UTILIZATION OF THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR IN DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE INSERVICE PROGRAMS FOR MONTANA VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE INSTRUCTORS by John J Ballard A professional paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Agricultural Education MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana October 1989 APPROVAL of a professional paper submitted by John J Ballard This professional paper has been read by each member of the graduate committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready for submission to the College of Graduate Studies. Date / /??? Chairperson, Graduate Committee Approved for the Major Department Date / ' Approved for the College of Graduate Studies Date Gra< i iii STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this professional paper in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make it available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this paper are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Permission for extensive quotation from or reproduction of this paper may be granted by my major professor or, in his absence, by the Dean of Libraries when, in the opinion of either, the proposed use of the material is for scholarly purposes. Any copying or use of the material in this paper for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The researcher wishes, with all sincerity, to acknowledge those who contributed to his graduate program and assisted in the completion of this study. Contributors who made this a successful and educationally meaningful experience included: Dr. Van Shelhamer, my major advisor, for his enthusiasm, support, and assistance throughout my graduate program; Dr. Douglas Bishop and Dr. Robert Fellenz, for their assistance and guidance during my graduate program; Michelle Van Dyke, department secretary, without whose initiative and help the data for this research may never have been collected; Hazel Ballard, my mother, who discovered computers when she entered the research data; Max Amberson, Department Head, for his interest and support; Dr. Richard Lund, for his assistance with the statistics; and Andy Blixt, whose encouragement, patience, and roof made most of this project possible. I also wish to acknowledge my typist, Judy Harrison, for her assistance and professionalism in the final preparation of this research. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page APPROVAL ii STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE iii r'' ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........ . iv TABLE OF CONTENTS . . v LIST OF TABLES . ........ vii ABSTRACT x CHAPTER: 1. THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING 1 Purpose of the Study . . 3 Statement of Need 3 Objectives . . . 4 Assumptions .................... 5 Limitations 5 Definition of Terms 5 Methods and Procedures 6 Population and Sample ..... 6 Instruments and Design 7 Analysis of Data 10 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . 12 Historical View of Inservice 12 Effectiveness of Inservice Education 14 History of Types and Styles ............ 15 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Theory ........ 18 The Sensing/Intuitive (SN) Type ........ 20 The Thinking/Feeling (TF) Type 21 The Four Preferences 21 Population Description 22 Learning Preferences by MBTI Indices 23 Reliability and Validity 24 Survey Instrument 25 Summary . 29 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued Page 3. RESULTS OF THE STUDY ......... 31 Introduction . . . . 31 Response Rate ................... 31 Demographic Data . . ... 32 MBTI Types Among Survey Respondents ... 36 Learning Preference Data . 39 Curriculum Packaging ............... 51 4. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY \ . 62 Conclusions . 62 Implications . . 63 Recommendations 64 Recommendations for Further Study ....... 65 Summary 66 REFERENCES 67 APPENDICES: A. MBTI Cover Letter . . . . 72 B. MBTI Follow-up Postcard . 74 C. MBTI Follow-up Letter . 76 D. Effective Inservice Questionnaire . . . 78 E. Cover Letter and Definitions for Effective Inservice Questionnaire 85 F. Effective Inservice Questionnaire Follow-up Letter 89 G. Correlation of Questions and Responses to Domains Identified by Developer 91 H. Responses to Parts I and II of the Effective Inservice Questionnaire by the Only NF Respondent 93 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Comparison of Montana vocational agriculture Instructors' learning styles to program enrollment 33 2. Comparison of Montana vocational agriculture instructors' learning styles to years of experience . . . .... ... . . . . . . . . . . 34 3. Learning style distribution of Montana voca¬ tional agriculture instructors by age 35 4. Learning styles of Montana vocational agriculture instructors compared to their education levels . 36 5. Frequency by MBTI temperament type of Montana vocational agriculture instructors .... 37 6. Frequency of Montana vocational agriculture Instructors by learning style . . . 38 7. Preferred methods of learning in an inservice workshop by Montana vocational agriculture Instructors . 40 8. Preferred methods of evaluation in an inservice course by Montana vocational agriculture Instructors . 40 9. Preference for learning new material by Montana vocational agriculture instructors .... 41 10. Preference for method of learning by Montana vocational agriculture Instructors .... 42 11. Maximizing learning during inservice educa¬ tion by Montana vocational agriculture teachers .......... 43 12. Why Montana vocational agriculture instruc¬ tors were attracted to inservice workshops .... 44 viii LIST OF TABLES-Continued Table Page 13. Preference of Montana vocational agriculture instructors when learning new things 45 14. Preference of Montana vocational agriculture instructors when learning or learning about a new topic ... .......... 46 15. Preference of Montana vocational agriculture instructors for learning and maximizing learning 47 16. Preference of Montana vocational agriculture instructors for approaches to learning and teaching techniques . . . . 48 17. Preference of Montana vocational agriculture instructors for approaches to studying 49 18. Montana vocational agriculture instructors' favorite question to ask when they are students . 50 19. Montana vocational agriculture instructors' reasons for attending inservice workshops ..... 50 20. Preference of Montana vocational agriculture instructors for instructional methods, Instructional materials, learning methods, and packaging of teaching materials in the biotechnology and genetics curriculum areas .... 52 21. Preference of Montana vocational agriculture instructors for instructional methods, instructional materials, learning methods, and packaging of teaching materials in the water resources curriculum areas 54 22. Preference of Montana vocational agriculture instructors for instructional methods, instructional materials, learning methods, and packaging of teaching materials in the natural resources and environmental curricu¬ lum areas 55 ix LIST OF TABLES--Continued Table Page 23. Preference of Montana vocational agriculture instructors for instructional methods, instructional materials, learning methods, and packaging of teaching materials in the plant growth curriculum areas ........... 57 24. Preference of Montana vocational agriculture instructors for instructional methods, instructional materials, learning methods, and packaging of teaching materials in the financial and managerial skills curriculum areas . 59 25. Preference of Montana vocational agriculture instructors for instructional methods, instructional materials, learning methods, and packaging of teaching materials in the agriculture mechanics technologies curricu- 1 urn areas . . . . . . . . . . . ... 60 26. Correlation of questions and responses to domains identified by developer . . . . 92 X ABSTRACT The purposes of this study were to determine the interrelationship of personal temperament style to preferred approaches to learning and to preferred teaching techniques for inservice education, and to determine how to package specific curriculum materials for use by Montana voca¬ tional agriculture instructors. Data for this study were collected through the mail by use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and a second questionnaire designed by the researcher to determine the preferred teaching techniques and packaging of curriculum materials. All of Montana's 74 vocational agri¬ culture instructors were surveyed. The return rates were 89% for the MBTI and 69% for the questionnaire. The responses from all questions which were correctly completed were included in the data. Data were collected in four areas: (1) preferences for learning, (2) choice of instructional methods, (3) choice of instructional materials, and (4) choice of learning methods. Means, frequencies, and percentages were utilized in the analysis of the data. Analysis of the data revealed the majority of Montana vocational agriculture instructors had learning styles consistent with Keirsey and Bates' (1984) prediction for teachers of agriculture. However, when compared with Foster and Horner's (1988) findings, there was a larger than expected proportion of other learning styles within the profession. There were notable differences in preferences for learning within and among learning styles, indicating Montana vocational agriculture instruc¬ tors have definite preferences when learning. These preferences for learning are to: be actively developing skills while working with something tangible, determine how things work, and use reasoning abili¬ ties in conjunction with demonstrations and discussions to obtain usable information. When limited to eight instructional methods choices, Montana vocational agriculture instructors preferred lecture with discussion and/or overheads when learning about new curriculum areas. Workshops were preferred to self-study and the choice of instructional materials was curriculum area specific. From these data it can be concluded that learning preferences should be included in the planning and conducting of inservice education to ensure learning is maximized. 1 CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING There are countless articles and news stories critiquing the American education system. Most of these reports advocate change in the educa- ) tional system. Almost without exception, any current agriculture education publication contains an article about impending curriculum changes. Perhaps Newcomb (1986) best summarized the need and reason for change in the agriculture education profession when he stated: A profession grows or it dies; it changes or it faces atrophy, stagnation, and a slow demise. These clearly cannot be viable options. The profession must become the hotbed of experimentation in education, not the guardian of the tombs of bygone success, (p. 1) When new curriculum is identified, how can new ideas and changes be implemented? New ideas can be introduced into the teacher preparation curriculum, but how does the teacher in the field update? Shelhamer (1982) advised, "The Agriculture and Industrial Education Department of Montana State University has accepted the responsibility to keep Montana's vocational agriculture and industrial arts teachers abreast of current technology by providing inservice education" (p. 1). Shelhamer continued by noting vocational agriculture teachers are incorporating inservice materials into their cum*culurns and these materials need to be readily adaptable to the classroom. In his recommendations for further study, Shelhamer proposed, "An indepth study of successful inservice programs should be conducted. Instructional components which make 2 inservice successful should be identified and included in all inservice programs* (p. 60). The researcher questioned whether present inservice education provides adequate opportunities for the participants to maximize their learning to such an extent that participants are comfortable when imple¬ menting curriculum changes. If not, how could inservice education be changed to better meet the participants' learning needs? And in what better way can resource materials for curriculum preparation be packaged to meet the instructors' needs? Contributions to answering these ques¬ tions may be found by examining the temperaments, learning styles, teaching styles, and learning environments of inservice participants. Although the literature review did not reveal research on temperament styles similar to this study, research has been conducted which lends credence to temperaments, learning styles, teaching styles, and learning environments. Cox (1988) reported on the learning styles of Arizona vocational agriculture students. Previously, Cox, Sproles and Sproles (1987) reported on the learning styles of home economics students in Arizona. Both reports indicated there is a relationship between learning styles and instructional practice. At the post-secondary, non- traditional adult learner level, Conti and Welborn (1987) indicated there is a relationship between teaching styles and preference for mode of learning (i.e., listening versus direct experience). In a second research study, Welborn and Conti (1986) reported "teaching style has a significant effect on student achievement" (p. 307). They also reported their "learning styles findings indicate [that] . . . learning style may not be of tremendous value in facilitating student achievement" (p. 306). 3 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine the inter-relationship of personal temperament style: (1) to preferred approaches to learning, (2) to preferred teaching techniques for inservice education, and (3) to determine how to package specific curriculum materials for use by Montana vocational agriculture instructors. Statement of Need When considering the rapid rate of technological advancements in agriculture, there is an obvious need for inservice education for voca¬ tional agriculture instructors. However, there appears to be a general impression among those providing inservice that it is not meeting the learning needs of participants. Furthermore, the participants are not taking the information back into the classroom. One of the apparent problems with inservice education is that the potential participants do not see the need or value of participating in the inservice program. Drake (1988), commenting about inservice education in The Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, stated, ^Agriculture education program planners should solicit more teacher input into the identification of courses they might need and into the identi¬ fication of the course content to be taught" (p. 49). Foster and Horner (1988) perceived yet another possible obstacle to effective learning and addressed it in their recommendations. "Teacher educators should become familiar with preference and temperament type and 4 its implications for improving both effectiveness and efficiency of teaching and learning" (p. 26). As a result of these and similar concerns, voiced by the Montana State University Agriculture and Technology Education Department staff, data were collected which would: (1) contribute to the national pool of information on agriculture educators' preference and temperament types; (2) compare preference and temperament types to preferred learning techniques; and (3) allow potential participants to identify preferred instructional methods, instructional materials, learning methods, and a content packaging of teaching materials for new curriculum areas. This information was needed to accelerate the process of implementing curric¬ ulum changes. ! Objectives To meet the purpose of this study, the following objectives were identified: (1) Determine temperament styles of Montana vocational agriculture instructors through the use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. (2) Determine the preferred approach to learning by temperament style of Montana vocational agriculture instructors during inservice educa¬ tion. (3) Determine the Montana vocational agriculture instructors' preference of instructional methods, instructional materials, learning methods, and packaging of teaching materials in specified new curriculum areas. 5 Assumptions (1) Learning styles influence the preferred method of change and Montana vocational agriculture instructors are cognizant of the need to change. (2) Inservice is the appropriate change technique to implement curriculum change. Limitations The following limitations were placed upon this research: (1) The population was limited to Montana vocational agriculture teachers who were teaching during the 1988-1989 school year. (2) Temperament and learning styles were based on the combination of indices identified by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Definition of Terms (1) Vocational agriculture instructor: An instructor of a vocational agriculture program who is employed for the purpose of instruction and supervision per the requirements of a school district. (2) Inservice education: Seminars and/or workshops, available for credit or non-credit, conducted primarily for vocational agriculture instructors who are employed by local school districts. (3) Packaging of teaching materials: The audio or visual format utilized to deliver reference materials to the vocational agriculture class¬ room instructor. 6 (4) Temperament: Those identifiable personality characteristics which an individual repeatedly displays. (5) Learning styles: "Learning styles are cognitive, affective, and psychological traits that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment" (Keefe, 1982, p. 44). (6) Teaching style: The instructional practices that an instructor uses. These practices generally parallel the instructor's learning style. (7) Learning environment: The physical characteristics to which a learner is exposed, such as temperature, lighting levels, noise levels, and personal comfort. Methods and Procedures This section describes the procedures used in completing this study. Included is a description of how the population was surveyed, description of the instruments used, design of the Effective Inservice instrument, and the method by which data were collected and analyzed. Results are reported in the results section of this study. The study was begun in January 1989, and was completed in August 1989. Population and Sample This was a total population study involving the 74 secondary vocational agriculture instructors who were teaching vocational agricul¬ ture in a Montana school system during the 1988-1989 school year. The instructors were identified through a directory which is published yearly by the Montana State University Agriculture and Technology Education Department. 7 Instruments and Design The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), Form G, was chosen to deter¬ mine temperament types. This instrument is presently being used in the teaching methods class of Montana State University's Agriculture and Technology Education Department. Additional data are available for comparison from a national study conducted by Foster and Horner (1988). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is a self-administered questionnaire .based on Jung's theory of "psychological types." The MBTI was developed over a period of 20 years by Isabel Myers and her mother, Katherine Briggs. It is published by Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California. The MBTI is a forced-choice, 126-question instrument. Answers provide four bipolar indices scales which can be further subdivided into temperament types. The authors report a test/retest repeatability of 87 percent. The MBTI questionnaire, answer sheet, and a cover letter were mailed to the survey population. The cover letter explained the purpose of the survey and commented on the instructions (Appendix A). The participants were encouraged to write their name on the answer sheet so the researcher could return the answer sheet with an explanation of the respondent's type. Approximately two weeks after the first mailing, non-respondents were sent a personalized follow-up postcard asking them to complete and return the survey (Appendix B). During the fourth and fifth weeks, non¬ respondents were contacted by telephone and asked to complete and return the survey. The remaining non-respondents were mailed a second MBTI i 8 questionnaire, answer sheet, and another cover letter requesting they complete and return the answer sheet (Appendix C). This final follow-up was completed 17 weeks after the first mailing. To collect the data addressing the acceptance of innovative ideas, effects of different teaching approaches, and preferred content packaging techniques, a second, three-part survey instrument was developed (Appendix D). Part I required a series of six statements, related to preferred approach to learning, to be rank ordered. This series of questions included responses, from Rezler's categories, about teacher or student centered learning. These responses were included to ensure the integrity of the questions. Part II was a 16-question, forced-choice response series of questions. Each question asked the participants to choose which response best described their preferred approach to learning. Included in Part II were demographic questions regarding enrollment, teaching experience, age, and educational level. The response choice for each question in Parts I and II was selected from each of the four domains of learning style. The inter-relationships of the domains among the five survey instruments (from Rezler, Myers and Briggs, Kolb, Gregorc, and Ehrenwald) used as resources were not taken into consideration, nor were they considered important for the informa¬ tion sought. What was considered important to this study was the intra¬ relationship of each choice in response to the question being asked. In an effort to reduce the likelihood of a pattern, the questions and responses were randomly sequenced using the random number generator 9 function of HSUSTAT (Lund, 1988). Appendix 6 presents a table corre¬ lating the questions and responses to the domains identified by the developer. Part III of the second survey instrument was a 36-cell matrix. Each cell was formed by the intersection of a horizontal row with a vertical column. Each of the 18 rows were formed from a topic list of new curric¬ ulum areas. Four columns were formed by using separate major headings which included subgroups of related responses. The four headings were: (1) instructional methods, (2) instructional materials, (3) learning method, and (4) packaging of teaching materials. The respondent was asked to read the new curriculum area topic and then choose a single response from each column and write that choice in the cell. The second questionnaire was checked for functionality and clarity by the researcher's graduate committee members. A pretest, including an evaluation sheet for comments, was administered to a group of vocational agriculture education majors. After revision, the questionnaires were mailed to the survey popula¬ tion along with a cover letter and a list of definitions. The cover letter explained the purpose of the survey and requested the subject's participation. The cover letter was written on Montana State University Agriculture and Technology Education Department letterhead and signed by the researcher (Appendix E). The definition sheet listed terms, with definitions, for clarification of potentially confusing terminology. Non-respondents were mailed a follow-up letter two weeks after the first mailing (Appendix F). The letter asked them to please respond and emphasized the importance of the study. An additional follow-up was 10 conducted at the Agriculture Teachers Update Conference five weeks after the first mailing. Each non-respondent in attendance was given a second survey instrument, with a cover letter and definition sheet, and asked to complete and return the questionnaire during the conference. Analysis of Data The Myers-Briggs Type Indicators were hand scored, using scoring templates from Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California. The data derived from the MBTI type scores were entered into a dBase-111 data file. The count-for function of dBase-111 was used to determine the frequencies of types. Percentages were manually calculated using an electronic calculator. Data from the Effective Inservice survey instrument were entered into a dBase-111 data file. The computer program MSUSTAT: Statistical Analysis Package (Lund, 1988) was used for the data analysis. The number of variables which MSUSTAT can process is limited to 60 variables per file. Therefore, large dBase-111 files were subdivided into smaller files to be processed by the MSUSTAT program. The smaller dBASE-III files were converted into MSUSTAT data files using the MSUSTAT MAKE program. The MSUSTAT MAKE program "produces .FRM support and .MSU data files . . . and transformations for coding indicator variables" (Lund, 1988, p. v). A transformation statement was used to exclude the zeros in the dBASE-III data files from being used in the mean and standard deviation calculations. A zero in the dBASE-III data file indicated there were no responses to the question. MSUSTAT SUMSTAT was used to compute the summary statistics and frequency plots for the grouped data provided in Parts I, II, and III of the Effective Inservice survey 11 instrument. The learning style indices SP, SJ, NF, and NT were used as grouping variables in the data analysis. SUMSTAT produces moment-based summary statistics, Pearson product-moment correlations and a choice of three univariate plots for 1 to 20 ANALYZED variables. Summary statistics and plots are furnished by group upon declaration of a grouping variable. (Lund, 1988, p. 4- 101) 12 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Historical View of Inservice Teacher inservice education has been a part of the American education system for a considerable length of time. However, it is not always viewed as a positive component of education. Harris (1980) stated, ^Historically, inservice education has been reactive rather than proactive" (p. 26). Tyler (1971) discussed the inception of inservice education. During the 1850's there was a commitment to universal elementary education and the three R's. However, there were few qualified teachers available. In fact, many of the thousands of teachers had not even completed high school. Much of the advice the teachers received was from the influential laymen of the community and usually pertained to discipline and disciplin¬ ing techniques. Apparently, few of the laymen felt competent to advise on curriculum matters. Therefore, curriculum and teaching technique decisions were left to the teacher. Typically in the 1850's and 60's and 70's they [teach¬ ers] depended upon institutes and short courses in the evening to furnish inservice education. The purpose of these institutes was primarily to enable teachers to bridge the gap between what they were expected to know and what were in fact their level of knowledge and their teaching competencies; that is, inservice education of that time was largely remedial. (Tyler, 1971, p. 6) 13 The immigration experienced by the United States from the 1870's until World War I brought new cultural and ethnic value challenges into the classroom. These challenges created a new and exciting purpose for inservice education. It was during this era that John Dewey published his work, School and Society, This text became the impetus for the more venturesome authors and lecturers to inject new ideas into the inservice education programs. Harris (1980) commented about this era: "The urbanization of the United States brought about vocational education and other curricular changes that required inservice education even of 'fully prepared' teachers" (p. 26). The implementation of qualitative standards for teaching certificates drastically changed the focus of inservice education. Professors were forced away from the exploratory era and into an era of certification, as few teachers had more than two years of college. The certification movement required four years of college. This [certification] had a deleterious effect both on the institutions and on the teachers enrolled. Instead of planning for summer courses that were new and excit¬ ing to them, colleges and universities sought to iden¬ tify and offer old courses that teachers had not taken previously. (Tyler, 1971, p. 10) The lack of employment opportunities during the Great Depression pressured students to continue with their high school education and not drop out to work. However, these students did not have intentions of continuing their education past high school. As a result, new pressures were placed on high school staffs to improve student morale and to address curriculum changes to meet the needs of this new generation of high school students. Again, inservice education was chosen as the vehicle to infuse new curriculum ideas into the school systems. 14 The Sputnik and post-Sputnik era brought the federal government into the arena of education through the National Defense Education Act and subsequent educational study commissions. The federal controls and accountability requirements, coupled with commission recommendations, have continued to assure inservice education its reactive position. Harris (1980) observed, "Despite a long history of recognition as an essential part of the ongoing operation of the school program, inservice education seems constantly ensnared or diverted by less fundamental, but seemingly more urgent, development efforts" (p. 29). Effectiveness of Inservice Education The effectiveness of inservice education is always a concern of the facilitator. "However, inservice programs have not always been as effective as they should be" (Slater & Cibrowski, 1985, p. 25). Informal conversations with staff members in the Montana State University Agricul¬ ture and Technology Education Department indicate a perception that inservice education is experiencing declining attendance and interest. Shelhamer (1982) indicated that by and large vocational agriculture inservice education has been successful and cited several models that help assure an effective inservice presentation. Data presented by Pals and Burton (1989) supported the vocational agriculture inservice concept. "The teachers participating in the study agreed that a teacher inservice activity is an appropriate method for delivering information to teachers" (p. 132). Yet they also reported that "when the teachers were asked who should plan inservice activities, it was clear they perceived they should be involved in the planning" (p. 132). Daniels (1986) suggested that no 15 one is in a better position to know and understand the needs of inservice than a competent vocational agriculture instructor. However, Gamon and Burton (1987), in The Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculturet reported, "Neil (1985) found that 75% of teachers categorized inservice education experiences as 'fair to bad'" (P. 2). The mechanics for an effective inservice program, i.e., competent instructional practices, have been developed and proven. However, the underlying theme of recent inservice education articles indicates that inservice education may meet the need but not satisfy the learner. Therefore, it becomes apparent that other aspects of the inservice learner needs must be identified, such as temperament type and learning style. History of Types and Styles History shows the idea of personality types and learning styles was recognized as long ago as 400 years before Christ, when Hippocrates identified the Sanguine, Choleric, Phlegmatic, and Melancholic types. During this same time period, Aristotle's interest in how people learn led to his development of the mnemonic techniques of visual imagery and association, which are still in use today. Zeus, in Greek mythology, commissioned four gods to make man more god-like: Apollo (spirit), Prometheus (science), Dionysus (joy), and Epimethius (duty). Therefore, "He who worships Apollo (spirit) does not worship Prometheus (science) and who desires Dionysian joy (or release) is not content with Epimethean duty. We see that the four temperaments are different from each other in 16 very fundamental ways" (Keirsey & Bates, 1984, p. 29). The term "temper¬ ament," as used by Keirsey and Bates, is a more generic and encompassing descriptor which includes the component of learning style. Keirsey and Bates (1984) offered a succinct and chronological explan¬ ation of the development of temperament and style. A twentieth century notion, which probably evolved from growth of democracy in the Western world, is that people are fundamentally alike. Hence, we must all think alike because we are equals. Freud proposed the concept of singular motivation, "Eros," which are internally driven motives, with higher motives being masked Eros. However, Freud's Eros theory was not subscribed to by his colleagues and followers, although they did believe in the philosophy of a singular motivation. Adler believed our singular motivation is power, followed later by a need to provide for other satisfactions. Sullivan proposed social solidarity as the basic instinc¬ tive craving. The Existentialists (e.g., Fromm) believed in seeking after one's self. One primary instinct for everyone is the commonality proposed by these philosophies. Jungian theory, circa 1920, proposed people possess many of the same instincts (archetypes) which are driven from within, but people manifest these instincts differently in fundamental ways. Jung felt no one instinct was more important than another. However, those instincts chosen from within determine one's preference for functioning in varying situations. Thus, function preference determines the makeup of personal characteristics. It is from these personal characteristics that a person can be typed. Therefore, Jung is attributed with the invention of function types or psychological types. 17 In 1920, Adickes divided man into four world views: dogmatic, agnostic, traditional, and innovative. Kretschmer, in 1920, suggested that temperaments (similar to those identified by Adickes) were critical in determining abnormal behavior in some people. The temperaments identified by Kretschmer were: hyperesthetic (born too sensitive), anesthetic (born too insensitive), melancholic (born too serious), and hypomanic (born too excitable). Around 1920, Adler and Spranger each proposed a four-type theory to explain human behavior. Adler suggested traits, similar to Kretschmer's, which pointed to four "mistaken goals" people differing in makeup pursue when upset: recognition, power, service, and revenge. Spranger proposed four values that set people apart: religious, theoretic, economic, and artistic. Although temperaments had been recognized almost 25 centuries earlier, when Hippocrates identified choleric, phlegmatic, melancholic, and sanguine types, the early twentieth century found Adickes, Kretschmer, Adler, and Spranger each proposing four temperaments. These views, however, were short-lived. By the 1930's, dynamic psychology and behavior!st psychology had replaced the views of Hippocrates, Adickes, Kretschmer, Adler, and Spranger. The temperament idea had been aban¬ doned, replaced by the concept that behavior was determined by unconscious motives and/or past experiences. A revival of the idea of temperament in the 1950's was accidental. Isabel Myers dusted off Jung's book on psychological types and with her mother Katharine Briggs devised the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, a tool for identifying sixteen different patterns of action. The test was used so widely that it created international interest in the idea of types of people and revived interest in Jung's theory of psychological types. But it also revived interest in the ancient theory of four 18 temperaments because the sixteen Myers-Briggs types fell neatly into the four temperaments of Hippocrates, Adickes, Kretschmer, Spranger and Adler. (Keirsey & Bates, 1984, p. 3) Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Theory Jungian theory as applied to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Form G) has three key elements. Those are the dominant learning preference, the auxiliary preference, and the attitude preference. The dominant preference is that preference with which a person is most comfortable or considers most trustworthy when "acquiring information" or when "making decisions" (Myers, 1987, p. 7). The auxiliary preference is a polar opposite of the dominant preference and provides a balance, avoiding a one-dimensional personality (Lawrence, 1982). The attitudinal preference describes "how you like to focus your attention: on the outer or inner world" (Myers, 1987, p. 5). "The preferences affect not only what people attend to in any given situation, but also how they draw conclusions about what they perceive" (Myers & McCaully, 1988, p. 2). "In Jung's theory, all conscious mental activity can be classified into four mental processes -- two perception processes: sensing and intuition; and two judgment processes: thinking and feeling" (Lawrence, 1982, p. 93). One of these four processes of sensing (S), intuition (N), thinking (T), or feeling (F) determine a person's dominant preference. If a perception process (sensing or intuition) is the dominant prefer¬ ence, then a judging process (thinking or feeling) is the auxiliary preference. The converse is true if a judging process is the dominant preference (i.e., a perception process will then be auxiliary). Which 19 process is dominant and which is auxiliary is determined by a person's preference choice for the perceiving or the judging process. "So you can see that your dominant and auxiliary functions balance and complement each other -- one is used to supply you with information, and the other to make decisions based on that information" (Myers, 1987, p. 7). "The JP [judgment/perception] scale is concerned with the point at which a person concludes that evidence is sufficient and a decision can be made" (Myers & McCaully, 1988, p. 208). If your preference is P, then "type theory predicts that the perceptive attitude will be associated with spontaneity, adaptability, curiosity, and openness to new ideas" (p. 208), and if your preference is J, then "in theory, characteristics associated with preference for the judging attitude are decisiveness, desire for control, order, dependability, and conscientiousness" (p. 208). Myers and McCaully (1988) explain that "the importance of judgment and perception was implicit in Jung's work, and was made explicit by Isabel Myers and Katharine Briggs in the development of the MBTI" (p. 13). The third element of Jung's psychological types is extroversion (E) or introversion (I). "In type theory, extroversion is an outward atti¬ tude in which energy flows to the environment" (Myers & McCaully, 1988, p. 176). "Introversion in type theory is a neutral term, referring to an inward-turning attitude, more concerned with inner than outer realities" (p. 206). El "affects choices as to whether to direct percept ion-judgment mainly on the outer world (E) or mainly on the world of ideas (I)" (p. 2). The dominant process is the best introduction to a person: it tells the most about that person's person¬ ality. Extroverts, by definition, reveal their best 20 first. What you see is what you get. Introverts, reserving their best for the inner world, their favored world, reveal mainly their auxiliary process to others. (Lawrence, 1982, p. 95) The perception or judgment preference directs which of the four functions is dominant and which is auxiliary. In turn, perception or judgment preferences also determine extroversion or introversion. Note the following assumption of the MBTI. "If the dominant function is typically extroverted, the other three functions will be typically intro¬ verted. If the dominant function is typically introverted, the other three functions are typically extroverted" (Myers & McCaully, 1988, p. 16). The factors which influence the four Jungian functions have been identified and the relationship of each described. The specific roles and descriptions of the four preferences are described below. The Sensing/Intuitive (SN) Type The SN type describes how information is derived. Sensing [S] perception, as described by Myers and McCaully (1988, p. 107), "is perception by way of the senses and therefore is concerned with awareness of present realities." According to Myers (1987, p. 5), "Your eyes, ears, and other senses tell you what is actually there and actually happening, both inside and outside of yourself." Sensing types are "practical people whose close attention to data provided by the senses makes them well attuned to immediate experiences, the literal facts at hand, the concrete realities" (Lawrence, 1982, p. 93). Intuitive (N) perception involves "the process of possibilities, patterns, symbols, and abstractions" (Myers & McCaully, 1988, p. 207). 21 It "shows you the meanings, relationships and possibilities that go beyond the information from your senses" (Myers, 1987, p. 5). With intuitive types, "consciousness is mainly filled with the meanings, associations, abstractions, theories, and imagined possibilities that do not depend directly on senses. Above all else, they believe in intuitive insights and imagination to set life's directions" (Lawrence, 1982, p. 93). The Thinkino/Feelino (IF) Type The TF type describes the decision making process. "In theory, thinking [T] should be associated with analytical, logical, skeptical approaches to problems, and to a coolness or distance in interpersonal relationships" (Myers & McCaully, 1988, p. 207). Thinking types "seek rational order and plan according to impersonal logic" (Myers, 1987, p. 13). "When you use thinking you decide objectively, on the basis of cause and effect, and make decisions by analyzing and weighing the evidence, even including the unpleasant facts" (Myers, 1987, p. 60). "Feeling [F] judgments are judgments made on the basis of subjective values rather than analysis or logic" (Myers & McCaully, 1988, p. 208). The feeling type "considers what is important to you or to other people (without requiring that it be logical), and decides on the basis of person-centered values" (Myers, 1987, p. 6). Feeling types "are more alert to the humane issues in any situation" (Lawrence, 1982, p. 93). The Four Preferences "The key to the dynamics of the theory lies in the assumption that the four functions pull in different directions" (Myers & McCaully, 1988, p. 13). 22 According to theory [Jungian], by definition, one pole of each of the four preferences is preferred over the other pole for each of the sixteen MBTI types. The preference on each index is independent of preferences for the other three indices, so that the four indices yield sixteen possible combinations called 'types,' denoted by the four letters of the preferences (e.g., ESTJ, INFP). (Myers & McCaully, 1988, p. 2) Using an ESTJ (extroverted, sensing, thinking, with judgment) type for an example, then it follows that the dominant and auxiliary prefer¬ ences are determined by the middle two letters. Therefore, the dominant preference will be T (thinking), because the last index is J (judgment). T is one of the two judgment processes, whereas S is not. If the last index had been P (perception), then the dominant preference would have been S (sensing) because S is one of the two perception processes and T is not. By assumption of the MBTI, if E (extroversion) is dominant, then S, T, and J are introverted. The opposite is also true; if I (intro¬ version) is dominant, then the other three indices are extroversions (E). Note that extrovert and introvert do not denote outgoingness or shyness, respectively, but the terms are derived from Latin roots. The Latin root for extroversion means "outward-turning" and for introversion means "inward-turning" (Lawrence, 1982). Population Description Keirsey and Bates (1984) reported the following expected general population distributions of the indices: "E-75% versus 1-25%, S-75% versus N-25%, T-50% versus F-50%, and J-50% versus P-50%" (p. 25). They further reported the following distribution of temperament types in "school personnel" versus "pupils and general population": "SJ -- 56% 23 versus 38%; NF -- 36% versus 12%; NT -- 6% versus 12%; and SP -- 2% versus 38%" (p. 155). Learning Preferences bv MBTI Indices When reporting about how students learn, Myers and McCaully (1988) included MBTI findings of other researchers. These findings, by MBTI indices, were as follows. Extroverts (E) enjoy group learning, whereas introverts (I) do not find group learning as helpful. Extroverts, within these groups, do not perceive introverts as active participants. Sensing (S) types prefer television and audiovisuals, and may benefit from having them repeated. Laboratory exercises and demonstrations are helpful. The exception is in experiential laboratories, where memoriza¬ tion is usually easy. However, these students tend to be slower in generalizing from examples to concepts or from readings to real life. Generally, they set modest academic goals, strive to achieve these goals by planning their time and by systematically working toward their goals. Intuitive (N) types prefer to study on their own initiative, use self-paced learning, and favor examinations that include essay questions. Intuitive types feel they will achieve higher grades because they see themselves as being academically superior students. Collegiate faculty report they perceive intuitive types as being more insightful by comments made during class. Thinking (T) types prefer structured courses such as lectures and demonstrations which complement their preference for objectivity and logical order. 24 Feeling (F) types prefer working on group projects and human rela¬ tions laboratories. There is a likelihood that feeling types will report that their studies are disrupted by their social life. Judging (J) types prefer materials that are presented in an orderly and logical manner, such as workbooks, lectures, or demonstrations. They choose to schedule their work time efficiently and to complete assign¬ ments on schedule. They also report finding study skill workshops beneficial. Perceptive (P) types often report they are late starting assignments, let work accumulate, and find themselves cramming for a deadline. Perceptive types are seen as more open and effective in identifying issues in experiential workshops. As Myers predicted, the largest number of differences are between S and N. Sensing types appear to like and do better in laboratory activities that teach specific content (for example, mathematics) in an organized way. Intuitive types like human relations laboratories, where flexibility and understanding of nuances of behavior are required. (Myers & McCaully, 1988, p. 131) Reliability and Validity Myers and McCaully (1988), in addressing reliability, noted, "Since acquisition of good judgment is postulated to be the most difficult to develop, the TF index is expected to be particularly vulnerable to deficiencies in type development" (p. 164). Results reported indicate this is true, although not to the extent the reliability of the instru¬ ment is compromised. Split-half reliability shows the Form G MBTI to be reliable with up to 25 omissions (Myers & McCaully, 1988). Internal validity for the four 25 MBTI scales is acceptable for adults. Reliabilities show a tendency to be lower for teens but increase with adult populations. The MBTI has a .87 test-retest reliability. Survey Instrument "Effective Inservice," the instrument developed for this research, was constructed to gather data addressing the acceptance of innovative ideas, effects of different teaching approaches, and preferred content packaging techniques. The instrument utilized choices from one of four learning domains. Each of these domains represents a particular learning style as identified by its developer: Rezler, Kolb, Keirsey and Bates, Gregorc and Butler, Myers and Briggs (Jung), and Ehrenwald. It is interesting to note that Ehrenwald (1984) shows there is an inter¬ relationship between the bipolar quadrants of the works of Jung, Kolb, and Gregorc. Part I of the "Effective Inservice" instrument drew information from "The Rezler Learning Preference Inventory" by Agnes G. Rezler. The intent of Rezler's instrument was to determine conditions or situations which facilitated learning by describing how one learns. Rezler (1981) indicated her instrument had been developed in research with medical students, as had the instrument developed by Kolb in 1974. She further noted that the majority of participants agreed the results from this instrument reflected how they learn best. Rezler's instrument provides six response choices following a state¬ ment about a learning situation or environment. Each response, which is rank ordered, represents one of Rezler's six learning domains: 26 (1) Abstract (AB): Preference for learning theories, general principles, concepts, and general hypothe¬ sis. (2) Concrete (CO): Preference for learning tangible, specific, practical tasks and skills. (3) Teacher-Structured (TS): Preference for well organized, teacher-directed classes, with clear expectations, assignments, and goals defined by teacher. (4) Student-Structured (SS): Preference for learner¬ generated tasks, autonomy, and self-direction. (5) Interpersonal (IP): Preference for learning or working with others; emphasis on harmonious rela¬ tions between students and teacher and among students. (6) Individual (IN): Preference for learning or working alone, with emphasis on self-reliance and tasks which are solitary, such as reading. (Rezler, 1981, p. 109) Part II of the "Effective Inservice" instrument was a series of 16 forced choice responses drawn from the works of Keirsey and Bates, Kolb, Gregorc and Butler, Ehrenwald, and Myers and Briggs. Keirsey, a clinical psychologist, has incorporated into his practice the Oungian Theory of Psychological Types and the measuring of types developed by Isabel Myers. Keirsey coauthored Please Understand Me, a book which describes practical application of Jung's theory. Keirsey and Bates (1984) identified four learning styles which are based on MBTI typology. These learning style combinations appear to have consistency in description and predictability. They are: (1) SJ (sensing judgment): Focus is on product, is out¬ put oriented. (2) SP (sensing perception): Focus is acting in the world, doing without constraints and freedom. (3) NF (intuitive feeling): Focus is on personal inter¬ actions. 27 (4) NT (intuitive thinking): Focus is power and control through knowledge. (Keirsey & Bates, 1984, pp. 121- 128) Kolb (1984) stated: Drawing from the intellectual origins of experiential learning in the works of John Dewey, Kurt Lewin and Jean Piaget, this book [Experiential Learning] describes the process of experiential learning and proposes a model of the underlying structure of the learning process based on research in psychology, philosophy and physiology. (p. xl) Kolb developed the Learning Style Inventory (LSI) which is a 12-item, ranked choice instrument. Each of the four responses represents a choice from one of the four stages in the "Cycle of Learning from Experience." The four stages are: (1) Concrete Experience (CE): Learning from feeling. (2) Reflection Observation (RO): Learning by watching and listening. (3) Abstract Conceptualization (AC): Learning by thinking. (4) Active Experimentation (AE): Learning by doing. (Kolb, 1985, p. 5) However, the above four stages do not adequately explain individual learning styles. The LSI measures a person's relative emphasis on each of the four modes of the learning process -- CE, RO, AC, and AE -- plus two combination scores that indicate the extent to which the person emphasizes abstractness over concreteness (AC-CE) and the extent to which the person emphasizes action over reflection (AE-RO). (Kolb, 1984, p. 68) These scores are then used to identify which of the four learning- style types one prefers. 28 (1) Converger: Combines learning steps of Abstract Conceptualization and Active Experimentation. This style is best at finding practical uses for ideas and theories. (2) Diverger: Combines learning steps of Concrete Experience and Reflective Observation. This learn¬ ing style is best at viewing concrete situations from many different approaches. (3) Assimilator: Combines learning steps of Abstract Conceptualization and Reflective Observation. This style is best at understanding a wide range of information and putting into concise and logical form. (4) Accommodator: Combines learning steps of Concrete Experience and Active Experimentation. This style has the ability to learn primarily from hands-on experience. (Kolb, 1985, p. 7) Gregorc (1982) is an internationally recognized authority on mediation abilities and styles. Through phenomenological research methodology, i.e., "analyzing] outer behaviors in order to discover the inner driving forces" (p. 45), he has identified four mediation channels of learning style characteristics: (1) Concrete Sequential (CS): Relate best to the physical, hands-on world. (2) Concrete Random (CR): Relate to the real world, especially the world of unsolved, real problems. (3) Abstract Sequential (AS): Relate to the world through ideas and concepts. (4) Abstract Random (AR): Relate best to the world through emotions, feelings and inner dialogue. (Gregorc, 1982) Butler (1986) published several books which identify teaching mater¬ ials and techniques developed for use in conjunction with Gregorc's four 29 mediation channels. Her materials provide practical examples and appli¬ cation techniques of Gregorc's theory. It was from these materials that examples of instructional methods were developed for the instrument used in this research. Ehrenwald (1984) reviewed the findings of other learning style researchers and found a striking similarity in their findings and theories. She took the works of Kolb, Jung, Gregorc, and others and superimposed their findings onto Kolb's model of learning styles. Ehrenwald then combined the major findings from the various learning style researchers and reported the findings in her own four learning style categories: (1) Style One: Innovative Learners, seek meaning. (2) Style Two: Analytic Learners, seek facts. (3) Style Three: Common Sense Learners, seek usability. (4) Style Four: Dynamic Learners, seek hidden possibil¬ ities. (Ehrenwald, 1984, pp. 37-43) Summary Inservice education was originally implemented for what were essen¬ tially remedial purposes. Inservice education experienced a new purpose with the cultural and ethnic changes brought about through immigration into America. There was now an opportunity to discuss and inject new ideas into the classroom through inservice education. However, with the advent of teacher certification requirements, the focus of inservice was redirected to assist practicing teachers in meeting certification requirements. Inservice has continued to adapt with the time and is now used as a method to update and introduce teachers to new and current 30 trends. However, there are indications from the participants of inservice education that inservice may be meeting the content needs but not satisfying the participants' learning needs. As long as 400 years ago, Hippocrates identified four personality types while attempting to explain the differences in people. However, there was little interest in the concept of personality type and learning styles until the 1920's when Jung introduced his theory of four tempera¬ ment types. During the following 10 years, more research and theories were introduced supporting the concept of temperament types. Behaviorist theories subsequently replaced temperament theories until, in the 1950's, Myers and Briggs reintroduced Jungian theory by developing the Myers- Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) instrument. Since the introduction of the MBTI there has been continued interest in temperament types. As a result, several different temperament type theories and measuring instru¬ ments have been developed. For this study, a questionnaire was developed to measure Montana vocational agriculture instructors' preferences for learning techniques as well as their preferences for instructional methods, instructional materials, learning methods, and packaging of teaching materials within specific new curriculum areas. This questionnaire drew from the works and findings on temperament types by Rezler, Keirsey and Bates, Myers and Briggs, Kolb, Gregorc, and Ehrenwald. Examples of teaching materials used in the questionnaire were developed from the work of Gregorc and Butler, who have identified teaching materials for each of the learning styles. The results of research by Ehrenwald (1984) show there is an inter-relationship among temperament types. 31 I CHAPTER 3 RESULTS OF THE STUDY Introduction The purposes of this study were to: (1) determine MBTI type, (2) determine preferred techniques for delivery of inservice education, and (3) determine preference for packaging of curriculum materials. To seek answers to the questions growing out of these purposes, data were collected through two separate mailed survey questionnaires to Montana vocational agriculture instructors. The data collected from the question¬ naires are presented under the following headings: (1) response rate, (2) demographic data, (3) MBTI types among survey respondents, (4) learn¬ ing preference data, and (5) curriculum packaging. Response Rate A total of 74 Montana vocational agriculture instructors received a Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) instrument and the Effective Inservice survey questionnaire. Of the 74 MBTI instruments mailed, 66 were returned, resulting in an 89.2% return rate. Fifty-one of the 74 Effec¬ tive Inservice survey questionnaires were returned, for a return rate of 68.9%. Four of these instruments were not usable because the coding number had been marked out. There was no way to correlate the learning style to the responses. Not all responses on the 47 remaining instruments 32 were usable. Those questions which were correctly completed were included in the data analysis. Demographic Data A profile of the Montana vocational agriculture instructor was developed based on the responses to the demographic questions. He/she has an enrollment of 44 students, has nine years teaching experience, is 35 years of age, and has a bachelors degree plus an additional 17 credits. The data in Table 1 show that 48.9% of the instructors had enroll¬ ments of 10 to 40 students. Examination of teacher learning style and enrollment data of 10 to 40 students reveals that 100% of the NF's (intuitive/feeling), 62.5% of the NT's (intuitive/thinking), 52.0% of the SJ's (sensing/judgment), and 30.7% of the SP's (sensing/perception) taught in these programs. Teaching in programs with student enrollments of 41 to 70 students were 53.8% of the SP's, 40.0% of the SJ's, and 37.5% of the NT's. The two programs with enrollments of 71 to 100 students had 1 SP (7.6%) and 1 SJ (4.0%) teaching in each program. For the two programs with enrollments over 100, there were also 1 SP (7.6%) and 1 SJ (4.0%) teaching in each category. Further analysis of the data reveals that the SP's and SJ's were evenly distributed throughout the programs whereas the NT's were represented in enrollments of 70 or less. The NF data were inadequate to provide a conclusion (N=l). 33 Table 1. Comparison of Montana vocational agriculture instructors' learning styles to program enrollments. Enrollment Total Learnina Stvle* SJ SP NT NF No. % No. % No. % No. % No . % 10-40 23 48.9 13 52.0 4 30.7 5 62.5 1 100 41 - 70 20 42.5 10 40.0 7 53.8 3 37.5 0 0 71 - 100 2 4.2 1 4.0 1 7.6 0 0 0 0 101 + 2 4.2 1 4.0 1 7.6 0 0 0 0 *SJ = sensing/judgment; SP = sensing/perception; NT = intuitive/thinking; NF = intuitive/feeling. The data reported in Table 2 reveal that 37.5% of the Montana vocational agriculture instructors had 1 to 5 years teaching experience, with a distribution by learning style of 40.0% SJ's, 38.4% SP's, 33.3% NT's, and no NF's. Twenty-five percent of the instructors fell in the 6 to 10 years experience range; 1 was an NF (100%), 44.4% were NT's, 30.7% were SP's, and 12.0% were SJ's. The total instructors having 11 to 15 years teaching experience was 16.6%; of these, 24.0% were SJ's and 15.3% were SP's. There were 14.5% of the instructors with 16 to 20 years of experience; 22.2% were NT's, 15.3% were SP's, and 12.0% were SJ's. The 21 to 25 years teaching experience category was comprised of 2 (4.1%) instructors, both of whom were SJ's (8.0%). One SJ (4.0%) instructor has taught for 25 to 30 years. It is interesting to note there is not an SP or NT learning style instructor who has taught for over 20 years. NF data were insufficient to warrant a conclusion. 34 Table 2. Comparison of Montana vocational agriculture instructors' learning styles to years of experience. Years Teaching Experience Total Learnina Stvle* SJ SP NT NF No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 1 - 5 18 37.5 10 40.0 5 38.4 3 33.3 0 0 6 - 10 12 25.0 3 12.0 4 30.7 4 44.4 1 100 11 - 15 8 16.6 6 24.0 2 15.3 0 0 0 0 16 - 20 7 14.5 3 12.0 2 15.3 2 22.2 0 0 21 - 25 2 4.1 2 8.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 - 30 1 2.0 1 4.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *SJ = sensing/judgment; SP = sensing/perception; NT = intuitive/thinking; NF = intuitive/feeling. The data in Table 3 reveal age distribution as compared to learning style. The SJ style was distributed from 20 years of age to 55 years of age. The exception is within the 31 to 35 years of age category where there was an absence of SJ's. The highest percentage of SJ's was within the 26 to 30 and 36 to 40 years of age categories, with 27.2% in each area. The SP style was distributed from 20 years of age to 50 years of age, with the highest percentage falling in the 31 to 35 years of age category, accounting for 30.7% of the SP's. The distribution of NT's ranged from 20 to 45 years of age. The highest percentage of NT's (37.5%) fell within the 31 to 35 years of age grouping. The only NF reporting was in the 56 to 60 years of age category. 35 Table 3. Learning style distribution of Montana vocational agriculture instructors by age. Age Total Learnina Stvle* SJ SP NT NF No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 20 - 25 7 15.2 2 9.0 2 15.3 1 12.5 0 0 26 - 30 11 23.9 6 27.2 3 23.0 2 25.0 0 0 31 - 35 7 15.2 0 0 4 30.7 3 37.5 0 0 36 - 40 9 19.5 6 27.2 2 15.3 1 12.5 0 0 41 - 45 6 13.0 4 18.1 1 7.6 1 12.5 0 0 46 - 50 3 6.5 2 9.0 1 7.6 0 0 0 0 51 - 55 2 4.3 2 9.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 - 60 1 2.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 61 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *SJ = sensing/judgment; SP = sensing/perception; NT = intuitive/thinking; NF = intuitive/feeling. The information in Table 4 reveals that 72.9% of the respondents had a minimum of a bachelor of science degree; 27.0% of the respondents reported having a masters degree. At the bachelors degree level, all four learning styles had representation in the +15 credits, +30 credits, and other credits categories. Other credits are any credits that do not equal 15 or 30 credits. A masters degree +15 credits was reported by 1 SP (25.0%) and 1 SJ (14.2%). One NT (50.0%) reported +30 credits. 36 Table 4. Learning styles of Montana vocational agriculture instructors compared to their education level. Degree Total Learnina Stvlea SJ SP NT NF No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Bachelor of Science 35 72.9 18 72.0 9 69.2 7 11J 1 100 +15 credits? 13 37.1 7 38.8 3 33.3 2 28.5 1 100 +30 credits0 . 7 20.0 3 16.6 1 11.1 3 42.8 0 0 Other credits0 15 42.8 8 44.4 5 55.5 2 28.5 0 0 Master of Science 13 27.0 7 28.0 4 30.7 2 22.2 0 0 +15 credits? 2 15.3 1 14.2 1 25.0 0 0 0 0 +30 credits0 . 1 7.6 0 0 0 0 1 50.0 0 0 Other credits0 10 76.9 6 85.7 3 75.0 1 50.0 0 0 aSJ ■ sensing/judgment; SP = sensing/perception; NT = intuitive/think¬ ing; NF = intuitive/feeling. “Percentages for credits were calculated based on the total N for the bachelors or masters degree. MBTI Types Among Survey Respondents The data in Table 5 show that 12 of the 16 possible temperament types are found among the Montana vocational agriculture instructors responding to the survey. These 12 types were ISTJ (introversion/sensing/thinking/ judging), ISFJ (introversion/sensing/feeling/judging), INTO (introversion/ intuition/thinking/judging), ISTP (introversion/sensing/thinking/percep¬ tive), ISFP (introversion/sensing/feeling/perceptive), INTP (introversion/ intuition/thinking/perceptive), ESTP (extroversion/sensing/thinking/ perceptive), ESFP (extroversion/sensing/feeling/perceptive), ENTP (extro¬ version/intuition/thinking/perceptive) , ESTJ (extroversion/sensing/ 37 thinking/judging), ENFJ (extroversion/intuition/feeling/judging), andENTJ (extroversion/intuition/thinking/judging). ISTJ's (N=17) and ESTJ's (N=17) were the most prevalent temperament types, accounting for 51.4% (25.7% + 25.7%) of the reporting population. Evaluation of the data shows there were more introverted types (N=35: 17+5+3+5+3+2) than there were extroverted types (N=31: 6+1+1+17+1+5), which is inconsistent with data for vocational agriculture instructors by MBTI type as reported by Foster and Horner (1988). All other temperament type indices appear to be within the norm when considering the size of the population surveyed (N=66). Table 5. Frequency by MBTI temperament type of Montana vocational agriculture instructors. Temperament Style* No. Percent ISTJ 17 25.7 ISFJ 5 7.5 INTO 3 4.5 ISTP 5 7.5 ISFP 3 4.5 INTP 2 3.0 ESTP 6 9.0 ESFP 1 1.5 ENTP 1 1.5 ESTJ 17 25.7 ENFJ 1 1.5 ENTJ _5 7.5 Totals 66 99.4 temperament Styles: ISTJ*1ntrovers1on/sens 1ng/th1nking/judging I$FJ*1ntrovers1on/sensing/fee11ng/judg1ng INTJ=1ntrovers1on/1ntu1t1on/think1ng/judging ■ ISIP*1ntrovers1on/sens 1ng/thinking/perceptive ISFP*1ntrovers1on/sens 1ng/fee11ng/percept1ve INTP=1ntrovers1on/intuit1on/th1nking/perceptive ESTP=extrovers 1on/sens 1ng/th1nk1ng/percept1ve ESFP=extroversion/sensing/fee11ng/percept1ve ENTP=extroversIon/1ntu1tion/th1nk1ng/percept1ve ESTJ=extroverslon/sens 1ng/thinking/judg1ng ENFJ*extrovers 1on/1ntu111on/fee11ng/judg1ng ENTJ=extrovers1on/1ntu1tlon/think1ng/judg1ng 38 The frequency of learning styles of Montana vocational agriculture instructors is reflected in the data presented in Table 6. The SJ (N=39) temperament type represents 59% of the population. These findings are consistent with findings of Keirsey and Bates (1984), who predict 56% of the SJ's would favor agriculture as a teaching area. However, these data are again inconsistent with data gathered by Foster and Horner (1988), who reported "no disproportionate ratios among temperament types were observed in the Western region" (p. 23). Compared to the data of Foster and Horner (1988, p. 24), the data gathered in this research yields the following comparisons: SJ's, 59.0% (versus 66.67% reported by Foster and Horner); SP's, 22.7% (versus 3.92%); NT's, 16.6% (versus 21.57%); and NF's, 1.5% (versus 7.84). The most notable disparity between the results of this research and that of Foster and Horner focuses on the SP temperament type. The present research reflects 18.78% more SP temperament types in Montana than the 3.92% reported by Foster and Horner for the Western region. The NF data are considered inconclusive because of the low frequency response (N=l). Table 6. Frequency of Montana vocational agriculture instructors by learning style. Style* No. Percent SJ 39 59.0 SP 15 22.7 NT 11 16.6 NF _1 1.5 Totals 66 99.8 *SJ = sensing/judgment; SP = sensing/perception; NT = intuitive/thinking; NF =intuitive/feeling. 39 Learning Preference Data The data in Tables 7 through 12 were generated from responses to a series of questions regarding preferences for learning which the Montana vocational agriculture instructors were asked to rank order. The most preferred choice was a ranking of 1, and the least preferred was a ranking of 6. Therefore, the lower the mean value, the higher the preference for that response. When there was a tie in mean values, each mean was ranked with equal values. The next ascending value was omitted. The NF (N=l) data were omitted because the respondent's questionnaire was improperly completed. The data in Table 7 show that the preference for learning during an inservice workshop is to "work with something tangible" (x = 1.85), while "working with others" (x = 2.83) ranked second. The least preferred ways to learn in an inservice workshop were "work on my own" (x = 4.31) and "organize things in my own way" (x = 4.23). NT's (x = 1.37) and SP's (x = 1.69) preferred to "work with something tangible," whereas SJ's (x = 2.00) preferred to "work with others." The data in Table 8 indicate that inservice evaluation "should be based on clearly specified objectives/competencies" (x * 2.02). This was consistent within the three learning styles: (NT's, x = 1.5; SP's, x = 2.00; and SJ's, x * 2.23). The second choice ranking reveals evaluation "should consist of a practical examination dealing with skills" (x = 2.23). This, too, was consistent within the learning styles (NT's, x = 1.87; SP's, x = 2.15; and SJ's, x = 2.42). The least preferred ranking by SP's (x = 4.92) and SJ's (x = 4.47) was "an examination dealing mainly 40 with written concepts" (x = 4.69). The NT's indicated the least preferred evaluation method was "should not interfere with good relationships between the teacher and student" (x = 5.12). Table 7. Preferred methods of learning in an inservice workshop by Montana vocational agriculture instructors. Learnlno Stvlea , Total SJ SP NT (N=42) (N=21) (N*13l (N=8l Statement Rb x SO Rb x SO Rb x SO Rb x SO 1. How would you prefer to learn In an Inservice workshop? a. Work on my own 6 4.31 1.53 5 4.38 1.43 5 3.92 1.89 6 4.75 1.16 b. Work .with something tangible 1 1.85 0.89 2 2.14 1.01 1 1.69 0.75 1 1.37 0.51 c. Focus on Ideas and concepts 4 4.00 1.79 4 4.14 1.62 5 3.92 2.01 4 3.75 2.05 d. Organize things In my own way 5 4.23 1.14 6 4.52 1.03 3 3.84 1.14 5 4.12 1.35 e. Work with others 2 2.83 1.63 1 2.00 1.37 2 3.76 1.53 2 3.50 1.41 f. Work on clear-cut assignments 3 3.76 1.66 3 3.81 1.72 3 3.84 1.67 2 3.50 1.69 aSJ = sensing/judgment; SP = sensing/perception; NT = Intuitive/thinking bR Indicates the rankings of the means (x), with 1 being the most Important; tied means are ranked equal. Table 8. Preferred methods Of evaluation in an inservice course by Montana vocational agriculture instructors. - Learnlnq Stvlea Total SJ SP NT (N=42) (N=21) (N=13l (N=8) Statement Rb X SO Rb X so Rb X SD Rb X SO 2. How would you prefer to be evalu- ated In a course? a. Should be assembled from ques- tlons provided by the learners b. Should focus on Individual 4 4.21 1.26 5 4.09 1.33 5 4.15 1.34 4 4.62 0.91 performance rather than group performance 3 3.61 1.34 3 3.81 1.56 3 3.69 1.18 3 3.00 0.75 c. Should consist of an examination dealing mainly with written concepts 6 4.69 1.25 6 4.47 1.43 6 4.92 1.11 5 4.87 0.99 d. Should consist of a practical examination dealing with skills e. Should be based on clearly sped- 2 2.23 1.16 2 2.42 1.24 2 2.15 1.21 2 1.87 0.83 fled objectives/competencies f. Should not Interfere with good 1 2.02 1.22 1 2.23 1.30 1 2.00 1.29 1 1.50 0.75 relationships between teacher and students. 4 4.21 1.93 4 3.95 2.06 4 4.07 1.97 6 5.12 1.35 aSJ * sensing/judgment; SP * sensing/perception; NT * Intuitive/thinking. bR Indicates the rankings of the means (x), with 1 being the most Important; tied means are ranked equal. 41 The data recorded in Table 9 show the preference of respondents when learning new material. For the two choices, "have a knowledgeable instructor discuss the theory upon which a practice is built" (x = 2.70) and "get specific course objectives from the instructor and a clear understanding of what will occur in the course" (x = 2.70), SJ's (x = 2.60) and SP's (x = 2.84) ranked a knowledgeable instructor first. NT's (x = 1.57) ranked specific course objectives first. "Study alone instead of studying with someone else" was the least preferred approach to learning new materials by all learning styles (x = 4.87). The rankings by learning style were: SJ's, x = 5.15; NT's, x = 4.71; and SP's, x = 4.53. Table 9. Preference for learning new material by Montana vocational agriculture instructors. Total fN=40l SJ fN=20l Learnino Stvlea SP (N=13) NT (N=7) Statement Rb X SD Rb X SD Rb X SD Rb X SD 1. What Is your preference when learning new material? a. Study alone instead of studying with someone else 6 4.87 1.50 6 5.15 1.22 6 4.53 1.80 5 4.71 1.70 b. Perform a specific task c. Have a knowledgeable instructor discuss the theory upon which a 4 3.27 1.37 4 3.35 1.49 2 3.23 1.30 3 3.14 1.34 practice is built, d. Determine my own approach and 1 2.70 1.63 1 2.60 1.50 1 2.84 1.86 2 2.71 1.79 proceed accordingly, e. Join a group of learners to 5 4.30 1.20 5 4.50 1.10 5 3.76 1.42 5 4.71 0.75 study together and share ideas, f. Get specific course objectives from the Instructor and a clear understanding of what will occur 3 3.15 1.77 2 2.65 1.69 4 3.38 1.89 4 4.14 1.46 in the course. 1 2.70 1.55 3 2.75 1.43 2 3.23 1.73 1 1.57 0.78 aSJ * sensing/judgment; SP * sensing/perception; NT = Intuitive/thinking indicates the rankings of the means (x), with 1 being the most important; tied means are ranked equal. The data in Table 10 reveal the value of inservice to participants as a method of learning. According to the respondents, the most preferred method of learning was to "engage in an Internship or practicum" (x » 2.22); the second choice was to "prepare a project with other students" (x> 2.27). Internships and practicums were preferred by NT's (x * 1.37), whereas a project with other students was the first choice of SJ's (x * 2.13) and SP's (x * 2.53). The least desirable method of learning for NT's (x - 5.37) and SJ's (x * 4.78) was to "prepare your own outline." SP's ranked "study a textbook or resource book" (x * 4.23) the least desirable method of learning. Table 10. Preference for method of learning by Montana vocational agriculture instructors. Total fN-441 SJ (N-231 Learn 1no Stvlea SP (N-131 NT (N=8) Statement Rb X SD Rb X SO Rb x SO Rb X SO 1. Rank the following In terms of their value to you as a method of learning. a. Study a textbook or resource book 4 4.18 1.61 4 3.95 1.77 6 4.23 1.64 5 4.75 1.03 b. Engage In an Internship or prac- tlcum 1 2.22 1.46 2 2.30 1.52 2 2.61 1.55 1 1.37 0.74 c. Prepare a project with other • students 2 2.27 1.42 1 2.13 1.32 1 2.53 1.89 2 2.25 0.70 d. Search for reasons to explain occurrences 5 4.29 1.13 5 4.60 1.07 5 4.15 1.14 3 3.62 1.06 e. Follow an outline or task sheet prepared by the Instructor 3 3.50 1.48 3 3.21 1.38 4 3.92 1.44 3 3.62 1.84 f. Prepare your own outline 6 4.52 1.50 6 4.78 1.12 3 3.53 1.94 6 5.37 0.74 aSJ -sensing/judgment; SP ■ sensing/perception; NT * Intuitive/thinking. Indicates the rankings of the means (x), with 1 being the most Important; tied means are ranked ■ equal. What caused the respondents to maximize learning during inservice training is addressed in Table 11. "The instructor gave me many practical concrete examples" (x * 2.00) was ranked first. Respondents in all three learning styles were in agreement (NT's, x * 1.83; SJ's, x « 1.95; and SP's, x * 2.15). All respondents ranked "the teacher clearly explained the relationships between different approaches to a subject" (x » 3.15) 43 as their second choice in order to maximize learning. Only NT's (x = 2.50) ranked this teaching method as second. SJ's ranked "the instructor made clear and definite assignments/tasks and I knew what was expected" (x * 3.00) as their second choice, whereas SP's ranked second "the instructor encouraged me to work independently" (x * 3.61). The least preferred teaching method to maximize learning occurred when "the instruc¬ tor encouraged me to work independently" (x * 4.62). The rankings by both SJ's (x * 5.14) and NT's (x = 5.00) supported this. However, SP's (x = 3.61) ranked "the instructor encouraged me to work independently" as their second choice. The least desirable teaching method for SP's was "the instructor seemed to be interested in the students as individuals" (x - 4.00). Table 11. Maximizing learning during inservice education by Montana • vocational agriculture teachers. ~ ' Learning Style3 Total SJ SP NT (N=44) (N*21) (N=13l (N=6l Statement Rb x SO Rb x SO Rb x SD Rb x SD 1. What caused you to maximize learning during Inservice training? a. The Instructor gave me many prac¬ tical concrete examples. 1 2.00 1.30 1 1.95 1.39 1 2.15 1.40 1 1.83 0.75 b. The Instructor let me set my own goals & try different approaches to reach them. 5 4.15 1.47 5 4.14 1.79 5 4.00 1.08 5 4.50 1.04 c. The Instructor encouraged me to work independently. 6 4.62 1.48 6 5.14 1.06 2 3.61 1.71 6 5.00 1.26 d. The Instructor seemed to be Interested in students as individuals. 4 3.82 1.23 4 3.71 1.27 6 4.00 1.29 4 3.83 1.16 e. The teacher clearly explained the relationships between dif¬ ferent approaches to a subject. 2 3.15 1.52 3 3.04 1.11 3 3.61 1.93 2 2.50 1.76 f. The Instructor made clear and definite assignments/tasks, and I knew what was expected. 3 3.25 1.91 2 3.00 1.70 3 3.61 2.21 3 3.33 2.16 aSJ ■ sensing/judgment; SP * sensing/perception; NT ■ Intuitive/thinking. bR indicates the rankings of the means (x), with 1 being the most Important; tied means are ranked equal. ' 44 The data in Table 12 reveal why inservice participants are attracted to an inservice workshop. "Emphasis on practicing skills" was the first choice by all respondents (x » 1.71), with the individual learning style mean rankings as follows: SP's, x - 1.38; NT's, x * 1.75; and SJ's, x = 1.90. "Good personal relationships between instructor and fellow ag teachers" (x * 3.20) was ranked second overall (SJ's, x * 3.04; and SP's, X V 3.15). NT's ranked "opportunity to determine my own activities, within a specific area" as second (x * 3.12). "Emphasis on theoretical concepts" (x = 4.69) was the least preferred factor attracting respondents to inservice workshops. Respondents in all three learning styles ranked this factor last (SP's, x « 4.84; SJ's, x - 4.71; and NT's, x - 4.37). Table 12. Why Montana vocational agriculture instructors were attracted to inservice workshops. Learnina Stvlea Total SJ SP NT (N=42l (N=2U (N=13) (N=8l Statement Rb x SD Rb x SD Rb x SD Rb x SD 1. Indicate why you are attracted to an inservice workshop. a. Good personal relationships between instructor and fellow ag teachers 2 3.20 1.78 2 3.04 1.70 2 3.15 1.86 3 3.75 1.98 b. Clearly spelled-out standards and requirement 4 3.76 1.60 4 3.42 1.39 5 4.30 1.54 5 3.75 2.12 c. Emphasis on practicing skills 1 1.71 0.96 1 1.90 1.22 1 1.38 0.50 1 1.75 0.70 d. Emphasis on individual study 5 4.35 1.28 5 4.66 1.23 4 3.92 1.03 5 4.25 1.66 e. Opportunity to determine my own activities, within a specific area 3 3.23 1.47 3 3.19 1.60 3 3.38 1.38 2 3.12 1.45 f. Emphasis on theoretical concepts 6 4.69 1.29 6 4.71 1.38 6 4.84 1.40 6 4:37 0.91 aSJ * sensing/judgment; SP ■ sensing/perception; NT * intuitive/thinking. Indicates the rankings of the means (x), with 1 being the most important; tied means are ranked equal. - - The data in Tables 13 through 19 were developed from Montana voca¬ tional agriculture instructor responses to a series of questions which 45 described various aspects of learning. Each respondent selected one of four multiple-choice responses which best described their preferred approach to learning. All data presented are based upon frequency of responses. The capital letter "N* denotes aggregate responses, whereas the lower-case letter "n* denotes thev number of responses for each response choice. All percentages are truncated at one decimal place; therefore, totals may be less than 100%. The percentage calculations are a comparison of "n" to "N.* Data from the single NF respondent are not included within these tables. A separate listing of the NF's responses to Part I and Part II of the survey instrument can be found in Appendix H. In the aggregate, the data in Table 13 show that Montana vocational agriculture instructors decide to learn new things so they can "make things happen, to bring action to concepts" (46.6%). This is true for SP's (76.9%) and NT's (62.5%), whereas SJ's (32.0%) prefer "to bring my view of the present into line with future expectations." Table 13. Preference of Montana vocational agriculture instructors when learning new things. : : ~ Learnlna Stvle* Total SP NT Statement Nb nc % Nb nc X Nb nc X Nb nc X When I decide to learn new things. It Is usually for . 45 24 13 8 a. self-satisfaction and Intellectual recognition b. self-Involvement In Important Issues, 8 17.7 6 25.0 1 7.6 1 12.5 bringing unity to diversity c. to bring my view of the present Into 4 8.8 4 16.0 0 0 0 0 25.0 line with future expectations d. to make things happen, to bring 12 26.6 8 32.0 2 15.3 2 62.5 action to concepts 21 46.6 6 25.0 10 76.9 5 aSJ ■ sensing/judgment; SP * sensing/perception; NT * Intuitive/thinking, denotes aggregate responses. cn denotes number of responses for each response choice. 46 Data from Table 14 show that when learning or learning about a new topic, the overall preferences were "to try things out" (54.3%), "to know how things work" (45.6%), and "to reason things out" (43.4%). Respondents in all three learning styles liked "to try things out" (NT's, 75.0%; SP's, 61.5%; and SJ's, 44.0%) and "to reason things out" (NT's, 50.0%; SP's, 46.1%; and SJ's, 40.0%). It is interesting to note that "to know what the experts think" was not selected by any respondent. Table 14. Preference of Montana vocational agriculture instructors when learning or learning about a new topic. ■ Total Learnino Stvle3 SJ SP NT Statement Nb nc X Nb nc X Nb nc X Nb nc X When I learn a new topic, I need to —. 46 25 13 8 a. know how things work 21 45.6 12 48.0 4 30.7 5 62.5 b. know what can be done with things 14 30.4 6 24.0 6 46.7 2 25.0 c. be involved personally 11 23.9 7 28.0 3 23.0 1 12.5 d. know what the experts think 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 When I learn, I . 46 25 13 8 a. like to analyze things, break them down into their related parts 4 8.6 2 8.0 1 7.6 1 12.5 b. look at all sides of an issue 6 13.0 5 20.0 1 7.6 0 0 c. like to try things out 25 54.3 11 44.0 8 61.5 6 75.0 d. am open to new experiences 11 23.9 7 28.0 3 23.0 1 12.5 When I am learning, I . 46 25 13 8 a. am quiet and reserved 9 19.5 7 28.0- 1 7.6 1 12.5 b. have strong feelings and reactions 10 21.7 5 20.0 3 23.0 2 25.0 c. tend to reason things out 20 43.4 10 40.0 6 46.1 4 50.0 d. am responsible about things related to my learning 7 15.2 3 12.0 3 23.0 1 12.5 aSJ = sensing/judgment; SP ■ sensing/perception; NT * intuitive/thinking. bN denotes aggregate responses. cn denotes number of responses for each response choice. The data displayed in Table 15 depict how instructors prefer to learn and maximize their learning. In the aggregate, they prefer "to be active" (65.2%) and "to be doing things" (63.0%). The first preference of all 47 respondents was "to be doing things" (SJ's, 64.0%; NT's, 62.5%; and SP's, 61.5%). SJ's considered the best ways to learn were "to work hard to get things done" (44.0%) and "to be receptive and open minded" (40.0%); NT's preferred "to trust hunches and feelings" (100%) and "to be practical" (50.0%); and the preferences of SP's were "to be receptive and open minded" (53.8%) and "to rely on logical thinking" (38.4%). When maximiz¬ ing learning, SJ's (80.0%) and SP's (76.0%) preferred "to be active," whereas NT's preferred "to be an intuitive person" (50.0%). None of the respondents preferred "to deal with feelings" when deciding to learn. Table 15. Preference of Montana vocational agriculture instructors for learning and maximizing learning. Statement Total SJ Learnina Stvle® SP NT Nb nc % Nb nc X Nb nc % Nb nc X When I learn, I like to . 46 25 13 8 a. deal with my feelings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b. watch and listen 8 17.3 4 16.0 2 15.3 2 25.0 c. think about Ideas 9 19.5 5 20.0 3 23.0 1 12.5 d. be doing things 29 63.0 16 64.0 8 61.5 5 62.5 I learn best when I . 46 25 13 8 a. analyze ideas 5 10.8 3 12.0 1 7.6 1 12.5 b. am receptive and open minded 20 43.4 10 40.0 7 53.8 3 37.5 c. am careful 4 8.6 4 16.0 0 0 0 0 d. am practical 17 36.9 8 32.0 5 38.4 4 50.0 I learn best when I — . 46 25 13 8 a. work hard to get things done 13 28.2 11 44.0 2 15.3 0 0 b. trust my hunches and feelings 12 26.0 2 8.0 2 15.3 8 100.0 c. listen and watch carefully 13 28.2 9 36.0 4 30.7 0 0 d. rely on logical thinking 8 17.3 3 12.0 5 38.4 0 0 Learning is maximized when I 46 25 13 8 a. an observing person 6 13.0 1 8.0 2 15.3 3 37.5 b. an active person 30 65.2 20 80.0 10 76.0 0 0 c. an Intuitive person 6 13.0 1 4.0 1 7.6 4 50.0 d. a logical person 3 6.5 2 8.0 0 0 1 12.5 aSJ = sensing/judgment; SP * sensing/perception; NT ■ Intuitive/thinking. ^N denotes aggregate responses. cn denotes number of responses for each response choice. 48 The data reported in Table 16 address preferences for approaches to learning and teaching techniques. The strongest overall preferences were for "hands-on opportunities" (67.3%), "simulations" (45.6%), and "listen¬ ing and sharing ideas" (37.7%). The only notable exception was the preference of NT's for "trial and error or self-discovery" (42.8%) versus "listening and sharing ideas" (0%). NT's also indicated that "simula¬ tions" (37.5%) and "programmed instruction" (37.5%) were equally accept¬ able approaches to learning. SP's showed equal preference for "video presentations (movies)" (33.3%) and "independent study" (33.3%). None of the respondents preferred using a "textbook approach" to learning. However, 37.7% did prefer "workbooks/lab manuals/handbooks" as an instruc¬ tional technique during inservice education. Table 16. Preference of Montana vocational agriculture instructors for approaches to learning and teaching techniques. Statement Total SJ Learnina Stvlea SP NT Nb nc % Nb nc X Nb nc % Nb nc X I prefer — approach to learning. 46 25 13 8 a. a group discussion 13 28.2 7 28.0 4 30.7 2 25.0 b. a textbook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c. a programmed instruction 12 26.0 5 20.0 4 30.7 3 37.5 d. the simulation 21 45.6 13 52.0 5 38.4 3 37.5 I prefer to learn by —. 45 25 13 7 a. testing theories in ways that seem sensible 9 20.0 5 20.0 2 15.3 2 28.5 b. trial and error or self-discovery 8 17.7 2 8.0 3 23.0 3 42.8 c. thinking through ideas 11 24.4 6 24.0 3 23.0 2 28.5 d. listening and sharing Ideas 17 37.7 12 48.0 5 38.4 0 0 I prefer the — teaching technique. 46 25 13 8 a. hands-on opportunities 31 67.3 16 64.0 9 69.2 6 75.0 b. short lecture w/questlons & answers 4 8.6 3 12.0 1 7.6 0 0 c. mini-lectures and exploration 10 21.7 6 24.0 3 23.0 1 12.5 d. guided individual study 1 2.1 0 0 0 0 1 12.5 The instructional technique I prefer when I'm learning is —. 45 25 12 8 a. video presentations (movies) 14 31.1 8 32.0 4 33.3 2 25.0 b. workbooks/lab manuals/handbooks 17 37.7 10 40.0 3 25.0 4 50.0 c. independent study 9 20.0 4 16.0 4 33.3 1 12.5 d. lecture 5 11.1 3 12.0 1 8.3 1 12.5 aSJ * sensing/judgment; SP = sensing/perception; NT = Intuitive/thinking. °N denotes aggregate responses; varies because not all questions were correctly completed. cn denotes number of responses for each response choice. 49 The data in Table 17 show the preference for approaches to studying. Of the total respondents, 34.7% indicated they "sometimes jump from one activity to another" and 34.7% preferred to "think about the material in a logical and intelligent manner." SJ's described themselves as sometimes "thinking about materials logically and intelligently" (44.0%), "a workaholic" (36.0%), and as liking "to use tools and be active" (36.0%). NT's (50.0%) and SP's (46.1%) preferred to "sometimes jump from one activity to another." SP's also expressed an equal preference for "searching for meaning to subject materials" (46.1%). Table 17. Preference of Montana vocational agriculture instructors for approaches to studying. Learnlna Stvle3 Total SJ SP NT Statement Nb nc % Nb nc X Nb nc X Nb nc X When studying, I . 46 25 13 8 a. am sometimes a workaholic 11 23.9 9 36.0 1 7.6 1 12.5 b. sometimes jump from one activity to another 16 34.7 6 24.0 6 46.1 4 50.0 c. am sometimes pessimistic about work ahead of me 4 8.6 1 4.0 1 7.6 2 25.0 d. like to use tools and be active 15 32.6 9 36.0 5 38.4 1 12.5 When studying, I . 46 25 13 8 a. search for meaning to subject materials 15 32.6 7 28.0 6 46.1 2 25.0 b. am spontaneous In my study habits 8 17.3 4 16.0 2 15.3 2 25.0 c. think about the material In a logical and Intelligent manner 16 34.7 11 44.0 3 23.0 2 25.0 d. organize my study time 7 15.2 3 12.0 2 15.3 2 25.0 aSJ * sensing/judgment; SP * sensing/perception; NT * intuitive/thinking, denotes aggregate responses. cn denotes number of responses for each response choice. The data in Table 18 reveal the favorite question to ask is "How does this thing work?" (54.3%). This question was preferred by all respondents (SP's, 61.5%; SJ's, 52.0%; and NT's, 50.0%). 50 Table 18. Montana vocational agriculture instructors' favorite question to ask when they are students. Learnlna Stvle3 Total SJ SP NT Statement Nb nc % Nb nc X Nb nc X Nb nc X As a student, my favorite question to ask Is . 46 25 13 8 a. Why or why not? 8 17.3 3 12.0 2 15.3 3 37.5 b. What? 2 4.3 2 8.0 0 0 0 0 c. How does this work? 25 54.3 13 52.0 8 61.5 4 50.0 d. What can this become? 11 23.9 7 28.0 3 23.0 1 12.5 aSJ = sensing/judgment; SP = sensing/perception; NT = intuitive/thinking, denotes aggregate responses. cn denotes number of responses for each response choice. As depicted by data in Table 19, the overall reason given by Montana vocational agriculture instructors for attending inservice workshops was to obtain "usable information" (69.5%). Respondents in all three learning styles concurred (NT's, 87.5%; SJ's, 68.0%; and SP's, 61.5%). It is interesting to note that none of the respondents attended inservice workshops for "factual information." Table 19. Montana vocational agriculture instructors' reasons for attending inservice workshops. Learnlna Stvle3 Total SJ SP NT Statement Nb nc X Nb nc X Nb nc X Nb nc X I attend Inservice workshops to seek . 46 25 13 8 a. factual Information 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b. usable Information 32 69.5 17 68.0 8 61.5 7 87.5 c. new uses of subject materials d. an understanding of the subject 9 19.5 6 24.0 3 23.1 0 0 material 5 17.3 2 8.0 2 15.3 1 12.5 aSJ * sensing/judgment; SP = sensing/perception; NT = intuitive/thinking. ^N denotes aggregate responses. cn denotes number of responses for each response choice. 51 Curriculum Packaging Data presented in Tables 20 through 25 address aggregate preferences of Montana vocational agriculture instructors in curriculum-specific areas. These data are based upon frequency of responses (N), frequency of selection of individual choices (n), and percentages calculated on a comparison of "n" to "N." All percentages are truncated at one decimal place; thus totals may not equal 100%. Learning styles were not con¬ sidered in the evaluation of these data. However, the questionnaire was structured in such a way that responses could be compared to the reported learning styles. Data presented in Table 20 address biotechnology and genetic engi¬ neering curriculum areas. The instructional methods preferred by respondents were lecture with group discussion (25.2%) and lecture with overheads (21.4%). The least preferred instructional methods were independent study (2.7%), mini-lectures (6.5%), and computer-assisted instruction (6.5%). The instructional method most preferred in the animal genetic engineering topic area was lecture with overheads (25.5%). Respondents' preferences for instructional materials were video materials (36.8%), simulations or problems (31.8%), and workbooks or lab manuals (28.0%). The use of audio tapes (3.2%) was the least desired instructional method. Video materials were the preferred instructional material in the animal genetic engineering (40.4%) and animal biotech¬ nology (46.6%) topic areas. Workshops (85.1%) were the preferred learning method when compared to self-study (14.8%). Data regarding packaging of teaching materials reveal a preference for VCR tapes (57.3%). Audio cassette recording tapes 1 (1.6%) were the least preferred packaging technique. Ta bl e 20 . Pr ef er en ce o f M on ta na v o ca tio na l a gr ic ul tu re in st ru ct or s fo r in st ru ct io na l m et ho ds , in st ru ct io na l m a te ri al s, le ar ni ng m et ho ds , an d pa ck ag in g o f te ac hi ng m a te ri al s in th e bi ot ec hn ol og y an d ge ne ti cs cu rr ic ul um a r e a s. 52 A 1 o 1 o •-H^-oco^-roroco ro •-« Q-H to co CM 00 to m in in CM m » 1 •M o ^-•^fOtD'J-rocotO co •-< ^ CO co — CSJ to ro CM ^ 1 c c UO w—i CsJ C\J •-« ■—< LO CO CO co m oo —■ ‘M' LO o^4 ^—4 1 <0 JC Kj- ’M- 1 l) II II H n i a. QJ z z z Z 1 ■M LO'-icnrOCMtOtOrO ^ LO CM —- CT> tO ^*—4 LO tO LO CM CM *-4 CM 1 o c CO CM 1 1 1 1 CD 1 1 1 ol 1 ZL mtocoooomcotD co «»■ m 00 ^ CSJ in CD CD CSJ in CM CM o 4-> u — LO CO CO CO ui ro CO *-* CO ^ LO —. oo ^ CSJ KT m in csi CM CM c +-» 0) m -H <\J to CO cvj CO in oo LO OJ OJ (U 0) t- c c II II It II < a. 0> z z z z ID a — r^csjcoo^rr^coco — ■*»- cn CM CO ^ o in •-H -M" r^. *-4 c c •—4 Q>—1 •—4 CM UJ 3 o (- U > 3 o o o —ItDO^CDCO—*CO to to CSJ ■sf m o o cn cn CM o in CM X r— o X ■—■ *-icr)o^rcDro*-»aD ^ CD CO CM ^^ m '—' O) in m csi CM OJ IS c m CSJ CVJ LO CM CM in oo —i >cr in z -C o II II II II 1 c 0) z z z z 1 c -•-> -—- mcsiCTicsjroioinro CM *-H CO fs. ^ o to *-4 o CM *-4 1 o c •-4 —• CM •—4 co CM 1 1 • 1 CD 1 1 1 a 1 C m^fcoococooco CSJ sj" *—l i-H OO -H to O CSJ —4 m o 1 o 1 r— •*— U X ^ in co sr to co to • o CSJ to -—' O <75 CSJ CO co m CSJ CM CO 1 *2 4-* 0) CVJ CVJ »—i *-4 CM ^ CO co ^4 to in 1 —■ ' CO O) W 0-4 fs* to -4 3 0 1 c c w—i CM V UJ M ^tcsjor^LOor^uo * o oo CM 00 * —4 00 ■K CO CO to to oo CO cn CM CO X CSJ ^iinr^csjtocsicoto CM 00 CO CO -H CM LO ^ OO *-4 |-^ CM CO CM CO CSJ CSJ 9-* -H 00 CM CO CO oo oo —< LO «0 •—4 •-H 4-» II II 11 it o z z z I— — a)to— +-» o <0 CO CO r— CO •O 10 J- o QJ Cfl C 4-» c u QJ O *0 o o •• Q. E CO 40 CO -M _J 4-» OT D> O CO < 3 C 3 -M CO •-i cn o «- C >. CO o; c: <0 CO "O 4-* QJ T5 m EE UJ •»- t3 (T3 GO E 3 3 QJ 1— TD <0 *0 QJ C C -M •• C C U QJ i- D> GO co X) z o •• x: a. —i E= O o tn u 3 x: >>tJ GO <— < u CD QJ O QJ O -*-* "O QJ GO a. Z U c co O > t- -- 3 -t~> ra 3 Of co CO 0) QJ □: O O) S -M GO TD UJ r— r- (- X QJ E > H- GO Of»- GO 1— w o CJ 4-» tu x x: c GO c > QJ C «- M- try 4-» ac +->-*-> o +J GO --- u Z O (- CO CO o UJ QJ •r — «= as -a u 3 QJ 0) C >. h- CO 4-* U 4-> U —J J * -M QJ 1 I0C-M -J CO 4-» a. o 3= TD CO CO <0 CO u «C <0 "O U QJ — O OJ O Ut-CQJ-M TJ •— o o 40 Z X G) <0 Q) C 40 z c • 3 3 QJ Q. 3 4-* QJ 1 —• -Q O o — CO | CD O Z — 3 4-» 3 4-» H- ■J-J+JGOQJQ.UTD-i- 1— QJ — 3 tD 4- z •*- »— 4-* U QJ 4-J U O OOQ)*OEO-«-C t_J t- "O XI E Z L- »— «— TO a; TJ 4-» O O t- 4-» o o Z3 QJQJJ-COX3->- O'— 3 •»- — O QJ tD 3 0 QJ 3 10 X fO 3 40 _C oi _J_IO.«—locntDaE o; » > ■< co i— z 3 tn pc 4-> C o u. tn 4—> o u_ to CO < o 4— z • • UJ • • c . . u O ^-HCNJCO^U-JCDr^CO »—* r-l CVJ CO _J *—4 CM Q_ #-4 CM a. cn in CO to Ds 0O T ot al N is c a lc ul at ed by a dd in g th e nu m be r o f re sp on se s fo r ea ch cu rr ic ul um a re a . 53 The water resources curriculum area data displayed in Table 21 show the preferred instructional methods of Montana vocational agriculture teachers were presentation with reading materials (26.1%) and lecture with group discussion (20.6%). The least preferred instructional methods were independent study (0.2%) and computer-assisted instruction (4.7%). Lecture with group discussion (28.8%) was the instructional method preference within the water resource management topic area. Preferred instructional materials were simulations or problems (35.1%), video materials (32.0%), and workbooks or lab manuals (29.6%). The least preferred instructional method was audio tapes (3.1%). Preferred instructional materials varied by topic area: aquaculture (workbooks or lab manuals, 26.3%), hydroponics (workbooks or lab manuals, 33.3%), and water resource management (simulations or problems, 35.5%). The preferred learning method for obtaining information about water resources was workshops (84.3%) versus the least preferred method of self- study (15.6%). The preferred packaging of teaching materials for the water resources curriculum area was VCR tapes (55.2%), whereas the least preferred method was software media/factual statements (0.8%). The data contained in Table 22 address the natural resources and environmental curriculum areas. The instructional methods preferred by respondents were lecture with group discussion (37.7%) and presentation with reading materials (20.7%). The least preferred instructional methods were independent study (0%) and computer-assisted instruction (2.2%). Instructional material preferences in the natural resources and environmental curriculum areas were video materials (44.4%), simulations or problems (27.4%), workbooks or lab manuals (24.4%), and audio tapes 54 O) CO •o c o •<— JZ +-» CO CD i— E «> •r— I— s- (0 CD E +-> o o o> E 3 c 3 SZ o U -1- 3 c +-> JC O o CO u u ■D c no •i— QJ u 3 o > az 4-> s- o> 1 4— no CO CL V c •r-TO c 0) <0 s_ 3 •* +-» CO r--o 3 O S- 0) cn EE ns oa r- SZ to ns mr— <0 sz e QJ O S- S- •r— no ns 4-> 0> <0 r— E U 3 O i r— > to 3 r— o (0 no •r” c •»- S- ns S- s- 4-> QJ 3 C +J U O ns z: E to QJ 4- r— O O <0 s- SZ 3 QJ o O U T- to C -i-> QJ QJ U S- S- 3 QJ S- s- 4- 4-> QJ Q) to 4-» S. C ns Q- -r- 3S CVJ 0) xi r0 —• co ^ CM to r-t r—C O tO CM CM ^ tooooomtotooo .—< n m —< ■M-cocoto rr n *—c •—c M- ii z 1 — tor^M-ocMcocom CMCMOOOOOf-im to to r*. oo oo co f—• *—4 CM CO O CM ^ •—» CO O CM Kj- m CO CM M" **■ m CM O CM O cn CD CM m m CM m 4—4 •—c o o m oo «*■ m oo >-4 o —- co co co co CO 'S’ CM r-4 m m o oo oo r~~ oo o m CM — totoooor^com *-< o co —4 cro —■ «*■ -o- — «-« cro 00cO4-4CMr^cMmr^ CO O 4-4 4-1 oo CM 4-H II CO CM O ■O- to co CM m oo CM to o co c 4-> O 40 n B o ••- i oo "O l -4- 40 -o QJ CO ac _i c o zo o; C 4-» **— CT> CO O. f- 3 JZ >,-0 CO r— O 4-» "D 0) CO 40 t- •— 3 +-* 40 3 CD S -M CO "O CO •*— CD CO -C C CO SZ > CD -M O -4-* CO -4- t_ •r* •— C to T3 -D 3 as -M CD I IO C 4-* 40 TO t- CD O 0) -M C CD t- 0) C- C CD -4-* TJr- 3 (D CL 3 -M CD I 4-» CO CD Q. »- "O •4— O QJ TD P O C cut-c:6^:3-4- _J Q. >—4 O CO O 3E C 4— to 40 ^ E 4-1 JO Of >0 CO CD .4 Q. to to —I -t-» < 4-4 CD Of c TO t- o CJ CD 10 _J CO 4-1 < JK; to Z O E o o — JO o I— QJ O U TO ro o — ** > to CO CO CD C CL o to ••- TO E 3 •>- CO CO CO 40 0) O CL T> to CD O 4-1 • ~HCMcQ*rmtor^.co • —t CM n M- CO C- •'- CO to TO CD >— EZ 4-* O O 3 to JZ O tim CO to to 4-> U CO u 10 to CD 4— C C 10 •— 3 44 •—4-11- 44 o O 3 10 -C o u. to To ta l N Is c a lc ul at ed by a dd in g th e nu m be r o f re sp on se s fo r ea ch cu rr ic ul um Ta bl e 22 . Pr ef er en ce o f M on ta na v o c a tio na l a gr ic ul tu re in st ru ct or s fo r in st ru ct io na l m et ho ds , in st ru ct io na l m a te ri al s, le ar ni ng m et ho ds , an d pa ck ag in g o f te ac hi ng m a te ri al s in th e n a tu ra l r e so u r c e s an d en v ir on m en ta l cu rr ic ul um a r e a s. 55 C Q) V> 0) <*- E «4- C «£ <0 E <0 +-> 3 4-> U •— c OJ co U U V) c in "o 0) c CO ^3 QJ ^c3CMoo.-t»H •-i CO CO CM CO •M- »S- CM ■M- CM in in o o •M- cn O *—c CM CD O ^ CM CD in CM in CM II z •—• C7> CO •-< CM co M- in CM M- ^ CM 1^- CM fv. ^ in CD *—H CM CM O CM CM CT) CO M- CD in co o m co cn ■M- co o in CD cn CO »-l M rM CM CO o CM CO CO in in »<■ co 0) 4J > 4-> o <0 (/> CA CA u o o) O (A , r- CO o; c OT W T3 4-» QJ X3 <0 E UJ ■a ■— co V) E 3 3 QJ 1— X cd TO CD c C 4-> c »— U QJ U Oi in cn CO -O o -C CL E o o (A cn 1- 3 _C >,-0 00 < i- CD OJ 4-» a (U O -M *0 0J CA 1- 3 4-» cd 3 « ra (A Q) QJ a> a cn i -M > ►— w C3>— W i— cO O CD 4-» QJ UJ jr c CO C > QJ 1. •— cn +J -M -M O 4-» 00 *r- *r- U O u 00 CA a UJ OJ 1 J— 00 t- u -J J * 4-1 QJ 1 CO C 4-> C/5 4-» CL O X X 00 00 QJ 00 u <• <0 XJ u QJ — O < j* co CO CL 3 u. <0 QJ 00 "O 00 z OJ OJ 4-1 c OJ U 0) z O E -*-• 4-1 UJ O 4-1 o U CL X QJ c 0) QJ r— O 1- t- C QJ -M X) •— o O co X JC 00 *0 QJ c 01 3: C 03 3 3 OJ CL 3 4-» 0) 1 -Q O O c— 00 1 CD O 44 X 3 -M •*- 3 4-» h— -M -M 00 (D CL t- XJ — h- DC QJ — 3 u QJ U o o u 4-> C OU.cn ■M ou.cn cn cn c C i 4- z z UJ <■ c. O •-HCsim^rmcDrs.00 •-H (U •*- a) v> o U 0) 0) a. c 3 C <0 O ' X <-)C\J«-400(00)00 oocvjoooocor^ro tDCDrootoooLncvj CO 00 tO CM c'jc\jiooco"=fr'».-* ^-t^-mocvirococo CVJ ro co co CM ro in oo CM CO CM oo CM i>. co *-•’<*• o CM o o cn co co co o CM m 05 CM •>*■ m m t-« CM «-i 'S’ 'T ^ II II II z z z —- cn«-ih»o<-tcocMco — h*o>«—ico ■— m incn^HO'tcocoho ro co o) co m in o r«. r>. co m in co "S- in CD *J CD O) O ID 3 C 3 4J O’*- l. c >> CD CD T3 -M 0) T3 T3 ’*- <0 CD E 3 <0 "O QJ C C 4-> ,TJ CD >— (U O +-» TJ l- •— 3 4-* <0 3 O CD * 4-> ID -O CD 05 •*— 1 -C -C C CD C > 1 +-* -*-* O -M CD I — — c <0-0-0 : X S -M (U I «J C •( <0 ’O i- OJ •*- i 0) ~a <■ 3 O a> Q. =) 4-» CD ■M 4-* CD CD Q-U-O" O O CD "O E O I CD CD U C O 3 •' —j—ja.*—i<_jcno: < <-• O) O' c < a: c •— <0 -Q E 2 <0 CD <0 o U O C- CD CD CD a> c CD +J a. o g 10 -- o E 4-* <0 XI o o ■— ^ QJ •*“ 3 l. -0 -o E O — 3 •*- ^ >C CO >5 *0 a. 3 O 4-> -X <*- c- <— o a> CD CD <0 CD •- o a. -o •-> --•cMco'S’incor^oo • —CCMCO'S o CD *—< CD 2 c_> c CD <— C C «J •*- 3 4-» <—♦4 1- ♦•OO =J <0 x: O U_ 1/3 co 'S in co co r>. 00 c CD CD 0) i > a) ■- CD CO CD — C c <0 •— 3 +j *—♦»»- +4 0 0 3 10 x: OU.cn T ot al N is c a lc ul at ed by a dd in g th e nu m be r o f re sp on se s fo r ea ch cu rr ic ul um a re a 58 Depicted in Table 24 are data addressing the financial and managerial skills curriculum area. Instructional methods preferred in this area were lecture with group discussion (31.1%), lecture with overheads (13.3%), and computer-assisted instruction (13.3%). Computer-assisted instruction (24.4%) was the most preferred instructional method in the financial recordkeeping and accounting topic area. Instructional materials preferences in the financial and managerial skills curriculum area were simulations or problems (37.0%), workbooks or lab manuals (32.5%), and video materials (24.4%); the least desired instructional material was audio tapes (5.9%). Instructional materials preference varied with each topic area: agriculture salesmanship (video materials, 33.3%), financial recordkeeping and accounting (workbooks or lab manuals, 37.7%), and international marketing (workbooks or lab manuals, 33.3%). The choice of learning method for financial and managerial skills was workshops (78.5%) versus self-study (21.4%). Packaging of managerial skills teaching materials preference was VCR tapes (33.5%); audio cassette recording tapes (3.0%) was the least desired of the packaging methods. Data displayed in Table 25 show the preference for methods and materials within the curriculum area of agriculture mechanics technolo¬ gies. Preferred instructional methods in this area were computer-assisted instruction (18.1%) and lecture with group discussion (17.0%). Lecture with overheads (17.7%) and lecture with group discussion (17.7%) were the highest preferences within the agriculture automation systems topic area. Video materials (42.6%), simulations or problems (35.9%), and workbooks or lab manuals (20.2%) were the preferences for instructional materials; Ta bl e 24 . Pr ef er en ce o f M on ta na v o c a tio na l a gr ic ul tu re in st ru ct or s fo r in st ru ct io na l m et ho ds , in st ru ct io na l m a te ri al s, le ar ni ng m et ho ds , an d pa ck ag in g o f te ac hi ng m a te ri al s in th e fi na nc ia l an d m a n a ge ri al s k il ls cu rr ic ul um a r e a s . ; 59 <0 _ c a o ~ C 0)01 c c 3 <0 Q.-*-" >— ■— 0) 3 O O C O •~n z a u c i- J_ — O c 3 U. O o 0) — f- -C 3 +-» c 3 _ u co 0) U r~ cn io «t co .-icnroocorocooo oo ro co co Lncocoo^j-coTT'S- mooocsi^-fo— ro co ^ tn oo CM o> co co ■«r cn o o -—• CM o LO co CM co io co CM ^r m CM CM co co CM co co co CM 00 CO ^4 •—4 r-4 o o> m o co oo CT> io *»■ CD t-H CO ■M- CM "M- LO CO CD CO CD CM CD CO CO CO CO CO CO CM cor-.oocMco.-4.-ioo cor-.cocMco—-400 cor—■M'—tcoioioxi- co-^co'M-coioco^r co co —H oo CM IO IO CO IO -r CD O co co •—• CO co in cn o co co co r— co -H CO CD m O CM o CO LO CD CM CD CM CO -M- -H -H CM co r— —c CD co O 40 — E CO CO CT) 3 C o ^ ' V> T3 l 40 TJ -4-4 CO >>T3 CO 4— "O QJ CO 40 3 4-> 40 3 ■4-4 CO "O CO — CD CO CO C > CD CO — -—J- _ <0 -o -a 3 a> i 40 c -4-4 T3 U 0) — O < □£ •4-> c a> u CD co co 40 O u — O U CO CO CD 0) C co -4-> a. o eg 40 -- cn O 0) I CD U i _J a. CD . a) n. u -o f §5 3.5 4-4 cj cn o x "D CL 3 _ O -4-4 O 40 X JT CO -Q O O •— CO I CD •»- 3 O ^ «4- c- -a -o E z t- •— 0^- 3 — 4-40 0) a» >C cn 5 CO CO 40 0) •- O Q. t3 T3 o: -a 3 0 (D , 4—4 «-4CMn»TLr>ior-.co • 4—4eMro«o- a. CM o- 40 40 4-4 C- 40 CO CO 40 tJ CD — C 0) C 40 3E — 3-4-4 •—-4-4 1- 0) -4-4 0 0 3 40 x: 10 ou.cn J ro m cn co r>. 00 co u CO 40 0) r- c -4-4 0 0 3 40 x: ou.cn To ta l N Is c a lc ul at ed by a dd in g th e nu m be r o f re sp on se s fo r ea ch cu rr ic ul um a re a . Ta bl e 25 . Pr ef er en ce o f M on ta na v o ca tio na l a gr ic ul tu re in st ru ct or s fo r in st ru ct io na l m et ho ds , in st ru ct io na l m a te ri al s, le ar ni ng m et ho ds , an d pa ck ag in g o f te ac hi ng m a te ri al s in th e a gr ic ul tu re m ec ha ni cs te ch no lo gi es cu rr ic ul um a r e a s . ' 60 A • 1 0) t- 3 V) cocMOiOoocnro to O CSJ o o o 00 00 CO CO O CO CO M- i +-> O co to co o co co O) CO O CM CO oi o M- in ■«r r^. CM 1 •-H w-H w—i CM 1 m co fN* CM CO i 3 -M II H II H 1 O O z z z 1 ... XI u o •w* mr^tooCT>toto^r to CVJ to M- O) CM CO CO o CM CO M crt D>Ot c CM *-l co CM «G S3 «cr »—* t-H CM ro CO M- CM m 1 3 eg ii H II II O E co z Z z z 1 o > 1 u -M tO ooco.«»r^co CM to O r*. CM ro CO 'T in M- CM M 1 CT 3 c CO «—e CM V < < t^oiocvj^cor^.o> CM tO •-H O) o o 00 o ^ CM —1 CM co ■K « «' * CO *rf*co«vjco*~i*rr'. o CM .-H in in m m o CD 00 r-J M- 00 CM CO •-H •—4 r—4 CD CM ro 00 CM m to <0 CO CO OO oo •M II II II II o z z z z t— comtvicMtoococ^i CO OO CM to CM in •-« co r-^ —i M- CM c #-• ro co tO CM m CO Qi -M > ■M U <0 CO CO r— CO <0 eg •r- u o 0) CO C -M C U a; o « o o a. — 6 CO eg CO 4-> V> Dl O M < 3 C 3 -M CO o> o (- C >> r- CO o' c M W T3 -M 01 "O <0 E UJ TO •— <0 W £ 3 3 S3 H- T3 « ■o 0> C C 4-> e •— E 4) U •<- 0> lO to >0 XI O o. E O a CO CO CO l- 3 .C >1T3 W <— < u to 4) ■M 4-* Q t- — 3 no 3 Of *0 CO 43 43 QJ 0) 3C O Ol S -M <0 TJ UJ z 41 p > E > 1— W •<- Ol 10 1- 10 o o J-* LU JC.CC (O C > 0) t. •>- CO < 4~» ■M M z -M 4-* O ■*-> to^-— t- O (- (0 to ra UJ 4) 10 <0 eg eo — — — C <0 T3 -O 3 4) 01 C o >» H» CO ■M «- eg ■M U * * -M 0J 1 <0 C -M -J to 4-> a. o X T> CO CO eg w u M U < 10 T3 t. UJ 2V o -o 43 r- c 43 0J r— C o t- U C 3 to <*- l- 4) '“MU oowogg—c WO)UCO£9*^ B 1- T3 XJ e O — 3 — z •—« U r- O 0) to XI 4) ■MOO 3 (0 X u eg M O Q 3 i0 X cx; _i_jQ.M(_xnu)Z cx: 3i X in z :* «n < >• 4-* OU.cn » ou.cn h— 2f c 4-> CO to 4- z z UJ < u o •“icvico^rmtON.co »—« CM CO M- -J CM a. CM o. co M- m cn to co T ot al N is c a lc ul at ed by a dd in g th e n u m be r o f re sp on se s fo r ea ch cu rr ic ul um a re a . 61 the least desired was audio tapes (1.1%). Within the agriculture automa¬ tion systems topic area, simulations or problems (37.7%) was the most preferred instructional method. Workshop (75.0%) versus self-study (25.0%) was the desired learning method for the agriculture mechanics technologies curriculum area. The preference indicated for packaging of teaching materials was VCR tapes (60.0%); the least preferred packaging method was printed short narratives (1.1%). 62 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY Conclusions The conclusions offered in this section are presented as they pertain to each of the objectives of this study, which were: (1) Determine the temperament styles of Montana vocational agriculture instructors through the use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. (2) Determine the preferred approach to learning by temperament style of Montana vocational agriculture instructors during inservice educa¬ tion. (3) Determine Montana vocational agriculture instructors' preference of instructional methods, instructional materials, learning methods, and packaging of teaching materials in specified new curriculum areas. Based on analysis and summarization of the data, the following conclusions have been drawn: . . ■ (1) The majority of Montana vocational agriculture instructors' learning styles are consistent with those expected of teachers of agriculture, as described by Keirsey and Bates (1984). However, compared to the findings of Foster and Horner (1988), there is a disproportionately larger representation of SP and NT learning styles within the Montana vocational agriculture teacher population. 63 (2) Due to the small sample size in this study, there were no notable conclusions drawn regarding temperament types and their influence on learning styles. (3) When observing the rank mean for each learning style, there are some notable differences in preferences for learning within and among the styles. This indicates that Montana vocational agriculture instruc¬ tors have definite preferences when learning. (4) Montana vocational agriculture instructors' preferences for learning are to: (a) be actively developing skills while working with some¬ thing tangible, (b) determine how things work, and (c) use their reasoning abilities in conjunction with demonstrations and discus¬ sions to obtain usable information. (5) When learning about new curriculum areas (given the eight choices of instructional methods on the survey instrument), the majority of Montana vocational agriculture instructors prefer to learn by lecture with discussion and/or overheads. (6) When learning about new curriculum areas, workshops are preferred to self-study by Montana vocational agriculture instructors. (7) The Montana vocational agriculture instructors' preference for instructional materials is specific to the curriculum area topic. Imolications The following implications are offered as a result of this study: (1) As, Montana vocational agriculture instructors become familiar with the theory of a process, they prefer skill development activities during inservice education. 64 (2) When learning about new curriculum areas, Montana vocational agricul¬ ture instructors prefer to be guided through the materials (based on the eight choices of instructional methods on the survey instrument), rather than initiating their own study. (3) There is an interest in instructional video materials among Montana vocational agriculture instructors. (4) Montana vocational agriculture instructors are interested in and willing to try new ideas, as indicated by their responses to the new curriculum areas. Recommendations As a result of this study, it is recommended the following be taken into consideration when offering inservice education for Montana voca¬ tional agriculture instructors: (1) The pool of information about the MBTI temperament types of Montana vocational agriculture instructors should be maintained and updated for further research purposes. (2) Learning preferences of inservice participants should be taken into consideration when planning inservice education. (3) Workshops should continue to be utilized when presenting materials to Montana vocational agriculture instructors. (4) Inservice activities should be action oriented for skill development through the use of hands-on activities and/or simulations. However, when teaching new theories, lecture with group discussion and/or overheads and hands-on activities should be integrated into the instructional process. 65 (5) Inservice education addressing methods of teaching for learning styles should be provided for Montana vocational agriculture instructors. Recommendations for Further Study (1) The MBTI study should be repeated in other western states to compare the distribution of temperament types and learning styles among vocational agriculture instructors to Montana vocational agriculture instructors. (2) A parallel study should be conducted in other western states to ascertain the learning preferences for instructional techniques of vocational agriculture instructors as compared to Montana vocational instructors. (3) A study of the preferred learning characteristics identified within this study should be completed in conjunction with inservice educa¬ tion activities to ascertain the effectiveness of using learning preferences in designing the educational process. (4) Research should be conducted to determine if the preference for traditional instructional methods (lecture) is due to preconditioning from prior collegiate experiences or if lecture is perceived as the most expedient method to learn new information. (5) A study should be completed to ascertain the need for and effective¬ ness of instructional video materials in the educational process used by Montana vocational agriculture instructors. 66 Summary The information in this study should be utilized in planning, developing, selecting materials, and instructional techniques for inser¬ vice education. Montana vocational agriculture instructors do have preferences for learning as identified by their learning styles. These learning style preferences should be identified and addressed when conducting inservice education to ensure learning is maximized. 67 REFERENCES 68 REFERENCES Butler, K.A. (1986). Learning style and teaching style: In theory and practice. Columbia, CT: The Learner's Dimension. Conti, G.J., & Welborn, R.B. (1987). The interaction of teaching style and learning style on traditional and nontraditional learners. In R.P. Inksten (Compiler), Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Adult Education Research Conference. 21-23 May 1987, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Cox, D.E. (1988). Learning styles of students in vocational agriculture. The Agriculture Education Magazine. 61(3), 11-12. Cox, D.E., Sproles, E.K., & Sproles, G.B. (1987). Factors associated with preferred learning styles of vocational agriculture students. In Research in agricultural education -- Attaining excellence in the 80's: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual National Agricultural Education Research Meeting. 4 December 1987, Las Vegas, NV. Daniels, J. (1986). Staying current: Inservice. The Agriculture Education Magazine. 58(8), 15-16. Ehrenwald, J. (1984). Anatomy of a genius. New York: Human Sciences Press, Inc. Foster, R.M., & Horner, J.T. (1988). National profile of agriculture teacher educators and state supervisors of vocational agriculture by MBTI preference type. The Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture. 29(3), 20-27. Gamon, J., & Burton, D.L. (1987). An evaluation of horticulture inservice instruction in fruit and vegetable production for voca¬ tional agriculture teachers. The Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture. 28(3), 2-6 & 15. Gregorc, G.F. (1982). An adult's guide to style. Columbia, CT: Gregorc Associates, Inc. Harris, B.M. (1980). Improving staff performance through inservice education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1984). Please understand me. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Co. 69 Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc. Kolb, D. (1985). Learning Style Inventory. Boston, MA: McBer and Co. [Booklet.] Lawrence, G. (1982). Personality structure and learning style: Uses of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. In Student Learning Styles and Brain Behavior (pp. 92-105). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Lund, R.E. (1988). MSUSTAT: Statistical Analysis Package [computer program]. Bozeman, MT: Statistical Center, Department of Mathe¬ matical Science, Montana State University. Myers, I.B. (1987). Introduction to type. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Myers, I.B., &McCaully, M.H. (1988). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consult¬ ing Psychologists Press. Neil, R. (1985). Inservice teacher education: Five common causes of failure. Action in Teacher Education. 3(1), 49-55. Newcomb, L.D. (1986). The future of vocational agriculture. Unpublished paper presented to the National Workshop for State Leaders, 22 July 1986, Washington, DC. Pals, D.A., & Burton, D.L. (1989). New directions in agriculture education research. Unpublished paper presented to the Eighth Annual Education Research Meeting, 19 April 1989, Sparks, NV. Rezler, A.G. (1981). The Learning Preference Inventory. Journal of Allied Health. 10(1), 28-34. Shelhamer, C.V. (1982). Impact of agriculture mechanics inservice training on Montana vocational agriculture programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Slater, S., & Cibrowski, L. (1985). Planning a first-rate inservice program. Vocational Education Journal. 60(6), 25-26. Tyler, R.W. (1971). Inservice education of teachers: A look at the past and future. In L.J. Rubin (Ed.), Improving inservice education: proposals and procedures for change (pp. 5-17). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 70 Welborn, R.B., & Conti, G.J. (1986). The influence of learning style and teaching style on achievement among nontraditional health profes¬ sional students. In K. Landers (Compiler), Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Adult Education Research Conference, 23-25 May 1986, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY. 71 APPENDICES 72 APPENDIX A: MBTI COVER LETTER 73 0 MONTANA Department of Agricultural and Technology Education Cheever Hall Montana State University Bozeman, Montana 59717 UNIVERSITY 406-994*3201 or 994-3691 January 17, 1989 Dear In light of the recent National Research Council's report recommending modifying the present vocational agriculture curriculums, it is apparent for most of us to stay in step that more inservice training will be needed. As part of my graduate program at Montana State University, I have taken on a project intended to determine if and/or how inservice training can be changed to better meet your needs. The enclosed Myers-Briggs Type Indicator question booklet and answer sheet are designed to determine your preferred learning style. Please note: There is not a right or wrong learning style, just one you prefer over another. I encourage everyone to print their name on the top of the answer sheet so that I may return the sheet to you, along with an explana¬ tion of your preferred learning and teaching styles. These instruments are coded only so your name can be removed from the mailing list when your answer sheet is returned. However, the MSU Agri¬ culture Education Department is reserving the right to keep this informa¬ tion on file for future reference. This information will be held in the strictest of confidence and used only for educational purposes. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 994-3691. INSTRUCTIONS: Please take approximately 35 minutes and complete the answer sheet after reading the instructions on the front cover of the question booklet. For your convenience, enclosed is a stamped, self- addressed envelope for returning only the answer sheet. You may keep the question booklet. Thank you, John Ballard, Graduate Student C. Van Shelhamer, Assistant Professor JB/VS:jlh Enclosures 74 APPENDIX B: MBTI FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD 75 Dear January 31, 1999 Recently, I sent you the "Myers-Briggs Type Indicator" question booklet and answer sheet. To date I have not received your reply. I realize how busy this time of year gets however, I would greatly appreciate it if you would take the time to fill out and return the answer sheet. If perchance you can't locate the booklet, please call me at 994-3691. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Sincerely, 76 APPENDIX C: MBTI FOLLOW-UP LETTER 77 □ MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Agricultural and Technology Education Cheever Hall Montana State University Bozeman, Montana 59717 406-994-3201 or 994-3691 May 16, 1989 Dear : I have not received your answer sheet to the Myers-Briggs instrument I mailed to you. Therefore, I must assume you misplaced the first question¬ naire. I have enclosed another copy of the questions and an answer sheet. Please follow the instructions on the cover of the question booklet. Then place the completed answer sheet in the postage-paid envelope and mail it. I'm asking you to complete and return the answer sheet to me immediately. Even though your school year is drawing to a close and you are probably not interested in doing anything additional, please take the time to complete the form. Don't spend an excessive amount of time thinking about the answers; just enter your initial response and continue to the next question. The primary purpose of this instrument is to identify your preferred learning style, so future inservice training can be structured to better meet vour needs. As a result, the MSU Agriculture and Technology Educa¬ tion Department is reserving the right to use the information for future planning of inservice training. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, John Ballard Graduate Student JB/jlh Enclosures 78 APPENDIX D: EFFECTIVE INSERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE 79 EFFECTIVE INSERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE Please respond to the following questions. There are no right or wrong answers, only your preference. Do not think too long on any one question; go with your initial response. The information to be derived from this questionnaire may be used to structure future inservice activities, PART I Please read and rank all statements according to your most preferred approach to learning. Use #J for your most preferred, #6 for your least preferred, 1. Rank the following in terms of how you would prefer to learn in an inservice workshop. a. Work on my own. ‘ b. Work with something tangible. c. Focus on ideas and concepts. • d. Organize things in my own way. e. Work with others. f. Work on clear-cut assignments. 2. Rank the following items in terms of how you would prefer to be evaluated in a course. a. It should be assembled from questions provided by the learners. b. It should focus on individual performance rather than group performance. c. It should consist of an examination dealing mainly with written concepts. d. It should consist of a practical examination dealing with skills. ___ e. It should be based on clearly specified objectives/ competencies. f. It should not interfere with good relationships between the teacher and student. 3. Rank the following according to your preference when learning new material. a. Study alone instead of studying with someone else. b. Perform a specific task. c. Have a knowledgeable instructor discuss the theory upon which a practice is built. d. Determine my own approach and proceed accordingly. e. Join a group of learners to study together and share ideas. f. Get specific course objectives from the instructor and a clear understanding of what will occur in the course. 80 4. Rank the following to indicate why you are attracted to an inservice workshop. a. Good personal relationships between instructor and fellow Ag teachers. b. Clearly spelled-out standards and requirements. c. Emphasis on practicing skills. d. Emphasis on individual study. e. Opportunity to determine my own activities, with a specific area. f. Emphasis on theoretical concepts. 5. Rank the following in terms of what caused you to maximize learning during inservice training. a. The instructor gave me many practical, concrete examples. b. The instructor let me set my own goals and try different approaches to reach them. c. The instructor encouraged me to work independently. d. The instructor seemed to be interested in students as individuals. e. The teacher clearly explained the relationships between different approaches to a subject. f. The instructor made clear and definite assignments/tasks, and I knew what was expected. 6. Rank the following in terms of their value to you as a method of learning. a. Study a textbook or resource book. b. Engage in an internship or practicum. c. Prepare a project with other students. d. Search for reasons to explain occurrences. e. Follow an outline or task sheet prepared by the instructor. f. Prepare your own outline. PART II Check only one statement for each question which best describes your preferred approach to learning. 1. When I decide to learn new things, it is usually for . [ ] a. self-satisfaction and intellectual recognition. [ ] b. self-involvement in important issues, bringing unity to diversity. [ ] c. to bring my view of present into line with future expecta¬ tions. [ ] d. to make things happen, to bring action to concepts. 81 2. When I learn a new topic, I need to . [ ] a. know how things work [ ] b. know what can be done with things [ ] c. be involved personally [ ] d. know what the experts think 3. When I learn, I . [ ] a. like to analyze things, break them down into their related parts [ ] b. look at all sides of an issue [ ] c. like to try things out [ ] d. am open to new experiences 4. As a student, my favorite question to ask is . [ ] a. why or why not? [ ] b. what? [ ] c. how does this work? [ ] d. what can this become? 5. I learn best when I . [ ] a. analyze ideas [ ] b. am receptive and open-minded [ ] c. am careful [ ] d. am practical 6. When I am learning, I . [ ] a. am quiet and reserved [ ] b. have strong feelings and reactions [ ] c. tend to reason things out [ ] d. am responsible about things related to my learning 7. The instructional technique I prefer when I'm learning is [ ] a. video presentations (movies) [ ] b. workbooks/lab manuals/handbooks [ ] c. independent study [ ] d. lecture 8. When I learn, I like to . [ ] a. deal with my feelings [ ] b. watch and listen [ ] c. think about ideas [ ] d. be doing things 9. When studying, I . [ ] a. am sometimes a workaholic [ ] b. sometimes jump from one activity to another [ ] c. am sometimes pessimistic about work ahead of me [ ] d. like to use tools and be active 82 10. I prefer approach to learning. [ ] a. group discussion [ ] b. a textbook [ ] c. a programmed instruction [ ] d. the simulation 11. I prefer the teaching technique. [ ] a. hands-on opportunity [ ] b. short lecture with questions and answers [ ] c. mini-lectures and exploration [ ] d. guided individual study 12. Learning is maximized when I am . [ ] a. an observing person [ ] b. an active person [ ] c. an intuitive person [ ] d. a logical person 13. I attend inservice workshop(s) to seek ___. [ ] a. factual information [ ] b. usable information [ ] c. new uses of subject materials [ ] d. an understanding of the subject material 14. When studying, I ______ . [ ] a. search for meaning to subject materials [ ] b. am spontaneous in my study habits [ ] c. think about the material in a logical and intelligent manner [ ] d. organize my study time 15. I prefer to learn by . [ ] a. testing theories in ways that seem sensible [ ] b. trial and error or self-discovery [ ] c. thinking through ideas [ ] d. listening and sharing ideas 16. I learn best when I . [ ] a. work hard to get things done [ ] b. trust my hunches and feelings [ ] c. listen and watch carefully [ ] d. rely on logical thinking 83 Please write in the answers to the following questions 17. Number of students enrolled in department: . 18. Years of teaching experience: • 19. Age: 20. Education level (circle the appropriate responses): B.S. or M.S. or Ph.D. Additional credits beyond the degree level: +15 +30 Other ) (continue to next page 84 In the left column of the following matrix there Is a list of curriculum areas. Please do the following: (1) In Column I and Column II, indicate your choice of method and material you prefer to be used In inservice presentations; (2) in Column III, Indicate your preference for a learning method; (3) in Column IV, indicate how you prefer the material be packaged for your use in teaching. If a question arises, please refer to the definition sheet for clarification. The definition sheet accompanied the cover letter. Place the number of your choice in each box formed below the column and across from the cumculum area. Please place only one choice In each box of the matrix. (See example below.) / Instructional Mathods II Instructional Materials III Learning Method IV Packaging of Teaching Materials NEW CURRICULUM AREAS: 1. Lecture w/overheads 2. Lecture w/group discussion 3. Presentation w/reading materials 4. Independent study 5. Computer-assisted instruction 6. Short reading assign¬ ments for class activities 7. Guided Individ, study 8. Mini-lectures 1. Workbooks or lab manuals 2. Video mat'ls 3. Audio tapes 4. Simulations or problems 1. Workshop Z Self-study 1. Audio cassette recording tapes Z VCR tapes Printed Media: 3. Outlines 4. Factual statements 5. Short narratives Software Media: 8. Outlines 7. Factual statements 8. Short narratives EXAMPLE (Crop Staging): / 4- z 3 Animal genetic engineering Animal biotechnology Aquaculture Greenhouse/nursery mgmt Hydroponics Integrated pest mgmt Landscaping Natural resources (renew¬ able & non-renewable) Plant biotechnology Plant genetic engineering Water resource mgmt Ag automation systems Agriculture robotics Agriculture salesmanship Environmental issues affecting animals Environmental issues affecting plants Financial record¬ keeping & accounting International marketing 85 APPENDIX E: COVER LETTER AND DEFINITIONS FOR EFFECTIVE INSERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE 86 B MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Agricultural and Technology Education Cheever Hall Montana State University Bozeman, Montana 59717 406-994-3201 or 994-3691 May 5, 1989 Dear Fellow Ag Teacher: I need your help in completing my professional paper. The purpose of this research project is to determine if and/or how inservice can be changed to better meet your needs. Realizing the year is drawing to a close and it is a busy time, I'm hoping you will take 15 to 20 minutes to complete and return the enclosed questionnaire. These instruments are coded so your name can be removed from the mailing list when your questionnaire is returned. However, the Agriculture and Technology Education Department is reserving the right to keep this information on file for future reference when planning inservice training. If you encounter questions which appear to be similar to previous ques¬ tions, please answer and continue. It is necessary to include these questions to validate the findings. Remember, there is no right or wrong answer; it is only your preference. Please read the questions closely; sometimes you will be asked the question as a learner, other times as an instructor. INSTRUCTIONS: Please follow the instructions included throughout the survey instrument. Included for your reference is a series of definitions for the instructional methods. This is to ensure we are defining the terms in the same way. When you have completed the survey, please tape or staple the instrument together and drop it in the mail. The survey is pre-addressed and postage is prepaid for your convenience. Thank you for your cooperation. See you at Update Conference. Sincerely yours, JB/jlh Enclosures John Ballard Graduate Student 87 THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS ARE FOR YOUR REFERENCE (1) LECTURE WITH OVERHEADS: An oral presentation with the main purpose of presenting large amounts of information in a short period of time, supplemented by overheads which provide large amounts of information to the class at a time. (2) LECTURE WITH GROUP DISCUSSION: An oral presentation with the purpose of presenting large amounts of information in a short period of time, supplemented by directed discussion including listening, questioning, sharing of comments, and evaluating a topic by the learner and the instructor. (3) PRESENTATION WITH READING MATERIALS: Any oral or visual style of presentation supplemented with written materials whose main intent is to provide well-planned, concise, and sequentially organized coverage of a particular subject or topic. (4) COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION: The use of a computer and computer program to help learners acquire skills and information specifically for their individual needs and ability levels. (5) SHORT READING ASSIGNMENTS FOR CLASS ACTIVITIES: Written, well- planned, concise, and sequentially organized materials on a specific topic, supplemented with structured class learning activities to support the written materials. (6) GUIDED INDIVIDUAL STUDY: Direction is provided by an instructor or facilitator for the purpose of information and/or analysis of ideas in an indepth topic area. Individuals are responsible for their own learning. (7) MINI-LECTURES: Short, topic-specific, oral presentations for the purpose of bringing about divergent thinking, presenting materials for problem solving, or considering ideas in new ways. (8) OUTLINES: The essential features and key points of the topic material. For example: J. Why is it important to prepare a bill of material? a. To calculate the cost of a project. b. To know what to purchase. (9) FACTUAL STATEMENTS: A series of complete and concise statements about a topic area. For example: 1. Brace-’A piece of wood or other'material that directs, resists, or supports weight or pressure. 2. Cleat--A strip of wood or metal fastened across a form for temporary positioning or to replace a form tie. 88 (10) SHORT NARRATIVE: Topic material information stated in a story-like form. For example: Some of the most difficult and costly repairs to houses are caused by faulty foundation work. The need may be created by errors In foundation size; walls that allow water to enter, are unstable, or that crack or fail; settlement problems that lead to difficulties with floors, window and door open¬ ings, chimneys and roofs. Once the house has been built, proper repair of a bad foundation may be almost prohibitively costly. Kinds of Foundations: Single family residences may be built on any of four general types of foundation: A full basement foundation (Fig. 1) is one that is made of four or more exterior concrete walls that carry most of the load of the house. These walls usually have the same configuration and dimensions as the floor plan and extend into the earth to a point below the frost line. 89 APPENDIX F EFFECTIVE INSERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE FOLLOW-UP LETTER 90 H MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Agricultural and Technology Education Cheever Hall Montana State University Bozeman, Montana 59717 406-994-3201 or 994-3691 May 16, 1989 Dear Fellow Ag Teacher: I recently mailed a survey to you entitled EFFECTIVE INSERVICE. To date, I have not received your reply. With the school year drawing to a close, I'm concerned you may have inadvertently overlooked returning the survey. Please take the 15-20 minutes to complete and return the survey to me. Believe me, I need your help. Your efforts and consideration are greatly appreciated. Thanks, John Ballard Graduate Student JB/jlh 91 APPENDIX G: CORRELATION OF QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DOMAINS IDENTIFIED BY DEVELOPER 92 Table 26. Correlation of questions and responses to domains identified by developer. MBTI KOLB GRE60RC EHRENUALD REZLER Domains* Domains* Domains* Domains* Domains* Question NF NT SJ SP CE R0 AC AE AR CR AS CS IL AL CSL DL AB CO IS SS IP IN Part I: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Part II: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 d b a c bead b a c d abed b a c d c a d b a c d b b c d a b a c d c d a b abed a c d b a d b c b c d a d a b c d c a b c b f d e a c d e a f b c b f d e a f c b e a d f a e b d c d b e f c a Refer to Chapter 2, "Review of Literature," for domain abbreviations. 93 APPENDIX H: RESPONSES TO PARTS I AND II OF THE EFFECTIVE INSERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE BY THE ONLY NF RESPONDENT 94 Responses to Parts I and II of the Effective Inservice Questionnaire by the Only NF Respondent Part I: 1. (a) 2 2. (a) 3 3. (a) 2 (b) 1 (b) 1 (b) 1 (c) 1 (c) 5 (c) 1 (d) 5 (d) 2 (d) 3 (e) 3 (e) 2 (e) 1 (f) 3 (f) 1 (f) 1 4. (a) 3 5. (a) 1 6. (a) 5 (b) 2 (b) 1 (b) 1 (c) 1 (c) 2 (c) 3 (d) 3 (d) 1 (d) 1 (e) 1 (e) 1 (e) 1 (f) 6 (f) 2 (f) 5 Part II: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. a 10. a 11. a 12. b 13. b 14. a 15. a 16. c a