THE OLDER ADULT AND LEARNING
Roger Hiemstra
1975
A paper developed for ERIC (ED 117 371)
Foreword
Much has been written about the older adult and learning. A large number of such writings have focused on the premise that learning needs and capabilities decline with age. However, recent research and discussion have been. centered around a changing theme: declines in learning abilities and interest may be considerably less than has been historically thought. In fact, there is some evidence now available that shows older adult learners outstripping younger learners in certain areas of endeavor.
The purpose of the research presented in this report was to obtain an even greater understanding of the older learner. Consequently, learning interests, obstacles, and actual activities were examined. The Adult and Community Education Section of the State Department of Education supported, in part, this research with the expectation that additional information about a particular group of adults would eventually benefit the state's entire adult education program. Thus, the encouragement and support of Dr. Leonard Hill is greatly appreciated.
The work of Marsha Fangmeyer and
Jim Gingles in assisting with the data analysis is
highly appreciated. In addition, the excellent work of Olie
Ahlquist, Judy Amber, Frank Bomberger,
Romeo Guerra, Vern Jacobs, Neal Jennings, and Gary Whiteley
-- graduate student interviewers -- is gratefully acknowledged. The scope of
this research would have been greatly 1imited without the assistance of these
excellent students. Finally, the cooperation of all those individuals
interviewed was most rewarding. Hopefully, this report will repay them for
their efforts and contribute to better educational opportunity for all older
adults in the State of
Roger Hiemstra
Project Coordinator
(updated to APA, 5th Edition, April, 2005)
TOPICS COVERED IN THIS PAPER
Foreward |
Table of Contents |
List of Tables |
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION |
General Statement |
Problem Setting |
Purpose of the Study |
Questions to be Answered |
Limitations of the Study |
Definition of Terms |
Outline of the Study |
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE |
Introduction |
Inhibitors to Learning |
Learning Needs |
Learning Activity |
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN OF THE STUDY |
Type of Study |
Hypotheses |
Data Collection Procedures |
The Interview Schedule |
Interviewing Process |
Reliability |
Validity |
Population for the Study |
Data Analysis |
The Respondents |
General Information |
Hypothesis Testing |
CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS |
Introduction |
Obstacles to Learning |
Instrumental and Expressive Learning |
Learning Projects |
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS |
An Overview |
Recommendations |
General Information |
The Adult and Continuing Educator |
Additional Research Needs |
Conclusions |
An Invitation |
REFERENCES |
APPENDIX A: DATA COLLECTION MATERIALS AND RELATED INFORMATION |
APPENDIX B: MISCELLANEOUS TABLES; INSTRUMENTAL AND EXPRESSIVE PREFERENCES |
APPENDIX C: COMPARISON DATA ON LEARNING PROJECTS |
|
LIST OF TABLES |
TABLE 1. Participants in Formal Adult Education Programs
as a Percentage of the Total Eligible Population by Age, |
TABLE 2. A Comparison of Summary Statistics from Five Research Studies on Learning Projects |
TABLE 3. Various Demographic Characteristics for the Study’s Respondents |
TABLE 4. Crossbreak Comparison of Selected Study Demographic Variables with 1970 U. S. Census Data for Nebraskans (55 Years of Age and Older) |
TABLE 5. Obstacles to Learning Activity Ranked by the Numbers Indicating Yes |
TABLE 6. Course Selection Preferences Ranked by the Numbers Indicating No |
TABLE 7. Preferences Toward Instrumental and Expressive Forms of Learning |
TABLE 8. Crossbreak Comparisons of Various Demographic Variables with Instrumental or Expressive Learning Preferences |
TABLE 9. T-test Comparisons of Various Demographic Variables with the Instrumental and Expressive Learning Projects |
TABLE 10. Older Adults’ Learning Projects: General Descriptive Information |
TABLE 11. Number of Learning Projects Conducted in a Year |
TABLE 12. Number of Hours Spent in Learning in a Year |
TABLE 13. Comparisons of Learning Projects Information with Demographic Variables |
TABLE 14. Learning Projects: Supportive Information |
TABLE 15. Frequency of Type of Primary Planners of Learning Projects |
TABLE 16. Comparison of Subject Matter Area by Various Demographic Variables |
TABLE 17. T-test Comparison of Various Demographic Variables with the Number of Hours Spent Annually in Learning |
TABLE 18. T-test Comparison of Various Demographic Variables with the Number of Annual Learning Projects |
TABLE 19. Crossbreak Comparisons of Various Demographic Variables with Instrumental or Expressive Learning Projects |
TABLE 20. Crossbreak Comparisons of Various Demographic Variables with All Instrumental or Expressive Learning Preferences |
TABLE 21. T-test Comparisons of Various Demographic Variables with the Number of Instrumental and Expressive Learning Projects |
TABLE 22. A Comparison of Summary Data from Six Research Studies on Learning Projects |
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
General Statement
The largest minority group in the nation today is the elderly and it ;is proportionately growing larger each year. Yet equal educationa1 opportunity for the elderly at this point in time is more a myth than a reality. Out of "the 1971 White House Conference on Aging" came a very powerful statement related to education and the aging:
Education is a basic right for all persons of all age groups. It is continuous and henceforth one of the ways of enabling older people to have a full and meaningful life, and means of helping them develop their potential as a resource for the betterment of society. (1971 White House Conference on Aging, p. 6)
Few individuals would think that an older citizen should be denied an equal education, but the fact remains a very small percentage of the individuals over the age of 55 do involve themselves in formal educational programs (see Table 1). However, a review of almost any flyer or catalog describing the adult education programs will reveal an increasing desire to provide courses and activities to older people.
Table
1. Participants in Formal Adult Education Programs As a Percentage of the Total Eligible Population by Age,
Age |
Population in Each Age Group |
% Who Participated in Adult Education |
17-24 |
24,800,000 |
18.0 |
25-34 |
23,600,000 |
18.2 |
35-44 |
22,700,000 |
13.5 |
45-64 |
22,700,000 |
09.4 |
55-64 |
17,900,000 |
04.5 |
65 & Over |
18,600,000 |
01.6 |
Oakes (1971), p. 11.
If a variety of educational opportunities are available to older citizens, the question may be raised as to why the elderly are not more involved. Are they just not interested, or are there subtle discriminating factors that inhibit equality in educational opportunities? Before dealing with such a question, a closer look at the older American is in order.
Of the total population of 210 million, according to recent census information, 21 million Americans are over the age of 65. Having this large a percentage of our society 65 or older is only a current day phenomenon, and it appears that the percentage will increase. The 65 and over population has been growing faster than the rest of the population for several decades, there now exist seven times as many people over the age of 65 as there were in 1900. With further advances in the medical field, the number of years a person 65 years of age would expect to live could double or triple.
Transportation and mobility is often a problem for this age group. Simple shopping excursions and medical visits can create major problems due to lack of adequate travel facilities for the elderly. Of the total elderly population living outside of institutions, 86% have some chronic health condition. While the majority of the chronic conditions do not interfere to a great extent with mobility, 6% of the elderly population need to be helped by another person, and 5% are housebound. Some of the major chronic conditions affecting the elderly are arthritis, rheumatism, hearing impairment, and digestive problems. About 90% of the elderly population wear some form of corrective lens, and 5% wear hearing aids (Weg, 1974).
Many of the elderly are subjected to inadequate housing, poor nutrition, and sub-standard hea1th care due to a low income level. In 1972, the average income of a retired couple was $4,967 while 53% of all individuals living alone or with non-re1atives made less than $2,500 (Weg, 1974). Although in the general population the number of individuals classified as poor is decreasing, the elderly poor compose a slowly growing proportion of the total.
As of 1972 there were more than 2 million individuals over the age of 65 who were "functionally illiterate." More than 12% of the total elderly population had completed less than 5 years of school. Of the racial minorities included in this group, 38.7% had completed less than 5 years of school. Only 32% of the total elderly sample had completed four years of high school, with only 12.9% of the minority group members having completed four years of high school. Only 7% of all individuals over the age of 65 have college degrees (Weg, 1974).
The Nebraska Commission on Aging's
series "Aging in
Problem Setting
There has been a great amount of literature about the older adult and learning, but much of this material seems to be based more on myth than reality. Many authors have thought that learning needs as well as other needs and capabilities decline with age. Recent research has challenged this assumption, centering around the premise that such declines might be considerably less than has been historically thought. In fact, there is some evidence now available showing that older learners can outstrip younger learners in certain areas. Havighurst, for example, has pointed out that learning is necessary throughout life because of continuously new developmental task needs with life (Havighurst, 1972). As a matter of fact, some of the greatest changes in life and needs for continual adaptation come with such events as retirement, death of spouse, and declining health.
Thus, a variety of stereotypes about the elderly are rigorously being challenged. McClusky refers to these as myths that are being dispelled. He suggests that the elderly, in general, are active, intelligent, and involved people who have positive feelings about themselves and their potential (McClusky, 1974).
A theory in direct opposition to classifying the elderly as individuals with declining needs and capacities is a theory that has been called the “activity theory” (Maddox, 1970). The main assumption of this theory is that an elderly persons morale will be high as long as he or she is able to stay active even if faced with role reductions and changes. This would mean replacing lost roles with other new areas of interest and activities. This suggests that there is even a greater need for continuing education in the elderly years than in the younger years.
Several other researchers have found additional reasons for supplemental education to start at approximately age 55 and extend on through the elderly years. For example, a longitudinal study uncovered data that suggests a process of disengagement does occur in later years, but that psychological disengagement proceeds physical disengagement from society by as much as ten years (Havighurst, 1972). Another finding was that a measure of life satisfaction not only remained stable for those actively involved in various activities, during their elderly years, but tended to increase with age for many individuals (Havighurst, Neugarten, & Tobin, 1963).
Thus, it appears as though those, individuals who remain active retard the advent of the disengagement process and experience continued or increasing life satisfaction. It is suggested here, therefore, that a functional adult education program for the older adult learner is a societal necessity.
Purpose of the Study
This research project was based in part on the work completed by Tough (1971) and some research by Hiemstra (1972a). Tough and his associates found that by defining learning as a series of related learning episodes totaling at least seven hours of effort within a six month period, the typical adult they surveyed annually spends 700 hours in learning activities. Deciding and planning, traveling time to a learning activity, and evaluating personal progress were included in their definition.
Coolican reported on five similar follow-up studies with various populations (1974). These studies revealed that the range of average times spent annually in learning varied from 244 hours for young mothers to 1244 for male professionals.
Hiemstra (1972a) studied both inhibitors to participation and learning interests in adults over 65. This study revealed that transportation limitations and a dislike of going out at night were the top reported factors affecting participation in adult education activities. When asked to select learning activities they might participate in if the various participation problems could be overcome, the respondents showed a much greater preference for instrumental categories of learning as compared to expressive categories. The research to be reported here combined the approaches and areas of focus in both of the above studies.
Consequently, the primary purpose of this study was to secure a better under standing of the learning interests, activities, and obstacles of older adults, 55 years of age and older. It is anticipated that such information will help adult educators in Nebraska and in other states plan and implement better programs of education for the older adult.
Questions to be Answered
The following questions served as guides for the study:
In Chapter 4 these questions will provide guidelines for the display, comparison, and discussion of findings.
Limitations of the Study
In a study of this nature one major limitation will always
be the representativeness of the sample. As will be discussed in Chapter 3, an
attempt was made to include an element of randomness in the selection of
respondents. However, such factors as voter registration card biases, the
selection of individuals in residences designed exclusively for the elderly,
and obtaining a minority group population contained limitations that prevented
a totally random and representative sample. Certainly, the entire State of
Each interviewer was trained in an identical manner. However, one limitation would be the consistency among interviewers in asking questions, interpreting responses, and recording responses. For purposes of the study it was assumed that interviewers would work in as professional a manner as possible and that respondents would answer questions to the best of their ability.
A final limitation dealt with the fact that there exists an incomplete theoretical framework for asking relevant questions pertaining to older adults and learning. As will be described in the next chapter, a great deal of information presently exists; however, more information is needed and some of what exists conflicts with other information. Consequently, although research hypotheses are described in later chapters it is assumed that follow-up research will be required to better understand the areas addressed in this study.
Definition of Terms
Activity – the term "activity" is utilized to describe any general pursuit of learning that is achieved through a sequence of progressive tasks and/or actual experiences (Verner, 1964).
Adult – Any person who has reached the maturity level where he or she has assumed responsibility for himself or herself and sometimes others and who has assumed a productive role in the community (Verner, 1964).
Adult Education – Relationship between a student and an educational agent in which the agent provides, facilitates, and/or supervises a series of related learning experiences for the student (Verner, 1962).
Clientele – Refers to the person or types of persons benefiting from a specific educational service – the customer.
Continuing Education - "That idealistic and timeless conceptual thread that connects all deliberate efforts to help the human organism learn through life. . . It has become common for adult educators who function within the (formal) context of colleges and universities to refer to their activities as continuing education (Smith, Aker, & Kidd, 1970, p. 28).
Course – Term used to designate a specific type of adult learning which has an identifiable purpose, content, structure, and time period.
Expressive education – Courses designed to help older adults increase the enjoyment of life, to add new experiences, and to express themselves (Hiemstra, 1972a).
Facilitator – An educational change agent who makes particular action possible by being available as resource, information source, and/or learning director.
Instrumental education – Basic or skill mastery courses necessary for the effective mastery of the aging process (Hiemstra, 1972a).
Knowledge and skill – The entire range of behavioral changes: Cognitive, attitudinal, perceptive, feeling; and psychomotor.
Learning – The acquisition of knowledge, attitudes, or skills and the mastery of behavior in which facts, ideas, or concepts are made available for individual use (Verner, 1964).
Learning project -- A series of clearly related learning efforts adding up to at least seven hours of effort within a six month period. The last 12 months from the day of the interview will be the time period in which projects will be examined. Deciding and planning, traveling time to a learning activity, and evaluating personal progress will also be considered as part of the learning project time (Tough, 1971).
Learning for self-fulfillment – The learning projects included here are efforts at learning for leisure, arts and crafts, hobbies, and recreation; included, too, is learning related to music, art, dance, theatre, religion, ethics, or moral behavior.
Lifelong Learning – A process of learning that continues throughout life (Hesburgh, Miller, & Wharton, 1973). It is usually thought of in connection with the need to learn throughout one's lifetime in order to cope with a constantly changing society.
Non-Credit Adult Education – An educational process which does not grant academic credit for application to a specific academic degree.
Occupational, vocational, and professional competence – This includes learning related to preparing to enter the labor market, on-the-job training, retraining for a shift in occupation, and also basic and literacy education. Graduate courses taken by a teacher to meet state requirements is counted here, too.
Personal or family competence – This includes learning for the individual's role as parent spouse and homemaker; it also includes learning related to mental and physical health. An extensive counseling session on estate planning or family finances would be included here, for example.
Program – An activity which is planned and organized with specific objectives.
Social and civic competence – This area covers the individual's role as a responsible citizen, including voting and po1itics, current events, community government, and development pollution, and ecology.
Outline of the Study
The second chapter reviews literature related to inhibitors to learning learning needs and learning activities. Some more general reports concerning the projected growth of educational projects related to the elderly are also described.
Chapter 3 describes the study’s design and includes a methodological look at the following: (a) population, (b) instrumentation (c) the interviewing process, (d) how validation/reliability was accomplished, and (e) how the data were analyzed.
Chapter 4 contains a display and discussion of the study findings including a testing of the study's hypotheses. Tables will be included where they help explain or clarify the data.
The final chapter discusses the implication of the findings and attempts to draw some general conclusions. A brief summary of the findings with suggested implications for further research are also included.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE
Introduction
Elderly people have been stereotyped in many ways varying from culture to culture and from century to century. In the American society the general perception of the elderly has been essentially negative. In the American society the general perception of the elderly has been essentially negative. Old age is often seen as a period characterized with ever increasing social withdrawal and isolation. The elderly individual is seen as a passive physical and psychologically dependent individual who is oriented toward the past rather than the future (Tuckman & Lorge, 1958). It was found in one research study that young people of college age often misperceive that elderly individuals will be resentful of youth, more often than not in need of assistance, overly interested in their families, and preoccupied with their own death (Kogan & Shelton, 1962).
As was suggested in the first chapter, most of the above stereotypes and many others are being disproved with research. However, it can still be theorized that negative attitudes permeating our culture have affected elderly individuals in their attempts to be successful in conventional classrooms. To add to this problem it is suggested that only on very few occasions have educational opportunities been directed at real needs and goals of the elderly. Instead, “we tend to place them in ‘playpens’ by providing recreation . . . while doing almost nothing to furnish them with the means to keep mentally alert” (London, p. 15).
Having now obtained zero population growth, the average age
of the
In addition, it seems safe to assume that the educational level of all age groups will rise with time because of increased opportunity and because of the greater educated young growing older. Thus, it should not be too presumptuous to predict a dramatic increase in demand by the elderly for greater educational opportunities in the next few years. Hopefully, this research will help adult educators understand more about older people and their learning needs, interests, and problems.
Inhibitors to Learning
There are a variety of known or believed inhibitors to learning and educational activity relative to the elderly person. Some of the cognitive inhibitors relate to such beliefs that the elderly face declining memory potential, increasing inabilities to perform paired associate learning tasks, slowness in developing conditional responses, and difficulties in sorting out learning that is related to long, sequentially-related learning tasks. On the other hand, others believe when such factors as time requirements are removed these problems disappear (Arenberg & Robertson, ca 1974; Chown, 1972). Thus, more and continued research will be required before such beliefs can become facts with which a learning facilitator can deal.
Many authors feel more comfortable talking about non-cognitive inhibitors, although the evidence on such factors is probably not even as sound as what is known about the cognitive area. Some of the non-cognitive factors discussed include slowness due to. physiological reasons (e.g., hearing and vision problems), lack of interest, and lack of educational attainment. Other inhibitors described in the literature involve transportation problems, fear of going to learning activities that are held in the evening, lack of awareness of what is available, prohibitive costs, and lack of time. (DeCrow, 1974; Eklund, 1968-70; Grabowski & Mason, ca. 1974; Hiemstra, 1972a).
The United Sates Congress and Senate Special Committee on Aging found income to be a major concern for the elderly. The elderly have an income that is less than half of the income of the younger generation. In most parts of the country that gap is widening. Families headed by an older person had a median family income of $5,453 in 1972, while those elderly individuals still living as a family unit had a median family income of $2,199 (U.S. Congress, 1973). Thus,e1derly individuals numbering as high as 4.3 million are living in households which are considered to be below the poverty level.
A variety of disabling health problems also act as inhibitors to elderly participants in educational activities. High medical cost, the time involved with medical visits, decreasing energy reserves, handicaps, and crippling diseases are only a few of the problems many older people face (Peterson, ca. 1974).
Still another problem to be discussed here is the fact that in planning programs adult educators simply are not considering the older adult as a possible participant (Kabosky, ca. 1974). The fact that only 1.6% of those individuals over 64 participated in adult education during 1969 (as reported in Table 1, Chapter 1) is some indication of this problem. Consequently, it is suggested that adult educators must examine a variety of approaches to overcoming the various inhibitors if the many learning needs of the older person are to be met.
Learning Needs
There are a variety of needs that can be discussed relative to the older person. McClusky suggested several types of needs that education has a potentially powerful role to play in fulfilling: coping, expressive, contributive, influence, and transcendence (McClusky, ca. 1974). He suggests various implications related to education for each category.
Coping needs refer to the more basic needs that fulfill the requirements for psycho-social adjustments and physical well being, Educational programs related to such needs would be adult basic education, health education programs involving economic improvement training and retraining, family life education, and leisure activities. Programs related to the expressive need category would include activities that were being engaged in for their own sake. These could include liberal arts hobbies, and physical education activities. Contributive needs might include in-service training, leadership skill building, and community service awareness activities. Programs related to influence needs could be represented by community action education and programs dealing with leadership or management. The need for transcendence learning could be met through such courses as the study of literature, philosophy, and even theology.
Hiemstra completed a study in which the expressive vs. instrumental concept of need was explored, a broader classification scheme than the one described above. The study revealed that a significantly higher preference for instrumental activities (competency areas designed for effective mastery of old age challenges) was elicited from older people as compared to preferences given for expressive activities (experiences designed to increase a person's enjoyment of life) (Hiemstra, 1972a). Instrumental type learning activities would include course titles such as "Stretching your Retirement Dollar,” "Wills and Estate Planning," "Nutrition and the Aging Process," and “Medical Care in the Retirement Years." Expressive examples would include "Art Appreciation," "Nature Photography," The Archaeology of Mexico," "Three Black Authors," and "Introduction to Crafts."
Other researchers have studied the instrumental and expressive classification scheme. Studies by Goodrow (1974), Marcus (in process), and Whatley (1974) have supported the preference for instrumental courses finding. An important point, however, is that the information on such preferences needs to be supplemented by research on demonstrated actual learning needs in comparison with perceived needs and interests (Hiemstra & Long, 1974). DeCrow (1974) further cautions that the instrumental and expressive categories are quite broad and that dichotomizing all educational opportunities has some drawbacks. Finally, further analysis of what older persons are actually participating in is needed to more fully understand what should be offered.
Another means for describing some learning needs of the older person is to examine those circumstances of life that primarily only the elderly face, i.e., retirement, bereavement, and death. Pre-retirement education, financial planning workshops, and loneliness seminars are likely topics for adult education planners to consider. Perhaps, though, there are better means for meeting these type of needs. Kimmel (1974), for example, suggests that the older person themselves are potentially the best sources to provide expertise and to facilitate learning on these topics.
An important thing to remember is that each elderly adult is a unique individual and different individuals with different needs will demand different educational programs. Birren believes that when age-related differences in learning are found, it is not a primary capacity to learn that makes the difference, but an individual's basic perceptual differences, a mind set, the motivation of the individual, or the physiological state (including that of disease and disability status) (Birren, 1964). All these factors have implications for educational programming and in analyzing learning activity by older people.
Learning Activity
There are many interesting endeavors already taking place
to meet some of the learning needs of the older person. Many institutions of
higher education are beginning to graduate professional adult educators who
have specialized in the area of Gerontology. Some universities and colleges are
also offering means for the elderly to enroll in regular programs or to
participate in non-traditional programs. The
Various national organizations have also become involved with providing educational to the older person. The National Institute for Senior Centers is currently working to upgrade senior center personnel so that better opportunities for learning can be provided (National Council on Aging, 1974). In addition, the National Retired Teachers Association has a program entitled “The Institute of lifetime Learning,” and the American Association of Retired Persons has a program entitled the “Herman L. Donovan Senior Citizens' Fellowship Program” (Kobasky, ca. 1974).
DeCrow completed a national study aimed at uncovering the extent of learning opportunity in a variety of agencies. Some 3500 different programs were reported from all parts of the "educational field and from a variety of non-school organizations. The study revealed that of the 3500 reporting agencies, 58% had begun new activities within the year preceding the receipt of the questionnaire (DeCrow, ca. 1974). Such findings show the rapid growth in opportunity and the fluidity of the situation.
Within the State of
A fascinating area of study in examining the topic of learning activity by older people is bio-feedback. The controlling of hypertension through bio-feedback, for example, has tremendous implications for the older person (Wilkie & Eisdorfer, 1971). Some researchers have shown that the elderly can learn certain bio-feedback techniques quicker than younger people, suggesting that the elderly are potentia1ly better at self-awareness or progressive relaxation kinds of activities (Woodruff & Birren, 1972). Perhaps these types of endeavors, when more is understood about their potentials and dangers, can be utilized to help the older person become much more skilled at personal problem solving.
A related 1iterature area is the emerging theory base pertaining to adults' learning projects (Coolican, 1973, 1974; Denys, 1973; Johns, 1973; McCatty, 1973; Tough, 1971). Although not specifically concerned with the older adult learner, the material on learning projects is reviewed here because part of the interview schedule used for the studies reported above was adapted for use in the current study.
The research utilized to determine learning project activity has created a good deal of excitement in adult education circles. New attention is being given to the potential of the adult learner, especially in the area of self-directed learning. Table 2 details some of the findings; the data suggest that a great deal of self-motivated learning is taking place.
Table 2. A Comparison of Summary Statistics from Five Research Studies on Learning Projects
Study |
Average No. of Projects per Person per Year |
Average No. of Hours per Person per Year |
|
Number of People |
Coolican (1973) |
4.2 |
244 |
20-30 |
48 |
Denys (1973) |
4.8 |
430 |
30-55 |
54 |
Johns (1973) |
8.4 |
1046 |
25-50 |
39 |
McCatty (1973) |
11.1 |
1244 |
35-60 |
54 |
Tough (1971) |
8.3 |
816 |
20-55 |
66 |
As will be reported in Chapter 4 support for the idea that the older person should have more learning opportunities has been found. Certainly many opportunities already exist and more are being provided each year; however, it is hoped that this research report will help adult educators understand more about the older person, their problems, and their needs so that an even better job can be done in the future.
CHAPTER 3
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
The theme developed thus far in the report points out the great need for lifelong learning to facilitate adequate adjustment in the later years. At the same time, there exists evidence that current learning opportunities being offered to the older adult for purposes of personal growth and development are not being used extensively. What are the reasons for this low participation rate? It is an intent of this study to supply some answers to this question by securing a better understanding of learning interests, obstacles, and activities of older people. Hopefully, such answers will help promote more functional educational programs for the elderly.
Type of Study
This research endeavor utilized the contribution of field study techniques and the survey method involving a personal interview. Katz (1953) suggests that exploratory field studies have three purposes: “To discover significant variables in the field situation, to discover relations among variables, and to lay a ground work for later, more systematic and rigorous testing of hypotheses” (p. 17). It was anticipated that the information gained by combining an interview approach with the field study technique would provide the most comprehensive accumulation of information possible given the current state of knowledge regarding learning activity and the older adult.
Several tentative hypotheses were formulated for the study based on a limited number of related studies. It is expected that a testing of these hypotheses and additional results of the study will provide a better understanding of some existing variables, prompt continued research, and promote a more rigorous testing of hypotheses in subsequent research.
Hypotheses
1. One aspect of the study was to obtain as representative a sample as possible. Consequently, the following null hypothesis was examined:
H1: There
will be no differences between demographic data for the study sample and 1970
census data for
2. The study also examined the instrumental and expressive course classifications (see Chapter 2). The following null hypotheses were examined:
H2: There will be no preference differences in course selection according to instrumental or expressive categories. (The predicted direction is preference for instrumental courses.)
H3: There will be no preference differences according to instrumental or expressive categories based on various demographic characteristics. (Directional predictions are described in Chapter 4.)
3. The study examined the amount of learning activity undertaken in a year by older adults. Data collection on learning activity was based on the information by Tough and Coolican described in Chapter 2.
H4: There will be no significant differences in the average number of learning projects or hours spent in learning according to various demographic characteristics. (No direction is predicted.)
Data Collection Procedures
Data collection for this study involved the use of an interview schedule. Appendix A shows the instrument, the accompanying sheets for the interviewer’s use, and the corresponding computer code sheet.
The Interview Schedule
The instrument contained four major sections:
1. The first section sought answers to questions on sex, age, marital status, formal education attainment, and profession or occupation. The interviewers made personal judgements in recording race social class, and type of housing in which the interviewee resided.
2. Part two was designed to obtain information on some potential inhibitors to participation in learning endeavors. Yes/no responses were required to 25 obstacles the respondents felt would prevent older people from participating in learning activities. The obstacles were ascertained through a review of the literature.
3. The third section examined the instrumental versus expressive categorization notion. Yes/no responses were required to indicate interest in 32 different course titles, given that the participants had no obstacles to prevent them from enrolling in each. The 32 titles were taken from a pool of 75 course titles gleaned from the literature, course catalogues from five institutions offering courses or programs to the elderly, and the earlier study (Hiemstra, 1972a). A panel of three adult education/gerontology experts were utilized to determine whether a course title was deemed instrumental or expressive in nature. Where there was unanimous agreement, 16 instrumental and 16 expressive, those courses were included in the pilot-test interview schedule.
4. The final section utilized the interview schedule from Tough’s work as a basis to determine the amount of learning activity within the year preceding the interview. This section utilized a probing technique to ascertain the number of different learning projects, the types, the amount of time spent on each project, and information as to the nature of involvement in the learning activity.
Interviewing Process
Eight interviewers (advanced graduate students in adult education) were trained in a four hour session that included an orientation to the research project and process, a simulation interviewing activity, and a practice session on two individuals in the age 55 or older range who were selected at random. The researcher observed the interviewing procedure during the simulation activity, examined the data sheets after the practice sessions, and answered interviewers’ questions as they arose. Each interviewer was given information pertaining to the sample from which he or she was to choose respondents. Interviewers then carried out the interviews, completed the corresponding code sheets, and turned in their information. The average time for each interview was slightly more than one hour. Tough (1971) averaged about two hours per interview in this work. As will be seen in Chapter 4, the number of projects and hours devoted to learning were fewer in this study as compared to Tough’s findings. Perhaps the interviewers for this study did not do an adequate ob of probing to uncover all learning projects. However, if subsequent research reveals that the older person does indeed spend fewer hours in learning each year, then the less than two hours in interviewing is probably all that is required to gather the data.
The interviewing process requires an extensive probing technique to help respondents recall all learning activities in a given years, especially those that are primarily self-planned or self-initiated. Thus, each interviewer was taught to approach the stimulation of recall through several related questions through the use of reminder lists for the respondents to see or listen to, and through final follow-up questions. A sheet with reminder interviewing tips and supplemental sheets to the interview schedule were made available to each interviewer (see Appendix A).
Reliability
Several efforts were made to ensure that as reliable an instrument as possible was designed.
1. The initial draft of an instrument was pilot-tested by the researcher with four people aged 57, 60, 68, and 81, respectively. Individual questions were checked for ambiguity, clarity, wording, and sequence. Some minor corrections were made and the final form of the instrument developed.
2. The definition of learning utilized originally by Tough was redefined slightly to facilitate each interviewer in having a common understanding of a learning project. The definition utilized was as follows: A series of clearly related learning efforts adding up to at least seven hours of effort within a six-month period. The learning effort must include activities designed to obtain new information, to develop new skills, or to re-examine existing attitudes and beliefs. Activities undertaken primarily for entertainment or recreational purposes are not to be included, nor is any time to be included that is not directly related to the learning activity.
3. A research assistant in the Department of Adult Education
at the
4. One interviewer was obviously having difficulties with the process because of his frequent questions and the nature of the data being collected. Subsequently, he was asked to drop out of the interviewing process and data from his completed interviews were not included in the final tabulations.
5. A telephone follow-up of one respondent from each of the interviewer's group of respondents approximately one month after the interview was carried out. Although statistical testing was not attempted with such a small follow-up sample, the researcher believes that because there were so few differences between the telephone information and the interview data, especially on the obstacles and course preferences information, the instrument and the interviewers were quite reliable. Coolican (1974) noted that no coefficients of interviewer reliability were established among the various interviewers mentioned in her report. Subsequent research should endeavor to determine actual interviewer reliability. Invariably, one learning project could be added with intensive probing or in some cases one mentioned in the initial interview was not recalled over the telephone. Despite his intensive efforts, Tough also determined that "interviewers felt they failed to uncover all of the learning projects in some interviews and that perhaps self-planned learning is even more common than . . . figures indicate” (Tough, 1971, p. 89).
6. Statistically the following was accomplished: The total sample was split randomly into two groups. The groups were then compared by chi-square on the total number of expressive and the total number of instrumental course selection. No significant differences were found as shown below:
Group Number |
Instrumental Preferences |
Expressive Preferences |
One |
629 |
402 |
Two |
615 |
439 |
Totals |
1244 |
841 |
χ2 = 1.42; a non-significant difference
Validity
Several efforts were made to ensure initially that a valid interview schedule was available and after the collection of the data to assess the instrument’s validity:
1. In the initial development of the instrument a review of the literature aided, from a content validity view, the inclusion of obstacles and courses.
2. A panel of judges assisted in the construct validity effort by categorizing the courses chosen as instrumental or expressive. An original pool of 75 course titles was obtained from the literature and from the course catalogs of agencies offering courses to the older person. Each panel member (a teacher in gerontology, an administrator or of gerontology program, and an adult education/Cooperative
Extension researcher) was given the list of 75 courses and a definition of the two terms. Where there was unanimous agreement from all three (each working independent of the other) that a course title was instrumental or expressive, it was included on the instrument. To keep even numbers, sixteen in each category were inc1uded (there were actually 29 "expressive" agreements). Respondents were not told anything about the instrumental or expressive categorizations.
3. Observations made during the pilot-testing by the researcher suggested that the instrument was actually measuring indications of learning inhibitors, course preferences, and learning activity.
4. Concurrent validation involved the comparison of course preferences with information reported on section 4 of the schedule after the actual learning activities were categorized by the researcher and the research assistant working independently. The information is shown below:
Type of Course Preference |
Total Number of Course Preferences |
Actual Learning Projects |
Instrumental |
1244 |
421 |
Expressive |
841 |
271 |
Totals |
2085 |
692 |
χ2 = .30; a non-significant difference
Individual respondent correlations comparing the number of course preferences to the number of actual learning projects were as follows: rinstrumental = .2541
instrumental rexpressive = .3474
Although both correlation coefficients are relatively small, they are significant at the .001 level and beyond.
Population for the Study
The population consisted of 256 adults, 55 and older,
residing in the State of
The following describes their location and how they were selected:
1. Urban (
a. 114 people were chosen randomly from voter registration cards and divided up among three interviewers. City hall officials made the voter registration cards available. A pool of randomly selected individuals was obtained with names, addresses, and ages. Interviewers were given a list of names and they contacted people on the list until between 35 or 40 interviews per interviewer were completed.
b. 31 people were chosen randomly from the rolls of two residential complexes built especially for the elderly and interviewed by one person.
2. Rural Group – 38 people were chosen randomly from voter
registration cards or rural townships in
3. Small Town Group –
a. 45 people were chosen randomly
from the voter registration cards in three small
b. 28 people were chosen randomly
from the rolls of a Mexican-American community center in a middle-sized
The refusal rate was very low (only 17 people refused to be interviewed). However, two interviewers exhausted their pool of names because of not being able to find people at home and thus reduced the number of potential respondents. In addition, several interviewees determined that the interview was taking too much time and were unable or unwilling to finish answering all the questions on the instrument.
Tables with frequencies, percentages, and means are utilized to describe much of the data throughout Chapters 3 and 4. In addition, a crossbreak analysis is used wherever it was determined that comparisons could be explained better, where the significance of any differences revealed through exploratory computations could be shown, and when testing some of the study's hypotheses. The t-test for significant differences between means was utilized for examining the fourth hypothesis.
The crossbreak analysis was utilized when two nominal (actual or researcher manipulated) variables were being compared. The term “variable” in this study refers to the various demographic characteristics, the obstacle selections, the course preferences, and the learning projects information. A major purpose of the crossbreak technique in examining relationships among variables is as follows:
. . . to facilitate the study and analysis of relations. Crossbreaks, by conveniently juxtaposing research variables, enable the researcher to determine the nature of the relations between the variables. (Kerlinger, 1967, p. 243)
The "Statistical Package for the Social Sciences"
(a computer package available through the
The t-test of significance was employed to explore the relations between nominalized (actual or researcher manipulated) variables (questions on the instrument) and interval scales (the number of learning projects and the number of hours) in an examination of the fourth hypothesis. The assumption of equal-intervals was made for the two scaled variables so that the t-test could be used:
. . . if we use ordinal measures as though they were interval or ratio measures, we can err seriously in interpreting data and the relations inferred from data, though the danger is probably not as grave as it has been made out to be . . . On the other hand, if we abide strictly by the rules, we cut off powerful modes of measurement and analyses and we are left with tools inadequate to cope with the problems we want to solve. (Kerlinger, 1967, p. 427)
In addition to an assumption about equal intervals, the researcher made the assumption that two populations, i.e., natural or manipulated groupings, might or might not have the same variance. The SPSS computer package automatically computes an F test of sample variance so that a decision on pooled variance probability estimate versus separate variance probability estimate can be determined at the .05 level of confidence:
. . . the null hypothesis H0 : s2/1 = s2/2 with alternative H1 : s2/1 ≠ s2/2 and a significance level αl is chosen . . . From the sample variances, F is computed.
F = larger S2/smaller S2.
If the probability for F is greater than αl, H0 is accepted; t based on the pooled-variance estimate . . . should be issued.
If the probability for F is less than or equal to αl, H0 is rejected; t based on the separate variance estimate . . . should be used. Nie, et al., p. 270)
Thus, the researcher examined each t value in light of the above and significant values reported in the next chapter were determined accordingly.
Table 3 displays a variety of demographic data pertaining to the respondents. In summary of those data the subjects were approximately sixty percent female, mostly white American, and mainly from the middle class strata. Most of the interviewees lived in a house, were married, and were at least a high school graduate. A wide variety of occupations were represented, but with only a fairly small percentage falling in semi-skilled or unskilled categories.
Table 3. Various Demographic Characteristics for the Study’s Respondents.
Characteristic |
Response Frequency |
Percent |
Accumulative Percent |
Gender: |
|
|
|
Male |
105 |
041.0 |
041.0 |
Female |
151 |
059.0 |
100.0 |
Race: |
|
|
|
White American |
227 |
088.7 |
088.7 |
Black American |
001 |
000.4 |
089.1 |
Mexican American |
028 |
010.9 |
100.0 |
Social Classa: |
|
|
|
Lower |
015 |
005.9 |
005.9 |
Middle-Blue Collar |
116 |
045.3 |
051.2 |
Middle-White Collar |
109 |
042.5 |
093.7 |
Upper |
016 |
006.3 |
100.0 |
Living Arrangement: |
|
|
|
Apartment |
032 |
012.5 |
012.5 |
House |
193 |
075.4 |
087.9 |
Other |
031 |
012.1 |
100.0 |
Marital Status: |
|
|
|
Married |
162 |
063.3 |
063.3 |
Widowed |
065 |
025.4 |
088.7 |
Single |
021 |
008.2 |
096.9 |
Divorced/Separated |
008 |
003.1 |
100.0 |
Years of Education: |
|
|
|
Less than 8th Grade |
024 |
009.4 |
009.4 |
8th – 11th Grade |
062 |
024.3 |
033.7 |
High School Graduate |
083 |
032.2 |
065.9 |
Some College |
037 |
014.5 |
080.4 |
College Graduate |
025 |
009.8 |
090.2 |
Graduate Training |
025 |
009.8 |
100.0 |
Professional/Occupation:b |
|
|
|
Higher Executive/Professional |
011 |
004.3 |
004.3 |
Lower Executive |
046 |
018.0 |
022.3 |
Administrative Personnel |
016 |
006.3 |
028.6 |
Homemaker |
079 |
030.6 |
059.2 |
Clerical/Technician |
039 |
015.3 |
074.5 |
Skilled |
041 |
016.1 |
090.6 |
Semi-Skilled |
016 |
006.3 |
096.9 |
Unskilled |
008 |
003.1 |
100.0 |
Age:c |
|
|
|
55-64 |
101 |
039.5 |
039.5 |
65 and older |
155 |
060.5 |
100.0 |
Location:d |
|
|
|
Urban |
145 |
056.6 |
056.6 |
Rural |
111 |
043.4 |
100.0 |
aDetermined
by the interviewer based on answers to other questions and personal
observations. This particular category was also discussed during the
interviewers’ training session.
bDetermined
by the interviewer based on answers to other questions or to direct questions
about occupation. This particular category was also discussed during the
interviewers’ training session.
cThe
oldest person was 98 years of age; the average age was 68.11 years; the median
age was 67.10 years.
The age distribution showed a fairly large number in each group, although sixty percent of the interviewees were over 64. The range of age was from 55 to 98 with the average age at slightly more than 68 years. Slightly more than thirty-five percent were 70 years of age or older.
Interviewers also asked questions seeking to ascertain if the older persons had received training outside the formal education structure. It was reported that 108 people had received or participated in specialized training. The following outlines the main categories reported:
Vocational/technical training - 15 people
On the job training - 41 people
Correspondence study - 8 people
Business school - 18 people
Miscellaneous training - 26 people
This particular question was not pursued in-depth by the interviewers. Subsequent research would need to delve deeper into the topic if it is considered an important variable.
Hypothesis Testing
The first hypothesis stated in the null form there will be
no differences between demographic data for the study sample and 1970 Census
data for
Table
4. Crossbreak Comparisons of Selected Study
Demographic Variables with the 1970
Comparison Variables |
Study Data Number |
Study Data Percent |
Census Data Number |
Census Data Percent |
Gender: |
|
|
|
|
Female |
151 |
059.0 |
177,593 |
055.2 |
Male |
105 |
041.0 |
144,591 |
044.8 |
Totalsa χ2 = 1.51; Sig. = N.S. |
256 |
100.0 |
322,184 |
100.0 |
Race: |
|
|
|
|
White American |
227 |
088.7 |
316,300 |
098.2 |
Other |
029 |
011.3 |
005,884 |
001.8 |
Totals χ2 = 128.73; Sig. = < .001 |
256 |
100.0 |
322,184 |
100.0 |
Marital Status: |
|
|
|
|
Married |
162 |
063.3 |
201,307 |
061.8 |
Widowed |
065 |
025.4 |
028,125 |
008.7 |
Single |
021 |
008.2 |
078,875 |
024.2 |
Divorced/Separated |
008 |
003.1 |
017,259 |
005.3 |
Totals χ2 = 2.57; Sig. = N.S. |
256 |
100.0 |
325,566b |
100.0 |
Years of Education: |
|
|
|
|
Less than 8th Grade |
024 |
009.4 |
045,950 |
016.3 |
8th – 11th Grade |
062 |
024.3 |
134,206 |
047.5 |
High School Graduate |
083 |
032.2 |
058,825 |
020.8 |
Some College |
037 |
014.5 |
025,408 |
009.0 |
College Graduate |
025 |
009.8 |
010,592 |
003.8 |
Graduate Training |
025 |
009.8 |
007,453 |
002.6 |
Totals χ2 = 135.13; Sig. = < .001 |
256 |
100.0 |
282,434c |
100.0 |
Occupation:d |
|
|
|
|
White Collar |
112 |
063.3 |
320,482 |
063.3 |
Blue Collar |
065 |
036.7 |
185,676 |
036.7 |
Totals χ2 = 0.00; Sig. = N.S. |
177 |
100.0 |
506,158 |
100.0 |
Age:c |
|
|
|
|
55-64 |
101 |
039.5 |
138,658 |
043.1 |
65 and older |
155 |
060.5 |
183,526 |
056.9 |
Totals χ2 = 1.39; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
|
Location:e |
|
|
|
|
Urban |
145 |
056.6 |
162,454 |
050.4 |
Rural |
111 |
043.4 |
159,730 |
049.6 |
Totals χ2 = 3.96; Sig. = < .05 |
|
|
|
|
aExpected
frequencies within each category were obtained for the chi-square test by
multiplying the corresponding Census data percentage times the study number
total.
bBased
on sampling projects so that the totals are different than the actual universe
total.
cBased
on sample projects of those individuals with an income so that the totals are
different than the actual universe total.
dBased on sample projections of employed individuals, 16 years of age and older, so that the totals represent the entire Nebraskan adult population. White collar includes professional, technical, managerial, sales, clerical, and farm owners classifications. Blue collar includes craftsmen, operatives, and laborer classifications. Housewives/homemakers, service workers, and private household workers are not included in either group. Homemakers also are not included in the study population for the chi-square computation.
eUrban
included only
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter will be to present as concisely as possible the major findings of the study. There are three major sub-divisions in the chapter. The first section is a brief description of responses to the obstacles that prevent older people from participating in formal learning activities. The second section presents information on course preferences. The section includes some comparisons according to the instrumental and expressive categories and a testing of hypotheses 2 and 3. The final section describes the learning projects information, makes several comparisons, and tests hypothesis 4.
Obstacles to Learning
Interviewers asked each respondent the following questions: “Many things stop people from taking a course of study, learning a skill, or following a topic of interest. Which of the following do you feel are important in keeping you from learning what you want to learn?” Then a list of 25 obstacles was read and interviewees selected as many as they wanted from the list as obstacles to learning activities.
Table 5 shows the ranked responses from all the people interviewed. Not wanting to go out at night was indicated as an obstacle by almost half of the respondents. Perhaps this finding indicates that adult education is perceived of as only an evening activity and, if such a conclusion is true, then the non-traditional efforts of educational institutions will need considerable promotion.
Table 5. Obstacles to Learning Activity Ranked by the Numbers Indicating Yes.
Obstacle Description |
No. Saying Yes |
Percenta |
Rank |
Don’t like to go out at night |
116 |
45.3 |
01.0 |
Not enough time |
100 |
39.1 |
02.0 |
Costs |
078 |
30.5 |
03.0 |
Home responsibilities |
077 |
30.1 |
04.0 |
Job responsibilities |
073 |
28.6 |
05.0 |
Don’t have enough energy or stamina |
072 |
28.1 |
06.0 |
Don’t know what I’d like to learn |
069 |
28.0 |
07.0 |
I’m too old to begin learning |
067 |
26.3 |
08.5 |
My health is bad |
067 |
26.3 |
08.5 |
Time required to complete programs |
053 |
21.8 |
10.0 |
Don’t enjoy studying |
047 |
18.7 |
11.0 |
Too much red tape in enrolling |
045 |
18.9 |
12.0 |
Courses not scheduled when I can attend |
043 |
18.5 |
13.0 |
Strict attendance requirements |
038 |
16.0 |
14.0 |
No transportation available |
037 |
14.5 |
15.0 |
Courses often aren’t interesting |
032 |
13.7 |
16.0 |
Tired of school and classrooms |
031 |
12.4 |
17.5 |
Not confident of my ability |
031 |
12.4 |
17.5 |
No information about where I can get what I want |
030 |
12.3 |
19.0 |
Courses don’t seem to be available |
024 |
10.4 |
20.0 |
I don’t meet requirements to begin |
021 |
08.9 |
21.0 |
Friends and family don’t like idea |
020 |
07.9 |
22.0 |
Low grades in past |
009 |
03.6 |
23.0 |
No way to get credit for a degree |
007 |
03.0 |
24.5 |
No place to study or practice |
007 |
03.0 |
24.5 |
aPercentages
based on total number of responses per item. There were occasional
non-responses for an item.
A further examination of the table reveals that perceptions of personal problems, time constraints, and health-related obstacles are ranked quite high. Obstacles related primarily to administrative decision-making areas perhaps are the next highest marked areas. Family-related constraints, attitudes about personal abilities, and course-related problems were obstacles receiving only a few “yes” responses.
Hopefully, the information related to perceived obstacles can be utilized by program administrators to make learning opportunities more available. In addition, subsequent research should focus more intently on this issue of obstacles and determine some means whereby they can be overcome.
Instrumental and Expressive Learning
Interviewers also made the following statement about potential enrollment in adult education activities: "Suppose you had an opportunity tomorrow to enroll in an adult education course that met once a week for two hours for six consecutive weeks. By this I mean that you had the time. the finances and the transportation to wherever the course would be offered. In which of the following courses might you be interested in enrolling?" The respondents were then read the list of 32 courses and asked to indicate their interest with a "yes” or “no” reply. Table 6 details those responses.
Table 6. Course Selection Preferences Ranked by the Numbers Indicating Yes.
Course Title |
No. Saying Yes |
Percenta |
Rank |
Stretching Your Retirement Dollar (I)b |
138 |
53.9 |
01.0 |
Tax Benefits for Older Americans (I) |
129 |
50.4 |
02.0 |
Outdoor Flora |
107 |
41.8 |
03.0 |
Medical Care in the Retirement Years (I) |
103 |
40.2 |
04.0 |
Laws Affecting the Aged (I) |
100 |
39.1 |
05.0 |
Tourism and Your Travel Dollar (I) |
097 |
37.9 |
06.0 |
Music Appreciation |
090 |
35.2 |
07.0 |
Wills and Estate Planning (I) |
088 |
34.4 |
08.0 |
New Opportunities in Retirement (I) |
085 |
33.3 |
09.5 |
Physical Fitness with Fun (I) |
085 |
33.3 |
09.5 |
Nutrition and the Aging Process (I) |
083 |
32.5 |
11.0 |
Leisure Activities for Retirement Years (I) |
082 |
32.2 |
12.0 |
Modern Religions |
078 |
30.5 |
13.0 |
Fundamentals of Investing (I) |
073 |
28.5 |
14.0 |
Reading Efficiency (I) |
068 |
26.7 |
15.0 |
Art Appreciation |
064 |
25.0 |
17.0 |
Introduction to Crafts |
064 |
25.0 |
17.0 |
Mid-Western Birds |
064 |
25.0 |
17.0 |
Films and Photography |
055 |
21.6 |
19.0 |
The Nature of Prejudice |
050 |
19.6 |
20.0 |
Conversational Spanish |
045 |
17.6 |
21.0 |
The Archaeology of |
043 |
16.8 |
22.5 |
Beginning Painting |
043 |
16.8 |
22.5 |
Financial Aspects of Retirement Counseling (I) |
042 |
16.4 |
24.0 |
Rock Collecting |
036 |
14.1 |
25.5 |
Foot Problems and Care (I) |
036 |
14.1 |
25.5 |
Nature Photography |
035 |
13.7 |
27.0 |
Three Black Authors |
026 |
10.2 |
28.0 |
Astronomy: From Myth to Science |
023 |
09.0 |
29.0 |
Mushroom Hunting |
018 |
07.1 |
30.5 |
Basics of Lipreading (I) |
018 |
07.1 |
30.5 |
The High Cost of Dying (I) |
017 |
06.6 |
32.0 |
aPercentages
based on total number of responses per item. There were occasional
non-responses for an item.
bThe
letter in parentheses signifies an instrumental course. All others were
classified as expressive in nature.
Many of the instrumental selections were ranked highly by the respondents. Fifty percent or more of the individuals said they would enroll in two of the five money-related courses and four of the five were ranked in the top half of course selections. Health related topics were another area of high interest. Music appreciation. art appreciation. outdoor flora. and modern religions were the only expressive courses ranked in the top half.
Perhaps not too surprising, the topic “The high cost of dying" was ranked at the bottom. Art, crafts, and outdoor-related courses also were infrequently se1ected by respondents. Hopefully, the information on course selection will be helpful in future course planning by educators.
The second hypothesis predicted a greater preference for instrumental courses. As Table 7 shows, a significant preference for instrumental types of learning was found and the null hypothesis of no difference according to instrumental or expressive categories can be rejected. Note, too, that the figures in parentheses reveal that actual learning involvement was in the direction of instrumental activities at a significant level. The third hypothesis called for an examination of any preference differences according to instrumental or expressive categories based on various demographic characteristics. Predicted directions were as follows based on an earlier study by the researcher (Hiemstra, 1973):
Table 8 shows the results related to the hypothesis and includes data for comparisons according to the variables "race," "social class," "living arrangement," and "marital status" for which no directions were predicted. (Additional related tables can be found in Appendix B.)
Table 8. Crossbreak Comparisons of Various Demographic Variables with Instrumental or Expressive Learning Preferencesa.
Comparison Variables |
Instrumental Number |
Instrumental Percent |
Expressive Number |
Expressive Percent |
Age: |
|
|
|
|
55-64 |
067 |
73.6 |
024 |
26.4 |
65 and older |
091 |
67.4 |
044 |
32.6 |
χ2 = 0.73; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
|
Gender: |
|
|
|
|
Female |
083 |
63.4 |
048 |
36.6 |
Male |
075 |
78.9 |
020 |
21.1 |
χ2 = 5.64; Sig. = < .01 |
|
|
|
|
Occupation:b |
|
|
|
|
Blue Collar |
085 |
70.2 |
036 |
29.8 |
White Collar |
072 |
69.2 |
032 |
30.8 |
χ2 = 0.00; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
|
Location:c |
|
|
|
|
Urban |
082 |
62.6 |
049 |
37.4 |
Rural |
076 |
80.0 |
019 |
20.0 |
χ2 = 7.12; Sig. = < .005 |
|
|
|
|
Education:d |
|
|
|
|
Less than College Grad. |
129 |
72.1 |
050 |
27.9 |
College Graduate |
028 |
60.9 |
018 |
39.1 |
χ2 = 1.68; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
|
Race: |
|
|
|
|
White American |
133 |
66.8 |
066 |
33.2 |
Othere |
025 |
92.6 |
002 |
07.4 |
χ2 = 6.32; Sig. = < .02f |
|
|
|
|
Social Class:g |
|
|
|
|
Upper |
006 |
42.9 |
008 |
51.1 |
Upper Middle |
069 |
68.3 |
032 |
31.7 |
Lower Middle |
077 |
77.0 |
023 |
23.0 |
Lower |
006 |
54.5 |
005 |
45.5 |
χ2 = 0.03; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
|
Living Arrangement: |
|
|
|
|
Home/House |
121 |
71.6 |
048 |
28.4 |
Apartment |
022 |
73.3 |
008 |
26.7 |
Institution |
010 |
52.6 |
009 |
47.4 |
Otherh |
005 |
62.5 |
003 |
37.5 |
χ2 = 0.35; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
|
Marital Status: |
|
|
|
|
Married |
107 |
75.4 |
035 |
24.6 |
Widowed |
038 |
66.7 |
019 |
33.3 |
Single |
008 |
42.1 |
011 |
57.9 |
Divorced/Separated |
005 |
62.5 |
003 |
37.5 |
χ2 = 9.48; Sig. = < .05 |
|
|
|
|
aInstrumental
or expressive preferences were determined by tabulating an individual's total
number of selections or projects in each category. If the individual's total
for instrumental was larger than the total for expressive, the label of
instrumental preferences was given (vice versa for expressive preferences).
Thirty people had chosen an equal number of instrumental and expressive courses
and were not included in the computations for this table. Totals are not always
equal to 226 because of non-responses.
bHomemakers
were included within the blue collar grouping. Appendix B shows an expanded
version of the occupational classification.
cSee
Table 4, Chapter 3, for a description of the location classification.
dAppendix B shows an expanded version of the educational classification.
eOther included one Black American and 25 Mexican Americans.
fA
two tailed test for significance table was utilized for this and the next three
variables.
gSee Table 3, Chapter 3, for a discussion of this variable.
h“Other” included people living with relatives, living at a residence only temporarily, in the process of moving, or living in a convent.
The directions suggested were generally supported, although only for two variables were there significant differences. In addition, younger individuals tended to prefer instrumental courses at a greater rate than older respondents. Consequently, rejection of the null hypothesis can only be partial. Note, too, that the “race” and “marital status” characteristics showed significant differences in the comparisons and should provide some directional suggestions for future hypotheses and research.
The learning activities to be described more fully in the next section were also analyzed according to the instrumental and expressive categories. (For 20 of the projects it was impossible to determine if the classification should be instrumental or expressive. Consequently, only a base of 692 instead of 714 could be used.) In a comparison of the learning projects and the various demographic characteristics, some similar and a few differences were observed relative to the information presented above for the third hypothesis. Table 19 in Appendix B contains these findings. The primary differences was in the “race” comparison where a non-significant difference was found.
Table 20 in Appendix B contains a comparison table to Table 8 above, except that those cases where the number of instrumental preferences equaled the number of expressive preferences are included. The only difference in relation to Table 19 was the fact that a non-significant chi-square value existed for marital status.
The same information on actual learning projects was also analyzed by T-test according to the total number of projects per year. As Table 9 shows, there was only one significant difference in the test of means. White collar workers carried out more learning projects in a year than did blue collar workers. As will be seen in a later table, this can be accounted for in part by the fact that the white collar worker was more involved with professional or vocational improvement type of projects.
Table 9. T-test Comparisons of Various Demographic Variables with the Number of Instrumental or Expressive Learning Projects.
Comparison Variables |
Instrumental Numbera |
Instrumental Mean |
Instrumental St. Dev. |
Expressive Number |
Expressive Mean |
Expressive St. Dev |
Age: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
55-64 |
085 |
2.41 |
1.66 |
055 |
1.89 |
1.03 |
65 and older |
105 |
2.06 |
1.11 |
088 |
1.90 |
1.10 |
|
T value = 1.76 |
Sig. = N.S. |
|
T Value = -0.04 |
Sig. = N.S. |
|
Gender: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Female |
112 |
2.13 |
1.29 |
095 |
1.95 |
1.13 |
Male |
078 |
2.35 |
1.52 |
048 |
1.79 |
0.94 |
|
T value = -1.05 |
Sig. = N.S. |
|
T value = 0.87 |
Sig. = N.S. |
|
Occupation:b |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blue Collar |
103 |
2.01 |
1.23 |
075 |
1.83 |
1.03 |
White Collar |
086 |
2.47 |
1.54 |
067 |
1.96 |
1.12 |
|
T value = -2.26 |
Sig. = < .05 |
|
T value = -0.71 |
Sig. = N.S. |
|
Location: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urban |
106 |
2.25 |
1.43 |
090 |
1.95 |
1.09 |
Rural |
084 |
2.18 |
1.34 |
053 |
1.79 |
1.04 |
|
T value = 0.33 |
Sig. = N. S. |
|
T value = 0.89 |
Sig. = N.S. |
|
Living Arrangement: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apartment/House/Home |
167 |
2.25 |
1.40 |
122 |
1.88 |
1.07 |
Institution/Other |
023 |
2.00 |
1.28 |
021 |
2.00 |
1.14 |
|
T value = 0.85 |
Sig. = N.S. |
|
T value = -0.46 |
Sig. = N.S. |
|
Education: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
College Graduate |
044 |
2.43 |
1.76 |
035 |
2.06 |
0.91 |
Less than Coll. Grad. |
146 |
2.15 |
1.26 |
107 |
1.84 |
1.13 |
|
T value = 1.18 |
Sig. = N.S. |
|
T value = 1.15 |
Sig. = N.S. |
|
Race: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
White American |
161 |
2.20 |
1.42 |
123 |
190 |
1.08 |
Other |
029 |
2.31 |
1.23 |
020 |
1.85 |
1.04 |
|
T value = -0.44 |
Sig. = N.S. |
|
T value = 0.21 |
Sig. = N.S. |
|
Marital Status: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Married |
129 |
2.34 |
1.49 |
086 |
1.79 |
0.98 |
Not Marriedc |
061 |
1.95 |
1.10 |
057 |
2.05 |
1.19 |
|
T value = 1.82 |
Sig. = N.S. |
|
T value = 1.38 |
Sig. = N.S. |
|
Social Class: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upper/Upper Middle |
101 |
2.30 |
1.40 |
083 |
2.00 |
1.12 |
Lower/Lower Middle |
089 |
2.12 |
1.38 |
060 |
1.75 |
1.00 |
|
T value = 0.86 |
Sig. = N.S. |
|
T value = 1.40 |
Sig. = N.S. |
|
aThe figures represent the number of cases, not projects; individuals with zero projects have been excluded.
bHomemakers
were included within the blue collar classification.
cSingle
respondents were never married, widowed, divorced, or separated.
Although the information in Table 9 is not presented here necessarily in support of hypothesis 2 or 3, the findings should provide useful information for future researchers and program planners. In essence, the data trends suggest that younger people, white collar workers, males, urban residents, people living in homes or apartments, college graduates, non-whites, married people, and upper/upper middle class people are more likely to be engaged in instrumental activities. Females , urban residents, white collar workers, college graduates, non-married individuals, and upper/upper middle class people are more likely to be engaged in expressive forms of learning. Table 21 in Appendix B contains some supplemental data.
Learning Projects
Interviewers asked a variety of probing questions to help respondents recall the number of different learning projects and number of hours spent with each project. As Table 10 shows, the older people interviewed are spending a considerable amount of time each year in learning endeavors. It should be noted that 42 people choose not to or were unable to supply information relative to learning projects because of fatigue or unwillingness. Most of these individuals fell in the older and/or lower class groupings. Consequently, a base of 214 people will be utilized throughout this section.
Table 10. Older Adults’ Learning Projects: General Descriptive Informationa.
Informational Descriptionb |
Hoursc |
Projectsd |
Average Per Person Per Year |
324.56 |
3.33 |
Standard Deviation |
296.05 |
1.95 |
Median |
237.43 |
3.04 |
Range |
12-2300 |
1-9 |
55-64 |
17,900,000 |
04.5 |
65 & Over |
18,600,000 |
01.6 |
aBased on 214 individuals with one or more learning projects.
bSee Coolican (1973, p. 12) for comparable data.
cTotal number of hours = 69,456.
dTotal number of projects = 712.
In addition to actual learning activity, the interviewers
all noted that most people spent many hours each week of their life watching
television programs of an entertainment nature as opposed to an educational
nature. One obvious conclusion from this information is the fact that the
typical older person in
Tables 11 and 12 outline the number of different projects and number of hours spent in learning. Although the majority of the respondents carried out fewer than four projects and spent fewer than 300 hours in 1earning, many people are engaged in considerable learning each year. To give you a flavor of the learning activity, three examples are given:
n
One 86 year old gentleman in
n
An 81 year old
n A semi-retired 69 year old factory worker devoted over 2000 hours to research for several magazine articles he is writing. He has had several things published over the years.
Table 11. Number of Learning Projects Conducted In A Year.
Number of Projectsa |
Number of People |
Percent of Peopleb |
Accumulative Percent |
0 |
41 |
-- |
-- |
1 |
46 |
21.4 |
021.4 |
2 |
43 |
20.0 |
041.4 |
3 |
34 |
15.8 |
057.2 |
4 |
38 |
17.7 |
074.9 |
5 |
26 |
12.1 |
087.0 |
6 |
14 |
06.5 |
093.5 |
7 |
05 |
02.3 |
095.8 |
8 |
06 |
02.8 |
098.6 |
9 |
03 |
01.4 |
100.0 |
aSee
Tough (1971, p. 17) for comparable data.
bBased
on 214 individuals.
Table 12. Number of Hours Spent in Learning In A Year.
Number of Hoursa |
Number of People |
Percent of People |
Accumulative Percent |
12-99 |
37 |
17.29 |
017.29 |
100-199 |
51 |
23.83 |
041.12 |
200-299 |
38 |
17.76 |
58.88 |
300-399 |
39 |
12.55 |
72.43 |
400-499 |
19 |
08.88 |
81.31 |
500-599 |
12 |
05.61 |
86.92 |
600-699 |
09 |
04.21 |
91.13 |
700-799 |
03 |
01.40 |
92.53 |
800-899 |
05 |
02.34 |
94.87 |
900-999 |
06 |
02.80 |
97.67 |
1000-1499 |
03 |
01.40 |
99.07 |
1500-1999 |
01 |
00.47 |
99.54 |
2000-2300 |
01 |
00.47 |
100.01b |
aSee
Tough (1971, p. 18) for comparable data.
bRounding
error.
The information on learning projects was compared with
various demographic variables to ascertain a better picture of the learning activities.
Table 13 contains this information. If a composite picture is possible, the
active older learner in
Table 13. Comparisons of Learning Projects Information With Various Demographic Variables.
Comparison Variables |
No. of People |
Average No. of Projects |
Range of Projects |
Average No. of Hours |
Range of Hours |
Age: |
|
|
|
|
|
55-64 |
091 |
3.43 |
1-9 |
336.74 |
12-1675 |
65 and older |
123 |
3.26 |
1-9 |
315.54 |
20-2300 |
Community: |
|
|
|
|
|
Urban |
126 |
3.44 |
1-9 |
352.11 |
12-1675 |
Rural/Non-Town |
036 |
3.75 |
1-8 |
388.44 |
20-2300 |
Rural/Small Town |
052 |
2.72 |
1-6 |
211.30 |
12-1675 |
Gender |
|
|
|
|
|
Male |
089 |
3.19 |
1-9 |
327.65 |
20-2300 |
Female |
125 |
3.43 |
1-9 |
322.35 |
12-1675 |
Race: |
|
|
|
|
|
White American |
185 |
3.29 |
1-9 |
333.52 |
12-2300 |
Black American |
001 |
3.00 |
3 |
350.00 |
1050 |
Mexican American |
028 |
3.64 |
1-6 |
239.71 |
20-668 |
Social Class: |
|
|
|
|
|
Lower |
014 |
2.93 |
1-6 |
256.29 |
50-990 |
Lower Middle |
085 |
2.96 |
1-9 |
293.59 |
20-2300 |
Upper Middle |
101 |
3.48 |
1-9 |
307.18 |
12-1296 |
Upper |
014 |
4.64 |
2-7 |
590.86 |
212-1675 |
Living Arrangement: |
|
|
|
|
|
Apartment |
028 |
3.71 |
1-9 |
413.39 |
26-999 |
Home/House |
159 |
3.21 |
1-9 |
310.40 |
12-2300 |
Institution |
018 |
3.73 |
1-9 |
232.44 |
75-450 |
Other |
009 |
3.56 |
2-8 |
302.67 |
50-668 |
Marital Status: |
|
|
|
|
|
Married |
140 |
3.30 |
1-9 |
302.51 |
12-2300 |
Widowed |
051 |
3.18 |
1-7 |
357.83 |
35-1675 |
Single |
016 |
4.32 |
1-9 |
307.19 |
30-910 |
Divorced/Separated |
007 |
2.85 |
1-5 |
337.86 |
26-955 |
Education: |
|
|
|
|
|
Under 8th Grade |
022 |
3.22 |
1-6 |
250.55 |
50-668 |
8 – 11th Grade |
045 |
2.40 |
1-7 |
222.22 |
20-999 |
H.S. Graduate |
065 |
3.26 |
1-8 |
304.66 |
12-1675 |
Some College |
034 |
3.76 |
1-8 |
443.50 |
25-2300 |
College Graduate |
024 |
3.75 |
1-9 |
276.38 |
30-815 |
Graduate Training |
024 |
4.25 |
1-9 |
452.92 |
20-1296 |
Occupation: |
|
|
|
|
|
Highest Professional |
009 |
4.32 |
1-6 |
354.33 |
136-659 |
Lower Professional |
045 |
3.51 |
1-9 |
370.11 |
20-1296 |
Admin. Personnel |
014 |
4.57 |
1-9 |
388.14 |
45-945 |
Homemaker |
066 |
3.21 |
1-8 |
302.03 |
20-1675 |
Clerical/Sales/Technician |
029 |
3.48 |
1-8 |
273.62 |
12-700 |
Skilled Manual |
031 |
2.81 |
1-9 |
242.59 |
20-990 |
Semi-skilled/Operative |
014 |
2.58 |
1-8 |
358.00 |
20-2300 |
Unskilled |
005 |
3.01 |
1-4 |
283.00 |
100-580 |
aSee Tough (1971, pp. 20-21) and Coolican (1973, p. 12) for comparable data.
Respondents were also asked to make judgements about each project they reported. They were asked about the current status of the project at the time of the interview, the reason for doing the project, the primary planner of the learning activity, the subject matter area studied, and the source of the subject matter. The resulting data are contained in Table 14.
Table 14. Learning Projects: Supportive Informationa.
Informational Description |
No. of Projectsb |
Percent of Projects |
Current Status of Projects: |
|
|
Inactive |
176 |
24.79 |
Active |
534 |
75.21 |
Reason for Doing Project: |
|
|
To Obtain Credit |
027 |
03.84 |
For a Test or Examination |
009 |
01.28 |
For Job Improvement/Acquisition |
106 |
15.08 |
Enjoyment |
485 |
68.99 |
Mixed Reasons |
076 |
10.81 |
Primary Planner of Project: |
|
|
A Group or its Leader/Instructor |
145 |
20.45 |
One Person in One-to-One Situation |
073 |
10.30 |
Material/Non-Human Resource |
028 |
03.95 |
The Learner Him or Herself |
391 |
55.15 |
Mixed (No Dominant Type of Planner) |
072 |
10.16 |
Subject Matter Area:c |
|
|
Occupational/Vocational |
115 |
16.17 |
Personal/Family |
144 |
20.25 |
Social/Civic |
067 |
09.42 |
Self-Fulfillment |
385 |
54.15 |
Source of Subject Matter: |
|
|
Group/Group Instructor |
086 |
12.11 |
Expert |
032 |
04.51 |
Books, Pamphlets, Newspapers |
222 |
31.27 |
Programmed Materials |
020 |
02.82 |
TV/Radio/Recordings |
066 |
09.30 |
Displays/Exhibits/Museums/Galleries |
008 |
01.13 |
Friend/Relative/Neighbor |
053 |
07.47 |
Mixed Sources |
223 |
31.41 |
aSee Tough (1971, pp. 86-88) and Coolican (1973, p. 12-13) for comparable data.
bProject totals for each major category are not always equal because of occasional non-responses.
cSee the definitions in Chapter 1.
Only about one-quarter of the projects were inactive, perhaps reflecting the role learning continuously plays in fulfilling needs and in satisfying interests. Nearly 70% of all the primary reasons given for undertaking a project were of a purely enjoyment nature. It also turns out that the learner himself or herself plans most of the projects, or an average of 2.14 of all projects (see Table 15).
Table 15. Frequency of Type of Primary Planners of Learning Projects.
Primary Planner of Project |
No. With At Least one Project |
Average No. With Planner |
A Group or its Leader/Instructor |
086 |
1.69 |
One Person in One-to-One Situation |
048 |
1.52 |
Material/Non-Human Resource |
022 |
1.27 |
The Learner Him or Herself |
022 |
1.27 |
Mixed (No Dominant Type) |
046 |
1.57 |
The subject matter areas studied were varied, although more than half of the projects were reported as self-fulfillment in nature (see the definitions in Chapter 1). Some comparisons of the subject matter areas with various demographic variables are shown in a later table. Table 14 also contained information as to the primary source of the subject matter information reported by respondents. Books, pamphlets, and newspapers served as the biggest single source of information. Unfortunately from the researcher’s point of view in terms of a community’s educational potential, the community and its resources were little utilized for learning needs (Hiemstra, 1972b).
Table 16 contains some comparison information on the choice of subject matter area according to various demographic characteristics. As can be seen, there was considerable difference in choice according to the various sub-categories. Younger educated people, clerical/sales/technician employees, skilled manual workers, unskilled people, and homemakers were more likely to report self fulfillment projects. The data in Table 16 were also analyzed by chi-square according to the collapsed categories utilized earlier. Every comparison was significant at the .05 level or beyond. Certainly these findings should suggest several subsequent research ideas.
Table 16. Comparison of Subject Matter Area By Various Demographic Variablesa.
Comparison Variables |
Occupational/ Vocational No. |
Occupational/ Vocational % |
Personal/ Family No. |
Personal/ Family % |
Social/ Civic No. |
Social/ Civic % |
Self-Fulfillment No. |
Self-Fulfillment % |
Age: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55-64 |
085 |
27.33 |
072 |
23.15 |
023 |
07.40 |
131 |
42.12 |
65 and older |
030 |
07.50 |
072 |
18.00 |
044 |
11.00 |
254 |
63.50 |
χ2 = 62.01; Sig. = < .001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Community: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
080 |
18.48 |
095 |
21.94 |
047 |
10.85 |
211 |
48.73 |
Rural/Non-Town |
022 |
16.42 |
025 |
18.66 |
008 |
05.97 |
079 |
58.96 |
Rural/Small Town |
013 |
09.03 |
024 |
16.67 |
012 |
08.33 |
095 |
65.97 |
χ2 = 13.60; Sig. = < .01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gender: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Male |
076 |
26.86 |
050 |
17.67 |
020 |
07.07 |
137 |
48.41 |
Female |
039 |
09.11 |
094 |
21.96 |
047 |
10.98 |
248 |
57.94 |
χ2 = 40.34; Sig. = < .01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Race: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
White American |
110 |
18.12 |
109 |
17.96 |
064 |
10.54 |
324 |
53.38 |
Black American |
000 |
00.00 |
003 |
100.00 |
000 |
00.00 |
000 |
00.00 |
Mexican American |
005 |
04.95 |
032 |
31.68 |
003 |
02.97 |
061 |
60.40 |
χ2 = 26.52; Sig. = < .001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Social Class: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower |
004 |
10.53 |
008 |
21.06 |
000 |
00.00 |
026 |
68.42 |
Lower Middle |
032 |
12.90 |
061 |
24.60 |
021 |
08.47 |
134 |
54.03 |
Upper Middle |
062 |
17.82 |
061 |
17.53 |
030 |
08.62 |
195 |
56.03 |
Upper |
017 |
22.08 |
014 |
18.18 |
016 |
20.78 |
030 |
38.96 |
χ2 = 9.93; Sig. = < .05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Living Arrangement: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apartment |
023 |
12.07 |
022 |
19.82 |
017 |
15.32 |
049 |
44.14 |
Home |
087 |
11.76 |
104 |
21.05 |
036 |
07.29 |
267 |
54.05 |
Institution |
000 |
00.00 |
008 |
11.10 |
014 |
19.18 |
051 |
69.86 |
Other |
005 |
15.15 |
010 |
30.30 |
000 |
00.00 |
018 |
54.55 |
χ2 = 14.70; Sig. = < .01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marriage Status: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Married |
085 |
18.44 |
087 |
18.87 |
026 |
05.64 |
263 |
57.05 |
Widowed |
015 |
08.98 |
043 |
25.75 |
025 |
14.97 |
084 |
50.30 |
Single |
007 |
10.94 |
008 |
12.50 |
013 |
20.31 |
036 |
56.25 |
Divorced/Separated |
008 |
42.11 |
006 |
31.58 |
003 |
15.79 |
002 |
10.53 |
χ2 = 11.64; Sig. = < .01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Education: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less than 8th Grade |
002 |
02.90 |
021 |
30.43 |
001 |
01.45 |
045 |
65.22 |
8-11th Grade |
011 |
10.00 |
020 |
18.18 |
013 |
11.82 |
066 |
60.00 |
High School Grad. |
026 |
12.68 |
043 |
20.98 |
022 |
10.73 |
114 |
55.61 |
Some College |
024 |
17.65 |
023 |
16.91 |
011 |
08.09 |
078 |
56.35 |
College Graduate |
016 |
17.98 |
019 |
21.35 |
012 |
13.48 |
042 |
47.19 |
Graduate Training |
036 |
35.64 |
018 |
17.82 |
008 |
07.92 |
039 |
38.61 |
χ2 = 26.59; Sig. = < .001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Occupation: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Highest Professional |
013 |
27.08 |
006 |
12.50 |
006 |
12.50 |
023 |
47.92 |
Lower Professional |
040 |
26.14 |
029 |
18.95 |
012 |
07.84 |
072 |
47.06 |
Administrative Pers. |
024 |
37.50 |
012 |
18.75 |
004 |
06.25 |
024 |
37.50 |
Homemaker |
009 |
04.23 |
051 |
23.94 |
022 |
10.33 |
131 |
61.50 |
Clerical/Sales/Tech. |
010 |
10.53 |
024 |
25.26 |
003 |
03.16 |
058 |
61.05 |
Skilled Manual |
009 |
27.27 |
014 |
16.28 |
011 |
12.79 |
052 |
60.47 |
Semi-Skilled/Operative |
009 |
27.27 |
044 |
12.12 |
003 |
09.09 |
017 |
51.52 |
Unskilled |
001 |
07.69 |
004 |
30.77 |
000 |
00.00 |
008 |
61.54 |
χ2 = 34.33; Sig. = < .001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aChi-square values are based on the collapsed categories as displayed in Table 9. Percentages are based on comparison variable sub-category totals.
The fourth hypothesis suggested that no significant differences would be found in the average number of learning projects or hours spent in learning according to various demographic characteristics. As Tables 17 and 18 show, the null hypothesis is supported almost totally. There are no significant differences in the number of hours spent by the population in a pursuit of learning. When the number of learning projects was examined, three significant differences emerged: The two combined upper class groups carried out more projects than the two combined lower groups; college graduates carried out more projects than non-college graduates; white collar workers carried out more learning projects than did blue collar workers.
Table 17. T-test Comparisons of Various Demographic Variables with the Number of Hours Spent Annually in Learning.
Comparison Variables |
No. in Group |
No. of Hours Mean |
No. of Hours St. Dev. |
Age: |
|
|
|
55-64 |
091 |
336.74 |
315.81 |
65 and older |
123 |
315.54 |
304.91 |
T value = 0.49; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
Community: |
|
|
|
Urban |
126 |
352.11 |
310.95 |
Rural |
088 |
285.10 |
303.68 |
T value = 1.57; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
Gender: |
|
|
|
Female |
125 |
322.35 |
296.68 |
Male |
089 |
327.65 |
327.29 |
T value = 1.12; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
Race: |
|
|
|
White American |
185 |
333.52 |
320.40 |
Other |
029 |
267.34 |
219.02 |
T value = 1.07; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
Social Class: |
|
|
|
Lower/Lower Middle |
099 |
287.21 |
314.00 |
Upper Middle/Upper |
115 |
356.70 |
302.38 |
T value = -1.64; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
Living Arrangement: |
|
|
|
Institution/Other |
027 |
255.85 |
145.30 |
Apartment/Home/House |
187 |
334.48 |
325.01 |
T value = -1.24; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
Marital Status: |
|
|
|
Married/Widowed |
191 |
318.18 |
295.77 |
Not Married |
023 |
377.48 |
407.23 |
T value = -0.87; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
Education: |
|
|
|
College Graduate |
048 |
366.73 |
298.73 |
Non-College Graduate |
165 |
312.74 |
312.68 |
T value = 1.09; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
Occupation: |
|
|
|
Blue Collar |
115 |
307.23 |
342.26 |
White Collar |
098 |
339.93 |
262.71 |
T value = -0.77; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
Table 18. T-test Comparisons of Various Demographic Variables with the Number of Annual Learning Projects.
Comparison Variables |
No. in Group |
No. of Hours Mean |
No. of Hours St. Dev. |
Age: |
|
|
|
55-64 |
091 |
3.43 |
2.10 |
65 and older |
123 |
3.26 |
1.85 |
T value = 0.61; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
Community: |
|
|
|
Urban |
126 |
3.44 |
2.01 |
Rural |
088 |
3.17 |
1.87 |
T value = 1.02; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
Gender: |
|
|
|
Female |
125 |
3.43 |
1.97 |
Male |
089 |
3.19 |
1.94 |
T value = -0.89; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
Race: |
|
|
|
White American |
185 |
3.29 |
2.04 |
Other |
029 |
3.62 |
1.32 |
T value = -0.85; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
Social Class: |
|
|
|
Lower/Lower Middle |
099 |
2.96 |
1.92 |
Upper Middle/Upper |
115 |
3.65 |
1.94 |
T value = -2.62; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
Living Arrangement: |
|
|
|
Institution/Other |
027 |
3.67 |
2.13 |
Apartment/Home/House |
187 |
3.28 |
1.93 |
T value = 0.88; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
Marital Status: |
|
|
|
Married/Widowed |
191 |
3.27 |
1.86 |
Not Married |
023 |
2.87 |
2.62 |
T value = -1,49; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
Education: |
|
|
|
College Graduate |
048 |
4.00 |
2.13 |
Non-College Graduate |
165 |
3.15 |
1.87 |
T value = 2.51; Sig. = < .02 |
|
|
|
Occupation: |
|
|
|
Blue Collar |
115 |
3.02 |
1.87 |
White Collar |
098 |
3.69 |
2.01 |
T value = -2.53; Sig. = < .02 |
|
|
|
Certainly the evidence available from this study shows that older adults are very actively involved with learning. They are a busy group, with lots of additional interests yet to be satisfied, but with seyera1 obstacles that may prevent their full participation in learning endeavors. Hopefully, this research will provide assistance to those planning and administering educational programs for the older person and stimulate some additional research.
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
The purpose of this research endeavor was to study, analyze, and describe one segment of the adult population, namely the older learner. An attempt was made to understand what older individuals are learning, how much they are learning, and the types of learning in which they would like to be involved in future years. It is anticipated that the information uncovered will assist in the future improvement of educational opportunity and programming for the older person, will assist adult and continuing educators in improving their own roles as facilitators of learning, and will generate a variety of research and writing.
An Overview
The older person is the largest minority group in the
The problem of this study was to secure a better understanding of learning interests, activities, and obstacles of the older adult. Utilizing an interview in a field setting, data were collected from 256 Nebraskans, 55 years of age and older. A fairly random sample was obtained, although the study population included more minority group individuals, higher educated people, and more urban residents than would be expected in comparison to 1970 Census data.
The obstacles to learning selected most often were as follows: "don't like to go out at night," "not enough time," "cost," "home responsibilities," and "job responsibilities." The top five course selections as an indication of learning interests included the following: "Stretching Your Retirement Dollar," "Tax Benefits for Older Americans," "Outdoor Flora," "Medical Care in the Retirement Years," and "Laws Affecting the Aged."
There was a statistically significant preference for instrumental forms of learning as opposed to expressive forms. Demographic characteristics were examined in comparison to the instrumental/expressive course choices. Significant differences revealed that males, rural residents, minority group individuals, and married people preferred instrumental type of courses more than their counterparts.
Learning activity was measured though a series of probing questions developed by Tough (1971). The average number of learning projects per person each year was 3.3; the average number of hours in learning was 324.56. "Enjoyment" was the most popular reason for undertaking the learning and the learner himself or herself most often planned the activity. The subject matter area in which most projects were concentrated was "self-fulfillment"; "books, pamphlets, and newspapers" were the most common single source of content and information.
The learning information was also compared with various demographic variables. Upper-middle and upper class individuals, college graduates, and white collar workers were involved with a significantly greater number of learning projects. However, there were no significant differences in terms of the number of total hours spent each year in learning. Appendix C contains a table showing comparisons of the data for this study with several other studies completed on learning projects.
Recommendations
General Information
The primary obstacles to learning reported in this study have supported those suggested by several authors (Goodrow, 1974; Grabowski & Mason, ca 1974; Hiemstra, 1972a). Many of the frequently cited obstacles relate to problems the elderly have in availing themselves of institutionally-sponsored programs. Often there are fewer opportunities, courses are not specially designed for the older person, and the elderly are simply unaware of educational programs in formal settings.
Recommendation No. 1: That educators find new and non-traditional means for making learning opportunities more available to the older person.
Recommendation No. 2: That some of the top ranked obstacles in this study and those noted in other writings be addressed in order that educational opportunities can be utilized by older persons as a means for more fulfilling lives.
Poor health, physical limitations, and psychological problems are also prevalent obstacles to learning for many other people (Mason, 1974). Interviewers of the older adults were asked to note on the instrument any visible or mentioned disabling health problems, such as blindness, hearing limitations, psychological disorders, heart trouble, or physical handicaps. Out of the 214 people, 13 (6%) were so identified with an average of 2.77 learning projects each. This lower average would indicate that health-related obstacles do diminish learning activity somewhat.
Recommendation No. 3: That health educators find means to make learning opportunities more available to the older person with health problems.
The entire instrumental vs. expressive notion suggests several implications. Older adults seem to be saying they would like more instrumental learning opportunities and they are actually carrying out more instrumental learning. Another implication is that economic factors related to the lifestyle of the older person may be partially responsible for the learning choices. The fact that four of the top five course selections were related to financial or legal matters lends support to the notion that inflation, fixed incomes, and other economic problems are creating new needs for instrumental knowledge and information.
Recommendation No. 4: That educators provide more instrumental learning opportunities to the older person.
Because so many of the credit and non-credit learning opportunities offered by educational institutions are the more glamorous sounding expressive courses (art, travel, music, crafts, etc.), the older person may be reluctant to take or is even unaware of instrumental courses. Perhaps, too, the title used for instrumental courses have unappealing connotations.
Recommendation No. 5: That better means for facilitating the older learner's participation in instrumental learning be discovered and utilized.
Recommendation No. 6: That the tables containing significant demographic sub-group differences in the choice of instrumental courses be studied and the information utilized in the planning of future educational programs.
Considerable learning activity is taking place among the older population, despite a variety of obstacles. Thus, the evidence of this study should help break down even more some of the myths about the declining abilities and the inactivity of the older person. As was suggested in Chapter 1, education and learning can be utilized to replace the lost roles and activities that occur with age and thereby maintain morale, productivity, and a meaning in life.
Recommendation No. 7: That scholars continue to research in and write about the potential and ability that are possible throughout life so any believers in the myths of older age can be helped to behave differently.
Although there is much learning activity in the over 54 age group, there remain many new interests unmet and challenges to be stimulated. Partial justification for such a conclusion comes from the fact that so many course choices of all types were made.
Recommendation No. 8: That the information in Tab1e 6 be utilized as a basis for future program planning and for continued efforts in the assessment of needs.
Much interest and activity exists around the
Recommendation No. 9: That educational leaders and institutions in
the
Recommendation 10: That the availability of leaning opportunity to the various demographic sub-groups shown in this study to have fewer learning projects be examined and analyzed for future program planning purposes.
The homemaker was shown in this study (see Table 13) and in the Coolican (1973) study to have relatively few learning projects compared to several other occupational classifications. The availability of time when maintaining a home and limited access to educational resources no doubt accounts for some of the differences. At the same time the homemaker made many course choices of things she would like to do if there were no limiting constraints.
Recommendation No. 11: That the educational profession study ways to make learning opportunities more available to the older homemaker.
Recommendation No. 12: That reasons for lower participation in actual learning activity by the older homemaker be examined and analyzed to assist in future program planning.
There was considerable learning activity of a self-fulfillment or personal nature. Nearly three quarters of all the reported learning projects were in the self-fulfillment or personal/family categories. In addition, a frequently cited reason for undertaking a learning project was for pure enjoyment. Call it the leisure society, changing values, or the back to earth movement, people appear to be entering a stage of personal growth and satisfaction seeking.
Recommendation No. 13: That educational program planners utilize the information in Table 14 relative to subject matter areas of actual learning for future program development. (Special attention should be given to facilitating learning of a self-fulfillment nature.)
There was little actual learning activity of a credit nature or because of some test or examination. Other related studies have reported similar findings (see Table 22 in Appendix C).
Recommendation No. 14: That educators de-emphasize credit programs, the use of testing, and other elements of traditional schooling in the administration of future programs for the older learner.
Recommendation No. 15: That educators help the older learner to accept and be made aware of more non-traditional learning opportunities in order that negative stereotypes about education can be diminished.
Considerable television watching was reported to the
interviewers. As a matter of fact, an immense problem interviewers had was
determining what was actual learning as opposed to
entertainment or recreation. One person may have watched the
"Watergate" hearings purely for entertainment reasons. Another person
may have been truly enlightened, stimulated to carry out additional reading and
study, and even spirited into an active involvement with some political campaign.
At any rate, considerable television viewing is taking place among the older
adults in the State of
Recommendation No. 16: That all aspects of the television medium continuously be studied and experimented with relative to the education of older adults.
Perhaps the clearest implication from this study is that educators must learn how to remove their institutional blinders and recognize all of the learning going on and needed outside of the institutional structure. This will require educators working in new roles, making learning opportunities available in new settings, and helping to make available more resources for learning.
Recommendation No. 17: That educators learn how to facilitate the use of entire communities and their many resources for 1earning (Hiemstra, 1972a, 1974).
The Adult and Continuing Educator
There are several findings from the data that have specific implications for the adult and continuing educator. It is hoped this study and the other available or emerging data on learning projects will be explored long and hard. Roles will need to change, the nature of adult education training programs probably will require adjustment, and ways in which program teachers interact with the learners will require examination and modification.
If a good deal of learning is going on outside the
institutionally-sponsored program, how can the adult educator successfully
intervene? Should there even be an intervention? When should any interventions
be undertaken? These are heavy philosophical and methodological questions that
must be debated at national meetings and in the field's publications.
Recommendation No. 18: That a dialogue pertaining to the role of the adult and continuing educator with learning projects be initiated by national leaders in the field.
Recommendation No. 19: That implications of the above discussion for the training of adult and continuing educators be derived, discussed in the field's pub1ications, and experimented with in graduate training programs across the country.
Several study findings raise even more specific questions: How can learning projects be facilitated? How can projects be initiated? What kinds of resources can be developed for use in learning projects? How can the self-directed learner be helped to be more efficient and any learning be accomplished more effectively? Why are so few experts chosen for assistance or so little programmed instruction used in learning projects? The answers to these questions must come from future study.
Recommendation No. 20: That the above questions be stimuli for future research, discussion, thought, experimentation, and writing by adult and continuing educators.
Methodological Considerations
There are a few methodological implications as a result of this study. Certainly the probing interview technique has some real strengths that should be considered by educators. At the same time, the researcher wonders if all kinds and amounts of learning are uncoverable with the interviewing technique as it now exists. Perhaps follow-up visits and other techniques are required.
Recommendation No. 21: That educators be trained in the use of the probing interview as a needs assessment and research tool.
Recommendation No. 22: That the system for uncovering learning by adults be continuously developed, refined, and reported
Additional Research Needs
A study of this nature would be quite incomplete if it did not give birth to some new questions and ideas. Therefore, following are several questions for other researchers to consider. Some of the questions could be considered as hypotheses to be tested and others could be utilized as bases for exploratory studies.
Conclusions
Older people can, want to, and do learn? It is hoped that this study provides a little more evidence to dispel some of the negative stereotypes about the elderly that have persisted over time. As a matter of fact, it is hoped that several stereotypes are feeling some loose and vibrating underpinnings. The minority person, the less educated individual, the blue collar workers, and the lower class person in this study were all busily engaged in many hours of learning each year.
In addition, the self-planning, independent learner is very
visible in
One final conclusion relates to the potential of the older
persons, themselves. The immense learning involvement of the study population,
their observed and reported enthusiasm to assist with the research activity,
and their keen interest in the fact that someone cared to know what they are
doing made this research project most rewarding. As the elderly are the fastest
growing minority in the
An Invitation
No research effort and corresponding analysis endeavor should end with the completion of a report. It is hoped that interested readers will be stimulated to make their own inquiries into the topic of the older adult and learning. Questions, comments, suggestions, and challenges are welcome and sought. Roger Hiemstra.
APPENDIX A
DATA COLLECTION MATERIALS AND RELATED INFORMATION
Older
Adult Learning
Interview
Protocol
The first section contains some demographic questions and information about obstacles to learning. The second section contains information about possible courses a person could take. The final section contains questions about learning projects. The beginning part is for the interviewer to help an interviewee recall or remember the various learning projects he or she was involved in during the previous 12 months. (P) refers to a probing question. Not each questions needs to be asked, but the interviewer picks and chooses those believed to help the interviewee begin to reveal what she or he has done in the past year. If, during the interview process, the interviewee appears to be unable to recall anything else, the interviewer shows or reads to him or her the information contained in "Sheet One" as a means to help with even additional recall.
The form with four identical sets of "fill in the blank" areas is used for the interviewer to begin recording the separate learning projects, courses, experiences, etc. obtained from the interviewee. Typically, most adults average more than four distinct "learning projects" each year, so two or more of these forms may be needed.
When the interviewer feels they have fairly well exhausted an individual's ability to recall learning activities (and they always need to keep alert for new ones to surface during the remainder of the interview - an interview typically lasts from 40-60 minutes, although it can be shorter in duration), they move to the next part of the interview protocol. They begin asking the questions on that part to find out more details about each separate learning experience. There are times when the protocol calls for the interviewer to use "Sheet Two" and "Sheet Three." The idea here is to determine when a learning experience qualifies as a "learning project" as defined by Tough (at least five hours within a six-month period and at least seven hours overall during the past year). Some people disagree with this particular definition, but it is one that Tough (1971) determined best represented a distinct and meaningful learning project.
The protocol also has questions that seek information about how each learning area was learned, level of current activity, a reason for undertaking the learning, who directed the learning, and the source of information (subject matter) acquired during the learning. The information is recorded on the form with four identical sets of "fill in the blank" areas.
ID ________
Community _____________________________________________
Gender __________ Race ___________ Social Class ______________ Living Arrangement ________________________________
(Introduce yourself. Say, I’m helping the Adult Education
Department of the
What is your age? ___________ Marital status? _____________________ How many years of formal education (P) ____________
Other types of training or education (P) ____________________________________________________________________________
Profession or occupation (P) ____________________________________________________________________________________
Many things stop people from taking a course of study, learning a skill, or following a topic of interest. Which of the following do you feel are important in keeping you from learning what you want to learn? I’ll read them to you and you may select as many as you would like by indicating yes or no.
____ COST
____ NOT ENOUGH TIME
____ HOME RESPONSIBILITIES
____ JOB RESPONSIBILITIES
____ AMOUNT OF TIME REQUIRED TO COMPLETE A COURSE OR PROGRAM
____ I’M TOO OLD TO BEGIN LEARNING
____ NO INFORMATION ABOUT WHERE I CAN GET WHAT I WANT
____ COURSES I WANT AREN’T SCHEDULED WHEN I CAN ATTEND
____ STRICT ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS
____ LOW GRADES IN THE PAST
____ COURSES I WANT DON’T SEEM TO BE AVAILABLE
____ TOO MUCH RED TAPE IN GETTING ENROLLED
____ I DON’T HAVE ENOUGH ENERGY AND STAMINA
____ I DON’T ENJOY STUDYING
____ COURSES OFTEN ARE NOT INTERESTING
____ NO TRANSPORTATION AVAILABLE
____ I’M TIRED OF SCHOOL AND CLASSROOMS
____ I DON’T MEET REQUIREMENTS TO BEGIN A PROGRAM
____
____ DON’T KNOW WHAT I’D LIKE TO LEARN
____ FRIENDS OR FAMILY DON’T LIKE THE IDEA OF MY TAKING COURSES
____ DON’T LIKE TO GO OUT AT NIGHT
____ MY HEALTH IS BAD
____ NO PLACE TO STUDY OR PRACTICE
____ NOT CONFIDENT OF MY ABILITY
ID ________
Suppose you had an opportunity tomorrow to enroll in an adult education course that met once a week for two hours for six consecutive weeks. By this I mean that you had the time, the finances, and the transportation to wherever the course would be offered. In which of the following courses might you be interested in enrolling. I will read them to you and you may select as many as you have an interest in by indicating yes or no.
____ ASTRONOMY: FROM MYTH TO SCIENCE
____ STRETCHING YOUR RETIREMENT DOLLAR
____ THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF
____ CONVERSATIONAL SPANISH
____ FILMS AND PHOTOGRAPHY
____ MODERN RELIGIONS
____ THREE BLACK AUTHORS
____ OUTDOOR FLORA
____ WILLS AND ESTATE PLANNING
____ NUTRITION AND THE AGING PROCESS
____ LEISURE ACTIVITIES FOR RETIREMENT YEARS
____ NATURE PHOTOGRAPHY
____ READING EFFICIENCY
____ NEW OPPORTUNITIES IN RETIREMENT
____ THE HIGH COST OF DYING
____ FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF RETIREMENT COUNSELING
____ BASICS OF LIP READING
____ MEDICAL CARE IN THE RETIREMENT YEARS
____ FUNDAMENTALS OF INVESTING
____ TOURISM AND YOUR TRAVEL DOLLAR
____ TAX BENEFITS FOR OLDER AMERICANS
____ MUSHROOM HUNTING
____ ROCK COLLECTING
____ FOOT PROBLEMS AND CARE
____ ART APPRECIATION
____ THE NATURE OF PREJUDICE
____ BEGINNING PAINTING
____ LAWS AFFECTING THE AGED
____ INTRODUCTION TO CRAFTS
____ MUSIC APPRECIATION
____ MID-WESTERN BIRDS
____ PHYSICAL FITNESS WITH FUN
Are there any other course titles or topics that you would like to add?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ID ________
Now I’m interested in listing the things you have tried to learn during the past year. When I say “learn” I don’t just mean learning the sorts of things that people learn in schools and colleges. I mean any sort of deliberate efforts at all to learn something or to learn how to do something. Perhaps you tried to get some information or knowledge – or to gain new skills or improve your old ones – or to increase your sensitivity or understanding or appreciation. Can you think of any efforts like this that you have made during the past 12 months.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(P) Try to think back over all of the past 12 months – right back to __________ of last year. I am interested in any deliberate effort you made to learn anything at all. Anything at all can be included, regardless of whether it was easy or hard, big or little, important or trivial, serious or fun, highbrow or lowbrow.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(P) It doesn’t matter when your effort started, as long-as you have spent at least a few hours at it sometime since last month or so.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(P) We want to get as complete a list as possible, because we think that people make far more attempts to learn than anyone realizes. We can include any sort of information, knowledge, skill, or understanding at all that you have tried to gain -- just as long as you spent at least a few hours at it sometime during the past 12 months.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(P) Can you recall any other efforts to learn that were related to your home or your family? Anything related to your hobbies or recreation? Your job? Your responsibilities in various organizations, or clubs, or in a church or synagogue, or on a committee, or some other responsibilities? Anything related to some teaching, writing, or research that you do outside of your job?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(P) Going back over the past 12 months, can you recall any other times that you tried to learn something by reading a book? When you read newspapers or magazines, do you read certain topics or sections because you want to remember the content? Have you tried to learn anything else from booklets, pamphlets, or brochures? From memos, letters, instructions, or plans? From technical or professional literature? From material from a library? From workbooks or programmed instruction? From an encyclopedia or other reference source?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(P) Have you learned anything at all from a medical doctor? From a lawyer? From a counselor or therapist? From a financial or tax advisor? From a social worker? From a private teacher? From a specialist or expert? From individual private lessons?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(P) Have you learned anything from documentaries or courses on television? From TV news or some other TV programs? From radio? In a theatre? Have you tried to learn from conversations? Or from asking questions: that is, have there been any topics or areas that you have tried to learn about from your friends or other people? Have you deliberately sought to learn by seeking out stimulating individuals? Have you tried to learn anything from your spouse or other relatives? From a neighbor?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(P) Perhaps you have learned something in some group or other? Perhaps in some meeting or discussion group? From attending a conference? From a retreat or weekend meeting? From an institute or short course or workshop? From a committee or staff meeting? From taking a course? From attending evening classes, or lectures, or a speech? From a correspondence course? From attending a club or group meeting?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(P) Perhaps tape recordings or phonograph records or "a language lab” helped you learn something during the past year? Have you learned in a church or synagogue? In a college, university, or school? In some community organization? In a company or factory or office? In a government program? In an exhibition, museum, or art gallery? In some vacation spot?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now I have a list of some of the things people learn (Sheet One). It may remind you of other things that you have tried to learn during the past 12 months. Take as long as you want to read each word, and to think about whether you have tried to learn something similar. (Give him or her the sheet, or read it aloud if necessary.)
OK, that gives us a fairly complete list. If you suddenly think of something else you have learned, though, please tell me.
ID ________
Now I want to find out a bit more about each of your efforts to learn. Let's begin with the first one on the list. It was your efforts to learn ____________________ . Here is a sheet that will help us learn more about your efforts and estimate the number of hours that you spent at learning this, and the number of hours spent at planning and preparing for that learning. (Hand him or her the second sheet – Sheet Two.)
(If possible, pin down and record just what the learning segments were. For example, you could ask, "How did you go about learning this? How was it learned? What did you do? Was there anything else you did to learn _______________?" Examples that you might record to help understand the total effort are: Watched an expert, listened to a record, read, practiced, attended a meeting, etc. This list of activities is primarily for your benefit in helping the person estimate his or her time accurately: We do not need the data for any specific purpose other than it might help you later determine the subject matter source. In other words, don't make any special effort to get it or to record it, but on the other hand don't discard it either.)
(Ask for a time estimate in total number of hours. If the number of hours is below 14, check two criteria. First, "within some six-month period during the past year, did you spend at least five hours at the learning itself -- that is, at the ______________ learning effort." Second, "within some six-month period or shorter period during the past year, did you spend at least seven hours altogether on the learning effort?" If both criteria are met write “yes” and proceed; if both are not met write “no” and move to the next learning project.)
(Ask them to select whether they have been active or not active.)
(Determine their reason for undertaking the project. Ask, "in any of your efforts on the learning endeavor, was credit any part of your motivation? That is, did you hope to use any of your learning efforts for academic credit -- towards some degree, certificate, diploma, or grade achievement? (Pause) Was any of your learning directed toward passing a test, examination, or course -- or toward some license or a driving test? (Pause) Or was it toward some requirement or examination or upgrading related to a job? (Pause) Or did you undertake the learning activity for your own enjoyment or self-improvement? Note: You will need to determine the primary reason.)
Now we are going to think about your learning effort and try to decide who or what was the director or leader. That is, who decided what you would learn – and how you would learn -- whenever you spent some time trying to learn? Here is a sheet explaining what I mean (Sheet Three). (If no one resource was primarily responsible --51% or more -- classify it as mixed. If he or she does not seem to understand, or if you feel doubtful about the response, ask who the particular director or leader was. If you anticipate difficulty or if the learner asks, say that we are interested in who the leader was for the past 12 months rather than earlier.)
(Finally, determine the major source of subject matter. That is, what resource provided most of the content -- a book, a pro ski instructor, a discussion group, a television broadcast, etc.)
(Repeat for each learning project, recording the appropriate data.)
That completes the interview. Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I think your efforts will help to make education more meaningful in the lives of many adults.
Some
things that people learn about!
1. A sport or game; swimming; dancing; bridge
2. Current events; public affairs; politics; peace; biography
3. Sewing; cooking; homemaking; entertaining
4. Driving a car
5. Home repairs; woodworking; home improvement project; decorating and furniture
6. A hobby or craft; collecting something; photography
7. Raising a child; discipline; infant care; a child's education
8. Nature; agriculture; birds
9. Mathematics; statistics; arithmetic
10. Speed reading; effective writing; public speaking; vocabulary; literature
11. Science; astronomy; humans in space
12. Health; physical fitness; posture; clothes; appearance
13. History; geography; travel; some region, city, or neighborhood
14. Personal finances; savings; insurance; investing; purchasing something
15. Psychology; effective relationships with people; groups; leadership; socia1 skills
16. Typing, data processing; mechanical skills
17. Some personal problem; mental health; an emotional problem; an illness or medical condition
18. Various careers; choosing an occupation; finding a job
19. Gardening; landscaping
20. Something related to a job or responsibility or decision
21. Musical instrument; singing; music appreciation
22. Professional or technical competence; sales skills; how to teach or supervise
23. Some aspect of religion; ethics; philosophy; moral behavior
24. Current changes in society; the future; problems in cities; pollution; sociology
25. Relationships with the opposite sex; manners; marriage; relationships within the family
26. Art; painting; architecture; the opera; movies; television
27. Business management; economics; business ownership
28. Sensory awareness; human potential; communication; understanding oneself; personal efficiency
29. New techniques, a new way of doing something; an innovation
30. Spanish; French; some other language
(Sheet
One)
1. We need your best guess about the total amount of time that you spent at all aspects of this particular learning effort during the past 12 months. (do this for each individual learning projects)
Please include the time you spent reading -- listening -- observing -- or learning in some other way -- if your main purpose during that activity was to gain and retain certain knowledge or skill. In other words, we will include all the time during which at least half of your total motivation was to gain certain knowledge or skill, and to retain it until at least two days later.
In addition to the time you spent at the actual learning itself, please include all the hours that you spent, during the past 12 months, at deciding about the learning, planning the learning, and preparing and arranging for it. This can include any time spent at deciding what to learn -- deciding how to learn -- deciding where to get help -- seeking advice about these decisions (from other people or from printed materials) -- traveling to some of the learning activities, such as a meeting or practice session or library -arranging appropriate conditions for learning -- choosing the right book or person for the actual learning -- obtaining that book or reaching that person.
Of course, you cannot remember exactly how many hours, so just give your best guess. If you wish, just choose the closest number from the following list:
1 3 6
10 20 30
40 50 60
70 80 90
100 120 140
160 180 or more
2. Which of these following two answers best describes this particular learning effort at the present time:
(A) NOT VERY ACTIVE -- that is, you have dropped it or completed it, or you have set it aside for a while (or you are spending much less time at it now than you were before)
OR
(B) DEFINITELY ACTIVE -- that is, you are definitely continuing this learning effort right now, and you are spending about as much time as ever at it.
(Sheet Two)
There are four different sorts of learning efforts, according to who directs them. That is, a person's efforts to learn can be classified according to who was responsible for the day-to-day planning. We have to look at who planned or decided exactly what and how the person should learn at each session. For example, who decided what the person should read or hear, or what else he or she should do in order to learn?
1. Group-Planned
Learning
In some learning projects, you may decide to attend a group and let the group (or its leader or instructor) decide what and how you learn during each session. A group may be of any size, with a minimum of five people. Examples might be lectures, study groups, workshops, small informal groups, or conferences.
2. One-to-one Learning
In some learning projects, the planning and deciding of what to learn and in what order is handled by one person, who helps the learner in a one-to-one situation. That is, there is one helper (or instructor, teacher, expert, or friend) and there is one learner. These two persons interact usually face-to-face, although it could be by telephone or by correspondence. Even if 2-4 learners were receiving individualized attention from one other person at the same time, it would be included here.
3. Material Resource Learning
In these learning projects, the major part of the detailed direction on what to learn and what to do at each session resides in some material resource, object, or nonhuman resource. A programmed instruction book, a set of tape recordings, or a series of TV programs are examples: The learner follows the programs or materials and they tell him or her what to do next.
4. Self-Planned
Learning
In other learning projects, the learner him or herself retains the major responsibility for the day-to-day planning and decision-making. He or she may get advice from various people and use a variety of materials and resources, but he retains the responsibility for deciding what activities to try next, what to read, and what skill or knowledge should be next in the sequence. Instead of turning the job of planning over to someone else, he or she makes the day-to-day decisions alone.
(Sheet Three)
ID ________
Learning project name or number ____________________________________________________________________________
How was 1t learned? ______________________________________________________________________________________
Number of hours? _______________ (criteria check – does it meet the requirements for including) _______________________
Not very active now ___________________ or Definitely active now ______________________
Reason for project ________________________________________________________________________________________
Director of learning _______________________________________________________________________________________
Source of subject matter ___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Learning project name or number ____________________________________________________________________________
How was 1t learned? ______________________________________________________________________________________
Number of hours? _______________ (criteria check – does it meet the requirements for including) _______________________
Not very active now ___________________ or Definitely active now ______________________
Reason for project ________________________________________________________________________________________
Director of learning _______________________________________________________________________________________
Source of subject matter ___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Learning project name or number ____________________________________________________________________________
How was 1t learned? ______________________________________________________________________________________
Number of hours? _______________ (criteria check – does it meet the requirements for including) _______________________
Not very active now ___________________ or Definitely active now ______________________
Reason for project ________________________________________________________________________________________
Director of learning _______________________________________________________________________________________
Source of subject matter ___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Learning project name or number ____________________________________________________________________________
How was 1t learned? ______________________________________________________________________________________
Number of hours? _______________ (criteria check – does it meet the requirements for including) _______________________
Not very active now ___________________ or Definitely active now ______________________
Reason for project ________________________________________________________________________________________
Director of learning _______________________________________________________________________________________
Source of subject matter ___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Miscellaneous Notes for
Interviewers
Do not interrupt the person’s list of learning projects in order to ask criterion questions unless it is clear that the person is far off track. Whenever there is a long pause, though, you may want to clarify the one, two, or three possible learning projects that have just been mentioned. Use all your insight and questioning skill in order to understand just what the real focus was. Try to become precise about just what the person was attempting or wanting to learn. Especially if he or she selects one of the methods or subjects from the lists, try to get him or her to their own phrase rather than ours. Record the desired knowledge and skill, the task or responsibility, the question or interest, or whatever the focus was.
Do not quarrel with the person’s decisions and data, but do sometimes make one or two attempts to check his or her understanding of the question or to clarify an answer. Record any doubts you have about the responses you obtain for later examination.
Whenever the person mentions some activity or some area of his or her life that you think might have produced other learning projects, too, ask about such possibilities.
APPENDIX B
MISCELLANEOUS TABLES OF INSTRUMENTAL AND EXPRESSIVE PREFERENCES
Table 19. Crossbreak Comparisons of Various Demographic Variables with Instrumental or Expressive Learning Projects.a
Comparison Variables |
Instrumental Number |
Instrumental Percent |
Expressive Number |
Expressive Percent |
Age: |
|
|
|
|
55-64 |
054 |
73.0 |
020 |
27.0 |
65 and older |
062 |
60.2 |
041 |
39.8 |
χ2 = 2.57; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
|
Gender: |
|
|
|
|
Female |
059 |
59.0 |
041 |
41.0 |
Male |
057 |
74.0 |
020 |
26.0 |
χ2 = 3.71; Sig. = < .05 |
|
|
|
|
Location: |
|
|
|
|
Urban |
060 |
59.4 |
041 |
40.6 |
Rural |
056 |
73.7 |
020 |
26.3 |
χ2 = 3.31; Sig. = < .05 |
|
|
|
|
Occupation: |
|
|
|
|
Blue Collar |
053 |
66.3 |
027 |
33.8 |
White Collar |
063 |
65.6 |
033 |
34.4 |
χ2 = 0.01; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
|
Education: |
|
|
|
|
College Graduate |
023 |
57.5 |
017 |
42.5 |
Less than College Grad. |
093 |
68.4 |
043 |
31.6 |
χ2 = 1.18; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
|
Race: |
|
|
|
|
White American |
100 |
65.4 |
053 |
34.6 |
Other |
016 |
66.7 |
008 |
33.3 |
χ2 = 0.01; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
|
Marital Status: |
|
|
|
|
Married |
088 |
73.9 |
031 |
26.1 |
Not Married |
028 |
48.3 |
030 |
51.7 |
χ2 = 10.27; Sig. = < .005 |
|
|
|
|
aInstrumental projects preference was determined to be when a person had carried out more instrumental projects than expressive projects (vice versa for expressive preference). In addition, 79 individuals had an equal number of instrumental and expressive learning projects and were not included in this table. There were two instances of non-response.
Table 20. Crossbreak Comparisons of Various Demographic Variables with All Instrumental (I) or Expressive (E) Learning Preferences.
Comparison Variables |
Instrumental Number |
Instrumental Percent |
Expressive Number |
Expressive Percent |
I = Ea Number |
I = E Percent |
Location: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urban |
082 |
56.6 |
049 |
33.8 |
014 |
09.7 |
Rural/Non-Town |
022 |
57.9 |
007 |
18.4 |
009 |
23.7 |
Rural/Small Town |
054 |
74.0 |
012 |
16.4 |
007 |
09.6 |
χ2 = 14.56; Sig. = < .01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gender: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Male |
075 |
71.4 |
020 |
19.0 |
010 |
09.5 |
Female |
083 |
55.0 |
048 |
31.8 |
020 |
13.2 |
χ2 = 8.58; Sig. = < .025 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Race: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
White American |
133 |
58.6 |
066 |
29.1 |
028 |
12.3 |
Other |
025 |
86.2 |
002 |
06.9 |
002 |
06.9 |
χ2 = 8.58; Sig. = < .025 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Social Class: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upper |
006 |
37.5 |
008 |
50.0 |
002 |
12.5 |
Upper Middle |
069 |
63.3 |
032 |
29.4 |
008 |
07.3 |
Lower Middle |
077 |
66.4 |
023 |
19.8 |
016 |
13.8 |
Lower |
006 |
40.0 |
005 |
33.3 |
004 |
26.7 |
χ2 = 14.07; Sig.
= < .05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Living Arrangement: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apartment |
022 |
68.8 |
008 |
25.0 |
002 |
06.3 |
Home/House |
121 |
62.7 |
048 |
24.9 |
024 |
12.4 |
Institution |
010 |
45.5 |
009 |
40.9 |
003 |
13.6 |
Other |
005 |
55.6 |
003 |
33.3 |
001 |
11.1 |
χ2 = 4.35; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
55-64 |
067 |
67.7 |
024 |
24.2 |
008 |
08.1 |
65 and Older |
091 |
58.0 |
044 |
28.0 |
022 |
14.0 |
χ2 = 3.08; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marriage Status: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Married |
107 |
66.0 |
035 |
21.6 |
020 |
12.3 |
Widowed |
038 |
58.5 |
019 |
29.2 |
008 |
12.3 |
Single |
008 |
38.1 |
011 |
52.4 |
002 |
09.5 |
Divorced/Separated |
005 |
62.5 |
003 |
37.5 |
000 |
00.0 |
χ2 = 10.90; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Education: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less than 8th Grade |
018 |
75.0 |
002 |
08.3 |
004 |
16.7 |
8-11th Grade |
038 |
61.3 |
013 |
21.0 |
011 |
17.7 |
High School Grad. |
053 |
64.6 |
021 |
25.6 |
008 |
09.8 |
Some College |
020 |
54.1 |
014 |
37.8 |
003 |
08.1 |
College Graduate |
014 |
56.0 |
010 |
40.0 |
001 |
04.0 |
Graduate Training |
014 |
56.0 |
008 |
32.0 |
003 |
12.0 |
χ2 = 13.26; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Occupation: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Highest Professional |
008 |
72.7 |
001 |
09.1 |
002 |
18.2 |
Lower Professional |
030 |
65.2 |
013 |
28.3 |
003 |
06.5 |
Administrative Pers. |
010 |
62.5 |
005 |
31.3 |
001 |
06.3 |
Homemaker |
041 |
52.6 |
023 |
29.5 |
014 |
17.9 |
Clerical/Sales/Tech. |
024 |
61.5 |
013 |
33.3 |
002 |
05.1 |
Skilled Manual |
028 |
68.3 |
011 |
26.8 |
002 |
04.9 |
Semi-Skilled/Operative |
011 |
68.8 |
001 |
06.3 |
004 |
25.0 |
Unskilled |
005 |
62.5 |
001 |
12.5 |
002 |
25.0 |
χ2 = 18.31; Sig. = N.S. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
aIn 30 cases the number of instrumental choices equaled the number of expressive choices.
Table 21. T-test Comparisons of Various Demographic Variables with the Number of Instrumental or Expressive Learning Projects.
Comparison Variables |
No. in Groupa |
Instrumental Mean |
Instrumental St. Dev. |
Expressive Mean |
Expressive St. Dev. |
Age: |
|
|
|
|
|
55-64 |
101 |
2.03 |
1.76 |
1.03 |
1.21 |
65 and older |
155 |
1.38 |
1.33 |
1.09 |
1.26 |
|
|
T value = 3.29 |
Sig. = < .01 |
T Value = -0.30 |
Sig. = N.S. |
Gender: |
|
|
|
|
|
Male |
105 |
1.58 |
1.45 |
1.23 |
1.30 |
Female |
151 |
1.74 |
1.66 |
0.82 |
1.10 |
|
|
T value = -0.85 |
Sig. = N.S. |
T value = 2.69 |
Sig. = < .01 |
Occupation:b |
|
|
|
|
|
Blue Collar |
142 |
1.46 |
1.38 |
0.96 |
1.18 |
White Collar |
113 |
1.88 |
1.71 |
1.16 |
1.29 |
|
|
T value = -2.17 |
Sig. = < .04 |
T value = -1.24 |
Sig. = N.S. |
Location: |
|
|
|
|
|
Urban |
145 |
1.64 |
1.58 |
1.21 |
1.28 |
Rural |
111 |
1.65 |
1.49 |
0.86 |
1.10 |
|
|
T value = -0.85 |
Sig. = N. S. |
T value = 2.69 |
Sig. = < .02 |
Living Arrangement: |
|
|
|
|
|
Apartment/House/Home |
225 |
1.67 |
1.56 |
1.02 |
1.22 |
Institution/Other |
031 |
1.48 |
1.41 |
1.35 |
1.33 |
|
|
T value = 0.67 |
Sig. = N.S. |
T value = -1.34 |
Sig. = N.S. |
Education: |
|
|
|
|
|
College Graduate |
050 |
2.14 |
1.83 |
1.44 |
1.22 |
Less than Coll. Grad. |
205 |
1.53 |
1.44 |
1.35 |
1.33 |
|
|
T value = 2.53 |
Sig. = < .02 |
T value = 2.49 |
Sig. = < .02 |
Race: |
|
|
|
|
|
White American |
227 |
1.56 |
1.56 |
1.03 |
1.24 |
Other |
029 |
2.31 |
1.23 |
1.28 |
1.22 |
|
|
T value = -3.00 |
Sig. = < .01 |
T value = -1.02 |
Sig. = N.S. |
Marital Status: |
|
|
|
|
|
Married |
162 |
1.86 |
1.55 |
1.32 |
1.31 |
Not Marriedc |
094 |
1.27 |
1.29 |
1.24 |
1.37 |
|
|
T value = 3.04 |
Sig. = < .01 |
T value = -1.76 |
Sig. = N.S. |
Social Class: |
|
|
|
|
|
Upper/Upper Middle |
125 |
1.86 |
1.55 |
1.32 |
1.31 |
Lower/Lower Middle |
131 |
1.44 |
1.51 |
0.80 |
1.11 |
|
|
T value = 2.16 |
Sig. = <0.02 |
T value = 3.46 |
Sig. = < .001 |
aThe number of cases is the total sample without any removal of cases with missing information
bHomemakers
were included within the blue collar classification.
cSingle
respondents were never married, widowed, divorced, or separated.
APPENDIX C
COMPARISON DATA ON LEARNING PROJECTS
Table 22. A Comparison of Summary Data from Six Research Studies on Learning Projects.
Data Description |
Tough; 1971 (N=66) |
Coolican; 1974 (N=48) |
Johns; 1973 (N=39) |
McCatty; 1973 (N=54) |
Denys; 1973 (N=40) |
Older Adults (N=214) |
Number of Learning Projects: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mean |
08.3 |
04.2 |
08.4 |
11.1 |
04.8 |
03.3 |
Median |
08.0 |
04.4 |
08.8 |
10.3 |
04.8 |
03.0 |
Range |
0-20 |
1-9 |
1-22 |
2-31 |
1-12 |
1-9 |
Percent of Participation: |
98% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
83.5% |
Number of Hours: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mean |
0816 |
0244 |
1046 |
1244 |
0430 |
0325 |
Median |
0687 |
0160 |
0558 |
1058 |
0376 |
0237 |
Range |
0-251 |
24-1012 |
31-6165 |
157-4233 |
20-1324 |
12-2300 |
Current Status of Projects: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active |
66% |
67% |
75% |
N.A. |
N.A. |
75% |
Inactive/Completed |
34% |
33% |
25% |
N.A. |
N.A. |
25% |
Learning for Credit: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit |
01% |
01% |
05% |
01% |
07% |
04% |
Non-Credit |
99% |
99% |
95% |
99% |
93% |
96% |
Planner Type: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Self-planned |
68% |
66% |
56% |
76% |
75% |
55% |
Group planned |
12% |
16% |
16% |
11% |
11% |
20% |
One-to-one |
08% |
13% |
09% |
07% |
06% |
10% |
Resource Planned |
03% |
05% |
19% |
01% |
04% |
04% |
Mixed |
09% |
00% |
00% |
05% |
03% |
10% |
Subject Matter Area: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Occupational/Vocational |
N.A. |
14% |
N.A. |
N.A. |
N.A. |
12% |
Expert |
N.A. |
15% |
N.A. |
N.A. |
N.A. |
05% |
Books, Pamphlets, Newspapers |
N.A. |
27% |
N.A. |
N.A. |
N.A. |
31% |
Programmed Materials |
N.A. |
03% |
N.A. |
N.A. |
N.A. |
03% |
TV/Radio/Recordings |
N.A. |
05% |
N.A. |
N.A. |
N.A. |
09% |
Displays/Exhibits |
N.A. |
01% |
N.A. |
N.A. |
N.A. |
01% |
Friends/Relatives |
N.A. |
23% |
N.A. |
N.A. |
N.A. |
07% |
Mixed Sources |
N.A. |
11% |
N.A. |
N.A. |
N.A. |
31% |
References
1971
White House Conference on Aging. (1973). Toward a National Policy on Aging (Volume
II, Proceedings of the Conference).
Arenberg,
D. L. & Robertson, E. A. (ca. 1974). The older
individual as a learner. In
Birren, J. E. (1964). The psychology of aging.
Chown,
S. M. (Ed.). (1972). Human
aging.
Coolican, P. M. (1973). The learning style of mothers
of young children. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation,
Coolican, P. (1974). Self-planned learning: Implications for the
future of adult education.
DeCrow, R. (ca. 1974). New learning for older Americans.
Denys,
L. (1973). The major
learning efforts of two groups of
Eklund,
L. (1968-70). Aging and the field of education. In M. W. Riley (Ed.), Aging
and society (Vol. II).
Goodrow, B. (1974). The learning needs and interests of the
elderly in Knox County, Tennessee. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation,
Grabowski,
S & Mason, W. D. (Eds.). (ca 1974). Learning for Aging.
Havighurst, R. J. (1967). Adult education and human development. Centro Social (an international issue), 14, 12.
Havighurst, R. J. (1972). Developmental tasks and
education.
Havighurst,
R. J., Neugarten, B. L., & Tobin, S. S. (1963). Disengagement and patterns of aging.
Paper presented at the meeting of the International Association of Gerontology,
Hesburgh, T. M., Miller, P. a.,
& Wharton, C. R., Jr. (1973). Patterns for lifelong learning.
Hiemstra, R. (1972a). Continuing education for the aged: A survey of needs and interests of older people. Adult Education, 12, 100-109.
Hiemstra, R. (1972b). The educative community.
Hiemstra, R. (1973). Educational planning for older adults: A survey of “expressive” vs. “instrumental” preferences. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 4, 147-156.
Hiemstra, R. (1974). Community adult education in lifelong learning. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 7(Summer), 34-44.
Hiemstra, R. & Long, R. (1974). A survey of “felt” versus “real” needs of physical therapists. Adult Education, 24, 270-279.
Johns,
W., Jr. (1973). Selected
characteristics of the learning projects pursued by practicing pharmacists.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Katz, D. (1953). Field studies. In L. Festinger & D.
Katz (Eds.), Research methods in the
behavioral sciences.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1967). Foundations of behavioral
research.
Kimmel,
D. C. (1974). Adulthood
and aging.
Kobasky,
M. G. (ca. 1974). Educational opportunities for the elderly.
In
Kogan, N. & Shelton, F. C. (1962). Images of “old people” and “people in general” in an older sample. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 100, 3-21.
Maddox, G. L. (1970). Themes and issues in sociological theories of human aging. Human Development, 13, 17-27.
Marcus, E. E. (1976). Effects of age, sex, and
socioeconomic status on adult education participants’ perception of the utility
of their participation. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation,
Mason, W. D. (1974). Aging and lifelong learning. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 7(4), 68-76.
McCatty,
C. (1973). Patters of
learning projects among professional men. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation,
McClusky, H. Y. (ca.
1974). Education for aging: The scope of the field and perspectives for the
future. In
National
Council on Aging. (1974). Seminar on programming (National Institute of Senior Centers, Airlie, Virginia, December 9-12, 1973).
Nebraska Commission on Aging (ca. 1973). Aging in
Nie,
N. H., et al. (1975). Statistical
package for the social sciences (2nd Ed.).
Oakes,
Peterson, D. A. (ca.
1974). The role of gerontology in adult education. In
Siegel,
S. (1956). Nonparametric
statistics.
Smith,
R. M., Aker, G. F., & Kidd, J. R. (Eds.). (1970). Handbook of adult education.
Tough,
A., (1971). The adult’s learning
projects: A fresh approach to theory and practice in adult learning
(Research in Education Series No. 1).
Tuckman, B. W. (1972). Conducting educational
research.
Tuckman,
J. & Lorge,
U. S. Bureau of the
Census. (1974, June). Estimates of the population of states by age,
U. S. Congress. (1973). Developments in aging: 1972 and
January-March, 1973 (Special committee on Aging).
Verner, C. (1962). A conceptual scheme for the identification
and classification of processes.
Verner, C. (1964).
Definition of terms. In G. E. Jensen, A.A. Liveright, & W. C. Hallenback, (Eds.), Adult
education: Outlines of an emerging field of university study.
Weg, R. B. (1974). Older people in the
Whatley, L. F. (1974). Expressive and instrumental educational interests of older adults as perceived by adult educators, gerontologists, and older adults. Unpublished Masters Thesis.
Wilkie, F. & Eisdorfer, C. 1971). Intelligence and blood pressure in the aged. Science, 172(986), 959-962.
Woodruff, D. S. &
Birren, J. E. (1972). Biofeedback conditioning of the EEG Alpha Rhythm in young
and old subjects. Proceedings of the 80th
Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association,
Return to Educational Gerontology, Gerontology, Aging-Related Information
Return to first page