Flores, Arlene L.2026-01-261989-03Flores, A.L.(1989).Possible factors of participant satisfaction and learning at the National Training Center of the Agricultural Training Institute, Department of Agriculture, La Trinidad, Benguet.(Unpbulished master's thesis).University of the Cordilleras, Baguio City.https://dspace.uc-bcf.edu.ph/handle/123456789/224The study tried to confirm/disconfirm the researcher’s hypothesized factors of participant satisfaction and learning. These are: (a) congruence in resource person preference between trainers and participants and (b) congruence between actual and participant-preferred trainer personality characteristics. The study covered Regions I, II, and CAR, the area coverage of the center. Four training courses, consisting of 39-44 participants each conducted during the last quarter of 1987 (when the center changed status from regional to national), two task forces consisting of four trainers each, and two sets of resource persons consisting of six members were involved in the study. Only the eight trainers and the 164 participants were respondents, however. The data gathered from the participants were: resource persons preference, trainer personality preference, satisfaction on resource person’s performance presented by their resource person’s rating, satisfactory on trainer’s performance represented by their trainer’s rating and learning increments. The data gathered from the trainers were: resource person preference and actual trainer personality characteristics. The data were gathered during the last quarter of 1987. To determine congruence, the responses of the trainers were matched with that of their respective participant groups. Task force A trainers were matched with batches 1 and 2 participants, the groups they trained together with resource person set A. Task force set B trainers were matched with batches 3 and 4 participants, the groups they trained together with resource person set B. After establishing the level of congruence between task force A and batch 1, task force B and batch 4 in terms of resource person preference and trainer personality, each level of the congruence was correlated with the satisfaction levels of the participants on the performance of their respective resource persons and trainers. The satisfaction levels were further correlated with learning increments. The statistical tools used in the study were frequency counts, averaging, percentages, Z-test, Spearman Rank Correlation aided by the Standard for Correlation. Results showed that in terms of resource person preference, task force B and batch 3 registered the highest congruence level; followed by task force B and batch 4, task force A and batch 1 and last was task force A and batch 2. In terms of satisfaction on resource person’s performance (represented by their rating), resource persons set A by batch 2 ranked first; resource person set b by batch 3 was second; resource person set A by batch 1 was third and resource person set B by batch 4 was fourth. Highest learning increment was registered by batch 3, followed by batch 4, batch 2 then batch 1. The conclusions derived from this study were the following: 1. Congruence between trainers and participants in terms of resource preference moderately affects resource person performance ratings. 2. A high resource persons rating is not a guarantee to higher learning increments. Correlation was zero. 3. Congruence between actual and participant-preferred trainer personality greatly affects trainer performance ratings. Trainers who approximated the participant-preferred trainer personality characteristics were given higher performance ratings. 4. High task force rating positively affects learning increments but only very minimally. The recommendations of the study are as follows: 1. Trainers should take into consideration the preference of the participants in choosing resource persons. 2. Resource persons ratings and learning increments registered a zero correlation. It is therefor recommended that trainers and training institutions exert more effort n finding out what factors best influence learning and inject these during training sessions. 3. Trainers should take into consideration the trainer personality preference of participants in dispensing their functions. 4. Satisfaction on trainers’ performance should not be used as the sole basis in ensuring participants’ learning since positive correlation was very minimal.en-USThesis