d from  next  increase -  .01  pre-course the p r e - t e s t  scores.  the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' p r e - e n t r y  e f f e c t upon t h e i r p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s  as p r e v i o u s l y  discussed.  I t i s important to note t h a t the degree of u t i l i z a t i o n of the handbook m a t e r i a l had  a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on  the p o s t - t e s t o n l y  to  49  those p a r t i c i p a n t s who significant suggests  d i d not complete the p r e - t e s t but was  f a c t o r upon the p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s of those who  did.  This  t h a t the p a r t i c i p a n t s s h o u l d be a d m i n i s t e r e d e i t h e r the p r e - t e s t  or the handbook m a t e r i a l , as the l a t t e r becomes unimportant former  i s presented.  Source  of and P a r t i c i p a n t Use  Of the 312  of P r e - c o u r s e  p a r t i c i p a n t s who  handbook m a t e r i a l s , 101 a d m i t t e d T h i s r e p r e s e n t e d 40.8 individuals.  of a s e t and  13.3  not h a v i n g o b t a i n e d them and  performed  a c c e s s to a s e t of handbooks.  group who  57.6  T h i s computation .025  level.  produced  T h i s caused  l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of the c o n t r o l group had  them, w h i l e the remainder accounted  f o r 40.7  sets.  two  7.6  r e j e c t i o n of  entirely  significantly  to i n d i c a t e  i n d i v i d u a l s of the 103 who  their  failed  failed  but o n l y 26.2  to  to use  they had not r e c e i v e d them a t a l l .  p e r c e n t of the treatment  the  a c c e s s t o the handbooks.  h a v i n g r e c e i v e d them but had  contended  A  having  p r o p o r t i o n s were due  T a b l e 13 shows t h a t o n l y s i x p a r t i c i p a n t s f a i l e d Only  16.4  a v a l u e of  of the a l t e r n a t i v e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t a  the handbooks admitted  admitted  Almost t h r e e - f o u r t h s  p e r c e n t owning t h e i r own  n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n observed  i n t e n s i t y of handbook use.  control  p e r c e n t of t h e s e c l a i m i n g p o s s e s s i o n  on the p r o p o r t i o n of p a r t i c i p a n t s  s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the  to chance and acceptance  (Table 12).  o b t a i n e d c o p i e s of the m a t e r i a l , w i t h  p e r c e n t h a v i n g borrowed them and c h i - s q u a r e t e s t was  pre-course  26 p e r c e n t of the  p e r c e n t of the treatment  p e r c e n t h a v i n g borrowed c o p i e s .  (74%) of the c o n t r o l group had  which was  Handbooks  p e r c e n t of the treatment  There were 59.2  when the  r e v e a l e d t h e i r s o u r c e of  h a v i n g r e c e i v e d the books, w i t h 45.9  utilize  not a  p e r c e n t of  These  control.  so  TABLE 12 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY SOURCE OF PRE-COURSE HANDBOOKS  Source of Handbooks  Treatment  %  No  Total  Control  %  No  No  %  Owned by Participant  62  45.9  102  57.6  164  52.6  Borrowed  18  13.3  29  16.4  47  15.1  Not received  55  40.8  46  26.0  101  32.3  100.0 (56.7)  312  100.0  Total  135  Chi-square No response  100.0 (43.3)  177  = 7.6; df = 2; p< .025 = 12(3.7%)  TABLE 13 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY PRE-COURSE HANDBOOK USE  Handbook Use  Treatment No.  Control  %  No.  Total  %  No.  %  Read more than once  27  20.0  57  31.2  84  26.4  Read once  53  39.3  78  42.6  131  41.2  Not received*  55  40.7  48  26.2  103  32.4  100.0 (57.5)  318  100.0  135  100.0 (42.5)  183  * Of the 103 i nthis category, 101 did not receive the handbooks. Two (2) people, although receiving handbooks, did not u t i l i z e them. Chi-square = 8.9; df = 2; p< .02 No Response = 6(1.9%)  Means: Treatment = 2 . 9 Control =3.3 t = 2.23; df = 316; p< .05  51  W i t h i n the treatment  group 39.3  p e r c e n t had  read the m a t e r i a l once and  o n l y o n e - f i f t h read them more i n t e n s i v e l y whereas 46.2 c o n t r o l r e a d them once and square  31.2  s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the  .02  level.  those of the  rejection  f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s i n  five indicated  treatment  and  the handbook m a t e r i a l more i n t e n s i v e l y  3.3  to f i v e , where one  i n d i c a t e d no use of the m a t e r i a l  i n t e n s i v e s t u d y , a mean v a l u e of 2.9 f o r the c o n t r o l .  was  o b t a i n e d f o r the  A t - t e s t c a l c u l a t e d on t h i s  s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e f i v e p e r c e n t l e v e l  the a c c e p t a n c e  than  treatment.  On a s c a l e of one  was  i n the  8.9  p r o p o r t i o n s i n f a v o u r of the a l t e r n a t i v e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the  control individuals utilized  and  A chi-  a v a l u e of  This resulted  of the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t chance a l o n e accounted observed  the  p e r c e n t read them more than once.  s t a t i s t i c c a l c u l a t e d on these p r o p o r t i o n s produced  which was  did  p e r c e n t of  ( t = 2.23)  difference  which r e s u l t e d i n  of the a l t e r n a t i v e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the c o n t r o l group s t u d i e d  the handbook m a t e r i a l more i n t e n s i v e l y than d i d the treatment  group.  C o r r e l a t i n g t h e v a l u e s o b t a i n e d on t h i s s c a l e w i t h the p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s produced  a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.095 w h i c h i n d i c a t e d  those  who  i n t e n s i v e l y s t u d i e d the handbook m a t e r i a l d i d not a c h i e v e a c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y higher p o s t - t e s t score.  Pre-test  Scores  The  135  p a r t i c i p a n t s who  were a s s i g n e d the treatment  the o n l y i n d i v i d u a l s to r e c e i v e the p r e - t e s t . completed  Of t h i s group, 13.3  l e s s than 19 of 30 items c o r r e c t l y , 51.9  24 c o r r e c t , and  34.8  c o n d i t i o n were  p e r c e n t s c o r e s 25 or h i g h e r  of the p r e - t e s t w i t h the p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s r e s u l t e d  percent achieved (Table 14).  percent 19 to  Correlation  i n an r - v a l u e of  0.54  52  which was s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the .01 l e v e l .  This result  indicated  that  those i n d i v i d u a l s who s c o r e d w e l l on t h e p r e - t e s t s c o r e d w e l l on t h e p o s t t e s t and t h e p r e - t e s t e x e r t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t variance.  I t f u r t h e r suggests  i n f l u e n c e upon the p o s t - t e s t  t h a t the p a r t i c i p a n t s were s e r i o u s l y com-  p l e t i n g the p r e - t e s t .  Certification  The  Examination  c e r t i f i c a t i o n examination  p o s t - t e s t was completed course.  which c o n t a i n e d the 30 items o f t h e  by a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f each s h o r t  The l e n g t h o f e x a m i n a t i o n  varied  from 155 t o 232 i t e m  depending upon t h e t o p i c o f the e x a m i n a t i o n . the c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e s e e x a m i n a t i o n s ; required.  not.  Adequate time was p r o v i d e d f o r  approximately  one hour and a h a l f was  T a b l e 15 shows t h a t 95.6 p e r c e n t o f t h e treatment  s u c c e s s f u l l y surpassed  responses  individuals  the 65 p e r c e n t p a s s i n g grade w h i l e 4.4 p e r c e n t d i d  The c o n t r o l s e x h i b i t e d a r e l a t i v e l y  s i m i l a r p r o p o r t i o n w i t h 89.9 p e r c e n t  p a s s i n g t h e t h r e s h o l d minimum o f s u c c e s s and 10.1 p e r c e n t f a i l i n g . square  t e s t was performed  s i g n i f i c a n t v a l u e of 2.7. the treatment  A chi-  on these p r o p o r t i o n s w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n a nonThe mean s c o r e s o b t a i n e d were 83.41 and 81.43 f o r  and c o n t r o l groups r e s p e c t i v e l y .  A t - t e s t conducted  on t h e i r  d i f f e r e n c e r e s u l t e d i n a v a l u e o f 2.7 which was s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e f i v e percent l e v e l .  These two r e s u l t s suggested  that although  the r a t i o s o f  s u c c e s s e s a c h i e v e d by each group were n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t , t h e treatment  group demonstrated a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r s c o r e on t h i s  t i o n examination The  certifica-  than d i d t h e c o n t r o l .  t h i r t y i t e m p o s t - t e s t r e s u l t s were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e c e r t i f i -  c a t i o n examination,  r e s u l t i n g i n an r - v a l u e o f 0.71 which was s i g n i f i c a n t  53  TABLE 14 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE TREATMENT CONDITION BY PRE-TEST SCORES*  Treatment  Score No.  %  25 - 30  47  34.8  19 - 24  70  51.9  Less than 19  18  13.3  135  100.0  Total:  * Control groups received no pre-test Mean: Treatment = 22.8  TABLE 15 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY CERTIFICATION SCORES  Percentage Achieved  Treatment No.  65 or over* 64 or less Total  Control  %  No  Total  %  No.  %  129  95.6  170  89.9  299  92.3  6  4.4  19  10.1  25  7.7  324  100.0  135  100.0 (41.7)  189  100.0 (58.3)  * 65 percent i s the o f f i c i a l grade necessary to be awarded a certificate. Chi-square = 2.7; df = 1; N.S. Means: Treatment Control  = 83.41 = 81.43  t = 1.7; df = 322; p< .05  54  well beyond the .01 l e v e l .  A multiple regression containing a l l continuous,  i n t e r v a l variables as independent  variables and the c e r t i f i c a t i o n  examination  r e s u l t s as the dependent v a r i a b l e indicated that the post-test r e s u l t s alone accounted for 50.4 percent of the t o t a l variance. assumption  These r e s u l t s confirm the  that the post-test and the c e r t i f i c a t i o n examinations measured  the same v a r i a b l e and that the t h i r t y item post-test i s a good random sample of the larger examinations which are excluded from further consideration.  Post-test There were 8.5 percent of the control group who  answered less than  19 of the t h i r t y post-test items c o r r e c t l y , while 24.3 percent scored 19 to 24 and 67.2 percent attained a higher score  (Table 16).  Of the treatment  group, 2.2 percent scores less than 19 correct, 15.6 percent achieved 19 to 24 and f o u r - f i f t h s (82.2%) attained over 25 correct  ( c f . Table 14).  A  chi-square value of 10.6 was obtained f o r the observed treatment and control ratios.  This was  s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the .01 l e v e l which resulted i n accep-  tance of the a l t e r n a t i v e hypothesis that the c i f f e r e n c e s i n the proportions observed were due to factors other than chance. answered c o r r e c t l y was  The mean number of items  26.8 by the treatment group and 25.1 by the c o n t r o l .  A t - t e s t conducted on this difference produced highly s i g n i f i c a n t , (p< .0005).  a value of 4.8 which was  This caused r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l hypothesis  that the two means were s i m i l a r i n favour of the a l t e r n a t i v e hypothesis that the treatment mean was  s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the control mean.  Such a low p r o b a b i l i t y (p< .0005) of obtaining a t-value of this magnitude indicates that there i s v i r t u a l l y no p o s s i b i l i t y that chance alone such a mean d i f f e r e n c e .  produced  55  Analysis  of the Means  The  p r e - t e s t means from the s i x groups which r e c e i v e d  c o n d i t i o n were s u b j e c t e d an F - r a t i o of 1.92, tically that  to a one-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e .  w i t h 5 and  129  s i g n i f i c a n t (Appendix 6 ) .  the  the  treatment  This  degrees of freedom, which was T h i s r e s u l t u p h e l d the n u l l  produced not  statis-  hypothesis  s i x p r e - t e s t means were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i m i l a r which i n d i c a t e s  members of the m a t e r i a l , and condition.  s i x i n d i v i d u a l groups had  s i m i l a r p r e - c o u r s e knowledge of  f u r t h e r j u s t i f i e s combining these groups i n t o one  As  a consequence, i t can  be  of these i n d i v i d u a l s were a r e s u l t of the c o n d i t i o n s  during  the i n t e r v e n i n g  a further extension  we  can assume t h a t  the  treatment  assumed t h a t changes i n the mean  scores  p e r i o d w h i c h was  that  dominated by the  the  which  short  occurred  courses.  i n d i v i d u a l s a s s i g n e d to  By  the  c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n a l s o p o s s e s s e d s i m i l a r knowledge p r i o r t o a t t e n d i n g  the  short  because  c o u r s e s because of the  t h e r e was  no  r e a s o n to assume t h e r e would be  between the  groups, and  none of the p e r s o n a l ,  the observed t r e a t m e n t - c o n t r o l two  l a r g e number of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n v o l v e d  significant difference  pre-course v a r i a b l e s  differences i n educational  except  l e v e l between  the  items c o r r e c t  of  groups appeared s i g n i f i c a n t . The  p r e - t e s t mean of the  treatment group was  a p o s s i b l e 30, whereas the mean i n c r e a s e d 17).  any  and  A c o r r e l a t e d t - t e s t conducted on  v a l u e of 13.6  which was  t e s t mean.  on  rejected  the p o s t - t e s t mean was  the p o s t - t e s t  (Table  these d i f f e r e n c e s r e s u l t e d i n a  s i g n i f i c a n t w e l l beyond the  caused the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s to be hypothesis that  to 26.8  22.8  .0005 l e v e l .  This r e s u l t  i n f a v o u r of the a l t e r n a t i v e  s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than the  pre-  56  TABLE 16 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY POST-TEST SCORE  Score  Treatment No.  Control  %  Total  %  No.  No.  %  25 - 30  Ill  82.2  127  67.2  238  73.4  19 - 24  21  15.6  46  24.3  67  20.7  3  2.2  16  8.5  19  5.9  324  100.0  Less than 19 Total  135  100.0 (41.7)  100.0 (58.3)  189  Chi-square = 10.6; df = 2; p< .01 Means: Treatment = 26.8 Control = 25.1 t = 4.8; df = 322; p<  .0005  TABLE 17 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, SAMPLE SIZES AND CORRELATED T-TEST RESULTS OF PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST DATA FOR TREATMENT GROUP  Mean  Standard Deviation  Post-test  26.8  2.8  Pre-test  22.8  4.0  n = 135  t-test 13.6; p<  .0005  57  The  r e s u l t s of correlated  treatment s h o r t each p o s t - t e s t  t - t e s t s c a l c u l a t e d on the i n d i v i d u a l  course p r e - t e s t / p o s t - t e s t  mean d i f f e r e n c e s i n d i c a t e d  i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y h i g h e r than i t s c o r r e s p o n d i n g  beyond the .01 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (Table  18).  pre-test  These s i g n i f i c a n t t e s t s  r e s u l t e d i n the r e j e c t i o n of the c o l l e c t i v e n u l l hypothesis that and  that  pre-test  p o s t - t e s t means were s i m i l a r , i n f a v o u r o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e h y p o t h e s i s  t h a t p o s t - t e s t means were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than t h e i r c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r e - t e s t means. The  independent t - t e s t s t h a t were c a l c u l a t e d on t h e  mean d i f f e r e n c e s o f each s h o r t t h e i r r e s u l t s (Table  c o u r s e t o p i c were n o t q u i t e so c l e a r c u t i n  1 7 ) . The p o s t - t e s t  treatment-control  of t h e Landscape and Garden P e s t Abatement and F o r e s t P e s t Abatement s h o r t tively.  or  mean d i f f e r e n c e s Forest-product  c o u r s e s produced t - t e s t v a l u e s o f 4.2 and 3.7 r e s p e c -  Both o f t h e s e v a l u e s were s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .01 l e v e l and  indicated scored  that  the p a r t i c i p a n t s who were a s s i g n e d t h e treatment  s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on t h e p o s t - t e s t  condition.  condition  than d i d those i n t h e c o n t r o l  The p a r t i c i p a n t s a s s i g n e d t h e treatment c o n d i t i o n o f t h e  A g r i c u l t u r a l - c r o p P e s t Abatement and S t r u c t u r a l P e s t C o n t r o l a c h i e v e d h i g h e r p o s t - t e s t mean s c o r e s although not s i g n i f i c a n t l y Non-agricultural  short  courses  than d i d those i n the c o n t r o l  s o , w h i l e t h e treatment mean s c o r e  condition,  of the  and N o n - f o r e s t r y V e g e t a t i o n C o n t r o l , and Mosquito and  B i t i n g - f l y Abatement i n d i v i d u a l s was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y control  treatment-control  lower than t h e i r  counterparts. The  r e s u l t o f combining a l l groups i n t o a treatment and c o n t r o l  c o n d i t i o n r e s u l t e d i n a treatment mean o f 26.8 and a c o n t r o l mean o f 25.1 (Table  16).  The t - t e s t t h a t was c a l c u l a t e d on t h i s d i f f e r e n c e produced a  58  TABLE 18 SAMPLE SIZE, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, MEANS AND T-TEST RESULTS OBTAINED FROM PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST SCORES FROM TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS OF EACH COURSE TOPIC Post -test  Pre-- t e s t  t-tests  Mean  Mean  Landscape & Garden P e s t Abatement: Treatment (N=47) Control (N=52)  Standard Deviation  Standard Deviation  22.9 *  3.5 *  26.3 23.6  2.4 4.1  t=8.4; p< .01** t=4,2; p< ,01***  Forest or Forest-product P e s t Abatement: Treatment (N=41) Control (N=34)  23.2 *  3.4 *  28.3 26.5  1.3 2.5  t=12.1;p< .01** t=3.7; < .01***  N o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l and NonForestry Vegetation Control: Treatment (N=12) Control (N=57)  20.7 *  3.6 *  24.4 24.8  4.2 3.6  t=6.9; p< .01** t=-0.26;N. g. ***  A g r i c u l t u r a l - c r o p Pest Abatement: Treatment (N=17) Control (N=23)  22.7 *  6.2 *  26.1 25.7  3.2 3.4  t=2.9; p< .01** t=0.35; N.s. ***  S t r u c t u r a l Pest Control: Treatment (N=10) Control (N=12)  25.3 *  4.5 *  28.0 26.8  2.5 2.4  t=3.0; p< .01** t = l . l ; N.S ***  Mosquite and B i t i n g - f l y Abatement: Treatment (N=8) Control (N=ll)  21.0 *  3.5 *  25.6 26.5  3.9 3.5  t=8.4; p< .01** t=-0.48;N. s .***  * Pre-test  P  was not administered to c o n t r o l group.  ** Correlated t - t e s t between treatment p r e - t e s t / p o s t t e s t mean d i f f e r e n c e . ***  Independent t - t e s t between treatment post-test mean d i f f e r e n c e .  and c o n t r o l  59  v a l u e o f 4.8 which was s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the .0005 l e v e l , c l e a r l y the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the treatment  mean was s t a t i s t i c a l l y  rejecting  s i m i l a r t o the  c o n t r o l mean, i n f a v o u r o f the a l t e r n a t i v e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the treatment mean was h i g h e r than t h e c o n t r o l mean. In view o f t h e overwhelmingly treatment  s u p e r i o r performance o f the o v e r a l l  group, t h e somewhat n e g a t i v e r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d from t h e Non-  a g r i c u l t u r a l and N o n - f o r e s t r y V e g e t a t i o n C o n t r o l and M o s q u i t e  and B i t i n g -  f l y Abatement groups can be d i s m i s s e d as a t y p i c a l c a s e s i n themselves, b u t are necessary requirement  f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e o v e r a l l study as they met the b a s i c  criteria for inclusion.  The a t y p i c a l r e s u l t s o f t h e former  group can be e x p l a i n e d on t h e b a s i s o f t h e d i s p a r i t y o f sample s i z e s . the treatment  s i z e o f 57 and a c o n t r o l o f o n l y 12 t h e r e was a c o n s i d e r a b l e  p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t the c o n t r o l group d i s t r i b u t i o n would be skewed. important  With  c o n s i d e r a t i o n was the f a c t  t h a t t h e treatment  Another  group c o n s i s t e d o f  a r a t h e r s p e c i a l i z e d group o f B r i t i s h Columbia Department o f Highways employees who r e s i d e d i n t h e Vancouver a r e a and were o f s l i g h t l y  higher  mean age and e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l b u t had a lower r a t e o f handbook u t i l i z a t i o n than t h e c o n t r o l .  None o f these d i f f e r e n c e s were s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant.  The Mosquito and B i t i n g - f l y Abatement c o n t r o l group's h i g h e r p o s t t e s t s c o r e s might be a t t r i b u t e d and  11 f o r treatment  to the extremely  and c o n t r o l r e s p e c t i v e l y .  f u r t h e r a m p l i f i e d by t h e f a c t  t h a t the treatment  s m a l l sample s i z e s o f 8 T h i s e f f e c t may have been group had a lower  educa-  t i o n a l l e v e l and a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r age and handbook u t i l i z a t i o n r a t e than t h e c o n t r o l .  60  Regression Analyses  Several multiple regression analysis were calculated on various portions of the data u t i l i z i n g the STPREG routine of the U.B.C. T r i angular Regression Package (TRIP) computer programme i n an e f f o r t to determine which variables contributed s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the post-test variance. Calculation of a stepwise regression u t i l i z i n g the data from a l l 324 p a r t i c i p a n t s and a f i v e percent  obtained  l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e deter-  mined that the pre-test and educational l e v e l were the only variables to s i g n i f i c a n t l y contribute to the post-test variance  (Table 19).  This  analysis indicated the pre-test accounted f o r the largest proportion (29.5%) of the t o t a l variance, while the addition of educational  level  variable and the r e s u l t i n g i n t e r a c t i o n increased this to only 38.3 percent.  Correlation of pre-test with post-test produced a c o e f f i c i e n t  of 0.54 which was considerably  greater than the educational l e v e l / p o s t -  test c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.36, although both were s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l (Table 20). I t i s apparent from these two analyses  that the pre-  test v a r i a b l e accounted f o r a greater proportion of the post-test v a r i ance than d i d the educational l e v e l v a r i a b l e , although both were s i g n i ficant. The  t o t a l pooled data were.then separated  control data f o r separate analysis.  i n t o treatment and  A c o r r e l a t i o n matrix and a stepwise  regression were produced u t i l i z i n g the 135 treatment i n d i v i d u a l s . Here again, the c o e f f i c i e n t produced as a r e s u l t of c o r r e l a t i n g the pre-test with the post-test produced a value of 0.54 which was larger than that of any other variable considered with the post-test, including the one f o r educational l e v e l , which was h a l f this magnitude (Appendix 3).  61  TABLE 19 RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSES  *  T o t a l /i of E x p l a i n e d  Variables Treatment Control  Total  Years of S c h o o l i n g P r e - t e s t Score  34.4%  Years of S c h o o l i n g I n t e n s i t y of Handbook Use P e r c e n t of Wages from P e s t i cide application  18.5%  Years of S c h o o l i n g P r e - t e s t Score  38.3%  ** Dependent v a r i a b l e was P o s t - t e s t * Total Potential Variables:  Variance  score.  Age Years of Schooling C o u r s e s , o t h e r than BCDA s p o n s o r e d ,  previously attended  P r e v i o u s BCDA Courses A t t e n d e d P e s t i c i d e C e r t i f i c a t e s Held I n t e n s i t y o f P r e - c o u r s e Handbook Use Y e a r s of E x p e r i e n c e as P e s t i c i d e A p p l i c a t o r P e r c e n t of Wages Earned from P e s t i c i d e A p p l i c a t i o n d u r i n g Review Year Y e a r s o f R e s i d e n c y i n Canada P r e - t e s t Score L e v e l of S i g n i f i c a n c e  («:) = .05  TABLE 20 CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR VARIABLES FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS TO POST-TEST VARIANCE  Treatment  Post-test Control  Total  .54**  N/A  .54**  .28**  .37**  .36**  I n t e n s i t y of Handbook Use  .03  .19**  .10  P e r c e n t of Wages from P e s t i c i d e Application  .07  .12*  .10  Pre-test Educational  Level  * s i g . a t .05 l e v e l ** s i g . a t .01 l e v e l  62  The the  f i r s t v a r i a b l e removed by the stepwise  regression routine at  .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e was, once a g a i n , the p r e - t e s t v a r i a b l e w i t h  i t s concomitant p r o p o r t i o n o f 29.5 p e r c e n t (Table 19).  o f the p o s t - t e s t v a r i a n c e  The e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e was o n l y i n c r e a s e d t o 34.4 p e r c e n t by  the second t e r m i n a l s t e p , which removed the e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l v a r i a b l e i n a d d i t i o n to the p r e - t e s t .  T h i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e p r e - t e s t accounted f o r  the g r e a t e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f p o s t - t e s t v a r i a n c e when t h e treatment group were a n a l y z e d  independently.  A s i m i l a r s e r i e s of s t a t i s t i c a l analyses  were c a r r i e d out  on t h e d a t a o f the 189 p a r t i c i p a n t s who were a s s i g n e d dition.  data  the c o n t r o l con-  S i n c e t h i s group d i d n o t complete t h e p r e - t e s t , t h i s v a r i a b l e  o b v i o u s l y was n o t i n c l u d e d . removed, a c c o u n t i n g  E d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l was t h e f i r s t v a r i a b l e  f o r 13.5 p e r c e n t  of the v a r i a n c e .  I n t h e next  step,  p e r c e n t a g e o f wage earned from commercial p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n was removed from t h e l i s t .  I n t e n s i t y of pre-course  the t e r m i n a l s t e p . e x p l a i n e d by these The with  handbook u t i l i z a t i o n was removed by  A t o t a l o f 18.5 p e r c e n t  o f t h e p o s t - t e s t v a r i a n c e was  t h r e e v a r i a b l e s and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n  (Table 19),  c o e f f i c i e n t c a l c u l a t e d when e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l was c o r r e l a t e d  t h e p o s t - t e s t was 0.37, which was v i r t u a l l y  i d e n t i c a l to the c o e f f i c i e n t  of 0.36 c a l c u l a t e d between these v a r i a b l e s u t i l i z i n g  the e n t i r e s e t o f d a t a  ( T a b l e 2 0 ) . T h i s i n t i m a t e s t h a t d i s r e g a r d i n g the p r e - t e s t v a r i a n c e to s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r  fails  the p r o p o r t i o n o f v a r i a n c e a t t r i b u t a b l e t o e d u c a t i o n a l  level. I t i s a l s o important  t o n o t e t h a t the i n t e n s i t y o f the p r e - c o u r s e  handbooks use i s a m o d e r a t e l y s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e i n the c o n t r o l group as  63  calculated  by t h e s t e p w i s e r e g r e s s i o n  analysis.  This  f a c t , coupled with  a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e n s i t y o f handbooks u s e / p o s t - t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.2 i n d i c a t e s  that  complete a p r e - t e s t the p r e - t e s t  Pre-test  Additional  s c o r e s o f those p a r t i c i p a n t s who d i d n o t  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u e n c e d  was a d m i n i s t e r e d  Separation of  and  the p o s t - t e s t  t h i s v a r i a b l e became  and E d u c a t i o n a l L e v e l  regression  by t h i s v a r i a b l e , b u t once non-significant.  Effects  analyses using d i f f e r e n t s i g n i f i c a n c e  m a n i p u l a t e d independent v a r i a b l e s  were conducted u t i l i z i n g  body.of d a t a i n an e f f o r t t o more c l e a r l y s e p a r a t e t h e p r e - t e s t the  the e n t i r e e f f e c t from  educational l e v e l e f f e c t . The  first  a l t e r e d a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d out w i t h t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l  d e c r e a s e d t o .10 from variables  .05 t o determine whether the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f o t h e r  approached t h a t  of the p r e - t e s t  Even a t t h i s l e v e l t h e s e two v a r i a b l e s v a r i a n c e w i t h no a d d i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s This  levels  result indicated  large proportion at t h i s rather  that  and e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l v a r i a b l e s .  accounted f o r 38.3 p e r c e n t o f t h e b e i n g added t o the r e g r e s s i o n  t h e s e two v a r i a b l e s  o f the p o s t - t e s t  t r u l y accounted f o r a v e r y  v a r i a n c e s i n c e no o t h e r s became s i g n i f i c a n t  low s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l .  A further  regression  analysis  l a t e d a t a .01 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e produced i d e n t i c a l r e s u l t s . ploy f a i l e d highly  to separate these v a r i a b l e s  s i g n i f i c a n t contributors  equation.  i t c a n be a s s e r t e d  calcu-  Since t h i s  that both are  to the o v e r a l l v a r i a n c e , otherwise  or o n l y one would have been removed a t t h i s h i g h s i g n i f i c a n c e  neither  level.  A v e r y h i g h degree o f i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n was observed among t h r e e v a r i a b l e s : p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n non-BCDA sponsored p e s t i c i d e c o u r s e s , number o f  64  c e r t i f i c a t e s h e l d , and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n BCDA sponsored c o u r s e s These were d e l e t e d  from one r e g r e s s i o n c a l c u l a t i o n s i n c e i t was  t h a t t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s c o u l d have e x e r t e d the p o s t - t e s t than t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l e f f e c t s . i d e n t i c a l t o those o b s e r v e d u t i l i z i n g of t h i s i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n e x e r t e d  a greater  (Table 2 1 ) . possible  i n f l u e n c e on  A g a i n , t h e r e s u l t s were  a l l v a r i a b l e s , i n d i c a t i n g the e f f e c t s  no i n f l u e n c e beyond t h e sum o f t h e i r  effects. A further regression analysis containing  only  those v a r i a b l e s w h i c h  s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e p o s t - t e s t was c a l c u l a t e d . educational  l e v e l , pre-test scores,  (Appendix 3 ) . and  educational  percent  o b s e r v e d as o n l y  f o r 38.3  variance. i t c a n be a s s e r t e d  t h a t t h e e f f e c t s o f p r e - t e s t i n g and  l e v e l were t h e o n l y v a r i a b l e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y  post-test results.  held  the p r e - t e s t  l e v e l v a r i a b l e s proved s i g n i f i c a n t , a c c o u n t i n g  In summary,  included  age, and number o f c e r t i f i c a t e s  I d e n t i c a l r e s u l t s were a g a i n  o f the t o t a l  educational  This  A l t h o u g h t h e s e were i n s e p a r a b l e  i n f l u e n c i n g the  by m a n i p u l a t i o n o f s t e p -  wise r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s , the i n d i v i d u a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e p r e - t e s t i n f l u e n c e i s d e f i n i t e l y more pronounced.  65  TABLE 21 CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF SELECTED VARIABLES *  Non-BCDA Courses P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n non-BCDA Sponsored Certificates  courses  Held  P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n BCDA-sponsored c o u r s e s  * A l l a r e s i g n i f i c a n t a t .01 l e v e l .  Certificates Held  BCDA Courses  1.0 .39 .28  1.0 .54  1.0  66  Summary  This and  chapter contains  p r e - t e s t i n g and handbook u t i l i z a t i o n  t h e i r e f f e c t upon t h e p o s t - t e s t .  data  Both the t h r e e Landscape and Garden  P e s t Abatement treatment groups and the t h r e e N o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l , Nonforestry Vegetation Control ment c o n d i t i o n  c o n t r o l groups were combined t o form one t r e a t -  f o r t h e former and one c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n  T h i s was r a t i o n a l i z e d on the b a s i s  f o r the l a t t e r .  of analyses of variance  c a l c u l a t e d on  b o t h the p r e - t e s t and p o s t - t e s t means o f t h e Landscape and Garden P e s t Abatement groups and t h e p o s t - t e s t means o f t h e N o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l , forestry Vegetation Control  c o n t r o l group.  None o f t h e s e a n a l y s e s o f  variance  produced a s i g n i f i c a n t F - v a l u e i n d i c a t i n g they were  similar,  thereby j u s t i f y i n g A significantly  statistically  the grouping.  larger proportion  to t h e handbook m a t e r i a l  Non-  o f t h e c o n t r o l had a c c e s s  than d i d the t r e a t m e n t .  The former group a l s o  e x h i b i t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r mean r a t e o f handbook u t i l i z a t i o n o f 3.3 on a s c a l e o f 5. utilization  failed  The treatment mean was 2.9.  to s i g n i f i c a n t l y  The mean r a t e o f  c o r r e l a t e with the post-test  c a t i n g t h i s v a r i a b l e had l i t t l e e f f e c t upon the p o s t - t e s t The 30 i t e m s .  treatment group s c o r e d The p r e - t e s t  beyond t h e .01 l e v e l The  scores.  a mean o f 22.8 c o r r e c t o f a p o s s i b l e  c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h the p o s t - t e s t  ( r = 0.54).  certification  e x a m i n a t i o n which c o n t a i n e d  t e s t was completed by a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s . 83.41  indi-  the 30-item p o s t -  The mean s c o r e s  a t t a i n e d were  and 81.43 f o r the treatment and c o n t r o l r e s p e c t i v e l y .  A  t-value  o f 2.7 c a l c u l a t e d on the mean d i f f e r e n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the .05  67  level.  C o r r e l a t i o n o f the p r e - t e s t w i t h the c e r t i f i c a t i o n  produced a s i g n i f i c a n t r - v a l u e of a m u l t i p l e item  regression  o f 0.71.  analysis  This  r e s u l t , plus  examination the r e s u l t  c o n f i r m e d the assumption t h a t  t h e 30-  t e s t i s a good random sample o f t h e items c o n t a i n e d on t h e l a r g e r  examination. Post-test control.  mean s c o r e was 26.8 f o r the treatment and 22.8 f o r t h e  A t-statistic  c a l c u l a t e d on t h i s d i f f e r e n c e produced a v a l u e  o f 4.8 which was s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .0005 l e v e l i n d i c a t i n g treatment s c o r e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than t h e c o n t r o l s c o r e s . found t h a t  the post-test  the p r e - t e s t  I t was  also  mean s c o r e o f 26.8 was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than  mean s c o r e o f 22.8 beyond t h e .0005 l e v e l .  Post-test  mean  s c o r e s a t t a i n e d by each treatment group were a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than each c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r e - t e s t  s c o r e beyond t h e .01 l e v e l .  Independent t - t e s t s c a l c u l a t e d on the t r e a t m e n t - c o n t r o l mean differences  o f each s h o r t  c o u r s e t o p i c produced somewhat c o n f l i c t i n g  r e s u l t s a l t h o u g h t h e combined, o v e r a l l t r e a t m e n t - c o n t r o l mean was s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .0005 A stepwise regression  difference  level.  analysis  c a l c u l a t e d on a l l the d a t a  using  post-test  as the dependent v a r i a b l e and a l l o t h e r c o n t i n u o u s , i n t e r v a l  variables  as independent r e s u l t e d i n b o t h the p r e - t e s t  level s i g n i f i c a n t l y contributing level.  t o the p o s t - t e s t  educational  v a r i a b l e a t t h e .05  An i d e n t i c a l r e s u l t was o b t a i n e d f o r the treatment d a t a .  educational  level,  i n t e n s i t y o f handbook use, and p e r c e n t o f wages  p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n were s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t o r s variance  and  when t h e c o n t r o l d a t a were a n a l y z e d .  However, from  t o the p o s t - t e s t  68  Further regression analyses were calculated with a l t e r e d s i g n i ficance l e v e l s and manipulated independent variables i n an e f f o r t to separate the e f f e c t s of the pre-test and educational l e v e l . lations proved f u t i l e i n d i c a t i n g both were s i g n i f i c a n t  These manipu-  contributors.  However, considering the pre-test-post-test and the educational post-test correlations i t appears the pre-test more d e f i n i t e l y the post-test.  levelinfluenced  CHAPTER V  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  Introduction  The next section of this chapter summarizes the data. economic data are summarized f i r s t ,  The socio-  followed by a discussion of the  e f f e c t s of the pre-test and the handbooks on the post-test.  The  last  section consists of the conclusions drawn from the data.  Summary This section summarizes the results reported i n Chapters I I I and IV which deal with the v a r i a b l e s : age of p a r t i c i p a n t s , length of residence i n Canada, p a r t i c i p a n t s ' area of o r i g i n , educational l e v e l , portion of previous year's income obtained from the a p p l i c a t i o n of p e s t i cides, years of experience, f u l l or part-time employment status, s e l f employed or employee, previous attendance previous attendance  at BCDA sponsored  at related non-BCDA sponsored  courses,  short courses, and  the number of c e r t i f i c a t e s held. It was  found that although the control i n d i v i d u a l s were of a  s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher age and of longer residence i n Canada these v a r i ables f a i l e d to correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the post-test scores i n d i cating these two variables exerted no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the posttest r e s u l t s .  There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences observed i n the  69  70  data of either the treatment or control group due to area of o r i g i n of participants. Educational l e v e l was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher i n the treatment than i n the control and s i g n i f i c a n t l y , p o s i t i v e l y correlated with the posttest.  This v a r i a b l e undoubtedly exerted some s i g n i f i c a n t influence upon  the post-test r e s u l t s . There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n t i a l post-test influence due to experimental condition encountered i n e i t h e r the proportion  of previous  year's wages obtained from p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n , length of experience as a commercial p e s t i c i d e applicator, or f u l l or part-time employment status v a r i a b l e .  However, i t was determined that the proportion of  those i n d i v i d u a l s who were self-employed was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher i n the control group but there i s l i t t l e reason to assume this disproport i o n a l i t y unduly influenced  the post-test.  There were no s i g n i f i c a n t treatment-control differences with reference to e i t h e r the number of previous BCDA sponsored short  courses  attended or i n the number of applicators' c e r t i f i c a t e s previously  obtained.  The treatment group p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a s i g n i f i c a n t l y larger number of courses of s i m i l a r content sponsored by non-BCDA groups.  This  variable  f a i l e d to correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the post-test which indicated i t s influence was n e g l i g i b l e .  A high degree of i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n existed  among these three variables which indicated a l l were measuring the same thing. It was found that a s i g n i f i c a n t l y larger number of control i n dividuals had access to the pre-course handbook material.  They also  u t i l i z e d them more i n t e n s i v e l y than did the treatment group.  The degree  71  of u t i l i z a t i o n o f these materials with the p o s t - t e s t scores  significantly  positively correlated  o f those p a r t i c i p a n t s who d i d n o t complete  the p r e - t e s t b u t had no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t upon those who completed a pre-test. The  i n d i v i d u a l s a s s i g n e d t h e treatment c o n d i t i o n p o s s e s s e d s i m i -  l a r p r e - c o u r s e knowledge o f t h e p r e - t e s t m a t e r i a l . the  By p a r a l l e l  c o n t r o l group s h o u l d have p o s s e s s e d s i m i l a r knowledge.  t-tests i n d i c a t e d that  the mean p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s  thinking  Results of  o f the s i x i n d i v i d u a l  t r e a t m e n t groups were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than t h e i r c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r e - t e s t means beyond the .01 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .  Combination o f  the groups o f l i k e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n w i t h each o t h e r p r o d u c e d a p r e and  post-test  t - s t a t i s t i c which was s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .005 l e v e l ,  i n d i c a t i n g a tremendous i n c r e a s e test  i n the p o s t - t e s t scores  over the p r e -  scores. Independent t - t e s t s were c a l c u l a t e d on t h e  p o s t - t e s t mean d i f f e r e n c e s  o b t a i n e d from each s h o r t  treatment-control course t o p i c .  These  r e s u l t e d i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r treatment means f o r two o f t h e t o p i c s , higher,  non-significant  t r e a t m e n t v a l u e s f o r a f u r t h e r two, and lower,  n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t treatment means f o r the two r e m a i n i n g t o p i c s . o f a t - t e s t c a l c u l a t e d on the o v e r a l l t r e a t m e n t - c o n t r o l produced a r e s u l t which i n d i c a t e d t h a t a p r e - t e s t scored  The r e s u l t  p o s t - t e s t means  those i n d i v i d u a l s who  completed  s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on t h e p o s t - t e s t beyond the .0005  level. I t i s apparent t h a t p r e - c o u r s e knowledge was s i m i l a r among a l l the  groups b u t t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e  t e s t and p o s t - t e s t  results.  p o s t - t e s t mean s c o r e  occurred  between t h e p r e -  The treatment i n d i v i d u a l s a c h i e v e d a h i g h e r  than d i d t h e c o n t r o l .  72  A multiple regression calculated with the post-test as the  de-  pendent variable and a l l the other continuous, i n t e r v a l variables as independent revealed that both the pre-test and educational l e v e l were s i g n i f i c a n t contributors to the o v e r a l l post-test variance at the level.  .05  Increasing the s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l to .05 f a i l e d to separate  these two v a r i a b l e s .  However, i t was  found that the pre-test correlated  much more strongly with the post-test than did educational l e v e l . c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were 0.54 The  and 0.36,  f i r s t hypothesis tested was  These  respectively.  that a r e l a t i o n s h i p existed  between c e r t a i n socio-economic variables and the post-test. rejected f o r a l l variables except educational l e v e l .  This  was  The second hypo-  t h e s i s , that pre-testing the p a r t i c i p a n t s p r i o r to p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the short course improved post-test scores was  overwhelmingly accepted.  The t h i r d hypothesis,  that i n t e n s i t y of handbook u t i l i z a t i o n influenced  post-test scores, was  accepted i n the cases where the p a r t i c i p a n t s did  not complete a pre-test and rejected i n the other  cases.  Conclusions The main purpose of this study was  to determine whether or not  the pre-test most s i g n i f i c a n t l y influenced the post-test scores. must be concluded that the pre-test had  It  the most s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t  upon the post-test score, although this r e s u l t was  confounded by  the  educational l e v e l v a r i a b l e which also correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the post-test score.  I t i s strongly recommended that i n any future study  of this nature adequate steps are taken to ensure that the pre-test  and  73  educational l e v e l variables are d e c i s i v e l y separated.  Possibly this  could be done by modifying the design to one which would lend i t s e l f to an analysis of covariance which would control for educational Unfortunately,  level.  the design u t i l i z e d here does not permit such an analysis.  To remove the p o s s i b i l i t y of c o n f l i c t i n g hypotheses, other socioeconomic variables were also considered i n the study.  These a l l proved  to be t r i v i a l , having no e f f e c t upon the post-test score.  This  leaves  us with the conclusion that i t was, i n f a c t , the pre-test which most s i g n i f i c a n t l y influenced the post-test scores. The u t i l i z a t i o n of the pre-course handbook material r e s u l t s also proved important.  I t was found that the post-test scores of those  p a r t i c i p a n t s who did not complete the pre-test (the control group) were improved by increased u t i l i z a t i o n of the handbooks while this variable did not a l t e r the post-test scores among those who completed the pretest (the treatment group).  From this fact i t i s apparent that adminis-  t r a t i o n of the pre-test i s as e f f e c t i v e i n increasing the post-test scores as i s the dissemination  of handbooks.  The pre-test probably  caused a c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n of thought on the part of the p a r t i c i p a n t s and prepared them for the educational a c t i v i t y which was before them. There i s l i t t l e chance that the pre-test could have caused this increase i n post-test scores by a simple memorization of items since the posttest items were contained i n the much larger BCDA p e s t i c i d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n examination which was administered  over 24 hours l a t e r .  This p o t e n t i a l  r i v a l hypothesis could be eliminated i n future studies by e i t h e r lengthening  the period of time between the pre-test and post-test or  by the use of p a r a l l e l forms of the test, or a combination of these.  74  Recommendation From this study i t appears that pre-testing p a r t i c i p a n t s p r i o r to a short adult education  a c t i v i t y s i g n i f i c a n t l y increases  t h e i r reten-  tion of the course material and i s recommended as an e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l device for s i m i l a r short courses.  An adequate period of time  should be set aside at the beginning of the a c t i v i t y to allow a l l part i c i p a n t s to complete the pre-test.  Bear i n mind that completion times  w i l l vary with the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' p h y s i o l o g i c a l c a p a b i l i t i e s .  No  effort  should be spared i n easing the mind of the p a r t i c i p a n t s by reminding them that the pre-test i s not an evaluative device, but an i n s t r u c t i o n a l device. The pre-test was  a better means of increasing p a r t i c i p a n t post-  t e s t performance than were the handbooks.  Elimination of the handbooks  and adoption of the pre-test i s favoured i n instances where adequate time i s a v a i l a b l e at the outset of the courses.  Elimination of the  handbooks would also save the expense of preparation and  mailing.  Improvement i n the q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n i s also of consideration. P a r t i c u l a r care should be given to the preparation, development, and presentation of i n s t r u c t i o n a l objectives for both the i n d i v i d u a l presentations and the o v e r a l l course to improve the continuity of topics d i s cussed and provide Increased  the p a r t i c i p a n t s with a means of s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n .  p a r t i c i p a n t attention would be achieved  i f the sessions were  held i n conditions where l i g h t i n g , acoustics, and diminution t r a c t i n g noise and a c t i v i t y could be improved. and techniques,  of d i s -  A wider variety of  beyond films and lectures with l i m i t e d question  and  devices  75  answer periods are strongly recommended to increase  learner  attention  and p a r t i c i p a t i o n and i n s t r u c t o r - l e a r n e r i n t e r a c t i o n s . For further studies of this type i t i s recommended that a means be employed i n the design and separation  the research  of pre-testing and educational  test scores.  instruments to permit  the  l e v e l e f f e c t s upon the post-  To provide a c l a s s i c pre-test/post-test  control group  design i t would be imperative to randomly assign p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t o t r e a t ment and c o n t r o l conditions within each session, although the  analysis  of socio-economic variables diminished the e f f e c t of r i v a l hypotheses i n t h i s study.  BIBLIOGRAPHY  76  LITERATURE CITED  A x l i n g , H. L. E v a l u a t i o n o f County E x t e n s i o n Programs By County Agents i n Washington S t a t e . Pullman: Washington S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1959. Banta, C. 0. "Sources o f Data f o r Program E v a l u a t i o n , " A d u l t E d u c a t i o n , V, 4 (1955), 227-230. B l a n e y , J . P., and D. McKie. "Knowledge o f Conference O b j e c t i v e s and E f f e c t Upon L e a r n i n g , " A d u l t E d u c a t i o n J o u r n a l , XIX, 2 (1969), 98-105. Boone, E. J . , and J . Duncan. "Needed Research i n E x t e n s i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i v e O r g a n i z a t i o n , " A d u l t E d u c a t i o n , X I I , 2 (1963), 86-101. B r i t i s h Columbia, Pharmacy A c t , Order i n C o u n c i l R e g u l a t i o n No. 115 (1969). Brunner, Edmond DeS. ( e d . ) . An Overview o f A d u l t E d u c a t i o n Research. Washington: A d u l t E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n o f the U.S.A., 1959. . " A d u l t E d u c a t i o n and I t s Research Needs," A d u l t E d u c a t i o n , X, 4 (1960), 218-227. Campbell, Donald T., and J u l i a n C. S t a n l e y . E x p e r i m e n t a l and Q u a s i E x p e r i m e n t a l Designs f o r Research. Chicago: Rand M c N a l l y and Co., 1970. C a n t e r , Ralph R., J r . "The Use o f Extended C o n t r o l - G r o u p Designs i n Human R e l a t i o n s S t u d i e s , " P s y c h o l o g y B u l l e t i n , 48, 4 (1951), 340-347. Essert, Paul. Creative Leadership i n Adult Education. t i c e H a l l , 1951.  New York:  Pren-  Hovland, C a r l , A. A. Lumsdaine, and F. D. S c h e f f i e l d . Experiments On Mass Communication. P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1949. Husek, T. R., and K. S i r o t n i k . Item Sampling i n E d u c a t i o n Research. Los A n g e l e s : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , 1967. Hyman, H. H., C. R. W r i g h t , and T. K. Hopkins. A p p l i c a t i o n s o f Methods of E v a l u a t i o n. B e r k e l e y and Los A n g e l e s : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , 1962. J e n s e n , G a l e , A. A. L i v e r i g h t , and W a l t e r H a l l e n b a c h ( e d s . ) . Adult E d u c a t i o n : O u t l i n e s o f an Emerging F i e l d o f Study. Chicago: A d u l t E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n o f the U.S.A., 1964.  77  78  Johnston, Mescal and Ward Porter. An Evaluation of the Marketing Project for Consumers i n the Metropolitan Area of L i t t l e Rock. Arkansas A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Service Miscellaneous P u b l i c a t i o n No. 88, 1965.  Kersey, Harry A., J r . "An Adult Education Program for Seminole Indians i n F l o r i d a , " Adult Leadership, 19, 9 (19 71), 281-282, 310. Lana, Robert E. "Pretest Treatment Interaction E f f e c t s i n A t t i t u d i n a l Studies," Psychology B u l l e t i n , 56, 4 (1959), 293-300. L i t c h f i e l d , Ann, L. A. Marx, and A. S t e j s k a l . "Evaluation of the 1966 Adult Education Association National Conference Program," Adult Leadership, 15, 8 (1967), 287-300. Long, Huey B. "A Summary Report: Adult Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Brevard County, F l o r i d a , " Adult Education Journal, XIX, 1 (1967), 34-42. McNair, Robert E.  " F u l f i l l i n g Our Mission," Adult Leadership, 19, 6  (1970), 183-185.  Schwartz, Shephard, and Berton Winograd. "Preparation of Soldiers for Atomic Maneuvers," Journal of S o c i a l Issues, X, 3 (1954), 42-52. Shearon, Ronald W. "Evaluating Adult Basic Education Programs," Adult Leadership, 19, 1 (1970), 15-24. Solomon, R. L. "An Extension of the Control Group Design," Psychology B u l l e t i n , 46, 2 (1949), 137-150. Sutton, E. W. Analysis of Research on Selected Aspects of Evaluation i n Adult Education. Tallahasee: F l o r i d a State U n i v e r s i t y , 1967. Terman, L. T., and M. A. M e r r i l l . Houghton-Mifflin, 1937.  Measuring I n t e l l i g e n c e . Boston:  Ve rner, Coolie, and Alan Booth. Adult Education. New for Applied Research i n Education, Inc., 1964. Winer, B. J . S t a t i s t i c a l P r i n c i p l e s i n Experimental McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962.  York: The Center  Design.  New  York:  RELATED LITERATURE  Downie, N. M., and R. W. Heath. B a s i c S t a t i s t i c a l Methods. and London: Harper and Row, 1965.  New York  E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e . P r e t e s t and P o s t t e s t R e s u l t s f o r the 1964 N.D.E.A. Summer F o r e i g n Language I n s t i t u t e . MLA F o r e i g n Language P r o f i c i e n c y T e s t s f o r Teachers and Advanced Students. Working Paper, E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e , P r i n c e t o n , N. J . , 1962. Gasmin, 0. A. "An E v a l u a t i o n o f the Farm Short Courses a t the U n i v e r s i t y of W i s c o n s i n , " U n p u b l i s h e d D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n , 1966. G l a s s , Gene V., and J u l i a n C. S t a n l e y . S t a t i s t i c a l Methods i n E d u c a t i o n and P s y c h o l o g y . New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1970. M i l l e r , H. L. MacMillan  T e a c h i n g and L e a r n i n g Co., 1964.  Palmer, R. E . , and C o o l i e V e r n e r . Techniques," Adult Education,  i n Adult Education.  New York: The  "A Comparison o f Three I n s t r u c t i o n a l IX, 4 (1959), 232-238.  S j o g r e n , D. P., A. B. Knox and A. G r o t e l u e s c h e n . "Adult Learning i n R e l a t i o n to P r i o r Adult Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n , " Adult Education, XIX, 1 (1968), 3-10.  79  APPENDIX 1 - PRE-TEST INSTRUMENTS APPENDIX l a - PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX l b - PESTICIDE APPLICATORS CERTIFICATE PRE-EXAMINATION  81  APPENDIX l a PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE  P l e a s e answer a l l q u e s t i o n s as c a r e f u l l y as p o s s i b l e . The i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t you g i v e on t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l not i n f l u e n c e your s c o r e on the p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t o r ' s examination. A l l of t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be used f o r the purpose of improving the s h o r t c o u r s e s t h a t the B.C. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e conducts. We a r e t r y i n g to make them more h e l p f u l and u s e f u l t o you, so t h a t you may get more out of them, and, as a r e s u l t , w i l l f i n d the c e r t i f i c a t i o n examinations e a s i e r . 1.  Date  2.  What i s your age?  3.  What i s your  4.  How  5.  Have you r e c e i v e d any p r e v i o u s i n s t r u c t i o n on p e s t i c i d e s and t h e i r p r o p e r use, o t h e r than t h e s e B.C. government-sponsored s h o r t - c o u r s e s ? Yes No  6.  Do you p r e s e n t l y h o l d a p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t o r ' s c e r t i f i c a t e ? No Yes i f y e s , which c e r t i f i c a t e s ?  7.  Have you a t t e n d e d any p r e v i o u s B.C. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e s h o r t courses? No Yes , i f y e s , when was t h a t ? What were the t o p i c s ?  sex?  Male  Female  many y e a r s of s c h o o l i n g d i d you In what c o u n t r y was t h i s ?  complete?  Have you r e c e i v e d the handbooks t h a t a p p l y t o t h i s c o u r s e , t h a t a r e d i s t r i b u t e d by the B.C. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e ? No Yes , i f y e s , where d i d you get them? They're mine I borrowed them How t h o r o u g h l y d i d you read them? (Check one) a) I d i d n ' t r e a d them b) I g l a n c e d over them once _c) I r e a d them once d) I r e a d them more than once 9.  Are you  self-employed  , o r a r e you  (Check one)  employed by  someone  else? 10.  How  l o n g have you worked w i t h p e s t i c i d e s ?  Years.  11.  Are you a f u l l - t i m e or p a r t - t i m e p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t o r ? Full-time Part-time (Check  one)  12.  A p p r o x i m a t e l y what p e r c e n t of your income came from the a p p l i c a t i o n of p e s t i c i d e s d u r i n g 1971? percent.  13.  Were you born i n Canada?  14.  How  l o n g have you  lived  Yes i n Canada?  No  , i f no, where were you years.  born?_  APPENDIX l b PESTICIDE APPLICATORS CERTIFICATE  PRE-EXAMINATION  Directions: P l e a s e answer the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s as c a r e f u l l y as p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t the use o f r e f e r e n c e m a t e r i a l s . Check the c o r r e c t answer o r answers, f i l l i n the b l a n k s , or match the c o r r e c t terms. The purpose o f t h i s t e s t i s t o a i d us i n i m p r o v i n g these c o u r s e s .  Do y o u p l a n t o w r i t e end o f t h i s course? Yes  the p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t o r ' s  e x a m i n a t i o n a t the  No  P l a c e a check mark b e s i d e t h e f o l l o w i n g are c l a s s i f i e d as p e s t i c i d e s . (a) f u n g i c i d e s (b) f e r t i l i z e r s (c) i n s e c t i c i d e s (d) deoderants (e) l i m e  that  (f) m i t i c i d e s (g) nematocides (h) peatmoss (i) emulsifiers (j) rodenticides  Match the t o x i c i t i e s w i t h the L . D . ^ (a) s l i g h t l y t o x i c (b) h i g h l y t o x i c (c) moderately t o x i c  groups o f compounds  1. 2.  3.  values. L-D L.D.^  o f 20 mg./kg. o f 200 mg./kg. L.D.5Q o f 2000 mg./kg.  The use o f a number o f p e s t i c i d e s i s r e s t r i c t e d i n B.C. P l a c e a check mark b e s i d e those o f t h e f o l l o w i n g m a t e r i a l s which r e q u i r e a s p e c i a l p e r m i t b e f o r e they can be p u r c h a s e d and used. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)  Aldrin Dieldrin 2,4-D 2,4,5-T DDT  (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)  Heptachlor Mercury Paraquat Arsenic Metaldehyde  Match the phrases on the r i g h t with the correct term on the l e f t . The f i r s t blank i s f i l l e d i n as an example. 4  (a) 1 f l u i d ounce (b) p e s t i c i d e (c) i n s e c t i c i d e (d) fungicide (e) herbicide  1. 2. 3.  4. 5. 6.  7. 8. 9.  causal organisms of plant diseases. a p e s t i c i d e used to c o n t r o l diseases of plants. adults with body divided into head, thorax, and abdomen, 3 pairs of legs. two tablespoons. a p e s t i c i d e used to control weeds. a substance or a mixture, preventing, destroying, or r e p e l l i n g any undesirable plant or animal species. a p e s t i c i d e used to control s n a i l s and slugs. a p e s t i c i d e used to control insects. a herbicide which i s t o x i c to some plant species and not to others.  L i s t the three routes by which pesticides can enter the human body.  84 APPENDIX 2 VARIABLE MEANS, SAMPLE SIZES, AND RESULTS OF T-TESTS BY TREATMENT CONDITION Variable  Treatment Mean  Control Sample Standard Mean Size Deviation  Standard Deviation  Sample Size  t-test  Age  32.5  12.0  135  37.6  13.0  189  3 .6; p< .01  Years i n Canada  26.2  13.1  135  32.8  13.9  187  4 .3; p< .01  Educational  11.9  2.4  134  11.2  2.4  188  2 .6; p< .01  15.2  30.8  99  11.9  28.1  158  .72; N. S.  Years o f Experience  5.2  6.9  117  4.9  8.4  166  .32; N. S.  P r e v i o u s B.C.D.A. Courses  0.2  0.5  135  0.2  0.4  189  0 .0  P r e v i o u s NonB.C.D.A. Courses  0.3  0.4  135  0.2  0.4  189  2 .2; p< .05  Certificates  0.4  0.9  135  0.3  0.7  189  1 .1; N.S .  2.9  1.6  135  3.3  1.6  189  2 .2; p< .05  Pre-test  22.8  4.0  135  Post-test  26.8  2.8  135  25.1  3.6  189  4 .6; p< .05  Certification Examination Percentage  83.4  9.1  135  81.4  11.3  189  1 .71; p< .05  Level  P e r c e n t o f Wages from P e s t i c i d e Application  Held  Handbook Use  S t a t i s t i c Used:  t =  y  /  l~ 2  X  (  X  - 1 ) S ^ + ( n - l)S  2  n]L  2  n  x  + n  df = n,+ n „ - 2  2  - 2  2  fl  ["I  + 1 \ n  2  y  o fD  O  It  co rt  rt H*  1 rt  rti  r>  rt  i-t CO  CD H O CD  H-  rt  Po  1 rt ft) CO  n> rt  CO  fu rt H-  ••a w  fD  i-l fD  3  CO  W  X  cr > o o o o ?v H o (0  W1  CO CD  s: p>  c  CO ID CO  OQ  to  (U  O (D  r-h  na  0  H(D  O  H  rt HMl Hrt  fD CO  a fD  H O-  1  9  n a  o o  ur  n to  O  z o  0  H  O  PC W O O fD (0  X  T) fD  CO fD CO  w Du c o to  rt HQ  0 01  h-  I  I  I  I  f  (D  I  f - ' O M O t O t O O t O ' C O t O » J U > v O v O O V O G O v O  0 0 ~ J | - ' t O 4 > ^ J U i 4 >  O  O  t  O  O  U  >  t  O  r  cx> oo <y> oo u> ui O ^  O lO  to M  O H  O U>  I—' IO  O  I— ~J  IO LO  4>  I—' VO  I— M  tO M  M 00  O  O Ui  O 00  O VO  O  1  J>  Ul 4> J>  ^4  O  1  o  i>  r-> S)  O  -  '  0  O  1  ro  O M O ^ J O J J ^ O t - ' O O O J V O W I - ' r - ' l - ' O O U i v O O O t O U )  L O L O r - ' t O t - ' M O O O r - ' J > O N | O U i v O » v l 4 > U i | O l - >  >  OQ (D  O  O  Age  Educational Level Non-BCDA Courses Certificates Held BCDA Courses  OS  O  Handbook Use  Experience  Percent of Wages Years i n Canada Pre-test  Post-test  Certification Exam  o o  £ «5 M  PI  H  U>  O Z Z O pa M  86  APPENDIX 4 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST SCORES OF THE 3 LANDSCAPE TREATMENT COURSES  Pre-test Scores Source of(Variance  df  ss  ms  Group  2  10.25  5.12  Error  44  542.99  12.34  Total  46  553.24  Post-test Scores  df  ss  ms  Group  2  10.59  5.30  Error  44  245.62  5.58  Total  46  256.21  F 0.42 not s i g .  F 0.95 not s i g .  APPENDIX 5 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF POST-TEST SCORES OF THE 3 CONTROL COURSES OF THE NON-AGRICULTURAL AND NON-FORESTRY VEGETATION CONTROL TOPIC  Source o f V a r i a n c e  ss  ms  2  6.87  3.43  Error  54  707.69  13.11  Total  56  714.56  Treatment  df  F 0.26 n o t s i g ,  APPENDIX 6 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PRE-TEST SCORES OF THE 6 TREATMENT GROUPS  Source of V a r i a n c e  df  ss  ms  Group  5  150.52  30.10  Error  129  2024.55  15.69  Total  134  2175.08  F 1.92 not s  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101495/manifest

Comment

Related Items