INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photo graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. These are also available as one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Order Number 0022508
Measuring teaching style: A correlational study between the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure and the Myers-Briggs personality indicator on adult educators in central Ohio
Heimlich, Joseph Eugene, Ph.D.
The Ohio State University, 1990
Copyright ©1990 by Heimlich, Joseph Eugene. All rights reserved.
UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106
MEASURING TEACHING STYLE: A CORRELATIONAL STUDY BETWEEN THE VAN TILBURG/HEIMLICH SENSITIVITY MEASURE AND THE MYERS-BRIGGS PERSONALITY INDICATOR ON ADULT EDUCATORS IN CENTRAL OHIO
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
By
Joseph Eugene Heimlich, B.A., M.A.
* * * * *
The Ohio State University
1990
Dissertation Committee: Approved by
D.L. Boggs
R.R. Bargar
M.K. Marval
E.V.T. Norland Copyright by Joseph Eugene Heimlich 1990 To My Friends who have been there on my Spiritual Path
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am deeply indebted to the members of my committee who have each
given me special gifts: to Dr. David L. Boggs for his gifts of guidance, flexibility and appreciation of my thought process; to Dr.
Robert R. Bargar for his gifts of understanding and humanness; to Dr.
Mary K. Marval for her gifts of insightfulness, professionalism, and higher perfection; and to Dr. Emmalou Van Tilburg Norland for her gifts of insight, challenge, and discovery. No acknowledgements can ever be complete, yet there are some special people who provided the support and inspiration I needed: Mark Newton, my dearest friend and spiritual partner; Richard Hossalla, my mentor from undergraduate days and a powerful influence on my life; my family of choice, my support group from church; and to my family of origin, my parents and sibilings who molded me to be who I am. To all these people and all others who have touched my world, thank you.
iii VITA
B o r n ...... September 10, 1957 Willard, Ohio
Bachelor of Arts, Communication Arts & T h e a t r e ...... 1979 Capital University, Columbus Ohio
Master of Arts, Education...... 1989 The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio
Kampmann Costume Works ...... 1979-1981 Designer, Sales Manager
Tim Coulter and Associates ...... 1979-1982 Consultant, Performance
Ohio Cooperative Extension Service . . . 1981 - 1988 Program Assistant, CNRD
Ohio Cooperative Extension Service . . . 1988 - Present Extension Associate, CNRD
PUBLICATIONS
Heimlich, J.E. (1988-1989). Fact Sheets: "Hazardous Materials In The Home" CDFS-103; "Disposal of Household Hazardous Materials" CDFS- 104; "Integrated Solid Waste Management" CDFS-106; "Reduction and Reuse" CDFS-107; "Recycling" CDFS-108; "Composting" CDFS-110; "Landfills" CDFS-111; "Community and Household Recycling" CDFS-112; "Community Hazardous Materials Collection Programs" CDFS 113. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Cooperative Extension Service.
Heimlich, J.E. (1986) R E :FIT: Agent's Handbook. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, OSU.
Heimlich, J.E. (1982, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986). "Ohio 4-H LE Camp Packet". Publication 618-A. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, OSU.
iv Heimlich, J.E., S. Howard. (1989-90). Fact Sheets: Recycling Newsprint in Ohio, CDFS-121; The Safety of Newsprint Bedding, CDFS- 122, Newsprint Bedding for Horse and Sheep, CDFS-123. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Cooperative Extension Service.
Heimlich, J.E., J.D. Rohrer. (1985). "At Your Disposal; A Cleaner Environment". 4-H Circular 615. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, OSU.
Heimlich, J.E., J.D. Rohrer. (1984, 1987). Ohio Information Package. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, OSU.
Heimlich, J.E., J.D. Rohrer. (1986, 1987) "Business Financing Programs in the State of Ohio". CDFS-100. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, OSU.
Heimlich, J.E., J.D. Rohrer, D. Anderson, J.M. Bassitt, C.A. Jones. Ohio 4-H Club Litter Control Scoresheet. Ohio 4-H Program 918. OCES, OSU. 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986.
Heimlich, J.E., D.W. Thomas, S. Howard. (1989) Ohio Information Package. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, OSU.
Heimlich, J.E. and E. Van Tilburg. (September 1988) "RE:FIT: Assessing Career Potential for Dislocated Farmers. The Career Development Quarterly. Volume 37, Number 1.
Heimlich, J.E. and E. Van Tilburg. (October, 1987). Subcultures and educators: Concerns of membership in education. Paper presented at the Conference of the American Association for Adult and continuing Education (Washington, DC, October 22, 1987). ERIC Document, 309 015.
Heimlich, J.E. and E. Van Tilburg. (October, 1987) Career change options for welldefined dislocated populations. Proceedings. Lifelong Learning Research Conference. Baltimore, Maryland.
Heimlich, J.E. et al. (1984, 1985). "VP: Map to Success". 4-H Circular 932. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, OSU.
Ashley, W . , J.E. Heimlich, P. Kurth. (1988). The Rural Career Assistance Program: An Implementation Guide. Columbus, Ohio: The National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
Leptak, J., L. Kitinoja, and J.E. Heimlich. (October, 1989). A model for community education in theatre organizations. Community Education Research Journal.
Rohrer, J.D. and J.E. Heimlich. (1989). Energy Recovery from Solid Waste. In National CES Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Workshop Proceedings. USA: Waste Management of North America, Inc.
v a
Rohrer, J.D. and J.E. Heimlich, Eds. (1981). Proceedings: Community Leader's Workshop. OCES, OSU, Bulletin 694. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, OSU. ERIC, ENVIRONLINE.
Rohrer, J.D. and J.E. Heimlich, Eds. (1983). The Enforcement of Ohio's Litter Control Laws. Bulletin 708. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, OSU. ERIC.
Rohrer, J.D. and J.E. Heimlich, Eds. (1983). Proceedings: North eastern Ohio Litter and Recycling Seminar. Bulletin 709. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, OSU. ERIC.
Rohrer, J.D. and J.E. Heimlich. (1983). "Think of Ohio As Your Own Backyard". Ohio Extension Homemakers' Council. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, OSU.
Rohrer, J.D., P.R. Thomas, J.E. Heimlich. "Ohio Information Package." OCES, OSU. Bulletin FS698, August 1982.
Van Tilburg, E. and J.E. Heimlich. (February, 1988) Education and the Subculture. Lifelong Learning. Vol 11, No 3, 21-24,28.
Van Tilburg, E. and J.E. Heimlich. (May, 1987). Planning for evalu ation utilization: Preliminary report of the implementation of RE:FIT. Proceedings. Symposium on Research in Extension Education. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University.
Van Tilburg, E. and J.E. Heimlich. (May, 1989). Grounding instrumen tation in reality; Instrumentation development for Extension pro fessional. Proceedings. Symposium on Research in Extension. Columbus, Ohio.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Educational Studies
Studies in Adult Education Theory, Dr. D. Boggs, Dr. W. Dowling Teaching style/Learning style, Dr.D. Boggs, Dr. W.Dowling Teaching Methods, Dr. W. Dowling Communication Arts, Dr. R.J. Hossalla, Dr. T. Ludlum Group Process, Dr. T. Ludlum, Public Policy and Management, Dr. M. Marval
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication...... ii
Acknowledgements ...... iii
V i t a ...... iv
List of T a b l e s ...... x
List of F i g u r e s ...... xii
CHAPTER PAGE
I . Introduction and Need for Study ...... 1
Culture ...... 2 Subcultures...... 2 Adult Educators...... 5 The Van Tilburg/Heimlich M e a s u r e ...... 6 Problem Statement ...... 14 Research Question ...... 15 Definition of Terms ...... 19
II. Review of L i t e r a t u r e ...... 24
Teaching Style ...... 25 D e f i n i t i o n ...... 25 Taxonomies for Categorizing Style ...... 26 T r a i t s ...... 28 Discussion and Summary ...... 30 Teaching Method ...... 31 A t t r i b u t e s ...... 31 Adult/Preadult Learners ...... 32 Adapting Style ...... 33 M e t h o d s ...... 35 Discussion and Summary ...... 38 Internal Focus (Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure) ...... 39 Sensitivity...... 40 Inclusion...... 41 Acculturation...... 42 Symbolism...... 43 Individual as Group M e m b e r ...... 44 Discussion and Summary ...... 44
vii Learning Style ...... 45 Learning Theories ...... 45 Behaviorists ...... 46 Humanists ...... 46 Congitivists ...... 47 Integrated Models ...... 48 Discussion and Summary ...... 49 The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Teaching Style . . . . 50 The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ...... 51 Myers-Briggs and Educators ...... 51 Implications ...... 55 Discussion and Summary ...... 56 Summary ...... 57
III. The Procedure ...... 59
Research Design ...... 60 Research Objective One ...... 60 Research Objective Two ...... 61 Research Objective Three ...... 62 Population and Sample ...... 63 Instrument Measures ...... 64 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ...... 64 Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure ...... 66 Reliability ...... 69 Validity ...... 74 Data Collection ...... 76 Process ...... 76 Securing Participation ...... 76 Planning for Tests ...... 77 Conditions of Test Administration ...... 78 Follow Up ...... 78 Data Analysis ...... 78 Research Objective One ...... 79 Research Objective Two ...... 80 Research Objective Three ...... 81
IV. The Findings ...... 83
Nature of the Respondents ...... 83 Sex, Race, Age of Respondents ...... 84 Occupation and Tenure of Respondents ...... 85 Educational Level of Respondents ...... 88 Field of Study ...... 88 Summary ...... 89 Subjects' Profiles ...... 89 Myers Briggs Type Indicator Profiles ...... 89 Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure Profiles . . . . 93
viii a
Report of Findings of Associations ...... 99 Research Objective One ...... 99 Research Objective Two ...... 100 Research Objective Three ...... 103
S u m m a r y ...... 109
V. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ...... Ill
S u m m a r y ...... Ill Conclusions and Implications ...... 117 Research Objective One ...... 117 Research Objective Two ...... 118 Research Objective Three ...... 119 Recommendations ...... 126 Recommendations for Further Inquiry . . ; ...... 127 Recommendations for Implementation of Theory ...... 129 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ...... 129 Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure ...... 130
APPENDIXES A: Solicitation Scripts ...... 132 B: Data Collection and Reporting Forms ...... 137 Demographic Report F o r m ...... v ...... 138 Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure ...... 139 Van Tilburg/Heimlich Report Form ...... 141 C: Canoncial Correlation Analysis ...... 142 D: Independent Variables Standardized Canonical Coefficients and Correlations ...... 147 LIST OF REFERENCES...... 150
ix LIST OF TABLES
Table
1 Van Tilburg/Heimlich Categories and Relationships ...... 11
2 Teaching Methods ...... 35
3 Nominal and Dichotomous Categories ...... 61
4 Product Moment Correlations of X and Y Continuous Scores With Spearman-Brown Correction on Form F by Age Clusters . . . 70
5 Final Statements' Mean, Mode and Standard Deviation The Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure ...... 72
6 Myers-Briggs Content Validity Correlations with OtherScales . 75
7 Type of Position by Highest Degree Obtained ...... 88
8 The Subjects by MBTI C e l l ...... 91
9 Continuous Conversion Scores on the MBTI ...... 92
10 Comparison of Subjects and MBTI Data B a n k ...... 92
11 Subjects by Dimension Scores on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich . . . 94
12 The Subjects by Van Tilburg/Heimlich C e l l ...... 96
13 Row (Control) by Column (Focus) Totals for the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure ...... 98
14 Phi Coefficients between Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Van Tilburg/Heimlich Nominal D a t a ...... 100
15 Pearson Product Moment Correlations between the Myers-Briggs Continuous Scores and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure Scores ...... 102
16 Associations Among Demographic Variables Using Cramer's V . . 104
17 Associations Among Predictor Variables and Dependent Variables Using Cramer's V ...... 105
18 Mean, Standard Deviation, Minimum and Maximum for Each V a r i a b l e ...... 106
x
( List of Tables, Con't
19 Associations Between Variables ...... 107
20 Summary of Canonical Correlation Analysis ...... 108
21 Standardized Discriminant Function and Correlation between Dependent and Canonical Variable Coefficients .... 109
22 Model of Expected and Observed Proportions of Subjects in Van Tilburg/Heimlich Cells using Reconstructed Theory ...... 125
xi LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1- The Dimensions of The Van Tilburg/Heimlich Model ...... 9
2 Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix ...... 10
3 Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix ...... 12
4 Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Matrix ...... 69
5 Age and Gender of Participants...... 85
6 Occupation of Subjects...... 86
7 Tenure of Subjects...... 87
8 Scatterplot of Matrix Score Coordinates on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure...... 95
9 Strength of Scores on the VanTilburg/Heimlich Measure .... 97
xii CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND NEED FOR STUDY
How an educator consistently relates or prefers to interact with a
group can be called that educator's style. What exactly teaching style
"is" and how it can be expressed have no simple explanations. Other wise, there would be consistency in describing teaching style and prescriptions for developing teaching style in education curricula.
The consistent patterns of an educator in a learning setting are the result of interaction of the educator's needs and preferences, the needs and preferences of the learner(s), the needs and preferences of the organization, and the needs and preferences of the content (Seaman and Fellenz, 1989). These sometimes competing needs and desired means of filling the needs occur in an environment that also interacts on the moment of instruction (Hall and Hall, 1987).
The educator's sensitivity to cultural memberships brought to the learning situation by both the instructor and the learners can be a critical factor in how the educator performs with any or all groups.
The task of describing a teacher's style is a complicated one. Yet, to improve instruction, such a description would be useful and practical.
The elements of instruction--the educator, the learner, and the organization, share a common factor: they are each products of external factors of culture, and contributors to the culture of the learning environment. The extent to which the instructor is able to
1 relinquish control over the learning outcomes relative to the group or
individual learners is another critical dimension. This chapter will
briefly discuss the effect of culture on a group, the redefinition of
any group as a potential creator of its own culture (subculture), and a
measure of teaching style using the cultural dimensions of sensitivity
and inclusion. The problem this study will address, the research
question, and definitions of terms follow.
Culture
A wealth of information from disparate fields exists for the study
of culture. From the anthropologic works of Mead, Benedict and others,
an approach to understanding the inherent worth of any living culture
emerged and moved beyond the separate and distinct field of folklore
(Goodenough, 1971; Brunvand, 1968). Concurrent with the anthropologic
emergence of "living cultures", Parsons was developing his structure of
social action which is based on the development, maintenance and close ness of the group (Turner, 1974). Art education has long used cultural artifacts as representations of cultural patterns (Boyer, 1987). These four fields, anthropology, folklore, sociology, and art education all consider living culture, or the customs and civilizations of a parti cular group of people, as important (Oxford, 1980).
Subcultures. Going beyond the definition of culture, however, is the concept of "subculture", or people who share a "world view" which combines their symbols, values, beliefs and behaviors to reflect their immediate environment and how they react with outside change (Kearney,
1984). This view is the subculture or group's conscious representation of the outside world. To the group, the perception is reality (San chez, 1987). Goven, Faber, Prins and Mangold (1972) offer that the process of identifying this view is sensory and subcortical or below the level of consciousness and can be any common factor. What is important is that "a group formed for whatever reason will have some traditions which it calls its own" (Dundes, 1977, p 23). The culture of the group then controls individual members by cultural norms, values, beliefs, and assumptions even over formal rules, authority, and norms (Ott, 1989).
From prior work by Van Tilburg and Heimlich (1987), this means of defining subculture can be extended to any group when the collective
"world view" of the group is broadened to be understood as a collective group "goal" or consciousness. In the realm of education and es pecially in adult education, working with groups, i.e. working with broadly defined subcultures is an important task. The coherence of the group and thus the strength of the subculture of a learning group is determined by 1) the subconscious belief system (Jung, Von Franz,
Henderson, Jacobi and Jaffe, 1964); 2) values inherent in the beliefs
(Knowles, 1973); 3) how the group learns and relates within itself
(Bascom, 1977); 4) beliefs about the major culture (Parsons, 1966); and
5) past history of the group with the topic (Heimlich & Van Tilburg,
1988) .
This discussion suggests an educator can use the concepts of culture and group in working with a learning cluster. Any group has the potential for becoming what can be termed a subculture given time and situation, thus defining the coherence of the group in terms of intra and inter-attractiveness, satisfaction, productivity and communi cation characteristics (Applbaum, Bodaken, Sereno, and Anatol, 1974).
The complex issues of working with a group are further complicated by
the constraints and strengths of an educator's inherent style.
There are several complications to understanding subcultures.
Historically, anthropological studies assumed cultural homogeneity in
societies or social groups and omitted the sociological view of social
stratification by cultural idioms (Leach, 1984). Problems exist in the
definition of the term of subculture due in part to the words by which
they are identified: subculture. lesser(great) culture, minor(major)
culture, predominant culture, overriding culture, super culture and so
forth. The denotation of these refer not to superiority but to size
(Lasswell, 1952) but the connotations of each contain negative images.
It can be said that all persons are members of some subculture or many subcultures; "we must see members of modern societies as members of many different groups" (Dundes, 1977, p 24).
Little work, however, has been done regarding how educators natur ally interact with any subculture. The fields above suggest reflective approaches, but educators and especially adult educators, must enter into dialogue with a group without the benefit or leisure of time.
Common experience with subcultures and groups may be considered by individuals as invaluablein improving themselves as educators, but the scope of adult education precludes the ability of an educator to have common experience with all members of learning groups. Rather the role of the educator is, in part, to "inspire, induce, guide and teach adults in all phases of personal development and enrichment so that each individual can work out his own way of living, and of finding meaning in life, his own approach to realizing himself as an individual
[sic]" (Jensen, Liveright, Hallenbeck, 1964, p. 13).
Adult Educators. Another variable in this discussion must be the
inculturation of adult educators themselves. The field of adult
education varies greatly and preparation for working with adult
learning groups is inconsistent (Darkenwald and Merriam, 1982). Even
so, the development of the field of "adult education" as a profession,
a discipline, is hotly debated (Plecas and Sork, 1986). The bases upon
which arguments can be built supporting a profession of adult education
are some of the same bases used to define a field of study: a basic
science or technology (adult developmental theory); an applied science
aspect (andragogy); a language used to describe them (jargon); and a
unique literature base. This paper could be offered as an example of
the literature of the field, using language to describe in part the
first two components. Parallels can be drawn between fields of study,
and folklore, or cultural identity.
If, then, adult educators themselves are a part of a unique group,
there must be shared beliefs and values within the group. Some of
these values might be those Knowles (1973) identified as his assump
tions about adult learners in an attempt to define andragogy; or perhaps the values are best expressed as Brookfield's beliefs about
adult learners (1986). Both of these leaders of current adult edu cation theory are widely cited in the literature on these values.
It is likely that the more formally an individual studies "adult education", the greater the likelihood of being indoctrinated into the field. Likewise, the more one reads the journals of the field or participates in professional associations or developmental activities,
the greater the chance they share concepts held by other adult edu
cators . Thus, if individuals identify themselves as adult educators,
they are likely self-selecting into a specific group or subculture.
Further, personality theory suggests that selection into any profession
is often a function of factors of personality, these factors themselves being foundations for individual belief and value systems (Myers and
McCaulley, 1987). It would seem likely that adult educators share certain psychological type profiles.
How then, does an educator relate to any group of learners? It seems safe to assume that an educator's teaching style and personality indicators are critical factors in such relationships. The purpose of this study is to examine this relationship.
The Van Tilburg Heimlich Measure
An educator's relationship to a learning group is a cultural interaction. If, for any reason, a group forms, patterns of behavior will emerge over time that define the culture of the group. This definition of culture parallels the assumptions used in discussions of organizational culture; an organization's culture consists of such things as shared values, beliefs, assumptions, perceptions, norms and artifacts (Ott, 1988). Weick (1982) suggests four conditions must exist for this assumption to be valid:
1) the system is self-correcting and interdependent;
2) there is a consensus on objectives and methods for obtaining
these objectives; 3) information is shared for coordination; and
4) problems and solutions of the group must be predictable.
Kilman, Saxton, Serpa and Associates (1985) offer that a group's
culture is analogous to an individual's personality, hidden yet
unifying. Blake and Mouton's (1969) definition of culture within an
organization illustrates the transferability of these concepts to
group: patterns of interactions, values and attitudes derived from
traditions, precedents, and past practices... the assumptions and
beliefs people live by. Wharton and Worthley (1983) define the group
culture as the source of norms, rules, attitudes of the group, customs
and roles.
Group culture creates a challenge for an educator. No two groups
are identical; thus, what works for one group will not necessarily work
for another group (Verner, 1964). Most of the information needed for planning is related to societal influences (Knox, 1987). Changes in membership of relatively nonformal groups can radically alter the personality (culture) of the group and in some cases, can negatively
impact the relationships within the group (Applbaum, Bodaken, Sereno and Anatol, 1974). Further, with an adult learning situation, groups may not have the opportunity to become cohesive enough to exhibit the potential distinct cultural patterns of the group. Thus, the challenge for the educator is sensitivity to groups in process of forming while specific (or explicit) group indicators are not yet present. How much an educator includes a group in defining its own values, beliefs and outcomes may facilitate or hinder the formation of group cohesion.
How an educator works with groups is dependent upon many traits. Ryans (1960) cites the following seven categories of characteristics to consider:
o specific teacher behavior
o specific pupil behavior
o interacting manifest teacher characteristics
o interacting situational conditions
o interacting underlying teacher characteristic dimensions
o interacting basic traits
o interacting organismic conditions.
In recent work, Van Tilburg and Heimlich (1989) explore the philo sophical and theoretical bases for how an educator relates to a group and suggest there are two bi-polar dimensions at play: 1) sensitivity of the educator to the group, to individuals within the group, and to self; and 2) inclusionary practices of the educator. They theorize that these dimensions of how an educator relates to a group are indicators of how an educator will prefer to perform or will perform over time with any group. This, then, is a means of identifying the educator's teaching style. It is assumed if these constructs are isolated and measured then the intersect of the measures will serve as an indicator of preference of teaching style.
The two dimensions can be illustrated as two perpendicular lines emanating from a single point, the educator (see Figure 1). The concept is that an educator has a myriad of potentially measurable characteristics, traits, or domains: the domains of sensitivity and inclusion are two of them. These domains, they theorize, when isolated are the teaching style. high
Inclusion
low
Educator low high
Sensitivity
Figure 1 The Dimensions of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Model
The concept is that sensitivity and inclusion can be measured separately. The two disparate measures can be plotted on the appro priate axis and then the intersect of the lines indicates the indi vidual educator's position on the graph. To clarify relationships of points on the poles, a two-by-two matrix is overlaid (see Figure 2).
Educators who operate within the low inclusion domain focus on control ling the outcomes of the learner; high inclusion educators control and are more concerned with the environment. The Sensitivity domain contrasts the focus on the process of the low sensitivity score with the focus on the learner of the high sensitivity score.
The low inclusion, low sensitivity quadrant is labeled "Expert."
Persons who prefer to operate in this domain are subject oriented and seek efficiency in information sharing (e.g. via lecture). The low inclusion, high sensitivity quadrant is the "Provider." Educators who act as Providers are learner-centered and desire effectiveness in teaching. Methods inherent to the Provider type include question-and- 10
answer, demonstration, and guided activities.
The high inclusion domains focus on process more than content.
The high inclusion, low sensitivity quadrant of "Facilitator" is
teacher-centered-- the technique or method is the end and will be used
with any group depending on content more than on participants.
Structured group activities and learner-involved activities are used by
an educator who acts as a Facilitator. The high inclusion, high
sensitivity quadrant is labeled "Enabler" and is learning-centered.
Learners define both the activity and the process in an Enabler's
environment. The Enabler is the "ideal" in adult education if (and only when) all learners are self-directed, informed, and highly motivated or if the objective is to help learners acquire these qualities.
Focus on Focus on Educator Process Learner Controls: A high
Facilitator Enabler Environment (Teacher) (Learning)
Inclusion
Expert Provider Outcomes (Content) (Learner) low
Educator low high
Sensitivity
Figure 2 Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix 11
These four "categories" are then identified in the following re
lationships and strength of orientations:
Table 1 Van Tilburg/Heimlich Categories and Relationships
Sensitivity______Inclusion______Label______Orientation
low low Expert Subject-centered
low high Facilitator teacher-centered
high low Provider learner-centered
high high Enabler learning-centered
A measure indicates predilection of teaching style at a given
time. Methods are not bound by style. The preferred teaching methods
( techniques of any one style are not exclusive to that style, but
are, rather, innate modes of behavior. Although there are occasions where each type is more or less appropriate, given adult education
ideology, high sensitivity and high inclusion are "ideals" in most adult education situations. The premise advanced here is that there may be some hypothetical line along each pole above or below which preference in one domain may compensate for preference in the other by assuming some of the characteristics of that domain.
The inculturation and the training of educators, however, will bias reported beliefs and classroom behaviors; most role models for have been and are pedagogical models of information presentation. The area of presentational style, the Expert, for that reason is larger than the other areas. Further, as educators become inculturated into the theoretical base of adult learning, they are likely to report what 12
they "know" to be desired states of belief, whether or not that belief
is translated into behavior. As the Expert is the position from which educators culturally emanate, the pattern of movement from one style
into another is not clear. Thus, there is ambiguous area between the defined categories. Further, the intersect of this "grey" area of preference would indicate emerging style or a style that is not clearly defined and is called the "Neutral Zone" (see Figure 3). Because of this, there are actually nine areas in the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix:
1) Expert; 2) Expert/Facilitator; 3) Facilitator; 4) Facilitator/En- abler; 5) Enabler; 6)Provider/Enabler; 7) Provider; 8)Expert/Provider; and 9) Neutral Zone.
high 11 F/E 10 * 9 Facilitator Enabler 8 Inclusion 7 Expert/Facilitator Neut Provider/Enable] 6 Zone 5 4 Expert E/P Provider 3 ** low 2 1 Educator 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 low high
Sensitivity * Facilitator/Enabler ** Expert/Provider
Figure 3 Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix
As each style is more or less appropriate in differing situations, all styles have merit. There are situations in which any of the well defined styles (Expert, Provider, Facilitator, Enabler) would best 13
serve the learner. For example, when there is a tremendous amount of
information to be presented to the learner in a short time and the
setting is more formal, the Expert mode of lecture would be appro
priate; in a heterogeneous group which meets over time and is engaging
relatively new content, the Provider may be the more effective edu
cator. The theoretical base by which adult educators are taught,
however, gives preference to the Enabler style and to a lesser degree,
the Facilitator.
Yet there appears to be a wide-held belief that to be effective,
educators must serve all learner styles to the exclusion of their own
style (Dunn and Dunn, 1979; Ellis, 1979). This theoretical orientation
can lead to a shift in beliefs and values. This shift may or may not
be dysfunctional. Van Tilburg and Heimlich believe that many educators
work toward such a shift but get "stuck" without a clearly defined
teaching style. This "stuckness" is a result of working away from
preferred style toward a new set of values and beliefs without having
the natural and learned patterns to be effective in the new paradigm.
Thus, for many educators, the Neutral Zone is indicative of not having well defined patterns of behavior in teaching situations. This
suggests that educators in the Neutral Zone should identify their preferred patterns and further develop them.
Van Tilburg and Heimlich suggest that teaching style is a product of many things, including personality, experience, and education. The
dimensions of predilection toward inclusion and sensitivity when
isolated can simply and accurately describe the preferred teaching
style of an individual. The Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure is an instru 14
ment that may be compatible with, but different from personality
profiles, learning style inventories, and similar measures of indivi
dual performance. If teaching style is in part a function of person
ality, ethnicity, experience and education, then dimensions of person
ality should correlate with teaching style. Likewise, a teaching
measure should also relate to factors of ethnicity, experience and
education.
Problem Statement
Instruction can be improved through understanding how an educator
works best with groups and individuals. The values, beliefs, and
patterns that reflect the cultural memberships and inculturation of the
educator, the individual learner and the group have a tremendous impact
on the interaction. The degree to which an educator is aware of and
uses this culture is a dimension of the educator that can be called
"sensitivity." How the educator works with any group to encourage or
discourage the formation of norms of behavior within the group can be
labeled and "inclusion" domain.
The instrument developed by Van Tilburg and Heimlich to place educators in a two-by-two matrix (1988) on the bi-polar dimensions of sensitivity and inclusion of the group offers potential for assessing preferred teaching style in a group context. The Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI) is a well-established personality type indicator that includes four basic preferences of personality which, according to
Jung, direct the preferred use of perception and judgement (Myers and
McCaulley, 1987). 15
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator can be used by educators to identify both student and educator type preferences. The Van Til burg/Heimlich Matrix claims to place educators on two dimensions of preference. These two instruments, then, should work together in describing an educator on predilection of process which should parallel the dimensions of teaching style. This suggests that there might be a correlation between scores on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the
Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix. Such a correlation supports the assertion that an educator has a predilection toward a particular teaching style relative to cultural sensitivity and that such a phenomenon can be described.
Research Question
The following research question guided the research project:
Is there a relationship between scores of adult
educators on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and
their placement on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix?
Three research objectives focused the inquiry. From the theor etical bases from which this study was drawn, hypotheses were estab lished under each objective: 16
1. To explore and describe nominal relationships between cate
gorical scores of adult educators on the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure.
Hypothesis:
1) there is a correlation among scores of adult educators
on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and their placement
on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix as determined by the
scores of adult educators in central Ohio on the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich
Measure.
2. To explore and describe interval relationships between con
tinuous scores of adult educators on the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure.
Hypotheses:
2) There is a relationship between the Extrovert/Introvert
preference on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the
Inclusion dimension of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix
as determined by the scores of adult educators in
central Ohio on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the
Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure.
3) There is a relationship between the Sensing/Intuitive
preference on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the
Sensitivity dimension of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix
as determined by the scores of adult educators in
central Ohio on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the
Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. 4) There is a relationship between the Thinking/Feeling
preference on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the
Sensitivity dimension of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix
as determined by the scores of adult educators in
central Ohio on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the
Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure.
5) There is a relationship between the Thinking/Feeling
preference on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the
Inclusion dimension on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix
as determined by the scores of adult educators in
central Ohio on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the
Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure.
6) There is a relationship between the Perceiving/Judging
preference on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the
Sensitivity dimension on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix
as determined by the scores of adult educators in
central Ohio on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the
Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure.
7) There is a relationship between the Perceiving/Judging
preference on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the
Inclusion dimension on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix
as determined by the scores sample adult educators in
central Ohio on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the
Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure.
3. To explore and describe the relationships of demographic
variables and the scores of adult educators on the Myers- 18
Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure.
Hypothesis:
8) There is a relationship among age, gender, race, edu
cation, occupation, field of study and interval scores
on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/
Heimlich Measure.
Six operational objectives (ff) were the specific points for the inquiry:
1) to identify adult educators in central Ohio representing
a diverse population;
2) to administer the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and
the Van Tilburg/Heimlich instruments to a representative
sample of the diverse group of adult educators in
central Ohio;
3) to correlate scores between the sixteen Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator types and the four Van Til
burg/Heimlich categories;
4) to examine the data for correlational trends among
each of the four Myers-Briggs Type Indicator preferences
and the four Van Tilburg/Heimlich categories;
5) to correlate interval scores between the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure, and
examine the data; and
6) to perform a canonical correlation analysis on demo
graphic variables and scores of adult educators on the Myers- 19
Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure.
Definitions of Terms
Adult Educator. In the literature, the educator of adults is often
referred to as leader, mentor, and facilitator (Darkenwald and Merriam,
1982). For this paper, Adult Educator refers to a person who self
selects as one who spends most of their professional time working with
groups of adults for the betterment of the members of the groups.
Enabler. The Enabler is characterized by high sensitivity and high
inclusion on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. An Enabler encourages
self-involvement of the learners through action that demonstrates a sensitivity toward and interest in the learners (Solomon and Miller,
1961). This is similar to Joyce and Weil's (1980) Non-directive
Teaching Model based on Rogers work. Rogers (1951) suggests positive human relationships enable people to grow, and the educator's role is guiding growth and development. A person thus inclined rejects both subject-centered and learner-centered styles and helps learners develop toward substantive goals and learning autonomy (Fischer and Fischer,
1979).
Expert. In the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure, the Expert is character ized by low sensitivity and low inclusion scores. The Expert operates from a teacher-centered approach; teacher- learner dyads are asym metrical (Bidwell, 1973). An "expert" acts in a client-consultant role; consultants assess needs, strengths and shortcomings of clients then advise them (Lenz, 1982). The expert performs best in a teacher- subject matter relationship and the predominant method is lecture with 20
little attention to learners' reactions, interest or comprehension
(Solomon and Miller, 1961; Fischer and Fischer, 1979).
Extrovert/Introvert. Jung defines psychic energy as flowing either
outwardly toward the world or inwardly towarditself or the subject.
The outer flow Jung calls extroversion. The inward flow is intro
version (Winski, 1974). In the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Extro
version (E) and Introversion (I) are the measure of the attitudes or
orientations to life (Myers and McCaulley, 1987).
Facilitator. An educator with low sensitivity and high inclusion
measures on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure is labeled a Facilitator.
The communication patterns often encouraged by a Facilitator are
primarily learner-learner with the educator performing in a consulting
role (Carter and Kaitajarvi, 1983). Group discussions, role-playing,
seminars, and meetings are four methods used. The facilitator is
similar to Fischer and Fischer's (1979) "Cooperative Planner" in which
learning is guided through use of learner participation. The facili
tator may tend to view teaching from a Rational Model in which teaching
is a goal-oriented, intentional and not always successful activity
(Nuthall and Snook, 1973). The point-of-entry for the Facilitator is social interaction or directly affecting learners' relationships with groups, society, and culture (Joyce and Weil, 1980).
Group. As used by Van Tilburg and Heimlich, group is a gathering of people for a purpose. This is in line with the third definition of group in the American Heritage Dictionary as "a number of individuals or things considered together because of similarities" (1985, p.579).
Group memberships are a constant fact in this culture and have a 21 tremendous bearing on beliefs, values, feelings, and habitual patterns of behavior (Applbaum, Bodaken, Sereno, and Anatol, 1974).
Inclusion. The word inclusion is defined as "the act of including or the state of being included ". Include is defined as a transitive verb meaning "to have or take in as a part or member; to put into a group, class, or total" (American Heritage, 1985, 651). The operational definition of inclusion for this study is the sum of an individual's scores from a series of weighted value statements on the dimension of
"inclusionary aspects" on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich matrix.
Method. Method is the means by which an educator transmits information to the learner. Method is the process of interpersonal exchange
(Bidwell, 1973) and refers to activities engaged in by the learner
(Carter and Kaitajarvi, 1983) as mediated by the teacher or instructor
(Lovell, 1983). Method is the activity selected by the educator to further the learning opportunity for the learner.
Perceiving/Judging. In the development of the Myers-Briggs Type Indi cator, Myers and Briggs made explicit the importance of preference of orientation to the world that Jung implied. The use of the Perceiv ing/Judging preference describes identifiable attributes and behaviors to the world and, in tandem with Extroversion/Introversion, identifies which of the preferred functions is the dominant and which is the auxiliary. A preference on Perception suggests that the preference is toward the Sensing/Intuitive function; preference on judging suggests orientation toward Thinking/Feeling (Myers and McCaulley, 1987).
Provider. The Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure identifies the Provider as an educator with high sensitivity and low inclusion measures. The 22
teacher-learner dyad is in operation, but in the context of the social
surroundings (Bidwell, 1973). Emphasis is on communication with a
strong personal approach (Solomon and Miller, 1961). The point-of-
entry for the educator is an understanding of the personal capacity of
the learner (Joyce and Weil, 1980).
Sensing/Intuitive. The Sensing/Intuitive functions are what Jung
termed "irrational" or "something beyond reason, something, therefore,
not grounded on reason" (1974, p.454). Intuition is the function that
mediates perceptions in an unconscious manner while sensing is the
function that mediates the perception of physical stimuli (Jung et al,
1974). The sensing or the intuitive function is the preference for
process in which a person experiences or perceives the environment.
Sensitivity. Sensitivity is defined as "the quality or condition of being sensitive". In this study the definition of sensitive is
"susceptible to the attitudes, feelings, or circumstances of others"
(American Heritage, 1117). As for the Van Tilburg/Heimlich matrix,
sensitivity is the degree of awareness of the educator to the unique
cultural elements defining the world view of the group. The oper ational definition of sensitivity is the sum of an individual's scores
from a series of weighted value statements on the dimension of "sensi
tivity" on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich matrix.
Style. An educator's teaching style is the role available to that teacher (Lenz, 1982). Solomon and Miller (1961) define style as the
"distinctive or characteristic mode of execution in any art, employment or product" (p. 3) and offer that only a limited number of ways of handling relationships and activities involved in teaching exist. 23
Style is more thoroughly discussed in Chapter Two. Style in this document refers to a predilection of an educator to patterns of behavior that are a result of personal attitudes, beliefs, values, and traits (Solomon and Miller, 1961; Huelsman, 1983; Draves, 1984).
Subculture. For this study, the definition offered by Van Tilburg and
Heimlich will be used: "people who share a unique life experience, qualities, or goals within the larger society and through their shared view of the world generate a unique set of symbols in their lives that reflects their history and their environment" (1987, p.21).
Thinking/Feeling. Jung used thinking/feeling as the rational elements, or those elements that bring life into harmony with reason. Indi viduals who prefer to link ideas by causal, impersonal connections are identified as Thinking. People who prefer to weight relative values and merits of issues are Feeling types (Myers and McCaulley, 1987).
The thinking or the feeling function is the preference for process in which a person orders or organizes the world. CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A goal of the profession ofadult education is to facilitate and improve the learning environment. To this end, there has been a great deal of discussion in adult education literature regarding learning styles. Attention has been given to how adults, as opposed to children and preadults, learn; the learning styles of adults; and adult prefer ences in learning. From this have evolved prescriptions for how educators may better accommodate various adult learner styles.
There have also been many studies exploring learning styles and appropriate classroom methods for the various learning styles. The intent of these studies has been to establish a linkage between indi vidual learning preference and methods that are preference-bound. The assumption in the recommendations of these studies is that an educator is adept at all methods. Thus, the discussion of methods is often conducted in consideration of learning style.
•This review of literature, however, will focus not on learning styles but on the concept of improving the learning environment through understanding teacher styles. The concept is not the same as teaching methods but rather presents a broader view of educators having specific preferences and predilections toward styles of instruction. For this paper, five concepts related to the teaching styles of adult educators will be explored: teaching style, teaching method, internal focus (the
24 25
Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure), learning style, and the Myers-Briggs and
teacher style.
Teaching Style
There are many prescriptions for improving instruction. One is
that when educators better know their own abilities and limitations,
they are positioned to improve their classroom performance (Myers and
Myers, 1988). The various models of teaching share the characteristic
of having a central assumption that all significant variations in
teaching are a function of variance along one dimension with the
dimension varying from model to model (Nuthall and Snook, 1973).
There has been limited research on identifying teaching styles, which are considered to be the teacher's preferred patterns of pro viding learning opportunities for students of any age. Perhaps one explanation for this lack of research is that a narrow view of teaching is held in this society--teaching is an occupational technique or work process (Bidwell 1973). This perspective is in contrast to viewing teachers as individuals.
Definition. As the contributions to the literature regarding teaching style are not aligned with the more developed learner style dis cussions, a definition of teacher style is necessary. Dunn and Dunn
(1979) identified teaching style as "the attitudes teachers hold toward various instructional programs, methods, and resources as well as [the students] they prefer working with " (p.241). Fischer and Fischer
(1979) use style to refer to a pervasive quality in the educational activities of a teacher that persists even when content changes. This concept was echoed by Gauld (1982) in defining teaching style as "the 26 consistent way a teacher organizes and delivers a body of knowledge"
(p.13). Solomon and Miller (1961) suggest style is "a pattern composed of class-room behaviors.. .which are consistent over time and which distinguish [the teacher] from other teachers" (p.12). Huelsman (1983) operationally defines teaching styles as consisting "of a complex of personal attitudes, traits, and behaviors, and the media used to transmit to or receive data from the learners" (p. 15). Draves (1984) identifies what he believes are the emotional, physical, mental,and social characteristics that define the style of a teacher of adults.
Taxonomies for Categorizing Stvle. In describing teaching styles, many researchers and theorists have developed classification systems. These categorical structures are often similar in appearance. Lenz (1982), for example, believes there are two broad teaching styles: proactive and reactive. She offers that these stem from very different psycho logical bases, learner-centered and teacher-centered. Robinson (1979) defines teaching style as placement within one of five categories on a continuum of highly content-centered to highly people-centered.
Axelrod (1970) identified five teaching styles based on studies at the University of California: 1) Drillmaster or Recitation Class; 2)
Content-Centered Faculty Member; 3) Instructor-Centered Faculty Member;
4) Intellect-Centered Faculty Member; and 5) Person-Centered Faculty
Member. These five types are based on three centerings, the subject- matter -centered instructor, the student-centered instructor, and the blend of the two. The view of instructor- versus student-centered is also a common theme in the writings of Knowles' (1980) self-directed learner, Rogers' (1969) client-centered therapy, and Crouch's (1983) 27
Farmer Centered Problem Identification. Likewise, restrictions on the
learning environment, the specific situation, and institutional guide
lines can have an impact on the teaching style (Beder and Darkenwald,
1982).
Nuthall and Snook (1973) define three teacher-oriented models of
teaching based upon other models and writings. The behavior-control
model, the discovery-learning model, and the rational model are
designed to capture most of the theories of education and classroom
behavior.
Three relationship models were offered by Lenz (1982): the Host-
guest; the Client-consultant; and the Partnership. The three models
are driven by outcomes. The host expects the guests to return in the
future. When expectations are met, clients are satisfied with the
consultant services. The partnership is considered successful when
both sides live up to responsibilities.
In a study of shared aspects of teaching styles, Solomon and
Miller (1961) identified seven broad clusters of educators:
Cluster 1 Businesslike, objective, impersonal Cluster 2 Emphasis on communication Cluster 3 Personal approach Cluster 4 Self-involveraent Cluster 5 Sensitivity toward students; Interest in students Cluster 6 Protective behavior Cluster 7 Stimulating the student.
These clusters are structured by the researchers to relate the educator
to the student, the subject matter and the world of the student.
Further, the clusters are defined by student-student, teacher-student, or teacher-subject interaction; whether the educator receives "gratifi cation" in the subject or the act of teaching; and whether the teacher 28
is a director, an actor, or a stage manager in the theatre of the
classroom.
In their review of the literature of methods of teaching adults
versus teaching style, Carter and Kaitagarvi (1983) suggest there is
causality between teacher-learner versus learner-learner activities due
to the fact that journal articles present adult-teaching methods as
process oriented. Learner-learner activities are possibly less likely
the subjects of articles on methods and thus any comparison of the
literature may be biased.
Traits. Another method of classifying teaching style is by examining
the characteristics of the educator, or the traits that define the
unique qualities of the individual. A similar concept is that the
environment in which the educator matured will define their predi
lection for behaviors.
Conti (1985) believes it is the traits of the educator that matter and that traits collectively form a "synergistic whole which is referred to as a philosophy" that guides the behaviors of a teacher (p.
7). Boone (1985) believes that personal values and goals, mastery of concepts and principles, and skill are the characteristics of the educator, which when combined with professional values and goals, are an individual's philosophy of adult education. This philosophy becomes the guiding framework that defines the individual's style.
Ryans (1970) suggests that teaching styles may be based in part on the environment from which the educator emerged. From his study, for example, a teacher reared in a home that was above average both financially and intellectually/culturally would tend to be higher in 29 originality and imagination, verbal/semantic facility and judgment scales than do teachers from other backgrounds. Although the data showed clear trends, the author noted that substantial overlapping occurs among groups--the mean scores are not wide.
Conti and Welburn (1986) suggest that the educator creates a learning environment that fits the characteristics (style) of the educator. This purposeful use of teaching style makes a difference in student achievement. An educator with a well-defined style of any sort creates the best environment for learning (Conti and Fellenz, 1988a).
This concept is in line with the commonly accepted concept that an individual's preferred teaching style is reflective of that indi vidual's preferred learning style (Huelsman, 1983).
Robinson (1979) identifies four personal factors that affect the role behavior of adult educators: education, previous experience, professional identification; needs for dominance, acceptance and achievement; other social roles of the educator such as spouse, group memberships; and personal goals.
Ryans' (1960) studies identified assumptions of teachers and then offered postulates growing out of the assumptions. Regarding the basic assumption that teacher behavior is a function of the conditions or the environment in which it occurs are six postulates on teacher behavior:
1) there is some degree of consistency; 2) there are a limited number of responses; 3) it is probable rather than certain; 4) it is a function of personal characteristics; 5) it is a function of the general features of the situation; and 6) it is a function of the specific situation. 30
Discussion and Summary. There is no consistent definition of teaching
style that emerges from the literature. There is, however, a shared
concept: educators will, for whatever reasons, tend to. perform over
time to their strengths. This means that if left to their own devices,
educators' performance activities will tend to utilize their strengths.
The means of identifying what these strengths are, and the structure of names we use to identify or label these strengths, include clustering,
contrasting, and trait identification. It is important to note that no one style is ever described as better or worse in all situations than any other. Within every style it is likely there are both excellent and poor educators (Axelrod, 1970). Style is the predilection toward performance, not the methods or the quality of the instructional activity. Style is consistent, overall traits and qualities (Conti,
1989).
It is often asserted that educators should adapt their style to the learning styles of the students. This appears to be a contra diction in terms. Style is a function of an individual's personality, experience, ethnicity and education, and other individual traits. An educator cannot, not should not, "change" personality to satisfy each and every learner. What is possible is to implement classroom methods that are consistent with the educator's style. Using methods that are appropriate for the educator's style will improve the learning environ ment, thus allowing more learners to utilize their own preferred learning styles. Knowing style can be useful to educators in defining what are for them appropriate methods, adapting methods to their styles, and knowing their own classroom limitations. 31
Teaching Method
One explanation for predilection in teaching style is that an
educator has a preference for various teaching methods to garner speci
fied learner outcomes. In this approach, the educator as a person and
as a medium is a part of the unique message to the learners (Thompson,
1984). Much of an individual's preference is inherent and suggests
potential strengths in the areas of choice (Myers and Myers, 1988).
The choice of teaching method can suggest the degree of involvement of
the group in determining its relationship to the subject matter,
teaching methods, media, and outcomes (Darkenwald & Merriam, 1983).
Simply knowing that different methods are suggested does not
guarantee that different methods are used with equal skill by an
educator. Rather, the unique abilities of the individual will deter mine the predominant methods of education used (Myers and McCaulley,
1987); personal and social characteristics of the teacher are mani
fested in the classroom behavior (Ryans, 1960); styles of teaching are not better or worse than others, rather each style has its own excel lence (Morris, 1970). Dunn and Dunn (1979) suggest that no teaching style or learning style is better than another, only that there are levels of appropriateness related to content and situation.
Attributes. Some researchers believe that attributes can be ascribed to educators that define a "good" teacher in various learning situ ations. Draves (1984) identifies listening, helping insecure learners, handling situations in which the learner is doing something wrong, 32
providing supportive actions, and using humor. Another suggestion is
that good teaching is applying the laws of learning (effect, primacy,
exercise, disuse, and intensity) while alleviating blocks to learning
such as boredom, confusion, irritation and fear (Warren, 1964).
Adult/Preadult Learners. A considerable amount of work has been
devoted to discussing the difference between adult and preadult
learners. The literature suggests that the manner in which adults and
preadults are taught should differ (Imel, 1989). The psycho-social
dimensions of learning and the teacher-learner relationships are
different for the two groups (Beder and Darkenwald, 1982); certain
learning characteristics innate to all humans tend to emerge as people
mature (Knowles, 1980); and basic skills and abilities acquired in
childhood are consolidated and exploited as new competencies are
learned as adults (Lovell, 1987). Verner (1964) categorizes attempts
for identification of the adult learner into three categories: age,
psychological maturity, and social role. For others, the major
distinction between adults and preadults is not chronological age, but
the concept of self-sufficiency or independence.
Adult learning is differentiated from pedagogical learning on the basis of the adult's life experience creating distinctive needs, atti tudes, problems, life-styles and expectations (Frifth and Reed, 1982).
Kidd (1971) distinguished adult learners by four broad categories: 1) no correct answers for adult questions; 2) appropriateness is asso ciated with traditions or religion; 3) solutions have effects on the individual; and 4) the expectations of adults are different and include finding answers to specific needs (self directed). Maslow believes one 33
difference between adults and preadults is that self-actualization does
not occur in young people (Darkenwald and Merriam, 1982).
For adults, learning is considered to be correlated with what the
student does rather than those things the teacher does (Milton and
Associates, 1978). The educator is a change agent who plans and
directs the process for each individual, facilitates the learner and
assists in evaluation (Boone, 1985). The success of the learning
transaction depends in part on the appropriateness of the teacher's helping the learner at whatever point the learner is in the learning process (Robinson, 1979). All adult learners are unique, each being a product of a unique past life (Lovell, 1987).
Adapting Style. The prescription often follows that educators should adapt their "styles" to each individual or collective group of learn ers. Fischer and Fischer (1979) profess that teachers "must be willing to examine and to alter their teaching styles" if evidence or other professionals' opinions suggest they should (p.254). Conti (1985) agrees that "teaching style can affect student achievement," but falls short of recommending educator's change style (p.8). Draves (1984) suggests the way to approach the diversity in learners is through variety in teaching. Lovell (1987) offers that the successful teacher of adults considers the learner's consequences of prior learning and experience, the learner's personal disposition, and the social contact of the learning environment in developing this teaching method.
Robinson (1979) proposed a model of learning transaction in which teaching strategies are formed and methods/techniques are selected for creating a learning environment for a problem-solving (i.e. adult) 34
learner. The learner, institutional forces, and interpersonal forces
work on the educator to select and adapt the method of instruction that
best applies for the learner.
Often this literature equates style with method. In Robinson's
(1979) model of adult teaching, teaching style has a parenthetical
descriptor of "the teaching plan" (p.58). Even (1982) reflects that
many references to style refer to techniques to use in the instruct
ional event. Verner (1964) views method as the relationship between
institutional concerns for learning and the learner, and technique as
the relationship between the learner and the learning task. One of
Gauld's (1982) conclusions states "an instructor can vary his/her
instruction style as a result of planned intervention and insights
gained from learning theory" (p.126) and Lyons (1982) suggests that
teaching style can be adapted to accommodate individual learning needs.
However, no one person can possibly be equally competent and
proficient in all methods. The literature from the broad area of
leadership supports the consideration that a person cannot be "all
things to all people." Leaders are not so flexible that they can
function optimally in every kind of organization (Wissema, Van der Pol
and Messer, 1980); a leader is, in a given situation, of a specific, preferred type and will act accordingly (Horn, 1983). The process of
decision making is attributed to the preference of the leader (Nutt,
1986); managers perceive the need for change and affect it (Anderson and Paine, 1975). Further, an educator cannot concurrently serve the
individual styles of all members of a group; by focusing on the phenomenon of collective learning, potentially a great deal of learning 35
for change in any society is overlooked (Reed and Loughran, 1984).
Methods. There are many specific methods employed by teachers to
structure learning. Although some writers include structuring the
learning environment as method (see for example Lenz, 1982), teaching
method in this paper refers to specific classroom activities planned,
carried out and evaluated by the educator (Lovell, 1987).
Structured learning involves some process of interpersonal
exchange (Bidwell, 1973) starting from a concern with what the teacher will be doing during the teaching-learning exchange (Carter and
Kaitajarvi, 1983). Methods are well discussed throughout the liter ature. A representative sample edited for duplications follows in
Table 2.
Table 2 Teaching Methods
Author Mode______Method
Adams Control Simulation Games (1973)
Applbaum et al Group Panel (1977) Round Table Symposium-forum Dialogue Colloquy Lecture-forum Brainstorming Buzz Sessions Phillips 66 Posting Role Play
Bergevin and McKinley Group Participation (1977) Training
Carter and Kaitajarvi Teacher-Learner Lecture (1974) Symposium Demonstration Interview 36
Table 2, con't
Author Mode______Method
Carter and Kaitajarvi Learner-Learner Group Discussion Seminar Quiet Meeting
Delbecq et al Group Nominal Group (1975) Technique
Dunn and Dunn Motivated Learner Programmed Learning (1979) Informal Design Contract Activity Structured Design Instructional Pkgs Visul/TactualTask Cards Learning Circles
Gaj anayake Community Development Consensus Decision (1984) Making Skill Training Observatons Audio-visuals Field Trips Case studies Survey Methods
Hill Group Learning thru (1977) Discussion
Howe and Howe Decision-Making Values Clarifi (1975) cation
Institute for Citizen Participation Working Meeting Participatory Planning Open Meeting (1981) Forum Hearing Open House Town Meeting Samoan Circle Fish-Bowl Delphi
Laughran Distance Education Correspondency (1984) Radio Television Video Interactive video 37
Table 2, con't
Author Mode______Method
Lenz Proactive Individual Study (1982) Reactive Panel
Lovell Social Settings Lesson (1987) Tutorials Games Lab/Practical Work Projects
Patterson Creativity Eastern (sensory (1986) stimulation; affirmation; meditation) Visualization/ima gery Classics/Varia tions : learner-directed Attribute listing (contract) Attitudes (self- reliance , playfulness, williness—active learning) Seeing relation ships
Reed Nonformal Education Fotonovelas (1984) Puppets Theatre Informal Education Study-Action Groups Peer Learning
Verdun et al Adult Basic Explanation (1977) Questioning Drill
Warren Learning Stimulation Debate Group Interview Movie Creative Techniques Round table Discovery Dis cussion ■ 38
This list is meant to be only representative and not exhaustive of
the methods and authors who have refered to methods. These are
activities available to all educators regardless of individual teaching
style. The extent of this sample suggests that no educator is equally
versed and capable in all methods. Rather, certain methods will tend
to be used by individuals with shared style predilections. There are
cetain methods that feel more 'natural' to an educator based on style
(Solomon and Miller, 1961) and people with varying teaching styles will
infuse all methods with individual qualities (Fischer and Fischer,
1969).
Discussion and Summary. A great amount of work has been done on
identifying teaching methods that are "appropriate" for adult learners.
The supposition is that an educator should be equipped to apply
whatever method is most appropriate for creating an effective learning
situation. No individual is so empowered as to be equally competent in
all methods. Further, the opportunity for educators to become profi
cient in varying methods is minimal. What likely occurs is that over
time, the methods an individual instructor will select for use will be
the methods that are most consistent for the preferred teaching style
of that person. Whether one teaches as one learns, one teaches as one
is taught, or one teaches according to one's personality, education,
and experience, methods are activities purposefully selected by an
educator to convey information to learners in a learning setting.
Method is not style, nor should method be confused with style. At
best, methods employed may be indicators of an educator's experiential base and preferred teaching style. 39
Internal Focus Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure
Looking at learning style or teaching method uses an external
focus for defining an educator. An alternative approach to the outward
focus is for the researcher to focus internally on preferences, skills
and abilities. In relating to a group, Van Tilburg and Heimlich (1987,
1987a) identified two factors as important:
o Sensitivity of the educator to the indi
vidual, the group and to the educator's
internal state
o Degree of involvement of the group in
determining its progress.
These domains are also stressed by others in the adult education field.
Among them are Axlerod's (1970) presentation of subject-matter versus
student-centered instructors, Solomon and Millers's (1961) Direction of
Interest, Teacher Control, Sequence of Control, Emotional Qualities and
Methods as adult teacher style determinants, Likert's (1967) Authori
tative versus Participative organization, and Ryans' (1960) Pupil
Behavior versus Teacher Behavior as factors. Ryans offers two impor
tant postulates for teaching behavior: 1) teaching is social behavior;
and 2) teaching is relative to the cultural setting in which the
teaching occurs. In Ryans' study, the propositions were put forth that
teacher behaviors fall into relatively homogeneous clusters, that
clusters have the characteristics of dimensions, that estimates of
teacher behavior along a dimension may be assessed, and that the behaviors on the dimensions are characterized by stability over time. 40
Most of the western cultures, and thus many of the subcultures
that exist in the western world, are based on dialectical-conflict
theories (Turner, 1974). From Marx' (1936) early work,, dialecticism was defined as bipolar. The dialectic view of the world offers the ability to use dichotomous choice or continuum in structuring views
(Ford and Backoff, 1987). The field of psychology also offers support for viewing behaviors as bipolar but with unobtainable poles: "a dimension is a continuum without specific ends" (Buzzotta, Lefton, and
Sherberg, 1972, p. 19). Coffey and Truckenmiller and Schaie presented work in dimensional scaling (Buzzotta, Lefton, and Sherberg, 1982).
One of the foundations of psychological typing is dimensional and polar: Jung's original work and the subsequent Myers-Briggs, Singer-
Loomis, and Gray-Wainwright preference indicators measure behavior, attitude and/or preference on bi-polar dimensions.
Sensitivity. Sensitivity is the quality or condition of being sus ceptible to the attitudes, feelings, or circumstances of others. For this study, the concept of sensitivity evolves from theories of acculturation (Beals, 1953); the use of and beliefs in symbols, language, and ritual (Turiel, 1983); and viewing an individual as representative of the group (McC.Neting, 1971). The bi-polar dimension is "sensitivity" with the low pole ranging from the impossible low of
"void of any sensitivity to the identity of the group and to self" to the impossible high of "totally aware of values, beliefs, history, needs, and desires of the group". The extremes are based on the three bases identified as acculturation, symbolism, and individual as group member. 41
Using the same criteria as with "inclusion", sensitivity can be viewed as on a continuum from low t'o high. These bi-poles are possible because the categories of low sensitivity to high sensitivity can be useful and the categorization is of the behaviors of sensitivity, not people. The importance of senstivity as a measure for adult educators is in the assumption that the adult learner brings a wealth of exper ience to the learning setting as suggested by Knowles and Brookfield as well as the learning theories of neo-behaviorists, cognitivists, and humanists. Some writers believe the learner's life experiences are a more important resource than the educator (see for example Feuer and
Geber, 1988).
Inclusion. There is a large base of knowledge in adult education and education methods that suggests that involvement of the learners in their education has benefits in certain situations. Adult learners have two needs: 1) dependence or need for approval and 2) independence or need to express uniqueness (Jensen, Liveright and Hallenbeck, 1964).
Knowles discusses the need for self-directed learning in adult edu cation as early as 1960. The Cooperative Extension Service has focused many of its programs since its inception on involving people in defining their needs and problems and discovering their own answers.
Houle's motivational orientations of group setting learners has, as one of its three clusters, activity-oriented learners which is often called socially motivated learners (Robinson, 1979). Lenz (1982) identifies societal issues such as the breakdown of church and extended families, the urbanization of our culture and so forth as providing a niche for adult education in providing opportunities for social contact. 42
The concept of, the folk high school illustrates the highest level
of adults determining their own educational goals and methods of
learning. On the opposite extreme, there are those situations in
which learning is best achieved by prescription. An individual's
desire for learning is hierarchal, and based on internal conditions of
the learner (Gagne, 1970). The cohesiveness of the group or the level
of concreteness of the world view of the group contributes to the
potential for involvement of the group in decision making (Nutt, 1986).
Gagne (1970) also notes that "learning must be linked to the design of
instruction through consideration of the different kinds of capabil
ities that are being learned" (p. v ) .
The issues that 1) inclusion of the group is not universally
"better" and 2) not all individuals have the skills for group inter
action suggest that inclusion is bi-polar. Further, each dimension of
inclusion is a continuum without specific ends (what is absolute
inclusion or lack of inclusion). The more extreme a person's behavior,
the further out on the continuum the person will lie. Plotting a point
on the continuum can be useful for analysis, but is not an absolute.
Behavior cannot be so rigid as to require a person to lie on the same
point time after time (Buzzotta, Lefton, and Sherberg, 1972). These
observations of inclusion coalign with the purposes of bi-polar models:
1) organize observations into categories; and 2) categorize behaviors, not people (Buzzotta, Lefton, and Sherberg, 1982).
Acculturation. Spengler (1961) noted the deeply symbolical
relation of each culture to its environment. This symbolic relation 43 ship guides the pattern of the culture which is seen by non-members of the culture as customs, institutions and traits of the people who subscribe to the idioms (Benedict, 1935). Cressey and Ward (1969) noted that subcultures are clustered sets of behavioral norms that can be differentiated from the larger culture. Smelser (1963), Turiel
(1983) and others have explored how educational programs need to be sensitive to the beliefs and practices of any lesser culture. It is the world view that initially determines how the subculture will interact with an educational program through the major culture; it is how the major culture respects the subculture that determines the future potential for education and interaction (Knowles, 1973).
Symbolism. Much of a group's self-definition is transferred from individual to individual through non-formal means (Clarke and Clarke,
1963). What is transferred is often the belief in the symbols-- whether the cross of Christianity, the Star of David of Judaism, or any of hundreds of symbols of every cultural group. Symbols "convey meaning through arbitrary connections with the thoughts they represent"
(Eisenberg and Smith, 1971, 34). The symbols of belief are repre sentative, freely created (not necessarily logical) and transmitted by the culture (Pollio, 1974). Hallowell (1953) suggested that learning about a culture and the persisting social structure and social roles that maintain the structure is not equivalent to learning a set of habits or skills. He contends that this learning involves a higher order of psychological integration. It is "necessary to understand and respect the historical development of these traits and their importance to the social structure of the culture in study or question" (Heimlich 44
& Van Tilburg, 1987, p. 14),
Individual as Group Member. The definitions of "subculture" and
"group" in this study enable the statement "all people are members of
many subcultures concurrently". Often, individuals can be members of
subcultures which are in conflict e.g. mothers of infants and working women representing two subcultures. It is easy to distinguish an
individual's membership in a subculture that differs in language and behavior from one's own behaviors, but the relationships of languages, cultures and individuals is more complicated than is commonly assumed
(Goodenough, 1971). Even superficially homogeneous societies are socially stratified by cultural idioms (Leach, 1984). Membership of an individual in a subculture can be genetic, historic, geographic, or by choice. Society, culture and individual personality are not indepen dent variables in an individual; a person's psychological structure depends on the social experiences that form, reinforce, or dictate those traits of membership (Hallowell, 1953).
Discussion and Summary. In approaching a definition of style, most measures explore those traits that are easily quantifiable. Thus, most measures of style or methods measure external elements of the educator without discussing the inherent preference of the educator. The effects of expectations, beliefs, and inculturation are similarly ignored.
An alternative approach, preferred by this author, is to consider style as a psychological or inherent function. Internal focus strate gies for measuring style initiate the process by identifying dimen sions, most commonly bi-polar dimensions. This measurement approach 45
allows individuals to reflect on their strength of preference along
each dimension. Attitude measures and some behavioral scales also
attempt to measure the internally focused aspects of the educator.
Very little information existson measurement of the educator
based on internal focus. Conti, Kolb, and others have developed
measures of teaching style that gauge attitudes and behaviors. The Van
Tilburg/Heimlich Measure attempts to define an educator's internal
focus.
Learning Style
A large body of information exists in the fields of education
theory, psychology and educational psychology regarding learning style.
The purpose for discussing those theories here is twofold: 1) to
identify the foundations for understanding preferred teaching style as
a basis for exploring success in adult education, and 2) to offer
support for the transferability of teaching methods from learner-
centered to educator-centered.
The intent of studying learning theory is to explain the phe nomenon of what happens that allows learning to occur and how an educator can enhance the learning situation. This brief review is not intended to be exhaustive, but an introductory representation of prior work done in the field of adult learning styles.
Learning Theories. Tolmon (Goal Oriented Learning); Lewin and Lewin and Lippet and White (Field Theory); Thorndike (Connectionism or
Stimulus-Response); Guthrie (Conditioning); Watson (Behaviorism);
Kohler (Gestalt); Rogers (Client-centered Therapy); Freud (Psychol- 46
analysis); and Woodworth (Functionalism) all represent major schools of
thought regarding how students learn (Kidd, 1971). This paper will
highlight the most common theories of learning: behaviorism, humanism,
and cognitivism (Merriam, 1988).
Behaviorists. The behaviorists such as Watson, Thorndike and
Skinner provided the foundation for identifying the later cognitive
interpretations of learning from which individual learner style theory
was drawn (Hill, 1963). The premis of behaviorism is that human
behavior is learned, and it is impossible to understand human behavior
without knowing the basic principles of learning (Deese and Hulse,
1967). From Thorndike's early connectionist theory of stimulus-
response (S-R) grew the theories advanced by Tolman, Guthrie, Hull, and
Skinner (Darkenwald and Merriam, 1982). The neo-behaviorist theories
of psychologists such as Hebb and Bandura (Social Learning Theory) were
possible only through the development of the S-R concepts. The major
differences were in how learning is internalized. No longer was S-R
sufficient, but the physchomotor process and the environment became
important.
Humanists. The humanists believe the world the individual
perceives is the individual's real world. This perception, also called
phenomenology, defines the learner's behaviors and only the individual
can fully know that world (Dubkin and Okun, 1973). Self-actualization
and student-centered learning systems represent two views that grow
from the related humanist tradition of existentialism in which each
individual assumes responsibility for becoming what each wants to be.
Maslow's (1954) theory of human motivation has, at the top of the 47
hierarchy self-actualization, self-fulfillment, and self-expression.
Maslow believed that only in adulthood could self-actualization be
reached; education's role is to provide experiences for insight and
learning with the goal of enabling self-actualization. Rogers (1969)
suggested that individuals desire to narrow the discrepancy between
their ideal and their real selves. The process of learning, then,
should be structured to aid individuals in achieving the fully func
tioning state where the ideal and real selves meet. The learner's
capacity to deal constructively with life is respected and developed
(Joyce and Weil, 1980). A third view of the humanist tradition is that
of the Gestalt. The Gestalt theory views life as a whole in terms of
circumstances and opportunities (Darkenwald and Merriam, 1982).
Gestalt psychologists organized perception into a "good form" or "good
pattern" which then allow positive learning and growth experiences
(Lovell, 1987).
Cognitivists. The cognitivists desire an understanding of the
mental processes of thinking, memory, concept-formation, decision
making, and knowledge acquisition (Darkenwald and Merriam, 1982).
Cognitive style refers to learners' differences in ways of obtaining meaning from the world (Nelson, 1975). Ausubel's matrix of rote/mean
ingful learning and discovery/reception learning illustrates the cognitivist view of making learning useful and immediate. Ausubel maintains that a person's existing cognitive structure is the primary factor in determining meaningfulness of new information and how well that information will be acquired and retained (Joyce and Weil, 1980).
Bruner, in contrast, proposes that learning through discovery is 48 important for knowledge retention (Dubkin and Okun, 1973). Gagne
(1970) contends "learning is a change in human disposition or capa bility which can be retained...not simply ascribable to the process of growth" (p. 3).
Integrated Models. There have been attempts at integrating student learning styles into models. Kolb (1976) identified four stages in learning: feeling, watching, thinking, and doing. As individuals mature, they develop personal styles of dealing with situations in predictable manners. This predictability also extends to learning.
Kolb defined four styles of learning: Accommodator--active, concrete, doer; Diverger--reflective, concrete generator of ideas; Converger-- active, abstract practical applicator of ideas; and Assimilator-- reflective, abstract theoretician. Houle (1961) identified three categories of learners based on relationship of how and why the learner participates:
1) goal-oriented learner;
2) activity-oriented learner; and
3) learning-oriented learner.
Feuer and Gerber (1988) reflect that care must be taken to realize this tremendous diversity within any group of adult learners.
Another approach to integrated learning styles is use of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The theoretical base for the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator is that individuals have a preferred method of viewing the world and gaining energy, either externally (extraversion) or internally (introversion). There are two processes, perceiving and judging, by which individuals make decisions; each process has two 49
opposite patterns, one of which is favored by an individual. Per
ceiving is performed by either intuition or by using the sensory
stimuli around (intuitive-sensing). Judging is performed by either
thinking or feeling (Gauld, 1982). The unique combination of factors
of an individual defines their preference for process including
learning; Myers (1980) suggests that type makes a difference in
learning styles.
Discussion and Summary. Concepts regarding learning style focus on
improving the learning situation by use of instructional methods that
better serve the learner. As discussed under methods, this belief
assumes that all educators are equally proficient and prepared in all
methods. Further, there is a faulty assumption that all learners are
equally prepared for all methods. Initial exposure to any new method,
even a method that is appropriate for a learner’s individual style,
will be uncomfortable to the learner. If the learner is not willing to
commit to the change, the "appropriate" method may be less effective
than traditional "inappropriate” methods.
From these studies on learning style, indirect inference can be
made to teaching style. James and Galbraith (1985) suggest there are
seven elements of perceptual learning style: print, aural, inter
active, visual, haptic, kinesthetic, and olfactory. If a learner
favors certain perceptions for learning, can it also be implied that an
educator will favor certain perceptions for instruction? The hypo
thesis can be raised that an educator who is highly visual would be
less likely to use aural methods of instruction in the learning situation. 50
Conventional wisdom suggests that educators teach as they learn.
If this is the case, then it is important for an educator to understand
how they learn and thus how they prefer to perform in the classroom.
The opposing view offers that educators teach as they were taught. If
that is the case, it is valuable for educators to be able to separate
their own preferred patterns from those of their teachers. In either
view, predilection or preference of the individual is not considered.
It is the opinion of this author, that learning style, like
teaching style, is a function of personality, experience, education,
and ethnicity. There is literature suggesting that culture defines
broad learning styles (see for example Conti and Fellenz, 1988;
Sedlacek, 1983; and Anderson, 1988). The argument could then be
extended to suggest that subcultures, or subgroups of larger cultural
factions, have differing styles of learning. This adds the dimension
of culture and ethnicity to defining learning style. If an educator
cannot be a part of the group, or the learning subculture, it becomes
paradoxical to suggest that the educator teach to the learning style of
the group.
Understanding learning style is important for an educator.
Putting this knowledge into action involves combining learning style
theory with teaching style theory and teaching methods.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Teaching Style
Individuals are unique, yet, as Jung and others (1964) noted,
"besides the many individual differences in human psychology there are also typical differences" (p.3). The basic differences concern the 51
manner in which people prefer to use their minds (Myers & Myers, 1988).
One means of assessing individual preferences is an instrument called
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
The Mvers-Briggs Type Indicator. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI) scores individual preferences identified by Jung on three
dimensions: a) Extroverted-Introverted (E/I); b) Sensing-Intuitive
(S/N); and c) Feeling-Thinking (F/T). The fourth dimension, Judging/
Perceiving (J/P) was identified by Briggs as the individual's prefer
ence to use either the judging (T/F) or the perceptive (N/S) attitude
for dealing with the environment (Thompson, 1984). The Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator is a forced choice, self-reported inventory that determines the psychological type as defined by Jung and interpreted by
Myers and Briggs.
Mvers-Bripgs and Educators. A good deal of research has been completed on the MBTI in the context of education. The primary focus of this research has been the typology of the student as opposed to the type of the educator. These studies have concerned themselves with type differences in aptitude, interest, application, achievement and career goals generally of elementary and secondary teachers (Myers and McCaul- ley, 1987). There have been a few studies, however, that have focused on the type profile of the teacher and the implications of teachers' profiles on the profession, who goes into the profession, level of teaching, and subject choice. Included in these are Denovellis and
Lawrence (1974), Cohen, Cohen and Cross (1981), Thompson (1984), and
Huelsman (1983). Their studies suggest that the personality type of the educator does infer preferred teaching methods and styles. 52
Betkouski, Cage, McCaulley and Von Fange have each examined the MBTI types of preservice teachers and compared them to inservice teachers
(Conwell, 1983).
DeNovelles and Lawarence (1974) found significant correlations (p
< .05) between teacher profies and classroom preferences. Introversion and sension seemed to be related to teacher-centered classrooms that used directed learning. Feeling dominant teachers' behaviors reflected pupil-centered classrooms with individualized learning. Teachers with profiles of extraverted thinking were more likely to control learning activities; extraverted feeling were least likely to control activi ties. Cohen (1981) suggests the dominant fuction seemed a more important variable in classroom performance than the auxiliary function or the attitude orientation.
Keirsey and Bates (1978) used four combinations of types (SP, SJ,
NT, NF) in their research on educator styles. They identified the prime value in education, the percent of each type in their study, tenure, favored teaching areas, and techniques favored by each MBTI type. Persons with dominant traits of Sensing and Perception value spontaneity and freedom, favor the arts, recreation and sports, and prefer to use projects, contests, demonstrations, games and shows to teach. On the other hand, persons with Sensing Judging dominant traits prefer responsibility and utility, teach in vocational fields, social sciences, political science, history and geography and use recitation, drills, compositions, tests/quizzes and demonstrations. Persons who score as Intuitive Thinking value knowledge and skills and teach in communications, mathematics, linguistics, philosophy, science and 53 technology using lectures, compositions, projects, reports and tests.
The Intuitive Feelers value identity and integrity and prefer to use group projects, interaction, discussion, simulations, games, and shows to teach social sciences, foreign languages, speech theology, human ities, theatre, and music.
Lawrence (1979) used the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in his research pertinent to teaching and learning styles. Among his findings are: different MBTI types of teachers are attracted to different levels of schooling and subjects; MBTI type influences the method of teaching; MBTI type impacts on the climate and structure of the class room; and teachers are likely to better understand students of MBTI types similar to their own.
Conwell (1983) reports the findings of Denovellis and Lawrence regarding teaching style by noting introverted teachers followed more structured instructional materials than did extroverted teachers.
Sensing instructors also appear teacher-centered whereas intuitive teachers encourage pupil choice and self-expression. Thinking teachers gave little praise or criticism whereas feeling teachers showed more affect. Both Story (1973) and Rudisill (1973) matched personality types with teaching strategies. Story reported that extroverted intuitive teachers rated manipulative strategies of teaching highest whereas introverted thinking types rated these strategies the lowest.
In selecting three desirable qualities from a list of characteristics, sensing teachers chose sensing qualities and intuitive teachers chose intuitive qualities. Rudisill found extroverted teachers rated self- paced instruction highly, extroverted sensing instructors preferred the 54
laboratory more than the Introverted intuitive instructors, and percep
tive teachers rated questioning techniques more highly than did judging
teachers. A concern with the studies' data is that all educators in
the studies taught mathematics and thus, the subject content could skew
the findings. However, both studies suggest that teachers teach to
MBTI type, even within a common field of study.
Jensen (1988) bridged learning styles and teaching styles in his
examination of student and teacher MBTI types. Jensen suggests that
most learning style inventories assess student behaviors or how
students believe they perform best. Jensen applied the same belief to
teaching preferences before identifying teaching related tendencies
based on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator for each of the eight dimen
sions :
E: student-centered classroom, active instruction;
I: teacher-centered classroom, lecture, text or material in
struction;
S: topic specific structure for learning;
N: wide range of concepts and topics, what if...;
T: treats class as collective group, motivate through challenge;
F: treats class as individuals, motivates through praise and
empathy;
J: orderly classroom; and
P: spontaneous classroom.
None of these is viewed as the ability of the educator to perform
against their MBTI type, or as a measure of better or preferred
classroom practice. 55
Provost and Anchors (1988) view teacher MBTI identification as a
means of understanding the broad strengths and tendencies of the
teacher to operate in certain ways which can lead to the development of
certain skills. As an example, Provost suggests that the educator with
a dominant Thinking score does not necessarily possess a brilliant ana
lytical mind, but rather has a desire to make judgements in logical,
analytical ways.
In studying effective teaching and MBTI type, Anchors, Carson and
Beidler (1988) typed the recipients of an outstanding teaching award.
The _NTJ profile (the most dominant award recipient type) was given
the label of Power to reflect the energy, commitment, motivation and
drive of this educator profile. The _STJ (the only profile of award
recipients with Sensing) was labeled Application because of the prac
tical, logical preference of this type person. __NFJ profiles were
labeled Evangelical, _NTP profiles were called Flexible, and _NFP profiles were given the label of Student-Centered.
Implications. The overriding implication of studies of educators using
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is that by knowing their own traits, educators are better able to improve the learning environment for the
learners.
Lyons (1982) used the Myers-Briggs to support her hypotheses that individuals provided information on their learning processes will be better able to determine their preferred manner of learning and once this learning style is identified, be better able to determine how learning style affects teaching style. Yet in Iverson's (1985) study, no particular personality dimensions are held in common by professors 56
who received the outstanding faculty award while Hart and Driver (1978)
identified extroversion as a characteristic of highly rated teachers in
many disciplines. They continue with the suggestion that the other
personality characteristics may be specific to certain disciplines.
Smith and Irey (1974) believe that in their study, the instructor
"gained from understanding his own personality type in relationship to
those of his students" (p.20). Dittmer (1981) found the greatest
difference between profiles in what teachers did not like in their
classrooms. Sensing teachers disliked chaos, disorder, and favoritism;
intuitive teachers disliked dogmatism and dominance.
Discussion and Summary. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has an
extensive research base in various applications. One of the less
common uses is in identifying teaching style independent of methods or
techniques of instruction or student learning styles. Yet, the studies
that have been conducted suggest that there are preferences of person
ality that may correlate with teaching predilections.
The work done has been inconclusive as to causality relative to personality and teaching style. There are many intervening variables
in the teaching-learning environment that must be considered in con junction with teaching style and personality. These include the
interplay of culture, experience, age, subcultural memberships and representation of the educator, and the learners' culture, experience, ethnicity, age, memberships and representation. The context of learning is a dynamic meeting of the educator, individual learner, collective learners, the materials, and resources (Alberty and May,
1987; Pinnel and Galloway, 1987; and Puro and Bloome, 1987). 57
The interplay of these factors must be examined more before we can
ascribe teaching style to a function of pure personality preference for process. The preference that defines behavior must include learned patterns, many of which may be patterns of culture.
SUMMARY
A potential means of improving the learning environment and facilitating learning for the benefit of the learners, is for educators to understand their predilections toward teaching style. Knowing strengths in teaching and how to adapt those strengths for student learning styles holds promise for educators. In examining the liter ature surrounding the concept of teaching styles, there is no consistent definition of teaching style. There is consensus that individuals have preferences in teaching patterns.
Teaching style is not synonymous with method or technique, though certain methods may be considered by individuals as more or less appro priate with different styles. Educators cannot be expected to be equally proficient in all methods or techniques for education, and the prescription that an educator do so places an inordinate amount of responsibility for controlling the learning on the educator.
Educators do not control learning, rather, they control the learning environment. One of the means of doing this is by identifying inherent qualities of the individual instructor.
Another means of controlling environment is to understand the learning process of the adult learners. The schools of learning theory 58 include the behaviorists, the humanists, and the cognitivists. Some models have been proposed that integrate various learning styles. One model, the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Teaching Sensitivity Scale seeks to integrate models of learning from the vantage point of the educator.
This is done through examining the two traits of 1) sensitivity of the educator to the learners individually and collectively and to self and
2) inclusionary practice of the educator in involving the learners in their own outcomes.
Much research needs to be done on teaching style and integrating teaching style into practice. Knowing what is inherently a strength and building on the strength rather than attempting a method of instruction that is incompatable may be a means of improving quality of instruction overall. This review has initiated a synthesis of the diverse literature bases that surround the issue of teaching style. Chapter III
THE PROCEDURE
The purpose of this study was to examine potential correlations
between scores on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/
Heimlich Sensitivity Measure. If a relationship were identified, it
would suggest there is a preference for teaching style based in part on
personality preferences and relationships of the individual instructor
to the class. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator functions of sensi
tivity/intuition and thinking/feeling are bi-polar dimensions of
personality; the variables of sensitivity to culture and inclusion of
students in the learning on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure are also bi-polar dimensions. In addition, the inquiry examined relationships
of demographic variables of subjects on the outcome measures of scores
on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich
Sensitivity Measure to explore and perhaps explain their potential relationships to outcomes.
Descriptive research was used extensively in describing the theor etical base upon which this relational study was built. This work is an extension of prior research by Van Tilburg and Heimlich and so uses the historical research and the conceptual work and supporting research on instrumentation development used in their previous work (1987, 1988,
1989). The data bases used include tapes and transcripts of interviews with educators, literature searches, panels of experts, and reliability
59 60
and validity studies (including pilot and field tests). Factor
analysis, frequency measures and content analysis were the techniques
used for analysis of data.
This chapter describes the development of the data collection pro
cedure, the process of data collection, and the statistical analyses which were applied to the data.
Research Design
The research was structured to reflect the three research objec
tives and six hypotheses enumerated in Chapter One.
Research Objective 1: to explore and describe nominal relationships between scores of adult educators on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure.
This component of the study was an examination of potential associations between adult educators' scores on the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. As results of categor ical scores on both instruments can be forced into nominal categories, this study used each dimension as a dichotomous or natural split: a person has one preference or the other. This is in line with the requirements for Phi or Fourfold Coefficient as set out in Minium
(1978).
As the phi coefficient is the correlation coefficient for data in a 2 x 2 contingency table, the contingency coefficient (Cramer's V) must be used for nominal correlations when the table exceeds 2 x 2
(Hinkle, Wiersma, and Jurs, 1979). Given the limitations of a po tentially low number of subjects in each cell, the phi will be used relative to each of the four dimensions of the Myers-Briggs Type 61
Indicator and the two dimensions of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure.
The dichotomous choice available for each of the categories with the related coding and the nominal categories for the correlation follows.
TABLE 3 NOMINAL AND DICHOTOMOUS CATEGORIES
Mvers Briggs Van Tilburg/Heimlich
NOMINAL
ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ Facilitator Enabler ISTP ISFP INFP INTP ESTP ESFP ENFPENTP ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ Expert Provider
DICHOTOMOUS
Value Value Value Value Extravert 1 Introvert 2 Low* High** Sensing 1 Intuition 2 Sensitivity 1 Sensitivity 2 Thinking 1 Feeling 2 Low*** High**** Judgement 1 Perception 2 Inclusion 1 Inclusion 2
*Expert, Facilitator; **Provider, Enabler; ***Expert, Provider; ****Facilitator, Enabler
A purposeful selection of a minimum of 100 adult educators (self- identified, self-selected) in central Ohio were given both the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/ Heimlich Matrix instruments.
More detail on the population studied follows.
The scores of each individual were entered into a table as described later. A correlation-coefficient was derived by assigning dichotomous values (0/1) to scores of categorical assignment in the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and to scores above or below the inter section in the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix. 62
Research Objective 2: to explore and describe interval relationships between continuous scores of adult educators on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure.
This component of the study was an examination of potential re
lations between continuous scores on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. On the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator, continuous scores are a linear transformation of preference
scores; preference scores are a strength indicator. These scores are
obtained using the convention that for Extroversion, Sensing, Thinking
or Judging preference scores, the continuous score is 100 minus the
preference score. For Introversion, Intuition, Feeling or Perceiving
preference scores, the continuous score is 100 plus the preference
score (Myers and McCaulley, 1987). The Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure is
a Thurstone Equal Appearing Interval Scale. The Thurstone is a true
interval scale measure (Gable, 1986). The Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix
utilized the interval scale characteristics of the Thurstone measure in
their suggestion that there is an ambiguous or "neutral" area between
distinct styles.
A Pearson Product Moment Correlation was conducted on the interval
scores as there are two interval variables involved (Minium, 1978).
Research Objective 3: to explore and describe the relationships of demographic variables and the scores of adult educators on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure.
This component of the study was an examination of relationships
among demographic variables of the subjects on the outcome measures of
scores on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich
Measure. The demographic variables included: gender; age cluster; 63 race; professional position; highest degree obtained; field of study; and tenure in position. These independent variables were compared to the dependent variables of outcomes on the two instruments by means of canonical correlation analysis.
Population
The intent of this study was to determine if relationships exist between selected scores on dimensions of the MBTI and the dimensions of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix. To reflect such relationships, no single group of persons was identified for measure. Rather, to concur with the parameters set in the definitions of the variables, such relationships should exist for any population of adult educators completing both instruments. This assumes a normal distribution of measures of type and style within the population. Prior discussion on the variables has given adequate support to the construct of the theory for measure (Gable, 1986). Adult educators were asked to participate given only the following guidelines for self-selection:
a. the individual is self-labeled as an "adult educator"
b. the individual has not taken the MBTI prior to this date
(contingency: the individual had not taken the MBTI within
five years)
c. the individual was willing to participate freely and knowingly
in the study
d. the individual was aware that there would be no monetary
remuneration. 64
The size of the study was arbitrarily set at a minimum of 100.
This is in line with the suggestion of Ary et al (1985) that if a
relationship exists it will be evident in a sample of moderate size of
50 to 100. Certain demographic variables were recorded. These
include:
a. gender
b. age
c . race
d. type of position
e . educational level
f . field of study
6- years in current position.
These descriptive variables were gathered realizing the potential arguments of determinism in the study. Initial efforts to address claims of gender, race, etc. having bias were considered by inclusion of canonical analysis of these independent variables with the outcome measure and in a correlational analysis. Given another study environ ment, such deterministic questions can be raised more thoroughly and perhaps then be put to rest (Long, Hienstra & Associates, 1987). The purpose of demographic data in this document was: 1) to categorize the data into more discreet nominal categories (male/female; age clusters; educational attainment), and; 2) to observe and describe any potential relationships between demographic variables and outcome scores. See
Appendix A for copy of the demographic reporting sheet. 65
Instrument Measures
Mvers Briggs Type Indicator. The Myers Briggs Type Indicator itself has been the subject of extensive research. MBTI type distri bution tables are the primary means of presenting data about the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator. The measures are nominal as the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator seeks to sort individuals into groups to which they theoretically already belong. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was originally a series of forced choice statements. This original instrument was tested on a small criterion identified by Myers and
Briggs as having clearly evident type preferences. Additional state ments were generated and validated on this group.
Forms A and B (a rearrangement of the same items) were tested by progressively larger samples with any item with less than 60% of "type" responses selecting the item deleted. Form C eliminated items that had high validity in more than one index (e.g. TF and SN). C was inter correlated on two samples of n^ - 248 and ri2 - 214 with X of .11 and
.09. Form C3 incorporated item weighting.
Form D included word pairs and was prepared by giving the 200 item instrument to men and women (n - 120) who had previously completed Form
C. The internal consistency lower limit was raised to .63 on a sample of 385 graduate students. A series of tests followed introducing the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to progressively younger populations while testing new items and avoiding bias in favor of any type.
Items that met the increasingly stringent tests became forms E and
F. Form F varied only from Form E in the inclusion of unscored experimental items. Form G was the result of utilization of new item 66 .
standardization to ensure cultural consistency and to explore the age
at which the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is valid for school children.
As a result, the scoring weights for the Thinking/Feeling scale
were altered and a new form, G, was developed for experimental items.
The questions on Form G were arranged so that when only the first fifty
questions are completed, a good prediction can be made of type (Myers
and McCaulley, 1987).
Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure. The Van Tilburg/Heimlich
Sensitivity Measure was developed from 1987 through 1989. A summary of
the process of development follows (Van Tilburg & Heimlich, 1989).
Initially, an interview schedule was developed for use with four
purposefully selected adult educators each identified for operating
with a distinctly different teaching style. Key questions included:
describe your ideal teacher; in a teaching situation with a new group
of students, what do you think about (and do) first; what do you ask
the students about the group as a whole; what teaching methods would
you most likely use and why; what do you notice about the class in
general and the individuals specifically; how do you guide students in
the learning process; are these techniques different for a new group;
describe your teaching philosophy.
The four individuals were interviewed in their offices using two
interviewers, one for note-taking and recorder operation and the other
to ask the questions. The hour long interviews were audio-tape recorded. The tapes were transcribed and the data were analyzed using the scissor and sort method of qualitative analysis (Miles and Huber- man, 1984). 67
From these data, a series of statements (k-219) relating to
sensitivity and inclusion elements of teaching style/philosophy were
developed that reflected the subject/learner, teaching/learning
centeredness dimensions of instruction. These statements were provided
to a panel of experts in measurement and content to assess the clarity and applicability of each study item (content validity). A second validity check (n-34) was conducted after reclarification of some of
the wording. In this validity measure the respondents were provided with definitions of inclusion and sensitivity, and then identified each
item as being related to inclusion, sensitivity, or neither domain.
Respondents were also requested to respond to each item in terms of level of agreement or disagreement with the statements in their own teaching experiences. For this, a four-point, Likert-type scale was used. The scale was anchored from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
The frequencies of responses for each item were measured. Binomial tests (alpha level - .05 a priori) were conducted using the placement of each item into the Sensitivity or Inclusion categories while eliminating missing data and Neither responses. This binomial test addressed the concern of chance that the probability in the proportion of the sample is different than 50/50.
Using the responses to the Likert-type scale, a principle com ponents factor analysis was conducted using orthogonal varimax rotation for reliability. Items loading on the factors were included if the factor loadings were greater than .5.
The results of the content analysis of the interviews produced ten trends in the data. Of these, four (Needs of the Educator, Needs of 68
the Students; Background of Students; Role of the Educator as Model)
were related to the domain of Sensitivity. Three of the trends
(Motivation to Learn, Role of the Educator in Learning; Directing the
Learning Process) were directly tied to the concept of Inclusion of
students. Three trends, the Educator's Perception of the Students as
Individuals, Educator's Perception of the Students as a Group, and
Students' Perceptions of the Educator did not fall into cleanly into
either dimension as they were infused across both dimensions and were
thus discarded. Results of the binomial tests provided information
related to adult educators perceptions of items relatedness to sensi
tivity and inclusion (Van Tilburg & Heimlich, 1989).
Six factors accounting for 51.8% of the total variance explained
emerged through the factor analysis of the 219 statements on the
Likert-type scale. Four of the factors, accounting for 41.1% of the variance explained, related to the Sensitivity Domain. The two factors accounting for 10.7% of the variance explained related to the Inclusion
Domain.
From these data, two Thurstone Equal Appearing Interval Scales were developed (see Appendix B). Items in those scales were weighted by median value according to strength determined by a panel of experts
(n-47). The mean score of an individual on each of these two Thurstone scales is placed onto one of two bisecting poles which locates individ ual in the quadrants of the two-by-two matrix called the Van
Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Matrix (figure 4). This concept of matrix graphing is useful for analysis, but does not suggest that behavior is so rigid as to be described by a single point; nor does it suggest that 69 behavior does not change over time and in differing situations
(Buzzotta, Lefton and Sherberg, 1972).
prefer Facilitator ence Enabler shift
Neutral INCLUSION preference shift Zone
prefer Expert ence Provider shift Educator
SENSITIVITY
Figure 4 Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Matrix
Reliability. The reliability of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been studied by many researchers. The totals from the MBTI data bank on internal consistency derived from product-moment correlations of X and Y (split half comparisons) continuous scores with Spearman-
Brown prophecy formula correction by age cluster are in Table 4. 70
Table 4
Product Moment Correlations of X and Y Continuous Scores With Spearman-Brown Correction on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Form F By Age Clusters
AgeCluster N El SN TF J]
9 - 14 501 76 78 77 80 15 - 17 5,004 84 82 80 92
18 - 20 14,561 83 82 80 85 21 - 24 8,141 83 86 83 87
25 - 29 6,383 83 88 84 86 30 - 39 9,505 84 89 86 88
40 - 49 5,771 84 90 88 88 50 - 59 2,662 83 91 88 88
60+ 821 82 90 86 88
.S (MBTI BANK) 55,971 83 86 84 87
(Myers and McCaulley, 1987)
The process of development of the Thurstone provides reliability
tests through factor analysis and Cronbach's Alpha. In the statement
development, the binomial test (alpha level - .05 a priori) and the
initial scissor/sort were used to remove any statements that may have been categorized by chance. There were four original choices for the panel: inclusion, sensitivity, either/neither, or no response.
A minimum of 50% of the respondents had to agree as to whether each statement reflected inclusion or sensitivity for the statement to be continued to be used in the instrument development. A binomial test was used on each of the statements identified to determine the likeli hood that the statement was in one of the two desired categories purely by chance. No statement with a chance measure of 50% or greater was 71 kept in the final instrument.
Two factor analyses were used as described on the previous page.
In the Thurstone, the large panel used to assign weights to the statements establishes reliability by removing from the instrument any outlyers, or statements that have extreme ranges. Each statement must have an interquartile range of no more than two and one-half points either direction from the median score. In addition, a split-half reliability was conducted on the data from the final panel of experts.
Table 5, Final Statements' Mean, Median, Mode and Standard Deviation follow. This table identifies the eleven Inclusion and the eleven
Sensitivity statements that were ultimately used in the instrument. 72
t» i <•> TABLE 5 . •
Final Statements' Mean, Median, Mode and Standard Deviation The Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure
Statement x Mo Mdn
Inclusion (weight)
1. To really make instruction 8.89 11 9.0 1.97 successful, students need to know the relevance of the topic to their lives. (9)
4. The selection of teaching methods 5.49 6 6.0 2.90 should depend mostly on the nature of the content being taught. (5)
5. I always learn from my students. 9.04 11 11.0 1.97 (11)
9. A group learns better when a 9.35 10 10.0 1.64 principle or concept evolves from the group. (10)
11. My methods of instruction depend 7.70 6 8.0 2.58 entirely upon the make-up of the group. (7)
12. I usually stick to my teaching 3.96 2 3.0 2.40 calendar. (2)
13. My teaching objectives pretty much 5.11 3 4.0 2.91 dictate my teaching strategies. (3)
21. I make it clear to students, right 3.02 1 1.0 2.99 from the start, that I am the teacher and they are the students. (1.0)
22. Sometimes, I include the group of 6.37 6 6.0 2.35 students in decision-making related to course content. (6)
24. I am almost always behind in my 4.87 2 4.5 2.87 teaching calendar because students ask too many questions. (4)
25. If a student is not participating 8.13 11 8.0 2.38 in class I try to draw them in rather than letting the "do their own thing." (8). TABLE 5, CON'T
Statement x Mo Mdn Sensitivity (weight) 2. If I try to become a member of 9.21 2 3.0 2.87 the student's culture, I lose the respect of the students. (2) 4. There comes a point in my teaching 4.83 1 5.0 3.09 where the subject has to be more important than individual needs (4) 6. I never worry about whether 3.06 1 2.5 1.98 students like me. (1) 7. If I make students respect me, 3.70 1 3.0 2.87 they will like me. (3) 8. I do not let my care for the 5.06 6 5.0 3.13 students interfere with my teaching. (5) 9. I let the students know I've been 7.33 6 7.0 2.49 in their shoes. (7). 10. I want to know "where the students 8.94 9 9.0 2.26 are coming from." (9) 19. I use different teaching styles 10.02 11 11.0 1.42 within any class depending upon the experiences and life styles of the students. (11) 22. I can easily diagnose why a 6.40 6 6.0 2.37 student is having trouble. (6) 28. As soon as I can in a class, I 9.36 10 10.0 1.58 find out who the students are as individuals, as separate human beings. (10) 32. I try to encourage the students' 7.25 8 8.0 1.91 self-esteem by establishing a close relationship with them. (8) Given the reliability measures of each instrument independent of the other, this study assumes reliability in the correlation. Further, the assumption is made that the maximum validity coefficient for the correlation is the square root of the product of the reliabilities of the two scales (Gable, 1986). Validity. Both the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich have validity determined by the ability of each instrument to demonstrate relationships and outcomes as predicted by the theories upon which each instrument is based. In this correlation, one instrument (The Myers-Briggs) has been extensively studied and reviewed and the other is a new instrument that has not had such examination. Such a comparison with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is not unique. Some prior correlations regarding the validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator have been made to establish mutual validity of the following: Adjective Check List (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983) California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1975) Comrey Personality Scales (Comrey, 1970) Edwards Personality Preference Survey (Edwards, 1959) Emotions Profile Index (Plutchik & Kellerman, 1974) Eysenck Personality Questionnaires (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968) Maudsley Personality Inventory (Eysenck, 1959) FIRO-B (Schutz, 1958) Jungian Type Survey (Wheelwright/Wheelwright & Buehler, 1964) Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Dahlstrom & Welsh, 1960) Omnibus Personality Inventory (Heist, Yonge, Connelly & Webster, 1968) Personality Research Inventory (Saunders, 1955) Stein Self-Description Questionnaire (Stein, 1966) Brown Self-Report Inventory (Brown & Richek, 1967) Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Cattell, Eber and Tatsuoka, 1970) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Speilberger, 1983) Study of Values (Allport, Vernon, & Lindzey, 1960) Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (Rokeach, 1960) Opinion, Attitude, and Interest Scales (Fricke, 1963) Kuder Occupational Interest Survey (Kuder, 1968) Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory (Campbell & Hansen, 1981) Kolb Learning Style Inventory (Kolb, 1976) (Myers and McCaulley, 1987) Content validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been established primarily through categorical predictions of type. Content validity score ranges of correlations with other scales with each of the eight functions (Introversion, Extroversion, Sensing, Intuition, Thinking, Feeling, Perceiving, and Judging) are in Table 6. TABLE 6 MBTI Content Validity Correlations with Other Scaled Function______Correlation ranges______ Extraversion -.77 to -.40 Introversion .75 to .40 Sensing -.67 to -.40 Intuition .62 to .40 Thinking -.57 to - .40 Feeling .55 to .40 Judging -.59 to -.40 Perception .57 to .40 *e.g. CPI, 16PFI, Brown SRI, Strong Campbell Interest Inventory, Kuder Occupational Interest Survey (Myers and McCaulley, 1987) Validity on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure was conducted through content, face, and construct validity measures (Van Tilburg & Heimlich, 1989). In the course of development of the instruments, the authors came to view the factors as levels of magni 76 tude on the bi-polar dimensions rather than disparate factors. To test this theory, the statements used in the Thurstone Equal Appearing Interval Scale were also listed by factor in a Likert-Type scale and both instruments were given to a pilot group (n - 34). This comparison served to confirm construct validity. Given the validity measures of each instrument independent of the other, this study assumes convergent validity of each instrument in this correlation (Ary et al, 1985). Data Collection Process. The researcher is certified to conduct the MBTI and, as a co-author of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure, is competent to lead discussion on its implications. This was important in the planning process as a condition of participation was a disclosure of individual data to each participant. All data reported in the study, however, are aggregates. Securing Participation. There were six primary strategies for securing participants, with two contingency strategies if the first six failed to secure between 100 and 150 participants: 1) Students in Adult Education at The Ohio State University; 2) Students in Extension Education at The Ohio State University; 3) Professional coworkers of Adult Education students from The Ohio State University; 4) Members of the Central Ohio Association for Adult and Contin uing Education; 5) Professional employees of the Ohio Department of Education; 77 6) Adult Basic Education instructors, Columbus Public Schools 7) continuing education faculty at The Ohio State University, Capital University, Franklin University, Ohio Dominican College, and Otterbein College; and 8) Direct communication with corporations and institutions in the Columbus metropolitan area to involve training faculty. Requirements for participation were 1) that the participant was self-selected as an adult educator and 2) that the participant had not taken the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator before or within the last five years. When individuals opted to participate, they were screened on the above criteria and the strategy for securing participation was noted. No other demographic data were collected at that time. Addresses and phone numbers were obtained when appropriate so that instruments could be delivered to the participants. See Appendix A for posting and letters to secure participation and for information shared with participants. Planning for Tests. Copies of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Form G, scoresheets, reporting forms and scoring guides were obtained through the Center for Application of Psychological Types in Gainsville, Florida. The researcher's Statement of Professional Qualifications is on file at CAPT. Copies of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure were provided by the authors for the research project. Reporting forms were developed by the researcher. See Appendix B for the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure and the reporting form. 78 An important component of the planning was the report of indi vidual results for all participants. Sessions were scheduled at which results were given to participants following a brief discussion on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. Special arrangements were made with classes and groups for presen tations to occur during early March, 1990. In addition, there were no monies expended by the subjects. Participation was encouraged in this manner by reducing social costs to the participants (Dillman, 1978). Conditions of Test Administration. Instruments were self-administered. Arrangements were made by the researcher with each individual or group for obtaining the completed instruments and demographic report sheets. Scoring was completed by hand. All tests were to be delivered and returned between January 13 and February 8, 1990. Instructions for test completion were provided on the demographic reporting form. Follow Up . Upon return of the instruments, each pair of instruments was scored by the researcher. Results of scores were provided indi vidually to each participant with an explanation of the measures. Teaching Style and its potential correlation to personality type was discussed. DATA ANALYSIS Data were entered onto an IBM compatible PC using Word Perfect 5.0 as an ASCII file. The code number, demographic variables and scores totaled 33 columns. Data were analyzed relating to each objective and the appropriate hypotheses using SPSS PC+, Version 3 on an IBM PC. 79 The data to be analyzed and reported in this study are non- parametric data. They only describe the individuals being studied and the interaction of the two instruments, not a larger population. Because there is no generalization to a larger population, no sampling was conducted and no inferential statistics were conducted on the data. There is no assertion that the population used is random. Likewise, then, there were no probabilities measured for inference. The term hypothesis is normally used to define a conjecture about one or more population parameters and the null is the statistical hypothesis against which the alternative hypothesis is tested (Hinkle, Wiersma, and Jurs, 1979). The research hypotheses in this study are used as a structure for the inquiry and not as statistical hypotheses. Research Objective 1: To explore and describe nominal relationships between categorical scores of adult educators on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. To accomplish objective one, the phi coefficient is used to determine the relationship between: 1) individual scores of high and low on the Inclusion dimension of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure and the dichotomous answers of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and; 2) the high and low scores on the Sensitivity dimension of the Van Tilburg/ Heimlich Measure and the dichotomous categories of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Hypothesis 1: The contingency-coefficient is the correlation coefficient suited for data in a k x c contingency table. The greater the value of phi, the stronger the relationship between the two 80 variables of the contingency table (Hinkle, Wiersma, and Jurs, 1979). The coefficient is the strength of the linear measure of interdepen dence between two discrete variables (Assaf and Assaf, 1974). Hypo thesis 1 states there is a correlation between scores of adult edu cators on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and their placement on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix as determined by scores of sample adult educators in central Ohio on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. Because there is no inference, there is no null to. be tested. Davis' (1971) assumptions for describing the magnitude of the strength of relationships were used: .70 and higher very strong association .50 to .69 substantial association .30 to .49 moderate association .10 to .29 low association .01 to .09 negligible association. Research Objective 2: To explore and describe interval relationships between continuous scores of adult educators on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. To meet objective two, A Pearson Product Moment Correlation was used to determine the relationship between individual scores on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. Hypotheses 2, 3, 4 5, 6 and 7: when measures to be correlated are interval, the Pearson r, product moment correlation, is commonly used. The Pearson r is the mean of z-score products; each subject's z-score 81 on one variable (X) is multiplied by the same subject's z-score on the other variable (Y). These products are added and the sum divided (Ary et al, 1985). There were no null hypotheses as there were no inferential statistics used. Davis' assumptions of strength of association were used to describe the magnitude of the relationships. Research Objective 3: To explore and describe the relationships of demographic variables and the scores of adult educators on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. Hypothesis 8: when there are multiple criterion (dependent) variables and there are multiple predictor (independent) variables, a multi-variate statistical model is needed to explore the potential relationship. Whereas stepwise regression is appropriate when depen dent variables are metric, in the specialized case as above, discrim inant analysis, or for three or more groups multiple-discriminant analysis is appropriate when the dependent variable is nonmetric and the predictor variables are metric. Analysis of variance is appro priate when there is one criterion variable; canonical correlation predicts multiple dependent variables from multiple independent variables (Hair, Anderson, and Tatham, 1987). A multiple-regression can use interval and dummy coded predictor variables against interval dependent variables. The canonical correlation analysis is between interval and dummy coded independent variables and categorical depen dent variables. 82 The purpose is to study the differences between the groups and a set of predictor variables. The canonical correlation analysis would look like: Yi + Y 2 + Y3 + .. .Yn - X i + X2 + X 3 +.. .Xn (metric) (nonmetric) where: Y - the dependent variables X - the independent variables (Hair et al, 1987). For purposes of the canonical correlation, the attribute variables of gender, race, occupation and degree would be dummy coded to provide a metric conversion. As there are no inferential statistics, there is no null hypothesis. Chapter IV THE FINDINGS This study focused on measuring teaching style by use of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure. The underlying assumptions of the bi-polar matrix used by Van Tilburg and Heimlich parallel some of the assumptions of Jung reflected in the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. It is hypothesized that there will be associations between teaching style classifications of Van Tilburg/Heimlich and process preferences as measured by the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. To describe the findings of the study, this chapter will first describe the respon dents. The second section will address the profiles of the respondents in relationship to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator profiles and Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure profiles. Finally, the findings of the associations between nominal scores on the two instruments, interval scores on the two instruments, and demographic variables on the interval scores of the two instruments will be reported. Nature of the Respondents In examining the data from the study, it is important to remember that the study subjects are not randomly chosen from the larger population. Yet the nature of the larger population is such that there is no clear profile of the individuals who comprise the population. Adult Basic Education/GED teachers are likely as diverse as any 83 84 secondary school faculty. Further, ABE/GED instructors are very different from arts and hobby instructors or from Extension faculty of a land grant university. Training and development personnel, community educators, and prison instructors represent the wide diversity of "adult educators" which defies easy categorization by any researcher. For this study then, it is assumed that on the whole, this particular population of "adult educators" is reflective of any larger body of adult educators. For the purposes of this relational analysis, the profile of the respondents is of secondary importance. The char acteristics of the respondents follows. Sex. Race. Age of Respondents. Approximately 66 percent of the participants were female and 34 percent of the participants were male. Just over half (69 or 52.7%) of the participants were between the ages of 30 and 39 and not quite a third (41 or 31.3%) of the participants were between the ages of 40 and 49. Twelve (9.2%) were 29 years and under and 9 (6.9%) were over 50 (see Figure 5). 85 Age 20 - 29/F - .-,18 /M IK* 30 - 39/F 1 /M 40 - 49/F 124 /M 50 - 59/F 8 /M £ ___ 4 0 .... Number of Subjects Figure 5 AGE AND GENDER OF PARTICIPANTS Nearly 88 percent of the respondents (115) reported their race as Caucasian. Three (2.3%) of the respondents reported their race as Asian, nine (6.9%) as African-American, and 4 (3.1%) as Hispanic. Occupation and Tenure of Respondents. At the time of the study, over one-fifth of the participants (22.1%) were full-time graduate students in adult or Extension education at The Ohio State University. From the information provided by the graduate students in this study, most had prior experience in Extension, adult education or high school classroom settings. Only two subjects would appear to be graduate students with no prior teaching experience in their career history. Training and Development was identified by 16.8% (22) of the respondents as their field followed by 13.0% (17) in each of Extension and University. Continuing education professionals comprised 9.2% (12) of the population, 6.9% (9) in Prison education, 2.3% (3) of the respondents were in Adult Basic and 16.8% (22) were in other occu- 86 pations (including State Agency education programs, Religious Edu cation, and Patient Training). See Figure 6 for a representation of occupation. o 90 Graduate Students Training & Development Extension University 70 Other 30 .BE' Prison 60 Continuing 50 Figure 6 Occupation of Subjects Job tenure ranged from one year of service (43 responses, the mode) to 28 years (one response) length of service. The mean tenure was 4.99 years with a median of three years at current position (see figure 7). If graduate students are removed from the calculations of central tendency, the mean tenure is 6.38 years with a mode of one year and a median of four years of service in current position. 87 Subjects 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 I____ 23456789 10 123456789 20 123456789 30 Number of Years Figure 7 Tenure of Subjects 88 Educational Level of Respondents. Respondents reported the highest degree they obtained. Sixty-nine respondents had MA or MS degrees (52.7%) followed by forty respondents with BA or BS degrees (30.5%). Not quite ten percent (12) held Ph.D.'s and three (2.3%) held the Ed.D. The Associate degree was the highest reported degree with 2.3 percent (3) of the respondents; 3.1 (4) percent had a H.S. diploma as their highest degree. This information is presented in Table 7, Type of Position by Highest Degree Obtained. TABLE 7 Type of Position by Highest Degree Obtained H.S. Associate BA/BS MA/MS Ph.D. Ed.D. TOTAL N % N % N % N % N %N % N % POSITION ABE/GED 3 100 3 2.3 Con't Edu 1 7.7 3 23.1 8 61.5 1 7.7 Extension 1 5.9 11 64.7 4 25.5 1 5.9 17 Graduate 12 41.4 17 58.6 29 Prison 1 12.5 3 37.5 4 50.0 8 6.1 T & D 2 9.5 1 4.8 8 38.1 8 38.1 2 9.5 21 Univ. 1 5.8 1 5.8 8 47.1 5 29.4 2 9.5 17 Other 1 4.4 9 31.1 13 56.5 23 TOTAL 4 3.1 3 2.3 40 30.5 69 53.7 12 9.2 3 2.3 131 Field of Study. Given the types of positions reported, it is expected and observed that the largest number of subjects' field of study would be reported as education (53 participants, or 40.5%). "Education" 89 included adult education, home economics/human ecology education, music education, agricultural education, and Extension education. Eight (6.1%) of the participants studied business or training, twenty (15.3%) were trained in medical, nursing or allied medical fields, ten (7.6%) studied humanities, and twenty-one were in science fields. Nineteen (14.5%) did not report field of study (four participants held H.S. diplomas or equivalency only, and thus had no formal field of study). Summary. The subjects in this study were self-identified as adult educators. The age of the subjects ranged from the twenties to the fifties with race predominantly Caucasian. Average tenure was approxi mately five years. Their positions were most likely in training/devel opment, Extension or graduate school. There was no clear profile of the subject, as there is no clear profile of what an adult educator "is." Subjects' Profiles Mvers Briggs Type Indicator Profiles. The study subjects included individuals from 15 of the 16 Myers Briggs Type Indicator cells. Of the 16 cells, the four Sensing/Judging cells (ESTJ, ISTJ, ESFJ, ISFJ) contained 49 (37.4%) of the participants and the four Intuition/Per ceiving cells (ENFP, INFP, ENTP, INTP) contained 42 (32.1%) of the 131 individuals in the study. The four Intuition/Judging cells contained an additional 32 (24.4%) of the individuals and the four Sensing/Per ceiving cells held 8 (6.1%) individuals of the population. The subjects are presented in Table 8, a Myers Briggs Type Table. There were 75, or 57.3% Extroverts and 42.7%, or 56 Introverts. The most frequent interior function of the subjects was Thinking with 75 90 (57.3%) reporting this trait. Intuition was the second most reported function with 73 (55.7%) of the reported scores. Of the four internal combinations, Intuition/Thinking included 40 or 30.5% of the subjects. Of the profiles, the ESTJ profile had 18 scores followed by ENFP, ENTP, and ISTJ with 12 each (total of 54 reports). Although by dimen sion, E, N, T, and J were the most common scores, ENTJ had a total report of only 11 scores. INTP and ESFJ had ten reports each and ISFJ had nine. These eight of the sixteen type profiles account for 71.8% of the reported scores. The ESFP profile was the only profile with no reported scores. ISTP had one reported score. More information and detail for the Myers Briggs Type Indicator nominal scores is contained in Table 8. The continuous (interval) conversion scores of the subjects on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator are summarized in Table 9. The mean score of each (98.2, 104.5, 93.5 and 92.6) as well as the median and mode concur with the nominal report of the most likely profile would be ENTJ. The mean scores of each dimension are classified as "weak preference" (less than a preference score of 9) which suggests there is a possibility that the preference could alter slightly given a dif ferent population. 91 TABLE 8 The Subjects by MBTI Cells Myers Briggs Type Indicator Type Table Sencing TypM Intuttfv* T ypo With Thinking WRhFMling WkhFMUng With Thinking N P«rc«nt E 75 57.25 1 ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ 56 42.75 N- 12 Nm 9 Nm 6 N- 7 s 58 44.27 I N % " 9.16 %- 6.87 % m 4.58 %. 5.34 s 73 55.73 T 75 57.25 5- F 56 42.75 ! J 79 60.31 ISTP ISFP INFP WTP P 52 39.69 9 Nm 1 Nm 3 A/- 8'. Nm 10 8 U 34 25.95 %- .76 %- 2.29 %- 6.11 %- 7.63 ■R IP 22 16.79 9ST EP 28 21.37 EJ 47 35.80 ST 35 26.72 SF 22 16.79 NF 34 25.95 ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP “0 NT 40 30.53 A/. 0 N. 12 Nm 12 N- 4 I SJ 49 37.40 % - 3.05 % - OoOO % - 9.16 % - 9.16. z* SP 8 6.11 o 0 NP 42 32.06 NJ 32 24.43 s2 < TJ 48 36.64 a. o» TP 27 20.61 ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ FP 23 17.86 00 3= c. FJ 1 33 25.10 Nm 10 N . 8 Nm 11 s TABLE 11 Continuous Conversion Scores on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ______Value Range Mean fiO______Mdn______Mo Cn-Mo') Extrovert/Introvert 53 - 153 98.2 93 65 7 to 99 100 + Sensing/Intuition 37 - 151 104.8 109 131 8 to 99 100 + Thinking/Feeling 29 - 143 91.8 93 93 8 to 99 100 + Judging/Perceiving 47 - 153 91.0 97 75/113 6 to 99 100 + N - 131 The subjects are compared to the total data bank of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator in Table 10. TABLE 12 Comparison of Subjects and MBTI Data Bank Type Aspect______% of Subjects % of Data Bank____ Attitude: Extraversion 57.25 51.90 Introversion 42.75 48.10 Perception: Sensing 44.27 56.21 Intuition 55.73 43.79 Judgment: Thinking 57.25 55.37 Feeling 42.75 44.63 Orientation: Judging 60.31 59.62 Perceiving 39.69 40.38 Function Combinations: ST 26.72 33.12 SF 16.79 23.09 NF 25.95 21.54 NT 30.53 22.25 N-131 93 The subjects as a whole were slightly more extroverted than the population in the MBTI data bank. As compared to the MBTI data bank, the population of this tudy scoredconsiderably higher on the Intuitive dimension (12.7%). Differences on the Judgement and Orientation dimensions between the study population and MBTI data bank were less than 2% each. Because of the difference in the Perception functions, the interior combinations (ST, SF, NF, NT) were also dissimilar to a sum of 12.7%. The Sensing pairs were both deficit (-6.4% and -6.3%) and the Intuitive were both positive (4.4% and 8.3%). Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure Profiles. The study subjects included individuals from each of the nine Van Tilburg/Heimlich cells. By dimension, 37.4% of the subjects scored high on inclusion; 62.6% scored high on sensitivity (See Table 11). The mean score for In clusion was 7.5 (Preference Shift/Neutral Zone) and the mean score for Sensitivity was 8.4 (high). The median scores were 7.6 and 8 and mode were 8.0 (15) and 9.0 (23) for Inclusion and Sensitivity respectively. Range on the eleven point scale for Inclusion was 3.8 to 10.0 (range of 6.2 or 3-10 range of 7) and for Sensitivity was .1 to 10.5 (range of 10.4 or 1-10, range of 10). In the nominal descriptions, if "low" scores are 1 to 5.99 and high scores are 6.0 to 11.0, 92.4% of the respondents scored high on Inclusion and 94.7% scored high on Sensitivity. This assumption includes the Neutral Zone area (6.0 to 7.99) in the reported high scores. If the Neutral Zone is included in the low scores, only 44.27% scored high on Inclusion and 69.47% scored high on Sensitivity. 94 Table 11 Subjects by Dimension Scores on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure Dimension Score N %. Inclusion 1-1.9 - - 2-2.9 - - Low 3-3.9 1 .8 4-4.9 3 2.3 5-5.9 3 2.3 6-6.9 23 17.6 Undefined 7-7.9 47 35.9 8-8.9 33 32.8 9-9.9 10 7.6 High 10-10.9 1 .8 11 - - TOTAL INCLUSION 131 100.0 isitivity 1-1.9 2 1.5 2-2.9 1 .8 Low 3-3.9 -- 4-4.9 1 .8 5-5.9 2 1.5 6-6.9 4 3.1 Undefined 7-7.9 30 22.9 8-8.9 27 20.6 9-9.9 50 38.2 High 10-10.9 15 11.5 11 - - TOTAL SENSITIVITY 131 100.0 The distribution of the subjects in Figure 8 illustrates the score coordinates on a single matrix. 1 - 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 1 0 . '.'. Sensitivity Figure 8 Scatterplot of Matrix Score Coordinates on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure One view of the data from the scores on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure by nominal category is presented in Table 12. The strength of scores on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure follows in Figure 9. Two-thirds of the scores reported were in two of the nine cells. The largest number of scores in any one cell was 47 (35.9%) reported in the Provider/Enabler cell; the Enabler cell had 43 (32.8%). The Neutral Zone had 16% (21) of the total responses. Of the other cells, Facilitator/Enabler had 6.9%, Expert/Provider had 2.3%, Expert, 96 Expert/Facilitator, Facilitator, and Provider had 1.5% of reported responses each. Well over half (64.4%) of the subjects fell within the Neutral Zone or Preference Shift areas. TABLE 12 The Subjects by Van Tilburg/Heimlich Cell S Score r I Score r N % Subtotal % Total 131 100.00 Expert 0.0 - 5.9 0.0 - 5.9 2 28.6 1.53 Expert/Provider 6.0 - 7.9 0.0 - 5.9 3 42.3 2.29 Expert/ Facilitator 0.0 - 5.9 6.0 - 7. 2 28.6 1.53 Facilitator 0.0 - 5.9 8.0 - 11 2 18.2 1.53 Facilitator/ Enabler 6.0 - 7.9 8.0 - 11 9 81.8 6.87 Provider 8.0 - 11 0.0 - 5.9 2 4.1 1.53 Provider/Enabler 8.0 - 11 6.0 - 7.9 47 95.9 35.88 Enabler 8.0 - 11 8.0 - 11 43 100.0 32.82 Neutral Zone 6.0-7.9 6.0-7.9 21 100.0 16.03 97 # Ss 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Sensitivity Inclusion Score Figure 9 Strength of Scores on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure 98 Another manner of examining the data is by using the row and column divisions with the high cutoff (high - 8.0 - 11.0). The rows relate to control of the of the learning environment versus control of the learning outcomes. The rows are levels of the Inclusion domain. The columns reflect the focus with the low sensitivity column relating to focus of the educator primarily on the process, and the high sensi tivity column relating to focus of the educator on the learner. Almost 49% of the respondents scored within the Control of Outcomes (low Inclusion) area. Over two-thirds (70.2%) of the respondents were in the Focus on Learners column of high sensitivity (See Table 13). TABLE 13 Row (Control) by Column (Focus) Totals for the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure COLUMN (Sensitivity) ROW Focus on Focus on Row Totals (Inclusion') _____ Process Learners______n- % n- % n- % Control of Environment 11 8.4 43 32.8 54 41.2 Control of Outcomes 28 21.4 49 37.4 77 58.8 Column Totals 39 29.8 92 70.2 131 100.0 99 Report of Findings of Associations The research was structured by the question: Is there a relationship between scores of adult educators on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and their placement on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix? The report of findings of the associations will follow the three research objectives and six hypotheses discussed in Chapters One and Three. Research Objective 1. The inquiry for this objective focused on the nominal level relationships between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. For this level of the inquiry, the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix is simplified to its lowest level of a 2 x 2 matrix. The sixteen Myers-Briggs Types are correlated to the four matrix labels. The phi values for each level of the nominal relationships is presented in Table 15 in both the 1 - 5.9 as low (Neutral Zone as high score) and the 1 - 7.9 as low (Neutral Zone as low score) levels. Using Davis' assumptions, there is a negligible to moderate (Sensing to Inclusion with neutral zone as high) association between the nominal categories. Both levels of the Neutral Zone were run to discover if the inclusion/exclusion of the neutral zone would have any impact on the relational value; none was discovered. The coefficient between Sensing and Intuition was stronger using the high score approach. The Phi Values follow: 100 TABLE 14 Phi Coefficients between Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Van Tilburg/Heimlich Nominal Data Extroversion/ Sensing/ Thinking/ Judging/ Introversion Intuition Feeling Perceiving Sensing NEUTRAL ZONE AS HIGH Inclusion .0160 .0247 .0160 .1116 .3152 Sensitivity .0681 .0751 .0681 .0191 NEUTRAL ZONE AS LOW Inclusion .0601 .0653 .0601 .0947 .1722 Sensitivity .0111 .0448 .1914 .0063 Research Objective 2. The second level of the inquiry was an interval correlation between the continuous scores of the subjects on the Myers- Briggs Type Indicator and the interval scores of the subjects on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. Hypothesis 2. There was no association found between the Extro vert/Introvert preference on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Inclusion dimension of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. The cor relation coefficient was .0525. This is a negligible association using the Davis interpretations. There was also no association found between Extroversion/Introversion and the Sensitivity dimension with a cor relation of .0198. Hypothesis 3. There was no association found between the Sen sing/Intuitive preference on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the 101 Sensitivity dimension of the Van Tilburg/ Heimlich Measure. The correlation coefficient found was .0095 which is a negligible asso ciation. The Sensing/Intuition and Inclusion coefficient was also negligible at .0580. Hypothesis 4. There was no association found between the Think ing/Feeling preference on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Sensitivity dimension of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure.The negligible association had a correlation coefficient of .0716. Hypothesis 5. There was no association found between the Think ing/Feeling preference on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Inclusion dimension of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. The low asso ciation had a correlation coefficient of .0716. Hypothesis 6. There was no association (correlation coefficient .0020) found between the Perceiving/Judging preference on the Myers- Briggs Type Indicator and the Sensitivity dimension of the Van Tilburg/ Heimlich Measure. Using Davis' assumptions, this would be a negligible association. Hypothesis 7. There was a low association (correlation co efficient .1665) found between the Perceiving/Judging preference on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Inclusion dimension of the Van Til burg/Heimlich Measure. The Pearson Product Moment Correlations table (Table 15) follows. 102 TABLE 15 Pearson Product Moment Correlations between the Myers-Briggs Continuous Scores and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure Scores ______I______S______El______SN______TF r r r r r Extroversion/ Introversion .0525 .0198 Sensing/ Intuition .0580 .0095 -.0339 Thinking/ Feeling .0716 .1170 .0243 .0741 Judging/ Perceiving .1665 .0020 .0587 .4762 .1110 Sensing .2098 N - 131 The strongest association (.4762, a moderate association) is between the Sensing/Intuition and Judging/Perceiving dimensions of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. This association is a function of the grouping of profiles in which the distribution was 1.5:1 Judging to Perceiving. This is about 5% greater in a positive direction from the data bank and a reversal of nearly 12 percent in the Sensing/Intuition dimension. As there is no generalizability to a larger population, the moderate association for this group suggests that how these educators prefer to perceive the world is related to how they prefer to structure the world. The only other moderate association is that of Inclusion and Sensitivity on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure with a .2098 cor relation coefficient. For the educators in this study, there is a low 103 association between sensitivity and likelihood of involving learners in their own outcomes. Research Objective 3. The third point of inquiry was to explore any potential relationship between the independent variables of the demo graphics of the subjects and the dependent variables of the outcome measures on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heiml ich Measure. Hypothesis 8. There was no apparent association among the independent variables on the dependent variables of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. The predictor variables included gender, age, race, position, degree, and field of study. The association of age by degree was examined by use of a Kendall's Tau C, and had a low association of .1363. Associations were run on all the demographic data and the nominal categories of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/ Heimlich Measure. The associations among the demographic data are presented in Table 16. The associations of the demographic variables to the scores on the Myers- Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure are in Table 17. 104 TABLE 16 Associations Among Demographic Data Using Cramer's V Position Race Degree* Field Age Gender Position 1.0000 Race .2479 1.0000 Degree* .3287 .0986 1.0000 Field .3560 .1764 .2650 1.0000 Age .3556 .1551 .1363** .2863 1.0000 Gender .3937 .1953 .1268 .2668 .1541 1.0000 N-131 * Ph.D. and Ed.D. were combined ** Kendall's Tau C The large number of cells in some of these associations (e.g. 8 x 5) and the small population size (N-131) create a situation in which there will likely be many cells with no or few residents. This was the case and thus extreme caution is urged in drawing any conclusion on associations. The strongest relationships (moderate) were observed in the largest tables (8x5, Position by Race, Degree, Field; 8x4, Position by Age; and 8x2, Position by Gender) and in the relationship between Inclusion and Sensitivity (.3152) in which only 7.6% of the total were in the "low" row and 5.3% of the total were in the "low" column. 105 Table 17 Associations Among Predictor Variables and Dependent Variables Using Cramer's V Position Race Degree Field Gender _Age Myers-Briggs Type Indicator E/I .1679 .1456 .2758 .0543 .0573 .1713 S/N .2841 .1556 .1225 .2020 .0299 .1329 T/F .2628 .1370 .1811 ,2977 .1377 .0212 J/P .0941 .2108 .2648 .2560 .1477 .0960 Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure I .2499 .1604 .2385 .1347 .2158 .0814 S .2173 .0886 .0608 .2173 .1140 .0946 N-131 For the canonical correlation analysis, the nonmetric independent variables were dummy coded. Table 18 shows the mean, standard devia tion, minimum score and maximum score for each of the independent and dependent variables. The 0.0 and 1.0 minimum/maximums are those independent variables that were dummy coded. The variables include one level less for each variable (e.g. for race, Hispanic is missing) as the coding would automatically record the fourth level of that variable if it were entered. 106 TABLE 18 Mean, Standard Deviation, Minimum and Maximum for Each Variable Variable Mean or Minimum Maximum African-American .07 .25 .00 1.00 Asian .02 .15 .00 1.00 Caucasian .88 .33 .00 1.00 ABE/GED .02 .15 .00 1.00 Con't Education .09 .29 .00 1.00 Extension .13 .34 .00 1.00 Grad Student .22 .42 .00 1.00 Prison Education .07 .25 .00 1.00 Tra in/Deve1opment .17 .38 .00 1.00 University .13 .34 .00 1.00 H.S./Equivalence .03 .17 .00 1.00 Associate Degree .02 .15 .00 1.00 BA/BS .31 .46 .00 1.00 MA/MS .53 .50 .00 1.00 Education .47 .50 .00 1.00 Nurs ing/Medic ine .18 .38 .00 1.00 Business .07 .26 .00 1.00 Humanities .09 .29 .00 1.00 Gender .66 .48 0 1 Tenure 4.98 5.01 1 28 DEPENDENT VARIABLES E/I Dimension 98.21 26.07 53 153 S/N Dimension 104.82 31.47 37 151 T/F Dimension 93.47 24.33 29 143 J/P Dimension 92.63 27.43 47 153 Inclusion 7.52 1.07 3.8 10.0 Sensitivity 8.36 1.60 .1 10.5 N-131 (except for Field of study, n-112) The associations reported earlier were present. (See Appendix C for complete correlations in the canonical correlation analysis). In addition, the following relationships were noted: 107 TABLE 19 Associations Between Variables Variable: Variable Coefficient African-American: Graduate Student .2340 Caucasian: Graduate Student .3425 Education .2366 Judging/Perceiving .2307 Gender: Continuing Education .2289 Inclusion .2292 Tenure: Extension .3576 Graduate Student: Tenure .3063 Training/Develop: Business .3483 Nursing .3483 H.S. Degree: Business .3422 Masters: Bachelors .7221 Education: Nursing .4419 Humanities .2968 Expected relationships are present, such as between tenure and graduate students, business and training/development, nursing and training/de velopment (most nurses who are adult educators are trainers). It is interesting that there is a relationship of race and Judging/Perceiving and a relationship of gender and inclusion. The Summary of Canonical Correlation Analysis follows in Table 20. 108 TABLE 20 Summary of Canonical Correlation Analysis Variat 1 Variat 2 Variat 3 Variat 4 Variat 5 Variat 6 b s b s b s b s b s b s E/I .19 .16 -.40 -.45 .10 .14 -.59 -.51 .63 .53 .25 .31 o 00 CO 00 1 S/N .17 .03 -.76 -.81 .08 -.16 1 -.64 -.56 -.37 -.04 T/F -.59 -.57 .04 -.12 .79 -.79 -.16- .03 -.17 .15 .11 .10 J/P .67 .37 -.09 -.50 .40 - .35 .69 .48 .15 -.12 .51 .50 I .64 -.55 -.03 -.25 .50 .42 .11 .29 -.20 -.04 .64 .61 S -.13 -.32 -.38 -.40 .14 .16 .56 .55 .47 .49 -.60 -.41 % Variance 14.88 22.34 16.62 14.61 16.41 15.14 r2 .365 .281 .211 .186 .111 .098 N-112 b-standardized canonical coefficeints (weights) s — structure coefficients Only variate two had a slightly larger percent of variance than did the other variates. Variate two would be the canonical of sen sing/intuition. The percent of variance explained by the canonical variable of independent variables was less than 6% cumulative. See Appendix D for the Independent variables Standardized canonical coefficeints and correlations. The canonical correlation asks the question to what extent can one set of two or more dependent variables be explained or predicted by another set of two or more independent variables. The canonical correlation analysis suggests that position and degree have incon sistent but possible relationship to the dependent variables. Table 21 presents the Discriminat Function Coefficients and the final cor relations . 109 TABLE 21 Standardized Discriminant Function and Correlation between Dependent and Canonical Variable. Coefficients Standardized Correlation between Discriminant Function Dependent and Dependent Variable Coefficient Canonical Extrovert/Introvert - .342 -.415 Sensing/Intuition -.482 -.473 Thinking/Feeling -.179 -.267 J udging/Perce iving .059 - .385 Inclusion -.588 - .709 Sensitivity - .391 -.479 These data suggest there is a relationship among the variables. The findings are not random chance, but there is a relationship among race, age, education, position, tenure, gender and Extroversion/Intro version (moderate), Sensing/Intuition (moderate), Thinking/Feeling (low), Judging/Perceiving (negligible/moderate), Inclusion (sub stantial/very strong), and Sensitivity (moderate). This supports the hypothesis that demographic variables and scores on the two instruments are related. Summary This inquiry was framed by a research question with three specific objectives. The objectives were further focused by six hypotheses. The subjects for the study (N-131) were primarily female (66%). Over half of the subjects held masters' degrees (53%). Just over half 110 the respondents were between the ages of 30 and 39 with 88% of them being Caucasian. One-fifth of the participants were graduate students, 16% were in training and development and 13% were Extension faculty. Average tenure on the job was 5.3 years with 27.5% of the participants on the job one year or less. The most common Myers-Briggs Type Profile dimensions of the subjects were Extroversion (57.3%), Intuition (56.5%), Thinking (57.3%) and Judging (60.3%). The predominant type profile was ESTJ (13.7%). There were no ESFP profiles reported. Nearly 36% of the subjects scored in the Provider/Enabler category of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity measure. The second most populated cell was that of the Enabler with 33% scoring. All cells contained at least two individuals. There were no strong associations between nominal categories or interval scores of subjects measures on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. There were associations among predictor and dependent variables suggesting that demographics and inculturation may have an impact on how an educator responds to the instruments. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This final chapter has been divided into three parts: summary, conclusions and implications, and recommendations for further study. The summary provides an overview of the study so that the conclusions drawn from the findings can be easily related to the research question and objectives. The implications are culled from insights gained from the operationalization of the theories in Chapters I and II through the study presented in Chapters III and IV. The implications will attempt to enumerate some potential, competing explanations for findings related to the literature (Chapter II) and the initial statement of the problem (Chapter I). The recommendations for further research and implementation are formulated from the entire study. Summary The purpose of this study was to explore potential relationships between a personality indicator (the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) and a teaching style measure (the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure) with adult educators in central Ohio. The major research question was: Is there a relationship between scores of adult educators on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and their placement on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix? The study began with an exploration of the phenomenon of culture of groups and groups creating culture. Subculture was broadly defined 111 112 to extend the definition to any group. This was done as a foundation for understanding the important role of the "group" or the learners in the adult education learning environment. How the educator works with any group can be examined on two dimensions: 1) how sensitive the educator is to the individuals in the group, the group as a whole, and the role of the educator with the group; and 2) to what extent the educator includes the learners in defining their own learning outcomes or in participating in the learning activity. These dimensions form the basis for the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure. The Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure scores educators on each of the Sensitivity and Inclusion dimensions and then represents each person on a two-by-two matrix that identifies the individual's preference for teaching style. This preference for process is similar to the identification of predilection for process that is accomplished by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, based on the works of the psycho logist Carl Jung. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator includes four basic preferences of personality which direct the preferred use of perception and judgement. The dimensional scaling and the apparent similarities of what the two instruments are measuring led to the research question, Is there a relationship between scores of adult educators on the Myers- Briggs Type Indicator and their placement on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix? Three research objectives (with eight supporting hypotheses) focused the inquiry. The first level of the inquiry, objective one, sought to explore and describe the nominal relationships between categorical scores on the two instruments. The second level of inquiry 113 was to explore and describe any potential interval relationships between continuous scores on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the interval scores on the two Thurstone Equal-appearing scale instruments of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. The third objective was to explore the relationships of demographic variables of subjects and their scores on the two instruments. Chapter Two reviewed the literature surrounding teaching style. Initially, the discussion centered on teaching style, its definition, taxonomies of style and traits of style. No consistent definition of teaching style emerged from the literature. It was noted that edu cators will, over time, tend to perform to their strengths. Style is the predilection toward performance, not the methods or the quality of the instructional activity. It was noted that much of the literature asserts that educators should adapt their "style" of teaching to the learning style of the students. This apparent paradox (the preference of learners cannot change because of innate style, but the innate style of the teacher can change) is representative of the lack of under standing and literature on teaching style. Much of the literature merges teaching style with teaching methods or techniques. A brief review of literature on adult learners, adapting style and teaching methods suggests that a great amount of work has been done on identifying teaching methods that are "appro priate" for adult learners. One of the recurrent suggestions is that educators simply use all methods available to them to provide for the learners' needs. No educator is so empowered as to be equally compe tent in all teaching methods. 114 An alternative to examining traits and methods for defining preferred teaching style is to focus internally on individual prefer ences, skills, and abilities. Two constructs relative to the internal focus of style were reviewed: sensitivity and inclusion. The concepts of acculturation, symbolism, and group membership also have tremendous impact on an individual's preference. The literature regarding learning style is abundant. A cursory review of this literature was made with the expectation that the debate "do we teach as we were taught; do we teach as we learn" is grounded in learning theory. The schools of behaviorism, humanism, and cognitivism were discussed. Integrated models of learning were also discussed. Indirect inference from the discussion can be made to teaching style. If educators teach as they learn, it is important for educators to understand how they learn so they can better understand their teaching style. If educators teach as they were taught, knowing their own predilection to learning will allow them to separate their own patterns of behavior from those of their instructors. It was also noted that subcultures, or subgroups of larger cultural factions have differing styles of learning which adds the dimension of culture and ethnicity to defining learning style. The final section of Chapter Two dealt with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and teaching style. Again, most of the work in this area has focused on learners MBTI type profiles and the role of the educator in adapting classroom behavior to the profiles of the learners. From the studies that have focused on teaching style related to preference 115 profiles, there does seem to be preferences of personality process that do correlate with teaching predilections. The interplay of culture, experience, age, subcultural memberships and representation of the educator, the learners' culture, experience, ethnicity, age, member ships, representation, and the culture of the group itself must be considered in context of the learning environment before preference for process can be isolated and measured to define teaching style. Chapter Three provided the framework for the study. The research was guided by the three objectives identified in Chapter One. Descrip tive research was used extensively in describing the theoretical base upon which this study was built. The study used categorical scores on both the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure to explore nominal associations. Continuous scores on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator were used with the interval scores from the Thurstone scales of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure to explore potential correlations of the interval scores. The non-metric demographic variables were structured as predictors in a canonical correlation analysis to the outcome measures of the categor ical (nominal) scores on both the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure. The study examined the functions of sensitivity/intuition and thinking/feeling which are bi-polar dimensions of personality and their relationships with the bi-polar dimensions of sensitivity to culture and inclusion of students in their learning. The inquiry also examined relationships of demographic variables of subjects on the outcome measures of scores on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van 116 Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity measure. Chapter Four presented findings from the study. The primary source of data was self-identified adult educators in central Ohio. There were 131 subjects in the study. Nearly two-thirds of the subjects were female, and over half held masters degrees (53%). Eighty-eight percent of the subjects were Caucasian and just over half were between the ages of 30 and 39. One-fifth of the participants were graduate students, 16% were employed in the training and development field and 13% were Extension faculty. Average tenure on the job was 5.3 years with 27.5% of the participants on the job one year or less. The most common Myers-Briggs Type Profile dimensions of the subjects were Extroversion (57.3%), Intuition (56.5%), Thinking (57.3%), and Judging (60.3%). The predominant type profile was ESTJ' (13.7%). There were no ESFP profiles reported. Nearly 36% of the subjects scored in the Provider/Enabler category of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure. The Enabler cell held 33% of the respondents. All cells contained at least two individuals. In addressing the first objective, to explore and describe nominal relationships between categorical scores of adult educators on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/ Heimlich Measure, a correlation-coefficient (Cramer's V) was conducted on categorical scores. There were no strong associations. The second objective, to explore and describe interval relation ships between continuous scores of adult educators on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure, was addressed through a Pearson Product Moment Correlation. The strongest associa- 117 tions were within each instrument: on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the association between Sensing/Intuition and Judging/Perceiving had a correlation coefficient of .4762, a moderate association. On the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure, the internal relationship between Inclusion and Sensitivity had a .2098 correlation coefficient, a moderate association. A canonical correlation analysis was conducted on the demographic variables (independent or predictor variables) and the scores of the subjects on both instruments (dependent variables). This was done to satisfy the third objective, to'explore and describe the relationships of demographic variables and the scores of adult educators on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. From this analysis, it would appear that there is interplay among the demographic variables and the dependent variables. Especially noted is the domain of Inclusion on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. Conclusions The conclusions are drawn from the findings. Their presentation will follow the structure used throughout the study. Research Objective 1. 1. There is no association between nominal scores of the subjects in this study between the four Van Tilburg/ Heimlich classifications and the sixteen Myers-Briggs Type Indicator profiles. The instruments, therefore, are not collecting comparable nominal level data. From this, it can be concluded that the Van Tilburg/ Heimlich Measure is not measuring the same personality dimensions as is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Although both instruments 118 utilize dimension scaling and preference for process, the dimen sions may or may not be interrelated; either way, they are not correlated. 2. There are too few reported low scores on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure to adequately compute phi coefficients. 3. Lack of clarity in teaching style was reported by over half the subjects. Were there more clarity in the subjects' reported teaching style, there may have been some level of association between the measures. Research Objective 2. 1. There are negligible associations between continuous scores on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensi tivity Measure of the subjects in this study in all but the Judging/Perceiving dimension of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Inclusion dimension of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure and the Thinking/Feeling and Sensitivity dimensions which had low associations. 2. Both instruments measure preference for process, but different dimensions of individuals are being measured. These dimensions would appear to be neither exclusive nor correlated. 3. The Judging/Perceiving dimension of the Myers-Briggs Type Indi cator and the Inclusion dimension of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure which had a low association may, in future studies, indicate a stronger relationship given different subjects and situations. 119 4. There is a large number of individuals who scored in the Prefer ence Shift area and a large number (35%) who scored in the Neutral Zone of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. Using the theoretical base presented in Chapters I and II, this suggests that a large portion of the subjects in this study have unclear images of how they best perform in a classroom setting. 5. The relationships of Sensitivity to Inclusion on the Van Tilburg/ Heimlich Measure and the relationship of Sensing/Intuition on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator had moderate associations which suggests there is some type of internal relationship on each instrument. Research Objective 3. 1. There is a relationship among the demographic variables collected (gender, age, race, occupation, level of education, field of study and tenure) on the subjects in the study and scores on the Myers- Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure. The variables collected did not appear to have any predicting qualities toward outcomes, but there were moderate associations on all the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator functions except Thinking/Feeling and on the Sensitivity dimension of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. The Inclusion domain of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure had a very strong correlation between the dependent variable and the predictor variables. 2. There are likely other variables or combinations of variables that explain the large pool of subjects in the Neutral Zone, Provider/ Enabler and Enabler categories of the Van Tilburg/Heimlich 120 Measure. Education may be one element of this association but fails to explain the occurrence. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure are not measuring the same thing. The question then, is what is the difference between the measures and what are the implications for adult education? Both instruments measure preferences; the Myers- Briggs Type Indicator measures preference for process and the Van Tilburg/Heimlich measures preference for operationalization of beliefs about andragogy. This element of belief brings into play the concepts of culture and groups. Beliefs are imbued through an individual's dominant culture. The belief system of an individual can change as the indivi dual becomes more strongly allied or sensitized to subcultural member ships. Inculturation can be formal, non-formal or informal; in adult education examples of the three types of inculturation are schooling, professional associations, and on-the-job experience. According to advocates of adult education as a profession, working with adult learners transcends content and context of learning. This supports the premise that adult educators are inculturated into a specific belief system or subculture. There is in the literature an "ideal" adult educator. This ideal is the Enabler profile of the Van Tilburg/ Heimlich Measure which refers to high sensitivity and high inclusion. What is lacking in the inculturation process is equity about diversity. The literature on adult education is adamant about the need to address the broad range of individuality of the learners. Why is there not a similar adamancy about developing a similar individuality 121 of adult educators? The findings, though presented with caution, suggest there may be an association between position and MBTI type. MBTI type may be more aligned with the individual's first career choice which, for most adult educators, is not adult education. If this is so, an appropriate study of type may reveal an association between adult educators' MBTI type profiles and original career selection. This study had a broad distribution of educators according to MBTI type. The implication of this finding alone is fruitful. If there is a wide range of preference for process, adult educators need to be reinforced or supported in their preferred modes of operation, assuming they are well developed. In other words, the preferred style of the educator is likely a function of psychological process preferences and the cultural memberships of the individual. Do trainers of adult educators push toward a model of instruction that precludes individual style preferences of some adult educators? Are adequate opportunities and resources provided for individual adult educators to develop methods and techniques appropriate to their preferred styles? The responses from the participants in this study appear to support an affirmative response to the first question and a negative to the second. There seems to be a reluctance for individuals to respond low on sensitivity and inclusion on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich. MBTI type profiles suggest there should be more low scores on each dimen sion. The literature on type theory suggests that educators who score as Extroverts are more able to use inclusionary practices than are educators who are Introverted. Externalized sensing or intuition or absence of externalized sensing or intuition has a strong theoretical 122 relationship to focus on process versus focus on individuals. The implication is, again, that our training programs for adult educators should develop an appreciation for diversity and individual preference in structuring learning environments. These same findings can also be used to extend an observation to clientele. Just as the clientele in adult education is diverse, so too are adult educators. The literature is full of discussions on differ ent learner styles. Unfortunately, the literature is also skewed toward the belief that an adult educator should be able to adapt to all learners' styles. Current research by Conti supports some of the past radical theorists' beliefs that all learners perform better when the educator has a well defined style, regardless of what that style is. Adult educators should not reject their preferred style because it is not the "ideal model", but should be given assistance in learning to use their preferences within the learning setting. Adult educators are a diverse group of individuals serving a diverse group of learners. The findings in this study show only low associations among select characteristics of the subjects and their MBTI profiles. It would be logical, then, that there should be maximized variance in teaching styles. The finding is, for the most part, minimal variance. There is an apparent discrepancy between reported beliefs about behavior (Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure) and scores on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator regarding preferences for behavior. This raises the question "do beliefs of the educators in this study not equal the behaviors of these educators in the learning environment." One implication of this is that the myth of the ideal 123 adult educator needs to be debunked. The "ideal" adult educator would be all styles and type profiles on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator concurrently. This is not only impossible, but leads this author to an even more important impli cation: the inculturation of adult educators into the myth of the ideal learner/educator setting may lead adult educators into more in effective teaching behaviors. This implication is supported by the findings of a dispropor tionate number of educators in the study (62.6%) falling into the Neutral Zone or Preference Shift areas on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix. Van Tilburg and Heimlich suggest scores in these areas reflect poorly defined (ambiguous) teaching style. One possible explanation for the large number of subjects scoring in these areas is the incul turation into the belief of a preferred style for teaching adults. The value system underlying adult education theory supports this narrow view. The implication of these findings is that some of the underlying theories about "the adult learner" may need to be reexamined. Another rival hypothesis is that there is perhaps a teaching style that is ecclectic. To explore this, more study must be conducted on belief and behavior. The findings of this study add to the confusion regarding the philosophical split between teaching content and teaching "teaching" (process). These findings can be used to argue the blending of the "camps." As an example of the debate and the resulting confusion, Ohio Extension field faculty are viewed by some people as generalists and by others as content specialists. Administratively, they are told to be 124 both, but by training most are content specialists. Individuals working in such a situation might compromise preferred style and operate from a neutral or style-void zone. The learner comes to a learning situation with needs and a preferred learning style. Focus on the self-directed, long-term goal oriented, motivated learner is limiting. Adult learners come to the learning situation for many reasons and with varied expectations. Though few adult educators would agree that the inculturation of the adult educator includes a model of "the" adult learner, the literature on effectiveness in adult education suggests otherwise. The concept of a model of "the" self-directed, motivated adult learner should be challenged. The hypotheses under Research Objectives 1 and 2 reflected the literature on what the ideal adult educator should be, combined with the concepts of culture and group as intervening variables in the educational setting. Upon reflection of the data, the underlying philosophies in Chapters I and II were combined. The result is a hypothesized placement of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator profiles of adult educators relative on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Matrix. This is a conceptual analysis of the findings going beyond the study presented. This would use the high score cutoff (high = 8.0 - 11.0 rather than high - 6.0 - 11.0) and would appear as follows: Expert: INFP, INTP, ISFJ, ISTJ Provider: INTJ, INFJ, ISTP, ISFP Facilitator: ENTJ, ENFJ, ESTP, ESFP Enabler: ENFP, ENTP, ESFJ, ESTJ 125 This placement uses the locus of control and the focus on the learner versus process asdescribed in Chapter I. Using the findings in this ■f study, the expected and observed outcomes are surprising (see Table 18). Table 22 Model of Expected and Observed Proportions of Subjects in Van Tilburg/Heimlich Cells using Reconstructed Theory EXPECTED OBSERVED Control** Focus on*** Control Focus on %* 0 E L P % 0 E L P 47.4 29.8 EXPERT 29.8 21.4 42.8 58.8 PROVIDER 13.0 37.4 52.7 ENABLER 39.7 57.3 32.8 41.2 FACILI. 17.6 8.4 47.4 29.8 N-131 *Do not add due to rounding **Control 0- Outcomes (low inclusion), E- Environment (high inclusion) ***Focus L- Learners (high sensitivity), P- Process (low sensitivity) On this nominal level, there is a 16% discrepancy between row scores (Control of Outcomes/Environment) toward Outcomes or low inclusion. On the column scores (Focus on Process/Learners) there is a 17.6% discrepancy toward learners. This suggests the adult educators in this study were less "inclusive" and more "sensitive" on scores on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure than expected. The implication from this finding is that these adult educators may benefit by greater exposure to process and to releasing control of 126 learning outcomes. Adult educators are taught formally, nonformally and informally to use "learner objectives" in developing their teaching plans; yet, only each learner can truly define that learner's objec tives. The educator's outcome objectives for the learner may be important, but the educators in this study appear to not have the ability to release outcome control to the learners as much as their MBTI profile would suggest. Perhaps non-directed outcome methods should be taught in an experiential manner so that those adult edu cators who might, by MBTI profile, prefer to use these processes can do so. Caution is urged in generalizing these implications until more research is conducted. Such research includes the review and recon struction of the data from this study in line with the reconstructed theory offered above. What is being taught, the content, and how it is being taught, the process, also need increased focus in adult educator training. The process orientation of efficient content acquisition can be sacrificed by placing individual needs of collective learners first. Often learners come to programs to gain content; to meet their needs, the educator must provide an environment in which information is exchanged or processed. The efficiency of this exchange will satisfy or dis satisfy the learner who is content/information oriented. The extension of this thought leads to the question "why do adult learners quit?" The usual answer is that the needs of the dissatisfied learner who quit were not met. The educators in this study reported giving more attention to learner and learning orientations than to 127 process and content orientations. The quitters from their programs may be those learners who had need for content. Recommendations The fifteen recommendations that follow have been shaped by the entire study. There are two broad areas of recommendations: 1) recommendations for further inquiry; and 2) recommendations for implementation of theory. Recommendations for Further Inquiry. 1. "Position" has some relationship to both Inclusion and Sensitivity on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. This might be interpreted that what adult educators do and how they do it is position related. The extended implication then is that learning is by doing more than by formal training. Such a statement requires a tremendous leap from much traditional academic thought. Data are needed that can support or challenge this minimalist position. 2. There is a need to explore occupation of choice versus current occupation of adult educators and its relationship to teaching style. As many adult educators did not initially choose to be educators, there, may be traits held by individuals in different fields of original choice that have predicting impacts on person ality profiles and teaching styles. The findings in this study indicate there may be some relationship between field of study and Sensitivity on the Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. 3. If indeed behavior does not necessarily reflect belief, there will be means of identifying the "gap" between behavior and belief. Inquiry should be conducted to measure: 1) attitudes about class room practice; 2) beliefs about the learners; 3) beliefs about the learning process; 4) beliefs about the role of self as educator; and 5) the actual classroom practices of the educator. Such information would provide valuable information to teacher-edu cators and training coordinators for improving teacher training and in-service programming. There is a lack of information on the inculturation of adult educators into the profession. Study needs to be done on the process and effects of inculturation and their relationship to stated beliefs in classroom practice. Such study should address formal, non-formal and, as much as possible, in-formal incul turation of adult educators into the profession. There is not much literature on the relationship of personality profile (type) and specific functional areas of adult education such as ABE/GED, Continuing Education, Training and Development, University, Extension, literacy, etc. Additions to the literature base in this area will likely provide key information for further study of teaching style and variations within each of the func tional areas. This study should be replicated with the instructors of children and with instructors in more formal adult education settings to compare profile types and teaching style. The data from this study need to be reviewed and reconstructed to explore further the potential rival relationship put forth in this chapter (Expected versus Observed placements on dimensions). The 129 E J, E P, I J, and I P combinations should be separated according to the externalized preference and extroverted/intro verted orientation (S/N, T/F). These should then be correlated to explore for potential associations. 8. A study on quitters of adult education and teaching orientation of the adult educator could offer a variant on the challenge of why adult learners quit. The needs rather than the learning style of the learner and a mismatch with the educator's style is a hypo thesis that needs inquiry. Recommendations for Implementation of Theory. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. 9. Adult learners come to learning settings from all walks of life and with a wide array of needs, learning styles, and expectations. Adult educators cannot serve all these individuals concurrently. Understanding individual preference for process may well serve adult educators as they work with the wide array of learners in many different learning environments. 10. Adult education is much more than the instructional moments. Planning, coordinating, seeking funds, reporting, and evaluating are all important and time consuming tasks of adult educators in most settings. MBTI type theory can be used to structure teams of adult educators that are complementary and supportive. Balancing preferences based on the MBTI can often overcome individual deficits in performance. 11. Understanding MBTI type theory can provide adult educators with tools for developing both strengths (initially by understanding 130 and then by conscious process) and weaknesses (by identifying processes that are weaknesses, rather than specific tasks). Such development is important both in the classroom and in the myriad of other responsibilities given to adult educators. Van Tilburg/Heimlich Measure. 12. Adult educators need to truly experience inclusionary action in the classroom. Given the large number in this study who scored high or in the preference Shift area of Inclusion, there should be far more student-directed experiences occurring than is observed. What truly defines inclusionary practice must be moved from theory presented in formal and non-formal adult education development arenas into practice. This move can only be accomplished by full experiential learning on the part of the adult educators. 13. Clarity in teaching style must become a goal for adult educators and for those who instruct adult educators. Studies suggest that those instructors with clear style have more successful learner outcomes regardless of their style than those who lack well- defined style and attempt to adapt to the learners' styles. The "ideals" of the adult learner should not become the definition of all adult learners. Not all adults are self-directed learners; not all adults in any given learning situation share the same level of commitment to learning. Style differences in educator must be celebrated, not eliminated. 14. Practitioners must develop congruence between beliefs and prac tice. Style is defined as those practices that are preferred; if 131 beliefs are not consistent with practice, there is a definite lack of clarity in the classroom behavior. 15. In the instruction of adult educators, more attention should be placed on methods and the adaptation of methods to teaching style than is currently done. This would be an important step toward allowing individuals to hone their individual teaching style while respecting the many learning styles that occur in any learning situation. Current practice is to neglect individual predilection toward style in favor of suggesting that using any method will overcome personal preference. It is argued that style cannot be changed, but methods can be adapted to style. Attention given to understanding ones own style will likely improve the learning environment as much as knowing various teaching techniques and methods. APPENDIX A SOLICITATION SCRIPTS 132 133 TO: Graduate Students in Agricultural Education FR: Joe E. Heimlich RE: A TREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITY!!! (??) DT: January 1990 As a part of my dissertation research, I am seeking individuals who 1) are self identified as adult educators and 2) have not taken the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator within the last five years. Why am I seeking these people? In my study, I am correlating an instrument that measures teaching style and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure is a simple Thurstone scale (check only the statements you agree with) based on concepts of cultural sensitivity and adult education theory. What do you get from this? Obviously, not money. You will, however, be invited to a seminar on understanding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and The Van Til burg/Heimlich Measure; or if you are unable to make one of the seminars, a private session on what your scores mean. You will receive your scores on both instruments in strict confidence. If you are interested in participating, or if you just want to help a fellow student get through (!), please call me as soon as possible at: work: 292-8436 home: 444-9672 or stop by my office in room 26 Ag Admin. I plan on providing the instruments to you by the end of January. You will complete the instruments at your leisure and return them to me via mail or prearranged pickup (at my cost, of course). Arrangements for seminars/meetings will be made after the first of February. THANKS A MILLION!! 134 TO: Graduate Students in Adult Education FR: Joe E. Heimlich RE: A TREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITY!!! (??) DT: January 1990 As a part of my dissertation research, I am seeking individuals who 1) are self identified as adult educators and 2) have not taken the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator within the last five years. Why am I seeking these people? In my study, I am correlating an instrument that measures teaching style and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure is a simple Thurstone scale (check only the statements you agree with) based on concepts of cultural sensitivity and adult education theory. What do you get from this? Obviously, not money. You will, however, be invited to a seminar on understanding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and The Van Til burg/Heimlich Measure; or if you are unable to make one of the seminars, a private session on what your scores mean. You will receive your scores on both instruments in strict confidence. If you are interested in participating, or if you just want to help a fellow student get through (!), please call me as soon as possible at: work: 292-8436 home: 444-9672 I plan on providing the instruments to you by the end of January. You will complete the instruments at your leisure and return them to me via mail or prearranged pickup (at my cost, of course). Arrangements for seminars/meetings will be made after the first of February. THANKS A MILLION!! DATE: January 1990 135 FROM: Doris Oursler, 261-4823 (w) or 846-1344 (h) SUBJECT: Taking part in study of adult educator teaching styles Joe Heimlich, a doctoral student in Adult Education at OSU and a good friend of mine, is searching for "subjects" to be a part of his study. His topic is teaching styles of adult educators. It sounds really interesting. Since I have contact with a number of folks who might qualify, I've agreed to help him round up persons who might like to take part in this study. QUALIFICATIONS TO BE A SUBJECT: that you identify yourself as an adult educator that you have NOT taken the Myers-Briggs personality assessment tool within the last 5 years NATURE OF COMMITMENT: 1. Complete a short demographic form. 2. Complete an assessment tool that Joe has developed. 3. Complete the Myers-Briggs assessment tool. TOTAL time for the above 3 pieces is 30-60 minutes. He will provide all pieces directly to you. They are self-administered, so you can take them in your own time frame and return them to him when they are completed. 4. Meet briefly with Joe later so he can explain the results to you; this can be done in groups. TOTAL time for this piece is up to an hour. SO...total commitment is up to 2 hours. INTERESTED PERSONS SHOULD: Call Joe at 292-8436 (w) or 444-9672 (h). Please call fairly soon as he is looking to complete his data collection by the end of January. Thanks! 136 Dear Friends: Enclosed is the Meyers-Briggs long form that I promised you several weeks ago. I would appreciate it i f you would complete i t as soon as Office o f possible. There is also a teaching inventory that I wouldlike you Continuing to complete. Sometime during February thiswill all be explained to Studies us. Franklin Pre-Release Center 1800 Harmon Avenue Thanks for your cooperation-—Brenda Columbus, Ohio 43223 Phone: (614) 445-8600 U. W-'~ ^ 'V I... a — n - f IW. c / -—W' «v--y 1 ( i (s. ^ -/U1 I w - V( APPENDIX B DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING FORMS 137 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Van Tilburg/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure 138 Thank you for agreeing to complete these instruments. In doing so, you are contributing to information on measuring teaching style. By completing and returning the two measures, you are self-selecting as an adult educator who has not completed the Myers- Briggs Type Indicator within the last five years. There is no monetary remuneration for your participation in this study. Your outcomes on the instruments will be shared in confidance with you; data on this page will not be associated by name with your test scores, only with your outcomes. If you choose not to participate, please return the instruments without completing them. If you do participate, please return everything clipped together in the attached envelope. Thank you for your time! Demographic Variables Circle the number of the appropriate answer to each of the following questions. A. What is your gender? D. What type of professional position do you currently hold? 1. Female 2. Male 1. ABE/GED 2. Continuing Education B. What is your age? 3. Extension 4. Graduate Student f. 20-29 5. Prison Education 2. 30-39 6. 'Draining/Development 3. 40-49 7. University 4. 50-50 & Other (identify) 5. 60+ C. What is your race? E. What is your highest degree obtained? 1. African American 2. American Indian 1. H.S. Diploma/Equivalency 3. Asian 2. Associate 4. Caucasion 3. BA/BS 5. Hispanic 4. MAIMS 6. Other (please identify) 5. PfuD. 6^Ed.O. F. How many years have you held your current position? For researcher's use only MBTI Profile______VT/H Profile VAN TEJBURG/HEIMUCH 139 TEACHING MEASURE Instructions: Please check only the items with which you completely agree. If you have never been in a teaching situation, react to the items as you believe a teacher should act or believe. Thank you very much! A. To really make instruction successful, students need to know the relevance of the topic to their lives. B. The selection of teaching methods should depend mostly on the nature of the content being taught. C. I always learn from my students. D. A group learns better when a principle or concept evolves from the group. E. My methods of instruction depend entirely upon the make-up of the group. F. I usually stick to my teaching calendar. G. My teaching objectives pretty much dictate my teaching strategies. H. I make it clear to students, right from the start, that I am the teacher and they are the students. I. Sometimes, I include the group of students in decision-making related to course content. J. I am almost always behind in my teaching calendar because students ask too many questions in class. K. If a student is not participating in class I try to draw them in rather than letting them "do their own thing." L. If I try to become a member of the student’s culture, I lose the respect of the students. M. There comes a point in my teaching where the subject has to be more important than individual needs. N. I never worry about whether students like me. O. If I make students respect me, they will like me. 140 P. I do not let my care for the students interfere with my teaching. Q. I let the students know Pve been in their shoes. R. I want to know "where the students are coming from." S. I use different teaching styles within any class depending upon the experiences and life styles of the students. T. I can easily diagnose why a student is having trouble. U. As soon as I can in a class, I find out who the students are as individuals, as separate human beings. V. I try to encourage the students’ self-esteem by establishing a close relationship with them. Inclusion S U M + + # Circle M U S 1-6 H-lG-3 J-4 K-8 A-9 B-5 E-7 D-10 C-ll F-2 Inclusion: rfrne t Preference Van Tabing/Heimlich Sensitivity Measure Sensitivity Tabing/Heimlich Van ECIG STYLE TEACHING Sensitivity Sensitivity: + # Circle M U S R-9 S-ll U-10 T-6 V-8 0-3 N-l P-5L-2 Q-7 M-4 Preference Preference Neutral Zone rfrne t Preference 141 APPENDIX C CANONICAL CORRELATION ANALYSIS 142 Pagr? CAPON 120!.. 'Ji ;i-!>r ! :V!'T?.’M ANOL.YS !.S Ht.. IMLI CM .1 / .1. / >r re-1 at 5. nn« : RAGE 1 RAC! 3’ r a c e r F'OB I PCI 82 P0S3 Rrta:i 1.. < lOOO ..0420 , 6831 . 0245 . 0485 . O'100 RACE 2 .0 428 1.. 0000 .438?*k • 0157 -.051? • •.0677 RACE3 „ 6031 ** 438?** J , 0000 . 0359 . 0237 .. 0000 P15 1 .. 01'40 - ■. O' 1 / , 0359 .. 0000 -.0297 -.0387 P082 0 4 33 - „031? .. 02 37 0297 1.0000 -.1278 P03 3 .. 0000 ■■■.. 0677 . 0000 . 0387 1278 1.0000 rnr:>4 2340 * . 1393 ,. '5425 * * .0483 -,1592 -,. 2075 PDB5 , 0037 -.04 28 .. 0139 . 0243 -,0808 1054 p o o o . :l 1*7 ••. 4' >”50 . 1700 . 0429 1415 -.1845 POP? , 1013 0971 „ 00'?9 . 0373 1231 -.1605 TMI.f. I ■»0245 ■■,0157 , 035? , 0090 0297 ■ -.0387 I.1FG2 , 0243 ■, •:> 157 . 0 3’ -:.? . 0090 -.0297 . 0337 DEG3 . O 1 00 1310 . 04 40 , .1.438 -.O 705 ■ .. 2.140 !>CG4 .. 0 13 V -- • 0704 , 0203 . 1038 . 0977 . 0659 FJX.LJH , .1247 „ 1.730 . 2366* . 1001 .0168 ,,27/4* P J Q 1)2 . 1 20-4 ■ , ’077 4 . J 762 .0443 . 0993 ■.1903 FICLP3 . 0716 — ,0460 . 0000 . 0263 0868 1132 FIELD4 . 0405 - . 0519 . '7239 . 0297 ,01 18 -.0383 GENDER ,111 3 . 1 109 •, 0638 . 0694 .2289* -.0230 TPMI ti-' F • „ 0630 .02*0 , 0657 . 0014 . 0490 .3576* ci urr . 0235 -.0133 , 0467 , 1262 . 1010 1526 PM I FT - 1009 ... 0064 ,. 0619 - 1371 . 0576 -.0824 TFINT . 0072 • . 0 180' . 1 1.22 . 1238 . 0128 1830 OP I NT .. J 027 - 3 POM , 2307 #• . 112' 1 -,03S0 .0199 11 NT . I 102 .. 0738 ., 0074 . 0447 . 0504 -.0427 SINT .. 0 ' P! V , 0433 , 01 7 1 . 9512 . 1781 -.0947 4> UJ O-f CflSB:':! i 12 1 -tailed S.i.gni ; OJ. Vr-X 00 I. M ...... „ . ,• K ' L. tl 1. I (. r! A I f:c-r.O i’i l. i on t catinot be.' I Page 6 CANONICAL CORRELATION ANALYSIS - HEIMLICH 1/1/SO Correlati ons; P034 P0S5 P0S6 P0S7 DEG1 DEG2 RACE1 .2340* . 0857 1167 -.1015 -.0245 -.0245 RACE2 . 1895 -.0428 -.0750 .0971 -.0157 -.0157 RACE3 •.3425** -.0139 . 1708 -.0099 . 0359 .0359 POSl -.0483 -.0245 -.0429 -.0373 -a 0090 -.0090 P0S2 1592 -.0808 1415 -.1231 -.0297 -.0297 P0S3 -.2075 -.1054 1845 1605 — .0387 -.0387 P034 1.0000 -.1313 -.2298* 1999 -.0483 -.0483 P0S5 1313 1 a 0000 1167 -a 1015 -.0245 -.0245 P0S6 -.2298* -a 1 167 1 a 0000 -.1777 -.0429 .2100 P0S7 1999 -.1015 -a 1777 1 a 0000 .2414* -.0373 DEO 1 -.0483 -.0245 -.0429 .2414* 1.0000 -.0090 DEG2 -.0483 -.0245 . 2100 -.0373 -.0090 1.0000 DPI 03 . 1931 . 0702 . 1155 -.2596* -.0627 -.0627 DES4 -.0234 . 0139 -.1122 -.0616 ~ . 1038 -.1038 FIELD! . 0937 0970 1902 -.0052 -.0900 -.0900 FIELD2 -.2370* 1204 .3483** 1833 -.0443 . 2036 FIELD3 1410 .0716 .2441* .0945 .3422** -.0263 FIELD4 - .0042 . 0485 -a 1415 . 1527 -.0297 -.0297 GENDER 1852 .1113 . 1806 -.2629* -.1299 . 0694 TENURE — a -1'063** -.2056 -a 1719 -.0102 -.0756 -.0371 E l I NT a 1525 0076 1480 . 1329 .0626 -.1262 SNINT -- 1649 a 1520 -.0525 . 1905 . 0 7 5 5 . -.0723 TFINT -.0414 . 1473 1008 . 0705 .0619 , JF'INT -.1706 . 0758 - a 0004 . 0346 -.0940 11 NT . 0006 a 0540 . 0507 -.2116 -.0881 SINT -.0632 . 0535 a 1345 -.0771 -•.0789 -.0393 N of cases; 112 1-ta.i led Signi F; * - .01 ** -- .001 . " is printed if a coefficient cannot, be computed P ->' I o CANONICAL C O R F E L A ’F J! ON ANALYS J 3 I 'E I ML IC H 1 / 3 / 8 0 ni:.p ’ j) - n-a r iE L D l FI 5102 F 1.1- LD3 E7ELD4 ! ?ACG i r 0 1 00 , O 3 3 9 .. 1 2 4 7 -.1204 . 0 716 , 0493 i :Ai .■ 3 3 1 0 • 0 7 0 4 . 3 7330 . r r,774 . '4460 - . <75 J. 9 _ .1 4 4 o 1 ~f / •*' r J 3 7 ■tail S lq ru . o 1 >("i 1 Ui pi I O rc.l .! <■ i - (. i. < 11 '?Cl i Page 8 CANONICAL CORRELATION ANALYSE • HE.! I ML I CM 1/ .1 /8 0 Cor re»l a t i o n e s GENDER ■| ENURE £ 11 n r I Mi .if 4 NT RACE 1 . 1113 •.0636 . 0235 • .. 1009 0872 . 1 0 9 2 RACE 2 -.1109 . 0240 •- 0 1 3 3 . 0064 0 ! SO . j 800 RACE3 .. 0638 . 0657 . 040'/' . 0619 1 122 .2 3 0 7 * POO 1 . .0694 . 0014 . 126 2 . 1 37 1 1238 .1121 P032 .2209* ■> 0490 .. 10:10 . 0576 0127! , >5380 P0S3 - .0230 . 7-61 0 ■.J 520 . 0824 1 830 . 0 i. 9 9 PC384 1 8 5 2 -•.3063 . 1525 1649 0414 .. 1 7 0 8 PQ05 .1113 -.2056 0-0 70 . 1528 1478 . 0 7 5 S P0G6 . 161>6 171? 1.480 -.0525 1 008 . 0 0 0 -1 P0S7 --.2629* - .0102 . 1 529 . 1905 0701/ . 0 3 4 6 DEC i 1299 -.0756 , 0026 . '.>755 J. 238 0 6 7 5 DEG2 , 0694 -.0371 . 1262 - _ 072 0619 . 0 9 4 0 DEG3 . 0342 ■.0377 . 0907 ■ . 1 o 15 0801 . 0 1 9 8 DE64 . 0467 ■ .1114 0102 ■ 04 IB 0468 . 1 5 9 2 FIELD1 . 0546 . 1805 02 10 —. '>831 0146 . 0 0 8 8 FILLD2 . 1940 -.1114 - 0048 -a 0344 1307 0 5 0 4 F.1ELD3 -.0156 -.0452 ... 0025 . 1 3 7 5 04 2 4 . 2 30 3 FIELD4 ..1655 . 0744 0451 0353 204 j . 1 177 GENDER 1.0000 ■- 124 6 a 0 1 0 0 , 0048 1665 . 0 0 9 4 te nure : —. 124 6' 1,0000 •• . 0 8 4 9 - „ 1 1 7 6 0667 . i 7 5 3 E11 NT . 01.00 ■ ,0049 1. 0 0 0 0 , 0230 0 0 1 7 . •>•6(3 4 SIM I NT . 0 8 4 8 -.1176 „ 0238 1.0000 12,40 .. 4 0 2 ? k Tf-INT . 1665 . '.Eo/ - . 0 0 17 . 1280 0 0 0 0 , 1 4 6 7 11 PINT H < 0 1” ~s . 0094 . 0 6 8 4 . 4829*-i; i 4 67 . Ci000 11 NT .2292* 0724 , 1 0 2 7 .. 0 8 B 3 0 6 0 2 .2 2 3 5 * SINT . 1 835 -.. 0423 „ 05 14 „ 0 0 9 7 . 01 97 N o f c a s e s s !. 12 i. -Lai. , O' .• 1 -P> priii Lad i t a r o e H : U . i t-nl. c: ,.,nr,ot b Os APPENDIX D INDEPENDENT VARIABLES STANDARDIZED CANONICAL COEFFICIENTS AND CORRELATIONS 147 148 -b- Page 13 CANONICAL CORRELATION ANALYSIS - HEIMLICH 1,1 / 80 * * ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE — DESIGN 1 * * Raw canonical coefficients for C0VARIATE3 Function No. COVARIATE 1 3 4 5 6 RACE1 1.601 1 . 787 -1.124 1. 203 1. 240 -2 5 40 RACE2 -1.012 -. 073 . 796 . 652 -.761 -z. 460 RACES .810 . 777 -1.616 1. 330 . 833 Zr?~ P0S 1 .435 -1.459 -3.222 2. 034 -2.341 574 POST. . 553 . 203 . 493 . 197 2. 053 j. T- 1 P0S3 .957 1 . 557 . 587 -.215 -.793 - 32 Z P0S4 .557 . 575 ~. 144 -1.012 1873 ::~:s 1 r. P0S5 . 105 -.381 -. 980 -.017 . 423 P036 . 093 . 363 , 456 1. 303 . 937 •*38 P0S7 . 420 .332 -1.416 -1.307 . 582 305 DEO 1 . 369 1. 790 1. 538 -.020 -.602 1 399 DE02 -2.453 4.410 -2.986 -.849 -1.455 ' 085 DEG3 -1.169 2. 881 733 -.542 -.506 245 DEG4 ■ 1.600 2 . 100 -.249 -. 367 -.315 080 FIELD! -.398 -.257 ,272 . 449 . 309 ... 046 FIELDS . 861 . 225 . 444 -1.087 -. 190 01.3 FIELDS . 270 -1.572 ,262 -.064 -.611 3 6 F IEL.D4 -1.187 — ' 22 -. 504 -. 279 . 183 ' ■1 72 GENDER -1.060 -.696 -. 223 -.310 . 1 73 544 TENURE . 01 1 . 070 -. 100 .031 . '093 0<>5 Standardi zed canonical coefficients for COVARIATES CAN . VAR. COVARI ATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 RACE! .389 .434 -. 273 ,292 . 302 -.613 RACE 2 -. 164 -.013 . 129 . 106 -. 123 -.399 RACES .258 -. 537 . 442 .233 -. 130 P0S1 138 -.304 . 192 -. 240 . 338 PQS2 * .058 . 141 .056 . 589 -.364 P0S3 .547 . 206 -. 076 -. 280 -.239 P0S4 ‘ .233 -.058 -.41 1 .762 . 097 P0S5 . 026 -.093 -. 238 -. 004 . 104 ~. 104 PQS6 .035 .327 . 172 .493 ■ -.542 P0S7 . 144 .284 -.484 -.618 . 199 -.446 DEG1 .035 . 169 . 150 -.002 -. 057 . 151 DEG2 -. 232 .417 -.282 -.080 -.137 - . 197 DEG3 -.540 1. 331 -.339 -.250 — . 234 . 113 DEG4 -. 800 1.050 -. 125 -. 184 -.158 . 040 FIELD1 -.200 ~. 129 . 136 .225 . 155 — . 023 FIELD2 . 331 . 086 . 171 -.418 -. 073 -. 005 FIELDS .070 ~. 407 .068 -.017 -. 158 . 126 FIELD4 -.340 -. 035 , -.144 -.080 . 052 -.307 GENDER -.507 — ■ 3 -. 107 -. 148 . 083 . 280 TENURE . 055 .345 -.494 . 153 .461 . 321 -+£> - Page 14 CANONICAL CORRELATION ANALYSIS - HEIMLICH 1/1/80 * *• ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE . DESIGN i * k Correlations between COVARIAXES and canonical variables CAN. VAR. Covari ate 1 3 4 6 RACE1 . 116 . 115 .116 -.058 .273 -.393 RACE2 -.274 - . 003 . 200 -. 198 -. 113 -. 253 RACE3 . 103 -.075 -.389 .319 ~. 074 .. . 354 P0S1 -. 040 -. 146 -.346 . 240 -■. 292 — ■ 226 P0S2 -.098 117 134 . 090 .514 - . 147 P0S3 .242 . 289 . 173 . 246 - .321 . 04 J P0S4 -. 039 . 193 . 202 -.402 . 419 . 142 PQ35 -.175 258 .217 . 025 - . 157 - . 005 P0S6 -.016 . 082 . 230 .469 - . 069 -.244 POS7 . 197 -.309 -.345 -.471 -. 050 -.323 DEG1 . 261 -. 117 . 106 -. 108 ~. 143 . 093 DEG2 -. 082 . 254 175 - .01 1 116 -. 254 DEG3 -.031 . 297 185 . 021 -. 034 . 177 DEG4 -.419 . 026 . 270 - . 066 . 030 - , 008 f-IELDl -. 208 -. 069 . 133 .308 . 192 -.015 FIELD2 . 144 . 126 . 207 -. 142 153 - . 001 FIELDS . 138 nor -. 006 . 093 - . 23 T .. 065 FIELD4 -. 230 . 126 -. 374 ~. 197 . 087 • .319 GENDER ~. 455 - . 264 „ 032 . 159 . 068 . t>96 TENURE . 164 . 250 — . 355 . 324 . 141 '71 t '7'. Variance e;i[plained by canoni cal var iables o f the COVARIAXES CA N . V AR. Pet Var DE Cum Pet DE Pet Var CO Cum Pet CO 1 1. 576 1. 576 4. 314 4. 314 1026 2 . 602 3.643 7. 962 9 4 1 ;t 1. 228 3. 830 5. 816 13.770 4 1. 103 4933 5. 927 19.705 IV . 524 5. 457 4.715 24.421 LI , 430 -i J / 4 „ 406 2 0 .3 2 6 LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, D.M. (1973). Simulation games: An approach to learning. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company. Alberty, E.J. and W.T. May. (1987). Curriculum: Then and now. Theory into practice. XXVI(Special Issue): 319-323. American heritage dictionary. Second College Edition. 1985. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company. Anderson, C.R. and F.T. Paine. (1975). Managerial perceptions and strategic behavior. Academy of Management Journal. 18(4). Anderson, J.A. (1988). Cognitive styles and multicultural populations. Journal of teacher education. 39(2): 2-9. Applbaum, R.L., E.M. Bodaken, K.K. Sereno, K.W.E. Anatol. (1974). The process of group communication. Chicago, Illinois: Science research Asssociates, Inc. Assaf, K. and S.A. Assaf. (1974). Handbook of mathematical calcu lations : For science students and researchers. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press. Axelrod, J. (1970) Teaching styles in the humanities. In Morris, W.H. ( Ed). Effective college teaching: the quest for relevance. Washing ton, D.C.: American Council on Education. Beals, R. (1953). Acculturation. In A.L. Kroeber (Chair). Anthro- oology today: An encyclopedic inventory. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Beder, H.W. and G.G. Darkenwald. (1982). Differences between teaching adults and pre-adults: some propositions and findings. Adult Education. 32(3): 142-155. Benedict, R. (1935). Zuni mythology. New York, New York: Columbia University Press. Bergevin, P. and J. McKinley. (1977). Participation training for adult education. St. Louis, Missouri: The Bethany Press. Bidwell, C.E. (1973). The social psychology of teaching. In Travers, R.M.W., (Ed). Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally & Company. 150 151 Blake, R.R. andJ.S. Mouton. (1969). Grid organization development. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Boone, E.J. (1985). Developing programs in adult education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Boyer, Barbara A. Professor of Art Education. Interview. May 1988. Brookfield, S.D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. Brockett, R. (1983). Facilitator roles and skills. Lifelong Learning: The Adult Years. 6(5): 7-9. Brunvand, Jan Harold. 1968. The study of American folklore. New York, New York: W.W.Norton & Company, Inc. Buzzotta, V.R., R.E. Lefton, and M. Sherberg. (1972). Effective selling through psychology: dimensional sales and sales management strate gies . New York, New York: Wiley Interscience. Buzzotta, V.R., R.E. Lefton, and M. Sherberg. (1982). Effective selling through psychology: • dimensional sales and sales management strate gies . New Edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company. Carter, G.L, Jr. and R.S. Kaitajarvi. (1983). A proposed starting point in designing learning experiences: what a study of education liter ature reveals. Perspectives in Adult Learning and Development. Fall 1982, Winter 1983. 4(1): Clarke, K.W. and M.W. Clarke. (1963). Introducing folklore. New York, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Cohen, S.R. (1981). Using the MBTI with teachers, supervisors, adminis trators and students: A program review. Research in Psychological Type. 3: 42-47. Conti, G.J. (1985, June). Assessing teaching style inadult education: how and why? Lifelong Learning. 6(8): 7-11, 28. Conti, G.J. (1989). Assessing teaching style in continuing Education. In E. Hayes (Ed). Effective teaching style. New Directions for Continuing Education. No. 43. San Francisco, California: Jossey- Bass, Inc. Conti, G.J. and R.A. Fellenz. (1988). Teacher actions that influence native American learners. Proceedings of the transatlantic dialogue conference. Pp 96 - 101. Leeds, England. 152 Conti, G.J. and R.A. Fellenz. (1988a). Teaching and learning styles and the Native American learner. Adult Education Research Conference Proceedings. University of Calgary. Conti, G.J. and R.B. Welborn. (1986). Teaching-learning styles and the adult learner. Lifelong Learning. £(8): 20-25. Conwell, C.R. (1983) An investigation of changes in elementary teachers* achievement in science and attitude toward teaching science due to matching and mismatching science activities with the Mvers- Briggs tvoe indicator. Dissertation: The Ohio State University. Cressey, D.R. and Ward, D.A. (1969) Delinquency, crime and social process. New York, New York: Harper and Row. Cross, K. P. (1983). Adults as learners. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Crouch, B.R. (1983). The problem census: farmer-centered problem identification. In Training for Agriculture and Rural Development. Rome, Italy: Fcod and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization; International Labour Organisation. Darkenwald, G.G. and S.B. Merriam. (1982). Adult education: Foun dations of Practice. New York, New York: Harper Row, Publishers. Davis, J.A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Deese, J. and S.H. Hulse. (1967). The psychology of learning. 3rd Edition. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Delbecq, A.L., A.H. Van de Ven and D.H. Gustafson. (1975). Group techniques for program planninga. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Co. Denovellis, R. and Lawrence, G. (1974, April). Correlations of teacher personality variables (Mvers-Briggs) and classroom observation data. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, Illinois. Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Dittmer, P. (1981). The effects of teacher personality on classroom values and perceptions of gifted students. Research in Psychological Type. 3: 48-54. Draves, W.A. (1984). How to teach adults. Manhattan, Kansas: The Learning Resources Network. 153 Dubkin, S.S. and M. Okun. (1973). Implications of learning theories for adult instruction. Adult Education. XXIV:1 (3-19). Dunn, R.S. and K.J. Dunn. (January 1979). Learning styles/teaching styles: should they...can they...be matched? Educational Leadership. 36: 238-244. Ellis, S.S. (January 1979). Modles of teaching: A solution to the teaching style/learning style dilema. Educational Leadership. 36: 245-254. Even, M.J. (1982, January). Adapting cognitive style theory into practice. Lifelong Learning: The Adult Years. 5(5): 14-17, 27. Fischer, B. and L. Fischer. (January 1979). Styles in teaching and learning. Educational Leadership. 36: 245-251. Feuer D. and B. Geber. (1988). Uh-oh...second thoughts about adult learning theory. Training. Ford, J. and R. Backoff. (1987). Trialectics. White Paper. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University. In press. Gable, Robert K. 1986. Instrument development in the affective domain. Boston, Massachusetts: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing. Gagne, R.M. (1970). The conditions of learning. New York, New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Gajanayake, S. (1984). Education for community development. In Reed,' H.B. and E.L. Loughran (Eds). Bevond schools: Education for eco nomic. social and personal development. Amherst, Massachusetts: Citizen Involvement Training Program. Gauld, V.F. (1982) A study of individual teaching stylesof instructors teaching in a non-credit, continuing higher education program. Dissertation: The University of Alabama. Goodenough, W.H. (1971). Culture, language, and society. In Current topics in anthropology. Vol II. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison- Wesley Publishing Company. Goven, P., T. Faber, S. Prins, and B. Mangold. (1972). The use of sensory stimulation in teaching mentally impaired students. Spring field, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher. Hall, E.T. and M.R. Hall. (1987). Nonverbal communication for edu cators. Theory Into Practice. XXVI(Special Issue): 364-367. Hallowell, A.I. (1953). Culture, personality, and society. In A.L. Kroeber (Chair), Anthropology today: An encyclopedic inventory. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. 154 Hart, J. and J. Driver. (1978). Teacher evaluation as a function of student and instructor personality. Teaching of Psychology. 5(4): 198-200. Heimlich, J.E. and E. Van Tilburg. (1987). Subcultures and educators-- concerns of membership for educators. Paper for the American Asso ciation of dult and Continuing Education, October 22, Washington, D.C. Hill, W.F. (1963). Learning: a survey of psychological interpre tations . San Francisco, California: Chandler Publishing Company. Hill, W.F. (1977). Learning thru discussion: Guide for leaders and members of discussion groups. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publi cations . Hinkle, D.E., W. Wiersma, and S.G. Jurs. (1979). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally College Publishing Company. Horn, R . , Ed. (1983). Trialectics: toward a practical logic of unity. Lexington, Massachusetts: Information Resources. Houle, C. (1961). The inquiring mind. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. Howe, L.W. and M.M. Howe. (1975). Personalizing education: Values clarification and bevond. New York, New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc. Huelsman, J.M (1983). An exploratory study of the interrelationships of preferred teaching styles, preferred learning styles, psychological types, and other selected characteristics of practicing teachers. Dissertation: The Ohio state University. Imel, M.S. (1989). Teaching adults: Is it different. Eric Digest No. 82. In press. Institute for Participatory Planning. (1981). Citizen participation handbook: For public officials and other professionals serving the public. Fourth Edition. Laramie, Wyoming: IPP. Iverson, E.A. (1985). The relationship of personality type to excellence in college teaching. (Dissertation, University of North Dakota). University Microfiche T1985IV3. James, W.B. and M.W. Galbraith. (1985, January). Perceptual learning styles: implications and techniques for the practitioner. Lifelong Learning. 8(4): 20-23. 155 Jensen, G . , A.A. Liveright, and W. Hallenbeck (Eds). (1964). Adult education: Outlines of an emerging field of university study. U.S.A.: Adult Education Association of the U.S.A. Jensen, G.H. (1988). Learning styles. In Provost, J.A. .and S. Anchors, Eds. Applications of the Mvers-Briggs Type Indicator in higher edu cation. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press. Joyce, B. and M. Weil. (1980). Models of teaching. 2nd Edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Jung, C.G., and M.L. Von Franz, J.L. Henderson, J. Jacobi, A. Jaffe. (1964). Man and his symbols. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company Inc. Kearney, M. 1984. World view. Novato, California: Chandler & Sharp Publishers, Inc. Keirsey, D. and M. Bates. (1978). Please understand me: Character and temperament types. (3rd ed). De Mar, California: Prometheus, Nemesis. Kidd, J.R. (1971). How adults learn. New York, New York: Association Press. Kilmann, R.H., M.J. Saxton, R. Serpa and Associates (Eds). (1985). Gaining control of the corporate culture. San Fransico, California: Jossey-Bass. Knowles, M.N. (1973) The adult learner: A neglected species. (2nd Ed). Houston, Texas: Gulf. Knowles, M.N. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragopv. Revised and Updated. Chicago, Illinois: Follett. Kolb, D. (1976). The learning style inventory. Boston, Massachusetts: McBer and Company. Lasswell, H . , D. Lerner and I. de Sola Pool. 1952. The comparative study of symbols: An introduction. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Lawrence, G. (1979). People types and tiger stripes: A practical guide to learning styles. Gainesville, Florida: Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc. Leach, E. (1984) The diversity of anthropology. In J. Mavalwal (ed). Learning about ourselves. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. 156 Lenz, E. (1982). The art of teaching adults. New York, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: It's management and value. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill. Loughran, E.L. (1984). Community education in context. In Reed, H.B. and E.L. Loughran (Eds). Bevond schools: Education for economic, social and personal development. Amherst, Massachusetts: Citizen Involvement Training Program. Lovell, R.B. (1987). Adult learning. New York, New York: Halsted Press. Lyons, C.A. (1982) The relationship of prospective teachers* neural processing, cognitive style and personality type to classroom learning and teaching behaviors. Dissertation: The Ohio State University. Marx, K. (1936). Capital: A critique of political economy. Trans: S. Moore and E. Aveling from 3rd German edition: Ed. F. Engels. New York, New York: The Modern Library. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, New York: Harper and Row. McC.Netting, R. (1971) The ecological approach in cultural study. In Current topics in antrhopology. Vol I. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Merriam, S.B. (1988). Finding your way through the maze: A guide to the literature on adult learning. Lifelong Learning. 11:6 (4-7). Milton, 0. and Associates. (1978). On college teaching. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Minium, E.W. (1978). Statistical reasoning in psychology and education. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Morris, W.H. (Ed). (1970). Effective college teaching: The quest for relevance. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education. Myers, I.B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Myers, I.B. with P.B. Myers. (1988). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologist Press, Inc. Myers, I.B. and M.H. McCaulley. (1987). A guide to the development and use of the Mvers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, California: Con sulting Psychologist Press. 157 Nelson, K.H. (1975). Contemporary models of cognitive style: An introduction. Paper presented at the Convention of the American College Personnel Association. Nuthall, G. and I. Snook. (1973) Contemporary models of teaching. In Travers, R.M.W., (Ed). (1973). Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally & Company. Nutt, P.C. (1986, January). Decision style and its impact on managers and management. Technological forecasting and social change. Ott, J.S. (1989). The organizational culture perspective. Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Oxford American dictionary. 1980. New York, New York: Avon Books. Parsons, T. (1966) Societies: Evolutionary and comparative per spectives . Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Patterson, B.H. (1986). Creativity and Andragogy: A boon for adult learners. Journal of Creative Behavior. 20(2): 99-109. Pinnell, G.S. and C.M. Galloway. (1987). Human development, language, and communication: Then and now. Theory into practice. XXVI(Special Issue): 353-357. Plecas, D.B., and T.J. Sork. (1986). Adult education: Curing the ills of an undisciplined discipline. Adult Education Quarterly. 37(Fall): 48-62. Pollio, H.R. (1974). The psychology of symbolic activity. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Provost, J.A. and S. Anchors, Eds. (1988). Applications of the Mvers- Briggs Type Indicator in higher education. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press. Provost, J.A., B.H. Carson with P.G. Beidler. (1988). Effective teaching and type: The words of outstanding professors. In Provost, J.A. and S. Anchors, Eds. Applications of the Mvers-Briggs Type Indi cator in higher education. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press. Puro, P. and D. Bloome. (1987). Understanding classroom communication. Theory into practice. XXVI^ t . Spring 1987). Reed, H.B. (1984). Nonformal education. In Reed, H.B. and E.L. Loughran, E d . Bevond schools: Education for economic, social and personal development. Amherst, Massachusetts: Citizen Involvement Training Program, University of Massachusetts. Robinson, R.D. (1979). Helping adults learn and change. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Omnibook Company. 158 Rogers, C. (1951). Client Centered Therapy. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company. Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, Ohio: Merill. Rudisill, E.M., Jr. (1972) An investigation of the relationships between mathematics teachers' personality characteristics, as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and their preferences for certain teaching strategies (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida). Dissertation Abstracts International. 1973, J4, 176A. Ryans, D.G. (1960). Characteristics of teachers: Their description, comparison, and appraisal. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. Ryans, D.G. (1970). Characteristics of teachers in relation to finan cial and cultural conditions of their childhood homes. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. Sanchez, M. J. M. (1987). Natural elements: Abstractions and mental images. Unpublished Masters Thesis. The Ohio State University: Columbus, Ohio. Seaman, D.F. and R.A. Fellenz. (1989). Effective strategies for teaching adults. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company. Sedlacek, W. (1983). Teaching minority students. In J.H. Cones, J.F. Noonan and D. Janha, (Eds). Teaching minority students. New Dir ections for Teaching and Learning, No. 16. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. Smelser, N.J. (1963). Theory of collective behavior. New York, New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Smith, A.B. and R.K. Irey. (1974, April). Personality variables and the improvement of college teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association. Chicago, Illinois. Solomon, D. and H.L. Miller. (1961). Exploration in teaching styles: report of preliminary investigations and development of categories. Chicago, Illinois: Center for the Study of Liberal Education for Adults. Spengler, J.J. (1961). Tradition, values and socio-economic development. In R.J.E. Brainbanti and J.J. Spengler (Eds). Tradition, values and socio-economic development. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. Story, G. (1972). An analysis of the relationships between personality types of mathematics teachers (7-12) as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and selected factors related to teaching (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida) Dissertation Abstracts Inter- 159 national. 1973, 3£, 3471A. Thompson, L.L. (1984). An Investigation of the relationship of the personality theory of Carl G. Jung and teachers' self-reported perceptions and decisions. Dissertation: The Ohio State University. Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Turner, J.H. (1974). The structure of sociological theory. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press. Van Tilburg, E. and J.E. Heimlich. (1989). Grounding instrumentation in reality: Developing tools for Extension educators. Proceeding for the Symposium on Research in Extension Education. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University. Van Tilburg, E. and J.E. Heimlich. (1987). Education and the sub culture: Incorporation versus inculturation--concerns for the educator. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference, The International League for Social Commitment in Adult Education, July 2, 1987, North Holland, Netherlands. Van Tilburg, E. and J.E. Heimlich. (1987a, November). Education and the subculture: Incorporation versus inculturation--concerns for the educator. Lifelong Learning. 11(3): 21-24, 28. Verner, C. (1964). Definition of Terms. In Jense, G . , A.A. Liveright, and W. Hallenbeck. (Eds). Adult education: Outlines of an emerging field of university study. U.S.A.: Adult Education Association. Verdun, J.R., H.G. Miller and C.E. Greer. (1977). Adults teaching adults: Principles and strategies. Austin, Texas: Learning Con cepts . Warren, V.B., Ed. (1964). A treasury of techniques for teaching adults. Washington, D.C.: National Association for Public Continuing and Adult Education. Winski, Norman. (1974). Discovering Personality Types. Los Angeles, California: Sherbourne Press, Inc. Wharton, J.W. and J.A. Worthley. (1983). A perspective on the challenge of public management: Environmental paradox and organizational culture. In J.L. Perry and K.L. Kracaemer (Eds). Public management: Public and private perspectives. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing. Weick, K.E. (June 1982). Administering education in lossely coupled schools. Phi Delta Kappan. 63(10): 673-676. Wissema, J.G., H.W. Van der Pol, and H.M. Messer. (1980). Strategic management archetypes. Strategic Management Journal. 1: pp 37-47.