A Comparison of Andragogy and Pedagogy: Assessing the Relationship Between Individual Personality Differences, Learning Styles, and Training Types
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 12-1990 A Comparison of Andragogy and Pedagogy: Assessing the Relationship Between Individual Personality Differences, Learning Styles, and Training Types Richard A. Cartor University of Tennessee Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Recommended Citation Cartor, Richard A., "A Comparison of Andragogy and Pedagogy: Assessing the Relationship Between Individual Personality Differences, Learning Styles, and Training Types. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 1990. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/6153 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Richard A. Cartor entitled "A Comparison of Andragogy and Pedagogy: Assessing the Relationship Between Individual Personality Differences, Learning Styles, and Training Types." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Michael Rush, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Richard A. Cartor entitled II A Comparison of Andragogy and Pedagogy: Assessing the Relationship Between Individual Personality Differences, Learning Styles, and Training Type. 11 I have examined the final copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Michael Rush, Major Professor We have read the dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Accepted for the Council: Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School A COMPARISON OF ANDRAGOGY AND PEDAGOGY: ASSESSING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES, LEARNING STYLES, AND 1RAINING TYPES A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Richard A. Cartor December, 1990 DEDICATION This project is dedicated to my family. To my parents, Len and Joanne, to my siblings, their spouses, and kids, Lenny and Shirlee, Tom and Gerry, Marie, Bill, Jason and Justin, and especially to my wife, Pamela. ii ACKNOWLEDGENIENTS There are many people to whom I feel indebted. My committee, of course, deserves much praise and credit. They are good people who I respect and admire, and I feel fortunate to have been associated with Drs. Mike Rush, Joyce Russell, Jack Larsen, and John Lounsbury. Pamela has been wonderful throughout this process. My best friend, and the kindest person I've ever met has helped me a great deal in this dissertation process, and has raised the quality of my life to a level I've never before experienced. I am forever in her debt, and I hope that I can be as helpful, as loving, and as supportive to her, in everything that she does. Thanks also to my friends and associates at TV A. Cathy Hammond for making this project happen, the trainers who conducted the training, and to Rena Tolbert, Suzan Bowman, Vergil Metts, Roger Cole, and Sondra Jamieson, for being there throughout the process. Many others have helped along the way, some more than others, some directly, and some indirectly', some didn't help at all, they're just people I wanted to mention. Those who deserve thanks are: Greg Brown, Gerry Cartor, Mike and Caryn Hawthorne, Marty and Jim Begalla, Patty Dillon, The Undergrad Guys, T. Francis, Cathy Cheverton, Bruce Springsteen, Jimmy Buffett, Phredi Bechtel, Bernie Kosar, The Wide Striders, The Easy Beats, Ayn Rand, Teddy Rossman, and The Poker Boys. Finally, a very special person deserves thanks and praise- a person who has served as a role model throughout my life. A brawler, a poet, an inspiration, an enigma, and a lifetime friend. I'll bet with him, but never against him--my brother, Tom. iii ABS1RACT ""- This study addresses issues related to the education and training of adults. In the past, adult education theorists and practitioners have generally prescribed that all adult learners would learn more and have more favorable responses to co~orat~-~~ _p~rticipati ve type~ of training. While the strict dichotomization of learners based solely on their ch~_?~~l~itcal_ age has recently been de-emphasized, there still remains a lack of clarity regarding whic_h training types to use with adult learners. The study addresses the fact that the theory and practices of andragogy, or adult learning theory, were derived primarily from non-traditional age college students. Non-traditional age college students are adults who have returned to college in continuing ~ducation programs. The point is made that the th~o!i~s and principles may not generalize from voluntary adult learning situations to training programs in industry, where the training is often times mandatory. It was proposed that learning styles, achievement levels, locus of control, and ego development levels would need to be assessed in order to determine the most advantageous training style for individuals. These were assessed by using The Leaming Style Inventory (Kolb, 1981), The California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1957), The Locus of Control Scale (Rotter, 1966), and The Measure of Ego Development (Loevinger, 1976). Scores on iv these measures were then compared with three outcome variables after exposure to eitheJlecture-style training (pedagogy), or participative training (andragogy). The three outcome variables which were assessed were the amount of objective learning as measured by performance on a post-test, satisfaction, and self reported learning. It was hypothesized that for reflective learners, pedagogy would have more favorable outcomes, and for active learners, andragogy would have more favorable outcomes. Also, it was hypothesized that individuals with the active learning styles would demonstrate a more internal locus of control, have higher Achievement-Independent scores, have lower Achievement Conformance scores, and have higher levels of ego development. Jt .. was _proposed that it was this group, the active learners, that the principles and theories of andragogy were based upon. Subjects for this study were 213 supervisors at a large government agency, who were attending a mandatory training program. The analysis of the data indicated that none of the hypotheses tested were statistically significant. Additional data analyses revealed an important influence of age, Achiev�ment Independence scores, and ego development scores on the measure of Objective Learning. The implications of these findings are discussed, and a model for understanding the andragogy-ped�S.�gy__ relationship . is presented. The model is presented, for use by both researchers and practitioners, as a rudimentary starting point for the development of an understanding of the relationship between the characteristics (?(__the_ learner, and the appropriate behaviors of the trainer,------ ���ber, or facilitator. V TABLE OF CON1ENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. IN1RODUCTION........................................................................................ 1 II. REVIBW OF TIIE LI1ERATlJRE ........................................................... 6 1. Adult Education ........................................................................... 6 2. The Case for Andragogy ........................................................... 8 3. Assumptions in Andragogy ................................................... 1 1 4. Implications for Practice .......................................................... 1 2 5. An Appraisal of Andragogy .................................................... 1 6 6. Adult Development.................................................................... 2 3 Adu] t Life Cycles ..................................................................... 2 5 Adult Developmental Stages ................................................ 2 7 7. Hypothesis One ............................................................................. 3 5 8. Hypotheses Two through Five ............................................... 3 9 I I I. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 4 4 1. Sample............................................................................................. 4 4 2. Measures ......................................................................................... 4 6 3. Pilot Test ......................................................................................... 5 0 4. Procedure....................................................................................... 5 4 5. Analysis ........................................................................................... 6 4 IV. RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 6 6 1. Manipulation