SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING IN NURSING EDUCATION:

AN EVALUATIOi{ OF A HOSPITAL-BASED
DIPLO}4A SCHOOL OF NURSING

by

Iulaureen Mary O "Ioole

A thesis
presented
- to the University of luianitoba
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
I4aster of Education
FacultY of Graduate Studies

trrlinnipeg, i'{anitoba
(c) lvlaureen Mary O'Toole, 1988
Permíseíon has been gnanted
to the Natior¡at L,íbrarY of
Canada t.o microfi.l-m È.hie
thesís and t.o l-end or eeLl-
copíes af. ëhe fíi-m,
The author (copyríEht owr¡er)
hae reserved ot.her
publ-icat,ion ri.ght.s, and
¡leít.her the t,hesis nor
extensíve extracte f rom $.e
may be prínted or otherwi.se
reþroduced wíthout, hís/her
s{rít.t,en permíeeíon "
r sBN 0-3L5-4 8 061-0
Lsaut.orieatíon a êt,ê accordêe
å i-a Eibl-iothèque ¡latíonal-e
du Canada de mícrofílmer
cet.t,e thèse et de prêter @u
de vendre des exempl-aíres du
ftIm.
f,ô du droít
auÈeur ( titutaíre
d aut,eur )
n
se réserve l-es
autree droits de publ-icatíoni
ni I-a È,hèee ní de J-ongs
exëraíte de cel-l-e-ai ne
doi\¡ent etre Ì.mprlmea ou
^aoe
autrement reproduíts sans son
aut,orisatlon êcríte
 SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING IN NURSING EDUCATION:
AN EVALUATION OF A HOSPITAL-BASED
DIPLOMA SCHOOL OE NURSING

tfr

MAUREEN MARY O'TOOLE

A thesis subnlitted to the Faculty of Craduate Stt¡dies of

tlte Urtiversity oI Manitoba in partial fulfilllnent ol the requirerlents
of the degree of

I'{ASTER OF EDUCATION

o t'988

Per¡nission has been granted to the LIBIIARY OF TI-iE UNIVER-

SITY OF N'IANITOBA to lend or sell copies ol'this thesis. to
the NATIONAL LItsRARY OF CANADA to nricrofilnr this
thesis and to lend or sell copies ol the f-ilm. and UNIVERSITY
lvllCROFILlvlS to publish a¡r abstract of this thesis.

The author reserves other publication rights, and ¡leither the

thesis ¡ror extensive extracts fronl it nray be ¡rritrted or other-
wise reproduced rvithor¡t the author's rvrittcn ¡rerrnission.
I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis.
I authorize the UniversitY of Manitoba to lend this thesis
to other institutions or individuals for the PLlrpose of
scholarly research.

Maureen Mary 0'Too1e

I further authorize the University of t"lanitoba to reproduce

tnis thesis by photocopying or by other means, in total or
in part, ât the-request-of-other institutions or individuals
for the purpose of scholarly research.

Maureen Ì{ary 0'Toole

 ''ABSTRACT''

In nursing and its education, self-directedness is thought

to be beneficial to enable nurses to maintain currency in
their knowledge. This program evaluation study is designed
to determine whether nursing students, in a nursing program
whole philosophy assumes learners take responsibility for
their learning, do perceive themselves to be self-directed
learners. The study also investigates whether faculty,
within a nursing progran whose philosophy assumes teachers
to be facilitators of learning, ar-re using principles of
adult learning in their instruction"

The study is framed around the Stufflebeam progran

evaluaLion model concerning the context and process
components. Context evaluation measures Lhe extent to which
the program is meeting the needs of those it serves. Two
student samples vlere util Lzed in this study. Process
evaluation measures the actual implementation of the
program. In this study, the teachers' utilLzatLon of
principles of adult learning \üas measured' Two
questionnaires hrere utilLzed in the methodology:

- l_v
(f) Guglielmino's'self-directed learning readiness scale'
(SDLRS) measured two student samples' Perceived
self-directed learning readiness; and (2) Conti's
tprinciples of adult learning scale' (PALS) measured the
faculty's use of principles of adult learning"

The tvro student samples j-ncluded: (l) 75 students at the end

of their first year in the program; and (2) 99 beginning
students. Their SDLRS scores \.üere statistically related to
each other, and to age and amoun¡ of formal education" The
SDLRS scores of sample I were correlated Lo the final year

one grad.es. The students vlere f ound to have no more or less

self-directed learning readiness than the norming
population. Comparatively, the two samples had similar
SDLRS scores. There \^7as a statistically signif icant
positive relationship between âBê, amount of formal
education and SDLRS scores " There \Àras a weak Positive
correlation between SDLRS scores and final year one grades "

Twenty-two facultY r¡/ere found to be using PrinciPles of

-v
adult learning no more or less often than the norming
population. The sample \üas too smal1 confidenLly to
conclude statistical relationships, but there was a tendency
for faculty under 40 years old, with educational background
in principles of adult learning, with less than 20 years
overall nursing pracLice, Lo have higher PALS scores"

Implications for future study center on: (f) validation of

the principles of adult learning scale with nursing samples,
(2) investigation of the effect of teacher insLruction on
studenL's self-directed. learning readiness and ability, and
(3) determination of effective facilitation behavior in the
clinical setting.

- vt_
 ACKNOI\TLEDGEMENTS

Sincere Lhanks is extended to the following people: Barbara

Paterson for her ideas ' sl¡ggestions and support; Kathy
Stansfield for her support and instruction in computer use;
Dean Care for his approval and support; Jeff Sloane for his
statistical expertise; Sachi at the Manitoba Nursing
Research InsLitute for her cheerful assistance; Dr" G.
Thompson f or his expertiSe and encouragement; Íì'umerous
friends for their support and humour; my siblings and their
families for their support and 'normalcy'; and especially ny
parents, Jim and Betty O'Toole, whose encouragement and
support have been invaluable. I am also indebted to the
support and guidance from my advisor Dr. A. Gregor and the
advisory committee members: Professor M" Bonneau and Dr" A.
Jope "

- vl-r
 TABLE OF CONTEI.ITS

Page

ABSTRACT iv

ACKNOI'iLEDGEMENTS vlL

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES xl-t

CHAPTER ONB - INTRODUCTIO\I I

Definitions 6

þ-ramework for the Study B

Context Research Questions L7

Context Hypotheses IB

Process Research Questions L9

Process Hypotheses 20

CHAPTER Ti{O - LITERATURE REVIEI^I 23

Part I Philosophies of Aoult Learning 23

Part 2 Context Evaluation: Adult

Learners anci Adult Learning 34

- Characteristics of AdulL Learners 35

- vlll
 Page

- Adult Life Situations 42

- Changes in Consciousness 44

- Self-directed learning:
Characteristics and Its Role
in Nursing Education 45

Part 3 - Process Evaluation: Facilitation

of Learning 53

CHAPTER THREE - METHODOLOGY 6L

The r'{ursing Prograrn 62

Sample Selection 6B

- Context Evaluation 6B

Student SamPle Selection

- Process Evaluation 7L

Teacher SamPle Selection

Etirical Considerations IJ

Description of the Survey Instruments 75

- Self-directed Learning Readiness Scale 76

- Principles of Adult Learning Scale B2

-l-x-
 Page

CHAPTER FOUR - PRESEi\TATION AND AI{ALYSIS B7

OF RESEARCH FIT\DIi{GS
Context Evaluation Findings B7

- Hypothesis I ot

- Hypothesis 2 93

- Flypothesis 3 96

- Hypothesis 4 9B

- Iiypothesis 5 99

- Summary L02
Process Evaluation Findings L02

- Hypothesis I 103

- Hypothesis 2 104

- Hypothesis 3 106

- Hypothesis 4 L{J7

- Hypothesis 5 l0B
- SumrlarY ll0
Supplemental Findings lll
- Limitations of SDLI{S Instrunent trl
- Limitations of PALS Instru-rnent ll5
0tlrer Limitations of the Stu<iy llB

CHAPTER FIVE - SUMI'IAIìY fu{D COI\CLUSIONS L2L

-X
 Page

BIBLIOGRAPHY 130

APPENDICES

A - Student Raw Scores and

Biographical Data 15l
B Student Raw Scores: SDLRS and
Fínal Year I Grades r59

C Teacher Raw Scores and

Biographical Data r-6 5

D Letter of Consent L69

E SDLRS Instrument L7L

- Consent for Use L72

- Directions for Use L73

- Questionnaire L74

- Directions and BiograPhical

Data - Students L78

F PALS Instrument L79

- Consent for Use r80

- Questionnaire 181

- Answer Sheet 183

Directions and BiograPhical

-
Data - FacultY 184

G - Covering Letters for FacultY 185

H - Ethics Committee Letter of Approval r89

-xl
 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLES Page

Table Comparison of Student Samples B9

Regarding Age, Sex,and
Anount of Formal Education
Table 2 Chi Square for SDLRS Scores 92

Table J SDLRS Scores and Age 94

Table 4 SDLRS Scores and Amount of 96

þ-ormal Education
Table 5 Comparison of Samples' SDLRS Scores 99

Table 6 Chi Square for PALS Scores 104

Table 7 PALS Seores and Age 105

Table ô
o PALS Scores and EducaLion in 106
Principles of Adult Learning
Table 9 PALS Scores and Amount of l0B
Teaching Experience
Table l0 PALS Scores and Amount of r09
Overal1 r\ursing Practice
Table ll Duplicate Item Loading on ll3
Factors of SDLI{S
Table L2 r\ornal Distribution of ll5
PALS Factor Scores

FIGURES

Figure I Effect of Age on SDLRS Scores 95

Figure 2 Effect of Amount of Formal 98

Education on SDLRS Scores

Figure 3 - Scattergrain of SDLRS Scores l0l

anci l,-inal Year I Gracies

- xl_l
 Chapter One

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this thesis is toexplore self-directed

learning in nursing education by comparing the practice and
philosophy of a school of nursing" The philosophy of the
particular school of nursing to be studied suggests that
learners are self-directed and responsible for their
learning, and that their teachers act as facilitators to the
learning process, The study is designed to determine
wheLher the nursing students perceive themselves to be
self-directed and whether their faculty perceive themselves
to be using principles of adult learning in their
instruction. If the findings determine that students
perceive themselves as self-directed learners and faculty
are utilLzLng principles of adult learning, the study will
conclude that the philosophy is realistic for this nursing
program.
Sel in learning is seen bY wriLers of
f-directednes s

adult education to be beneficial for the retention of

learning" In nursing and its education, self-directedness
 2

is thought to be beneficial in Lerms of enabling nurses and

student nurses Lo meet the demands of the nursing profession
and ever changing health care technology (Jarvis , L987) "

The perceived need for self-directedness in nursing

education is so valued that many schools of nursing state
beliefs in their curricuh:m philosophies that emphasize the
learners' responsibility for their learning and ühe
teachers' responsibility to act as facilitators to this
learning process. There is little empirical evidence that
this emphasis on learner self-directedness is suitable for
the beginning nurs ing s tudent \^Tithin a s tructured
time-limited curriculr:m. Brookfield (f984) suggests "it is
not easy to admit that a dearly held, humanistically
impeccable philosophy might be difficult to implement in
practical situations" (p " 2). Studies on self-directed
learning and nurses in an educational setting discuss the
self-directedness of nurses in continuing nursing education
or of registered nurses in baccalaureate programs; little is
written on the self-directedness of beginning students in
diploma schools of nursing" Such belief statements about
learners and Leachers üây, therefore, be difficult to enact
in a beginning diploma nursing program. Ins tead,
self-directedness may be the goal for these students as they
progress through the nursing progran.
It is assumed that by being self-directed learners,
these nursing students, who then become practitioners, will
 3

also be continual lifelong learners capable of remaining

current in their health care knowledge and nursing practice.
Tibbles (L977 ) suggests agreement that with rapid
technological advances and the bioscientific knowledge
explosion, every nurse should be responsible for continuing
her education. She cites difficulties in achieving this
goal by Stating "the basic education of inany nurses has not
prepared them to assume this responsibility" (p. 25).
cooper (1980), i{odgers (1985), Diekelmann (1986),
Jarvis (1987) and Sook Sohn (L987) identify the needs for
research in nursing education" In their individual
writings, Lhese authors indicate that there is minimal
documentation in the area of nursing education research.
Cooper emphatically identifies a need for more research
about self-d.irected learning in nursing education. Rodgers
identifies several areas for research in nursing education.
In particular, she identifies a need to study how teachers
teach nursing and how students nay be able to acquire the
needed. information in the most efficient way. Diekelrnann
suggests a need to study the teaching-learning process in
nursl-ng " Jarvis further suggests a need to study
self-directed learning in nursing education in L987. Sook
Sohn writes of the need to study the area of program
evaluation in nursing. She claims it to be "one of the
least sLudied areas in nursing" (p. 27). Dressel and
'Ihonrpson (T97 3) identif y a need to study self -directed
 4

learning in higher education. they claim "fewer areas in

irigher education today are so vaguely eulogized, yet so
little understood, so loosely defined, and so inadequately
researched as self-directed learning" (p" vii). Since L973,
more research has ensued in the area of self-directed
learning; however, it remains a loosely defined area of
inquiry.
Patricia Benner (1984) describes her 'i$ovice to Expert'
theory that is based on the Dreyfuss model of skills
acquisition. Essentially, this theory describes five levels
of transition through which a nurse evolves from being a
beginning student and practitioner to becoming an expert
practitioner" She describes the implications for teaching
and learning at each of Lhe levels. The inplications differ
for each of the leve1s from novice, advanced beginner,
competent, proficient, to expert practitioner. Student
nurses are describeci as being novice to advanced beginner
practitioners. Benner describes the novice as being a
dependent learner who requires structure in the
teaching-learning process. The advanced beginner is
described by l3enner as requiring assistance to make clinical
s ituations ¡aeaningf ul " One Dây , theref ore , ques Lion whetirer
the studenLs' al¡ilities to be self-directed are also
influenced by the leve1 of skills acquisition. Can the
beginning nursing student be totally responsible for
learning a ne\¡rr field and be self-directed in this goaL?
 5

,Brookfield (f9E6) suggests xnat "one cannot be a fullY

self-direcLed learner if one is applying techniques of
inclependent sLudy within a context of goaLs and evaluative
criteria detennined by an external autirority" (p. f9). Such
goals ancl evaluative criteria determj-ned by others are
co'non and realistic for approved beginning nursing
prograns.
Frisch (f987) writes about the cognitive maturity of
nursing students and found that "their level of cognitive
grorvth may be less advanced than üany nllrse educators and
lead.ers assutrterr (p. 27) " 'Ihis f inding rnay suggest that with
less cognitive maturiLy, nursing students may also possesS
less ad.vanced traits in other areas of adult developrnent,
such as the ability to be self-directed. Lyne (f980)
supports this premise (in Long, 1983) " Lyne's research
concluded that adults at lower stages of cognitive
d.evelopment prefer highly structured directions for course
activities ancl assignments. Individuals at higher stages of
cognitive development \^/ere found to prefer inore flexibility
and diversity (Long, 1983, p. 248). Investigation,
therefore, is appropriate to deterrnine whether beginning
nursing students are ready and able to be self-directed
learners "

This study purports to investigate teaching and

learning of nursing students in a descriptive nanner using
empirical quantitative rnethodology. By using a program
 6

evaluation model--stufflebeam's conLext, input, process and

product (CIPP) rnodel--the study will review the philosophy
of a nursing programts curriculum in terms of its
assumptions about learners and teachers and the
teaching-learning process. The philosophy of this program
assumes that learners will take responsibility for their
learning, and hence possess a degree of self-directed
ability. It also assumes that the teachers assist and
facilitate learning by providing an environment conducive to
learni-ng . This s tudy wil l measure the perceived
self-directed learning readiness of the students and the
perceived use of the principles of adult learning by the
teachers, in order to investigate whether the philosophy of
the program is enacted by its curriculum.
'Ihe following are operational definitions of terms
utilLzed throughout this thesis:

AduIt who is over 18 years of age and is not

Anyone
attending secondary school, or anyone who has assumed
responsibility for him/herself and functions within the
communiLy by perfonning social roles typically assigned by
our culture (Long, l9B3) "

Self-Directed Learning An activity for which ühe learner

takes the initiative and responsibility for the learning
process either in formal or infonnal educational settings.
 7

It includes both self-designed and other-designed aPProaches

(Bell & Be1 t, 1983) .

Facil itators are teachers who provide an environment

conducive to learning, consider the individuality of the
learners, and al1ow for collaboration throughout the
learning process. They are less authoritarian and teacher
centered and more learner centered (Brookfield, L987; Conti,
Le82) "

The philosophic base comprising

Phi I o s ophy- Ideo I o g ies
logic, ethics, aesthetics, utetaphysics and the theory of
knowledge to present assumptions and ideals as defined by
philosophers. Examples include huinanism, existentialism,
idealism, pragmatism and behaviorism (Leddy & Pepper, 1985).

Curricqlum Philosophies An integrated viewPoint toward

certain beliefs, ideas, attitudes and practices based on ti-re
ideologies. They form the foundation for the curriculum
(tlevis , L982).

Diploma Nursing Program A two year hospital or college

based nursing program that provides Lhe educational content
and experience to prepare students Lo write 1 icens ing
exaninations for itegistereci ì'furse status
 8

Program Evaluation The process of describing and judging

an educaLion program through the systematic identification,
collection and interpretation of specific information for
the purpose of assisting decision makers to choose among

available alternatives (Horan, Knight & McAtee, L9B4) "

Holistic Care Nursing care thaL is concerned with all

aspects of the whole person, seen as the physical,
physiological, emotional, mental, social and spiritual
dimensions.

FRA},IEI^IORK FOR THE STUDY

The curriculum for a nursing program offers guidelines

for structuring the teaching-learning process. Involved in
curriculum development is the establishment of a philosophy
statement, theoretical framework, goa1s, objectives,
learning activities and evaluation methodologies (Bevis,
L982). According Lo Bevis, this philosophy statement is the
basis for the curriculum. The beliefs and assumptions
stated in the philosophy document are to be addressed
throughout the curriculum" These philosophy statements
contribute to the uniqueness of Ehe program by reflecting
the school's beliefs and assumptions about man, health,
nursing, learni-ng, teachers and learners. Croll (L977)
identifies purposes of curriculum philosophy sLatements "
 9

Although her focus is on nursing continuing education, these

prtrposes are universal. She \n/rites that philosophy
statements (f) give meaning and cLarLf.y reasoning for the
learning activities, (2) provide a basis for accountability,
(3) provide a basis upon which to establish objectives for
the program, and ultimately to evaluate the program, and (4)
should be relevant to teachers, learners, and the needs of
society (p. 24) "
The curriculum philosophy statemenLs containing
assumptions about man, health, learning, teachers and
learners ultimately reflect ideologies identified by
philosophers. Bevis described Ehe evolution of
philosophical ideologies throughout the existence of nursing
education programs. They have evolved in order to meet
societal and nursing demands and needs. The currenL
ideology of nursing education is said, by Bevis (L982) and
Joseph (1985), to be a humanistic existential one, wherein
holism and humanitarianism are the ideals. Scales (f985)
suggests that pragmatism, realism and idealism are the
underlying ideologies of current nursing education programs.
One might conclude, therefore, that there are multiple
ideals opera|ional Lzed, in nursing education" These
ideologies are also identified by philosophers in adult
education as being appropriate for adult education (Apps,
1985; Conti, L9B2; Elias & Merriam, l9B0; Bergurn, L967;
Lindeman, Lg6L) " As such, learners who follow a pragmatic,
 l0
humanistic, existential ideology use past experience as a
basis upon which to learn further and may be assumed to be
self-directed in their learning" It rnay be further assumed
that teachers of Lhese students are facilitators Lhat can
assist in the learning process by providing an environmenL
conducive to learning. These assumptions about learners and
teachers, taken from adult education ideologies and current
societal beliefs, are incorporated inLo nursing education
program philosophies for the curriculum to operaLionaLLze.
Often nursing program designs, while espousing this
learner-centered philosophy, are, in fact, teacher-cenLered
with predeterrnined learning objectives, contenL, learning
strategies and evaluation methodologies. Sheehan (f986)
describes the design of predetermined objectives, content,
strategies and evaluation as bing a product and not a
process design. It is behavioristic in ideology' He
criticizes that the teacher is the more active player, while
the learner is passive. This criticism is similar to that
of Rogers (f969) " He suggested Lhat "vzhen v/e use a
prescribed curriculum, similar assigrunents for all students,
lecturing, standard tests and instructor chosen grades, then
we can almost guaranLee that meaningful learning will be at
an absolute minimum" (p" 5) " Sheehan goes on to describe
the process design as being more learner-centered; the
learner is active by solving neaningful problems. This
process design is more congruent with a humanistic,
 ll
pragmatic ideologY"
Yuen (L987) describes a similar paradigm to Sheehan's
in his discussions of linear vs. rnultidimensional approaches
to curriculum design. He describes the linear model to be
an tends' model whereby the objectives, content, strategies
and evaluation are predetermined by the faculty; the
learners are siroply to meet the objectives. This linear
approach is similar to Sheehan's product mode1. Such models
tend to be popular with programl approval agencies who offer
strict standards from which nursing prograns are to operate
in order to be approved (MARN Registered Nurses' Act). Yuen
also states that such designs arise from philosophies that
claim to be learner-centered with assumptions that learners
are able to make Lheir own decisions and take responsibility
for their learning. He suggests that most nursing programs
fal1 into the category of learner-centered philosophies but
follow linear designed approaches" He offers an alternative
approach - a multidimensional one that allows for learner
input and problem solving. Research, therefore, DâY be
appropriate in this area to investigate the enactment of a
program philosophy by its curriculum to determine whether it
is a product, linear, teacher-centered design or a process,
multidimensional, learner centered one.
Research through the use of a program evaluation model
is an efficient vlay to investigate the enactment of a
program philosophy. Grotelueschen (in Knox and Associates,
 L2

f980) distinguishes between evaluaLion and research by

saying that program evaluation is not concerned with
knowledge for iLs ol.rrl. sake, but with knowledge for action"
He suggests that program evaluation is less concerned with
making generalizations than with making decisions in a
specific setting (p. 8f) " This thesis pertains to a
program's evaluation and attempts to make generalizations,
in so far as the data analysis allows, and in relation to
programs with similar curriculum philosophies. The

Stufflebeam model for program evaluation is suitable for

this study because it, too, purports to gather evaluation
data for decision makers in a program. Specific conclusions
are made for the program under sLudy
stufflebeam's CIPP model is designed to review a
curriculum in a comprehensive manner. It was developed in
Lg66 to be used for programs oriented Lo objective Lesting
and experimental design. The approach was based on the view
that "the nost important purpose of evaluation is not to
prove but to improve" (Stufflebeam, 1983, P ' ff8) '
Evaluation, by this framework, is seen as a tool by which
programs are made more effective for Lhe people they intend
to serve. It allows for student participation, which
Jenkins ( f 986 ) sugges ts is valuable f.or ref ining and
improving course curricula.
The Stufflebeam model considers four aspects of
evaluation: context, input, process and product. Context
 l3
evaluation purports to identify the strengths and \'veaknesses
of Some object, and to examine whether existing goals and
priorities are atturred to the rreeds oi those being served.
It provides information for curriculum planning decisions "

Lnput evaluatic¡n identifies and rates relevant approaches to

tþe program under review. It asSeSSes the program by
conparing what is being done elsewhere and what is proposed
in the literalure. It provides infomation for curriculum
structuring decisions. Process evaluation is an ongoing
assessment of the implementation of the progran. It
adciresses the extent to which program participants accept
and are able to caTry out their roles. It guides
impleinentation decisions in the evaluation design. Product
evaluation measures, interpreLs, and judges the attainments
ol the prograu. lt assesses long tenn effects and does so
by looking broadly at how the pfogram met the needs of the
Broup it intended to serve. IL facilitates recYcling
decis ions .

The use of a program evaluation model is important as

suggested by Ediger, snyder and corcorran (1983). They cite
the following advantages for using prograln evaluation
inodels: a model provides direction, inciicates the parameterS
for the evaluation, supplies a systematic approach, and
specifies relationships of its parts (p. L96). Using a
program evaluation model as a framework for a research study
is useful for tite Sanle reasons. the utooel will be
 L4

beneficial for developing the focus of the study. By using

Stufflebeams's CIPP model, particularly the context and
process aspects, the research questions for this study will
be formulated.
The Stufflebeam model has been chosen for this study
for several reasons: (f) by using the structured format
suggested by the context and process descriptions, the study
will have a focus and direction with parameters outlined in
a systematic way t (2) it is the program evaluation model
being utilLzed by Lhe institution from which the study
sample will be chosen; (3) it is congruent with the
holistic, humanistic philosophy of Lhe intended program of
studyt (4) as a systems model, it is congruent with the
linear/product oriented curriculum design of the intended
prograrn of study; and (5) it has been documented as having
been successfully utili-zed by other nursing programs (C1ark,
Goodwin, Moviani, Marshall & Moorek, 1983; Parfitt, L9B6;
Sook Sohn, L987) "

Parfitt (f986) used Lhe CIPP model to evaluate a

baccalaureaLe nursing program and deternined that there rsas
much conflict within the faculty regarding the teaching
methods utilLzed within the program. She felL that this
conf l ict s temmed f rom the f act that there \rrrere many
philosophies at work; consequently, many 'mini' prograrns
\dere underway with each teacher teaching according to her
own philosophy (p. f69). A quantitative study, such as the
 l5
one reported herein, is useful f.or obtaining information
regarding the perceptions of teachers about their teaching
methods to determine if the methods are congruent with the
ones suggested by the overall progran philosophy.
sook sohn (Lgs7 ) states that stufflebeamrs CIPP model
is useful in nursing program evaluation because it
emphas Lzes formative rather than sunrnative evaluation,
thereby enabling improvements earlier than at the end of an
evaluative period. She cites the following questions as
being approprj-ately addressed by this model: "Do faculty use
teaching methods consistent with the proposed ones?rr and
"Are the students learning as expected?" The intent of this
thesis was to address these questions by using Lhe conLext
and process evaluation componenLs of the Stufflebeam model.
The components Ivere util Lzed because they are specific to
the evaluation of a philosophy of a program. The context
evaluation examines the envirorunent in which the curriculum
exists Lo determine whether the existing goals and
priorities are attuned to the needs of those being served"
Nursing students at the beginning and aL Lhe end of the
first year of study !ùere studied because they are the
recipients of the curriculum.
The curriculum philosophy suggests that these learners
are responsible for their learning, and hence posSeSS a
degree of self-directedness. I^iithin the framework of the
context evaluation, the following research question was
 L6

addressed in this study: "Do nursing students in this

program perceive themselves to be self-directed learners as

the progïam philosophy suggesLs?" Actual self-directed

learning behavior is difficult to measure because of the
d.iversity of self-directed learning and difficulties in
obtaining unbiased results "
Process evaluation addresses the actual implementation
of the program to deLermine whether iL is being implemented
as planned" The curriculum philosophy of the nursing
program studied states that learning is facilitated, and the
teacher is responsible for providing an environment
conducive to learning, inquiry, and problem solving
(Institution Handbook, p. 2) " The teacher, therefore, is
expected to implement principles of adult learning" The
following research quesLion v/as addressed in Lhis study
within the framework of the process evaluation: "Are faculty
in this prograu using principles of adult learning as the
philosophy suggests?"
SLufflebeam advocates questionnaire methodology as an
appropriate data collecting approach f.ot the conLext and
process components. Survey questionnaire methodology \'üaS
used in this study to address the research questions.
Stufflebearn also maintains that this model is not intended
to be a hypothesis testing fo::nat; horvever, it can provide a
rich data base which can be anal-yzed and interpreted
s tatis tical ly.
 L7

'Ihe ceiltral purpose of this study was to explore the

enactment of a philosophy of a school of nursing in relation
to its learners and Leachers and the teaching-learning
process. Specifically, the context evaluation part sought
to ansrter:
t. Do nursing students at the beginning and at the
e¡rcl of Ene rirs t year of a diplorna prograül
perceive themselves to be self-directed learners
as tne pnilosophy of the program suggests and as
detemined by the 'Self -Directed Learning
Readiness Scale--SDLRS' ?

) Is there a statisLical relationship between the

SIJLI{S scores and &8ê, and nurnber of years of
formal education?
3. Is there a statistical relationship between the
sDl.ns scores of. the begínning students and the
scores of students after one year of study in a
progran whose philosopiry advocates that students
accept responsibiliLy for their learning?
4. ls tllere a statistical relationsnip betrveen tne
SDLR.S scores of the students at the end of first

year and tireir final ¿rades at the end of first

yeat?

I{ypotheses were tested to enable further exploration of

ttre context questions. The average population iclentified in
 t8
tlLe trypotheses reÍers to tkre nonling pc,pulations clescribed
by the creators of the measuring instruments " These
nypotneses are listed as fc¡llows:
l" NULL: Students in a diploma nursing program which
advocates stucient responsibility for Iearning,
will have SDLRS scores that are similar to those
of tne average population.
ALTEzu\A'IE HYPOTHESIS: Students in a diploma
nursing progran rvhich advocates student
responsibility for learning, will have SDLRS
scores that are hitsIier than ttre average
population.
) I\ULL: Students rvho are over 25 years of age will
Irave SDLI{S scores that are s imilar to the average
population "

AL'IEtu{ATE HYPOTHESIS: Students who are older tiran

25 years <¡f age will have SDLIì.S scores tirat are
higher than the average population"
3. NULL: Students with tnore than grade L2 f onrral
education will have SDLRS scores that are similar
to those of the average populacion"
ALTERNATE IIYPOTHESIS: Students ivith rirore tiran
grade L2 fonnal education will lrave SDL¡IS scores
that are higher Lhan tlre average population.
L\tJLL: Students who iìave coLupleted one year of
study of this program (which assuures learners to
 L9

be responsible for their learning) will have SDLRS

scores that are similar to Lhe SDLRS scores of the
beginning students "

ALÎERNATE HYPOTHESIS:Students who have completed

one year of study in this program (which assumes
learners to be responsible for their learning)
will have SDLRS scores that are higher than the
SDLRS scores of beginning students "

5. I\ULL: Stud.ents with higher SDLRS scores will have

average year one final grades" (This nursing
program considers 60-70% Lo be an average score")
ALTERNATE HYPOTHESIS: Students with higher SDLRS
scores will also have higher year one final grades
than students with low SDLRS scores.

The following questions ï¡rere addressed within the

framework of the process evaluation:
l" Are faculty in a diploma nursing prograu using
principles of adult learning as their program
philosophy suggests and as determined by the
'Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS)'?
2" Is there a statistical relationship between the
PALS scores and age of the teacher, Lhe teacher's
educational background in adult education, number
of years teaching and amounL of overall nursing
practice ?
 20

'Ihe following nypott1ese.s uTere tested to enable further

exploration of the process evaluation. ( Ihe norrning
population rerers to the one utilLzed by tire cleator of tlre
measuring instrunent. ) :
l" NULL: Faculty in a diplorna nursing program that
purports to facilitate learning will have P¡rLS
scores that are similar to Lhe norning population.
urLTERirlA'I'E Ì]YPOTI{ESIS: l'-aculty in a diplorira nursing

program that purports to facilitate learning will

have PALS scores that are higher than the norming
population"
? NULL: Faculty who are older than 40 years of age
will lrave P¿rLS scores that are similar to the
noming population.
AL'IEzu{ATE HYPOTHESIS : Faculty who are older than

40 years of age will rlave PaLS scores tnat are

higher than the norming population.
3. I\ULL: Faculty who have hacl educational background
in adult education (graduate work in adult
ecíucation) wilt have PALS scores thaL are siurilar
to the norming population"
aLT¡jRi'iaTE r{YP0-llÌjESIS: faculty wil.o have nad
educational background in adult education
(graciuate v¡ork in aoult eciucation) will have PALS
scores that are higher than the norming
population.
 2L

4" have taugirt for inore tfran 5

I.IULL: h-aculty wLro
years practice will have PALS scores that are
similar to the nonuing population.
ALTERNATE HYPOTHESIS: Faculty who have taught for

more than 5 years practice will irave PALS scores

thaL are higher than the norming population.
5" i.lULL: daculty wtlo nave less than 20 years of
overall nursing practice will have PALS scores
that are similar to tne norming populati<¡n.
AL'IERNATE HYPOTHESIS: Faculty who have less than

2\) years of overall nursing practice will i.Iave

PALS scores that are higher than the noming
popul ation "

This chapter has outlined the need for the study by

explaining the importance of self-ciirectedness for nurses
and suggesting the difficulties of its ir.rrplementation in a
beginning nursing prograu. Ihe frainework for tlre study was
introduced followed by the statements of the research
questions anci irYPotheses.
Chapter Two will contain a review of the literature
tnat is pertinent to philosophies of nursi¡g and acruli
education. The review will also include literature about
aciult learning and its racilitation. In Cliapter 'Inree, tne
methodology wíll be described. A description of the sanples
and the nursing progralll fron rvirich chey \.iere selected will
 22

be included. Literature on the measuring instruments and

their validation will also be presented" Chapter Four will
include this data, their analyses and implications. Chapter
Five will conclude Lhe thesis by summarizing the results,
drawing conclusions, and making reconmendaLions.
 23

Chapter Two

LITERATURE REVIEI^I

The literature review will be presented in three parts.

part I will include inforrnation relateci to tne phÍlosophies
of nursing and adult education. This part of the review
will explore the pnilosopfrical base of the assuurption
"learners take responsibility for their learning". Part 2
will consicier tlre conteKt e'valuation, i:resenting literature
related to the learners and their learning. It will address
tne needs and priorities of tne learners as adults and aS
nursing students. Part 3 lvill address the process
evaluation ín a review of literature related to tlle teachers
and their facilitation of learning. Adult learning
principles and elfective racilitation of learning will be
its focus "

PART I - PHILOSOPHIES OF ADUL'I LEARI'III{G

Philosophies of education are designed to irelp us to

unclerstand the rtature of knowlecige, values , reality, and
personal education experiences (Ebe1, I'troel & Bauer, L969, p"
 24

g47). The purpose of an educational philosophy, as defined

by Bergevin (L967), is to establish a common point of
reference and an integrated viewpoint toward certain
beliefs, ideas, attitudes and practice. These beliefs arise
from the ideologies or philosophical bases suggested by
philosophers. Ideologies consider 1ogic, ethics,
aesthetics, metaphysics, and the theory of knowledge.
Examples of ideologies are idealism, realism, pragmatism,
progressivism, humanism, behaviorism, and existentialism.
Elements of these philosophical bases are included in
curriculum and program philosophies. It is not the intent
of this study critically to evaluate these ideologies nor to
engage in philosophical debate. Rather, it will outline the
basic premises of t¡r-ese ideologies as they relate to adult
and nursing education.
Elias and }{erriam (f980) wro¡e a comprehensive book
elaborating Lhe philosophical foundations of adult
education. They identify several ideologies; of these,
humanism, pragmatism, behaviorism, progressivism, and
existentialism will be described because of their
significance to nursing education. The philosophical base
for the prograrn under study is sâid to be a humanistic
(humanitarian) one. Its sLructure, however, reflects a
behavioristic base"
Behaviorism, in adult education, is described as
emphas Lzi-ng such concepts as control, learning by behavioral
 25

objecLives, reinforcement and behavior modification" It

focuses upon measureable, overt activity. Learning, to a
behaviorist, involves a change in behavior. The learner is
considered active but only to the extent that he/she meeLs
the predetermined objectives that are then used to evaluate
the learning. The studentrs activities are in response to a
teacher-centered program and not a learner-centered one"
l"iany nursing programs use behavioral objectives in their
curriculum design. Their utility is in providing approval
agencies with concrete evidence of Lhe maintenance of the
preset standards "
The program under study is based on behavioral
objectives, and yet the philosophy vie\,rs the learner as
being a unique individual responsible for the initiaLive and
learning and active participation in the program of studies "
The two ideas are not congruent. This behaviorally designed
program has a philosophy that considers learning to be Lhe
foundation for problem solving. Learning is believed to be
facilitated and meaningful to learners when consideration is
given to the individual variations of the learners. This
consideration reflects a humanistic, pragUatic philosophical
base, not a behavioristic one"
Elias and Merriam (f980) relate humanistic adult
education to existential philosophy and humanistic
psychology. Its key concepts, according to these authors,
are autonomy, LruSt, active cooperation and participation
 26

and self-directed learning. They conLrast the humanistic

view with the behavioristic view. Humanistic education is
s tudent-centered " It assumes individual freedom and
responsibility" The teacher is a facilitator who considers
individual learning styles, needs, and interests of the
learners, Elias and Merriam go on to describe pragmatism as
being involved with solving human problems. Its postulates
emphasize the consequences of action in the determination of
truth and goodness (p" 48) " Such a philosophical base is
appropriate for nursing, a discipline involving ethics and
problem solving. Pragmatism is often associated with
progressivism because of its orientation towards social
ref orm"
Elia and Merriam describe the progressive view of adult
education as being learner-centered with an aim of bringing
about social change. Lifelong learning is valued by
proponents of the ideology. Conti (1985) also describes a
progressive view of education" He regards this view to
serve two functions. It allows for individual growth, as
well as maintaíning andlor promoting the good of society (p.
f0). Dewey (f9f 6) is cited by Elias and l'Ierriam as an
advocate of a pragmatic-progressive view. He describes
learning as someLhing thaL students do for Lhemselves, with
teachers providing a setting that is conducive to learning"
This descripüion is congruent to Lhe philosophy espoused by
the nursing program under study.
 27

carL Rogers (Lg6g), a renowned author in adult

learning, also advocates a humanistic, pragmatic,
progressive ideology. His emphasis is self initiated
learning which is relevant to the learner. He advocates
student participation within programs in program planning
and evaluation. His view of a Leacher's role is that of a
f acilitator. Several \,vriters share this learner-centered
philosophical viewpoint" Mezirow in l4erriam ( f 9B4)
considers this learner-centered view Lo be the essence of
adult learning. He suggesLs that enhancing the learners'
abilities for self-direction should become the philosophical
base for adult learning" This belief reflects a pragmatic,
humanistic, existential ideology.
conti (1985) assumes a humanistic and progressive
viewpoint as underlying his collaborative uode for learning"
His assumpLions presuppose that the curriculum be learner-
centered; that Lhe learning episodes should capitalize on
the learners' experiences; that adults are self-directed and
problem centered; that learners should participate in need
diagnosis, goals formation, and outcomes evaluation; and
that the teacher should serve as a facilitator rather than a
repository of facts (p. 22L)"
These authors tend to operationaLize several ideologies
at Lhe same time. Lindeman (f961) suggesLs Lhat possessing
and practising more than one ideology at any given time is
gornmsnpl¿c,s and even necessary" To illustrate this point,
 28

he aptly quotes Anatole France. "Each of us must ever be

allowed to possess two or three philosophies at the same
time (in order to) . save our thought from the
deadly formality of consistency" (p. xxvii) " To him, adult
education gives life meaning; it has a situation and not a
content approach
Apps (L979) identifies that a lack of consistent or any
philosophical foundation is contributing to problems in
adult education. He does not advocate one base to be
applicable to all adult learning situations; instead he
suggests that each program be developed from a philosophical
foundation" He offers his assumptions of adult learning as
a useful foundation for adult education programs, sLeming
from a broad humanistic viewpoint, whereby man is a unique
individual within the context of society. I4an, to him, is
not an isolated being with a goal of self-enhancement "

Adult learners are assumed to be self-directed and purposive

in their learning pursuits" He projects the purpose of
adult learning Lo be problem-oriented and critically
reflective"

Bergevin (L967) staLes thaL adult education must be

based on a philosophy of change and movement. The
ideologies underlying his assumptions are pragmatism,
existentialism and progressivism" Those who have written
about adult education philosophical foundations emphasize a
learner'centered, pragmatic and progressive viewpoint. It
 29

is generally assumed by such writers that there is minimal

desire for adult educators to assume a behavioristic
viewpoint. In practice, however, there exists a predominant
operationaLLzatLon of a behavioristic ideology. Apps (L979)
cites this to be a significant problem with adult education.
He also suggests that although behaviorism is evident in
practice, it is not necessarily arising from a program's
written philosophy"
Bevis (L982) describes written curriculum philosophies.
She states that the belief statements for nursing education
arisefrom trnlo elements: the curriculum groupts beliefs about
life and nursing that are accepted as valid, and the
propositions taken "on faith" (p. 5f). These beliefs and
values then influence the remainder of the curriculum, such
as the conceptual framework, objectives, learning strategies
and evaluation methodologies. \nihite in Srnith, Aker & Kidd
(f970) suggests four questions to consider about learning in
the philosophy statements: (f) who should learn?, (2) who
should be responsible for the learning?, (3) what should be
learned?, and (4) how should it be learned?
Torres (f986) writes about difficulties in
implementing curriculum philosophies. Four main problems
are identified: (f) the curriculum philosophy is incongruent
with the parent institution; (2) the philosophy is
nonoperational and idealistic, rather than realistic; (3)
new faculty are often not sufficiently oriented to the
 30

philosophy and its implications; and (4) Lhe philosophy

reflects the beliefs from nursing theory only and not from
the programt s faculty.
Landrum in Bec, RawlÍ-ns and I,jilliams (f984) suggests
that nursing philosophies are noL static but constantly
evolving, as are the participants. Nursing philosophical
foundations have evolved historically since the beginning of
nursing education programs. A description of these
historical foundaLions is important to account for current
nursing philosophical foundations. Practitioners often
operate frorn an earlier philosophical ideology. Bevis
(L982) describes the evolution of the philosophical bases
throughout the lifespan of nursing education programs" This
lifespan, âs suggested by Bevis, arose in the mid-nineteenth
century until the present Lime, during which there \^7ere four
main philosophical bases and phases apparent. She states
that "each of the four rose into prominence at differing
periods in nursing's development and gave rise to different
choices. Nome of them ever entirely disappeared from
nursingts decision making sysLem, and traces of them are
found in modern nursing" (p" 35). She lists the four
philosophies as aestheticism, romanticism, pragmatism, and
humanistic existentialism" She recognizes that aestheticism
and romanticism are not true ideologies; but she coined
these terms to reflect their historical presence. She
states that aestheticism arose from idealism, and
 3t
romanticism originated from realism"
Aestheticism, according to Bevis, arose from P1ato's
beliefs that a physical world is not the ultimate reality.
During the period 1850-1900, nurses seemingly followed this
belief and dedicated their lives to nursing. They lived a
self -denial exisLence. Piety \^/as viewed as being more
important than patient advocacy" Nursing education v/as
viewed of little import because nurses at this time vrere
"born", and learned their skills from other practising
nurses (pp" 36-37) "

Romanticism, according to Bevis, existed from

1890-f950. Having arisen from realism, nurses no longer
needed to dedicate Lhemselves solely to nursing. They could
have other worldly interests. They developed a romantic
notion to obey other authority figures, such as physicians.
It was during this period that nurses became "handmaidens"
to the physician, âD entrenchment thaL can be evident today.
Nurses, while not practising self-denial, T"/ere dependent and
lacked autonomy and assertiveness "

II resulted in an acute nursing shortage

\,riorld Inlar
which necessitated the era of pragmatism. This
philosophical era extended f rom tr'Iorld trnlar rr to the
seventies. Practicality and efficiency became the necessary
values. During this time, many ancillary health workers
evolved in order to cope with the increased health care
demands post \,\rar. SpecialLy areas emerged during this tirne.
 32

ing evolved to incorporate independence , autonomy , and

Lllurs

assertiveness, and to be seen as a profession unto itself"

As a result of these changed views, the patient, and not the
physician became the center of the health care system.
The emphasis on considering the patient as central to
health care evoked a humanistic, existential philosophical
base during the early seventies. Holistic care, prinary
nursing, and patienLs with biopsychosocial and spiritual
needs \,r7ere included into def initions and curriculum
philosophies. Nursing care became less task-oriented, and
more focused on genuine interest and care for the patients "
Curricula \^rere based on nursing theory and not merely a
division of medical specialities. Patients and nurses vlere
seen to take responsibitity for their actions.
Bevis suggests that the result of this existential
viewpoint is that sLatements are rnade about learners
accepting responsibility for their learning, or being
self-directed learners. The humanistic view accounts for
collaboration between teacher and lerner" A combination of
ideologies now exists in nursing pracLiLioners and forms the
philosophies of schools of nursing. To Bevis, these
philosophies determine subsequent action by the
practitioners" Tibbles (L977) writes about the importance
of nurses being lifelong learners " She indicates tiraL if
nursing programs made provision in their philosophies and
curricula to incorporate self-directed learning, more nurses
 33

\,,üould be lifelong learners.

Joseph (1985) considers humanism as an appropriate
philosophical base for nursing because its tenets can be
easily incorporated into beliefs about patients, students
and nursing education. She cites Lamont's (f965) definition
of humanism: being concerned with the greatest good for all
humanity. Emphasis is placed on Lhe importance of
humaneness. This view is similar to the one described by
Apps (L979) concerning adult education"
Scales (f985) describes curriculum philosoPhY
development and states that consideration must be given to
individuals' general philosophies of life and living. She
cites realism, pragmatism and idealisrn as being the
ideologies of the majority of faculty members she studied.
She defined these ideals and outlined their irnplications for
learners and teachers " Faculty with realistic ideals \^7ere
found to be concerned with facts and an established body of
knowledge, as the basis for the curriculum" Learning, from
this foundation, is concerned with acquiring as much
knowledge as possible" The teaching-learning process is
teacher-centered. Pragmatic believers \^iere described as
assuming knowledge to be ever-changíng. Learners, from this
foundation, should have the opportunity to learn that which
is meaningful to them" The teaching-learning process \^/as
described as being learner-centered. Idealistic learners
T¡vere found to place emphasis on ideas so that learning is
 34

the search for truth of these ideas. The teaching-learning

process for idealists l^ras considered to be one of
collaboration.
According to the literature, a collaborative, learner-
centered view considering pragmatism, humanism (Apps view),
existentialism and progressivism can be assumed as being the
foundation for understanding adult and nursing learning and
its facilitation.

CONTEXT EVA],UATION:

PART 2- ADULT LEARNERS AND ADULT LEARNING

The adultlearning population is a diverse one with

varied motivations and desires f.or learning. Many writers
(e.g., Knox, l98l; Kidd, L973; Knowles, L984; Cross, l98l;
Tough , L979; Apps, 1985; and Brookfield, L9B6) have
investigated the characteristics and motivations of adult
learners aS well aS barriers for learning. Some have
attempted to articulate theories related to adult learning.
Some writers (e.g., Cross, Apps and Brookfield) argue Lhat

these theories lack empirical evidence. Others argue that

adulü learning defies a theoretical construcL (Courtenay,
1986) "

terminology, such as "characteristics",

The use of
"assumptions", and "principles of adult learning", is
employed to describe how and \,shy adults learn" These
 J5

oes criptors Éerreral ly arr_ s e rrom trsycholo6ical,

sociological, and philosophical theories. Merriam (f987)
clescriÞes arrult learnirrg and ti:reory uuilding. ¡1e identities
arubiguity as the reason for a lack of substantive adult
learning tneory. Cross (f 9Sf ) t¡elieves the lack of
substantive adult learning theory arises from "LLre lack of
desire or perceiveci ¡reed ror theory" (p " 22L). rrdult
learning is diverse and multidisciplinary, and as such, a
universal theory ììay be an uno-btainable goal . l4erriam
groups attelnpts at theory building into three categories:
( I) tnose ttrat are based on aclult learner characteristics,

(2) those Lhat emphasize the adults' life situations, and

(3) tnose tnat focus upon clralges in conscaousness. Such
theories define learning in terms of adult social roles and
life situations, aS opposed to tne tractitional detinitions
of learning related to behavioral changes " These

clerinitions arise from the nuntariis tic , Praguatrc ,

progressive philosophical foundations earlier described.

CharacLeristics of Adult Learners

Adult learner characteris tics cons ider âilê,

cleveloprlent , soci-al roles , learning tyles , ruoLivations and
s

barriers. Adults. are defined as individuals over 18 years

OI aêe rrot attendiitg Secoiloary school, OI anyolLe wiro has
a¡rci
assurned responsibility for him/herself and functions rvithin
 36

tlìe cortujrunity by perf onuing social roles typically assigned

by our culture (Long , L983). Apps (f9Ef) describes the
ciifrerences between traclitional college students and
returning students. Traditional students are between 18 and
2¿ years of age and nave gone oirectly to co11e3e aLter high
school. Such students are Oescribed as rvorried about life
e>iperiences, such as gettin¿ ioÞS, and Deillg lrarried. Iliey
have fewer life experiences, Varied motivations, and their
learning IraS usually been in ronnal classrooros. According
to Apps, such learners tend Lo be more idealistic than
returning Students. -[Ire returning student is 25 years old
or older and has not been enrolled in foimal education
protsrarirs f or SeVeral years. 't'hese learners have lrlore and
varied life and learning experiences than traditional
students. Returning sludents tencl to be tnore lJragrlatic and
less idealistic. They have worries over family and job
corumitruents . I'heir f orrual learning experience iias of ten
been teacher-centered, and they expect, initially, to have a
teacher-centered a¡r1-rroach (p. 7 5) " r\pps rnakes an
interesting observation about adult learners, saying,
"aitirou¿lr iuany adult learners c1o enJoy and of ten expect to
have the opportunity to be self-directed in tireir learning,
at least ilritially upon returning to school, Ûhey expect and
often need some sLructure" (p. 48). Beginning adulr
learnerS, tlreref Ore , ud¡ not perCeiVe tlleuselves to be
self-directed learners.
 37

llerriam (L984) identifies differences in the

characteristics of young adult learners. He identif ies t.r''lo
periods of young adulthood: (1) the introductory period from
a1e 18 to 24 years of aget and (2) the later young adult
between 25 and 34 years of age. Merriam states that these
distinctions are well documented by Chickering (198f) and
Havighurst (f980) " Young adult learners are viewed by
Iulerriam as at a transition point in their lives. They are
concerned wiLh finding their place in Lhe world, dealing
with intimacy, independence and identity concerns (pp.
3-f3) " Darkenwald (1934) suggests that these young adults
"are pragmatic learners " Education is a means of preparing
for and consolidating oners place in the vTorld of work and
family life" (p" 27) " Knox (198r) describes this group as
being compulsive and rigid (p" 3L7). He states that such a
group emphasLzes expansiveness and they have a tendency to
maintain high expectations in learning situations. He

suggests that they tend to have a high need for sLructure

and are goal directed (pp. 427-43L)" Lovelf (1980) also
describes characteristics of adults in this age group.
These individuals, he claims, are at their nost
adventuresome and creative stage. He describes such adults
as being socially concerned and idealistic" Tl:ey may become
easily frustrated when others fail to live up to Lheir
expectations. Lovell also states that some learners in ti'tis
age group may demand individuality and autonomy, tr'rhereas,
 38

others may not. Attention by educators, therefore, must be

given Lo the individual learner rather than the collective
group. The young adult populaûion is typically the majoriÛy
in nursing programs"
Knowles (L973, L975, 1980, L9B4) has written
extensively about adult learning, and has prompted the tem
"andragogy" as the "art and science of helping adults learn"
(Knowles, 1980, p" 43) " Originally, Knowles (f973)
identified four assumptions of andragogy related Lo: (f)
self-concept of being innately self-directed t (2) role of
experience as being rich and varied; (3) readiness to learn
as being dependent upon developmenLal level; and (4)
orientation to learning as being problem-, not subject-
centered. After these original assumptions \^/efe outlined
and criticized (Brookfield, L984, Darkenwald, L984, lulezirow,
f98f), Knowles elaboraLed on them to establish five main
assumptions, and suggested that they were not exclusive to
adult learning. In L984, he described his five main
assumptions: (1) the adult learner is self-directing
although he/ she may exhibit dependent behavior in ne\'ü
learning situations; (2) adults have a greater volume and
quality of experience that will affect their learning; (3)
adults are ready to learn rvhen Lhey experience a need to
know something; (4) adults enter an educational activity
\,üith life-centered or problem-centered orientations; and (5)
adults tend to respond ilore readily to internal motivations
 39

(pp. g-L2). Although critics continuted to reiterate that

not all adults are necessarily self-directed (Brookfield,
1986; Darkenwald, L9B4), Knowles emphasizes Lhat adults can
and do acquire these self-directing skil1s. His view of
andragogy and pedagogy is no\^/ of a continuum; the use of
both or each technique is appropriate at different times, in
different situations, regardless of the age of the leraner.
Smith (L}BZ) identified characteristics of adult learners
similar to those of Knowles " He suggests that they have
multiple roles and responsibilities, accumulated many life
experiences, passed through many developmental phases, and
often experience anxiety and ambivalence in their learning.
Cross (198f) also identifies adult learning in tems of
the characteristics of the adult learners. She identifies
several demographic characteristics that have contributed to
a changed adult learner population in the eighties in her
content analysis. She describes adult learners today as
being more diversified, many in number, with increased
longevity, and a product of Lhe post \ñaT 'baby boom' .
Increased technology and resources and a tendency for people
to change career pattefns several times throughout a
lifetime are characteristic of this population. These
factors suggest diversi|y in the adult learner group, as
well as the need for diversified programs. Current social
changes also contribute to the diversified population"
There is a greater incidence of divorces, single parent
 40

families and double income families; hence, there are more

women aS adult learners " The result is a greater variation
of motivations and barriers to learning. Consideration nov/
must be given to part time programs, day care facilities and
alternate study resources. Cross outlines a comprehensive
model for adult learning that considers these factors: the
Characteristics of Adults as Learners (CAL) model. Personal
and situational characteristics are considered in this
model. Personal characteristics include developmental,
physical, physiological and sociological dimensions "
Situational characteristics consider Lhe social and
demographic variables. This model offers a comprehensive
'possible theory' for adult learning" However, it is
crLtLclzed as being too broad to be readily implemented by
praclitioners (Merriam, L987, p" f9f).
Other writers have also considered characteristics of
adult learners. tüitkin and Associates (L977) describe field
dependent-independent learning style theory. It is the most
widely known and researched of the learning style theories
and is based upon characteristics of adults as learners.
Garity (f985) defines learning style as "our preferred
manner of processing information" (p. L2)" I,üitken describes
fietd d.ependent individuals as tending to see the whole
rather than the parts of a situation. Such individuals are
described as passively conforming to the influence of the
prevailing field of context" Field independent individuals
 4L

are described as being capable of experiencing their

surroundings analytically" They are socially independent,
inner directed and ind.ividualistic. As learners, field
independent people learn more effectively by calling upon
their intrinsic motivations and are able to organLze their
material for learning into parts/pieces. They are likened,
by !üitkin, to self-directed learners. Brookfield and Thiel
(f9S4), ho1arevef, state that successful self-directed
learners use a field dependent learning sty1e, learning
within the social contest of a particular situaLion and
capital LzLng on the material within that context
(Brookfield, 1985, p. 9).
Cooper (L982) describes successful self-directed
learners as being highly motivated and having an innate love
of learning for its o\^7n sake. These people, she claims,
have clear goals and know how to go about learning (p. 37).
She Suggest that all adults aïe not necessarily successful
self-directed learners and it may be surmised that
successful learners have fewer barriers to participating in
adult education.
Brookfield (19s6) provided a comprehensive summary of
the research by Cross (t9$l), Aslanian and Bricknell (f980) '
Johnstone and Rivera (1965), and Darkenwald and Rivera
(L982). The description of the typical adult learner
derived from the research is "relatively affluent, well
educated, white rniddle class individual" (p. 5). One may
 42

conclude that such an individual will encounter fewer

obs tacl es to learning and typically, can afford the costs of

tuition, child care, educational resources, and time for

studying,

Adult Life Situations

Adult life situations are the focus of the second line

of adult education inquiry" Gibb (1960) describes an
experiential theory of adult learning based on Dewey's
earlier work. Rogers (1969), Kidd (L976) , Brundage and
Mackeracher (1980) share this view of adult learning based
on life situations of experience. Gibb sta|es Lhat adult
learning should be problem- and experience-centered. The
experience should be meaningful, whereby, the learner is
free to look at and ana1-yze the experience. Kidd (L976)
considers the adult to be "an inner directed, self operated
learner" (p " 47) " As such, this learner should be
encouraged to make his experiences meaningful " Rogers also
emphasizes the consideration of assuming adults to be

capable of learning for themselves in their experiences. He

asserts that no man can properly be cal1ed educated until he

has learned how to learn, and how to adapt and change (p.
f04). He views adults as being capable of learning
throughout their lifetimes and ascertaining meaning in their
lives and learning situations. Brundage and Mackeracher
 43

also consider life situations and Lhe adult's self-concept

in identifying their 36 principles of adult learning" They
emphasize that adults with positive self-concepts tend to be
more responsive to learning, and are sLrongly motivated to
learn in areas relevant to their currenL developmental
tasks, social roles, life crises, and transition periods
(Brookfield, L986, p. 27)"
Knox (f9S0) has viewed adults and their learning in
Lerms of biological, psychological and social development,
evolving from birth to death. He discourages the
identification of adults and their learning abilities in
Lerms of chronological age. He prefers to describe them in
terms of Lhe learner's developmental level. He describes
effective adult learning as transacLional and developmental
(p. 378). He also offers a proficiency theory similar to
I,rrilkin's field dependent learning style theory which defines
adult learning in terms of enhancing proficiencies to
improve perfomance. Involved in achieving proficiency is
having the opportunity to perform. A discrepancy between
current and desired proficiencies, according to Knox,
creates educational needs " An adult learner pursues
learning to achieve these proficienci-es. As transactional
learners, the adults are assumed to be motivated to learn by
oeans of interaction with their social context" Knox
concludes that adult learners interacL with people and
resouÍces within the learning situation.
 44

Adult Learning As Changes in Consciousness

The third area of investigation regarding adult

eciucation 'theories' considers cfi.anges in the ac1ults'
consciousness as being the learning, encompassing inner
meanirrg and reilective tirouglrt. It e¡rtail s tiiore ti-ran
attaching neanings to situations; it also involves critical
reilection of trrese meanings. nezirow (f9¡if ) vielvs critical
reflection as becoming a\^rare of "why we attach the meanings
iì/e oo to reaIitY, esPeciallY to our roles and relationsrriPs"
(p" ff)" He considers this type of learning to be the
signif icant tlistinguisiring ieature oi aciult learning. Ap¡ls
(f98f) writes of a similar view of adult learning in
descriÞing fiis spiral apProacil to learnirig eulplras Lzing
critical reflection. Brookfield (1985, 1986) also considers
critical reL-Iection and action to i-¡e crucial to adult
learning" He states that the development in learners of
tneir personal porver and self worth is fundaurental to adult
learning.
Brookfield (f986) suinmarr_zes various rvriLings
pertaining to adult learning anci oifers the rollowiug as a
comprehensive and workable definition of the adult learner:
"Aoults learn tirrougltout their lives with the negotiations
of the transitional stages in the life-span being the
iriLruediate causes and uotives f or luuch of thrs learning.
They exhibit diverse learning styles . and learn in
 45

different ways, ât different Limes for different purposes '

As a rule, hovlever, they like their learning activi|ies to
be problem centered and Lo be meaningful to their life
situation, and they \^7ant the learning outcomes to have Some
immed.iacy of application. The past experiences of adults
affect their currenl learning, SomeLimes as a hindrance"
Effective learning is also linked to the adult's
subscription to a self-concept of himself or herself as a
learner. Finally, ad.ults exhibiL a tendency towards
self-direcLness in learning" (p" 31).

Self-Directed Learning: Characteristics

And Its Role In ltiursing Education

Self-directed learning is identified by several authors

as an appropriate focus for adult learning because adults
are believed to possess the need, desire and propensity to
be self-directed as part of their developmental being. In
describing self-directed learning, several definitions may
be utilLzed.. Tough (f968 , L979) describes self-directed
learning as the projects that learners pursue on their own
in order to help meet a current learning need" The learner
is independent and pursues his/her learning often in the
absense of a designated teacher" Bel1 and Be1l (1983)
describe self-directed as "an activity for which the learner
takes the initiative and responsibility for the learning
 46

process" (p. 24). Such a learner, Lhey sâY, has chosen a

certain learning goal, often in the confines of a set
curriculum, and assumes responsibility to learn the
prescribed material in a self-directed I^74y. Self-directed
learning may be seen by these learners aS a means to an end;
not as merely an end unto itself" The learner as described
by Tough pursues learning in a self-designed, self-directed
manner; whereas, the learner described by Be1l and Bell
pursues learning in an other-designed, self-directed manner.
This latter learner type is often the type found in nursing
programs.
Tough (L979) identified that almost all adults
undertake a major learning project each year and spend
approximately 700 hours completing it. ApproximaLely 73% of.
these learners pursue their learning in a self-directed
manner" Penfield (L979) substantiates this finding from
doing a similar study and concluding 76"L are pursued in a
self-directed \^Iay. In his investigation of the reasons for
pursuing learning projects, Tough (f968) found that "the
rnost common and important reason for adult learning is the
desire to use or apply the knowledge and skill as a
result of pttzzlement, curiosity or a question" (p" 52).
Cross (f981) described Houle's three main types of learners
as typifying the motivations for pursuing adult learni-ng.
These include: goal, activity, and learning-oriented
learners. The goal-oriented learner pufsues knowledge to
 47

solve a problem; the activity-oriented learner is mainly

interested in ski1ls acquisition; and lhe learning-oriented
learner pursues learning f or its o\,,in sake.
The characteristics of self-directed learners have been
studied and. identified by several authors" Tough (L979)
d.escribes successful self-directed learners as ones who
possess a degree of initiative, curiosity, and rationality
in their daily lives " They have insight into their behavior
and perceive positive consequences for their actions. They
are future-oriented and accepting of change. Such
individuals deal with problems, and not merely their
symptoms. l.Iedermeyer in Cooper (L982) also outlines the
characteristics of successful self-directed learners " lulany
are similar to Tough's description; however, Iniedermeyer
emphasizes that the learners are organLzed and make the best
possible use of time. They reaLj-ze that they must give up
something else in their lives in order to pursue their
learning goals.
A review of nursing student characteristics and their
learning indicated that, in professional education, such as
nursing, preservice learning approaches may not be
exclusively self-directed. Brookfield (1986) argues that
"no adult can be fully self-directed while \,rorking within an
accredited educational institution" (p. 2)" He offers sound
criticism Lo the assumption that self-directed learning is
Lhe plethora for all learning" Itthile several wriiers claim
 4B

tn.at self-ciirectectness is an Innate characterÍstic c¡f

a<j.ults, empirical evidence is not available to sttpport or

derry tiris clair¿" ¡roorcf ield wriLes trrat otten leaniers do

not possess the necessary skills, knowledge or resources to

pursue learning indepenclently. r,r.any learners, accclrcrirtg to
Brootcfield, operate from a "narro\..z and constrictive
paradigiu" ano will Iiicely pursue learning frorn tiris rlarro\^/
fraruework. In these situations, a facilitator is required
to assist tlre learner to learn novf to learn and to Oevelop
critical reflection" A knorvledgeable facilitator could
alleviate sorùe of tite ciirficulties associated with
self-directed learning "
'I'he dif f iculties with self -directed learning in a
structured proéraIu are outlined as lollows: ( t) f aculty \^lno
are untrained in this mode may philosophieally believe in
at, but oo rtot llave ttie necessary exi;ertise to .racilitate
it; (2) faculty who resist its use block its facilitation;
(3) learners dre not always at tne sai,re level of reaqiiless
or ability; (4) learners may view it to be intimidating and
conrus ing , or cons rder it to be a ' Lazy' teacher' s \'¡ay of
operation; (5) institutional structures m.ay 1i¡rit time and
resources; (o) iÌrore tilne is oj:tei). involvecl in tne
student-facilitator contact; and (7) it may be viewed as
auoiéuous and uncertain Dy botn learners anci facilitators.
r¡rookf iel<1's (f 986) presentation suggests that pursuing
seli-ciirected learnirrg in a str¡.rctured tii,re l:-niCeci program
 49

uay not alway be suitable or appropriate.

In hisdescription of traditional professional
ecLrcatl-on, Floule (-19b0) proposes tnat t¡re proÎessional
begins learning in earnest after entry to practice. He
aclvocates a redesigning of preservice education progralrls to
enable students to become lifelong learners. This
sudgestic¡n iry various autlr.ors is generally follorved by a
reco'rmendation to include a self-directed learning coinponent
into p1.olêssional eciucatÍon proËrarrs. Sweertey (19ðó1, Ïc-rr
example, suggests that nursing education needs to becoi:ne
tnore Iearner centered So tilat the developtuent of critical
thinking and self-direction will be fostered. He believes
cnat regardless of trreir precloininately young adult StaLus,
students should be treated as fully adult by virtue of their
A.èe arrd tne expectatic¡ns oi Geuancls placed on tllem l-n tiLe

clinical area. He advocates a self-directed approach and

the facilication of self -Oirectedrtess in nursi-ng prograifls.
Cooper (L982) maintains that if the students \^lere exposed to
a self-directed approach in tneir L¡asic edrrcation, tirey
would be more likely to pursue their continued education in
tire s arde iilal-Iner .

learner-cenlered approaches in nursing

The need for
eclucation is supporteci wiren conslcleration is given to the
diversity of nursing students. Although the rnajority
coltirrue to ue yoUIlS aclults, trlere is a trello away f'rorn ttre
traditional "fresh frour high school" fernale type of student"
 50

ue'fornyay ärrd Inoúpson tt9ir2) descrifre trre clrangeO

demography of nursing students as similar to the ones
ioentit:_ed Dy r.jrc¡ss ( igdI) . LJelornyay and 'InoiuiJson report
that there are increased numbers of men, ethnic minorities,
a-r:rd olcier WOI[en, fùAny of wnour are returrring to Scirool after

or during raising a faraily (p. L25)" Jope (f98f) writes

tnat "Sociocultural airci econoL¿ic changes haVe encoura6ed
accepLance of both inarriage and career roles f or wornen" (p.
'zL) in nursing education and practice.
Other studies inves tigating nursing students t

i)SycnoIogical characteristics alcì learnilg siyles nave

iinplied a preference, by nursing students, for traditional
teacirer centered, and not the learner centered approach.
Ostmoe, Vanhoozer, Scheffel and Crowell (f984) investigated
tne learning style preterences oI nursirtg students in a
content analysis of relevant research" They cite research
þy xezler and !-relcn (L975), !'errelf (L97ó), and Ca¡rrield
and Lafferty (L974) which determined that nursing students
tencled to prefer traoitiorral teaclrer-structurecl learnrrrg
experiences dealing with concrete rather than abstract
aspects oI cotlrse content. t-ìanlield ano LaL-ferty descri-ue
these students as possessing a strong need for organization
and direct experience. 'I'irese researcners stuciied beginning
and finishing stucients in a baccalaureate nursing prograü.
'IIrey conclucreci tilat tite beginning stucients prei'erred ancl
v/ere exposed to nontraditional learner-centered methods nore
 51

than the finishing students" This finding suggested that

the method of instrucLion contributed Lo the preference.
Laschinger, in f986, also studied the learning style
preference of nursing students, and found them to continue
to be concrete in their learning style and orientation
throughout Lhe program"
Benner (f984) discusses learning style of nursing
students in her descripLion of the Dreyfuss rnodel of skills
acquisition. This situational model proposes five 1eve1s
through which nursing students and practitioners evolve from
being novices to becoming expert practitioners in the
clinical setting" These levels are: novice, advanced
beginner, competent, proficient, and expert. The different
levels, Benner \,ürites, ref lect changes in three general
aspects of skilled performance: (f) movem.ent froro reliance
on abstract principles to Lhe use of past concrete
experiences; (2) movemenL from considering all bits of
information as equally relevant to ascertaining that only
certain parts are relevant; and (3) movement frorn being a
detached observer to becoming an involved perfotlner (p. f3).
Benner staLes that nursing students are at the novice or
advanced beginner levels of skil1s acquisition" They
progress to the other levels after entry to practice. This
statement is supportive of Houle's premise that professional
education begins in earnest after entry to practice.
Benner (f984) describes novices as having no experience
 52

in situations for rvnich tirey are expected to perlorru. -[hese

learners, she claims, lr.ust be given rules to guide tl:eir
perrorrrance (p " ¿L) " ¡rcivanceci begirrners are described, Dy
Benner, âs being able to demonstrate roarginally acceptable
perrormance , requir:-ng as s is l-ance arld supl-rort in tl-ie
clinical area to set priorities and recognLze recurrent
rrreanirrgrr.rl patterns in tneir clinical practice (p.u" 24-25).
Impl ications for educators demand a structured
Eeacner-centered approacll, \^Tnereby tlte teacher of lers
guidelines and suggests possible priorities. Benner devotes
litt-le eurptrasis or credence to a self-ctirecceo apt)roach for
the novice 1eve1. She implies thaL self-directedness could
be proruoted in tne actvanced beginner Dy encouraging tlri s
learner to identify the meaningful patterns in the clinical
area. 'the self -icrentirication or rneaningful patterns allorvs
the advanced beginner to progress to the competent level.
DerÌner cautions agains t of f ering too Lnaily s tructured
'checklist' guidelines if the learner Ís Lo progress beyond
Ltre corrtlletertt level (.o. 30). She aovocates an envirc.rniuent
of inquiry with an expert practJ-tioner to enable the
coupeteot ¡-rractitioner to progress to tiì.e prof icient and
expert levels.
'I'hese studies of nursing studentst learning styles and
tneir.rjrelerences for structure seeirÌ coflóruênt to ¡-riscrlts
(1987) findings of tireir lowered cogni-tive rnaturity and need
ror structure " It r.uay also De postulated that tnese
 53

students are rnore hignly anxj-ous " Peterson (Tv71 ) studied

student anxiety and learning preference, and found that the
ijlore trigrrly anxious stucients acirieved higr:rer grades in the
teacher-centered courses; vrhereas the students with low
leveIs oI anxiety achieved higher grades in learner-centered
courses. Hammer and Tuft (f985) conclude in their research
that nursing faculty contrir¡ute to stucient anxiety and
feelings of poor self image, lack of confidence, and fear of
initiative " .lnese cllaracteris tics are antitiretical to a
learner-centered or collaborative approach. They suggest
tnat trre taculty c.o this by e;<ercising their po\,ver of
authority, often in subtle \^rays of intellectual elitism and
¿eneral 1acrc ot respect ior stude¡tt abilities.
Hammer and Tuft suggest methods to facilitate
enhanceutent of a student's sell concept. ffreir strategies
are comparable to those described by authors regarding
rac j-litatron ol aclult learning. b'acilitation of aclult
learning is the focus of Part 3 of this liLerature review.
Resear-cn by autirors on adult and nursing education will ne
highl ighted "

PART 3- PROCESS EVALUATION

.F';rC Ir.I.[¡r'l lOttl ùf'' l,¡.t¡,¡tr.i IilG

itation of learning involves Ceveloping a learner

þ-acil
centered approacÌr to prosrarû ¡.llanning. jr'or true
 54

self-directed learners (i.e., those rvho totally direct all

their own learning), facilitation may be irrelevant. For
the self-directed learner in an 'other' planned prograin,
facilitation is important. Burns in Hammer and Tuft (f985)
cites guidelines for facilitation. Burns conducted research
on self concept and its enhancement and found enhancement of
self concept occurred when the following guidelj-nes v/ere
employed: (f) showing unconditional accepLance of each
student and believing in his abilities and potentials; (2)
accentuating the positive without denying the failings or
shortcomings; (3) providing opportunities for success as
well âs some challenges; (4) avoiding over-criticism and
stifling desires to try; and (5) ensuring criticism is
centered where it belongs (Burns, 1980, p. f95). Harmer and
Tuft postulated that posiLive self-concepts are directly
related to learning potential so that if enhancernent of
self-concept vlere facilitated, learning potential would also
be enhanced. These guidelines offered by Burns could then
be utilLzed by faciliLators of adult learners.
Those who have written about adult learning
facilitation offer other guidelines regarding effective
facilitaLion" Rosers (1969) cons iders rneaningf u1

experiential learning to be the essence of adult education.

Its facilitation, according to Pr"ogêrs, is accomplished by:
iraving personal involvements with the learner; understanding
that discovery comes frorn \,Iithin and is self initiated;
 55

understanding that learning is pervasive; and allowing

learners to evaluate their o\,{rl learning (p. 5). Kidd (L976)
also favors a learner-centered experiential approach" To
him, facilitators assist learners in "being and becoming"
(p. L25). The facilitator task is one of creating a
stimulating, non-hostile and supportive environment.
Knowles (L975, L978, f980, L984) describes similar
parameters in his seven elements for facilitation.
Effective facilitators, according to Knowles: (f) create a
climate conducive to learning, including establishment of
mutual trust, respecË, collaboration, support, openness '
pleasure and humaneness; (2) involve learners in mutual
planning, (3) needs diagnosis, (4) objectives formation, and
(5) plan design; (6) assist learners to carry out their
plans; and (7) involve learners in evaluation of learning.
In a curriculum with set learning goals, objectives and
often set learning activities, it may be difficult to
facilitate learning using these elements. The elements
concerned with climate setting, diagnosing needs, assisting
wiLh carrying out plans and evaluating could be implemented
in a set curriculum. However, the other elements would be
elusive in a curriculum of this kind"
Conti (L982) established his 'collaborative mode' and
guidelines for effective facilitaLion based on assumptions
cited from Kidd, L977; Hou1e, ; and Knowles , L975.
Effective facilitation is viewed by Conti as involving a
 56

learner-centered curriculum, providing learning episodes

that capLtalLze on the learnerst experiences, enhancing
self-direction, and discouraging a didactic teaching style.
These learner-centered experiential approaches are congruent
with Apps' (19Bl) description of nine exemplary teaching
principles, Brundage and FlacKeracher's (f980) principles of
adult learning and facilitation, and Mezirow's (1984)
reco'nendations for effective facilitation.
Apps (f98f) suggests effective facilitators (1) know
their students, (2) use their experiences, (3) integrate
theory with practice, (4) provide a climate conducive to
learning, (5) offer a variety of fomats and (6) teaching
techniques, (7) provide students with feedback on their
progress, (8) help students acquire resources, and (9) are
available to students outside of class contacts.
Experiential learning and accessibility appear to have
particular signif icance f or Apps " Brundage and I'lackeracher
(f980) outline an extensive list of 36 adult learning
principles and their faciliLation. Essentially, they
suggest that teachers should be sensitive Lo learners' self
concepts and past experiences. They should be willing to
share their experiences and be open Lo learnerst
suggestions. Mezirow (f984) also writes exLensive
reco'ìmendations for ef f ective f acilitation. He considers
self-concept and iLs enhancement to be essential, as well as
involving the learners in their learning and encouraging
 57

them to assume responsibility for their learning. He also

advocates problem posing and reflective thought as
appropriate for developing critical thinking.
Darkenwald and Knox (f984) offer pragmatic guidelines
for assisting young adult learners to learn. They suggest
Lhat the facilitator: (l) be sensitive to possible to
turmoil related to Lhe students' developmental levels; (2)
provide a warm and flexible learning environment; (3) not
expect an instant, Positive adjustment to a learner-centered
environmenL; (4) communicate forcefully that the learners
are responsible for their learning; (5) provide continuous
constructive feedback; and (6) avoid age segregation from
older adult groups. Their emphasis is also a learner-
centered approach although specific to the young adult
learner's developmental stage. Inherenl in all learner-
cenËered approaches is the need to learn how to learn.
Guglielmino (L977), Snith (L982), Haverkamp (f983) and
Brookfield (f986) agree Lhat learners and facilitators need
to learn how to learn. "ì.{,athetics" iS coined by Smith as
the definition for learning how Lo learn. Believing
mathetics and praxis (reflection upon activity) co be
crucial for effective facilitation, Brookfield offers six
principles of effective practice Lhat encompass several
views of adult learning and its effective facilitation:
l. Participation in learning is voluntary.
2" Effective practice is characterLzed by mutual
 58

respect.
3" Facilitation is collaboration.
4" Praxis and mathetics are the heart of effective
facil iLation "
5. Facilitation aims to foster a spirit of critical
reflection in adults.
6" The aim of facilitaLion is the nurturing of
self-directed empo!üered adults " (Pp" r0-1r).

Effective facilitation requires effective facilitators.

Various writers, such as Tough (L979) , I(nox ( l9B0) , Apps
(f98l), Griffith and Bakanauskas (1983), and Dinham and
StriLter (f986) have identified characteristics of effective
facilitators. Many of these descriptors reflect the
facilitatorrs personality. Tough suggests that they are
\¡izarm, loving, caring and accepting of learners, have a high

regard for the learnerst self-planni-ng competencies, view

themselves as participating in a dialogue with equals, and
are open to changes (p" f83). Apps describes them as being
more concerned about the learners than themselves. They
know their subject maLter and relaLe theory to practice.
They are confident as instructors and are open to a wide
variety of approaches. They share of themselves with their
students (p. ff3). Knox identifies effective faciliLators
as iraving the following personal characteristics:
enthus iasm, humour , cul tural ar,/arenes s and c l ari ty in
 59

expression (p. 382)"

Dinham and StriCter discuss these characteristics in
relation to nursing education. They synthesLzed several
authors' findings to outline effective characteristics.
Effective nurse educators are described as: supportive,
human, encouraging; and demonstrating energy, enthusí-asm,
and dynainism" These nursing educators demonstrate
observable and personal interest in the learners' individual
achievements (p. 958)"
Griffith and Bakanauskas (1983), in their article about
student-faculty relationships, also describe effective
facilitators as: learner-centered; empathetic; good role
models; and open, honest and responsive to learner needs.
They utilize helping relationship theory described by Rogers
(f96f) and Combs (L977 ) as the basis for effective
facilitation. Inlhen teachers exhibit effective facilitator

behaviors, these authors claim, students tend to be more

productive by "discovering, exploring, experimenting,
synthesLzLng and deriving implications" (p" f05). Such

student behaviors are self-directed skil1 and reflect a

higher cognitive maturity (p. f05). Effective facilitation
by teachers, tirerefore, can foster self-directed behavior in
students "

By considering the characteristics of adults and their

learning, and being a\,üare of ef f ective f acil iLation and
characteristics of faciliLators, teachers may implement the
 60

principles of adult learning in a set curriculum, such as a

nursing program. The utilí-zatLon of principles of adult
learning is consistent with a humanistic, existential,
pragmatic and progressive philosophical base" Effective
facilitation and utilizaLion of principles of adult learning
can enhance the promotion of learner responsibility for
learning. Learners will then assume more responsibiliLy for
their learning and demonstrate a greater readiness and
ability to be self-directed learners.
 6l

Chapter Three

METHODOLOGY

Descriptive questionnaire methodology was utilLzed with

three samples f rom one school of nursing. rrlilson (f 985)
describes survey research as being appropriate for
describing characteristics, opinions, attitudes or behaviors
as they currently e><ist in a population (p" 138) "
Descriptive survey metnodology is useful for providing arl
accurate portrayal of a population tirat has been targeted.
Such methodology can be utilLzed to determj-ne the extent or
direction of behavior (lnlilson, p. L42). Two questionnaires
\^rere utilLzed in this study: one given to student sanples
for the context evaluation; and one given to a faculty
sample for the process evaluation. The utilLzatíon of both
questionnaires, concerned with learners and teachers, vlas
deeioed appropriate to address Lhe underlying research
question: Is Lhe philosophy of a school of nursing being
enacted by its curriculum in terms of its leamers, teachers
and the teaching-learning process?
-L'his chapter begins with a description of the nursing
progran under study and the selection of the samples. 'Ihe
 62

ethical considerations will be explained. Finally, the

questionnaires will be described in Lerms of their
development, utility, reliability and validity.

The Nursing Program

The nursing program is a two year hospital based

program set in a tertiary care hospital " This program is
intended to prepare graduates who are then eligible to write
licensing examinations to become registered nurses "
Graduates of the prograTn tend Lo practise in acute care
facilities, ofLen in dependent roles. This is in contrast
to graduates from four year baccalaureate nursing programs,
rvho also are eligible to write licensing examinations but
tend to practise in areas Lhat allow them more independence.
Schools of nursing in the province receive üheir
operation approval f rom the l,fanitoba Association of
RegisLered Nurses' Board of Directors in accordance with the
Registered Nurses ' Act R.egulation/ 80, By-Law L\o " L/L9BL "
The board receives advice and recomnendations from an
Advisory Council whose Lerrns of reference prescribe
standards and probide verification that these standards are
being met by the nursing programs. The standards consider
that nursing programs have: (f) a comprehensive plan that
reflects the cornmunity's needs, the institution's abiliLy to
provide resources to meet the needs of the program' and a
 63

demonstrated collaboration with the governing agency; (2) a

belief (philosophy) staLement that is congnrent with the
sponsoring agency's beliefs, and explains the conceptual
framework and relationships between theory and pracLice in
nursing; (3) a description from the sponsoring agency's
nursing division's philosophy, objectives and situations for
which graduates can practise; (4) a curriculum plan that
outlines the structural otganLzation, objectives, sequencing
and timing of context and process, relevant learning
experiences and criteria for the selection of students and
teachers; and (5) a staLement of Lhe ways by which learners,
Leachers and the program are to be evaluated (Marn, 1980,
pp. 27-28) "
The program under study has met these standards and is
an approved program. Its philosophy is congruent with the
sponsoring agency's mission, aims and objectives. Lifelong
education is gleaned to be important by the sponsoring
agency, with statements that nursing personnel are to be
self-directing and responsible to make patient care
decisions appropriate Lo Lheir knowledge and skill (l{ursing
Division Philosophy Statement). The salient points of the
school of nursing's philosophy (revised in f98f) are: "the
learner is a unique individual with specific psychosocial
needs and cultural backgrounds, personal interesLs, values
and life experiences Learning is facilitated and
becomes more meaningful when consideration is given to the
 64

individual variations of tire learners " The learner has the

primary responsibility for initiative and active
participation in the prograrn of studies 'Ihe teacher
is responsible for providing an environment conducive to
learning, inquiry anci problem solving" The teacher also
provides support f.or e,<ploration of new ideas , f eel ings ,
altitudes and developinent of psycnontotor ski1l s "
(Institution Handbook, p. 2) " This wriLLen document
ciemonstrates that the nursing program is striving to enable
its learners to be self-directing so that they will reuain
self-directing practitioners who pursue lifelong learning.
Its sLructural design and theoretical framework are intended
to facililate impleuentaLion of this philosophy. However,
on examination of this framework, iL may not be an
appro¡:riateyehicle to facilitate self-directed behavior.
The programts design is based on a human needs nursing
curriculum f rainev¡ork. Such a f rautework presents the
hurnanistic view that all people have needs (requirernents)
that must be met " If a person is unable to meet his/her
needs, nurses can assist this person Lo meet the needs and
regain inoependence. 'I'he values of this f rat'rework are
holism and independence. However, the framer'¡ork evokes a
ciepenaency role for nurses rvho ciepend upon a person with
urrmet needs to function in the nursing role. Such a
oependency role is antithetical to developing self-directed
learning skills.
 65

This program's fraLnework \.^Ias adapted f ron Virginia

i'lenderson' s (L966) needs f rarnework. According to Bevis
(L982) , dependency \,ras a ciraracteristic of nurses in this
L960 time period" The framework focuses orì. "assisting an
indíviclual to perforu those activities contributing to
health or its recovery (or to a peaceful death) that he
would perform unaided if he had the necessary strength, will
or knowledge" (Henderson, L969, P " 4). This focus is
product and not necessarily process oriented. The nurse
functions to assist the individual; the manner by which this
assistance is made is not addressed.
The prograrn also has an element of behaviorism in its
design" It has set beiravioral objectives, learnjng
activities, resources, and evaluation criteria. These are
necessary to coutply with the curre¡t provincial approval
agency ' s s Landards . However, they l iinit tire potential to
clevelop self-directing behavir¡r by making a linear-product
curriculum design as described in Chapter Two.
'Ihe teachers and students are not necessarily selected
Lo participate in this program based on their knowledge of
tire pnilosophy and its iinplementation. Students are
accepted into the program based on general nursing program
admission criteria. Such criteria require an academic
achievement of grade twelve with an overall C average.
itandatory preadriris s ion courses are Engl ish, i'fath, and trvo
sciences, one of r,¿hich snould be Chemistry 300. Overall
 66

general good health is also required (though not defined).

The criteria do not suggest a self-directed learning
aptitude. Süudent applicants, however, receive a calendar
description of the program that contains a staLement that
the program "provides studenLs with ecudational
opportunities and individual support to become
self-directed, competent diploma nurses" (Calendar L986-87 '
p. 2) . l,Ihen they have been accepted to the program, they
are given a handbook that specifies Lhe program's
philosophy, theoretical framework, learning strategies and
evaluation methods "

Teachers are required to have a baccalaureate degree in

nursing and it is preferred tha¡ they also possess a
MasLer's degree in Nursing or Education. They are not
necessarily selected based on their knowledge and use of
principles of adult learning and the facilitation of
self-directed learning. hlithin their job descriPtion,
however, is an expectation that the teachers will
"incorporate principles of adult education in classroom and
clinical instruction" (Job Description - Teacher) " As part
of their annual performance appraisal, the teachers are
evaluated based on the criteria outlined in the job
description.
The learning experiences, in this program, have been
designed to facilitate a learner-centered approach. There
are the traditional didactic strategies, whereby, a teacher
 67

lectures Lo the large classroom group. More frequently

scheduled, however, are group discussions, laboratories,
clinical experiences, and time allowed for self-directed
learning to accomplish set behavioral objectives. The
groups, for group discussions and clinical experience, are
assigned to one teacher for 8 or 16 week period. This
teacher then has the opportunity to develop individual
learner-centered strategies for the group members.
Evaluation methods are Lo be clearly identified
according to the approval agencyrs standards. Performance
evaluation implies a behavioristic approach. In this
program, students and teachers are involved in such a
behavioristic evaluaLion procesS. Student perfomance is
evaluated by objective multiple choice Lests Lo measure
learning of the theoretical component. Clinical perfonnance
is evaluated using a criteria referenced format. Students
evaluate courses and teacherrs performance using a criLeria
and nomative ref erenced evaluation f orIrat. Students and
teachers are presently involved in prograrn evaluation
considering context, input, process and producL evaluation.
As demonstrated in the above descriptions of the
curriculumr S theoretical framework, selection of student and
teacher candidates, learning strategies and evaluation
methods, this nursing program has a learner-centered
philosophy but a linear-product design"
 68

SAI'IPLE SELECTION

Context Evaluation: Student Sample Selection

There are 108 students accepted for admission to this

program each year. By Lhe end of the first year, attrition
results in reduced numbers of original students so that 92
may be remaining in the class. Students who have withdrawn
from the program on a temporary or permanent basis, tâY have
failed a course or have chosen a "1eave of absence".
Students on leave from the program are later allowed to
re-enter the program at the poinL of exit, and are termed
"continuator students". The result of this continual
re-entry of students is that approximately 100 students
remain in each year of the program aL ar-y given time.
Continuator students will be excluded frorn Lhe study to
avoid possible skewedness of results "
The majority of students enrolled in the program range
in age frorn eighteen to Lwenty-four years old, according to
the available school statistics. The school reports an
increasing percentage of older female students who have had
families and are no\ú entering the nursing progran as their
first employment preparation" As we11, there are more males
entering the nursing program. A smal1 percentage of Lhe
student population have had oLher careers and have made the
transition to nursing for a variety of reasons. The
 69

clemographic patterns inherent in tne school of nursing

include a diversity of student ages and career/educational
bactcgrounds. This accounts for a diversity of learning
needs and styles in the Program.
In order to determine the extent to which the program
is attuned to ttre needs of the students it serves (context
evaluation), two Samples of students from two clasSes \Â7ere
asked to couìplete biographical data and a questionnaire
designed to measure their perceived self-directed learning
readiness (learning style). A random selection did not
occur because the intent of the s tudy \'üas program
evaluation; therefore, the greater the response the more
significant the analysis. All students from the population,
except the continuator students, \,^7ere invited to participate
in the study. The population included the beginning
students and the students at the end of their first year in
the program. These students \,vere involved in the school's
currenL prograrrr evaluation anci \^Iere known to tlÌe researcher.
The graduating students in the second year of the program
i,vere not selected as a potential saruple iox several reasons:
they were not involved in the scirool's progran evaluation,
tirey were not Known to tire researcher and trLey \¡/ere involved
in various preceptor learning e><periences, all of which
could contribute to skewed results.
'Ihe first sample surveyed included the sLudents at the
completion of the first year in the program. 0f the
 70

pos ible 92 respondents , 7 5 coiapleted and returned ti-Ie

s

questionnaires. The population of 92 students, alLhough one

class, was divided into five grouPs that represented the
five courses for which the students \úere then enrolled. The
students \úere approaci-ied in these f ive separate grouPs,
asked to participate in the study, and given instructions
for chis participation" Seven of tl:re 92 students \iere
absent from the classes, and a further l0 students opted not
to participate i¡r the study.
There \iüere 70 female and 5 male respondents; hence 93%
of tire sample was feruale and 77, was utale. The ioajority of
the respondenLs, B8/", \,vere under 25 years old. The
remaini-ng L'2'/" were over 25 years old. '-lhe majority of tne
respondents' maximum education level vras grade twelve
education with 67"/. of the sarnple in tiris category. Ihe
remaining 33"/, of. the sample had more than grade twelve
education by having taken accredited post secondary courses,
diplomas or degrees.
The second sLudent sample consisted of Lhe beginning
stucients \,üithin t\,ùo weei(s after entr:y into the progralrl. Of
a possible 103 respondents, 99 completed and returned the
biographical data and ques tionnaires . '-lhe s tudents vrere
approached in the large class setting, invited to
participate in ttre study and given instructions i<.rr tnis
participation. Two of the 103 students \.,rere absent from the
c1ass, and a furtlter two stuclertts ,jid not submit tlre
 7L

required biographical data and identification number" All

student respondents \,üere requested to uSe their student
numbers, not names, for the researcherr s purposes of
identification.
There \^rere 92 f emale and 7 male respondents; hence 93%
of the sarnple was female and 7% was male" The majority of
the respondents, 82"L, \Àrere under 25 years of age and the
remaining l8% were over 25 years old. The majority of
respondents' maximum education level was grade twelve with
72"Lin this category. The remaining 28% of the sample had
more formal education than a grade twelve sLanding.

Process Evaluation: Teacher Sample Selection

The population utilLzed for the process evaluation was

the faculty from the same nursing progran who had a role in
teaching the students in the studenL samples. There are 23
faculty members and three coordinators involved in teaching
the nursing courses within this program. These teaching
personnel were considered eligible respondents for thís
study. The director is not involved in active teaching and
rüas excluded from the population. This teacher population
has diverse backgrounds in Lerms of âBê, number of years
teaching and nursing practice, and amount and type of formal
education. A random sample vras not selected due to the
program evaluation nature of the study and the limited
 72

population size.
The faculty, in a faculty meeting, ürere informed of Lhe
purpose and scope of the study, and invited to participate
by completing and submiLting a biographical data sheet and a
questionnaire survey regarding their teaciring styles " Ihe
biographical data sheet, questionnaire and a covering letter
l,úeredistributed to each teacher's stafÍ mail slot with an
expected date deadline. A time frame of three weeks was
given to allow arnple tine for contpletion, but not excessive
time for misplacement of the forms. Teachers \{ere asked Lo
return the conpleted or blank questionnaire packages. l31ank
returns would be accepted as refusal to participate in the
stucy" Two srlbsequent distributions of covering letters and
surveys were inade, three and six weeks later, to the
teaclrers \¡/Ilo did noL originally responci. A nutrrber rvas
assigned to each survey so that tire researcher could
accurately trace tne returns "

Frora the initial distribution, 15 of the 26 Leachers

returneci colrpleted forurs, one returned a blanic form" Ilrorn
the second distribution, five returned completed forrns and
one a blank forn. Irrom the ttrird ciistribution, tr,Io returnecl
completed foms and the renaining t\,ro did not respond to any
of the requests. 'Ihe total sarople size rvas 22 of a possible
26 teachers, representing an 85% response rate.
Of these 22 responclents, lI or 507" l¡ere older tiran 40
years old and 1l were younger than 40 years olci; hence half
 73

the sample was born pre-lriorld 'vJar II and the other half was
born and developed in a post-\nlorld trniar II society. Ten of
the 22 teachers (45"Ð have practised nursing (including
Lheir nurse teaching experience) for over 20 years. Their
basic education and experience, therefore, ltas from the
philosophical era of praguatism that Bevis (L982) outlined"
Eleven of the 22 teachers (50%) had practised nursing for
less than 20 years , a tirne frame corresponding to Lhe
philosophical era of humanistic existentialism (Bevis,
Le82) .

Five of the 22 teachers (23%) have taught for less than

five years. The remaining L7 teachers (777) have taught for
over five years. Fifteen of Ëhe latter group vlere presenL
in this school of nursing when the philosophy was revised in
198f. Twelve of the 22 teachers (55"Ð have had graduate
course(s) in adult education; the remaining ten teachers
(45%) have not had such education.
Diversity in this sample is shown by this biographical
information. Inherent in diverse populations are diverse
operational philosophies by the individual teachers. Their
ability to operationaLLze a learner-centered philosophy may
be the result of their experiential backgrounds"

ETHICAL CONS IDERATIONS

WritLen consent to conduct the study was obtained from

 74

the director of this diploma nursing program. This consenL

allowed for the i-1se of the school as a source for potential
respondents. It r.{as understood by the director that the
schoolrs philosophy would be examined in terns of iLs
learners and teachers and the teaching-learning process.
Assurance vras given Lhat the respondertts' participation
would be voluntary and anonynous and their individual
results would be confidential "
Each sample was approached as a group to avoid the
potential coercion associated with being approached singly"
The student samples \À7ere informed orally and in written
instructions, entitled "Directions and Biographical Data
Students" (see appendix), of Lhe purpose of the study. They
\^/ere invited to participate, inf ormed that their
participation was voluntary, and told that their individual
results would not be disclosed" They hrere informed that the
poLential time involvement would be t5 to 30 minutes and to
follow the directions outlined on the survey" As is
appropriate with survey methodoloBy, individual written
consent was noL obtained" The students who completed and
returned the questionnaire packages \^/ere considered
consenting" Each respondent \üas identified by a student
number which assisted in maintaining confidentiality and
obtaining the final year one grades for Lhe first sample"
The teacher sample also v/as approached as a group,
followed by distril¡utions of questionnaires packages to
 75

individual mail slots " Like the student samples, the

teachers tvere inforrned orally and in written instructions,
entitled "Directions and Biographical Data - Faculty" (see
appendix), of the purpose of the study. They v¡ere invited
to participate, inf orrned Lhat their participation \Á7as
voluntary, and assured that their individual results would
be kept confidential. They r^rere inf ormed that the
anticipated time involvement v/as t5 to 30 minutes and to
follow the directions outlined on the survey" The faculty
who completed and returned the ques tionnaires \,rere
considered to be the consenting sample.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SURVBY II{STRUMENTS

Two quesLionnaires \^7ereutilLzed, one for each group of

respondents: students and teachers. The student
questionnaire measuring the students' perceived
self-directed learning readiness, provided data for the
context evaluatiolt. The teacher questionnaire suitably
measured the process evaluation by determing the use of
principles of adult learning. The results of these
questionnaires v/ere not interrelated, except that each
questionnaire's results provided data for Lhe overall
program evaluati-on. 'Ihe resulLs frorn one questionnaire \,üere
not predictive or correlative for the other questionnaire;
hence, the student scores concerning their perceived
 76

self-direcLed learning readiness \^/ere not related to Lhe

teachers' scores specifying their use of the principles of
adult learning. Each questionnaire will be described in
terms of its development, utility, validity and reliability.

Self-directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS)

Dr. Guglielmino developed this instrument as her

doctoral dissertation in L977 to deLermine "exLent to which
individuals perceive themselves to possess skills and
attitudes frequently associated with self-directed learning"
(Guglielmino, L977). It has since been utilLzed by a
variety of researchers (liourad and Torrance, L978;
Sabbaghian, L979; Savioe , L979 ; Hassan, l9Bl; I,iiley , L982;
Kasworm, L9B2; Leeb, 1983; Long and Agyekum, L9B4; Reynolds,
L9B4; Crook, 1985, BrockeLt, f 9B5) . , L979; I^iiley,
Savoie
L982; and Crook, 1985 used nursing samples " This extensive
use of the instrument atLests to its validiCy and
re1 iabil ity. However, its use has also encountered
criticism.
The instrument is a self report questionnaire with 58
likert-type items that measure perceived readiness Lo be
self-directed learners" It does not measure the students'
abilities to be self-directed learners. As such, it will be
a useful tool to measure the context but not the process
aspect of evaluation. I,rrithin the scope of context
 77

evaluation, it can measure if the program is attuned to the

needs of the students being served, insofar as their
perceived readiness to be self-directed" The philosophy
suggests that they have this responsibility" It will not be
used to measure the process aspect because it does not
measure abiliLy and actual perfonnance.
The instrument provides an overall score for
self-directed learning readiness. The range of possible
scores is from L4L to 285 "
The mean for the norming
population v/as 2L4.4, with a standard deviation of 25.6"
In addition to the overall SDLRS score, the scale includes
scores for the following eight factors: (l) love for
learning t (2) self concept as an effective independent
learner; (3) tolerance of risk, ambiguity and complexity of
learning t (4) creativity; (5) view of learning as a lifelong
beneficial process; (6) initiative in learningt (7) self
understanding; and (8) the acceptance of responsibility for
one's o\.ürr learning. Guglielmino developed the instrumenL
through a three round Delphi survey of L4 individuals
considered to be experts in the area of self-directed
learning. Upon revision, the instrument was administered to
307 people in Georgia, Vennont and Canada" After further
revision of the scale, a reliability coefficient of .87 was
es timated.
Hassan's (f98f) research supports the reliability, and

internal and predicLive validity of the SDLRS. He found a

 78

si6nificant positive relationship betrveen self-ciirected

learning readiness and actual involveuent in learni-ng
proJect activities in a saurple of 77 rando-ùly selected
adults" Long and Agyekum (f984) offer addítional support
ic¡r tne validity of tne S.DLRS tron a sa::nple of f36 ulack arld
white students frorn two southern colleges" They found three
signiricant rinoings: (l) ulacrc students scored nigher on
both the SDLRS and Agreement Response Set which measures tite
extent to which resi:ondents ans\úef on trre basis of perceived
social desirability; hence, these students may have scored
nigher on the SIJLRS because they tnougnt Lhey should; (2) no
significant relationship was found between SDLRS score and
faculty rating of each student's self-directedness; (3) age
vras positively rated to the SDLRS score. An iraplication
lrolo this s tucly Ís tÌrat the intent of the uteasuring
instrument should not be disclosed to the participants,
except to say ttrat it is a Irlêâsur€ of learning style.
Guglielinino recommends in her wriLten instructions that the
exact purpose of tire scale uc.rt be ctisclosed to avoid
possible response bias.
iuiourad and Torrance (L97E) also offer support for the
cons truct val icity oí the SIJLRS . Tirey identif ieci a
significant positive relationship between the SDLRS and
creativíty in a stucry of 4t graduate stude¡rts in a course on
creative tirinking. Sabbaghian (L979), investigating the
relationsníp between self concelrt and self-directedness,
 79

coircluded ti:at ttrere exis ts a significant positive

relationship between self-directed learning readiness and
self concept in a sanple of 77 adult undefgraduate stucients
at Iowa State University" Leeb (f983) identified a
relationshíp Ì¡etween self-directed learning readiness and
health promoting behavior, while Reynolds (f984) described a
relationship between self-directed learning readiness and
motivational orientaLion.
Savoie (L979) , Kasworm (L982) , Crook (1985), and
Caffarella and Caifarella (f933) offer support to ti:e
predictive validity of tire SDLRS. Savoie found a
si6nificant positive relationsnip between tlre SDLiTS scores
and course grades of a sample of 152 nurses enrolled in a
continuing educalion course. i(asin/orm exaruined the
self-directed learning knowledge and skills of 33 graduate
students of ac1ult education. Sire f ound s ignii icant
increases in SDLRS scores from the beginning to the end of
the course on adult education uetnoas and teclrniques. Crook
measured the self-directed learning readiness of 63 iirst
year nursi-ng students in a baccalaureate nursing program.
SÌre found a significant correlation between SDLRS scores and
.ueer nonrination of self -directeci learniug behavior. Sire
also found a significant positive relationship between Lhe
$l-.r]-ttS score a¡rd trne f inal subJ ect grades . Ùatf arel la and
Caffarella (f983) detenuined there rvas no significant change
in tire pretest and posttest SDLI{S scores follorving ttie use
 BO

of learning contracts with a saiuple of over 200 respondents "

They did identify a significantly higher mean score of the

sample's respondents coiuparative to tire n oru. " lirey
suggested that having an already high readiness to be
self-directed would not be rurther influencecl i¡y tne use c¡f
learning contracts.
Finestone (f984) utilLzed the SDLRS ivith a group of
labour education participancs. llis rinciings derlonstrated no
significant relationship between âBê, number of years of
f ormal eclucation, and SIJLI{S scores . Cafrarella and
O'Donnell (f987) recommend that these dernographic variables
be acidressed with each sLudy using tne SìJLI{S.
Brockett (f985-a) cites examples of inappropriate
util Lzation of the SDLitS instrunent. in iris study of
self-directed learning readiness and the life satisfaction
of ttre older adu1t, he concludes that tne instrument was
difficult to administer to samples of older adults with
r,rinirnal forriral eciucational preparation. He inciicates that
urosL studies using the SDLRS use sarnples whose participants
irave a uinirrrun of lri¿h scirool eciucation; ire detenrrined thj-s
is appropriate for this instrument. In a subsequent
article, r.rrockett ( l-9d5-o) uescrir¡es uetiiodological and
substantive issues in the rneasurernent of self-directed
learnirtg reaoiness. ite acKnowleciges tire various studies
supporting the validity and reliability of the instrurnent.
However, fr€ of f ers soiile criticis¡ls about trre corìs truct
 81

validity of tire instrurnent. .rc oescriues iterrr analysis of

the instrument and found that LZ of Lhe 58 items (2L%) \,üere
not signif icantly correlateci r,vith the total scale " i1e also
found that 9 of the L2 items hiere written to be scored in
tlre reverse. Sorue iteus \,ì/ere written in a ciouble negative
fomat which could lead to confusion in Lhe respondents.
Sorle confusion can result in inaccurate choice of iteins and
contribute Lo a skewed item analysis. Brockett concedes
that, when respondents have a uinirnum <-rf nigh school
education, these difficulties are less significant and the
instruruent is valid. Tne saurples to be util Lzed in this
study have a mininum of high school forinal education.
A rinal suDstantive issue Lnat iJrocKett adciresses is
the definition that Guglielmino utilLzes as being related to
self -crirecteci learning. Gugl:-eliriino considers self -directed
learning Lo be school or book oriented. Brockett suggests
that tiris nay be inappro¡:riate for learners other than
school based learners. The nursing progran fron which the
sample will be selecteci is fro',1 a school based protsrau.
I(athrein (f9BI) in Caffarella and 0'DonnelL (L987) found
that nurses tend to use infonnal discussion with peers and
reading as their learning resources (p. 203). Such
cliscussions and reaciings reflect a school and bc¡ok

orientation to learning. Based on this review of literature

concernirrg cu.e SDLnS, its use rvd.s colrsiderecÌ appropriate r-or
this sarnple to address the contexL evaluatj-on oi- the
 82

prograuLr s philosoPnY.

Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS)

Dr. Conti's Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS)

v¡as utilLzed for the process evaluation. .Úy neasuring the

teachers' perceptions and use of tl:e principles of adult

learning, often referred to aS tne facilitation of learning,
this instrument t¿rras useful to deteriline the actual
inplementation of tlre pirilosopiry related to tne teachers"
This scale was developed by Dr" Gary Conti in L978 as part
of nis cloctoral dissertation. He writes that his scale lüas
developed to "fill a void concerning the lack of an adequate
instrurnent to ueasure tlre ciegree of practitioner support of
the collaborative mode" (Conti, L982, p. L44). This
instruruent Ís designed to be capable of nieasuring tne degree
to which adult education practitioners accept and adhere to
the adult education princi¡-:les that are con¿ruent with
facilitation of learning. Conti defines the 'collaborative
ilocet ar:d a "learner-centered rrretirod of instruction in wnich
authority for curriculum forrnation is shared by the learner
and practitioner" (uonti , L982., ,¿. f 35) .
The items of the instrument are based upon the body of
tneory and itnowledge of tfre collabc¡rative mode. 'fnere are
44 items , 24 of which are stated in positive teriûs and 20
tnat are stated in negative tenrrs to avoid resllonse Þías.
 83

It is a self report instrument that uses a six point

modified likert scale to determine the frequency with which
the respondent practises Lhe actions described in Lhe items "

The six items range in value from 0 to 5, wiLh a possible

hieh score of 220. The norming mean was 146 with a standard
deviation of 2L" The overall PALS score can be divided into
seven factors which offers more specific teacher style
informaLion: (f) learner centered activities; (2)
personalLzLng instruction; (3) relating to experience; (4)
assessing student needs; (5) climate building; (6)
participation in the learning process; and (7) flexibility
for personal development.
A high score on the PALS reflects a learner centered
approach Lo the teaching-learning process. Low scores
indicate a preference for a teacher-centered approach where
the authority rests with the teacher. Scores near the mean
indicate a combination of teaching behavior which
encompasses teacher- and learner-centered approaches. Conti
discovered in his interviews of teachers, who scored near
the norming mean score, that they demonstrate conflicting
behavior in their teaching approaches. They tend to draw
elements from both learner- and teacher-centered approaches.
Often their usual learning-centered approach is interrupted
by constraints of the institution" The result, Conti
suggesLs, is often confusion for the students.
Conti was able to demonstrate the construct, content
 84

and criterr-on related val iciicy anci rel iai:ility of tne

instrument. In testing its reliability, the test-retest
nethod esEablish a reliability coef i-icient of .92. To
establish the criterion relaLed validity, the Flanders
Interaction Analysis Categories (t"IatJ) were used because
they predict a relationship between a respondent's
i)erceLrtion of use of a sKill anci the actual use of a srcill.
This tool is also congruent with the characteristics of the
collai:orative iuocie. I'tle ii'I¿C ratio scores coniirrned tne
existence of a high degree of congruency between perception
and actual utilization of tne principles of aclult learni-rrg
(Conti, L982, p" T42) " 'Ihe PALS instrument was especially
useful in tnis stucly to detenrine the extent to v¡hich the
program is being implemented as planned as iar as the
teachers are concerned. Conclusions are ciralvn regarciing the
faculty's perceived and actual use of the principles of
adult learning"
Conti used teachers of Adult Basic Education in the
public eduction systein to cienc.rnstrate the content validity
of the PALS instruilent. One nay suggest tlr.at there may be
dirricul ties in aciurinis terirrg ttris ins truruent io nLlr.je
educators \¡/hose focus is not solely on classroom
instruction, but also or). clinical instrucuion and group
process. Conti identif ies other s tudÍes that irave
successfully utilizeci this scale anci aüong t¡lose respondent
groups were instructors in allied health education rvho have
 85

clinical as well as classroom teaching responsibilities.

Conti discusses potential utilLzatLon of the instrument
in empirical studies. As we11, he identifies its potential
as a diagnostic tool for those with definitive philosophical
views concerning the collaborative mode. He states that
such views are humanistic and progressive" This instrument,
therefore, is appropriate in a study that purports Lo
discover the enacLment of a similar philosophy by its
curriculum.
Conti states that a program's philosophy will influence
the teacherrs personal style and PALS score. In his
research, he discovered that, if the program espouses a
learner-centered philosophy whereby the teacher functions in
a collaborative rnanner, the PALS score will like1y be higher
(Conti, 1985) " He also found increased evidence of this
collaborative rnode in respondents who had academic
preparation in adult learning and the collaborative mode.
Such Leachers \.rrere older and had rtrore teaching experience
than those who scored lower on the PALS" Conti also found
that experiential background influences teaching style and
the PALS score" This finding suggesLs Lhat if a nursing
teacherrs experience has been to practise and teach in the
era of pragmatism and dependence, her/his teaching style as
rneasured by the PALS may reflect a teacher-centered
approach.
Based on this review of liLerature about the PALS
 ¿i6

ins truruent , itutilized as an appro¡:riate rreasurirrg tool

was

for the process of evaluation of a program with a humanistic

philoso¡;ny "
 B7

Chapter Four

PRESENTATION AND AT\ALYSIS OF

K].lS¡-A¡(Cll t'' ltl]-.r Ii'lGS

The purpose of this chapter is to outline the research

rincings as they relate to tne context and process
evaluation research questions and hypotheses. The
techniques eärployed in tlre ciata analysis are discussed. As
wel1, findings supplemental to the initial research proposal
are d.escribeo" I.hese supplernental finclings suggest
limitati-ons related to the utilLzatt-on of the instruments.

Context Evaluation Findings

'Ihe student samples' rnean SDLRS scores rvere calculated

ror tire incrivictual saurples, and, a joiLrû sauple illeaL.l score
\üas calculated. Sample I refers to the sarnple of students
upon courplecion <¡f ttreir firsL year in tire prograiû" Inis
sanple had the earliest involvement in the sLudy (June,
LY\T ). Saruple 2 reters to tne students at tire besurrting of
the program (September, f987). The demographics of these
two groups ürere analyzeci r-rsing cni square analysis to
 BB

oeLerrrrine siurilarities between their groups. i,J¡;on

esüablishment of similar characteristics among the groups,
Eney \,üere collapsed into one Lar¿e-r grou,tJ, nereaf ter
referred to as the Joint Sample.
The chi square test is a nonparaüetric technique useci
ror noiuimal scaled data to deterrrine a significant
difference between an observed number and an expected number
of classes (Wilson, 19E5, p. 46L). rt tests null hypotheses
which suggest that any difference between group scores is
ciue to chance or error. If tlte calculated ctri Square ratio
is higher than the chi square distribution table value for
I
C( = .U5, ttre null trypotrresis ís re¡ected and ti:e dilference
'between the groups is not due to chance or error. An
I
C\ = . u5 i,vas util Lzed as årt appror)riate P value f or
education and nursing research ([^/i1son, l9B5 and Babbie,
leö3).
'Ihree chi square calculations were made to examine
rroLuinal cata related to the samples' âBê, sex and ainount of
forinal education. Age was nominally classified as over or
uncier 25 years old. fne ailount of r<¡rntal education !'/aS
norninally classified as grade L2 or nore than grade L2
rorural education. Table I outlines trre frequency of each
nominal datum for each sample.
 89

Iable I
Comparison of Student Samples
Regarding ,+ge, Sex, and Aioount of È'onlal uducation

A" Age

Age Sample I Sample Z To tal

66 81 L47

l8 27

TO 'AL 75 99 T74

B" Sex

Sex Sample I Sample 2 Total

l"Ia Ie L2

Female 70 92 L62

TOTAL 75 99 L74

c. Amount of Formal Education

futrt. of hlducation Sample I Sample 2 Total

Grade L2 50 7L L2L

l"Iore than Grade Lz 25 28 53

TOTAL 75 99 L74
 90

.froin tne data in llar¡le l, the cni Sqllare ratio for a¿e

r\7as 0"8f7I" Since P

re¡ected. 'rrrere r,,r.¿s no signiiicant aifference between tlie
samples concerning age, the chi square ratio for sex l^las
U " 03ð9 " Since P
rejected. There was no significant difference between the
samples concerning Sex. 'Ihe chi square ratio for anount of
fonnal education was 0 " 3005. Since P
hypothesis v¡as not reJected" There \^7as I).o significant
difference between the samples concerning amounL of forinal
education. Given these crri square resul-ts and conclusions,
the samples \ôIere cons idered to be s imilar in these
deurographic variables, hence the joint sautple was considered
a sample for analysis.
'.llhe SDLRS mean scores !üere calculated for samples l, 2

and tLre 1ar6e ¡oint saruple. 'Iue SjJLI{S inean scores fc¡r each
sanple rrere: ( l) 225 "2L for sample I with a standard
oeviation of ¿L.¿5 a¡d range ot scores frou L72 to 27 2; (2)
22L"55 for sample 2 wLtin a standard deviation of 25 "4L and
range of scorcs from 157 to 267 ; and (3) ¿23. L3 for the
joint sample with a range of scores fron L57 to 272. A
Suuurary of the ralü scores and biograpnical ciata without
identification numbers is presented in appendix A.
'I'ire clistribution of SIJLI{S scores v/as considered to be
in a norrnal distribution as deterinined by the Shapiro-ltrilt<
[estr. 'I'his test is ciefineci as "an atlalysis of variance type
 9L

test ol: noririality ior a courplete sam.ole where tire test

statistic is the ratio of the square of a linear combination
of ttre san¡.ile orcler statistics to the usual esicitate of
variance" (Kenda11 and Buckland, L97L, p" L37). To reflect
a norrnal distribution, tir.e Shapiro-r,rlilk ratio snould be

ic¡r sauple 2, it was 0 "{J7ó9. 'I.nese values sudgest that tlle

samples' scores exhibit nor¡nal distributions " Fiaving
estaulisr:ed these norural oistrii:utions, paralretric tests
\¡/ere utilLzed rvhere appropriate for analysis. Such tests
include t tests.
Inferential statistics vrere utilLzed, âIthough the
sanirles were not randourly selected" Iirese statistics are
useful "to compare two or more groups to find out if the
corresponding populations are siurilar" (Wi1son, 1985, p"
452)" Such statistical tests include t Lests and ci:i
square.
Descriptive statistics were utilLzed to summarize and
descrii-¡e trre ciì.aracteristics of Lhe data in tire sarnilles
(i,,Jilson, f985). The Pearson Product Correlation is an
exaLuple of'a clescriptive statÍstical test
Each hypothesis and its related data and analysis will
be presented.
 92

i{ypoühesis I

ftrULL: Students in a diploma nursing progran that advocates

stucrent responsiirility for learning, will rlave SlJLrtS scores
that are similar to those of the norrning population"
ar,r.ux¡tA'I'lvd: Students in this program will i.rave SDLLTS scores
that are higher tiran those of tire norming population"

Chi square analysis rvith an ,r\ = .05 was utilLzed to

test hypothesis l. Three chi square coinputacions \.¡ere nade;
one for each sample. Table 2 outlines the mean SDLRS scores
and their corresponding chi square values "

Table 2

Chi Square for STjLKS Scores

Sample SDLRS X Chi Square P Value

Norming 2L4"4
Sample I 225.2L 0"545r P

Sample 2 22L "55 0 "2384 P

Joint Sample 223 "L3 0 "3444 P

Since P

not re3ected. 'Iire alternative nypothesis \,ües rejected. All

samples' mean SDLRS scores i^zere similar to ihe norming
popirlatious's ruean SULIIS score.
 93

Ìlypothes is 2

I\ULL: Students who are over 25 years of age will have SDLRS

scores that are sirrrilar to the norming population.

ALTEfu\ATIVE: Students who are over 25 years of age will have
SDLRS scores that are hi¿her than tire norming population"

A one-Lailed t test with an d = .05 was util Lzeð, to

test this nypothesis. Such ¡rararuetric tests are a¡rpropriate
when the data exhibit a norrnal distribution and the sample
sLze is greater than 20 scores per ceIl. Paraiuetric tests
are used for interval or ratio scaled data (r,^/ilson, 1985,
Ir. 4t4) " SIJLKS scores are interval level oata. t tes ts
compare the mean scores of two similar groups. One-tailed t
tests are uiilLzed rrrhen the alternative trypotiresis specif ies
one direction, e.g" , will have higher scores, rather
than will have dij:ferenL scores (wilson, 1985).
Each sample' s data \^7as util Lzed to tes t t-his
irypotnesis. 'I'able 3 outlines each sample's ciata rela ted to
âBê, mean SDLRS scores and t test values"
 94

Table 3

SDLRS Scores and Age

Sample I Sample 2 Joint Sample

Aoa NX LVX N )<

66 224 "03 81 2L8 "59 L47 22L.03

> 25 yrs. old 9 233 "89 l8 234 "83 27 234 .52

t test value l.3t14 2"5L8 2"768

P value P P P > .05

For sample l, the students at the end of their first

year, P
rejected. The students over 25 years old had similar SDLRS
scores to tnose of the norrning population.
For sample 2, the students at the beginning of the
prograitr, P
rejected" The SDLRS scores of the students over 25 years
old was higher than those of the r:onning population. 'rhe
alternative hypothesis; therefore, !üas not rejected.
For the joint saiuple, P
hypothesis was rejected" The SDLRS scores of the students
over 25 years of age !¡ere irigher than tirose of the norming
population. 'Ihe alternative hypothesis; therefore, \,ùas not
rej ected.
Fromthis analysis, age has been demonstrated to have
an effect in saur¡:1e 2, the stuctenis at trre beginning of the
 95

program. In this sample, the students younger tlnan 25 years

old had the lowest SDLRS scores; but the students older than
25 years old had the highest scores " A plot of the effect
of age on SDLRS scores between Sample I and 2 is outlined in
Figure l"

Figure I
Effect of Age on SDLRS Scores

245

240

235 Sample (_)

230 Sample (_ _)
SDLRS
Score 225

220

2L5

Age

There is less variation in the scores of sample I

compared to sample 2"
 96

Hypothesis 3

I{ULL: Students with Loore than Grade LZ forrnal education will

irave SDLitS scores that are similar to those of tire rtorrring
population"
ALTERIIIATIVE: The students with more than Grade LZ formal
eclucation will have SDLRS scores that are hi6her than those
oí. the norruing population.

A one-tailed t test with o( = .05 rüas utilLzed. to test

tiris trypothesis . Table 4 ouLlines each saurple' s data in
relation to amounL of formal education, mean SDLR.S scores
ancl t test values.

Table 4

SDLRS Scores and Anount of þ-ornral Education

Amount Sample I Sarople 2 Joint Sample

of i¡ormal
Education NX i\i X NX
Grade L2 50 224 "L8 7L 2L6 .30 LzL 2L9 "55

) Grade L2 25 227 "28 28 234.86 53 23L.28

t test value 0 "592 3.45r 3.076

P value P P P

For sample l, Ehe null hypothesis was not rejected"

'I'he scores of the group \^/íth more than grade L2 fonnal
 97

eclucation were sir¡ilar to tirose of tt:.e nc;rlrring popLllation"

For saLnple 2, the null hypothesis \^/as rej ected" 'Ihe
sr:oup \,iitn uore than grade L2 forural education also nad
higher SDLRS scores. The alternative hypothesis vüas not
re¡ ected.
For the joint sample, the null hypoLhesis was rejected"
'-the group with utore tnan graoe LZ fonual education also had
higher SDLRS scores" The alternative irypothesis \,üas not
re3 ected "

Frorn this analysis, amount of f orrnal education has been

GeiûonsLraced to nave an eftect in Saurple 2, the beginning
students. In this sample, the students rvith only gracie L2
for¡oal educauion nad ttte lowest ¡ìJLKS scores; wl-Iereas, ttrose
students with more than grade L2 formal education scored the
ni¿hest SDLi{S scores. t-igure 2 outlirtes a ¡rloü oi' tne
effect of amount of formal ed.ucation on SDLRS scores bet\^reen
Saur¡rles I ano 2"
 9B

Figure 2
Effect of Amount of Fomal Education
on SDLRS Scores

245

240

235 Sample (_)

230 Sample (-
SDLRS
-)
Score 225

220

2L5

Grade L2 More than

Amount Grade L2
Amount of Fomral Education

There is less variation in the scores of sample I

compared to sample 2"

Hypothesis 4

NULL: Students who have completed. one year of study in this

program will have SDLRS scores that are similar to those of
the beginning students.
ALTEzu\iATIVE: Students who have completed one year of study
in this program will have SDLRS scores that are higher than
those of beginning students.
 99
i
A orre-tailed t tes E withí\ = "05 was utilLzed to test
this hypotiresis.'Iable 5 outlines the nean SDLRS scores and
t test values tor tilese samples.

Table 5

Coroparison of Sanples' SULRS Scores

Sample I Sample 2

NX NX

SDLRS Score 7 5 225 "2L 99 22L"55

t test value t"0l

P value P <.05

'Ihe null hypothesis rvas not rejected" The SDLRS scores

of saruple I were siruíIar to tnose of sainple 2. 'Ihere was a
tendency, though not statistically significant, for the
stuclents at the end of first year to irave higner SuLltS
scores.

l{ypothesis 5

: The s tudents with higher SDLIì.S scores lvi11 have

I{ULL

average year I tinal grades . (rivera6e = ittean of group' s

grades. )
ALTERT\IATIVE: The stuclents lvith higher SDLRS scores will also
 100

have higher year I final grades.

Pearson correlation (r) co-efficient \,\ras utilLzed to

test this hypothesis. Correlation techniques are utilLzed
to relate performance on differenL measures " The Pearson r
is a descriptive statistic Lechnique uLilLzed with interval
or ratio level data; hence,it was coTlsidered appropriaLe for
analysis of these data" The range of correlation scores is
+l to -1. The closer the correlation is Lo *l or -1, the
stronger the relationship. The closer the correlation is to
0, the weaker the relationship (üiilson, f9B5)"
The ra$r scores of the sample's SDLRS scores and final
year I grades are included in appendix B " The r \iras
calculated to be 0"L744 which suggests a weak posiLive
correlation between the two variables. Figure 3 contains a
scattergram of this relationship which further reinforces
the weak correlation between the two variables "
The null hypothesis is not rejected" The students with
higher SDLRS scores did not necessarily have higher year I
final grades" The alternative hypothesis was rejected"
 PLOT OF SDLRS*YRlMÀRK LEGEND:A=1OBS,B=2OBS

I À
27 0+
À
À
s I
E 26 0+ À
L
I I
D 25 0+
I
R
E I
c 24 0+ AÀ
T A
E À
D I
23 0+
L
E BB B A
À I À À À
R 22 0+ B À A
N
¡ A
N I À
G 21 0+
R
E
À 20 0+I
D
I
N I
E t9 0+
s
s
I
s 18 0+
c
o
R I
E '17 0+
FJ

I t--.
16 0+
I
+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 6B 69 70 71 72 73 74 7s 76 77 78 79 B0 Bt 82 83 84 Bs 86 87 BB

FIRST YR NURSING MARK

 T02

SUvir"rÂKY ut' COLI'Ir:i.'l

This analysis has addressed the research questions

relates to the context evaluation. SpecificaLIy, the
results indicated that: (t) these sarnples of students within
trris nursing program aid not perceive themselves to be more
or less self-directed in their learning than the norming
population, des¡:ite what the program philosopuy assulùes
about tiris behavior; (2) there existed a positive
statistical relationship between S.DLüS scores and age anrount
of forrnal education; the students who were over 25 years old
or haci uore than grade L2 education hrere found to have
higher SDLRS scores; (3) age and annount of forrnal education
had r-rrore of an effect on tne SDLr.S scores of tire be¿inning
students than those at the end of first year; (4) there was
no statistically signiricarit difference between tne SULhS
scores of each sample; those who had completed one year in
tiris prograin did not ;oerceive ttrenselves to be üore
self-directed than those at the beginning of the program;
ancÌ (5) tnere lvas a rveak positive correlation t¡etween the
students I SDLRS scores anci their final year I grades "

Process Evalu@

The PALS scores froil the faculty !ìrere found to be in a

normal dis trir.¡ution. 'Ihe Shapiro-'hfilk ratÍo rvas O .97 8 . Iire

 103

üean P,rLS score for tne sample v/as L44.73 witir a stanoard
deviation of L3"52 arrd range of scores frorn 116 to L72" A
sui!ilary of the ra\^7 scores and biograpnical data without
identification number is included in appendix C" 'Ihe mean
PÀLS score of the nonning population was 146 with a standard
deviation of 2L" Each hypotlr.esis and its related data and
analysis will be presented.

Hypothesis I

IVULL: !-aculty in a diploma nursing progran that purports to

facilitate learning will irave PaLS scores that are siililar
to Lhose of Lhe norining population"
r\r-'IdKrlA'I'IVE: !-aculty in this progran will irave PALS scores
Lhat are higher than those of the norrning population.

I
A chi square with ¿1= "05 \üas utilLzed to test this
hypothesis. 'Iairle 6 lists the data util ízed f <.rr the
computation of the chi square"
 104

Table 6

Chi Square and PALS Score

Chi Souare PALS Score

E L46 E - expected value (X of

norming poPulation)
o L44 "7 3 O- observed value
D L"27 D-differenceE-0
D2 L"6L29 D2

Dz /E = 0"011 D2 /E = chi square value

This chi square value suggest P

null hypothesis was not rejected. The PALS scores of this
sample was similar to Lhose of the nonning population" The
alternative hypothesis was rejected. There vras a tendency,
although not statistically significant, for these faculty
PALS scores to be less than those of Lhe norming population"
The faculty mean PALS score, being similar to the norrning
mean suggests that these faculty may exhibit conflicting
behavior in the classroom as described by Conti (L982) "

Hypothesis 2

NULL: Faculty who are older than 40 years o1d '¡i11 have PALS
scores that are similar to those of the norming population"
ALTERNATIVE: Faculty who are older tiran 40 years old will
have PALS scores that are higher than those of the noriling
 r05
po,Dulation"

A t test with { = .05 \^ras util ized, to test this

hypotiresis although tne sanple cell size is srnall. 'Ihe
results suggested Lendencies and not significant
relationsnips , because of the sural1 san¡;1e. 'Ial¡le 7
outlines Lhe sample's data in relation to ãEè, mean PALS
scores and t test values.

Table 7

PALS Scores and age

PALS Score
Àoa
4¡he rtrx
40 years old 1l L48 "45

40 years old II L4L

t test value L"32
P value P

The null hypothesis was not rejected. The PALS scores

o.¡-= Lhe group over 40 years olci v/ere similar to tirose oï tne
nonning population. The alternative hypothesis is rejected.
'I'here was a tenciency , though not s tatis tical ly s ignif icant ,
for the younger grolrp to have higher PALS scores than those
in the oloer óroup.
 106

Hypothesis 3

i{ULL : Facul ty who have had educational background in

principles of aciult learning will nave PaLS scores tnat are
siinilar to those of the nonning population"
f\L'IijKDlAI'IVE: Faculty ü/no nave liad educational uackground in
principles of adult learning will have PALS scores that are
rrigtrer tlran tnose of the norruing po1.rulation.

A t test with O(, = .05 \Àras util Lzed to test this

hypothesis. '-llable 8 outlines the saurple's cÌata in relation
to educational background in principles of adult learning,
rrl.ean PALS scores and t test values "

Table B

PaLS Sc<¡res and Education in

Principles of Adult Learning

PALS Score
Educatíon
in PAL NX

Yes L2 r48.83
l.lo 10 r39.80
t test value L"62
P value P

The nu11 hypothesis was not rejected. The group r¿ith

 L'J7

eoucational bacrcground in ¡trinciples of adult leamir-rg nad

similar PALS scores to those of Che norming population "
a tendency, though not statistically s ignificant ,
'L'itere was

for those with the educational background to have irigher

PALS scores.

Hypothesis 4

NULL: Faculty who have taught for more than 5 years will
tìave P¡rLS Scores that are similar to those of tne nol:1ning
population.
Faculty who have taught for nore than 5 years
ALTERI,üATIVE:

will have PALS scores tirat are nigner tnan tirose of tne
norming population.

I
A t test witir C\= "05 \¡ilas util Lzed to Eest this
hypothes is . -ilable 9 outlines ttre sample's data in relation
to anount of teaching experience, mean PALS scores and t
test values "
 r0B

Table 9

PAIS Scores and Amount of

Teaching Experience

Amount of PALS Score

Teaching
Experience NX

5 L44.40
L7 L44.82
t test value 0"00
P value P "05

The null hypothesis was not rejected" Those with more

than 5 years teaching experience had similar PALS scores to
those of the norming population. The scores between the
groups r¡/ere s imilar " The alternative hypothesis vras
rejected" The use of "5 years" as the variable may be
inappropriate to distinguish relationships associated with
amount of Leaching experience"

Hypothesis 5

NULL: l-aculty with less than 20 years of overall nursing

practice will have PALS scores that are similar to those of
the norming population"
ALTEtu\ATIVE: Faculty with less than 20 years overall nursing
practice will have higher PALS scores.
 r09
I
rr t tes t with C\'= " U5 v¡as util Lzed, tc¡ tes t tlris
hypothesis " 'Îab1e l0 outlines the sample's data in relation
Eo tne arrount of overall nursing practice, iirean P¡rt S scores
anci t test values.

Table l0
P¡rLS Scores and ¡tmount of
Overal1 r'ùursing Practice

Amount of PALS Score

r\urs ing
Practice NX

It 145.55
> 20 years l0 r4t" 10

t test value 0 "32

P value P

I{OTE: overall = 2L, not 22 because one

"{ no nursing practice
teacirer irad

The null hypothesis rvas not rejected. The PALS scores

of the groirp with less ttran 20 years rÌursing practice rvas
similar to those of the noming population" There was a
tendency, though not statistically significant, for the
group with less than 20 years of overall nursing practice to
rrave rrigirer PAL-S scores than those with Ìrore tlian 2U years
nursing practice" 'Ihis tendency supports the theory that
r-Ìurses practice in accordance to tlre pt-rilosol-rnical era irom
which they r^7ere taught. 'lhe group with nore than 20 years
 110

nursing practice irad their basic nursing education in the

teacher-centered pragmatic philosophical era described by
bevis (L9821" 'lÌre éroup wiLh less than 20 years nursing
practice had their basic education in the learner-centered
nurnanistic existential era as described Dy ¡evis 1L982) "

SUI"IT"IAIìY OF PROCESS EVALUATION I{ESULTS

'Ihis analysis has addressed the research questions

related to tne process evaluation. Àlthough tne sample sLze
did not allow for comprehensive statistical analysis, the
results d.errronstrate tendencies in trre ciata" Specifically,
the results indicated that: (1) the faculty in this nursing
progran \^/ere using principles <lf acrult learning no iilore or
less often tTran the norruing population despite what the
prograrLr pnilosopiry suggests; (¿) there !i/ere no statistically
significant relationships between this faculty group's PALS
scores and age, educational background in .orinciples of
adult learning, and amount of teaching and overall nursing
practice; (3 ) there \,'ras a tendency, tnougn not statis tical ly
significant, for higher PALS scores in groups under 40 years
of âde, witn educational bacr<ground in principles ot- aoult
learning and less than 20 years overall nursing practice.
 lrl
i Li P P Ljir"ijlr! I ¿rL F lr'ii-,r IL"IGS

Supplemental findings \,üere available regarding the

iEeûs on the questionnaires and tlre questionnaires' factor
scores" 'Ihese findings suggest limitations for each
questionnaire instrunent" lirese liiuitations will be
described, as well as other limitations Lo the study.

Limitations of the SDLRS Instrument

The factor scores, while designed to give a more

coiilprelÌensive description of the inciivioual respondents'
self-directed learning abilities, w-ere not helpful to Lhat
end " analys is of the scores and tireir loacring items
demonstrated that the f actors r¡/ere arnbiguous in their
cieiinitive iteurs " 'fhe construct validity of these factors
may be questionable. Items $/ere found to be loading on
several ractr¡rs; iLence they vùere not conclusive to deline a
particular factor.
Guiglielmino (L977) identified the factors as: (I) love
of learni-ns, (2) self concept as an etiecLive independent
learner, (3) tolerance of risk, ambiguity and corlplexity in
leanring, (4) creativity, (5) view of learning as a
1ife1ong, beneficial process, (6) initiative in learning,
(7) self-unclerstanoing, ano (õ) acceptance of responsrbilicy
for one's own learning.
 LL2

babDie (f9ð3) iclentilied ractor analysis to be used to

discover patterns among the variations in values of several
vari¿rbles (p. 437 ) " lv/o criteria to consider in generating
factors, according to ilabbie are: (f) the factor nust
explain a relatively large portion of tfie variance found in
the study variables, and (2) every factor must be nore or
less irrcìependent of every otner factor. The loaciing ratio
for the SDLRS factors ranged frora "30 - "75 which suggests
tnaL trre factors did not always explain iralf of the variance
found in the study variables. A loadina of
ii:.dicative ot ex1-rlaining iirore tnan tralf the variance. 'Ilre
facLors \¡üere not necessarily independent of each other.
Iceius identif ied in one factor \ùere also r=ound in otirer
factors. This suggests that the factors were interdependent
and not always indepenoent. rable tl icientiÍies iteius
(statement numbers) that \^/ere found to be loading on nìore
tnan or-ì.e Iactc¡r.
 113
'r'able ll
Duplicate Item Loading
on l,'actors of SUL-Y'S

Item = Statenent i{umber -!-actors

B L,7
9 2,3
l8 6r7
25 2,4
26 L,4
3l 1,3
32 1,3
35 317

39 L,4
4L 4r6
42 2,6
43 4,5
49 1,5
5t 1,5
53 1,3
54 1,5
55 4,5,7
56 3,5
58 5,6

Factors L, 3, 4, 5, 6 and are not independent AS

 LL4

srlov/n Dy rraving c1u¡-rlicate Li:erirs loacting on th'ent.

'Ihese students samplest factor scores were not anaLyzed
anO evaluated because of the anibiguity of tile factors and
their questionable construct validity.
Anotner limitatio¡r related Eo the SDLRS instrunent r'ras
the inconsistent choice of all itern responses by the
sarnples. For sample l, in 35 of the 5ö items , all 5
res.Donses r.rere chosen. In 2L items, 4 of the 5 responses
\,ùere chosen and ín 2 items, only 3 of the 5 responses v/ere
selected. I'hese latter two iLens Lüere: (1) number 20, "If I
ciont t i""tt , it ' s not ruy f ault" , and ('¿) nuluoer 54 ,
"Learning is a tool for life". tsoth these staLements are
biased and ambiguous "

For sample 2, in 42 of the 58 iterns, all responses !üere

ctrosen, Irt L4 itens , 4 oT the 5 responses !üere chosen and
in 2 of the iteras, only 3 responses \^/ere chosen. These
latter 2 iterus \^/ere: (f ) nuurber 49, "I want to learn rilore so
that I can gro\,ü as a person", and (2) number 52, "I \niill
never be too o1o to learn ne\^z thil¿s". Both tþese
statements are biased and ambiguous.
0ther ulethodological issues, raised by l-¡rocke t t
( 1985-b) , such as soue iteius' negative wording, were not

anaLyzed. in tiris stuclY"

 It5
Limitations of the PALS Instrument

The PALS factor scores provided limited utility in this

stuuy. 'iire ractors \^/ere idenl-ified by Conti (L987) as: (1)
learner-centered activities, (2) personalLzLng i-nstruction,
\3) relating to experience, (+) assessir:g student needs, (5)
climate building, (6) participation in the learning process,
arrd 17 ) rlexi-bility for personal developinent. Ihe faci-or
scores for the faculty did not consisLently exhibit normal
distributions as rneasureci by the Shapiro-Wilk test. 'Iable
L2 ouLlines the factors and their distributions as being
nonual or not norural.

Tai¡1e L2
I'lorrnal llis tribuLion oi !-actor Scores

Factor Distribution

I normal
2 not normal
J normal
4 normal
5 not normal
6 nornal
7 not normal

Due to the irregularity of norinal distribution of the

 ll6
raculty t s tactors, and ttte lirnited size of the faculty
sample, these factor scores v/ere not further analyzed and
evaluated.
Other limitations of tiris insLrument relate to the item
staterrents an<l their responses. Although. the instrutlent nad
been utilLzed with instructors of health sciences courses,
soue iteurs r/üere difficult to ansvüer from a nursing
i-ns tructor perspective " This dif f icul ty sugges ts
questionable valiOity for this instrurnent and riursing
teachers. The items focused on classroom instruction.
Uonsideration of al1 rnodes of nursing education instruction,
such as small group discussion, laboratory and clinical
experiences, \,üas líruiied. A respondent üay ans\,^ler an iterl
from a clinical experience perspective; this response may
ditfer from considering the Sail.e iten froiu a clasSroou
perspective "

Ambiguities were present in several item statements.

Itens 2 and 26 concern tire use of discipline, however, âD
operational definition is absent. Respondents may
urisinterpret discipline to be positive or negative. iror
item 4, "I encourage students to adopt uriddle class values",
a responclent uray question which val-ues are assumed. Iteur 8,
"I participate in the informal counselling of students" is
also autbiguous. A respondent ilay ¡:onder r,vhetlrer tne
counselling is academic or personal.
Iteur i9, "I use wricten tests to assess tne degree of
 LL7

indicate new directions fc¡r

acadeutic gro\,üth ratiler than to
learning", is biased" A respondent might use written tests
f c¡r both irurposes.
Item 34, "I encourage my students to ask questions
about the nature of their society", and Ltem 44, "I teach
units about problems of everyday 1iving", are ambiguous
concerning society and everyday living. A responoent nay
ponder whether these refer to life in general or
specitically to nursing"
Limitations concerning the responses involve the scale
as well aS irregularities in the choice oj- responses " llhe
use of a double meaning for response nurnber 5 was confusing
for tne interpretation of results. ivuorber 5 was utilized aS
"you never cio the event" or "Lhe itern does not apply to
you". 'Iire overall PaLS score üay be invalid if a respondent
consistently chose number 5, "Lhe item does not apply to
yotrtt .

l.urther analys is the responses dernons trated

of
irregularities of tire P¡,-t S scale. i\ot a1l responses lùere
chosen" In only L2 of the 44 iterns, all responses were
chosen. ln t5 iterus, 5 of the 6 responses \üere chosen. Ln
L2 items , 4 of the 6 responses were chosen, and in 5 items 3
of the 6 responses \.4/ere cnosen. Inis i:rellonderance of
choosing less than a1l 6 responses suggests that a choice of
ó responses túas excessive, particularly ior a sruall saruple.
In the 5 itens wittr three selected choices, there
 11Ô
LLÒ

exis tecl aruoi6uities an<1 biases in ttre written iteiûs . lteul

L2, "I plan units rvhich differ as widely as possible from rny

Studentst SoCio-eConor¡iC bacKgrouild", IüaS biaSed Oy using

the words "as lvidely as possible".
Item 14, "I plan learní_ng episooes to take into accounl
my studenLs' prior experiences", \,ùas ambiguous in terms of
"\.^/nat iS accounEed". Item lti, "I elrcourage dialogue within
my students", v¡as also ambiguous in terms of type of
e'ncouragernent "

22, "I accept errors as a natural part of the

Tt.em

learning process", v¡as biaseci in tel:Trs of being a sociallY

accepted stateuent.
Itern 43, "I help students relate ne\,ri learning tc¡ their
prior experÍenceS", v¡AS biaSed artd amb:-guous " One rnay
poncler as to the quality of help given.
on these irregularities with a surall nursing
.tiased
f acul ty s amp le , the PALS ins trument ilray need f urtlrer

valiaation studÍes regarding construct and internal

val idity "

OTITER LI}TITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Other liiliLations inherent in the study related to the

perceptual orientation of the stuoy, tne use of two instead
of one student sample, the lack of direct relationship
Det\,veen the student a'rrd raculty sauples anci the use of only
 lr9
one nursing program"
The use of methods that measure perceptions rather than
actual behavior are limited to tne subjective responses
(perceptions) of those studied. The generalLzabLLity of
results was limited to the sainples. As a prograu evaluation
sLudy, such perceptual studies are appropriate to determine
uhe extent to wnich ti:e prograru v¡as rueetirrg trre perceived
need.s of its reci¡rients. Its results \,vere linited Lo that
prografo"
The utilization of two student samples tested at one
given tiLue <1id not audress questions concernin- tne efÍ-ect
of tne progratn and its insLruction on the studentsr
behavíors, such as their self-directed learning behavior.
The use of I sarnple in a longitunidal study throughout the
nursing progran could provide a coi:rprehensive analysis of
the effect of the programts instruction on the students'
self-directed learning readiness.
Correlation studies between the students and faculty
r¡¡ere not uiacle. r.'lot all teachers involved in ttre study lvere
also involved in the clinical instruction of all students.
I'ne teacners' instruction tecrr.niques were not considered to
be variables effecting Lhe students' self-directed learning
reaoiness in tnis siudy. 'I'ire ueasuring l-nstrurûer-rts and
hypotlres is s tateuents l imited sucir l ines of inquiry .
Ihe Lrse of only one nursing progran lii.rited the
generallzabLlity of the resulLs. conclusions are valid only
 L20

ror tnis prograú which \À7as appropriate ior its program

evaluation intent.
 L2L

Chapter Five

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In this f inal chapter, a suiirnary of the study 1S

presenLed, najor conclusions are drawn and discussed ln
terms of implications for future study.
This study purported to explore self-directed learning
in nursing education by studying the enacLment of the
philosophy of a school of nursing" The philosophy suggested
that the learners vlere self-directed and responsible for
their learning, and Lhat their teachers acted as
facilitators to the learning process. The study vras
structured around the Stufflebeam Program EvaluaLion lvlodel
concerning the context and process evaluation aspects "
Context evaluaLion measured the extent to which the program
was meeting the needs of those it served. Hence, student
samples !üere used in this study for the context evaluation"
Process evaluation measured the actual implementation of the
program in terros of Lhe implementation of the philosophy
that teachers acted as facilitators to Lhe students'
learning. Teachers \,rere studied Lo measure the process
evaluation"
 L22

'-[wo instruments were utilLzed inthis stuOy; o-ne scale

measured the students' self-directed learning readiness, and
anotner scale rueasurec.l tire teacner's use of i-lrinciples of
adult learning (facilitation of learning) . The sarnples'
rrean scores arising f rom these ins truments \,ùere
statistically related to deraographic variables " This
analysis provided a richer data base from which to evaluate
the program comprehensively.
The students within this nursing program vÍere found to
perceive titeuselves no more or less self-directed in their
learning than the norming population" Students rvho were
older th.an 25 years or had irore than grade L2 eclucation were
found to have higher SDLRS scores " The students with higher
scores in self-directed learning readiness did not
necessarily have higher year one final grades "
'lne taculty within tpis progran \dere found to be using
principles of adult learning no more or less often than the
noruring population. 'Ihere \,,üas a tendency, though not
statistically significant, for faculty under 40 years old,
with an educational background in principles of adult
learning, and less than 20 years of overall nursing practi-ce
to have nigher PALS scores.
In terms of the context evaluation, the prograro, with
assunptions that learr:ers lvere self-<iirected and responsible
for their learning, iüas not necessarily meeting the needs of
those it served" In terms of the process evaluation, the
 L23

prograitr, whj-ch sugges ted thatteacners used l.rrinciples of

adult learning (facilitaLion of learning), !üas not
necessarily being implelrented as planned.
Such conclusions, while valuable for their descriptive
intent, did not address ttle reasons attributable to why the
philosophy was not being enacted as intended. Possible
causal theories are described and are related to the
literaLure review froin chapter two.
The students tnay not possess the propensity to be
self-directed learners for a variety of reasons. Students,
in tire eighties, have ùore career options than earlier
students. There are fewer candidates for nursing in the
overall student population. 'I'he nursing student candidate
now applying to a diploma nursing school may possess a more
depenoent self concept and as sucir, will require a inore
teacher-centered approach to learning. Further research is
indicaLed to measure these ne\^rer student candidates as to
their self-directed learning readiness, cognitive maturity,
learning style and rnotivations for choosing nursing. Their
previous education experience can offer clues Lo explain
their current orientation to learning. If tirey had
experienced teacher-centered courses throughout their
formative education period, their cltrrent orientation to
learning may be teacher-cenLered"
A stucty is also r¡arranted to cieteruine learning trends
of baccalaureate nursing students. Students lvith higher
 L24

self-ciirected learning propensities imay be enrolling in the

university nursing courses, instead of diploma nursing
courses. A comparative study of nursing scucients in diploma
and baccalaureate progfams is indicated to deteniline
sirlilarities and differences in self-directecl learning
readiness and abilities "
It may be unrealistic to assume that nursing students
enter di-¡:lorna nursing plogralils with self-directed learning
skil1s. 'Ihey are not typically screened for these skil1s.
Instead, tire acquisition of self-directed learning readiness
and ability should be the desired outcomes of the program"
t\iith current rapLd technological change , a graduate nurse
needs to possess an ability to learn these changes. The
rnost logical approach to such learning is a self-<iirected
approach. An emphasis, in a nursing program, should be on
oevelol:ing self-directed learning stcills instead of assuming
their exístence" Students can learn to be self-directed
learners by Lraving an orientation to its theory,
iioplications and responsibiliLies for learner and Leacher.
Considering benner's (f984) novice to expert theory,
self-directedness may be inappropriate for beginning
s tuclents and practitioners . Lni:l ications f or f uture
research are rTarranted to test this theory as an appropriate
approach to optir-nize nursing student learning. Inherent in
Bennerts approach is assisting learners to attach meanings
to and reflect on their observations and behaviors. I'urther
 L25

stuciy and consi<Ìeration ot the utílLzatLon of a critical

reflective approach to nursing education is necessary. Such
critical ref lection ilay be tne optirlal approach to assist
nursing students to develop problem solving and inquiry
skills, and to assuüe responsibility for theinselves and
their learning.
It may also be unrealistic to assume that these diploma
nursing students will be totally responsible for their
learning in a structured tirne linited two year program that
has specified standards. The arnount of theory and clinical
experience required for these students Lo attain by
graciuation is phenoirrenal " Stucients need advice to detemine
their focus and scope of theory and clinical experience.
The entry to practice issue centers around trris large
anount of knowledge as being unrealistic Lo aLtain in a two
year diplorna program. A baccalaureate degree in nursing has
been identified as being necessary for tire entry to the
practice of nursing" irJithin this four year baccalaureate
program, curricula could integrate and facilitate
self-directed learning irrore realistically. Graduates of
these prograrûs tend Lo be more independent, hence developing
their self-directed skills is important.
Future research of self-directed learning L¡ehavior in
graduates of prograitrs that advocate self-directed learning
and lifelong learning is indicateci. Such research could
detenuine rvlrether tnese graduates tlursue lifelong learning
 L26

by participating in continuing education prograrûs, and

wheLher they are self-directed in this learning"
Uther future research could center on Iearning style
theories and nursing students. Laschinger (1986) identified
diversity in nurs lrlg t
s tuclents learning styles "
Understanding of and accor¡modating these styles may be an
appropriate approacn to nursing student learning, ratner
than merely assuming that all students have a self-directed
learning style.
Measuring self-directed learning readiness has its
liruitations. It focuses on self-directed learning readiness
but not on how self-directed learning occurs and is
facilitated" If self-directed learning is valued, by
including it in the program's philosophy, more research is
indicateci to: (f ) deten¡rine nohr adults plan and organLze
their learning, (2) investigate fellowship and collaboration
amongst learners, (3) invesEigate ho'"v students acquíre and
increase their efficiency and effectiveness in self-directed
learning, and (4) investigate the role of a iacilitator in
self-directed learning (Caffarella and 0'Donne1l, f987).
ttaculty are not necessarily facilitating learning in
this nursing program. A duplicate study with a larger
sauiple is indicated to determine if tttese findings and the
PALS scale are valid and reliable for nursing teacher
populacions.
Facilitation of learning nay not be implemented in this
 L27

program because the Leachers do not know how to faciliLate

learning, or are una\iüare Lhat Lheir teaching behaviors are
ineffective for facilitation. An orientation to the
facilitating of learning, its iinplications, and the
responsibilities for teachers and learners is indicated for
programs advocating facilitation of learning.
Teachers who have been util LzLng a teacher-cenLered
approach may encounter difficulties in .assuming a
learner-centered approach. Their self -concept iras
incorporated the teacher-cenËered behaviors. A change in
self-concept is necessary to accommodate a learner-centered
approach. Avila and Combs (f985) suggest that support and
reassurance are required to assist someone to change self
concept. Cooperation and collaboration are elements that
require incorporation to this process of change. Peer and
administrative support could be given.
Research investigating characteristics of effective and
ineffective facilitation in nursing education would be
valuable as a basis for the facilitation of learning. A
modification of this current study could be done by studying
one group of students in a longitudinal study. The study
would examine the effect of the teachers' instruction on the
students' self-directed learning" The SDLRS tool could be
util Lzed quantitatively to determine changes in
self-directed learning readiness as a function of the
Leacherrs instruction" A combined qualitative and
 L28

quantitative study could i:e done to validate the use of

principles of adult learning and deterrrrine characteristj-cs
of effeccive and ineffective facilitation benaviors "

Implied, when a program advocates teachers to be

facilitators <¡f learning, is ttre recruj-tment and hiring of
faculty \^rho possess this knowledge and ski1l" Evidence of
formal preparation in adult eciucation, ratner trran the
utili-zatLon of. the PALS instrument as a screening tool, is
recorûuenoed. Faculty currently teaching in such a nursing
prograu, but without demonstrated knowledge and skill in
adult education, shoulci be encouraged to seek resources and
continuing education in this field of inquiry"
Enrptrasis for inquiry in nursing education and its
facilitaLion should be on the development of problem solving
and inquiry srcills, and tne facilitation of learning in tne
clinical setting. Clinical learning and instruction as
areas of inquiry have received rnininal docurnented research
tirne "

One final implication of this study is that the

philosophy of this nursing prograrir requires revision because
it is not being enacted as planned" Faculty and students
uray not De cou¡litted to tnis philosoptry; nence it r).o lon¿er
serves its purpose" Thoughtful cons ideration anci

involveLrreu.t of faculty and students is inciicated. Tne

philosophy should allow cons iderable scope for
operational Ízation "
P.eiteracion of the accepted
 L29

generalities ot the day should be avoided unless they are

realistic to serve as a basis for clarifying the beliefs of
the group and the program" Since the approval agency
affects this philosophy by specifying standards, a
behavioral focus for learning may be indicated, rvhereby the
responsibility f.or learning and the facilitation of learning
are defined in terms of behaviors. tjhile this notion may be
antithetical to the principles of adult learning, it may be
realistic for Lhis nursing program. Emphasis in the
philosophy assumptions may be on the development of
self-directing learning skil1s insËead of assuining their
existence on entry to the program.
The students of today, though not necessarily
demonstrating self-directed learning behaviors or readiness,
are the leaders and teachers of Lomorrow" Nurse educators
must prepare their students to anticipate and plan for the
future. Inherent in this preparaLion is the development and
facilitation of self-directed learning. Given the resources
and abilities to use the resources, these future oriented
teachers and leaders will enable nursing to expand its
influential posiLÍon in the future health care industry.
 130

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A" Introduction and Program Evaluation

Benner, P. (f984). From novice to expert: Excellence and

po\^rer in cl inical nurs ing practice . California:
Addison-\n/es ley Pub. Co "
Clark, T. , Goodwin, M. , I4ariani, M. , Marshall, M" J. &
Itloore, S. (f983)" Curriculum evaluation: an application
of Stufflebeam's model in a baccalaureate school of
nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 22 (2), 54-58.
Cooper, S" S" (f980) " Self-directed Learning in Nursing.
Iulassachusetts : Nursing Resources, Inc "
Diploma School of Nursing Handbook. I^iinnipeg,
Manitoba.
Diploma SchooI of Nursing Calendar (f986-f987) "

Iniinnipeg, l4anitoba.
Diekelmann, N" (f986). ldhy research in nursing education"
irlurse Educator, lll) , 4-5 .
(

Dinham, S. J. & StriLter, F. T. (f986). Chapter 34:

Research on professional education. In M" Inlittrock
(Ed. ), Handbook of research on teaching. (third
edition) " LrIew York: MacMillan Pub" Co"
 131

.Dressel, P. L. ¿i' Thompson, M" !1" ( f 973 ) . Independent

Study: a ner¡/ interpretation of concepts, practices and
problems " San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Co.
Dressel, P" L. (196f). Evaluation in higher education"
j¡oston: Hougirton-rvlitf lin Co.
Ediger, J., Snyder, iuI. & Corcoran, S. (f983). Selecting a
model for use in curriculum evaluation. Journal of
Nursing Education, 22 (5), f95-L99 "
h-risch, i{ " A" ( f 9 87 ) " Cognitive uraturity of nursing
students. Image: Journal of lrlursing Scholarship, L9 (l),
25-¿7.
Garner, D. M" (f983). The conduct, use and utility of
program evaluation in nursing education in Canada.
Unpublished docloral ciissertation. University of
CaLgary "

Garner, J. F. & Chase, A. L" (f985). The accreditation

process as a learning experience. Journal of tj.ur.g_ing
Educati-on, 24 (l), 35-37.
Henderson, V. (L969) " Basic principles of nursíng care.
r{e\¡ü York: International Council of ì,¡urses.

iloran, IuI., Knight, L., l{cAtee, S. {i¿ I¡lestriclce, J. (f984) "

A model for curriculum evaluation. Journal of Ngg¡lqg
Education, 23 (7), 3L9-322"
Jarvis, P. (f 987) . t-if elong education anci its relevance to
nursing. L{urse Education 'Ioday, f , 49-55 "

Jenkins, rI" ril. (f986) . Student partici¡tation in curriculum

 T32

evaluation. Nurse Educator, ll (5), l6-18.

Knox, A" B. anci Associates . ( f 9B0) . Developing,
administering and evaluating adult education. San
þ-rancisco: Jossey-Bass Co,

Long, H. (f983) " Adult learning: research and practice"

r.\ew York: Cambricige Pub. Co.
y.lARN. Policies and procedures for approval of nursing
education programs in l{anitoba. Unpublished document"
lnJinrripeg, tulanitoba.
i.1ARN. Registered Nurses' AcL, Manitoba Regulation/ 80. By

La\^7 f/f9df .
i.\¡o.
i'last, Vl. E. {i¿ Van Atta, M. J. (f986) " Applying adult
learning principles in instructional iuodule design"
i{urse Educator, ll ( t) , 35-39 .
l'lission, Aims and Obj ectives . Hospital docurnent,
;vinnipeg, iulanitoba.
0'i\eill, E. L" (f986). Comprehensive curriculun
evaluation. Journal of Nqrsing Education, 25 (l), 37-39.
Partitt, ts. (f986)" Steps in evaluating a progratr$le of
nurse education. t\urse Education Today, 6, L66-L7L"
i{ockirill, R. (L9S¿) " i{esearching participation in adult
education: the potential of the qualitative perspective.
Adult Education, 33 (l), 3-19.
Roclgers, J. r"I. (f 935) . trn exaiuination oi- research
priorities in nurse education. Journal of Advanced
lrlurs ing , I0 , 233-236 "
 133

Scales, F. S. (1985). Nursing curriculum - development,

s tructure and function. Norwalk:
Appleton-Century-Crof t s "
Sheehan, J. (f986) . Curriculum models: Product vs '
process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, Il, 67L'678"
Smith, L. (f982). Models of nursing as the basis for
curriculum development: some rationales and inplications "
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 7, LL7-L27 "
Smilh, R. M., Aker, G. F. & Kidd, J. R" (editors). (f970)"
Handbook of adult education. New York: Macmillan Book
Co.

Sook Sohn, K" (f987), Program evaluation in nursing.

Nurse Educator, L2 (2),27-33"
Stamper, J., Huerta, C., & Maville, J. (1983) . Evaluating
for accreditation: A structured approach. Journal of
i{ursins Education, 22 (2), 67-69.
SLaropoli, C" J" iir lnlaltz, C" F. (re78) " Developing and
evaluating educational programs for health care
providers. Philadelphia: F. A" Davj-s Co"
Stufflebeam, D. (f983). In G" F. Madeus, M. S. Scriven &
D" C" Stufflebeam. Evaluation models: viewpoints on
educational and human services education. Boston:
Kliewer-i\ijhof f Publishers "
Tanner, C. A" (f 983) . In t{. Holzemer (editor) . Review of
research in nursing education" New Jersey: SLACK, Inc.
Verner, C. 14" (L964) " DefiniLion of terms" In G" Jensen,
 L34
A" A. Liveright & I{. C. Hallenbeck" Adult education:
outlines of an emerging field of university studv.
trIashington: Adult Education Association of the U"S"A.
Iniakin, J " H" (f 983) " A workable indepth curriculum
evaluation plan. Nurse Educator, Autumn, 24-32.
Waltz, C. F. & Bond, S. B. (f985). How can a program
evaluation be comprehensive and yet cost efficient?
Journal of Nursing Education, 24 (6), 258-26L"
lrieeks, L. C" & Spor, K" M. (L987) " Hospital nursing
education - dispelling the doomsday prophecies " Journal
of Nursing Administration, L7 (3), 34-38"
Inlorthen, B. R" & Sanders, J. R" (f973). Educational
evaluation: theory and practice. Ohio: Charles A. Jones
Publishing Co.
Yuen, F. (f987). l4ultidimensional approach: a Lask for
curriculum development" Journal of Advanced Nurs ing , 9,
57 -62 "

B" Philosophy

Apps, J" I^i. (L979) "

Problems in Continuing Education" New

York: ivlcGraw-Hill Co.

Apps, J" I,J" (198f). The adult learner on Campus. Chicago:

Follett Publishing Co"
Apps, J, I'i" (f985)" Improving practice in continuing
 135

education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Co,

arnold, J. I'1. ti. Sherwi-n, L. L{. (f986) " beliei' systems
which influence research in nursing: irnplications for
preparing invesLigators. Journal of l.lursing Education,
25 (B), 325-327 "

Attridge, C., Ezer, I{. & MacDonald, J" (f98f)"

lur¡rleuenting program pnilosophy ttrrough curricular
decisions " i\ursing Papers, 13 (1) , 59-69 "
Avila, D. L" ¿i, Combs, A. \^I" (f985). Perspectives on
helping relationships and the helping profession - pasL,
present and future" Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Bergevin, P. (L967). A philosophy for adult education"
r\ew York: l-he Seabury Press.
bevis, E. O" (L982). Curriculum building in nursing"
( third edition) . SL . Louis : The C. V. liosby Co .

ijrubacher, J. S. (L977) " On the philosophy of hisher

edgqe!¿e4. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Co"
l5urnard, P. (f 987) . 'Iortrarus an e¡tisternological basis f or
experiential learning in nurse education. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, L2, 189-193.
ùrol1, K. (L977) " Pnilosophical consicerations tor
inservice education" Journal of Continuing Education, B
(5), 24-26 "

Dewey, J. (19f 6) . Deinocracy and education" lrlew York: The

t¡ree Press.
blbel, R" L. , Noel, J " H. , & Bauer, R" l{" (editors) " (1969) .
 136

Encyclopedia of educational research" (fourth edition).

London: The lt{acMillan Co"

Elias, J" L" & Merriam, S. B, (f980). Philosophical

foundations of adult education. New York: Robert E.
Kreiger Pub. Co"
Houle, C. 0" (f980) "
Continuing learning in the
professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Co"
Jones, R. K. (1985)" The dilemma of educational objectives
in higher and adult education: do we need them? Adult
Education Quarterly, 35 (4), f65-L69"

Joseph, D. (1985). Humanism as a philosophy for nursing.

Nursing Forum, XXII (4), 135-138"
Kramer, I"1. (f98f) " Philosophical foundations of
baccalaureate nursing education" Nursing Outlook, Apri1,
224-228 "

Landrum, P. A" (f984). Philosophical positions. In C" M"

Beck, R" P" Rawlins & S" R" I^Iilliams. Mental health
psychiatric nursing - a holistic life cycle approach.
St" Louis: The C" V. Mosby Co.
Leddy, S" & Pepper, J. M, (1985). Conceptual basis of
professional nursing. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co"
Lindeman, E" (f96f) " The meaning of adult education"
Montreal : Harvard House.
Iulerriam, S" B. (editor). (L982). Linking philosophy and
practice" New Directions for Continuing 6¿us¿ti,on r 15.
San Francisco: Jossey-Boss Co.
 L37

i'{erriam, S. B" (editor). (re84). Selected writings on

philosophy and adult education. Malabar, FA: Robert E.

Kreiger Pub" Co.

Minishul, J. , Ross, K" , & Turner, J. (reB6) . The human
needs model of nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, ll,
643-649.
Moore, M. A" (f97f) "
Philosophy, purpose and objectives:
i'Ihy do we have them? Journal of Nursing Adminis tratioq,
9-L4 "

Neeley, C. 4., and Associates. (f986). Professional role

synthesis for nursing faculty: a redefinition of faculty
practice. Journal of Nursing Education, 25 (8), 345-348"
ofNeil1, I^I" F. (re8r). Educalional ideologies -
contemporary expressions of educational philosophy.
Santa Monica: Goodyear Pub" Co.
Prosser, S. M" (f986)" Reinventing the wheel: a case study
of nursing curriculum innovation. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, ll, 52L-527 "
Rogers, C" (f969) . Freedom to learn. Ohio: Charles E"
Merrill Publishing Co.
Stephenson, t"I. E" (f986) .Curriculr:m development LN
action" i\urse Education Today, 6, 263-269.
Tibbles, J. (L977) "
Theories of adult education:
inplications for the development of a philosophy of
continuing education in nurs ing " Journal of Cor:ling¡ng
Education, 8, 25-28"
 138

Torres, G. (f986). Curriculum process problems and

concerns. In NLN faculty curriculum development " New
York: iVLN Publishers.
Trexler, B" J" (1987)" Nurs ing department purpose,
philosophy and objectives: their use and effectiveness.
Journal of Nurs ing Adminis tration, L7 (3), 8-L2"

C" Adult Teaching and Learning

Ash, C. R. (re8s).
Applying the principles of
self -directed learning in the health professions. In S"
B. Brookfield (editor) . Self-directed learning: from
theory to practiee. New Directions for Continuing
Education, No. 25, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Co"
8e11, D. F. & 8e11, D, L. (re83). l{armonizing
self-directed and teacher-directed learning" Nurse
Educator, Spring , 24-30 "
Benner, P. M" & Tanner, C" (L987)" Clinical judgenent: how

expert nurses use intuition. American Journal of

Nursing, 87 (l), 23-3L"
Brookfield, S. D. (f984). Adult learners, adult education
and the comrnunity. i\ew York: Teachers College Press.
Brookfield, S. D. (f985-a) A critical definition of adult
"

education. Adult Education Quarterly , 36 (l), 44-49.

Brookfield, S. D. (f985-b). Analyzing a critical paradigm
of self-directed learning: a response. Adult Education
 139

, 36 (l), 60-64.
Quarterly
Brookfield, S. D. (editor). (1985-c) " Self-directed
learning: from theory to practice. New Directions for
Continuing Education, 25" San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Co.
Brookfield, S " D. (f986) " Understqq4l!-ng and facilitating
adult learning" San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Co.
Brown, M. A" & Copeland, H. G. (guest editors). (L979) "

Attracting able instructors of adults. New Directions

for Continuing Education, 4. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Co"

Brundage, D. H" & Mackeracher, D" (f980). Adult learning

principles and their application to program planning"
Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education.
Bruner, J. (L977) " The process of education. London:
Harvard UniversitY Press.
Burns, R" B" (f980) . Psychology for the heal th
professions" London: MTP Press Ltd"
Carpentino, L. J" & Duespohl, T. A" (f985). A guide for
effective clinical instruction. (second edition).
Maryland: Aspen Systems Corporation"
Cheren, M,. (f983) " Helping learners achieve greater
self-direcLion. In R. M. Smith (editor). Helping adults
learn how to learn. New Directions for Continuing
Education, 19. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Co.
C1ark, K" M. (f986) " Recent developments in self-directed
learning. Journal of Contlnui-E Education in Nursing, L7
 140

(3), 76-80.
Cookson, P. S" (f986). A framework for theory and research
on adult education participation. Adult Education
Quarterly , 36 (3), 130-141.
Cooper, S. S " (L982) " Self-directed learning projects .
Topics in Clinical Nursing - Self Directed Learning, 4
(3) Maryland: Aspen Systems Corporation, 29-40"
Courtenay, S. (f986) . On derivation of the research
question. Adult Education Quarterly, 36, 160-f65.
Cross, K" P" (L976) " AccenL on learning: improving
instruction - reshapinF curriculum. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Co.
Darkenwald, G. G" (f984). Participation in education by
young adults. In G. Darkenwald & A. B. Knox (editors).
Meeting the educational needs of young adults. New
Directions for Continuing Education, 2L, L5-28 " San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Co.

.Davidhizar, R" E. & McBride, A. (f985). How nursing

success and failure in clinical
students explain their
experiences. Journal of Nursing Education, 24 (7),
284-290 "

deTornyay, R. (L977) " Changing student relationships and

. responsibilities. Nursing Outlook, 25, 188-193 "
deTornyay, R. & Thompson, ¡'1. A" (f982). Strategies for
teaching nursing. (second edition). New York: John
Vüi1ey & Sons .
 L4L

Dobbie, B. J. & KarlinskY, N. (Le82) "

se1 f-directed
clinical practicum" Journal of Nursing Education, 2L
(9), 39-4L"
Eaton, S., Davis, G. L. & Benner, P. E. (L977) " Discussion
stoppers in training" Nursing Outlook, 25, 578-583 "
Forrest, D. (f985) " Identifying student-oriented facultY.
I{ursing Papers, L7 (3) , L6-26 "

Garity, J. (f9S5). Learning styles: basis for creative

teaching and learning. Nurse Educator, l0 (2) , L2-L5 "

cibb, J" R. (f960). Learning theory in adult education.

In l{. S. Knowles (editor) . Handbook of adult education
in the United States " hiashington: Adult Education
Association of the U"S.A"
Gibbs, G. (reBl). Teaching students to learn: a
student-centered approach. London: The Open Univers ity
Press.
Gorham, J. (f985)" Differences between teaching adults and
preadults: a closer look" Adult Education Quarterly, 35
(4) , L94-209 "
Grif f ith, J. & Bakan auskas, A. J.
I^I. , (f983).
SLudent-instructor relations hips in nursing education.
Journal of Nursing Education, 22 (3), L04-L07 "
Hamrner, R. M. {i Tufts, i"t. A. (f985). Nursing's self image
- nursing education' s responsibility. Journal of Nursing
Education, 24 (7) , 280-283.
Haverkamp, K. (f983). The orientation experience for the
 L42

adult learner. In R. i'I. Srnith (editor) " Helping adults

learn how to 1earn. New Directions f or Continqþg
Education, L9, 3-f l, San Francj-sco: Jossey-Bass Co'
Jackson, M. M" & Lynch, P. (f986). Education of the adult
learner: a practical approach for the infection control
practitioner. American Journal, qf Iniection Control-- 4
(6), 257-27L"
Jarvis, P" (f986) " Nurse education and adult education: a
question of the person. Journal of Advanced Nursing, ll,
465-467 "

Kidd, J" R" (1973) " How adul ts learn " Chicago: Follett
Publishing Co"
I(iker, M" (L973) " Characteristics of an effective teacher.
Nursing Outlook, 2L, 72L-723.
Knowles, lul" (L975). Self-directed learning - a guide for
learners and teachers. Chicago: Follett Publishing Co.
Knowles, M. (L976) "
The modern practice of adult
education - andragogy vs. pedagogy. New York:
Association Press.
Knowles, M. (1978) . (f984) . The adult learner: a

neglected species " (second & third editions) . Texas:

Gulf Publishing Co"
Knowles, 14. and Associates. (f984). Andragogy in action -
applying modern principles of adult learning. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Co.
Knox, A" B. (1980). Helping teachers help adulls learn.
 L43

In A" B. Knox (ed). Teaching adults effectively. New

Directions in Continuing Education, 6, 73-r00.
Knox, A. B" (f98f). Adult learning and development. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Co"
Laschinger, H. K. (f986) " Learning styles of nurs ]-ng
students and environmental Press perceptions of two
clinical nursing settings " Journal of Advanced Nursing,
lt, 289-294.
Lovell, R. B. (f980). Adult learning. New York: John
trliley and Sons.
Malek, C. J. (f986). A model for teaching critical
thinking. Nurse Educator, 11 (6), 20-23 "

lulerriam, S. B" (f984). Developmental issues and tasks of

young adulthood. In G. G. Darkenwald & A. B. Knox
(editors). Meeting the educational needs of young
adults. New Directions for Continl¡lgg Education, 2L,
3-13. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Co.
Merriam, S" B" (f987)" Adult learning and theory building:
a review" Adult Education Quarterly, 37 (4), 187-198.
Mezirow, J. (f984). A critical theory of adult learning
and education" In S " B. l4erriam (editor) . Selected
writings on philosophy and adult education. Malabar, FA:
R. E. Kreiger Pub. Co.
iuiezirow, J. (f985) . A critical theory of s e 1 f-directed
learning. In S" B" Brookfield (editor). Sel f-directed
learning: from theory to practice" New Directions for
 L44
Continuing Education, 25, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Co.
tviurray, L. i'l. A conparison of lecture-discussion
(L9'ó2) "
and self-study methods in nursing education" Journal of
rtlursing Education , 2L (9), L7 -23.
rJ'Snea, rI" S" & Parson, l'1. r(. (L979) " ülinical
instruction: effective and ineffective teacher behaviors "
r,'[ursing OUtlook, June , 4LL-4L5 "

Osturoe, P " , Van noozer, lI" i{. , Schef f e1, a. L. & Crowe 11,
tul .
C " Ivi" (1984) . Learning style pref erence and select ion
of learning strategies: consideration and rm¡:l icati ons
for nurse educators. Journal of irlursing Education, 23
(l), 27-30"
Partridge, R" (re83).
Learning styles a review of
selected models " Journal of Nursing Education, 22 (6),
243-248.
Penland, R. (L97e) . Self-directed learning" Adult
Education, XXIX (3), 170-L79 "
Peterson, J. tvl. & Dyck, S. i"r. Systeils theory
(f 986) .
facilatates student practice in self-directed learning
courses. irlurse Educator, ll (5), L2-L5.
Peterson, P. L" (L977) Interac t ive el- l- ec t s of stuoent
anxiety, achievernent and orientation, and Leacher
behavior on student achievernent and atti[ude. Journal of
Educational pqJçþ9_1_9€I , 69 (6), 779-792"
Petterson, ö. J. (1986). A perspective on ttre adult
learner for efficient inservice. 'Iopics in i{ealth Record
 L45

i'lanageuent, 7 ( l) , 27 -33 .

Plecas, D. B" & Sork, T" J" (L987)" Adult education:

curing the ills of an undisciplined discipline. Adult
.Education Quarterly, 37 (3), 48-6L"
Raudonis, .ts. I'i. (L9'ó7 ) " Adult education: its irnplications
for baccalaureaLe nursing education. Journal of Ngg.ping
llducation, 26 (4), L64-L66 "
Kezler, A" G" & Ì,'rench, R" ivi" (I9l5). Personality types
and learning preferences of students in six al1ied health
professions" Journal of A11ied Health, 4, 20-26"
Robinson, C" (L979) " An introduction to helping adults
learn and change" Milwaukee: Omnibook"
Rogers, C" (f96f)" On becoming a person: a therapisLrs
view of psychotherapy" Boston: lloughton-i'iiff lin Co.
Srnith, L{. M" (L982) " Learning l:ow to learn. Chicago:
È'o11ett Pub. rio .

Smith, R. M. (editor). (f983). Helping adults learn how ro

learn" New Directions for Continuing Education, 19. San
Ilrancisco: Jossey-dass Co.
Sweeney, J " F. ( f 9B6) " Nurse educatioil.: learner centered
or teacher centered. l\urse Education Today, 6, 257 -562.
S\,,iendsen-.t3oss, L. A" (I9df ) . Self -instruction: benef its
and problems . I'lurse Educators , i\.ovember, 6-9"

Swencisen-boss, L" A. (l-985) . Teacning f or clinical

competence" r-{urse Educator, l0 (4) , 8-L2.
Tough, A" ivl" (f968). Why adults learn: a study of the
 L46
major reasos for beginning and continuing a learning
proj ect. Toronto: Ontario Institute for studies in
Educat ion "

'I'ough, A. t'{" (L979) " The adult's learning projects: a

fresh approach to theory and practice in adult learning"
'-Loronto: Untario lnstitute for Studies in Educati-on.
'fracey, S" J. & Schuttenberg, E" l"t. (f986). Exploring
adult learner's rationales Ior course interaction
preferences. Adult Education Quarterly, 36 (3), L42-156"
trlang, A. IVI. c,c Blunberg, P. (19ö3) " A stuciy on interaction
techniques of nursing faculty in the clinical area.
Journal of i\ursing Education, 22 (4), L44-L5L"
'vriatson, I . ( 19 S I) " Social izatiohn ol- the nurs ing s tudent
in a professional nursing education program. Nursing
Papers, f3 (2), L9-24"
hlitkin, I{" 4., Iuloore C" 4., Goodenough, D" R., & Cox, P. I^i"
(L977). Fj-eld-dependent and field inciepenoent congnitive
styles and their educational irnplications Review of
"

Educational Research, 47 (l), L-64"

D" Iviethodolo_gy and Analysis

tsabbie, E. (f983). The practj-ce of social researcn.

( tnird editi<¡n) . beln-Lont , C;r: rdactswc¡rth PuuI isi-ring Co .

l¡rockett, R.. G. (I985-a). The relaLionship between

selt-d.irected learning readiness anci li¡e satisfaction
 L47

among older adul t s Adult Education Quarterly, 36 (4),

¿Lü-¿L9.
tsrockett, R" G. (f985-b).
Methodological and substantive
issues in the rneasurem.ent of selr-directeci learning
readiness. Adult Education Quarterly, 36 (l), L5-24"
urockett, R" G. ( leij5-c) . Reactioni a response to
Brookfield's critical paradigm of self-directed adult
learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 36 (l), 55-59.
Caffarella, R" S" & Cafiarella, li. P. (198o).
Self-directedness and learning contracts in adult
education. Adult Education Quarterly, 36 (4), 226-234"
ùaifarel1a, R. S" & tl'ilonnell, P. (1957) " SeIf-directed
adult learning: a critical paradigm revj-sited" Adult
Eciucation Quarterly, 37 (4), L99-zLL"
Conti, u. J " \L982 t " '-the principles of acrul t learning
scale. Adult Literacy and Basic Education, fal1,
i35-147.
Conti, G. J" (f985-a). The relationship between teaching
style and adult studenL learning" Adult Education
Quarterly, 35 (4), 220-228.
Conti, G. J. (f955-Þ) " Assessing teaching style in adult
education: how and why. Lifelong Learning, 8 (B), 7-2L"
Conti, G. J. & vr/elborn, it. B. (f 9Bo) . 'I'eaciring-Iearnirtg
styles and the adult learner. Lifelong Learner, 9 (8),
zo- ¿4 "

Crook, J. (1985). A validation study of a self-directed

 148

l.earning readiness scale. Journal of Nursing dqq4qion,

24 (7), 274-279 "
FinesLone, P" (L984). A construct validation of the
self-directed learning readiness scale with Iabour
education participants " Unpublished doctoral
dissertation" University of Toronto.
Guglielmino, L" (L977) " Development of rhe self-directed
learning readiness scale. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation" University of Georgia" DAI 38, 6467Ã"
Hassan, A. J" (f98f) " An investigation of the learning
projects of adults of hieh and low readiness for
self-direction in learning. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation" Iowa State University.
Jope, A. (f98f). Career patterns of graduate nurses: an
analysis of selected personal, professional and
employment variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation"
University of Manitoba.
Kasworm, H. (Le82) " An exploratory study of the
development of self-direcLed learning as an instructional
curriculum strategy. In G" lrihaples & I^I. Rivera
(editors). Lifelong Learning Research Conference
Proceedings. College Park: University of Maryland"
Kathrein, M" (f981). 4 study of self-directed continued
professional learning mernbers of the Illinois nursing
association: content and process. Unpublished doctoral
dissertaLion. i,{orthern Illinois University. DAI 42,
 L49

L902-A"
Kendall, i"i. G" & Buckland, I^I" R" (L97L) " a dicLionary of
s tatis tical teritrs " ( tir.ird edition). New York: Hafner
Publisiring üo., Inc.
Leeb, J" G" (f983). Self-directed learning and growth
toward personal responsibility: implications for a
irameworE for health promotion" Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Syracuse University"
Long, H" B. ¿! Agyekum, S" K. (1983)" Guglielmino's
self-directed learning readiness scale: a validation
study" ÌIigher Education, L2, 77-87 "

Long, ll" B. cr Agyercum, S. (" (19ð4) . Teacirer ratings in

the validation of Guglielmino's self-directed learning
readiness scale. Higher Bducation, 13, 709-7L5"
irourâcl, S. A" & 'Iorrance, .bj. P. (f978) . Construct val iclity
of the self-directed learning readiness scale. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 3, 93-f04.
Ltdcii, i,. !'. (19ö6) " JJevelopuent artd validation of an
instrument to identify self-directed continuing learners.
Á,dult Education Quarterly, 36 (2), 97-L07.
Phillips, J" S. & Thompson, R" F. (L967) " Statistics for
i\urses - the evaluation of quantitative inf ormat ion. ltlew
York: Iuiacvril lan Co .
Reynolds, I'I. i4" (reB4). The self-directedness and
motivational orientation of part tÍme adult students at a
community college" Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
 i50
Syracuse Universaty"
Itezler, A" G. & Stevens, B" J. (f978). The nurse evaluator
in education and service. t\ew York: McGraw-llill Book Co.
Sabbaghian, S" (L979) " Adult self-directedness and
self-concePt: an exPloration of relationship.
Unpublisned cioctoral dissertaLion. Loì,/a S tate
University "

Savioe, IvI. (L979) " Continuing education for nurses:

predictors of success courses, requiring a degree of
learner self-direction" Unpubl ished doctoral
oissertatio¡r. University of Tc¡ronto. lrAr 40, blI4-4.
irriley, L" (L9BZ)" Effects of self-directed learning
proJects and prererence ior structure on tne
self-directed learning readiness of baccalaureaLe nursing
students. L{ursing Research , 32, 181-185.
I,,Iilson, H. S" (f985). Research in Nursing. California:
¿odison-triesley Pub. Co.
 15l

APPENDIX A

STUDENT RAIü SCORES

AIVD JJIOGITAPÌ-IICAL DATA

 M. O"TOOLE SELF-DIRECTED LEÀRNING STUDY
ECHO OF FIRST YEAR STUDENTS
E OOOAAQOAQUUUUUUUUU
aQao9aaoQ aoo
UUU
D SUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEE EEÊ
(\AS
U DEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSS
LSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTT
sss
LOGE
c TTT
A RTTTTTTTTTIlIlIIlII 122
EX T s123456789012345678 901
1 8-25 FEMALE couRsEs/Dr pLol,rA 229 532344454342444344 21{
1 8-25 FEMATE HIGH SCHOOL 211 422522232431344s23 22{
1B-25 FEMÀLE HIGH SCHOOL 184 443233324425355233 313
18-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 235 552443255542454543 215
1 8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 165 443332542333222423 {34
1 B-25 FEMALE counses,/orPLoMA 236 543343342432345454 214
1 8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 225 442q42332432444534 124
<,I 8YR FEMÂLE HIGH SCHOOL 230 532553421421353s42 323
18-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 249 44155345t534455454 215
36-50 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 251 542442251441454535 115
1 8_25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 222 442443251423544434 214
35-50 FEMÀLE BÀCHELORS 243 542443242442444445 t14
1 8-25 MALE HIGH SCHOOL I94 43243434t432353434 324
1B-25 FEMÀLE HTGH SCHOOL 231 3534423s2352s52543 314
26-35 MALE counses/nt PLoMA 17 4 s32s12351s323552s5 414
1 8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 252 431453154432455553 115
.I
B-25 FEMALE BACHELORS 251 5425531s153t45s545 225
<I 8YR FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 255 5424442s332155s535 l15
1 8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 238 531553241443455453 324
00aoQ0ooa0o00QaQoQoo0QQ00oaQ0Q0o0ooa0
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
22 222 22 23 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 44 4 { ; e ¡r i ; b 5þ 5 5 5 5 5 5
234567890 1 2345 67890 1 234s 67890 1 234s 678
425255 425 1 1 1 4 33544444 4 244 4 2554 5 1 ss 1 25
22352333 422342554 33434 2333 23234235 1 4 3
4 3 3 .l 4 3 25s5 4 234 253 4 3 34 5 2 3 4 41 4 5 3 4 554 1 23
3 1 3 3544 1 52 t 4 2235334 35524444s4 3 52s4.t 44
4 3 233 3 242333 3d24223 3 1 34 3 3234 1 2s34 3 1 42
3 1 5344 325 1 1 4 4235344 3 35 2555 255 3 5 I 54 1 3 3
1 2444 3444 1 1 44 1 24243334 1 444 3 3 s3 52s4 1 4 3
224 5253 1 4 1 1 554354 35 34 52555353 1 5355 1 4 3
1 35444 32521 45 1 553.5s4 3 34 s55 I 555 5255 1 2s
2 1 35ss4 34 t 1 44 34 5 44544s 254 334444 1 ss 1 s 4
224 4 4 3 3 34 3 234 3 4 43 4 4 3 34 24 4 42 454 4254 233
2 1 4 4 4 4 425 1 1 3 5253.i 4 4 4 434 3,4 4 5 354 4 5255 1 43
4 3 3 3 4 4 3 34 rt4 3 3 3 4 4 3 34 4 34 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3.¡ 3 3 3 4 3 3
2334 544553 425245 5554 55 1 4 5534 1 44455 1 4 5
24 4 453 3 34 I 1 343 3 3 344 3 3445 4 424445 t 54 1 44
13 4 4 4 4 4 3 511252 4 5 3 4 5 4 251s 4 4 3 5 s 5 51s s t 5 5
1 254 535 3s 1 2453 3533s4 251 s 443554 5 1 s4 1 54
1 1 4 3 5 2 4 2 5 I 2 5 5 1 4 5 3 4 5 4 4 5, 1 5 5 s 3 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 t 5 5
1 f 4 44 34 35 1 1 3 425s33 4434 3s55 24 4 4 42 4 4 1 43
 }I. O''TOOLE SELF-DIRECTED LEÀRNING STUDY
ECHO OF FIRST YEAR STUDENTS
E
a00QQ000a
OQOQOOOOQUUUUUUUUU 0aa
UUU
D SUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEE EEE
,.As
U
c
DEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSS
TSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTT sss
RTTTTT,TTTTlIlIlI1ll
TTT
äGE A
122
EX T s123456189012345678 901
1 8-25 MALE 255 s 4 3 5 5 2 4 1
BACHELORS s 4 3 2 3 5 4 5 4t 5 l3s
18-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 254 5 4't 5 5 3 2 5 1 4 4 2 4 5 5 5 5 5 214
1B-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 236 5 4 1 4 4 2 5 2 2 4 4 2 3 5 4 4 4 4 214
26-35 FEMALE counsns/nrpLoMÀ 255 5 4 2 5 5 2, 4 5 2 4 3 2 3 5 5 5 4 5 215
18_25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 203 5 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 t 4 3 3 2 4 5 4 4 2 244
26-35 FEMÀLE BÀCHELORS 251 5 4 I 5 5 3 4 5 I 4 4 2 3 5 5 5 5 3 214
18-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 241 5 4 2 5 4 1 3 5 2 3 4 1 4 5 4 4 5 224
<18YR FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 174 5 4 2 4 5 1 4 5 I 4 4 1 5 5 5 5 4
3
2 12s
18-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 221 5 4 4 3 5 4 3 s 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 3 3 224
1B-25 FEMÀLE HIGH SCHOOL 239 5 4 2 4 5 2 2 4 2 4 3 3 3 5 5 4 4 4 214
18-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 228 5 5 2 4 5 2 2 4 1 3 3 2 2 5 5 4 3 3 rt3
18-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 225 5 4 2 5 4 2 2 4 2 4 3 2 4 5 3 4 3 5 225
36-so FEMÀLE counses,/nrpLoMA 241 5 4 1 4 3 2 2 5 1 1 3 1 2 4 5 4 3 4 215
1B-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 246 4 4 2 5 5 4 2 5 1 4 3 2 4 s 5 4 5 424
1B-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 224 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 1 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
4
2 214
18-25 FEMALE counses/nrpLoMA 240 5 4 2 5 5 3 4 s 3 4 4 3 3 s 4 5 4 115
1B-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL '183 3 4 4 2 3 3 3 { 2 3 2 3 3 4 3 4 2
4
224
1B-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 236 5 4 2 4 4 1 3 5 1 5 4 2 3 4 4 4 4
4
4 214
36-50 FEMALE BÀCHELORS 267 5 5 1 5 5 3 3 5 1 5 4 2 2 5s 5 5 5 115
Q0Q0Sa0Q0Qooaaaoaooaooao0a0QaoaQ0Qag0
U UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUÙÙUUUUUUUU
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE UUUU
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
222 2 2 2 223 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 ¡1 4 0 { 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
2345 67890 1 234567890 1 2345 67890 1 2345 678
1 1 3544 A25 1 1 55345355455 2555 254 4 5255 1 s4
21535441 31 2451354354
4 2 5 3 4 4 4 2. 5 t 2 5 5 2 4 4 3 4 4 4 4241 4441 55351 5s1
5 1 5 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 1 4 5
44
1 1 53544351 14 q1s544 qq3sì a55rÞ4Þst s4144
4 1 4233 32353 1 3225334345 24443344 4244 I 4 4
4 1 s4 ss4 1 521 4454s 444 434 I s54 35555 I 5s 1 45
2254 4 3 325 1 25q 1443444 44 2454 354 3 523 3 1 45
1 1 s4 53545 1 1 55 1 45455445 2555 25445 I 55 1 55
2 1 53 423 34 1 34 3.t 252222s{ 24 4 425545 I 54 1 4 5
2 1 4 55 3 324 I 25s 3 34 4 44 3 2325s5 3 5 555 1 55 2 42
3 3 3 35 3 32422q4 435345444 244 4 24554 3 54
1 22 44 4 4 5 4225323
1 1 34334141 5 34 4 4 2 42 44 4 3 4 3 4 4 2s 5 It 4 34
1 141433r453515s515545155145 1
1 254 s4 52522 44
3 2 4 3 5 4 4 3 41 2 4 3 34 5 4 44 4 3 5 2 4ss 3 s5 5s3 1
3 3 4 3 3 2 3 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 5 s 4 s l sss 514 s3 4
4 3 5 4 s 4 3 4 512 51 t 3 5 4 5 4 3 4 5 | 5 5 5 4 5 5 s 41s 4 2 4 {
442332233334 3225324234 33 3 334 34 4243
4 2 5 4 5 4 3 2 5 3 2 4 4
1 1 s5545351 3 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 3 3 5 2 5 4 t233 4 3
14524445s43515ss455551 5sf s5
 M. O''TOOLE SELF_DIRECTED LEARNING STUDY
ECHO OF FIRST YEÀR STUDENTS
E
D
_ 0Q0aQaaa0333333333
suuuuuuúùueEnÈEEEEE
Q0a
UUU
U DEEEEEEEEESSsisssss EEE
sss
wAs
LÕGE
c LsssssssssrrriTrrrr TTT
êEx A RTTTrTTTTTrtliilrrl 122
T s123456789012345678 901
25-35 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 259 541451441442455455
18-25 FEMÀL8 HIGH SCHOOL 222 4544523s2432343433 215
18-25 FEHÀLE HIGH SCHOOL 2IO 2112433r32s4ãi432s 224
18-25 FE!.|ALE HIGH SCHOOL 194 3425344533421i44s3 212
36-50 PEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 216 4433324423232s4434 214
.I
8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 2A2 5535s1352531352435 324
IB-25 FEMALE counses/orpLoMA 226 552442251422343534 1t5
< I SYR FEÈIALE HTGH SCHOOL I74 31t3s4353332433444 324
18-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 231 54rsa22s13415ã3524 1t5
I8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 205 s433423423323ã4333 115
< 18YR FEI.IALE HIGH SCHOOL 205 4s{4s4bs23413r322s 324
1 8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 213 35243345343214s324 114
I 8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL I9O 434434451232254524 215
I 8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 220 543332241333qss334 415
26-35 FEI{ALE HIGH SCHOOL 2{5 ss5ss44sr4lzs4asã; 214
I8-'25 FEMALE counses/orpLoMA 222 54235235232245q434 114
<18YR FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 211 54zes33sr4323a3s22 234
26-35 !.[ALE counsns/orpLoMÀ z3z 533153442?.43s53433 115
I8-25 PE¡IALE HIGH SCHOOL 245 5ô1551242414455134 124
1ls
aa0QQ00Q00ooQa0a00qea0Q00g0000QaaQaQa
UUUUUUUUUUUUUÙÙÙUÛüÙUUÛÛüUUUUUUUUUUUU
E E E B E E E B E E EÊ E E E E E E E E E E E E È E E E E E E E E
ssssssssssssssssssÈsssssÀssssssssssss
T TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
E E E E
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a ã à 4 4 4 4 à i 4 4 4 s s 5 5 5 5 5 5
2 3 4 5 6 7I9 0 1 2 3 å 5 6 7I9 0 r 2 3 4 5 6 7I9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B5
115 4 4 4 5 3 5 416 5 t 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 415 5 5 4 5 5 4 s l s 515
2 2 3 2 s 4 4 4 5 3 2 4 3 4 4 s 3 i ¡ 4 4 4 2 4 4 5 2 5 4 4 s 3 4
5
2 2 4 2 s 4 313 3 { 6 414 4 3 4 È S 4 s r 4 ¡ 51 4 4
3 3 { 3 32 4232334 ¡ 2 4 4 4 4 r 3 414
2 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 r 2 2 3133 353{¿¡
4
2244 ¡¿ 34 423 3 3 3 231
113 3 5 4 3 3 5 r r 5 3 3 3 s5 q i e i ¿ 3 s 2 4 S
a i ¡ 2 4 2 4 i S 2 4
A 3 s 5 s s r 5 513
4 4 s 15 s 15 43
24334 344 32344 1 25345533 2454 3554 52 4 41
3 2 5 6 4 3 315 3 2 4 â 4 4 s S i s s 2 4 2 3 ¿ s 2 54
2 1 1 364 32 42253244giáa33 5 3 5 5 2 5 s 14 s
23334 3 34 4234 34s 3 34 3 453 ss.r s
s 2 s 3 s 3l5 33 243¡eE 23234 434 44 42 4 4.r 4
4
5l3 3 3 s 5 s 5 2 i s 213 3 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 s 5 14
4
2 4 3 d 5 3 4 3 5 3 5 4 4 3 5 5 3 4 3 4 4 5 2 4 4 3 3 3 s 3 5 2 4
5
3 3 212 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 5 2 3 i q 12 3 3 314 2
3 r 4 35s4 34 3 243 3 2434 3 3 4 3 s 4 5 3 4 514 4
31s 4 5 4 3 3 4 t 14 3 2 ir 2 1 2434 1 454 52s4 2 4 4
414 2 5 3 3 2 213 3 s 3 4 á ¡ 4 51s s s 3 5 5 s s l s s 5 5 3
3 1 3 34 3 3 3 523s 4 5 2 2 5 4 4 e ¡ 4 2 2 4 a ¡ ã ã iá õ r 5 4 r 4 3
1 1 544433524251 423 53 34 3 24r 3 is34 3 44 1 4 4 1 43
5 2 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 r 14 514 4s 5154444551 5 5 3 515
5SA r 4 445244r
4 4 r 5 5 5 515 5 141
45
 M. O"TOOLE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING STUDY
ECHO OF FIRST YEAR STUU¿Ir'¡'S
E
Q00aQAA0a 00a
D -OOOOQOOAAUUUUUUUUU
SUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEE UUU
DUEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSS 8EE
roAs
U
c LSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTT sss
tflcE A RTTTTTTTTTl111lI.I II
TTT
122
'-+Ex T s123456789012345678 901
1 8-25
1 B-25
FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 218 452541452432242533 214
18-25
FEMÀLE H¡GH SCHOOL 157 444434532333243222 sr3
18-25
FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 190 2433233523322qq533 224
1 8-25
FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 214 442442342432244434 22q
1 8-25
FEMALE EACHELORS 242 542453151342s4s433 114
1 8-25
FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 175 44253554143315552f. 224
1 8-25
FEMÀLE HIGH SCHOOL 226 45.344225143345{434 215
FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 173 332432341342441213 414
r 36-50 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 215 55255455132245s534
i 1B-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 193 332432212432243423 334
] 18-25 MÀLE counses,/orpLoMA s 5 2 s s 4 2 s i a 5 q 313
J 18-25 FEMÀLE HrcH sct{ool
26q
't
89 2512334s22133Ãcsz2 I s. 4 4 5 4 515
I 18-25 FEMALE BACHELORS 253 542452152542554443 324
] 1B-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOI, 218 4s3q524s'z33osé3s3i 1t4
i 26-35 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 237 55245223343234243s 23s
i 18-25 ÈIALE HIGH SCHOOL 228 543443442342453535 2q3
: 18-25 FEMAT,E counsesr/nlpLoMA 243 4 5' 3 5 4 3 4 s I s s q 334
1 8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 209 332523241431245523 I 4 s 5 3 4 23s
r 18-25 FEMATE HIGH SCHOOL 218 542443,3414333sss22 215
213
oaooQ0aaaaQaQ gaaaQaQaag0aaaaaaQaaagQA
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUÙUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
IE E E E E E
ls s s s s s sE sE sE sE sE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 8 E E E E sE
iT T s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s
i2 2 T T T T T
2 2 2 2 2
T
2
T
3
T
3
T
3
T
i
T
¡
T
3
T
3
T
3
T
a
T
ã
T
s
T
4
T
4
T
4
T
4
T
4
i
4
t
4
T
4
T
4
T
s
T T T T T T T T
2345 67890 1 2345 67890 1 2345 s s 5 s 5 s 5 5
67890 1 234s 678
3 1 324 3 42 423 4 3 3 2 44 344 4 5 2 3 4 4 4 43 4 54 4 5 1 4
1 2 2 4 2 1 s 3 5 5 5
'533424234333434 2 5 r 5 2 i ¡ 2 1 1 s ¡ ¡ 3 2 3 4 2 5 l 3 2 2 3 5
5
'2 4 4 4 3 2 24i133 233343 2344 52s3 1 3 )
3 2 4 2 3 3 4 2 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 a a 4 3 4 q 4 q 2 4 4 2 3 4
215 5 5 3 3 t 4 2 2 2 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 5 3 4 4 5 2 5 5 4 515 q r
s 1'r 1 1 235 3 4
q 2 3 3 4 3 4 3 432524
2 2
t 1 2234 3 r 1,4 3 3 3 4 4 423 34 3 235
;1 s 1 3 4 3 r 1 3 4 4 4 4 2 3 5 3 4 5 4 4 5 q o 5 3 2 4 5 4 4 5 3
4 2 3 2 4 i ã I 3 1 4 s i ¡ 2 5 3 4 3 5 2
s 3 2 4 5
2 2 3 r
1 1 433 2344424 3 234ai¡ 3233åS4354ss 1 ¿¡4 1 3í
5 2 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 ¡ i 3 2 2 4 ¿ 1 {l 4r r r f, J 5 4 5 4 1 2
15 5 4 5 s 515115 5 f 5 5 A È 5 5 4 51s 5 5 2 5 5 4 5.r 5 5151 3
1 1 2 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 s å 5 2 3 ,5 2 3 3 2 4 s z 1 3 3 2 4 s 3 5 s 2 2 3 { 3
4 1 54444
2 z 3 3 5 4 3 51 54 1 r 451 454444552455
2 5 2 4 3 3 5 4 3 5 3 2 4 2 5 4 4 225254 145
5 4 4 5 2 5 314
1 4{
2 1 5344 22521 4 424s 3^54ss 2a5s 2s25s 3
516 3 s 5 4 3 5 t 2 4 4 3 3 s 4 3 5 4 3 s l 53 1 4s
3 4 5 4 5 3 3 3 5 4 3 4 5 { 5 3 a 4 4 3 s 5 2 5 2 s s 14
22 2 3s4 3 1 3 4 55 423 5 S S 5 4 3 4 3 5 5 5 2 5 4 5 5l5 515
3
4 Zá54 4 5 2 4
215 3 3 2 3 2 41 2 3 31 2 4 Z 13 3 2 5 Z i3 3 2 34 4 s254 52 2s
3 2 5 s s 5 2 s 3 1 3 23
 M. O''TOOLE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING STUDY
ECHO OF FIRST YEÀR STUDENTS
0a000Q000 00a
E AOQOOOQOQUUUUUUUUU
SUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEE UUU
D EEE
\OAS
U
c
DEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSS
LSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTT
sss
TTT
1r)cE
#gx A RTTTTTTTTT1l11lII1I 122
T s123456789012345678 90r
18-25 FEHALE HIGH SCHOOL 174 s 3 2 4 s 3 3 5 1 3 4 3 3 s 5 s 2 3 124
I8-25 FE}TALE counses/or pLoMA 207 2 4 3 4 3 4 2 4 I 4 3 2 2 2 s 4 4 3 214
36-50 FEMÀLE HIGH SCHOOL 210 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 2 3 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 324
1B-25 FEMÀLE counses,/oI PLoMA 198 4 4 3 3 4 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 2 4 4 4 3 4 324
26-35 FEr'lÀLE HTGH SCHOOL 203 4 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 2
't 4 3 2 3 3 2 5 3 4 124
I8-25 PEMÀLE HIGH SCHOOL 178 5 I 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 4 3 2 I 3 313
18-25 FEHALE HIGH SCHOOL 237 5 4 2 4 5 3 2 4 1 4 3 2 3 5 4 4 3 5 214
18_25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 217 5 3 2 3 4 3 5 5 4 4 3 2 4 4 2 4 3 s 323
l8-25 PE¡.{ÀLB counsns/or eloue 217 4 4 2 4 3 3 2 5 1 4 3 2 4 3 4 4 2 3 214
26-35 FET{ALE BÀCHELORS 256 5 4 2 5 5 I 1 5 I 4 2 1 2 5 4 4 3 s 214
18-25 FE¡IÀLE counses/or pt,o¡,rA 187 5 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 3 3 2 3 4 2 4 3 4 334
1 8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 200 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 5 I 4 3 3 4 3 s 5 4 4 213
18-25 FEÞIÀLE HIGH SCHOOL 229 s 4 2 3 4 3 2 3 ? 4 3 2 2 A 3 4 3 3 124
36_50 FEMÀLE couRsesr/oI PLottÀ 222 6 3 2 3 4 2 4 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 4 4 3 s 144
18-25 FEFIÀLE HIGH SCHOOL 245 1 5 r 5 3 1 2 5 1 5 4 1 5 5 5 5 2 5 215
I 8-25 FEMALE HTGH SCHOOL 281 5 4 3 4 5 4 2 5 1 3 4 1 3 5 4 4 2 4 214
1B-25 FEMALE BÀCHELORS 234 5 5 r 4 5 3 2 5 1 4 5 3 3 5 4 4 4 4 114
18-25 FEi.{ÀLE HIGH SCHOOL 182 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 5 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 424
18-25 FEHALE couRses/or pLoHA 239 5 4 3 5 5 4 3 4 I 4 3 3 s 5 5 s 4 4 445
0Qo0Q0Qo0QaaoQa0a0Q0oQQ000Q000Qa0aQ00
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
BEEEEBE E EE EEEE E EE E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss E
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
222?22223 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 45 5 5 5 5 s s 5 s
2 36 5 67 890 1 234 5 678 90 1 234 5 67 I 90 1 2 34 s 67 I
2 I 4 34 4 324 3 254 1 3 5 3 34 4 242 454 255254 5 5 1 5 4
3 2ê'! 2333 4 ¿23433s 3 3.¡4 1 4 24s4 443 ss 1 4 41 4 2
2 1 5 3 4 4 4 3 4223321 23 34 4 244 4 4 4 s4 4 4 425 s I 4 3
2 4 6 3 4 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3',4 3 s 4 4 4 3 4 3 r 3 2
2 1 3 3 4 4 322223222 43 34 3 2 43 3 3 3 233 4 42 42 1 44
2243 Q22323441 41 42343 1 32333244 1 5323 I 4 3
115 4 4 4 4 3 5 3 2 6 6 3 3 4 3 4 4 5 3 4 3 5 5 5 3 5 4 4 52 5 4 2 4 4
243 3 54 425 t 225¿$ 25234{452444 34455254 1 4 4
323 3 3 4 2252234 3 3 3 424 0 4 5 23 4 23 4 s4 52s 5 1 3 3
1 I 53535 1 41 1 553 25355{45 I 554 25555 I 54 1 44
32 324 3 44 4 3 323{ 253 33 3 2 434 4 3 34 2 4 4 43 3 2 3 4
32 4 25 3 42 3 25{45 2544 2 32 1 4 4 4 42 454 4 3 4 41 3
214 3 4 3 4 3 512 A rt 4 3 5 3 4 5 4 3 415 s s 3 4 4 3 515 513 5
1
1 1 3 34 33 34 1 24 4224444444 2454 35s4 524 41 4 4
15 4 4 5 5 4 2 4 5 25 5 3 5 s 4 5 5 5 t 415 3 4 4 4 5 3 s 3 5 s 15 5
2244 54 54 522 4 424 5 34 4 4 4 42 455 1 54 3 s 1 5s 1 4 4
32{444 3 34 3 244234 34 3 345 24 4 434 444 1 54 1 4 4
2444 322 454 523 3 2 4232224234 3 34 4 453 34 325
4 1 35s2434 t 454 t 3535 443s 1 s5s3sss5 1 s4 1 s3
 ÞI. O''TOOLE SELF-DIRECTED LEÀRNING STUDY
ECHO OF FIRST YEAR STUDENTS
aa9a0aa0aQ00a
E QAOOOOAAQUUUUUUUUUUUUU
DS UUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEE
UD EEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS
Þ*A
14c scL SSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTT
EAR TTTTTTTTTI 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1222
E XTS 1 23 4 5678 90 1 234 5 6 7 890 t 2
18-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 233 5 4 2 44 4 252 4 3 24 4 3 5 4 4 2 24 3
1 8-2s MALE HIGH SCHOOL 208 4 4 1 54 3 1 5 2 454 355s 4 3 4 1 4 3
1 8-2s FEMALE BÀCHELORS 242 5 4 2 452253 4 3234 4 4 5 4 1 1 52
3 6-50 FEMALE BACHELORS 250 55 1 4s3 1 4 I 54 345553 s 1 1 52
)ao0ooaaQooQ0o0ao0o0aQ000aoa00aoa90a
JUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
;sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
¿22222233333333334 44444{ 444555555555
3 45 6 7 I 9 0'l 23 { 5 6 7 89 0 1 23 4 5 6 7 89 0 1 23 4 5 6 7 I
25354 3 1 5 234 3 25s4 344 33 3ss 5254 35354 1 4 4
1 3 2432444544 4253 323 34 3244 3 35 243ss I 35
1 4 4 4 2 4, 2 5 1 't 2 5 3 4 5 3 4 4 3 4 5 2. 4 5 5 2 5 4 5 5 1 5 4 I 3 3
1 35555551 1 541434445351 5551 4545145453
 M. O''TOOLE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING STUDY
SUMMÀRY OF FIRSTYR SCORES
CUMULATIVE CUMUTÀTIVE
FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENÎ
<18YR 6 5. .l 6 6.1
c0 1 8-25 75 75.8 B1 BI.B
LN
26-3s 9 9.1 90 90.9
36-50 9 9.1 99 r 00.0
CUMULATIVE CUMULÀTIVE
- SEX FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT
MALE 7 1.1 7 7.1
FEMALE 92 92.9 99 1 00.0
CUMULÀTIVE CUMULATIVE
EDUCAT FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT
HIGH SCHOOL 71 71.7 71 71.7
couRsEs/DrPLoMÀ 17 17 .2
.t1.1 88 88.9
BACHELORS 1 1 99 100.0
 L59

APPENDIX B

STUDENT RA\^i SCORES

SDLRS AilD }-II{AL YEAIT 1 GRADES

 M. O''TOOLE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING STUDY
ECHO OF SECOND YEAR STUDENTS
E -ooqaQQAO
Reaoeoeoaguuuuuuùu oQo
UUU
D SlUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEE EEE
U D M E E E E E FI FI E F: s s 9 5 s s 5 s sss
ÕAs
.0GE
c LASSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTT TTT
<;EX
A RRTTTTTTTTTIIIlllIt t12
T sK12345678901234567 890
26_35 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 272 77 53145425155145555 41t
I8-25 FEMÀLE HIGH SCHOOL 198 76 5434343s342324443 321
26-35 FEMÀLE HIGH SCHOOL 266 82 55155125153145555 421
26-35 FEMATE HIGH SCHOOL 226 77 54254224253335544 322
1 8-25 FEMATE HIGH 240 76 44244134245244442
36-50 FEMALE
SCHOOL
217 72 43244224243234433 321
18-25 FEMÀLE
BACHELORS
counsss,/ot pt oun 247 72 54255325143255455 422
8-25 FEMALE counse s,/nr er,oue 241 73 441543t524323S5s4 532
1
B-25 FEMÀLE 213 72 54344334343234444 33r
1
1 8-25 FEMÀLE
BACHELORS
counses/nr pLoMA 194 75 43324234232424434 313
36-50 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 268 78 5515511s1s3145455 433
8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 249 70 43144125143444545 521
1
1 8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 182 65 3{3533441232254s3 32t
1 B-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 259 63 55245435143255545 231
1 8-25 FEMALE counsus,/nt ÞLoMA 228 75 45355245133243543 5f1
1 B-25 FEMAIE HIGH SCHOOT 172 77 24552555135315551 411
1 B-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 231 66 s3244224143335533 212
18-25 FEMATE HIGH SCHOOL 225 58 54355325342333454 422
B-25 FEMATE counses/or pLoMA 202 75 43324325242233441 441
1
322
o0oaa0Qaa0QQOQAQAAAaQA0a0agaQaoaQ0a0aa
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUÙùUUUÙUÙUUUUUUUUUUUUU
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTiTTTTTTTTTTTTT
2- 2.2 2 2 2 2 2
1 23 4 s 5 7 890 3 3
? 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 i ¿ 4 { 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 s 5 s 5 s s 5 s 5
1 23 4 s6 7 8e0 t 23 4 s6 7 890 táã ; ; ; i e
53 1 55s35251 1551 35555535r55515555r 5515s
532424435433233 1 4233 4243 4433 443s 24{ r 34
41.1 5 5 s 4 41515 4 513 4 4 5 5 4 4 515 5 515 s 5 515 511s
4 3 2 A 4 4 4 4 3 5 2 3 4 4 3 3 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 S 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4
423555s535 2353 4254 54535 t 5454554 5 1 { 5 1 53
422444 33 252244433344 33 4243 324444 2q4244
5 514 4 5 5 4 3 5 413 513 5 3 5 5 4 2 5 t 5 5 s 2 5 4 5 5 2 5 s l 3 2
5 214 3 s 3 5 3 4
4 4 2 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 514 5 2 4 5 4 2 5 2 5 4 4 3 5
2 2 s 4 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 2 3 5 5 515 514
2 4 s 4 3 4 3 3 s r s 4 r 3 33
424 s34 232344 34 34 52242 11t 3 4 434 544 s3 55 I 32
521 44s45 I 5 1 I 25't 55454{55 1 554 1 5455 1 55546
4 215 3 4 3 41412 5 513 5 3 4 4 5 5 5.t 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 s r 5 414
4 325233 1 5234 232353 241 3 2433 g244 52s4 r 3s3
5
412 5 4 s 4 4 4 5115 513 5 4 S q 4 4 515 s 5 t 5 5 3 514 414
4 3 4 3 4 5 5 3 2 4 215 3 2 3 5 3 4 5 3 2 3 314 4 4 4 4 4 5.t 5 315 5
552
q22q444 1 1 55 1 1 2555 1 55 5233 2 11 s 22251 553 55535s
s
34 42345 1 25344 334 2454 35555 I 55 I 4 3
524544 33 3534453 3 524 5 4 45344 4 454553 s 4 t4 s
4 3 3 4 2 4 3 2 3 4 2 3 4 3 215 2 3 4 4 3 5 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 3 s 2 5 4.r 3 3
 M. O''TOOLE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING STUDY
ECHO OF SECOND YEAR STUDENTS
E -aaQQAAAA
ROOOOOOaQQUUÙUUUUU aao
UUU
D SlUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEE EEE
jAS
U DUEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS sss
\OcE c LÀSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTT TTT
A RRTTTTTTTTT'II111111 'I 12
EX T sK12345678901234557 890
18-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 199 69 3 4 3 5 3 4 2 5 2 3 3 2 4 q 4 5
1B-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 230 53 s 4 1 4 2 422
1B-25 5 3 1 4 1
.t 4 3 23 4 4 4 321
18-25
FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 200 74 5 4 2 4 5 5 4 2 4 3 2 2 4 4 2
4
111
8-25
FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 26s 68 5 s 1 5 5 4 1 s 1 4 5 I 4 5 5 s
5
4 411
1
18-25
FEMALE BÀCHELORS 244 79 s 4 t 5 5 2 2 s 1 4 3 2 3 s 5 5 2 411
I8-25
FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL , 226 69 s 3 2 5 4 4 4 3 1 4 3 2 s s s 5 511
1 8-25
FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 254 77 5 4 2 4 5 2 3 5 I 4 3 2 5 5 4 4
3
s 421
18-25
FEMÀLE BÀCHELORS 216 72 4 3 3 5 3 2 2 3 1 4 5 r 3 4 5 4 321
18-25
FEMÀLE HIGH SCHOOL 223 83 4 4 2 5 3 4 4 2 1 5 4 2 4 4 4 5
4
421
1B-25
FEMATE HIGH SCHOOL 220 69 4 3 2 3 5 3 3 5 2 2 4 1 3 s s 4
4
423
1 8-25
FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 240 73 5 5 1 5 4 1 3 5 t 5 4 2 3 5 5 5
3
s 521
1B-25
FEMÀLE HIGH SCHOOL 237 70 5 3 1 2 I 3 2 5 1 3 5 2 3 5 5 5 221
18-25
FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 232 68 s 4 2 4 4 1 2
.t 5 I 3 4 2 3 4 s 5
3
I 42t
18-25
EEMÀLE HIGH,SCHOOL 220 8l 5 3 2 5 4 4 4 1 5 4 2 1 5 2 3 21r
18-25
FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 219 69 s 4 4 4 4 3 2 5 2 4 3 2 3 4 4 a
3
321
.I
8-25
FEMALE counsus/nrpLoMA 225 58 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 s 2 4 3 3 2 5 4 5
3
s 54r
18-25
FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 232 69 5 4 3 5 4 4 2 4 1 4 3 2 3 5 { s 5r2
B-25
FEMÀLE HIGH SCHOOT 202 51 4 4 3 5 3 2 3 5 3 4 4 2 2 4 2 a
3
332
1 FEMALE BACHELORS 2c2 73 s 4 1 5 5 4 2 s 1 4 3 1 4 5 4 4
2
s 412
0SQ0Q0aaoQaaQoaaoaaao0aoaaoQaaoaQ0Q0aa
u uu u u uuuu u u uuuÚtiuu
E E E E E E E E E E E E E S E E E E Ûuuùùuu u u u u u u u u u
E E E E E E E E E E, E E E E E E u uu u
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTiTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
E E E
ssss E
222 22222233 3 3 3 3 3 3 ã à q4 44 4 A O 4 4 4 555s ss5ss
1 234s6 7 890 1 234 56 t aéo 1 234 s6 7 890 1 234 s678
4 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 3
42 1 4 4 43 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 3 3 5 3 2 4 2 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 5 41 4 2
224 4 1 23 3 i q 32 42 A 4 424 4 5 5 2552 4
2 2 3 4 2 3 2 2 4 312 4 211S ã 3 4 3.r 3 2 5 4 2 3 5 4 3 s 2 4 51 4
4
513 5 5 s 3 5 3 5 213 513 s a å a 4 5 5 r ¡ 5 5 3 þ 5 5 5 t 5 414
?
5234 34 34 34 1 253 22534 5 43325ss35s55355 s
6 3 5 3 2 4 3 4 4
51 1 53s4445 4 214 3 2 3 S i 4 4 4 4 3 i o s s 3 4 s 4 q 2 5 5l t 3 5s
q 1 1 2523SãAS 4451 55s3545s r 55 1 45
4
4 3 4¡r s 423 3 4 3/t 4 55S ¡ ¡s 4 4 423
5 21s 3 3 3 3 s 4 2 2 4 5 4
3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 g 2 3 ã i ¿ 4 4 s 2 i s4 4324 3 253 55 1 42
2 4 s 3 s 14 4 2 4 4
2 5 2 3 s 4 0l á À ¡ 4 4
5 ô 3 4 4 s 4 4 4 4 2
512 2 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 s3 2 13 s 3 2 s 4 3 5 4 s 4
4 5 4 3 5 5 3 5 2 5 5 r 4
r 4 s
2 4 3 4 3 4
5 s 15 3 4 4 3 4 515 5 513 5 4 È o 3
412 4 4 5 2 5 s 5 2 s 5 3 s 4 s 5 t s s
q 212 3 s 3 4 5 3 ã s 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 s r s 413
3 4 3 3 4 4 1 1 s s 210 ã È s 4 2 4 r 4 3 4 3 s 1 3 5 2 5 5 r 51
4
s4 2535
0 3 3 54 34 3 s3s3 24223
1 34s
3 22lião
1 3A i é¡
3 3
42Sis
424 4444445
s{ 3 524
1 ss 1 4 3
s3 5 5242
8 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 4 5 3 3 5 4 5 5 3 4 514 4 4 3 5 5 2 5 3
84 234s 235334 24¡ã 4aã¡44 42iA 5 5 r 4 {
q 2 2 4 4 4 4 3 2 515 2 4 2 2 s ã i ¿ 4 4 s 15 s s32344534 524
3 5 4 4 s 15 4 r 4 4
3
 M. O''TOOLE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING STUDY
ECHO OF SECOND YEAR STUDENTS
Y00a00aoa 9QO
E RQOQAQOAoauuuuuuuu U U 'U
D SlUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEE EEE
NAS
U DMEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS sss
c LASSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTT TlT
\ÐGE RRTTTTTTTTT1IlllIll t12
êEx A
T sK1234s678901234567 890
1 B-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 220 12 53245544443211 4553 421
1 8-25 FEMÀLE HIGH SCHOOL 211 71 441s553532133s333 s{t
1 8-25 FEMALE BACHELORS 215 71 44234223233424343 423
26-35 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOT 212 80 44344334242344443 432
1 8-25 FEMÀLE HIGH SCHOOL 232 69 443553353432455s5 332
18-25 FEMÀLE HIGH SCHOOL 255 73 541552r4143235555
q425¡t434344334444
511
1 B-25 MALE COURSES/DI PLOMA 223 69 322
1 B-25 MALE BACHELORS 240 10 55245314144245445 422
1 B-25 FEMÀLE HTGH SCHOOL 204 73 54334435232323444 222
1 8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 224 76 4325442215525!t555 4rl
1 8-25 MALE BACHELORS 219 74 53244424444235544 33r
1 8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 206 5s 45344234143224512 311
1 B-25 FEMALE COURSES/DI PLOMA 192 68 4223s1321332253ss 412
18-25 FEMALE couRsEs/Dr PLoMA 226 78 4534rt324243235s53 511
18-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 213 63 45243424142155353 542
26-35 MALE HIGH SCHOOL 193 74 4434344423242344s 342
1 8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 206 71 432545352254ss352 542
18_25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 205 34334455442335435
'Ì 4
343
1 8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 197 634534ô324232332423 332
oa0aaQ0Qa00oooaoa0oQ0a0oQo0090Qaaaa0aa
U U U U U U U.U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
T TT T T TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT i T T T TTTT T 'T T TTT T
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4, 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 s s 5
1 234567 890 1234567890 1234567890 I 2345678
3 3 3 s 3 4 4 3 3 s 3225355 3 3 3 245 3 4 s525s 35 3 5523 3
31 1 333124513331 1515431515553s555245r 1 3
42444 4 3 3 34 32452344 4 434 4255325 I 35 1 5å I 34
4234 34 3 3 34 234 3 224 3 4 43 3 32444 3s4 3s 254 1 34
42 I 53 3 34 34 234 3 1 353 344 3 42444 35s4 s 255 r 54
5 1 34 {44525 1 2441 343554 34 1 s4 42ss3s r s5 I 44
4 4 1 53 5 25241 44 3 2354 4 44 3 42444 3 444 54 55 1 35
4 23 3 444 4 25',t 254 3254 4 4/t 34 1 54 4 3 54 3 5 254 1 4 4
42253 4 223 4 223 3 23523 4 324 3 3 4 34 4 54 5 2 44 I 3 4
52s5444 33 3 234 323fr4 34 422344 2345453s5 1 52
4 4 34 444444 1 23 3 2233 444 3 3 3444 34s45254 14 5
54 1 344 34 1 53444534 3 243234 34 244 s45 354 I 42
4 3 1 22 1 3 1 4 3 32533 3 1 22s4 3s444s3 23244 3 1 1 4 3
422 43 4 4 3 3 4 324 3 1 25 3 54 42 q24 4 424 53 4 2 4 424 3
5 3 524 534 2 q3 3 2355s3 3 4 355 2 33 3 3 3 34 424 4 r 5 3
4 1 24332445242412324333 3234 334454 3433 24
54 252332554434s344 4 3 3 1 3 344 4 45455 1 5s 1 4 3
3 315 3 4 4 4 3 3 t 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 4 s 3 3 s 5 3 51s 512 3
4 3 1 4 41 3 4 3 4 4 221 3 235 3 3 3 2 1 4 3 4 4 3 354 3 4 34 422 4
 M. O,'TOOLE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING STUDY
ECHO OF SECOND YEÀR STUDENTS
E
YQ0A900
RQOOA9AQAOUUUUUU
oo0a0
UUUUU
D SIUUUUUUUUUEEEEEE EEEEE
U DMEEEEEEEEESSSSSS SSSSS
f1
\OGE
AS c LASSSSSSSSSTTTTTT TTTTT
A RRTTTTTTTTTIllIII tttt2
EX T sK1234s678901234s 67890
1 8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 222 12 542441131532355 5522t
1 8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 1 9068 433435452424353 42343
1 B-25 FEMALE couRSEs/Dr PLOMÀ 262 B0 541542251442455 45421
18-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 224 7'I 441s413314s2345 5341t
1 B-25 MALE HI GH SCHOOL 22 3 7'I 541453343442351 44431
1 8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 229 10 4424431524323.45 54531
1 B-25 FEMATE HIGH SCHOOL 247 74 5415531415323s5 53411
1 8-25 FEMÀLE couRsEs/DTPLoMA 261 75 5515523524423s5 55521
26_35 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL . 217 80 443443242323zss 4'4432
1 B-25 FEMALE couRsEs,/DI PLOMA 244 74 5325513515323s5 5s21t
18-25 FEMALE couRsEs/Dr PLoMA 232 65 443542252s41344 53521
26-35 FEMALE couRSEs/DIPLOMA 234 70 43'l 453132323345 45421
1 8-25 FEMÀLE couRsEs/DTPLoMA 2o3 79 54334325133255s 423r1
1 B-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 241 69 54254?¿5153)-,t54 55431
1 8-25 FEMALE couRsEs/Dr PLoMA 241 S3 552553151432s44 44421
1 8-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 225 69542342142443323 44321
1 8-25 FEMALE couRsEs/DrPLoMÀ 221 885425443s3s43344 33211
18-25 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL 226 714534555524334{3 ssltl
a0QaQaaa0a0aaaaooaoo0oo0Qaaaooaaa00oaa
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTîTTTTTTT
ssss
222222222333333333 344444444445555555s5
1 23 4 56 7 I 9 0 1 23 4 567 B 90 1 23 4 55 -1 890 1 23 4 5 6 7 8
q21 53434 1 4't 4 321 1 534431 31 s4325335 1 s r 33
45'l 54433 442434 1 3524 3 3232234 I 4 3 1 5545 3l
4 1 1 555 44 1 5 1 1 55445454445 1 554 35s45 I 55 44
42 42 4 44 4 4 4 3 3 4 42454 4 44 1 3 I 3 3 34 3 5 253 55 54
4 23 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 1 1 2 4234 344 3 4524 44 3 54 3 s 254 43
42254 4 4 3 2 4224 4 3 34 3 4 44 3 4244 4 3 4 4 3 s 2s4 33
4 2 4 5 3 5 3 3 2 41-1 1 412 5 3 5 5 4 2 515 5 51 5 5 5 5 2 s 5 43
51.f4 4 4 4 5 3 5't 15 5 25 3 4 5 4 4 3 515 5 5 3 5 4 5 515 5 44
421 534 34 34 2244224 3 344 3 42444 344 3¡t ?43 44
52 1 5 443 3351't 231 2s333 3251 s552ss55 1 55 33
5 3 234 4 4 4 2 43 34 3 224 4 4 5 3242 4 4 32554 5 3 5s 44
4 415 4 5 4 414112 412 4 3 4 4 3 3 513 3 315 5 3 515 5 44
3 3 1 1 34 3 3 4423424 3s3 322153 32423s3s344 32
54 25453 53 5 3244 r 353sss34 1 554 3 444 4 1 4 4 43
4 1 2 4444 3 34 1 244 1 252344 34 t 4 3 4255{ 5 I 54 44
4 3 234 344 35 1 444 3 353444344 4 4 42554 5 255 2 45
52253 3 324 5 225 3 2333 3 544 523 4 234 4 5 s 243 I 45
5 1 25354 4 34 33 22s354 34 345 1 ss4 3ss3 53s5 1 55
 M. O''TOOLE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING STUDY
3ritf:...nY 39' Sõc3ìlnYR SCORES
CUMULÀTIVE CUMULÀTIVE
AGE FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT
qÛ
1 8-25 66 88.0 66 BB. O
to 26-35 7 9.3 73 97 .3
36-50 2 2.7 75 100.0
CI..¡MULATI VE CUMULATI VE
SEX FREOUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT
FIALE 5 6.7 5 6. 7
FEMÀLE 70 93.3 75 1 00.0
CUMULÀTIVE CUMULÀTIVE
EDUCÀT FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PBRCENT
HIGH SCHOOL s0 66.1 50 66.7
couRsEs/Dr PLoMA 17 22.7 67 89.3
BÀCHEtORS B 10.7 75 100.0
FIRST YR NURSING MARK
CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
YR I MARK FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENI'
6l I r.3 1 1.3
63 4 5.3 5 6.1
65 3 4.0 I 10.7
66 I 1"3 9 12.0
68 5 8.0 15 20.0
69 9 12.0 24 32.0
70 5 5.7 29 38.7
71 6 8.0 35 46.7
72 6 8.0 41 54.7
73 5 6.7 46 61.3
74 5 8.0 52 69. 3
75 4 5.3 55 74.7
16 3 4.0 59 78.7
77 4 5.3 53 84.0
ao 2 ?.7 65 86.7
79 2 2.7 67 89.3
80 3 4.0 70 93.3
81 1 1.3 71 94.7
82 I 1.3 72 96. 0
83 2 2.7 74 98.7
88 1 r.3 75 100.0
 L65

APPENDIX C

FACULTY RA\^i SCORES

AI\D .dIOGIìÁP¡IICAL DATA

 M. O''TOOLE SELF-DIRECTED LEÀRNING STUDY
ECHO OF FACULTY ;¡.TÀ

I N
R s FFFFFFF O
ES G AÀAAAAAOOQOOO9O OU
DT P CCCCCCCUUUUUUUU UE
rO
-q
NE R PTTTTTTTEEEEEEEE ES
APA A AOOOOOOOSSSSSSSS ST
GAC c LRRRRRRRTTTTTTTT TI
ELH T s123456712345678 90
4l-50 NO >15 't6-20 140 39 .26 22 r6 ls 10 l2 4 3 2
31-40 YES 172 55 27 25 18
2 0 2 2 0 22
1-5 19 I t9 5 4 5 5 0 3 1 0 42
31-40 YES 1 1-15 1 6-2 0 168 51 30 22 16 18't4 1725151211 21
31-40 NO 6-10 11-1 5 131 48 23 ls 9 13, 12 11 1 f 3 4 2 2 1 2 21
41-50 NO 1 1-15 21 -3 0 129 42 24 16 14 17 4 12 s 0 2 5 2 4 1 0 15
31-40 YES 1-5 11-1 5 142 i7 25 22 15 16 11 16 4 I 2 3 2 3 1 0 30
31-40 NO 1 1-15 11-1 5 155 44 30 18 17 18 17 11 2 3 4 5 1 3 1 40
5.1 -60 YES >15 21 -3 0 142 41 29 ',11 12 19 14 10 2 3 2 4 3 3 1
1

40
41-50 YES >15 21 -3 0 r43 38 23 23 13 16 13 17 2 2 4 2 1 3 2
1
3 2t
sl-60 YES 1 1-15 21 -3 0 145 37 29 22 12 17 15 13 1 2 1 4 2 2 1 2 20
41-50 YES 11-1s 21 -3 0 134 39 17 26 13 14 7 18 4 4 5 3 2 i 5 10
51-60 YES >15 >30 150 46 26 18 13 19 1r 17 2 4 5 3 2 2 2
1

2 32
31-40 NO 1-5 5- 10 l3r 32 28 17 13 16 14 11 1 2 1 3 0 2 2 3 32
41-50 NO 11-15 >30 116 39 18 12 t3 12 9 13 3 4 3 s 2 o 2 2 22
31-40 YES 6-10 16-2 0 141 45 22 21 12 1871652532222 23
41-50 NO 11-15 21 -3 0 152 45 29 18 15 1991732051320 23
41-50 NO 11-15 21 -3 0 140 39 21 24 l3 19 10 14 5 4 1 2 2 2 1 22
41-s0 NO 11-1s 21 -3 0 160 36 29 28 17 19 14 17 3 4 3 2 1 2 2
1

0 40
0aoaaQ0Q0aoaaQo0o0QaQaQaQaaaaQ0Q0a
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
'sTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT E
s
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1222222222233333333334 4444
1 23 4 56 7 890 1 234 56 7 890 1 23 4 s6 7 I 90 1 234
23523522222 1 222230 321 33 I 3 1 55 25321
5551 551 05I 20250550551 1 500055155s1
1

35521 50051 3 1 02254033 125 1 2235 243 1 I

1

354 1 1 3 I 1 s5s 1 s5214035s2355535 1 5 32 1 2

1

3 5 514 411 12 5 0 21213 0 5 0 â 2 3 2 4 2 0 4 4 5 5 212

3 3 4 23 3 20',t 222 1 222s 0 4 3 2 25 0 3 2251
2 5 5113 2 0 5 01010 o 2 5 2 4 410 0 0 0 0 2 q 5 5
3
3 2 1 2
3 315
2551 4500501 1 1 33 1 1 0401 I 42i o I s 423223
9!1 39 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 244 1 420 i r23 1a ¿r 33s
1 531 ! 251 001 51 232251 241 1 3 | 1255 21 2312
r0 l
353 1 4 53 00 1 1 1 242254 50 I ss045s505 421 I
2'3 5 0 3 s 0 0 20 20 1 223
3 3 4 1 2 3 2 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 5 1 5 522525255254 2 15
2 5 & 2 3 4 2 2 0 2 0 2't 2 2 5 0 5
5 2 1 .2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 s
2 s 0,s 3 1 2 s 3 3 s 2 5 s s 2 5
3 5 3 23 4 1 0 525 0 2 1 225 0 4 2 1 45 0 222 4 25 3 222
234 1 44 2160 1 0 22234055 225 I 5 I 55 254 1 1 t
2451 2231 1 1 2122225044 1 44 1 211 4 t 3 221
4 5 0114 0 0 212 o 1113 5 0 4 2 015 0 3 2 t 512 4 2 0 0
r
 M. O''TOOLE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING STUDY
ECHO OF FACULTY DÀTA

Y N
R s T"FFFFFFO
F S G AAAAAAAQQOAQ9AAQU
D T P CCCCCCCUUUUUUUUUE
b..- N E R P TTTTTTTEEEEEEEEES
.o AP
GA
A À A ooooooosssssssssT
a c L RRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTI
EL H T s 12345671234567890
25-30 NO <1 YR 6- 10 44 42 25 20 't5 16 11 15 4 3 2 5 0 3 I 2 3 0
3 1 -40 YES 11-15 1 6-20 59 32 30 29 16 18 17 17 I I 2 2 0 3 2 2 4 0
31-40 yEs <1 YR 11-15 33 33 28 24 19 19 6 4 5 1 0 s 0 1 0 0 2 4
3 1 -40 YES 5- 10 11-15 57 35 30 28 19 19 12 14 4 3 t s O 2 2 1 2 2

0o0aa0aQ00a0aoo0Q0a0oQo000a0o0aooa
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
11111111122222222223 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4
'l 23 4 567 890 1 23 4567 I 90 1 23 4 5 6 7 I 90 1 23 4

1 54 1 3 3 1 0 1 230 231 3 5244 2330 422534 szl 3

13 4 01310 21311313 5 0 4 4 0 ? 4 0l t 4 5.t 0 3 2 0 0
5s40540051 1010001 0100023s001 21s40 r
2 44 1 f 4 2021 1 0 1 1 1 24 0s 1 004 1 1 r 22023200
 14. O''TOOLE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING STUDY
SUMMARY OF FACULTY SCORES

CUI'IULATIVE CUMULÀTIVE
ÀGE FREQUENCY PERCENT FREOUENCY PERCENT

25-30 1 4.5 1 4.5

c0
\o 3r -40 10 45.5 ll s0.0
41-50 B 36.4 19 86.4
st-60 3 1 3.6 22 100.0

EDUCÀTION PÀL

CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
EDNPAL ¡REQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT
YES 12 54.5 12 54.5
NO 10 45.5 22 100.0

CUMULATI VE CUMULÀTI VE
YRSTEACH FREQUENCI PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT

<1 YR 2 9"1 2 9.1

1-5 3 13.6 5 22.7
6- 10 3 13.6 B 36.4
11-15 t0 45.5 18 8r.8
>15 4 18.2 22 100.0

OVERÀLL YEÀRS OF ,PRACTICE

CUMULÀTIVE CUMULATIVE
NSGPRACT FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT

6- 10 2 9.5 ; 9.5
1l-15 5 23.8 7 33.3
16-20 4 19. 0 1l 52.4
21-30 I 38. 1 19 90.5
>30 2 9.5 21 100.0
 T69

APPENDIX D

LETTER OF CONSENT
 L',7ó

icj*"':ô i':rteilour:: Jlvi.

À
'- ^
l..'

6, Ì'l¡;,nj- icba
'.,ii-nnice
oz¡ ¡nÁ ¡ :jv

.T,r¡ a G ICRC

lean Care
Ðirecto:', St. Boniface Schoo' of liursi-ng
Lr¡1 Tache -dvenue
iiinnioego l4anitoba
p)H )in
RE: ï,EîTER OF CONSil{T FOR STTJDY

Ðear Dean;

Iam :'eouesting your consent to use the St" Boniface uLltlJU!

c^L^^t v.,îI I'{ursj,ng as a
source for my nqastert s thesis study on SeLf-Direc+.ecL Learning in llur-.ing
Scucaticn: Philosophy a:rd Program Evaluation.
The purpose of the study is to explore the enactment of the schooLrs bel:-ef
.staternents concerni-ng the Learners a¡d teachers" Such bei:ef s'batement,s
inCicate that the learzrers assune responsibili.ty for their I earni.ng anci
teache::s function as facilitators to this learning process. I¡êâlrter
perception of self-di:'ectedness a¡d teacher pe::ception of use of adul-t iea:'ning
principJ-es will be explored using established ouestionnaires for +,.keL priilo,qe.
The stuCentsr particioation in the stud¡r wil-l invclve their compìeticn cf iÌ:e
Gugj-is1*1no SeIf-Directed Learning Readiness Scale and ¡rov:,sicn cí :'ecueslerj
biographical data concerning age, sexr and ntrmber of ;rears of fornal- erlucatj.on.
Thei.r an+-icipaterl invol.¡e¡nent will be JO ninutes"
The facrrltvr. ¡articipation will aiso involve thei:' compietÌ.cn of a ouesti.cnnatre,
Contits Prj-nciples of A<lult Learnì.ng Scale" They'¡il-l- be reouested. lç rl¡e'"-i.ie
bicgraphical Cata concerning age, number of ¡rcars cf forma.l- educaà"icn anC
nun'ner of ;,rs¿¡s of teachins p-J:d nu:'sing practice backgrorinrì. Their a.ntici¡ated
invoi'.'ement wiil be 1! * 20 ninutes"
-1.II pot,ential responclents will be Bi'ren the opiicn to refirse pa:'l:!.cipat:cn,
Farti.cinaticn is voluntarlr, The¡r will be assrlred thai their: indj-virìLríì) ;qÇ¡r1es
.il--i be kept confiCenti.al- anrl anon¡rmous. The ii-nC.ings cf the study wiì'-i 'oe
ina-oe available by m;* ionati-on of a cop¡r of its sunrnar:J¡ to ihe s.ci:oolrs
ii.br:.:';r upon completion of the sludy"
if ;rç¿ i'ecui:'e fur'-her infornation, please contact ne.

'1Ø;;t¿L^)k
ìlailreen Ii" OtToole
cM*4
/.ì
^af
C='nrm .
'JV¡lUJì: ' i hereby consent to a.ll-or.r i"fau:'een ì,i" 0tTccl-e to use ì::.: Si. 3ç.::.j¡ce
-i*1
ø-i.--Lu¡¡la
^ñ-
e^L^.^1
ur/.¡vu! ^¡ 1Ì..*^j-.-
j1l(-L-)¿¡:/_ :*
..:)
L^-
--F!^hr^
t:¡dùuc1 r:
!^^.-:
u.lt,-_i> ^ -:.,i,-
r\Lq...ø; .-l-
^- :^r -- 1i-.^-¡^l
\J¿_-E!._-\;'_,=u
'.j- --Éi
I-eårni-ng in I'lr;.rsing :ì,iucãtion: Fhi-losonhir rni PrrS::-* Iveir;,:i"-:,:n.
\
SICli:iTLlRS ta."' ijil;,S:¡tT qf-.r-r,
-\
 L7I

APPBi{DIX E

SDLRS IIISTRUI"ÍEI\T

Consent for Use

DirecLions for Use

Ques tionnaire
Directions and Biographical
Daca - Stu<-lents
 172

ffiffiffiäffiæåreffireæ
&ffiffiffiffiffiffimtrffiffi
Thank you for your recent. inquiry concerni¡g the SELF-DIRECTED
I,EARNTNG READTNESS SCALE (SDLRS) .

The SDLRS is a self-report instrument utilizing 58 itens. It r¿as

developed by Dr. Lucy M" Guglielmino r¿h-ile at the Üniversity of
Georgià. FourÈeen authorities in Lhe area of self-directed
leari:.ng participated in a Delphi study which resulted is the
developmeut of the SDLRS"

The SDLRS has been used by rcre than 200 najor organizations
around the world. The instument has been translated into six
languages: French, Gri.nese, Japanese, Spanish, Finni-sh and
nngifsñ. Ir ls also available on disk for the Apple II, II+, IIe
and IÏc cotrputers.
More 25,000 aduits and 5,0CO children have taken the
tha¡
SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING READINESS SCÀLE. National nonff¡ have been
established for adults and children"
More tlnu 35 doctoral dissertatj.ons have been conpleted using the
SDLRS. A l1st of published and unpublished articles concerning
the instrunent is avaj.lable upon request"
Three forns can be ordered**:
SDLRS-A FOR TTIE GB{ERAI. ADT]LT POPULâfiON $3.00 EA.
SDIRS.E FOR CEILDREN $3"00 EA"
SDLRS.S À SEIF-SCORING VTRSTON FOR WORKSHOPS AND T]EÍEDIAIE
EEEDBACK" $3.9s EA"

J*'nÏ.icensing the use of the instrument is available for

organíz.atiõns wishing Èo test on an on-going basis. Please w'rite
for details"
All prices include scoring. volgne discounts for the A,B,AND E
formi are as¡ follows: 100-200 $2"50 ea.; over 200 $2.00 ea"
Discor:nËsfor Ehe SDLRS-S are: over 50, $3"50 ea"
Tha¡k you for writing us"
Sincer

t*:

Lucy M" D"

Paul J" Guglielnino, Ed. D"

734 Manble Way, Boca Flaton, Flonida 33432 " 3OS 392-0379
 t73

WffiffipåffiæKreffireæ MS. MATIREEN O'TOOLE

163-146 PORTSMOUTH BLVD.
W]NNIPEG MANITOBA, CANADA
&ffiffiffiffiffiffimtrffiffi R3P 186

SET.F-DTRECTED LEARNÍNG REJADÎNESS SCA.LE

Administration
1. Do not inform respondents of the name or the exact purpose
of the scale; this is necessary to avoid possible response
bias" Use Èhe deqcription of Èhe instrument which is
included in the instructions print,ed on the scaLe"
2. AlLow the respondents as much t,ime as they need, Èo com-
plete the sca1e. Administration usually requires about
30 minutes" ånswering vocabulary questions or reading
the j.tems for the respondents will not affect the
validity of Èhe scores.
3. Be sure thaÈ Èhe respondents understand the configuration
of the answer sheet 1 vertieal ror¿s) " The answer sheets
should be marked in pencil.
4. ReÈurn aLl questionnaires to Guglielmino and Associates
for scoring"
 SÞLRS.A

174
Name Sex Birthdate

Date of Testing Location of Testing

-
ffiMffiffiYåffiruru&WffiW
[zuSTRUCTIONS: This is a questionnaire des¡gned to gather data on learning preferences and
attitudes towards learning. After reading each item, please indicate the degree to which you feel that
statement is true of you. Please ,read each choice carefully and circlt,' the number of the response
which best expresses your feelin¡¡.
There is no time limit for the questionnaire. Try not to spend too much time on any one item,
however. Your first reaction to the question will usually be the most accurate.

RESPOruSES

/latar! ,tt
/*€s
/*€
I o.9
/I ø< ?
I/ìs
'l(Ù
o. \t\.
/ì
IP
ø< ; /r/-Ës.- /or
lÈ
-p
lo)8'g
/**-(Ù;
f lE
/-€
/ì.
/øc
leìt
r
/ÊØx
tL
/\/.ø- \où
lÈ
/*-
/ç
/ø*
I
oè.s
o.l
/ øè.øl
ar'

,9 S
/,co
/,cq
\c
\<' /J>
å"ò lo¿
/ *."ò
l:#
ort *o /\\
lø; J
o
9{ t *tö aa /ø^t*
I/ *.ù
\\ ø\
/
loø
/lÊ.
'oc,
ø^\
Ê
/.Jì
/rS /i's
:.ô;"/
(ñ 'òe /
// ðà ìø'
ttuf
\o l,
/*(Ù
I c/)
(DI o-(Ù
:È /*\*\èl è 3-e: /s$i
\t
Ø-l
5:/
øãl
ioè /f-â¡Ër".âËl
3^o lo) i.g /sàuìàe 1s / .'9
/f
3 Q-'!
.*-8 È'//
Fp* /
\rÊ t :S*-- ;-c /F 9.¡ / g s.-è ?
'Sè/ ')Jqr^ cl
'Q)¡
Js

ITEMS: qc-\Olo I/o Srtp øl o ò.s c E:-/l

øl os.ô Øl
Q)

-c /è. €/ Ø
e-o
a)
oè 9-e *cË/q -Jr sôs to//
€
1. I'm looking forward to learning as long as "òË/,s
I'm living.

2. I know what I want to learn.

3. When I see something that ldon't under-

stand, I stay away from it.

4. lf there is something lwant to learn, I can

figure out a way to learn it.

5. I love to learn.

b. It takes me a while to get started on new

projects.

7. ln a classroom, I expect the teacher to tell

all class members exactly what to do at all
times.

8. I believe that thinking about who you are,

where you are, and where you are going
should be a major part of every person's
education.

9. I don't work very well on my own.

 175

/oF.s
,v\
lø¿.9
II
/+FÉF/yÆ'Æ
/EìEi
/¡>c/
/\.>Èr/
/Ê0r\/

/.-s;t"i/
äo'3/
10. lf I discover a need for
I
information that
don't have, I know where to go to get it.
$ 'c*ri
*s/
5l
11. I can learn things on my own better than
most people.

12. Even if I have ¿, great idea, I can't seem to

develop a plan for making it work.

13. ln a learning experience, I prefer to take

part in decidin,¡ what will be learned and
how.

14. Difficult study doesn't bother me if l'm

interested in something.

15. No one but me is truly responsible for what

I learn.

16. I can tell whether l'm learning something

well or not.

17. There are so many things I want to learn

that I wish that there were more hours in
a day.

18. lf there is something I have decided to

learn, I can find time for it, no matter how
busy I am.

19. Understanding what I read is a problem

for me. 2 3 4 5

20. lf I don't learn,-it's not my fault. 2 3 4 5

21. I know when I need to learn more about

something. 3

22. lf I can understand someth¡ng well enough

to get a good grade on a test, it doesn't
bother me if I still have questions about it.

23. I think libraries are boring places.

24, The people I admire most are always

learning new things.
 176

25. I can think of many different ways to learn

about a new topic.

26. I try to relate what lam learning to my long-

term goals.

27. I am capable of learning for myself af most

anything I might need to know.

28. I really enjoy tracking down the answer to

a quest¡on.

29. I don't like dealing with questions where

there is not one right answer. 1 2 3 4 5

30. I have a lot of curiosity about things. 1 2 3 4 5

31. I'll be glad when l'm finished learning. 1 2 3 4 5

32. l'm not as interested in learning as some

other people seem to be.

33. I don't have any problem with basic study

skills.

34. I like to try new things, even if I'm not sure

how they will turn out. 4

35. I don't like it when people who really know

what they're doing point out mistakes that
I am making.

36 l'm good at thinking òf unusual ways to

do things. 1 4

37. I like to think about the future- 1 4

38. i'm better than most people are at tryinE to

find out the things I need to know. 1

39. I think of problems as challenges, not

4
stopsigns. 1

40. I can make myself do what I think I should' 1 4

41 l'm happy with the way I investigate
problems.

42. I become a leader in group learning

situations. 3 4 5

4 5
43. I enjoy discussing ideas' 3

4 5
M. ldon't like challenging learning situat¡ons' 3

45. I have a strong desire to learn newthings. 3 4 5

46. The more I learn, the more exciting the

world becomes. 3 4 5

47. Learning is f un. 3 4 5

48. lt's better to stick with the learning

methods that we know will work instead of
always trYing new ones.

49. I want to learn more so that I can keep 4 5

growing as a person. 2 3

50. I am responsible for my learning - no one

3 4 5
else is. 2

. Learning how to learn is important to me' 2 3 4 5

51

4 5
52. I will never be too old to learn new things. 2 3

4 5
53. Constant learning is a bore. 2 3

4 5
54 Learning is a tool for life' 2 3

55. I learn several new things on my own each

4 5
year. 2 3

56. Learning doesn't make any difference in

4 5
my life. 2 3

57. I am an effective learner in the classroom

4 5
and on my own. 1 2 3

E
3 4
58. Learners are leaders' 1 2
ø
U
1977, Lucy M. Guglielmino
 ltu
é cÍ1lfJ \:n.-rn
.Jl c
-,; ri.. ú

DITTCT]OilS

1. The rurnose of thj.s stud¡r is i:c explore hc,+ the ¡hi.loscrhlr of :.1 ¡clloci
cf nursing is enacted by its curriculun" Beiiei siat.enent-. of lea:'ners anrì
i;eaci:ers are ineluded in a philoso¡hy, This;-uesi:o::.naire :.s being irsed lo
deterrnine how ¡rou pe:'ceieve ycurself as a learne:'.

2, Yorrr participation in this st,uCy is 'roluntary. The inci','iCira] res'.t'ì ts r+i-Ll-

be l<ept confi-dential a¡d anonyûous" Piease use J.'our^ STUD.INT llïì4tsER for
purposes of identification"

1. f+- rviil take approximately 20 - 30 minrrtes to cornplel;e ¿he crrestionnaire,

Plea-se ccmplete the biographical data reo,uestecl belct+ beilore ¡rceeeding t,o
lhe cuestionnaire"
4" Fol-1ow the airections on the cuestionnaire anC answer the'1uest.:.on*q,:ln PINCTI
cr:. the provioed answer sheet"
,. ff further information regarding thís study, please ask me b;r
¡rou reouesl
contacting :ne at St, Boniface Scool cf Nrrrsingo 431 Tache A.ve.¡ liinnipeg"
6" I thânk ¡rou for yorrr time end input in this -.tuC-v. Sincerei;r, I'lau:'een OrToole"
Telephone | 23? AIJ&"

iIICGR\PÌiICAI DAT¡.

ST.]DS]T iIiJ}fBER
Flease circle the appropriaie answer.
1" l'ihat is your age? a. l-ess than 18 ;rears olrì
b. 18 - ?-, yeai's oIC
c. 26
^a
- j5 ;*ears oid
d, 36 - fr ¡rears o1d
e. more tha-n !0 ;rears or rl

2. !iha".. is ;rour sex? a. f'ernal-e Ì. I'rfçl o

1. !/h¡rt is ;rou:' highest achiaveC le.¡el of ecrucatj-on'?

- h'ì -ts school cinicina
b. ,.:ost seconrìary rtipicna*
?.e bacl..elcr'rs desree
rl. nastcrr s ,jeg:ee
o nfl_ a¡
 L79

APPEI\DIX F

PALS INSTRIII"IENT
Consent for Use
Questionnaire
Answer SheeL
Directions and Biographical
lJata - FacultY
 Montana State University 180
Bozeman, Montana 59ñ7

KelloEg Project Telephone (406) 994-5795

March 4, L981
Maureen Þi, O'TooIe
163--l-46 Portsmouth Blvd.
I,{innipeg, Manitoba
CANADÀ R3P 186
Dear Maureen:
It is excÍting to see that you have found a new and specifÍc
use for the Principles of Adult Learning Scale. Enclosed are
several things related to the Ínstrument. Feel free to use PÀLS
and the enclosed materials in the best way that fits the needs of
vour study. If you have a need for any advice concernÍng the
instrument or its scoring as you proceed in lzour study, call me.
Sincerely yours,

Gary J. Conti
As soci.ate Prof es sor
of. Adul-t Education
 i&1

Principles of A,dult Learning Scale

Directions.' The following survey contains several things that a teacher of adults might do in
a classroom. You may personally find some of them desirable and find others undesirable.
For each item please respond to the way you most frequently practice the action described
in the item. Your choices are Always, Almost Always, Often, Seldom, Almost Never, and
Never. On your answer sheet, circle 0 if you always do the event; circle number 1 if you
almost always do the event; circle number 2 if you often do the event; circle number 3 if you
seldom do the event; circle number 4 if you almost never do the event; and circle number 5
if you never do the event. If the item does not apply to you, circle number 5 for never.
Almost A-lmost
Always Aìways Often Seldom Never Never

12345
1. I allow students to participate in developing the criteria for evaluating their perform-
ance in class.
2. I use disciplinary action witçrì_rl_lS._nged_ed.
3. I allow older students more time to complete assignments when they need it.
4. I encourage students to adopt middle class values.
5. i help students diagnose the gaps between their goals and their present level of per-
formance.
6. I provide knowledge rather than serve as a resource person.
7. I stick to the instructional objectives that I write at the beginning of a program.
8. I participate in the informal counseling of students.
9. I use lecturing as the best method for presenting my subject material to adult students.
10.. I arrange the classroom so that it is easy for students to interact.
11. I determine the educational objectives for each of my students.
72. I pian units which differ as widely as possible from my students' socio-economic back-
grounds.
i3. I get a student to motivate himselflherself by confronting him/her in the presence of
classmates during group discussions.
14. I plan learning episodes to take into account my students' prior experiences.
15. I allow students to participate in making decisions about the topics that will be covered
ip class.
1ó. I use one basic teaching method because I have found that most adults have a similar
style of learning.
17. I use different techniques depending on the students being taught.
18. I encourage dialbgue among my students.
19. I use written tests to assess the degree of academic growth rather than to indicate new
directions for learning.
20. I utilize the many competencies that most adults already possess to achieve educational
objectives.
2I. I use what histo_ry has proven that adults need to learn as my chief criteria for plaining
learning episódèl
22. I accept errors as a natural part of the learning process.
23. I have individual conferences to help students identify their educaticnal needs.
24. I let each student work at, his/her own rate regardless of the amount of time it takes
him/her to learn a neu/ concept.
25. I help my students develop short-range as well as long-range objectives.
26. I maintain a well disciplined classroom to reduce interferences to learning.
27. I avoid discussion of controversial subjects that involve value judgements.
28. I allow my students to take periodic breaks during class.
 L82

29. use methods that foster quiet, productive desk-work.

30. use tests as my chief method of evaluating students.
31. i pian activities that will encourage each student's growth from dependence on others
to greater independence.
32. I gear my instructional objectives to match the individual abilities and needs of the stu-
dents.
JJ. avoid issues that relate to the student's concept of himself/herself.
34. encourage my students to ask questions about the nature of their sociery.
35. allow a student's motives for participating in continuing education to be a major
determinant in the planning of learning objectives.
36. I have my students identify their own problems that need to be solved.
37. I give all students in my class the same assignment on a given topic.
38. I use materials that were originally designed for students in elementary and secondary
schools.
39. I organlze adult learning episodes according to the probiems that my students encoun-
ter in everyday life.
40. I measure a student's long term educational growth by comparing his/her total achieve-
ment in class to his/her expected performance as measured by national norms from
standardized tests.
41. I encourage competitionramong my students.
42. I use different materials with different students.
43. I help students relate new learning to their prior èxperiences.
44. I teach units about problems of everyday living.
 1A'>
L(J J

hinciples of Adult Learning Scale

ANSI¡,ER SHEET

q) .P(f¡ Ê, €
>¡ U¡> C C Qþ l¡
ñ o(Ú c) .< oo
o q)
3 E 3 q{
.1
+. 0J
É>C)
-{-l -i 0)

1" 0 1 2 3 4 5 2)" 0 L 2 ) + 5
2" 0 1 2 ) 4 5 24" 0 1 2 3 4 5
3" o 1 2 3 4 5 25" 0 l_ 2 3
lt
Y 5
I+. o 1 2 3 4 5 26. o 1 2 3 4
5" o 1 2 ) 4 5 2?. 0 1 2 3 4 5

6" o 1 2 3 45 28" 0 2 3 4 5
7" 0 1 2 ) 45 29" 0 2 ) 4 5
8. 0 1
.)
) 45 lo. 0 2 ¿+
5
9" 0 1 2 3 45 )L. 0 2 3 4
10. 0 1 2 3 45 )2" 0 2 3 4 5

11. 0 2 3 4 5 33" 0 ¿ ) 4 5
72. 0 2 3 4 5 )4" 0 2 ) 4 5
13. 0 2 3 4 5 )5" 0 2 ? 4 5

14. 0 2 1 4 5 )6" 0 2 3 4 5
15. o 2 ) 4 )7. o 2 3 4 5

1é," o 1 2 3 4 )8. 0 1 2 ) 4 5
L7" 0 1 2 3 4 )9- o 1
I
¿ 3
,,
r+
5
18. 0 1 2 3 4 s 40. o 1 2 1 4 5
19. 0 1 2 ? 4 5 41 . o 1 2 ) II
+ 5
20" 0 1 2 3 4 5 42" 0 1 ) ) 4 5

2t. 0 1 2 3 4 5 43" o 1 2 3 4 5
22" 0 1 2 ) 4 5 44. 0 1 2 3 l+
5
 1t)A
lLJ+

DIRICT]ONS A}ID BTCGR{PIÌTC¡.L DAT.!.. FåCLTLTY

!IRECT]O}IS-

1. Tl.le purpose of is to explore how the ¡hiicsophi¡ cÎ z schccl- of

+,hj-s str:cly

nursing is enacted by its curriculum. Belief statements of iea.rners ani

teachers are included. in a philosophy" This questionnaire is bei.ng useC to
Cetemine how you perceive yourself to teach"
Z" Your participation in this study is voh:nlary, The rndirricu-al resul-ts uil-l- be
kept confidential and anon,r-nous"
j. It, rvill take approximately 1, - ZC minutes to ouestjror:tai-re,
ccmpiet.e this
Please compl-ete the biographical data requested below before proceeCing to the
ouestionnaire "

4" Follow the directions on the questionnaire a-nd answer the cuesti.ons on the
provided answer sheet"
j, If you request further information about this study, please ask me b;r
contacting me at St" Boniface School of Nu:'sin6"
6" f thank ¡rou for your time and input in this strrrì.y" SincereÌ;r, lÍar,:.reen O¡Toole.

sTOGRAPHIC.A-L D.A,TA FÂCÛTTY Ì\,I]ì"itsER

Flease cirele the most appropriate answer-

1" lrihat is ¡rour age? a. ?5 - n years clrl

b" 31 - \O ¡rears old
c. 41 - 50 years olo.
d." 51 - 60 l¡ears cld
e, ¡nore tha¡ 60 Years old
2" ',^Jhat is your highesi aehieved level of educa+.ion?
a. nursing dinloma
b" post C.iploma cer|.ificate
c. baccalaureate Cegree - nrìrsing
d. baccalau:'eate degree - otller
e, nasterf s rìegree - nursing
f" ma,sterts degree * other
1" How maly yea:s have ¡rou t-aught nurs:'-ng ? '--. less +-!:*¡¡ 1 ;'e¿;'
'-i.'c
4 L.^---
ji C3:::--
.). 6-il::{:â.:q
11. 11 - 1l ;ea:'s
ô á^ 'i E .¡.îe
Fô rh =n TS

4" äo',v nan;r )¡ears have ¡rcu praci:lced nursinS'? a"

,^
4' - 5 Jreâ^is
á 4^ -¡-^F-
'. ' ú' -.1.' :

c, 11 - ii^
;¡eäÌ:s
; 4l '>¡ € a-,
'u v.':.!-
e. 21 * ]rears
=4 ll ;'':r:'::
i. ic:a';iir:
 lB5

APPEI.{DIX G

COVERI|\iG LETTERS FOR FACULTY

 rB6

SepËember, 1987

Dear Colleague:

As you know f have been working on my thesis r,¡hích is one of

the requirements for completing a masterts degree in EducatÍonal
Administration. In June, I outlined to you the premise of rny thesis
research. I am sËudying our program philosophy to determine if ít is
enacted by our curriculum. The data collection involves tr¡7o questionnaires
about teaching and learning oercentions. I have adninj-sEered the ouestionnaire
|
dealing with learning nercentions to tv¡o samnles- the Class of 88 r"hen
they had completed the first year of the program, and the Class of '89 trvo
weeks ago at the begínning of the program. The other questionnaire deals
with teachíng perceptions and is designed to be ans\¡/ered by faculty members.
I am, therefore, inviting you to complete this questionnaire to assisË
me in my data colleetion. Your parËícipation is voluntary. Your identity
will be kept anonymous and confídenËial. I have assigned a number to each
questionnaíre for purposes of identity. I will be the only oerson with
access to this identífícation system.

If you are wílling to participate, please ansr¡/er these questions based

on hov/ you teach now (given the constraints, etc. of a set curriculum) and
not on how you v¡ould like to teach should this be different from how you
are currentlY teaching.
If you are not ínterested in completing this questíonnaire, please return
the package Ëo me so that I ¡vil1 not be av¡aíting your response.
I truly appreciate any assistance and participation you may offer.
Thank you.

,-"-,32w,.[_Lulr__
'l(au/een orToolu

DC PLEASE RETURN TO }IY MAIL SLOT OR oFFrcE BY SEPTEIÍBER 28 1987,

"
 L87

HI THERE!
IT'S NOT TOO LATE! !

I sorry that I have not heard from you yet - I Lruly

am
will welcome your response to my thesis study.

If you are interesLed in participating, please compleLe

the questionnaire and return to me AT YOUR EARLIEST
CO}IVENIEt\iCE "

If you need another copy of the quesLionnaire, I'11 be

happy to get one for you - please ask"

The collective results from this study are going to

also be helpful for the Curriculum ComrnitLeers Evaluation of
the Program - so your contribution is VALUABLE for several
reasons. The statistics are more reliable with a greaLer
number of responses ! I

If you are not interested in participating (your

participation is voluntary) - please return the package so
I'11 know that yotl're not participating.

I TRULY APPRECIATE YOUR TII"IE AND CONTRIBUTION" THANKS!

MAUREEN
 r88

Nov" 6187

Hi!

It' s me again. I haven' L heard f rorn you yet re:

questionnaire for thesis. Your input will be valuable if
you're willing and interested to take 15-30 minutes to
complete it.

I have attached a second copy of the questionnaire

should you have misplaced the earlier copy.

If you DO NOT wish to participate please return the

package as is, so that I'11 know.

Thank-you for your time and anticipated assistance in

this rnatter.

S incerely,
 189

APPENDIX H

ETHICS COMMITTEE LETTER OF APPROVAL

 r10

STHICÂ& &ppAWÆ. (}P &ASSA&CU &W gxp@Xffiffi Wrffit8m¡@? Ps&Jræ

IWMLVT&frG SI'HAM S['8.JECTS

Tt¡ia forø ie co be coøpleeed in aecordance sich t,he Faculty of Education policy

on et,hic@l review" I3líø policy requires E.h@E, Coæit,tee members cake inco
@ccount the relevenE øcandørdø of Ehe diøcipline concerned øø r¿ell aøu where
appropriate, che aEandørdø øpecifÃed by cercein excernel funding bodieø"

Projecc idenci f icatíon

(co be filled in by invearigaror)
fnvestigacor(s) Maureen Marv O¡Too1e

Ticle

PhilosophY a¡ffi l-ran Evaludion

If applicanc is a scudent,, na¡ne the faculty øeober supervising the proposed

re search

Tt¡is is t,o cerÈify chac t,he Revies Gomit,tee has examined Èhe research end
erperinrencal developo€nc projecc iodicaced above and concludes chac the
research meecs the appropriate øtederds of echical conducE in reseerch si rh
hu¡¡an subjeccs "

DaCe: ''Ç Signacure of Chairperson :