<%BANNER%>

Exploring Reading and Math Masteries

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024813/00001

Material Information

Title: Exploring Reading and Math Masteries Influences of Classroom and Family
Physical Description: 1 online resource (45 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Donaldson, Kristi
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: achievement, classroom, education, family, math, reading
Sociology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Sociology thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Using data from the public-use Early Childhood Longitudinal Study: Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999, Fifth Grade wave, this study looked at the influences of demographic, classroom and family characteristics on children's elementary-level mastery skills of reading and math. To examine these relationships, five hypotheses were tested using hierarchical linear modeling. Female students were found to be more likely to have higher average reading achievements than males, where the opposite occurred in mathematics. For both subjects, White respondents had higher average achievement scores than Black or Hispanic children. Parental education, household income and expected educational achievements were all positively associated with both reading and math achievement scores. Classroom size, but not teacher experience or gender composition of classroom, had a significant, positive effect with both math and reading achievement scores. Findings highlight the need for continued emphasis on education by parents, educators and the media. Limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kristi Donaldson.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Shehan, Constance L.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024813:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024813/00001

Material Information

Title: Exploring Reading and Math Masteries Influences of Classroom and Family
Physical Description: 1 online resource (45 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Donaldson, Kristi
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: achievement, classroom, education, family, math, reading
Sociology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Sociology thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Using data from the public-use Early Childhood Longitudinal Study: Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999, Fifth Grade wave, this study looked at the influences of demographic, classroom and family characteristics on children's elementary-level mastery skills of reading and math. To examine these relationships, five hypotheses were tested using hierarchical linear modeling. Female students were found to be more likely to have higher average reading achievements than males, where the opposite occurred in mathematics. For both subjects, White respondents had higher average achievement scores than Black or Hispanic children. Parental education, household income and expected educational achievements were all positively associated with both reading and math achievement scores. Classroom size, but not teacher experience or gender composition of classroom, had a significant, positive effect with both math and reading achievement scores. Findings highlight the need for continued emphasis on education by parents, educators and the media. Limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kristi Donaldson.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Shehan, Constance L.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024813:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





EXPLORING READING AND MATH MASTERIES: INFLUENCES OF CLASSROOM AND
FAMILY




















By

KRISTI LYNN DONALDSON


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2009


































2009 Kristi Lynn Donaldson

































To all of the people who have put up with my seclusion while working on this project...you
know who you are









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I thank my chair, Connie Shehan, for her support, both academically and personally,

throughout the last three years. I also thank Monika Ardelt for her attention to detail and

insistence on "doing things right," both of which have helped improve this paper. I am grateful

for Graham, who helped ease tensions by making me laugh and providing breaks away from my

work, and Becky and Jackie for being my cheerleaders now and always.

I thank my Dad for supporting me even though he does not always understand my goals or

intentions, my sister who tells me I can do anything, and my mom for giving me space when

needed and encouraging me to push forward. Finally, I thank Brewer for providing relief from

stress and always making me smile. I also appreciate all others my roommates, colleagues,

coworkers who have supported me along the way.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ......... .................................................................................................4

L IST O F T A B L E S ........... ... ........................................................ ................................. 6

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. .... ... ...............7

A B S T R A C T ...................................................................................................... . 8

CHAPTER

1 IN TR O D U C TIO N .............................................. .............. ...........................

Specific A im s........................................................ 9
B background and Significance ......................................................................... ......... ......... 10
H ypotheses....... .........................................................15

2 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ............................................................... ........ ..16

P ro c e d u re ................... ...................1...................6..........
S a m p le .............. ..... ..............................................................1 6
M e a su re s ................... ...................1...................7..........
Analysis ........................................ 19
Equations .......................................19

3 R E S U L T S ..............................................................................................2 4

4 CON CLU SION ... .................................................36

Findings .............................. ........ .......................... ......... 36
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research ........................................................39

R E F E R E N C E S ..........................................................................42

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H .................................................................................................... 45









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1. Participant characteristics, weighted (N=10,874) ...................................... ............... 22

2-2. M eans and standard deviations of centered variables ................................. ............... 23

3-1. Hierarchical linear modeling results of coefficients of between-classroom models of
fifth-grade reading achieve ent ............................................... ............................. 32

3-2. Hierarchical linear modeling results of coefficients of between-classroom models of
fifth-grade m ath achieve ent ................................................. ............................... 34










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure


2-1. Conceptual M odel............ .... ............................................................................................. 23


page









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

EXPLORING READING AND MATH MASTERIES: INFLUENCES OF CLASSROOM AND
FAMILY

By

Kristi Lynn Donaldson

August 2009

Chair: Connie Shehan
Major: Sociology

Using data from the public-use Early Childhood Longitudinal Study: Kindergarten Class of

1998-1999, Fifth Grade wave, this study looked at the influences of demographic, classroom and

family characteristics on children's elementary-level mastery skills of reading and math. To

examine these relationships, five hypotheses were tested using hierarchical linear modeling.

Female students were found to be more likely to have higher average reading achievements than

males, where the opposite occurred in mathematics. For both subjects, White respondents had

higher average achievement scores than Black or Hispanic children. Parental education,

household income and expected educational achievements were all positively associated with

both reading and math achievement scores. Classroom size, but not teacher experience or gender

composition of classroom, had a significant, positive effect with both math and reading

achievement scores. Findings highlight the need for continued emphasis on education by parents,

educators and the media. Limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Specific Aims

According to the National Center for Education Statistics in 2007, 39 percent of fourth-

grade students were proficient in their math level, and 33 percent were proficient in the reading

level. Of all math scores, Black males and females, Hispanic males and females, as well as white

females scored lower than white males. Of all reading scores, Black males and females, Hispanic

males and females, as well as white males scored lower than white females. What are some of

the causes of these observed differences in proficiencies?

Questions of achievement gaps between boys and girls have been widely covered in

mainstream media over the course of the last twenty years. Within a similar time period, there

has been an introduction of same-sex classrooms in public schools to help bridge the gap in

achievement and proficiency between boys and girls in different subjects. The idea behind these

classrooms is that boys and girls learn differently, and separating the genders will benefit

students in both achievement and confidence.

To explore these potential differences, I used data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal

Survey, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 Fifth Grade wave. Although data on same-sex

classrooms was not available in this study, there were still a number of measures that could be

used to examine the differences in children's academic achievements or proficiencies. I aimed to

study characteristics of the child's environment, including the classroom and family, to explore

differences in children's reading and math achievement scores.

The quality of education children receive may be a direct result of the resources and

opportunities afforded unto them. Children living in higher-income areas may have access to

schools and classrooms with newer technologies and greater learning resources. Not all









classrooms or family situations are equal, and looking at achievement across these categories

provided insight as to the status of our educational system, as well as highlighted areas of

concern for families and educators.

In all: how do classroom and family characteristics affect a child's math and reading

achievement scores? What are the characteristics of high-achieving students and their

environments? Are there any variations between the subjects regarding achievement and gender?

Background and Significance

In school, children learn the skills needed to make their way in the world: how to read,

write effectively, perform mathematical functions and think critically and logically. Schools,

classrooms and teachers vary depending on region, median income of a city or town, and a

variety of other factors. However, within even the same classrooms, there are variations in

achievement scores. Is this due to a lack of ability on the child's part, learning differences, life

circumstances, or a combination of factors?

Since 1980, gender differences in math scores have been researched and publicized

(Benbow and Stanley 1980; Hyde, Fennema and Lamon 1990), along with concerns of their

future implications. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, although math and

reading scores have steadily been increasing, there are still gender gaps in achievement in these

subject areas. As late as 2007, males scored higher than females on all math content, with the

exception of geometry (Lee, Grigg, and Dion 2007). Additionally, females continue to outscore

males in reading, both for literary experience and for information (Lee, Grigg, and Donahue

2007; Vilenius-Tuohimaa, Aunola, and Nurmi 2008).

However, not all studies have found support for the gendered achievement gaps in

mathematics. Ding, Song and Richardson (2006) found no significant difference in standardized

test scores between boys and girls, but did find there to be significant differences in grade point









averages. Females had higher average math GPAs than males from middle school through high

school.

Older studies have found early female advantages in math proficiency, but the advantages

dissipate as the child progresses through school (Parsons, Adler, and Meece 1984). However,

more recent work with the ECLS-K has found that boys and girls begin kindergarten with similar

math scores, but boys' math advantage appears in first grade, and increases over the course of

schooling (LoGergo, Nichols, and Chaplin 2006). At the same time, girls have higher reading

scores upon beginning kindergarten, and their achievement growth is higher than that of their

cohort males. With respect to both subjects, gender differences have been found to be less

pronounced than those in race (LoGerfo, Nichols, and Chaplin 2006).

These trends and inconsistencies continue to demonstrate a need for research into this area

of education, in order to continue to bridge the gap between male and female students and

understand if, and why these gender gaps persist. With this, knowledge, school, classroom and

family policies may be amended to aid in the improvement of child achievement in math and

reading subjects. Within this area of research, it is important to look at the larger environment of

the child, from the classroom to the home, because all factors can interact to aid or detriment a

child's achievement.

The media and government have reported and pushed for smaller classroom size

enrollments, claiming these smaller classes improve students' performance by more

individualized attention from teachers. Funkhouser (2009) somewhat supported these results, by

studying the after-effects of a California initiative to reduce elementary-level classroom sizes by

providing funding for classrooms of reduced size of 20 or less. While there was a small,

significant effect of class-size reduction on achievement, other changes, such as standardized









testing, were implemented at the same time as classroom-size reduction, so it was difficult to

determine the individual effect of class size on achievement (Funkhouser 2009). At the same

time, Nye, Hedges, and Konstantopoulos (2004) also found small classes to have a positive

relationship with student achievement, resulting in long-lasting positive academic achievement.

Again, because the relationship between classroom size and achievement was so small, results

suggest that there are other factors that play a larger role in variations in student achievements.

So with respect to classroom size, though there are literature supporting smaller classrooms and

their benefits, it may be difficult to separate these benefits from other classroom or teacher

characteristics.

Along with this, peers may also significantly affect a child's achievement. The

composition of students in a classroom, be it by gender or race, can significantly affect resulting

achievement through conformity to the hegemony (Dryler 1999). In other words, those in the

minority may adapt to characteristics of the majority, resulting in higher or lower achievement in

one subject (Dryler 1999; Hanushek, Kain, Markman, and Rivkin 2003; Ireson, Hallam, Hack,

Clark, and Plewis 2002). For example, if there is a majority of boys in a classroom who like and

excel in math, girls (minority) in the classroom might come to like math as well, and as a result,

the entire class might achieve higher in math overall. On the other hand, if the majority of the

class does not excel or make an effort in a subject area, the minority who does excel may

decrease their efforts, resulting in lower scores overall. In both situations, it all depends on what

the reference group is, and their level of commitment or enjoyment in the subject.

At the same time, distractions and social relationships within the classroom can impact

one's academic achievement. There are arguments for single-sex education for girls, citing gaps

in teachers' attentions, which tend to favor more time spent on boys and their behaviors (Sadker









and Sadker 1995), especially in asking and answering questions (Hyde, Fennema, and Lamon

1990).

When testing the effects of single-sex and coeducational Dutch classrooms, Van de gaer,

Pustjens, Van Damme, and De Munter (2004) found there to be gendered differences in

achievements. Boys' reading scores were improved by coeducational classes, with speculation

that the addition of girls aids in socializing boys to be more attentive and less accepting of

deviant or disruptive behaviors (Jackson and Smith 2000). At the same time, although no

differences were found in girls' achievements in coeducational and same-sex classrooms, Van de

gaer, et al. (2004) found there to be improvements in mathematics scores in same-sex schools.

Additionally, studies have found that when controlling for household characteristics, such as

income, parents' educational levels and the like, the differences between coeducational and

same-sex classrooms and schools are reduced (Harker 2000).

Although largely cited in context with deviance, social learning theory can also be used to

look at the primary institutions of education and family to examine their effects on a child's

educational achievement. In this theory, behavior is learned through the operant conditioning of

"groups which compromise or control [an] individual's major sources of reinforcement"

(Burgess and Akers 1966:140). According to this theory, parents who place a high value on

involvement in school, and have high academic expectations may pass on these values to their

children, resulting in higher achievement. Children observe their parents' behaviors, either

through the encouragement for higher education, stories of their educational pursuits and

outcomes, or actual observations of their parents attending school. After internalizing these

behaviors, children may begin to exhibit behaviors approved and valued by their significant

others, conditioned through social reinforcement (Kandel 1980); parents may encourage high









achievement through praise and rewards. While this paper is not a direct test of social learning

theory, it does aid in shaping the second and third hypotheses, which explore the connections

between familial achievement and goals and children's mastery levels.

Numerous studies have looked at the effects of parents' education in relation to children's

achievements. Both mothers' and fathers' education levels have been positively associated with

children's math and reading performance in school (Vilenius-Tuohimaa, et al. 2008; Hayeman

and Wolfe 1995). Along the same lines, parental educational expectations (Davis-Kean 2005;

Halle, Kurtz-Costes, and Mahoney 1997) and behaviors (Guo and Harris 2000) have been found

to have an indirect link to child outcomes. In this sense, parental expectations for high

achievements or education may have an effect on other factors, such as the amount of time

parents spend with their children reading, doing homework, or volunteering for school.

Parental involvement, at all levels of achievement, grades and ages, has been associated

with benefits to students (Crosnoe 2001). Cooper and Crosnoe (2007) found that in economically

disadvantaged families, parental involvement and children's academic achievement were

positively associated. However, for nondisadvantaged families, parental involvement and

children's achievement had a negative association. Cooper and Crosnoe (2007) reasoned that

parents of children who are not performing well academically may be required to spend more

time involved in school, attending teacher conferences, in order to increase their child's

academic achievement and orientation. At the same time, if the child begins to do well

academically, the parent may become less involved. Muller (1998) was one of the first to look at

gender differences in academic achievement relating to parental involvement. She found that

parental involvement may aid in decreasing gender differences, because when it is controlled for,

the gap in test scores between boys and girls increases.









Hypotheses


Based on the literature review, the following hypotheses were formulated for this project:

* Hla: Gender will have a significant association with academic achievement scores of both
reading and math subjects.

* Hlb: Males are expected to be more likely to achieve higher achievement scores in math,
compared to females.

* H1c: Females are expected to be more likely to achieve higher achievement scores in
reading, compared to males.

* H2: Parental education is expected to be positively associated with academic achievement
scores in both reading and math.

* H3: Parental involvement is expected to be positively associated with academic
achievement scores in reading and math.

* H4: The classroom gender distribution will have a significant association with academic
achievement scores of both subjects.

* H4a: Equal gender distributions in reading classrooms are expected to be positively
associated with reading scores for males.

* H4b: Male enrollment in math classrooms is expected to be positively associated with
math scores for females.

* H5: Classroom sizes are expected to be negatively associated with both reading and math
academic achievement scores.









CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Procedure

The data were taken from the public-use Early Childhood Longitudinal Study:

Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999, Fifth Grade Wave. The survey collects information from a

number of sources: from children, their families, teachers and school administrators on an

assortment of topics using a variety of methods, including: field visits, face-to-face interviews

and assessments, and mail-in and computer-assisted phone surveys. Employing multistage

probability sampling procedures, the base sample (kindergarten) was a nationally representative

sample of more than 21,000 children, enrolled in about 1,000 different kindergarten programs

during the 1998-1999 school year. Since the fifth grade wave did not add students who did not

have the opportunity to be sampled in kindergarten, and does not include students who were lost

(due to lack of parental participation, death, or the child moving out of the country), the data are

not representative of all fifth graders. Instead, this sample is representative of the cohort of

kindergartners enrolled in schools in the fall of 1998. Despite this, the data are still useful, for it

is one of the largest, comprehensive measures of education in the United States, and there are a

wide range of measures and topics of interest included.

Sample

In the public-use sample, only children with complete data files for all years of the ECLS-

K, including kindergarten and/or first grade and third grade, were eligible for the fifth-grade

wave, reducing the sample size to 11,820 potential respondents. Of those, 946 respondents did

not have complete data files (due to refusals, movers, etc.) for fifth grade, further reducing the

final sample size to 10,874 children in 4,265 reading classrooms and 2,730 math classrooms.









There was a fairly even distribution of gender, with males comprising 51.9 percent of the

weighted sample, and a majority of respondents (59 percent) were white. Table 2-1 contains

information about the demographics and corresponding percentages that characterize the sample.

Measures

Demographic variables included gender, recorded as a dummy variable Male, and race,

recorded into a number of dummy variables (using White as the reference group in analysis).

Familial or home variables are measured in two successive models. The first includes basic

demographic characteristics about the household, including: mother's age, highest educational

attainment (an ordinal variable, coded: 1 less than 8th grade, 2 9th-12th grade, 3 high

school diploma or equivalent, 4 vocational/technical program, 5 some college, 6 bachelor's

degree, 7 graduate/professional school without degree, 8 master's degree, 9 doctorate or

professional degree) and employment status recordedd to a dummy variable for employed and

not); father's age, highest educational attainment (coded same as mother's education) and

employment status recordedd to a dummy variable for employed and not); parents' marital status

(single, married (excluded in analyses), widowed, divorced, separated). Household income and

the total number of persons in the household were also used.

Other household variables included information about parental involvement in school and

expected achievements of children. An index of parental involvement (ranging from 0 to 7,

where higher scores indicate a higher level of parental involvement) included the following

items:

Parental Involvement:

1. Parent contacted the school
2. Parent attended open house
3. Parent attended a PTA meeting
4. Parent attended a parent-teacher conference
5. Parent attended a school event









6. Parent acted as a school volunteer
7. Parent participated in fundraising efforts for school

Another variable in this section was the level of schooling the parent expects the child to

achieve, an ordinal measure, with less than high school diploma the lowest (coded 1), followed

by graduating from high school (coded 2), attending two or more years from college (coded 3),

finishing a four- or five-year degree (coded 4), earning a master's degree or equivalent (coded 5),

and finishing a PhD, MD or other advanced degree as the highest (coded 6). Additionally, the

amount of time set aside each day for the child to do homework (measured in minutes) was also

included.

Classroom variables consisted of characteristics of the actual classroom, and a

characteristic of the teachers, both of which could vary, depending on if the child had a different

teacher for reading than for math. The classroom characteristics consisted of: the total number of

students and the gender composition (broken into percentage of boys in the classroom). One

variable, the number of years teaching, measured teacher characteristics.

The dependent variables were standardized scores of math and reading achievement,

measured with separate models for each subject. Students were given short proficiency exams,

and their answers were analyzed using Item Response Theory. IRT calculates the probabilities of

correct answers by examining the pattern of right, wrong and omitted questions to establish a

score for each child, estimating the probability of the child answering all questions correctly (had

the child taken the entire 185-question exam). The fifth-grade scores reflected a combination of

the proficiency exam taken during the fifth-grade wave, as well as those in earlier waves, using

the answer patterns in all waves to estimate scores. These IRT scores were then standardized

(ranging from 0 to 96) to have a mean of 50 (50.3 after weighing due to attrition) and a standard

deviation of 10.









Analysis

Since the data come from a nested data set, hierarchical linear modeling (Raudenbush and

Bryk 2002) was used to study the intersection of students within classrooms on reading and math

proficiencies and also account for similarities among the data. For example, in a classroom, each

student may have different familial backgrounds (mother's education, father's education,

income, etc.), but all have the same classroom characteristics (gender of teacher, number of

students in the classroom). This nesting needs to be taken into account when analyzing the data,

for the observations are not independent of one another violating one of the assumptions of

OLS regression.

The conceptual model (Figure 2-1) illustrates how the analyses were run. First, an

unconditional model (one without predictors) was run for each dependent variable to serve as a

baseline by which subsequent models could be evaluated (Painter 2002). Next, a model was run

with level-2 predictors to assess how classroom characteristics alone affected academic

achievement. Next, level-1 characteristics of the child and family were run, followed by level-2

characteristics of the classroom and teacher to determine how classroom characteristics influence

children's mastery levels of both subjects. The effects of all level-1 independent variables were

treated as being independent of level-2 variables (fixed effects in HLM terminology). Here, the

coefficient for the slope of each level-1 variable was an average of the effect of this variable

across all classrooms (Roberts 2004).

Equations

The following are HLM equations for each level of analysis. The first equation (2-1)

represents the unconditional multilevel models, whereby the dependent variable (of both reading

and math) associated with the ith student in the jth classroom (DVij ) is a linear combination of

the overall classroom-level mean (y00), a series of random deviations from that mean (u0j ,









normally distributed with mean 0 and between classroom variance) and a random error (rij,

normally distributed with mean 0 and within classroom variance) associated with the ith student

in the jth classroom (Singer 1998).

DVij = yOO + u0j + rij (2-1)

The next equation (2-2) represents model 2, where level-2 variables (classroom

characteristics) were modeled against the dependent variables to determine how classroom

characteristics alone affect academic achievement. Variables with a 'GM' were grand-mean

centered for analysis, meaning the explanatory variables were centered on the overall mean of

that variable (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Centering is frequently used in HLM to aid in

interpretations of results. In this equation for example, the intercept y00 represents the expected

outcome for a student who is in a classroom with a teacher of average experience (average

number of years teaching), an average number of students and an average percentage of boys. If

the variables were left in their original metric, the intercept would represent the expected

outcome for a student in a classroom where the teacher has no previous experience (since teacher

questionnaires were given toward the end of the school year instead of the beginning, no teacher

had 0 experience), without students (which is impossible a classroom then would not exist) and

without boys (which is not included in this data). See Table 2-2 for a listing of the means and

standard deviations of all centered variables. The following is the model-2 equation with level-2

variables grand-mean centered:

DVij = y00 + y01*(GM of YRSTEACHij) + y02*(GM of NUMBERKIDSij)+ y03*(GM
of PERCENTBOYSij)+ uOj + rij (2-2)

The next three models represent the level-1 equations run for analyses. In model 3, the

dependent variables were modeled as a function of gender and race (White omitted). Following

previous studies, gender and race were first examined, as they are frequently cited as potential









(and often main) predictors of academic achievement. By including these variables first, I was

able to examine how influence of gender and race might vary depending on additional predictors

included in the models. Dummy variables were not centered in the analyses due to interpretative

results; by not centering, I examined the difference in average achievement scores between males

and females, White and Black students, etc. Equation 2-3 represents the HLM analysis for

gender and race, cited frequently as potential predictors of academic achievement:

DVij = yOO + ylO*MALEij + y20*BLACKij + y30*HISPANICij + y40*ASIANij +
y50*OTHERij + uOj + rij (2-3)

In model 4, the dependent variables are modeled as a function of gender, race, mothers' &

fathers' ages, educations and employment statuses, marital status (married omitted), household

income, and the number of people living in the household (Equation 2-4). Basic demographic

characteristics of the family were added to this model to see how family characteristics affected

achievement scores and also the effects of race and gender:

DVij = yOO + ylO*MALEij + y20*BLACKij + y30*HISPANICij + y40*ASIANij +
y50*OTHERij + y60*(GM of MOMAGEij) + y70*(GM of MOMEDUCij) +
y80*(MOMEMPLOYij) + y90*(GM of DADAGEij) + ylOO*(GM of DADEDUCij) +
yl 10*(DADEMPLOYij) + yl20*(SINGLEij) + yl30*(SEPARATEDij) + yl40*(DIVORCEDij)
+ yl50*(WIDOWEDij) + yl60*(GM of INCOMEij) + yl70*(GM of NUMinHHij) + uOj + rij
(2-4)

In model 5, the dependent variables are modeled as a function of gender, race, mothers' &

fathers' ages, educations and employment statuses, marital status (married omitted), household

income, the number of people living in the household, the time spent on homework, parental

involvement and the degree expected of the child (Equation 2-5). Here, three variables

representing non-demographic family variables were added:

DVij = yOO + ylO*MALEij + y20*BLACKij + y30*HISPANICij + y40*ASIANij +
y50*OTHERij + y60*(GM of MOMAGEij) + y70*(GM of MOMEDUCij) +
y80*(MOMEMPLOYij) + y90*(GM of DADAGEij) + ylOO*(GM of DADEDUCij) +
yl 10*(DADEMPLOYij) + yl20*(SINGLEij) + yl30*(SEPARATEDij) + y140*(DIVORCEDij)









+ yl50*(WIDOWEDij) + yl60*(GM of INCOMEij) + yl70*(GM of NUMinHHij) +
yl80*(GM of HWTIMEij) + yl90*(PARENTINVOLVEij) + y200*(GM of DEGEXPECTij) +
u0j + rij (2-5)

In model 6, both the level-1 and level-2 variables were included together (Equation 2-6):

DVij = yOO + yl0*MALEij + y20*BLACKij + y30*HISPANICij + y40*ASIANij +
y50*OTHERij + y60*(GM of MOMAGEij) + y70*(GM of MOMEDUCij) +
y80*(MOMEMPLOYij) + y90*(GM of DADAGEij) + yl00*(GM of DADEDUCij) +
yl 10*(DADEMPLOYij) + yl20*(SINGLEij) + yl30*(SEPARATEDij) + yl40*(DIVORCEDij)
+ yl50*(WIDOWEDij) + yl60*(GM of INCOMEij) + yl70*(GM of NUMinHHij) +
yl80*(GM of HWTIMEij) + y190*(PARENTINVOLVEij) + y200*(GM of DEGEXPECTij) +
y01*(GM of YRSTEACHij) + y02*(GM of NUMBERKIDSij)+ y03*(GM of
PERCENTBOYSij)+ u0j + rij (2-6)

Table 2-1. Participant characteristics, weighted (N=10,874)
Demographic Valid percentage
Sex
Female 48.1
Male 51.9
Race
White 59.0
Black 15.1
Hispanic 18.7
Asian 2.6
Other 4.6
Family Income
$10,000 or less 6.8
$10,001-15,000 5.5
$15,001-20,000 6.4
$20,001-25,000 7.6
$25,001-30,000 6.8
$30,001-35,000 6.4
$35,001-40,000 7.3
$40,001-50,000 9.1
$50,001-75,000 16.9
$75,001-100,000 12.7
$100,001-200,000 11.0
$200,001 or more 3.5











Level 1 Level 2


Figure 2-1. Conceptual Model

Table 2-2. Means and standard deviations of centered variables
Variables Mean S.D.
Household Characteristics
Mother's Age 39.77 6.65
Mother's Education 4.60 1.82
Father's Age 42.34 7.27
Father's Education 4.46 2.11
Income 8.38 3.19
Number in Household 4.59 1.39
Time for Homework 37.53 41.17
Parental Involvement 4.80 1.61
Expected Education 4.03 1.05
Reading Classroom
Years Teaching 13.83 9.98
Number of Students 22.06 6.47
Percent Male 50.67 9.24
Math Classroom
Years Teaching 14.06 10.07
Number of Students 22.55 6.27
Percent Male 50.97 9.24


Outcome









CHAPTER 3
RESULTS

Results of HLM reading analyses are included in Table 3-1 and math analyses are in Table

3-2; both are broken down by model. Changes in classroom variance from model to model

decreased, indicating that the addition of each set of predictors helped to explain more and more

of the explainable variation between classrooms.

Model 1 depicts the fully unconditional models for both reading and math subjects. These

models provide a benchmark by which future models can be compared, describing how much

classrooms vary in their subject achievements. The estimated overall classroom average on

reading scores was 49.56, and the average on math scores was 49.61; both were below the

national average of 50.3 for both subjects. Intraclass coefficients, the observed variations in

achievement scores attributable to classroom-level characteristics, were significant, with 65

percent for reading and 47 percent for math. This indicated that classroom-level characteristics

account for more between-classroom differences in reading than in math classes.

Next, model 2 gives information about how classroom characteristics alone affect

academic achievement. Comparing the intercepts, or classroom, variance between model 1 and

model 2 indicated that the level-2 predictors alone explained some of the between-classroom

variance observed in the fully unconditional model (1).

About 7 percent of the between-classroom variance in reading achievement is accounted

for by the three classroom characteristics, and 6.2 percent of the explainable variation in

classroom average math achievement scores could be explained by the combination of classroom

size, teacher experience and gender composition. Finally, because there was more than one

student per classroom, there are fewer classrooms than there are students, which accounts for the

decrease in sample size between models 1 and 2.









For classrooms with average number of students, average percentage of boys and the

teacher with an average number of years teaching, the estimated overall average reading

achievement was 49.589 and the average math achievement was 49.681. For reading, the more

years teaching (y01=.075, p<.01) and more students in the classroom (y02=.319, p<.001) were

significantly associated with higher average reading achievement scores. For math, higher

classroom enrollments (y02=.271, p<.001) was significantly associated with higher average math

achievement scores. For both subjects, the number of students in the classroom had the strongest

effects on achievement scores.

Model 3 shows how demographic characteristics of gender and race affect academic

achievement. These predictors aid in reducing the between-classroom variance (from the fully

unconditional model) by 15 percent for reading and 21 percent for math. Also, the predictors

reduce the within-classroom variance by only .55 percent for reading and .40 percent for math,

indicating that very little variance within-classrooms can be explained by gender and race. The

average classroom reading achievement was 52.41, while the average classroom math

achievement was 50.60, controlling for gender and race.

In reading, male respondents (yl0=-1.17, p<.01) were found to have lower average

expected reading scores than females, by 1.17 points. Black (y20=-5.72, p<.001), Hispanic

(y30=-4.33, p<.001), Asian (y40=-2.67, p<.001) and respondents of other races (y50=-3.26,

p<.001) were found to have lower average expected reading scores than White respondents.

In math, male respondents (y10=1.59, p<.001) were found to have higher average expected

scores than females, by 1.59 points. Black (y20=-5.72, p<.001) and Hispanic (y30=-4.33,

p<.001) respondents were found to have lower average expected math scores than White









respondents. Asian (y40=.50, p>.05) and respondents of other races (y50=-2.31, p>.05) were not

significantly different from White respondents in their average expected mathematics scores.

In model 4, the average classroom reading achievement was 51.99 for white, female

students, in households with average income, average number of people, whose parents were

married, did not work, and had average educational attainments and ages. For math, the average

classroom math achievement was 50.57 for white, male students, in households with average

income, average number of people, whose parents were married, did not work, and had average

educational attainments and ages. For both subjects, mother's education had the strongest impact

on achievement scores.

In this model, about 41.5 percent of the explainable variation in between-classroom

average reading achievement scores, and 55.8 percent of variation in between-classroom average

math achievement scores could be explained by gender, race and family demographic

characteristics. At the same time, only 7.2 percent of the explainable variation within-classroom

average reading achievement scores, and 1.5 percent of variation in average math scores could be

explained by the predictors.

Additionally, the addition of family demographics reduced the between-classroom variance

by the largest amount. This indicates that family demographic characteristics account for larger

amounts of the observed between-classroom variance than demographics alone, or the

combination of child and family demographics and familial involvement, or the combination of

child and family demographics, familial involvement and classroom characteristics.

For reading scores in model 4, male respondents (y10=-1.33, p<.001) were found to have

lower average expected reading scores than females, by 1.33 points. Black (y20=-3.28, p<.001),

Hispanic (y30=-1.26, p<.05), Asian (y40=-1.41, p<.05) respondents were found to have lower









average expected reading scores than White respondents. Respondents of other races (y50=-1.19,

p>.05) were not significantly different from White respondents in their average expected reading

scores, changing from the previous model. Here, the addition of family demographics reduced

the differences between white children and those of other races.

Higher education for mothers (y70=.92, p<.001) and fathers (y100=.53, p<.001), older

fathers' age (y90=.12, p<.01), and higher household incomes (y160=.50, p<.001) were

significantly associated with higher average expected reading scores. At the same time,

household size (yl70=-.70, p<.001) was negatively, though significantly, associated with reading

scores, where for each person added to the household, the expected average reading score

decreased by .70 points. Only children whose parents were divorced (y140=-1.12, p<.05) were

found to have lower average expected reading scores than children whose parents were married.

Children whose parents were single (y120=-.37, p>.05), separated (y130=-.04, p>.05) or

widowed (yl50=-. 16, p>.05) were not significantly different than children whose parents were

married in their average expected reading scores.

For math, male respondents (y10=1.51, p<.001) were found to have higher average

expected math scores than females, by 1.51 points. Black (y20=-3.39, p<.001) respondents were

found to have lower average expected math scores than White respondents, by 3.39 points.

Hispanic (y30=-.90, p>.05), Asian (y40=1.07, p>.05) and other race (y50=-.99, p>.05)

respondents were not significantly different from White respondents in their average expected

math scores.

In this model, the difference between Hispanic and White children's achievements was

eradicated, indicating that when family demographics are equal, White and Hispanic children are

no different in their average achievement scores. Higher education for mothers (y70=.85,









p<.001) and fathers (y100=.45, p<.001), and higher household incomes (yl60=.45, p<.001) were

also associated with higher average expected math scores.

In model 5, the average classroom reading achievement was 52.18, while the average

classroom math achievement was 50.80, controlling for gender, race and family characteristics.

Additionally, 45.6 percent of the explainable variation in between-classroom average reading

achievement scores, and 60.6 percent of variation in between-classroom average math

achievement scores can be explained by gender, race and family characteristics. At the same

time, looking at within-classroom variation, 11.5 percent of the variation in reading achievement,

and 3.8 percent of the variation in math achievement could be explained by the independent

variables. This increase from the previous model indicates that differences in family

characteristics account for some of the observed within-class variation in scores. For both

subjects, the parental expectations of educational achievement had the strongest effect on

achievement scores.

For reading, male respondents (y10=-1.00, p<.01) were found to have lower average

expected reading scores than females, by 1 point. Black (y20=-3.91, p<.001), Hispanic (y30=-

2.00, p<.001), Asian (y40=-2.15, p<.001) and other race (y50=-1.84, p<.01) respondents were

found to have lower average expected reading scores than White respondents. Here, the addition

of familial involvement characteristics increased the differences between students of white and

other races, seen by the change in significance from model 4 to model 5.

Higher education for mothers (y70=.70, p<.001) and fathers (y100=.42, p<.001), older

fathers' age (y90=. 12, p<.01), and higher household incomes (y160=.42, p<.001) were again

significantly associated with higher average expected reading scores. However, children from

divorced and married families were not significantly different from one another in this model as









they were in model 4. The addition of familial involvement characteristics to the model reduced

the differences between these two groups of children, indicating that when some forms of

parental involvement are controlled for, children from divorced and married families are no

different in their achievement scores.

At the same time, household size (yl70=-.66, p<.001) was negatively associated with

reading scores, where for each person added to the household, the expected average reading

score decreased by .66 points. Additionally, parents who had higher involvement levels

(y190=.21, p<.05) and expected higher educations (y200=1.80, p< .001) for their children were

significantly associated with higher average expected reading scores.

For math, male respondents (y10=1.77, p<.001) were found to have higher average

expected math scores than females, this time by 1.77 points. Black (y20=-3.91, p<.001) and

Hispanic (y30=-1.59, p<.01) respondents were found to have lower average expected math

scores than White respondents. In looking at the change in significance from model 4 to this

model, the addition of familial involvement characteristics seems to increase the differences in

achievement between white and Hispanic students.

Asian (y40=. 14, p>.05) and other race (y50=-1.30, p>.05) respondents were not

significantly different from White respondents in their average expected math scores. Higher

education for mothers (y70=.67, p<.001) and fathers (y100=.35, p<.001), older father's age

(y90=.06, p<.05), higher household incomes (y160=.39, p<.001), and parents who expected

higher educations (y200=1.59, p<.001) were also significantly associated with higher average

expected math scores. In this model, father's age became significantly associated with

achievement scores when controlling for the three familial involvement characteristics.









Finally, for the last model, the average classroom reading achievement was 52.26, while

the average classroom math achievement was 50.88, controlling for gender, race, family

characteristics and some classroom characteristics as well. About 48.1 percent of the explainable

variation in between-classroom average reading achievement scores, and 62.2 percent of

variation in between-classroom average math achievement scores could be explained by all

predictors: gender, race, family and classroom characteristics. Finally, only 11.6 percent of the

within-classroom reading achievement variation, and 4.3 percent of the within-classroom math

achievement variation could be explained by the combination of all predictors. Similar to the last

model, the parental expectations of educational achievement had the strongest effect on

achievement scores.

In this model, the sample size decreased from 10,874 to 4,265 for reading and to 2,730 for

math. This decrease again accounted for the smaller number of classroom observations than

student observations. Here, HLM averaged the student and family characteristics for each

classroom to use for analysis.

For reading, male respondents (y10=-.94, p<.01) were found to have lower average

expected reading scores than females, by .94 points. Black (y20=-3.99, p<.001), Hispanic (y30=-

2.42, p<.001), Asian (y40=-2.41, p<.001) and other race (y50=-1.91, p<.001) respondents were

found to have lower average expected reading scores than White respondents.

Higher education for mothers (y70=.69, p<.001) and fathers (y100=.41, p<.001), older

father's age (y90=.13, p<.001), and higher household incomes (y160=.39, p<.001) were

significantly associated with higher average expected reading scores. At the same time,

household size (y170=-.65, p<.001) was negatively associated with reading scores, where with

each person added to the household, the expected average reading score decreased by .65 points.









Additionally, parents who had higher involvement levels (yl90=.20, p<.05) and expected higher

educations (y200=1.72, p< .001) for their children, and classrooms with more students (y02=.23,

p<.001) were significantly associated with higher average reading achievement scores. The

effect of teacher experience observed in model 2 was eradicated by the addition of demographic

and family demographic and involvement characteristics included in model 6.

For math, male respondents (yl0=1.81, p<.001) were found to have higher average

expected math scores than females, by 1.81 points. Black (y20=-3.94, p<.001) and Hispanic

(y30=-1.92, p<.01) respondents were found to have lower average expected math scores than

White respondents. Asian (y40=-.17, p>.05) and other race (y50=-1.36, p>.05) respondents were

not significantly different from White respondents in their average expected math scores.

Higher education for mothers (y70=.65, p<.001) and fathers (y100=.36, p<.001), older

fathers' age (y90=.07, p<.05), higher household incomes (y160=.37, p<.001), and parents who

expected higher educations (y200=1.53, p<.001), and classrooms with higher student

enrollments (y02=.21, p<.001) were also associated with higher average expected math scores.










Table 3-1. Hierarchical linear modeling results of coefficients of between-classroom models of fifth-grade reading achievement
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6


Demographic Variables
Gender (male)
Race (White)
African American
Hispanic
Asian
Other
Household Characteristics
Mother's Age
Mother's Education
Mother Employed
Father's Age
Father's Education
Father Employed
Marital Status (Married)
Single
Separated
Divorced
Widowed
Income
Number in Household
Time for Homework
Parental Involvement
Expected Education


-1.169/-0.061


-5.721 /-0.186
-4.328 / -0.177
-2.669 / -0.067
-3.255 / -0.078


-1.325/-0.069" -0.995/-0.052


-3.281 /-0.106 *
-1.261 /-0.051 *
-1.405 /-0.035 *
-1.187 /-0.029


-0.067 /-0.046
0.922 0.175
-0.126 /-0.006
0.115 /0.088
0.533 /0.118
-0.435 /-0.013


-0.372 /-0.011
-0.040 /-0.001
-1.123 / -0.038 *
-0.157 /-0.002
0.498 / 0.166
-0.699 / -0.102


-3.905/ -0.127
-2.001 /-0.082
-2.151 /-0.054
-1.835 / -0.044


-0.066 / -0.046
0.703 / 0.134"
-0.084 /-0.004
0.115 / 0.087
0.416 / 0.092
-0.541 /-0.016


-0.071 /-0.002
-0.070 / -0.001
-0.907 / -0.030
-0.377 / -0.005
0.417 / 0.139
-0.658 / -0.096
0.005 / 0.021
0.213 / 0.036*
1.795 / 0.197


-0.938 / -0.049


-3.994 / -0.130
-2.421 / -0.099
-2.407 /-0.060
-1.906 / -0.046


-0.069 / -0.048
0.686/0.131
-0.048 / -0.002
0.125 / 0.095
0.409 / 0.090 *
-0.654 / -0.019


-0.015 /-0.001
-0.035 / -0.001
-0.960 / -0.032
-0.392 / -0.005
0.390 / 0.130
-0.653 / -0.095 *
0.004 / 0.018
0.204 / 0.034*
1.717 / 0.189










Table 3-1. Continued
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6


Classroom Characteristics
Years Teaching 0.075 / 0.078
Number of Students 0.319 / 0.216 "
Percent Male -0.047 / -0.046
Intercept 49.557 49.589" 52.408
Classroom Variance 69.417 64.572 58.985
Change in Classroom Variance 4.845 10.432
Class. Proportion of Variance 0.07 0.15
Student Variance 37.734 37.771 37.528
Student Proportion of Variance -0.001 0.005
X2 21442.988' 21168.712' 18799.270'
N 10874 4265 10874
Source: Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999, Fifth Grade Wave
Unstandardized / Standardized Coefficients
* p <.05; p .01;* p<.001


51.990*
40.626
28.791
0.415
35.019
0.072
15308.517
10874


52.175*
37.794
31.623
0.456
33.411
0.115
15407.958 "
10874


0.028 / 0.029
0.230 / 0.155 *
-0.017 /-0.017
52.258 "
36.006
33.411
0.481
33.346
0.116
15103.600 "
4265










Table 3-2. Hierarchical linear modeling results of coefficients of between-classroom models of fifth-grade math achievement
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6


Demographic Variables
Gender (male)
Race (White)
African American
Hispanic
Asian
Other
Household Characteristics
Mother's Age
Mother's Education
Mother Employed
Father's Age
Father's Education
Father Employed
Marital Status (Married)
Single
Separated
Divorced
Widowed
Income
Number in Household
Time for Homework
Parental Involvement
Expected Education


1.592 / 0.085


-5.652 / -0.175
-3.290 / -0.133
0.504/ 0.013
-2.312 / 0.059


1.506 / 0.080 *


-3.391/-0.112*
-0.897 / -0.037
1.065 / 0.027
-0.990 / -0.025


-0.001 /-0.001
0.845 / 0.162 *
0.044/ 0.002
0.052/ 0.040
0.448 / 0.100 *
-0.757 /-0.023


-1.157 /-0.034
-0.383 /-0.008
-0.611 /-0.021
-1.097 /-0.014
0.446 / 0.150 *
-0.291 /-0.043


1.774 / 0.094


-3.972 / -0.123
-1.590 / -0.064
0.140 / 0.004
-1.297 / -0.033


0.006/ 0.004
0.668 / 0.128 "
0.139 / 0.007
0.058 / 0.044*
0.346 / 0.077
-0.770 / -0.023


-0.866 / -0.026
-0.131 /-0.003
-0575 / -0.020
-1.285 /-0.016
0.394 / 0.133 *
-0.251 /-0.037
-0.002 / -0.007
0.099 / 0.017
1.592 / 0.176


1.806/0.096


-3.943 / -0.122
-1.916 / -0.077
-0.172 /-0.004
-1.355 /-0.035


0.001 / 0.001
0.652 / 0.125 *
0.211 /0.010
0.066/ 0.051 *
0.361 / 0.081
-0.701 /-0.021


-0.825 / -0.025
-0.048 / -0.001
-0.568 / -0.019
-1.353 /-0.017
0.368 / 0.124 *
-0.251 /-0.037
-0.003 / -0.011
0.113 /0.019
1.532 / 0.170










Table 3-2. Continued
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6


Classroom Characteristics
Years Teaching 0.048 / 0.052
Number of Students 0.271 / 0.181 "
Percent Male 0.045 / 0.044
Intercept 49.607 49.681 50.602
Classroom Variance 45.989 43.135 36.297
Change in Classroom Variance 2.854 9.692
Class. Proportion of Variance 0.062 0.211
Student Variance 51.516 51.560 51.310
Student Proportion of Variance -0.001 0.004
X2 9193.533' 9437.227 8012.716
N 10874 2730 10874
Source: Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999, Fifth Grade Wave
Unstandardized / Standardized Coefficients
* p <.05; p .01; p<.001


50.565 "
20.352
25.637
0.557
50.725
0.015
6228.384 "
10874


50.797
18.138
27.851
0.606
49.565
0.038
6031.640 "
10874


0.004 / 0.004
0.206 / 0.137 "
0.019 / 0.019
50.875 "
17.372
28.617
0.622
49.307
0.043
6214.000 "
2730









CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION

Findings

The results support the first three hypotheses (la, b and c). Gender did have a significant

association with achievement scores of both reading and math. Supporting current research and

speculations from the field, females' average scores were higher in reading, and males' were

higher for math. In both subjects however, girls and boys achieved at or above the national

average. Though results may appear small males and females were within two points of one

another for average expected reading and math scores due to the cross-sectional analyses, it is

unknown if these differences have been decreasing or increasing since kindergarten.

Interestingly, for reading, as more predictors were added to the model, the average score

difference between males and females decreased, but increased for math scores (outside of the

addition of family characteristics). It would appear as if math classes with more heterogeneous

characteristics are more beneficial to girls' advancements, while reading classes with more

homogeneous characteristics benefit males.

The second hypothesis is supported, with parental education positively associated with

subject achievement scores. For both math and reading, both mothers' and fathers' education

levels were positively associated with average achievement scores across models 4 through 6.

This finding supports social learning theory and previous work of Vilenius-Tuohimaa et al.

(2008) and Hayeman and Wolfe (1995).

The third hypothesis was partially supported. Parental involvement had a positive,

significant effect for reading subject area (supporting Crosnoe 2001), but not for math. Future

research might look at an interaction effect with parental involvement and homework time,

gender, race, etc. For example, are parents who are more involved at school also more involved









at home? If so, there may be subject-area differences in the type of homework or interaction

between parents and children.

The fourth hypotheses (4a and 4b), relating gender composition to academic achievement,

were not supported in either subject. Interaction-level effects of gender and classroom gender

distribution might be useful in future analyses to determine the impact, if any, the combination of

child's gender and classroom composition of gender has on overall classroom achievement (and

to aid in determining the 'minority' and 'majority group (Dryler 1999)).

The last hypothesis that class size is negatively associated with reading and math

achievement scores, was not supported, contradicting the findings of Funkhouser (2009) and

Nye, Hedges, and Konstantopoulos (2004). For both subjects, larger classroom sizes were

associated with higher achievement scores. These findings could be contradictory due to the

difficulty in separating the effects of classroom size with other characteristics, such as teacher

experience, which often have interactive effects with one another (Funkhouser 2009; & Nye,

Hedges and Konstantopoulos 2004). The relationship of classroom size to student achievement

may be affected (and perhaps misleading) by not taking these interaction-level effects into

account.

Results also indicated a racial gap in academic achievement, supporting the Monitoring the

Future statistics in the Specific Aims. Across all models, Black students consistently lagged

behind their White counterparts in both reading and math scores, while Hispanic and Asian

students fell behind White counterparts in reading. Across all models, Black students scored

lower than the national average in both reading and math, highlighting the continued need for

specialized attention and resources targeted at this at-risk group. Again though, due to the cross-









sectional nature of the data, it is unknown if these differences have been increasing or decreasing

since the beginning of school.

Higher incomes were associated with higher subject achievement scores, perhaps due to

an increasing availability of resources outside of school to aid in academic advancement (Lareau

2003). At the same time, larger household sizes were associated with lower reading scores, but

had no significant effects on math scores. Familial motivation also had significant impacts on

average academic achievement scores, with high parental educational expectations associated

with high average achievement scores. In the last two models, parental educational expectations

had the strongest effects on reading and math achievements. Also, across models 4 through 6,

mother's education had stronger impacts on achievement than father's education did. This

demonstrates that continued emphasis on education is important for the future of our nation's

children, and perhaps even more so for young females.

Though there were many similarities among the predictors of high average achievement

scores for both reading and math, there were also some differences. For example, why did

household size have a negative effect on reading scores but not on math ones? Why was parental

involvement significantly associated with high reading scores but, again, not math ones? What is

it about the subject of reading, and perhaps the homework assigned for it, that is significantly

affected by these family characteristics? Math and reading are two dissimilar subjects, and there

are often different class activities, homework exercises and demonstrations in the learning of

each. Perhaps the differences in how people learn and process math and reading could account

for some of these conflicting findings between the two subjects. Additionally, the observed

differences between the subjects aid in cautioning parents and educators about "one size fits all"

policies aimed at improving achievement levels.









Furthermore, besides the second model (where the level-2 predictors explained similar

percentages), the proportion of explainable variance in between-classroom achievements was

smaller for reading than for math subjects. This suggests that predictors affect subject

achievements differently, and there are other, additional characteristics besides child and family

demographics and classroom predictors that are affecting the differences in between-classroom

reading achievement scores. Along this line, programs aimed at reading reform or improvement

should be targeted accordingly and treated differently than ones for math.

In all, results highlighted the family characteristics of high achievement in both subject

areas. In reading, being female, White, high mothers' and fathers' education, older fathers' ages,

high income, low total household number, high parental involvement and high parental

educational expectations were positively associated with high average reading achievement

scores. In math, being male, White or Asian, high mothers' and fathers' education, high income

and high educational expectations were positively associated with high average math

achievement scores.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Although there are a number of interesting variables in the ECLS-K, many of them are not

applicable for the overall scope of this research. One definite limitation of the selected variables

is that they may not provide a complete picture of the child's overall achievement in math and

reading. For example, there are no measures of child achievement, measured by the parentss.

This assessment could be useful, for it may influence a variety of home factors, like the amount

of time set aside for homework each day. Parents of children who are not yet proficient in a

particular skill or knowledge area may impose longer mandatory homework time in order to aid

the student in skill mastery.









At the same time, the selection of IRT scores for the dependent variable may have biased

classroom-level effects on students' achievement. The fifth-grade IRT scores were calculated

using the fifth-grade proficiency exams, as well as those from previous waves. These

calculations assume consistency among the students in their answering patterns i.e., answering

more questions right in one wave but not on the next might indicate (under IRT parameters) that

the child had 'guessed' at previous answers and adjust the students' scores accordingly. In this

way, the IRT calculations may average improvements in scores, and therefore reduce the effects

of teacher- or classroom-level characteristics.

Additionally, teacher and child measures of peer achievement would aid in examining the

effect of peer groups on a child's achievement (Van de gaer, et al, 2006) and what their

achievements are, relative to their peers. It would also be useful to include the teachers' gender

and race in the analysis, to see how these variables affect children's scores, perhaps depending

on the gender and race of the child. Although these two variables are asked on the ECLS-K, they

are excluded from the public-use sample and were not available for this research. Furthermore,

exploring different pedagogies or teaching styles might be useful in an attempt to understand the

differences between the two subjects how students learn them and what thought processes are

best suited for each subject area.

These results indicated that very little within-classroom variation could be explained by the

included variables. This indicates that classrooms are somewhat homogenous with respect to

student and family characteristics, and school-level effects may provide a more complete picture

of student achievement. Future studies should include school characteristics to examine student

and classroom differences between and within schools. Three-level hierarchical linear models

could be run to determine the effects of not only students clustered within schools, but









classrooms as well. Previous work has focused on this variation of achievement within and

between schools, and this added level of analysis would be useful in future studies with this, past

and future waves of the ECLS-K.

Finally, once more of these variables and levels of analysis have been examined, and we

have a more holistic understanding of what is affecting achievement, future research would want

to model change across waves. Results of this study indicated that there are significant

differences in the mastery achievements of male and female fifth-grade students, with gender,

race, income and parental education all having significant impacts on mastery levels. Modeling

change (Eccles, Adler & Meece, 1984; LoGergo, Nichols & Chaplin, 2006) could indicate if

these gaps are widening or getting smaller as children age and progress through the educational

system, and allow policy makers to better target programs of at-risk youth.









REFERENCES


Benbow, Camilla P., and Julian C. Stanley. 1980. "Sex Differences in Mathematical Ability:
Fact or Artifact?" Science 210:1262-64.

Burgess, Robert L., and Ronald L. Akers. 1966. "A Differential Association: Reinforcement
Theory of Criminal Behavior." Social Problems 14:128-47.

Cooper, Carey E., and Robert Crosnoe. 2007. "The Engagement in Schooling of Economically
Disadvantaged Parents and Children." Youth & Society 38:372-91.

Crosnoe, Robert. 2001. "Academic Orientation and Parental Involvement in Education during
High School." Sociology of Education 74:210-30.

Davis-Kean, Pamela E. 2005. "The Influence of Parent Education and Family Income on Child
Achievement: The Indirect Role of Parental Expectations and the Home Environment."
Journal of Family Psychology 19:294-3 04.

Dee, Thomas S. 2006. "The Why Chromosome." Education Next 6:69-75.

Ding, Cody S., Kim Song, and Lloyd I. Richardson. 2006. "Do Mathematical Gender
Differences Continue? A Longitudinal Study of Gender Difference and Excellence in
Mathematics Performance in the U.S." Educational Studies 40:279-95.

Dryler, Helen. 1999. "The Impact of School and Classroom Characteristics on Educational
Choices by Boys and Girls: A Multilevel Analysis." Acta Sociologica 42:300-18.

Funkhouser, Edward. 2009." The Effect of Kindergarten Classroom Size Reduction on Second
Grade Student Achievement: Evidence from California." Economics of Education Review
28:403-14.

Guo, Guang, and Kathleen M. Harris. 2000. "The Mechanisms Mediating the Effects of Poverty
on Children's Intellectual Development." Demography 37:431-47.

Halle, Tamara G., Beth Kurtz-Costes, and Joseph L. Mahoney. 1997. "Family Influences on
School Achievement in Low-Income, African American Children." Journal of Educational
Psychology 89:527-37.

Hanushek, Eric A., John F. Kain, Jacob M. Markman, and Steven G. Rivkin. 2003. "Does Peer
Ability Affect Student Achievement?" Journal ofApplied Econometrics 18:527-44.

Harker, Richard. 2000. "Achievement, Gender and the Single-Sex/Coed Debate." British Journal
of Sociology of Education 21:203-18.

Haveman, Robert, and Barbara Wolfe. 1995. "The Determinants of Children's Attainments: A
Review of Methods and Findings." Journal of Economic Literature 33:1829-78.









Hyde, Janet S., Elizabeth Fennema, and Susan J. Lamon. 1990. "Gender Differences in
Mathematics Performance: A Meta-Analysis." Psychological Bulletin 107:139-55.

Ireson, Judith, Susan Hallam, Sarah Hack, Helen Clark, and Ian Plewis. 2002. "Ability Grouping
in English Secondary Schools: Effects on Attainment in English, Mathematics and
Science." Educational Research and Evaluation 8:299-318.

Jackson, Carolyn, and Ian D. Smith. 2000. "Poles Apart? An Exploration of Single-Sex and
Mixed-Sex Educational Environments in Australia and England." Educational Studies
26:409-22.

Kandel, Denise B. 1980. "Drug and Drinking Behavior Among Youth." Annual Review of
Sociology 6:235-85.

Kowaleski-Jones, Lori, and Greg J. Duncan. 1999. "The Structure of Achievement and Behavior
across Middle Childhood." Child Development 70:930-43.

Laureau, Annette. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race and Family Life. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.

Lee, Jihyun, Wendy S. Grigg, and Gloria S. Dion. 2007. The Nation's Report Card. : [ItAlhe,1tii
2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics.

Lee, Jihyun, Wendy S. Grigg, and Patricia L. Donahue. 2007. The Nation's Report Card:
Reading 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics.

LoGerfo, Laura, Austin Nichols, and Duncan Chaplin. 2006. Gender Gaps in Math and Reading
Gains during Elementary and High School by Race and Ethnicity. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute.

Muller, Chandra. 1998. "Gender Differences in Parental Involvement and Adolescents'
Mathematics Achievement." Sociology of Education 71:336-56.

Nye, Barbara A., Larry V. Hedges, and Spyros Konstantopoulos. 2004. "Do Minorities
Experience Larger Lasting Benefits from Small Classes?" The Journal of Educational
Research 98:94-100.

O'Connell, Ann A., and D.B. McCoach (Eds). 2008. Multilevel Modeling of Educational Data.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.

Painter, John. 2002. Designing Multilevel Models Using SPSS 11.5 Mixed Model. Chapel Hill,
NC: Jordan Institute for Families.

Parsons, Jacquelynne E., Terry F. Adler, and Judith L. Meece. 1984. "Sex Differences in
Achievement: A Test of Alternative Theories." Journal ofPersonality and Social
Psychology 46:26-43.









Raudenbush, Stephan W., and Anthony S. Bryk. 1986. "A Hierarchical Model for Studying
School Effects." Sociology of Education 59:1-17.

2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Raudenbush, Stephen, Anthony Bryk, and Richard Congdon. 2005. HLM6. Lincolnwood, IL:
Scientific Software International.

Roberts, J.K. 2004. "An Introductory Primer on Multilevel and Hierarchical Linear Modeling."
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 2:30-8.

Sadker, Myra, and David Sadker. 1995. Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Singer, Judith D. 1998. "Using SAS PROC MIXED to Fit Multilevel Models, Hierarchical
Models, and Individual Growth Models." Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics
24:323-55.

Van de gaer, Eva, Heidi Pustjens, Jan Van Damme, and Agnes DeMunter. 2004. "Effects of
Single-Sex Versus Co-Educational Classes and Schools on Gender Differences in Progress
in Language and Mathematics Achievement." British Journal of Sociology of Education
25:307-22.

2006. "The Gender Gap in Language Achievement: The Role of School-Related Attitudes
of Class Groups." Sex Roles 55:397-408.

Vilenius-Tuohimaa, Piia M., Kaisa Aunola, and Jari-Erik Nurmi. 2008. "The Association
Between Mathematical Word Problems and Reading Comprehension." Educational
Psychology 28:409-26.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Kristi Lynn Donaldson was born in New Jersey but spent the majority of her childhood in

Clearwater, Florida. She graduated high school in 2001 from Palm Harbor University High

School, earning an International Baccalaureate diploma. She then attended the University of

Florida for her undergraduate work, majoring in public relations, and later, sociology. After

earning two bachelor's degrees and graduating with honors in both subjects, Kristi took a year

off from school to work and travel. In 2006, she returned to UF to begin graduate studies, and

will graduate with her M.A. in sociology in August 2009. Following graduation, Kristi will move

to Indiana to continue on to her Ph.D. studies at the University of Notre Dame, where she plans

to research educational inequalities within the Center for Research on Educational Opportunity.





PAGE 1

EXPLORING READING AND MATH MASTERIE S: INFLUENCES OF CLASSROOM AND FAMILY By KRISTI LYNN DONALDSON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009 1

PAGE 2

2009 Kristi Lynn Donaldson 2

PAGE 3

To all of the people who have put up with my seclusion while working on this projectyou know who you are 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I thank my chair, Connie Shehan, for her support, both academically and personally, throughout the last three years. I also thank Monika Ardelt for her attention to detail and insistence on doing things right, both of which have helped improve this paper. I am grateful for Graham, who helped ease tensions by making me laugh and providing breaks away from my work, and Becky and Jackie for bein g my cheerleaders now and always. I thank my Dad for supporting me even though he does not always understand my goals or intentions, my sister who tells me I can do anything, and my mom for giving me space when needed and encouraging me to push forward. Fi nally, I thank Brewer fo r providing relief from stress and always making me smile. I also apprec iate all others my roommates, colleagues, coworkers who have supported me along the way. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................6LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................7ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ ....9Specific Aims ............................................................................................................................9Background and Significance .................................................................................................10Hypotheses ..............................................................................................................................152 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ..............................................................................16Procedure ................................................................................................................................16Sample ....................................................................................................................................16Measures .................................................................................................................................17Analysis ..................................................................................................................................19Equations ................................................................................................................................193 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... ..........244 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. .....36Findings ..................................................................................................................................36Limitations and Suggesti ons for Future Research ..................................................................39REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................42BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................45 5

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1. Participant character istics, weighted (N=10,874) .................................................................222-2. Means and standard devi ations of centered variables ...........................................................233-1. Hierarchical linear modeli ng results of coefficients of between-classroom models of fifth-grade reading achievement ........................................................................................323-2. Hierarchical linear modeli ng results of coefficients of between-classroom models of fifth-grade math achievement ............................................................................................34 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1. Conceptual Model ..................................................................................................................23 7

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts EXPLORING READING AND MATH MASTERIE S: INFLUENCES OF CLASSROOM AND FAMILY By Kristi Lynn Donaldson August 2009 Chair: Connie Shehan Major: Sociology Using data from the public-use Early Childhood Longitudinal Study: Kind ergarten Class of 1998-1999, Fifth Grade wave, this study looked at the influences of demographic, classroom and family characteristics on childrens elementary-l evel mastery skills of reading and math. To examine these relationships, five hypotheses were tested using hierarchical linear modeling. Female students were found to be more likely to have higher average read ing achievements than males, where the opposite occurred in mathema tics. For both subjects, White respondents had higher average achievement scores than Black or Hispanic children. Parental education, household income and expected educational achie vements were all positively associated with both reading and math achievement scores. Classr oom size, but not teacher experience or gender composition of classroom, had a significant, positive effect with both math and reading achievement scores. Findings highlight the need for continued emphasis on education by parents, educators and the media. Limitations and sugge stions for future research are discussed.

PAGE 9

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Specific Aims According to the National Center for Educati on Statistics in 2007, 39 percent of fourthgrade students were proficient in their math level, and 33 percent were proficient in the reading level. Of all math scores, Black males and females, Hispanic males and females, as well as white females scored lower than white males. Of all reading scores, Black males and females, Hispanic males and females, as well as white males scored lower than white females. What are some of the causes of these observed differences in proficiencies? Questions of achievement gaps between boys and girls have been widely covered in mainstream media over the course of the last tw enty years. Within a similar time period, there has been an introduction of same-sex classrooms in public schools to help bridge the gap in achievement and proficiency between boys and girl s in different subjects. The idea behind these classrooms is that boys and girl s learn differently, and separa ting the genders will benefit students in both achievement and confidence. To explore these potential differences, I used data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 Fifth Grade wave. Although data on same-sex classrooms was not available in th is study, there were still a number of measures that could be used to examine the differences in childrens aca demic achievements or proficiencies. I aimed to study characteristics of the child s environment, including the cl assroom and family, to explore differences in childrens reading and math achievement scores. The quality of education children receive ma y be a direct result of the resources and opportunities afforded unto them. Children livin g in higher-income areas may have access to schools and classrooms with newer technologies and greater learni ng resources. Not all 9

PAGE 10

classrooms or family situations are equal, and looking at achievement across these categories provided insight as to the status of our educational system, as well as highlighted areas of concern for families and educators. In all: how do classroom and family characte ristics affect a childs math and reading achievement scores? What are the characteri stics of high-achieving students and their environments? Are there any variations between the subjects regarding achievement and gender? Background and Significance In school, children learn the skills needed to make their way in the world: how to read, write effectively, perform mathem atical functions and think crit ically and logically. Schools, classrooms and teachers vary depending on region, median income of a city or town, and a variety of other factors. Howeve r, within even the same classr ooms, there are variations in achievement scores. Is this due to a lack of ability on the chil ds part, learning differences, life circumstances, or a combination of factors? Since 1980, gender differences in math scores have been research ed and publicized (Benbow and Stanley 1980; Hyde, Fennema and Lamon 1990), along with concerns of their future implications. According to the National Center for Education Statis tics, although math and reading scores have steadily been increasing, there are still gender gaps in achievement in these subject areas. As late as 2007, males scored higher than females on all math content, with the exception of geometry (Lee, Grigg, and Dion 2007). Additionally, females continue to outscore males in reading, both for literary experience and for information (Lee, Grigg, and Donahue 2007; Vilenius-Tuohimaa, Aunola, and Nurmi 2008). However, not all studies have found suppor t for the gendered achievement gaps in mathematics. Ding, Song and Richardson (2006) found no significant difference in standardized test scores between boys and girls, but did find th ere to be significant differences in grade point 10

PAGE 11

averages. Females had higher average math GP As than males from middle school through high school. Older studies have found early female advantages in math proficiency, but the advantages dissipate as the child progresses through school (Parsons, Adler, and Meece 1984). However, more recent work with the ECLS-K has found that boys and girls begin kindergarten with similar math scores, but boys math advantage appears in first grade, and increa ses over the course of schooling (LoGergo, Nichols, and Chaplin 2006). At the same time, girls have higher reading scores upon beginning kindergarten, a nd their achievement growth is higher than that of their cohort males. With respect to both subjects, gender differences have been found to be less pronounced than those in race (LoGe rfo, Nichols, and Chaplin 2006). These trends and inconsistencies continue to demonstrate a need for research into this area of education, in order to con tinue to bridge the gap between male and female students and understand if, and why these gende r gaps persist. With this, knowledge, school, classroom and family policies may be amended to aid in the improvement of child ac hievement in math and reading subjects. Within this area of research, it is important to look at the larger environment of the child, from the classroom to the home, because all factors can interact to aid or detriment a childs achievement. The media and government have reported and pushed for smaller classroom size enrollments, claiming these smaller classe s improve students performance by more individualized attention from teachers. Funkhous er (2009) somewhat supported these results, by studying the after-effects of a Calif ornia initiative to reduce elemen tary-level classroom sizes by providing funding for classrooms of reduced size of 20 or less. While there was a small, significant effect of class-size reduction on achievement, other changes, such as standardized 11

PAGE 12

testing, were implemented at the same time as classroom-size reduction, so it was difficult to determine the individual effect of class si ze on achievement (Funkhouser 2009). At the same time, Nye, Hedges, and Konstantopoulos (2004) also found small classes to have a positive relationship with student achievement, resulti ng in long-lasting positive academic achievement. Again, because the relationship between classroo m size and achievement was so small, results suggest that there are other factor s that play a larger role in va riations in student achievements. So with respect to classroom size, though there are l iterature supporting sma ller classrooms and their benefits, it may be difficult to separate these benefits from other classroom or teacher characteristics. Along with this, peers may also significantly affect a childs achievement. The composition of students in a classroom, be it by ge nder or race, can significantly affect resulting achievement through conformity to the hegemony (Dryler 1999). In other words, those in the minority may adapt to characteristics of the majo rity, resulting in higher or lower achievement in one subject (Dryler 1999; Hanushek, Kain, Ma rkman, and Rivkin 2003; Ireson, Hallam, Hack, Clark, and Plewis 2002). For example, if there is a majority of boys in a classroom who like and excel in math, girls (minority) in the classroom might come to like math as well, and as a result, the entire class might achieve higher in math ove rall. On the other hand, if the majority of the class does not excel or make an effort in a subject area, the minority who does excel may decrease their efforts, resulting in lower scores ov erall. In both situations, it all depends on what the reference group is, and their level of co mmitment or enjoyment in the subject. At the same time, distractions and social re lationships within the classroom can impact ones academic achievement. There are arguments for single-sex education for girls, citing gaps in teachers attentions, which te nd to favor more time spent on boys and their behaviors (Sadker 12

PAGE 13

and Sadker 1995), especially in asking and an swering questions (Hyde, Fennema, and Lamon 1990). When testing the effects of single-sex and co educational Dutch classrooms, Van de gaer, Pustjens, Van Damme, and De Munter (2004) found there to be gendered differences in achievements. Boys reading scores were improve d by coeducational classes, with speculation that the addition of girls aids in socializing boys to be more attentive and less accepting of deviant or disruptive behaviors (Jackson a nd Smith 2000). At the same time, although no differences were found in girls achievements in coeducational a nd same-sex classrooms, Van de gaer, et al. (2004) found there to be improvements in mathematics scores in same-sex schools. Additionally, studies have found that when controlling for household characteristics, such as income, parents educational levels and the li ke, the differences between coeducational and same-sex classrooms and schools are reduced (Harker 2000). Although largely cited in context with deviance, social learning theory can also be used to look at the primary institutions of education and family to ex amine their effects on a childs educational achievement. In this theory, behavi or is learned through th e operant conditioning of groups which compromise or control [an] i ndividuals major sources of reinforcement (Burgess and Akers 1966:140). According to this theory, parents who place a high value on involvement in school, and have high academic e xpectations may pass on th ese values to their children, resulting in higher achie vement. Children observe their parents behaviors, either through the encouragement for hi gher education, stories of th eir educational pursuits and outcomes, or actual observations of their pare nts attending school. Afte r internalizing these behaviors, children may begin to exhibit behavi ors approved and valued by their significant others, conditioned through social reinforcement (Kandel 1980); parents may encourage high 13

PAGE 14

achievement through praise and rewards. While this paper is not a direct te st of social learning theory, it does aid in shaping the second and third hypotheses, which explore the connections between familial achievement and goals and childrens mastery levels. Numerous studies have looked at the effects of parents educ ation in relation to childrens achievements. Both mothers and fathers educati on levels have been positively associated with childrens math and reading performance in sc hool (Vilenius-Tuohimaa, et al. 2008; Hayeman and Wolfe 1995). Along the same lines, parental educational expectati ons (Davis-Kean 2005; Halle, Kurtz-Costes, and Mahoney 1997) and be haviors (Guo and Harris 2000) have been found to have an indirect link to child outcomes. In this sense, parental expectations for high achievements or education may have an effect on other factors, such as the amount of time parents spend with their ch ildren reading, doing homework, or volunteering for school. Parental involvement, at all levels of achie vement, grades and ages, has been associated with benefits to students (Crosnoe 2001). Coope r and Crosnoe (2007) found that in economically disadvantaged families, parental involvemen t and childrens academic achievement were positively associated. However, for nondisadvant aged families, parental involvement and childrens achievement had a negative associa tion. Cooper and Crosnoe (2007) reasoned that parents of children who are not performing well academically may be required to spend more time involved in school, attendi ng teacher conferences, in orde r to increase their childs academic achievement and orientation. At the same time, if the child begins to do well academically, the parent may become less involved. Muller (1998) was one of the first to look at gender differences in academic achievement re lating to parental invol vement. She found that parental involvement may aid in decreasing gender differences, because when it is controlled for, the gap in test scores betw een boys and girls increases. 14

PAGE 15

Hypotheses Based on the literature review, the following hy potheses were formulated for this project: H1a: Gender will have a significant association with academic achievement scores of both reading and math subjects. H1b: Males are expected to be more likely to achieve higher achievement scores in math, compared to females. H1c: Females are expected to be more likely to achieve higher achievement scores in reading, compared to males. H2: Parental education is expected to be pos itively associated with academic achievement scores in both reading and math. H3: Parental involvement is expected to be positively associated with academic achievement scores in reading and math. H4: The classroom gender distribution will have a significant association with academic achievement scores of both subjects. H4a: Equal gender distributions in reading cl assrooms are expected to be positively associated with reading scores for males. H4b: Male enrollment in math classrooms is e xpected to be positively associated with math scores for females. H5: Classroom sizes are expected to be negati vely associated with both reading and math academic achievement scores. 15

PAGE 16

CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Procedure The data were taken from the public-use Early Childhood Longitudinal Study: Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999, Fift h Grade Wave. The survey collects information from a number of sources: from children, their familie s, teachers and school administrators on an assortment of topics using a variety of methods, including: field visits, fa ce-to-face interviews and assessments, and mail-in and computer-assisted phone surveys. Employing multistage probability sampling procedures, the base sample (kindergarten) was a nationally representative sample of more than 21,000 children, enrolled in about 1,000 different kindergarten programs during the 1998-1999 school year. Since the fifth grade wave did not a dd students who did not have the opportunity to be sampled in kindergar ten, and does not include students who were lost (due to lack of parental partic ipation, death, or the child moving out of the country), the data are not representative of all fifth gr aders. Instead, this sample is re presentative of the cohort of kindergartners enrolled in schools in the fall of 1 998. Despite this, the data are still useful, for it is one of the largest, comprehensive measures of education in the United States, and there are a wide range of measures and t opics of interest included. Sample In the public-use sample, only children with co mplete data files for all years of the ECLSK, including kindergarten and/or first grade and third grade, were eligible for the fifth-grade wave, reducing the sample size to 11,820 potential respondents. Of those, 946 respondents did not have complete data files (due to refusals, movers, etc.) for fifth grade, further reducing the final sample size to 10,874 children in 4,265 read ing classrooms and 2,73 0 math classrooms. 16

PAGE 17

There was a fairly even distribution of gende r, with males comprising 51.9 percent of the weighted sample, and a majority of respondents (59 percent) were white Table 2-1 contains information about the demographics and corresponding percentages that characterize the sample. Measures Demographic variables included gender, rec oded as a dummy variable Male, and race, recoded into a number of dummy variables (usi ng White as the reference group in analysis). Familial or home variables are measured in two successive models. The first includes basic demographic characteristics about the household, including: mothers age, highest educational attainment (an ordinal variable, coded: 1 le ss than 8th grade, 2 9th-12th grade, 3 high school diploma or equivalent, 4 vocational/tech nical program, 5 some college, 6 bachelors degree, 7 graduate/professional school without de gree, 8 masters degree, 9 doctorate or professional degree) and employme nt status (recoded to a dummy variable for employed and not); fathers age, highest educational attain ment (coded same as mothers education) and employment status (recoded to a dummy variable for employed and not); parents marital status (single, married (excluded in analyses), widow ed, divorced, separated). Household income and the total number of persons in the household were also used. Other household variables included information about parental involvement in school and expected achievements of children. An index of parental involvement (ranging from 0 to 7, where higher scores indicate a higher level of parental involvement) included the following items: Parental Involvement: 1. Parent contacted the school 2. Parent attended open house 3. Parent attended a PTA meeting 4. Parent attended a parent-teacher conference 5. Parent attended a school event 17

PAGE 18

6. Parent acted as a school volunteer 7. Parent participated in fundraising efforts for school Another variable in this section was the level of schooling the parent expects the child to achieve, an ordinal measure, w ith less than high school diploma the lowest (coded 1), followed by graduating from high school (coded 2), attendi ng two or more years from college (coded 3), finishing a fouror five-year de gree (coded 4), earning a masters degree or equivalent (coded 5), and finishing a PhD, MD or other advanced de gree as the highest (coded 6). Additionally, the amount of time set aside each day for the child to do homework (measured in minutes) was also included. Classroom variables consisted of charact eristics of the actual classroom, and a characteristic of the teachers, both of which c ould vary, depending on if the child had a different teacher for reading than for math. The classroom ch aracteristics consisted of: the total number of students and the gender composition (broken into percentage of boys in the classroom). One variable, the number of years teaching, measured teacher characteristics. The dependent variables were standardized scores of math and reading achievement, measured with separate models for each subject. Students were given sh ort proficiency exams, and their answers were analyzed using Item Res ponse Theory. IRT calculate s the probabilities of correct answers by examining the pattern of ri ght, wrong and omitted questions to establish a score for each child, estimating the probability of the child answering all questions correctly (had the child taken the entire 185-question exam). The fifth-grade scores refl ected a combination of the proficiency exam taken during the fifth-grade wave, as well as those in earlier waves, using the answer patterns in all waves to estimate scor es. These IRT scores were then standardized (ranging from 0 to 96) to have a mean of 50 (50.3 after weighing due to attr ition) and a standard deviation of 10. 18

PAGE 19

Analysis Since the data come from a nested data set, hierarchical linear modeling (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002) was used to study the in tersection of students within cl assrooms on reading and math proficiencies and also account for similarities am ong the data. For example, in a classroom, each student may have different familial backgrounds (mothers education, fathers education, income, etc.), but all have the same classroom characteristics (gender of teacher, number of students in the classroom). This nesting needs to be taken into account when analyzing the data, for the observations are not independent of one another violating one of the assumptions of OLS regression. The conceptual model (Figure 2-1) illustra tes how the analyses were run. First, an unconditional model (one without predictors) was run for each depe ndent variable to serve as a baseline by which subsequent models could be evaluated (Painter 2002). Next, a model was run with level-2 predictors to assess how classr oom characteristics alone affected academic achievement. Next, level-1 characteristics of the child and family were run, followed by level-2 characteristics of the classroom and teacher to determine how classroom ch aracteristics influence childrens mastery levels of both subjects. The effects of all level-1 independent variables were treated as being independent of level-2 variable s (fixed effects in HLM terminology). Here, the coefficient for the slope of each level-1 variable was an average of the effect of this variable across all classrooms (Roberts 2004). Equations The following are HLM equations for each leve l of analysis. The first equation (2-1) represents the unconditional multilevel models, whereby the dependent variable (of both reading and math) associated with the ith student in the jth classroom (DVij ) is a linear combination of the overall classroom-level mean (y00), a series of random deviations from that mean (u0j 19

PAGE 20

normally distributed with mean 0 and between classroom variance) and a random error (rij, normally distributed with mean 0 and within clas sroom variance) associated with the ith student in the jth classroom (Singer 1998). DVij = y00 + u0j + rij (2-1) The next equation (2-2) represents mode l 2, where level-2 va riables (classroom characteristics) were modeled against the de pendent variables to determine how classroom characteristics alone affect academic achieveme nt. Variables with a GM were grand-mean centered for analysis, meaning the explanatory va riables were centered on the overall mean of that variable (Raudenbush & Br yk, 2002). Centering is frequently used in HLM to aid in interpretations of results. In this equation for ex ample, the intercept y00 re presents the expected outcome for a student who is in a classroom w ith a teacher of average experience (average number of years teaching), an average number of students and an average percentage of boys. If the variables were left in their original metr ic, the intercept would represent the expected outcome for a student in a classroom where the te acher has no previous experience (since teacher questionnaires were given toward the end of the school year instead of the beginning, no teacher had 0 experience), without students (which is impo ssible a classroom then would not exist) and without boys (which is not included in this data ). See Table 2-2 for a listing of the means and standard deviations of all centered variables. The following is the model-2 equation with level-2 variables grand-mean centered: DVij = y00 + y01*(GM of YRSTEACHij) + y02*(GM of NUMBERKIDSij)+ y03*(GM of PERCENTBOYSij)+ u0j + rij (2-2) The next three models represent the level-1 equations run for analyses. In model 3, the dependent variables were modeled as a functi on of gender and race (White omitted). Following previous studies, gender and race were first examin ed, as they are frequently cited as potential 20

PAGE 21

(and often main) predictors of academic achieveme nt. By including these variables first, I was able to examine how influence of gender and race might vary de pending on additional predictors included in the models. Dummy variables were not centered in the analyses due to interpretative results; by not centering, I examined the differenc e in average achievement scores between males and females, White and Black students, etc. Equation 2-3 represents the HLM analysis for gender and race, cited frequently as potenti al predictors of academic achievement: DVij = y00 + y10*MALEij + y20*BLACKij + y30*HISPANICij + y40*ASIANij + y50*OTHERij + u0j + rij (2-3) In model 4, the dependent variables are modeled as a function of gender, race, mothers & fathers ages, educations and employment status es, marital status (married omitted), household income, and the number of people living in the household (Equation 24). Basic demographic characteristics of the family were added to this model to see how family characteristics affected achievement scores and also th e effects of race and gender: DVij = y00 + y10*MALEij + y20*BLACKij + y30*HISPANICij + y40*ASIANij + y50*OTHERij + y60*(GM of MOMAGEij) + y70*(GM of MOMEDUCij) + y80*(MOMEMPLOYij) + y90*(GM of DADAGEij) + y100*(GM of DADEDUCij) + y110*(DADEMPLOYij) + y120*(SINGLEij) + y130*( SEPARATEDij) + y140*(DIVORCEDij) + y150*(WIDOWEDij) + y160*(GM of INCOMEij) + y170*(GM of NUMinHHij) + u0j + rij (2-4) In model 5, the dependent variables are modeled as a function of gender, race, mothers & fathers ages, educations and employment status es, marital status (married omitted), household income, the number of people living in the household, the time spent on homework, parental involvement and the degree expected of the child (Equation 2-5). He re, three variables representing non-demographic fa mily variables were added: DVij = y00 + y10*MALEij + y20*BLACKij + y30*HISPANICij + y40*ASIANij + y50*OTHERij + y60*(GM of MOMAGEij) + y70*(GM of MOMEDUCij) + y80*(MOMEMPLOYij) + y90*(GM of DADAGEij) + y100*(GM of DADEDUCij) + y110*(DADEMPLOYij) + y120*(SINGLEij) + y130*( SEPARATEDij) + y140*(DIVORCEDij) 21

PAGE 22

+ y150*(WIDOWEDij) + y160*(GM of INCOME ij) + y170*(GM of NUMinHHij) + y180*(GM of HWTIMEij) + y190*(PARENTINVOL VEij) + y200*(GM of DEGEXPECTij) + u0j + rij (2-5) In model 6, both the level-1 and level-2 variab les were included together (Equation 2-6): DVij = y00 + y10*MALEij + y20*BLACKij + y30*HISPANICij + y40*ASIANij + y50*OTHERij + y60*(GM of MOMAGEij) + y70*(GM of MOMEDUCij) + y80*(MOMEMPLOYij) + y90*(GM of DADAGEij) + y100*(GM of DADEDUCij) + y110*(DADEMPLOYij) + y120*(SINGLEij) + y130*( SEPARATEDij) + y140*(DIVORCEDij) + y150*(WIDOWEDij) + y160*(GM of INCOME ij) + y170*(GM of NUMinHHij) + y180*(GM of HWTIMEij) + y190*( PARENTINVOL VEij) + y200*(GM of DEGEXPECTij) + y01*(GM of YRSTEACHij) + y02*(GM of NUMBERKIDSij)+ y03*(GM of PERCENTBOYSij)+ u0j + rij (2-6) Table 2-1. Participant charac teristics, weighted (N=10,874) Demographic Valid percentage Sex Female Male Race White Black Hispanic Asian Other Family Income $10,000 or less $10,001-15,000 $15,001-20,000 $20,001-25,000 $25,001-30,000 $30,001-35,000 $35,001-40,000 $40,001-50,000 $50,001-75,000 $75,001-100,000 $100,001-200,000 $200,001 or more 48.1 51.9 59.0 15.1 18.7 2.6 4.6 6.8 5.5 6.4 7.6 6.8 6.4 7.3 9.1 16.9 12.7 11.0 3.5 22

PAGE 23

Figure 2-1. Conceptual Model Table 2-2. Means and standard de viations of centered variables Variables Mean S.D. Household Characteristics Mothers Age 39.77 6.65 Mothers Education 4.60 1.82 Fathers Age 42.34 7.27 Fathers Education 4.46 2.11 Income 8.38 3.19 Number in Household 4.59 1.39 Time for Homework 37.53 41.17 Parental Involvement 4.80 1.61 Expected Education 4.03 1.05 Reading Classroom Years Teaching 13.83 9.98 Number of Students 22.06 6.47 Percent Male 50.67 9.24 Math Classroom Years Teaching 14.06 10.07 Number of Students 22.55 6.27 Percent Male 50.97 9.24 23

PAGE 24

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Results of HLM reading analyses are included in Table 3-1 and math analyses are in Table 3-2; both are broken down by model. Changes in classroom variance from model to model decreased, indicating that the addi tion of each set of predictors he lped to explain more and more of the explainable variat ion between classrooms. Model 1 depicts the fully unconditional models for both reading and math subjects. These models provide a benchmark by which future models can be compared, describing how much classrooms vary in their subject achievements. The estimated overall classroom average on reading scores was 49.56, and the average on math scores was 49.61; both were below the national average of 50.3 for both subjects. Intraclass coefficients, the observed variations in achievement scores attributable to classroom-l evel characteristics, were significant, with 65 percent for reading and 47 percent for math. This indicated that classroom -level characteristics account for more between-classroom differences in reading than in math classes. Next, model 2 gives information about how classroom characteristics alone affect academic achievement. Comparing the intercepts or classroom, variance between model 1 and model 2 indicated that the level-2 predictors alone explained some of the between-classroom variance observed in the fully unconditional model (1). About 7 percent of the between-classroom va riance in reading achievement is accounted for by the three classroom characteristics, and 6.2 percent of the expl ainable variation in classroom average math achievement scores coul d be explained by the combination of classroom size, teacher experience and gender composition. Finally, because there was more than one student per classroom, there are fewer classrooms th an there are students, which accounts for the decrease in sample size between models 1 and 2. 24

PAGE 25

For classrooms with average number of stude nts, average percentage of boys and the teacher with an average number of years teaching, the estimated overall average reading achievement was 49.589 and the average math achievement was 49.681. For reading, the more years teaching (y01=.075, p<.01) and more stud ents in the classroom (y02=.319, p<.001) were significantly associated with higher average reading achievement scores. For math, higher classroom enrollments (y02=.271, p<.001) was significan tly associated with higher average math achievement scores. For both subjects, the number of students in the clas sroom had the strongest effects on achievement scores. Model 3 shows how demographic characteristics of gender and race affect academic achievement. These predictors aid in reducing the between-classroom variance (from the fully unconditional model) by 15 percent for reading a nd 21 percent for math. Also, the predictors reduce the within-classroom variance by only .55 pe rcent for reading and .40 percent for math, indicating that very little vari ance within-classrooms can be explained by gender and race. The average classroom reading achievement wa s 52.41, while the aver age classroom math achievement was 50.60, controlling for gender and race. In reading, male respondents (y10=-1.17, p< .01) were found to have lower average expected reading scores than females, by 1.17 points. Black (y20=-5.72, p<.001), Hispanic (y30=-4.33, p<.001), Asian (y40=-2 .67, p<.001) and respondents of other races (y50=-3.26, p<.001) were found to have lower average expected reading scores than White respondents. In math, male respondents (y10=1.59, p<.001) were found to have highe r average expected scores than females, by 1.59 points. Black (y20=-5.72, p<.001) and Hispanic (y30=-4.33, p<.001) respondents were found to have lower av erage expected math scores than White 25

PAGE 26

respondents. Asian (y40=.50, p>.05) and responden ts of other races (y50=-2.31, p>.05) were not significantly different from White respondents in their average expected mathematics scores. In model 4, the average classroom reading achievement was 51.99 for white, female students, in households with average income, average number of people, whose parents were married, did not work, and had average educationa l attainments and ages. For math, the average classroom math achievement was 50.57 for white, male students, in households with average income, average number of people, whose parent s were married, did not work, and had average educational attainments and ages. For both subjects, mothers educ ation had the strongest impact on achievement scores. In this model, about 41.5 percent of the explainable variation in between-classroom average reading achievement scores, and 55.8 per cent of variation in be tween-classroom average math achievement scores could be explaine d by gender, race and family demographic characteristics. At the same time, only 7.2 percen t of the explainable variation within-classroom average reading achievement scores, and 1.5 percent of variation in average math scores could be explained by the predictors. Additionally, the addition of family demographics reduced the between-classroom variance by the largest amount. This indicates that family demographic ch aracteristics account for larger amounts of the observed between-classroom variance than demographics alone, or the combination of child and family demographics and familial involvement, or the combination of child and family demographics, familial involvement and classroom characteristics. For reading scores in model 4, male res pondents (y10=-1.33, p<.001) were found to have lower average expected reading scores than females, by 1.33 points. Black (y20=-3.28, p<.001), Hispanic (y30=-1.26, p<.05), Asian (y40=-1.41, p< .05) respondents were found to have lower 26

PAGE 27

average expected reading scores than White respondents. Respondents of other races (y50=-1.19, p>.05) were not significantly diffe rent from White respondents in their average expected reading scores, changing from the previ ous model. Here, the addition of family demographics reduced the differences between white childr en and those of other races. Higher education for mothers (y70=.92, p<.001) and fathers (y100=.53, p<.001), older fathers age (y90=.12, p<.01), and higher household incomes (y160=.50, p<.001) were significantly associated with higher average ex pected reading scores. At the same time, household size (y170=-.70, p<.001) was negatively, though significantly, associated with reading scores, where for each person added to the hous ehold, the expected average reading score decreased by .70 points. Only children whose pa rents were divorced ( y140=-1.12, p<.05) were found to have lower average expected reading scor es than children whos e parents were married. Children whose parents were single (y120= -.37, p>.05), separated (y130=-.04, p>.05) or widowed (y150=-.16, p>.05) were not significantly di fferent than children whose parents were married in their average expected reading scores. For math, male respondents (y10=1.51, p<.001) were found to have higher average expected math scores than females, by 1.51 poi nts. Black (y20=-3.39, p<.001) respondents were found to have lower average expected math scores than White respondents, by 3.39 points. Hispanic (y30=-.90, p>.05), Asian (y40=1.07, p>.05) and other race (y50=-.99, p>.05) respondents were not significantl y different from White responde nts in their average expected math scores. In this model, the difference between Hispanic and White childrens achievements was eradicated, indicating that when family demographics are equal, White and Hispanic children are no different in their average achievement scores. Higher education for mothers (y70=.85, 27

PAGE 28

p<.001) and fathers (y100=.45, p<.001), and high er household incomes (y160=.45, p<.001) were also associated with higher average expected math scores. In model 5, the average classroom readi ng achievement was 52.18, while the average classroom math achievement was 50.80, controlling for gender, race and family characteristics. Additionally, 45.6 percent of the explainable va riation in between-cla ssroom average reading achievement scores, and 60.6 percent of vari ation in between-classroom average math achievement scores can be explained by gender, race and family characteristics. At the same time, looking at within-classroom variation, 11.5 percent of the vari ation in reading achievement, and 3.8 percent of the variation in math achieve ment could be explaine d by the independent variables. This increase from the previous model indicates that differences in family characteristics account for some of the observe d within-class variation in scores. For both subjects, the parental expectations of educa tional achievement had the strongest effect on achievement scores. For reading, male responde nts (y10=-1.00, p<.01) were f ound to have lower average expected reading scores than females, by 1 point. Black (y20=-3.91, p< .001), Hispanic (y30=2.00, p<.001), Asian (y40=-2.15, p<.001) and othe r race (y50=-1.84, p<.01) respondents were found to have lower average expected reading sc ores than White respondents. Here, the addition of familial involvement characteristics increased the differences between students of white and other races, seen by the change in significance from model 4 to model 5. Higher education for mothers (y70=.70, p<.001) and fathers (y100=.42, p<.001), older fathers age (y90=.12, p<.01), and higher household incomes (y160=.42, p<.001) were again significantly associated with higher average exp ected reading scores. However, children from divorced and married families were not significantly different from one another in this model as 28

PAGE 29

they were in model 4. The addition of familial in volvement characteristics to the model reduced the differences between these tw o groups of children, indicatin g that when some forms of parental involvement are controlled for, children from divorced and married families are no different in their achievement scores. At the same time, household size (y170=.66, p<.001) was negatively associated with reading scores, where for each person added to the household, the expected average reading score decreased by .66 points. Additionally, pa rents who had higher involvement levels (y190=.21, p<.05) and expected higher educations (y200=1.80, p< .001) for their children were significantly associated with higher average expected reading scores. For math, male respondents (y10=1.77, p<.001) were found to have higher average expected math scores than females, this time by 1.77 points. Black (y20=-3.91, p<.001) and Hispanic (y30=-1.59, p<.01) respondents were f ound to have lower average expected math scores than White respondents. In looking at the change in significance from model 4 to this model, the addition of familial involvement charact eristics seems to increase the differences in achievement between white and Hispanic students. Asian (y40=.14, p>.05) and other race (y50=-1.30, p>.05) respondents were not significantly different from White respondents in their average expected math scores. Higher education for mothers (y70=.67, p<.001) and fa thers (y100=.35, p<.001), older fathers age (y90=.06, p<.05), higher household incomes ( y160=.39, p<.001), and parents who expected higher educations (y200=1.59, p<.001) were also significantly associated with higher average expected math scores. In this model, fath ers age became significantly associated with achievement scores when controlling for the three familial involvement characteristics. 29

PAGE 30

Finally, for the last model, the average classroom reading achievement was 52.26, while the average classroom math achievement was 50.88, controlling for gender, race, family characteristics and some classroom characteristic s as well. About 48.1 percent of the explainable variation in between-classroom average reading achievement scores, and 62.2 percent of variation in between-classroom average math achievement scores could be explained by all predictors: gender, race, family and classroom ch aracteristics. Finally, only 11.6 percent of the within-classroom reading achievement variation, and 4.3 percent of the wi thin-classroom math achievement variation could be explained by the comb ination of all predictors. Similar to the last model, the parental expectations of educa tional achievement had the strongest effect on achievement scores. In this model, the sample size decreased from 10,874 to 4,265 for reading and to 2,730 for math. This decrease again accounted for the sm aller number of classroom observations than student observations. Here, HLM averaged the student and family characteristics for each classroom to use for analysis. For reading, male responde nts (y10=-.94, p<.01) were f ound to have lower average expected reading scores than females, by .94 points. Black (y20=-3.99, p<.001), Hispanic (y30=2.42, p<.001), Asian (y40=-2.41, p<.001) and other race (y50=-1.91, p<.001) respondents were found to have lower average expected r eading scores than White respondents. Higher education for mothers (y70=.69, p<.001) and fathers (y100=.41, p<.001), older fathers age (y90=.13, p<.001), and higher household incomes (y160=.39, p<.001) were significantly associated with higher average ex pected reading scores. At the same time, household size (y170=-.65, p<.001) was negatively a ssociated with reading scores, where with each person added to the household, the expected average reading score decreased by .65 points. 30

PAGE 31

31 Additionally, parents who had higher involvement levels (y190=.20, p<.05) and expected higher educations (y200=1.72, p< .001) for their childre n, and classrooms with more students (y02=.23, p<.001) were significantly associated with hi gher average reading achievement scores. The effect of teacher experience observed in model 2 was eradicated by the addition of demographic and family demographic and involvement characteristics included in model 6. For math, male respondents (y10=1.81, p<.001) were found to have higher average expected math scores than females, by 1.81 points. Black (y20=-3.94, p<.001) and Hispanic (y30=-1.92, p<.01) respondents were found to have lower average expected math scores than White respondents. Asian (y40=-.17, p>.05) and other race (y50=-1.36, p>.05) respondents were not significantly different from White respondents in their aver age expected math scores. Higher education for mothers (y70=.65, p<.001) and fathers (y100=.36, p<.001), older fathers age (y90=.07, p<.05), higher househol d incomes (y160=.37, p<.001), and parents who expected higher educations (y200=1.53, p< .001), and classrooms with higher student enrollments (y02=.21, p<.001) were al so associated with higher av erage expected math scores.

PAGE 32

Table 3-1. Hierarchical linear modeling resu lts of coefficients of betw een-classroom models of fift h-grade reading achievement Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Demographic Variables Gender (male) -1.169 / -0.061 -1.325 / -0.069 -0.995 / -0.052 -0.938 / -0.049 Race (White) African American -5.721 / -0.186 -3.281 / -0.106 -3.905 / -0.127 -3.994 / -0.130 Hispanic -4.328 / -0.177 -1.261 / -0.051 -2.001 / -0.082 -2.421 / -0.099 Asian -2.669 / -0.067 -1.405 / -0.035 -2.151 / -0.054 -2.407 / -0.060 Other -3.255 / -0.078 -1.187 / -0.029 -1.835 / -0.044 -1.906 / -0.046 Household Characteristics Mother's Age -0.067 / -0.046 -0.066 / -0.046 -0.069 / -0.048 Mother's Education 0.922 / 0.175 0.703 / 0.134 0.686 / 0.131 Mother Employed -0.126 / -0 .006 -0.084 / -0.004 -0.048 / -0.002 Father's Age 0.115 / 0.088 0.115 / 0.087 0.125 / 0.095 Father's Education 0.533 / 0.118 0.416 / 0.092 0.409 / 0.090 Father Employed -0.435 / -0.013 -0.541 / -0.016 -0.654 / -0.019 Marital Status (Married) Single -0.372 / -0.011 -0.071 / -0.002 -0.015 / -0.001 Separated -0.040 / -0.001 -0.070 / -0.001 -0.035 / -0.001 Divorced -1.123 / -0.038 -0.907 / -0.030 -0.960 / -0.032 Widowed -0.157 / -0.002 -0.377 / -0.005 -0.392 / -0.005 Income 0.498 / 0.166 0.417 / 0.139 0.390 / 0.130 Number in Household -0.699 / -0.102 -0.658 / -0.096 -0.653 / -0.095 Time for Homework 0.005 / 0.021 0.004 / 0.018 Parental Involvement 0.213 / 0.036 0.204 / 0.034 Expected Education 1.795 / 0.197 1.717 / 0.189 32

PAGE 33

33Table 3-1. Continued Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Classroom Characteristics Years Teaching 0.075 / 0.078 0.028 / 0.029 Number of Students 0.319 / 0.216 0.230 / 0.155 Percent Male -0.047 / -0 .046 -0.017 / -0.017 Intercept 49.557 49.589 52.408 51.990 52.175 52.258 Classroom Variance 69.417 64.572 58.985 40.626 37.794 36.006 Change in Classroom Variance 4.845 10.432 28.791 31.623 33.411 Class. Proportion of Variance 0.07 0.15 0.415 0.456 0.481 Student Variance 37.734 37.771 37.528 35.019 33.411 33.346 Student Proportion of Variance -0.001 0.005 0.072 0.115 0.116 X221442.988 21168.712 18799.270 15308.517 15407.958 15103.600 N 10874 4265 10874 10874 10874 4265 Source: Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999, Fifth Grade Wave Unstandardized / Standardized Coefficients p .05; p .01; p .001

PAGE 34

Table 3-2. Hierarchical linear modeling resu lts of coefficients of betw een-classroom models of fi fth-grade math achievement Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Demographic Variables Gender (male) 1.592 / 0.085 1.506 / 0.080 1.774 / 0.094 1.806 /0.096 Race (White) African American -5.652 / -0.175 -3.391 / -0.112 -3.972 / -0.123 -3.943 / -0.122 Hispanic -3.290 / -0.133 -0.897 / -0.037 -1.590 / -0.064 -1.916 / -0.077 Asian 0.504 / 0.013 1.065 / 0.027 0.140 / 0.004 -0.172 /-0.004 Other -2.312 / 0.059 -0.990 / -0.025 -1.297 / -0.033 -1.355 /-0.035 Household Characteristics Mother's Age -0.001 / -0.001 0.006 / 0.004 0.001 / 0.001 Mother's Education 0.845 / 0.162 0.668 / 0.128 0.652 / 0.125 Mother Employed 0.044 / 0.002 0.139 / 0.007 0.211 / 0.010 Father's Age 0.052 / 0.040 0.058 / 0.044 0.066 / 0.051 Father's Education 0.448 / 0.100 0.346 / 0.077 0.361 / 0.081 Father Employed -0.757 / -0.023 -0.770 / -0.023 -0.701 / -0.021 Marital Status (Married) Single -1.157 / -0.034 -0.866 / -0.026 -0.825 / -0.025 Separated -0.383 / -0.008 -0.131 / -0.003 -0.048 / -0.001 Divorced -0.611 / -0.021 -0575 / -0.020 -0.568 / -0.019 Widowed -1.097 / -0.014 -1.285 / -0.016 -1.353 / -0.017 Income 0.446 / 0.150 0.394 / 0.133 0.368 / 0.124 Number in Household -0.291 / -0.043 -0.251 / -0.037 -0.251 / -0.037 Time for Homework -0. 002 / -0.007 -0.003 / -0.011 Parental Involvement 0.099 / 0.017 0.113 / 0.019 Expected Education 1.592 / 0.176 1.532 / 0.170 34

PAGE 35

35Table 3-2. Continued Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Classroom Characteristics Years Teaching 0.048 / 0.052 0.004 / 0.004 Number of Students 0.271 / 0.181 0.206 / 0.137 Percent Male 0.045 / 0.044 0.019 / 0.019 Intercept 49.607 49.681 50.602 50.565 50.797 50.875 Classroom Variance 45.989 43.135 36.297 20.352 18.138 17.372 Change in Classroom Variance 2.854 9.692 25.637 27.851 28.617 Class. Proportion of Variance 0.062 0.211 0.557 0.606 0.622 Student Variance 51.516 51.560 51.310 50.725 49.565 49.307 Student Proportion of Variance -0.001 0.004 0.015 0.038 0.043 X29193.533 9437.227 8012.716 6228.384 6031.640 6214.000 N 10874 2730 10874 10874 10874 2730 Source: Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999, Fifth Grade Wave Unstandardized / Standardized Coefficients p .05; p .01; p .001

PAGE 36

CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION Findings The results support the first th ree hypotheses (1a, b and c). Gender did have a significant association with achievement scores of both r eading and math. Supporting current research and speculations from the field, females average scor es were higher in reading, and males were higher for math. In both subjects however, gi rls and boys achieved at or above the national average. Though results may appear small male s and females were within two points of one another for average expected reading and math scores due to the cross-sectional analyses, it is unknown if these differences have been decr easing or increasing since kindergarten. Interestingly, for reading, as more predictors were added to the model, the average score difference between males and females decreased, but increased for math scores (outside of the addition of family characteristics). It would app ear as if math classes with more heterogeneous characteristics are more beneficial to girls' advancements, while reading classes with more homogeneous characteristics benefit males. The second hypothesis is supported, with parent al education positively associated with subject achievement scores. For both math and reading, both mothers an d fathers education levels were positively associated with average achievement scores across models 4 through 6. This finding supports social le arning theory and previous wo rk of Vilenius-Tuohimaa et al. (2008) and Hayeman and Wolfe (1995). The third hypothesis was partially supporte d. Parental involvement had a positive, significant effect for reading subject area (supporting Crosnoe 2001), but not for math. Future research might look at an interaction effect with parental involvement and homework time, gender, race, etc. For example, are parents who are more involved at scho ol also more involved 36

PAGE 37

at home? If so, there may be subject-area differe nces in the type of ho mework or interaction between parents and children. The fourth hypotheses (4a and 4b), relating gender composition to academic achievement, were not supported in either s ubject. Interaction-level effect s of gender and classroom gender distribution might be useful in fu ture analyses to determine the im pact, if any, the combination of childs gender and classroom composition of gender has on overall classroom achievement (and to aid in determining the minority and majority group (Dryler 1999)). The last hypothesis that cla ss size is negatively associat ed with reading and math achievement scores, was not supported, contradicting the findings of Funkhouser (2009) and Nye, Hedges, and Konstantopoulos (2004). For bo th subjects, larger classroom sizes were associated with higher achievement scores. Th ese findings could be contradictory due to the difficulty in separating the effect s of classroom size with other characteristics, such as teacher experience, which often have interactive eff ects with one another (Funkhouser 2009; & Nye, Hedges and Konstantopoulos 2004). The relationship of classroom size to student achievement may be affected (and perhaps misleading) by not taking these interaction-level effects into account. Results also indicated a racial gap in academ ic achievement, supporting the Monitoring the Future statistics in the Specific Aims. Across all models, Black student s consistently lagged behind their White counterparts in both readi ng and math scores, while Hispanic and Asian students fell behind White counterparts in readin g. Across all models, Black students scored lower than the national average in both readi ng and math, highlighting the continued need for specialized attenti on and resources targeted at this at-risk group. Ag ain though, due to the cross37

PAGE 38

sectional nature of the data, it is unknown if these differences ha ve been increasing or decreasing since the beginning of school. Higher incomes were associated with higher subject achievement scores, perhaps due to an increasing availability of resources outside of school to aid in academic advancement (Lareau 2003). At the same time, larger household sizes were associated with lower reading scores, but had no significant effects on math scores. Famili al motivation also had significant impacts on average academic achievement scores, with high parental educational expectations associated with high average achievement scores. In the last two models, parental educational expectations had the strongest effects on reading and math achievements. Also, across models 4 through 6, mothers education had stronger impacts on achi evement than fathers education did. This demonstrates that continued emphasis on educati on is important for the future of our nations children, and perhaps even more so for young females. Though there were many similarities among th e predictors of high average achievement scores for both reading and math, there were also some differences. For example, why did household size have a negative effect on reading sc ores but not on math ones? Why was parental involvement significantly associated with high reading scores but, again, not math ones? What is it about the subject of re ading, and perhaps the homework assi gned for it, that is significantly affected by these family characteristics? Math and reading are two dissim ilar subjects, and there are often different class activities, homework ex ercises and demonstrations in the learning of each. Perhaps the differences in how people learn and process math and reading could account for some of these conflicti ng findings between the two subj ects. Additionally, the observed differences between the subjects ai d in cautioning parents and educat ors about one si ze fits all policies aimed at improving achievement levels. 38

PAGE 39

Furthermore, besides the second model (where the level-2 predicto rs explained similar percentages), the proportion of explainable va riance in between-clas sroom achievements was smaller for reading than for math subjects. Th is suggests that predic tors affect subject achievements differently, and there are other, addi tional characteristics besides child and family demographics and classroom predictors that are affecting the differences in between-classroom reading achievement scores. Along this line, prog rams aimed at reading reform or improvement should be targeted accordingly and treated differently than ones for math. In all, results highlighted the family charac teristics of high achievement in both subject areas. In reading, being female, White, high mothers and fathers educati on, older fathers ages, high income, low total household number, high parental involvement and high parental educational expectations were positively associated with high average reading achievement scores. In math, being male, White or Asian, high mothers and fathers education, high income and high educational expectations were posi tively associated with high average math achievement scores. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research Although there are a number of in teresting variables in the EC LS-K, many of them are not applicable for the overall scope of this research. One definite limitation of the selected variables is that they may not provide a complete picture of the childs overall achievement in math and reading. For example, there are no measures of child achievement, measured by the parent(s). This assessment could be useful, for it may influence a variety of home factors, like the amount of time set aside for homework each day. Parents of children who are not yet proficient in a particular skill or knowledge area may impose longer mandatory homework time in order to aid the student in skill mastery. 39

PAGE 40

At the same time, the selection of IRT scores for the dependent variable may have biased classroom-level effects on students achievement. The fifth-grade IRT scores were calculated using the fifth-grade proficiency exams, as well as those from previous waves. These calculations assume consistency among the students in their answering pa tterns i.e., answering more questions right in one wave but not on the next might indicat e (under IRT parameters) that the child had guessed at previous answers and adjust the students scores accordingly. In this way, the IRT calculations may average improvements in scores, and therefore reduce the effects of teacheror classroom-level characteristics. Additionally, teacher and child measures of p eer achievement would aid in examining the effect of peer groups on a child s achievement (Van de gaer et al, 2006) and what their achievements are, relative to their peers. It woul d also be useful to include the teachers gender and race in the analysis, to see how these variab les affect childrens scores, perhaps depending on the gender and race of the ch ild. Although these two variables are asked on the ECLS-K, they are excluded from the public-use sample and were not available for this research. Furthermore, exploring different pedagogies or teaching styles might be useful in an attempt to understand the differences between the two subj ects how students le arn them and what thought processes are best suited for each subject area. These results indicated that ve ry little within-classroom varia tion could be explained by the included variables. This indicates that classrooms are somewhat homogenous with respect to student and family characteristic s, and school-level effects may pr ovide a more complete picture of student achievement. Future studies should in clude school characteristics to examine student and classroom differences between and within sc hools. Three-level hierar chical linear models could be run to determine the effects of not only students clustere d within schools, but 40

PAGE 41

41 classrooms as well. Previous work has focused on this variation of achievement within and between schools, and this added leve l of analysis would be useful in future studies with this, past and future waves of the ECLS-K. Finally, once more of these variables and leve ls of analysis have been examined, and we have a more holistic understanding of what is af fecting achievement, future research would want to model change across waves. Results of th is study indicated that there are significant differences in the mastery achievements of male and female fifth-grade students, with gender, race, income and parental education all having significant impacts on mastery levels. Modeling change (Eccles, Adler & Meece, 1984; LoGer go, Nichols & Chaplin, 2006) could indicate if these gaps are widening or get ting smaller as children age an d progress through the educational system, and allow policy makers to be tter target programs of at-risk youth.

PAGE 42

REFERENCES Benbow, Camilla P., and Julian C. Stanley. 1980. Sex Differences in Mathematical Ability: Fact or Artifact? Science 210:1262-64. Burgess, Robert L., and Ronald L. Akers. 1966. A Differential Association: Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior. Social Problems 14:128-47. Cooper, Carey E., and Robert Crosnoe. 2007. T he Engagement in Schooling of Economically Disadvantaged Parents and Children. Youth & Society 38:372-91. Crosnoe, Robert. 2001. Academic Orientation and Parental Involvement in Education during High School. Sociology of Education 74:210-30. Davis-Kean, Pamela E. 2005. The Influence of Pa rent Education and Family Income on Child Achievement: The Indirect Role of Parental Expectations and the Home Environment. Journal of Family Psychology 19:294-304. Dee, Thomas S. 2006. The Why Chromosome. Education Next 6:69-75. Ding, Cody S., Kim Song, and Lloyd I. Richardson. 2006. Do Mathematical Gender Differences Continue? A Longitudinal Study of Gender Difference and Excellence in Mathematics Performance in the U.S. Educational Studies 40:279-95. Dryler, Helen. 1999. The Impact of School a nd Classroom Characteristics on Educational Choices by Boys and Girls: A Multilevel Analysis. Acta Sociologica 42:300-18. Funkhouser, Edward. 2009. The Effect of Kinde rgarten Classroom Size Reduction on Second Grade Student Achievement: Evidence from California. Economics of Education Review 28:403-14. Guo, Guang, and Kathleen M. Harris. 2000. The Mechanisms Mediating the Effects of Poverty on Childrens Intellectual Development. Demography 37:431. Halle, Tamara G., Beth Kurtz-Costes, and Joseph L. Mahoney. 1997. Family In uences on School Achievement in Low-Income, African American Children. Journal of Educational Psychology 89:527. Hanushek, Eric A., John F. Kain, Jacob M. Ma rkman, and Steven G. Rivkin. 2003. Does Peer Ability Affect Student Achievement? Journal of Applied Econometrics 18:527. Harker, Richard. 2000. Achievement, Gender and the Single-Sex/Coed Debate. British Journal of Sociology of Education 21:203-18. Haveman, Robert, and Barbara Wolfe. 1995. The Determinants of Childrens Attainments: A Review of Methods and Findings. Journal of Economic Literature 33:1829. 42

PAGE 43

Hyde, Janet S., Elizabeth Fennema, and Susa n J. Lamon. 1990. Gender Differences in Mathematics Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin 107:139-55. Ireson, Judith, Susan Hallam, Sarah Hack, Hele n Clark, and Ian Plewis. 2002. Ability Grouping in English Secondary Schools: Effects on Attainment in English, Mathematics and Science. Educational Research and Evaluation 8:299. Jackson, Carolyn, and Ian D. Smith. 2000. Poles Apart? An Exploration of Single-Sex and Mixed-Sex Educational Environmen ts in Australia and England. Educational Studies 26:409-22. Kandel, Denise B. 1980. Drug and Drinking Behavior Among Youth. Annual Review of Sociology 6:235-85. Kowaleski-Jones, Lori, and Greg J. Duncan. 1999. The Structure of Achievement and Behavior across Middle Childhood. Child Development 70:930-43. Laureau, Annette. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race and Family Life Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Lee, Jihyun, Wendy S. Gri gg, and Gloria S. Dion. 2007. The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Ed ucation, National Center for Education Statistics. Lee, Jihyun, Wendy S. Grigg, a nd Patricia L. Donahue. 2007. The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2007 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. LoGerfo, Laura, Austin Nichols, and Duncan Chaplin. 2006. Gender Gaps in Math and Reading Gains during Elementary and High School by Race and Ethnicity Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Muller, Chandra. 1998. Gender Differences in Parental Involvement and Adolescents Mathematics Achievement. Sociology of Education 71:336-56. Nye, Barbara A., Larry V. Hedges, and Spyros Konstantopoul os. 2004. Do Minorities Experience Larger Lasting Be nefits from Small Classes? The Journal of Educational Research 98:94-100. OConnell, Ann A., and D.B. McCoach (Eds). 2008. Multilevel Modeling of Educational Data. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc. Painter, John. 2002. Designing Multilevel Models Using SPSS 11.5 Mixed Model Chapel Hill, NC: Jordan Institute for Families. Parsons, Jacquelynne E., Terry F. Adler, and Judith L. Meece. 1984. Sex Differences in Achievement: A Test of Alternative Theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46:26-43. 43

PAGE 44

44 Raudenbush, Stephan W., and Anthony S. Bryk. 1986. A Hierarchical Model for Studying School Effects. Sociology of Education 59:1-17. ___. 2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: App lications and Data Analysis Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Raudenbush, Stephen, Anthony Bryk, and Richard Congdon. 2005. HLM6 Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Roberts, J.K. 2004. An Introductory Primer on Multilevel and Hierarchi cal Linear Modeling. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 2:30-8. Sadker, Myra, and David Sadker. 1995. Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls New York: Charles Scribners Sons. Singer, Judith D. 1998. Using SAS PROC MIXE D to Fit Multilevel Models, Hierarchical Models, and Individual Growth Models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 24:323-55. Van de gaer, Eva, Heidi Pustjens, Jan Van Damme, and Agnes DeMunter. 2004. Effects of Single-Sex Versus Co-Educational Classes a nd Schools on Gender Differences in Progress in Language and Mathematics Achievement. British Journal of Sociology of Education 25:307-22. ___. 2006. The Gender Gap in Language Achievem ent: The Role of School-Related Attitudes of Class Groups. Sex Roles 55:397-408. Vilenius-Tuohimaa, Piia M., Kaisa Aunola, and Jari-Erik Nurmi. 2008. The Association Between Mathematical Word Probl ems and Reading Comprehension. Educational Psychology 28:409-26.

PAGE 45

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kristi Lynn Donaldson was born in New Jersey but spent the majority of her childhood in Clearwater, Florida. She gra duated high school in 2001 from Pa lm Harbor University High School, earning an International B accalaureate diploma. She then attended the University of Florida for her undergraduate work, majoring in public relations, and la ter, sociology. After earning two bachelors degrees a nd graduating with honors in both s ubjects, Kristi took a year off from school to work and travel. In 2006, she re turned to UF to begin graduate studies, and will graduate with her M.A. in sociology in August 2009. Following graduation, Kristi will move to Indiana to continue on to her Ph.D. studies at the University of Notre Dame, where she plans to research educational inequali ties within the Center for Research on Educational Opportunity. 45


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101221_AAAADF INGEST_TIME 2010-12-22T01:25:11Z PACKAGE UFE0024813_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 2685 DFID F20101221_AABRIZ ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH donaldson_k_Page_06thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
e52f21f76def358583246e168da0a704
SHA-1
43372a1416cf81558b34efa39ed7ce3e95212cc0
2104 F20101221_AABRST donaldson_k_Page_38.txt
8dbfebdb7ecb49853c89d7b17a6ea7f2
7b64acec28728e7ea137c9a06619a3bf95220217
2050 F20101221_AABRSU donaldson_k_Page_39.txt
dfc6396a941ebfcf86f77328af5ff5b3
6c102d46fac3b14b0d5cffe39156ff0988c8202b
25978 F20101221_AABRNX donaldson_k_Page_01.jpg
09eaa5f024ccf00bff0058eff5f8ddbb
d6625734210248a3e2d6baad6afeeb52a6c21d86
2151 F20101221_AABRSV donaldson_k_Page_40.txt
81acbf988931ec24d3e45470e168bc46
9ee9c895704d1f8cfc52aa3849b19e33bc146d79
4341 F20101221_AABRNY donaldson_k_Page_02.jpg
e5a755c225c9b2c48f9c96fd3c6305bb
3a9ebbdb15cd0abda1102259b32d780cb9620a1b
997 F20101221_AABRSW donaldson_k_Page_41.txt
812471c2ddbf42a8203e8f20d4ac2566
e99650a9fd18a987bab5f6bc13d8c22dfc9d74bf
4574 F20101221_AABRLA donaldson_k_Page_41thm.jpg
52c0e871002d74b0d38d8781eaed4d0c
f25703ad3bf62d73aef75f29e0a4a2c8a2a0d637
74278 F20101221_AABRNZ donaldson_k_Page_05.jpg
b3b233700a9bc3e7a4e04558b912f0ab
c99e37b148d6c433e434ae9dd7448556684879d6
1522 F20101221_AABRSX donaldson_k_Page_44.txt
1bfb044185a7ab03a516991a82bef47d
548940610dd730cd0823a20e634c24117a335a30
8508 F20101221_AABRLB donaldson_k_Page_28thm.jpg
a4d348e06b17f952861cfbe1594c97ae
144538c631bdcc20e740e01b092a53d14c7a4eb8
940 F20101221_AABRSY donaldson_k_Page_45.txt
30236064d604d15131843dc67590a52b
ba7476ed34cc40f926376d191f750795f72326d4
35070 F20101221_AABRLC donaldson_k_Page_20.QC.jpg
d15efab358ca421ba178992cac46bd92
dff2e73677a81b11e042d24ebfa387d2a1bd44c1
25271604 F20101221_AABRQA donaldson_k_Page_14.tif
99f9664e95bf75e98cf3bb09fdc1cd18
faa55f5446b9b2af24e4146b3aa0e73ac3d0a1fa
8066 F20101221_AABRSZ donaldson_k_Page_01.QC.jpg
d994d0acc4b4621c2d059ab968707d97
ebc240b5dc30edc36d4a51346b0b839133a13fb2
2073 F20101221_AABRLD donaldson_k_Page_36.txt
9b1acc1b34b16b4687a198ac6398db58
9cfe646d4c0b075e3da14715ea94d6efd9ed08f2
F20101221_AABRQB donaldson_k_Page_16.tif
7026860f9807a6e6fb431d5bb1e28f61
f43579f39891374707574e19fda808d6c3dac232
2292 F20101221_AABRLE donaldson_k_Page_05.txt
32815d20e0bf412897d5d3a97fdda1f4
ee8aa1d1c5653c431f40da2759ae904aeb9126b1
F20101221_AABRQC donaldson_k_Page_19.tif
fc94c342ed0dca9ba89a92e3c05d60ab
fc95def8b6a003d4b4bcb7ae1bac7702f68972c1
1019 F20101221_AABRLF donaldson_k_Page_02.pro
15c13e4dd85013c80a1f15f7dfdae8e6
41ff1c99dfc6ffb0b939e18e18c06d0aecd7d2da
F20101221_AABRQD donaldson_k_Page_23.tif
ffdb9b461b3360005b32da7d483c59ee
df9f1e40859ed00a5529161e1ad4e0a47dee5c38
8557 F20101221_AABRLG donaldson_k_Page_18thm.jpg
b1046cedb463380b9a276b776ef84bc1
41c6901c76e3d3ec49082cd1198da3e6f9647388
101428 F20101221_AABRLH donaldson_k_Page_36.jpg
dd51a85eb445395e14ef0c3eeea9b7ba
ce9e1ecf5a90a617e636651c0683db4c21027b53
F20101221_AABRQE donaldson_k_Page_25.tif
b73329479d6336046b3b03e644521690
ca3454a434f58387113cc4f6b65a37d297538943
8706 F20101221_AABRLI donaldson_k_Page_42thm.jpg
6a9c02696d6eaa2e8725fc43c0f04050
e0b4e895feced3a567cf52b3733e06c55a2c8334
F20101221_AABRQF donaldson_k_Page_26.tif
ed6b4811986a4d09ebb1f4c558b143be
fe9a59eea900598e4400932816b32c6cd4fb397b
50399 F20101221_AABRLJ donaldson_k_Page_04.jpg
f6e081d10a6f31ee13032d6b5fed902f
6d68a7d2f3590d105ab59e1e251d8306b5cd298e
F20101221_AABRQG donaldson_k_Page_28.tif
630b8a0d0d116990718ea88b80d83ec8
33455bf85be9e6ecb220b463446b60cae13bcb9c
64974 F20101221_AABRLK donaldson_k_Page_15.jpg
df952e2beceb03dda57d0957397539c3
d9d429cf82d6c013e42897a2d8e16b8ad31ac8a0
F20101221_AABRQH donaldson_k_Page_31.tif
01761f9cef1df98c588b45af6bc6ba8e
175486c8d64e9d108e16220f8e27ef1623e8a096
1955 F20101221_AABRLL donaldson_k_Page_29.txt
9d1de3d7f61dd3cdc6b0e9fc2b0204c2
61b6dbcbb0f9f92fd17f371909f5c4f18e70fa4b
25265604 F20101221_AABRQI donaldson_k_Page_33.tif
6e6decc4ba5a2fbde066a2cf63ca73cc
b3e8a937a74077d53db96954d96c88ef836c51fe
5617 F20101221_AABRLM donaldson_k_Page_15thm.jpg
d09f80ec85c1a348b79c2b87dcbe8152
232a1887369377e2e25ac849dec4fa2138cdad32
F20101221_AABRQJ donaldson_k_Page_34.tif
3ed7fd96971ba8448f2f07a4aab1c0bf
9287696cec6d626775426ff7e84840c9cde66160
F20101221_AABRLN donaldson_k_Page_29.tif
d7092577e41caf5637e8386a5350f450
83e83f9f586c4645423b650618b15b33c83436bd
F20101221_AABRQK donaldson_k_Page_35.tif
42254f5bae3d0ce7cf7f82edb1d3cb78
50ba2857b981975605add1b3253252038c082623
1051982 F20101221_AABRLO donaldson_k_Page_29.jp2
001274db6fbe5f735203ae5298f53c57
5a9edfc92059877578c9b62b6af21b7639126070
F20101221_AABRQL donaldson_k_Page_36.tif
815f25ae53fc1cd4b79c6169af34757a
62f58832b0cba4fadec9531fe46f829a53d9a9fc
F20101221_AABRLP donaldson_k_Page_22.tif
480f5b5fb5fb02568683b44db8dc0ed9
01a450e956cf9ee278cf573a6e51cf84eb1bfcfa
F20101221_AABRQM donaldson_k_Page_38.tif
9cf81e20c7f96a1bd1aefeadd8f599e1
e3e6f31c721646463e682caf79fea5f0eafc3c21
F20101221_AABRLQ donaldson_k_Page_18.tif
566dec66d698b54a1110a8308dcab55b
0680ddfc7e55b9811a5f71067d10dcf042647da9
F20101221_AABRQN donaldson_k_Page_39.tif
81f43c641e83e582458ccecb17785cb1
a99f7264fd3efd13ed8bb17ccdc8169e3477cd63
70404 F20101221_AABRLR donaldson_k_Page_31.jpg
037177ac2dcdb2ae8536f34737800012
eea7a96745ff99219b421f0819591c568b43706d
F20101221_AABRQO donaldson_k_Page_40.tif
90d67cab36b3453b37276b63e1596be7
a195d835e6ccb56b7bee4182379ae6b74998ecd8
763784 F20101221_AABRLS donaldson_k_Page_31.jp2
3cf82cfa3693696906211c74b546e781
e5864bdafd258ef6fedd0f77463abf7b3be00b29
F20101221_AABRQP donaldson_k_Page_42.tif
ca94cc09bebfe74daa8ee7563fce2c3e
adc44db3cf2ce90a8f485044622ead4580c43e04
573624 F20101221_AABRLT donaldson_k_Page_41.jp2
7c0b9c46775ccd81d3286080fb2f96ce
06650afbf7cecc8ceb413d873a27b815c35af75a
F20101221_AABRQQ donaldson_k_Page_44.tif
c16a2af6671b28d4cca47a0548dbc1d8
763b4f7e505141751fb0392a1150cb44c304cd6e
8842 F20101221_AABRLU donaldson_k_Page_26thm.jpg
0c69315e13a4cf21132e1168a91c6138
12757d1c68d9fa4a10175dcdf7b7b3819e77f7d5
F20101221_AABRQR donaldson_k_Page_45.tif
7dcc5cf6a2d790988902869ff31320fa
696e768440b0fe9d9dfa2c85911e89d69f84fca0
16789 F20101221_AABRLV donaldson_k_Page_23.QC.jpg
36b7e4db4af4c6e78e848ee4869b9299
f839de537f0d46a17f2869edefbd5694a0e7d813
7883 F20101221_AABRQS donaldson_k_Page_01.pro
593fcbce43bc8ef77fa1d88538507de2
08dfbc9b13bf8c597b48dfa772fa3605bbacd66b
17058 F20101221_AABRLW donaldson_k_Page_05.QC.jpg
12e093ccda06d49b867294b953f306ff
30f6a0590c56b161fd819481493a83a46a36ea3c
3086 F20101221_AABRQT donaldson_k_Page_03.pro
7e2788ba3cadaaa4020eb9f1ea4782ea
7f56edf4822b29defad2edb789b380fdf20b89cf
22956 F20101221_AABRQU donaldson_k_Page_04.pro
f6324c9988625916e4fdb4eb06a0f58c
41dde88bf0be20cf223a12eb9911cd6eb6884087
F20101221_AABRLX donaldson_k_Page_32.tif
51c42721bb2466cc8b22ee4ed4862a2c
73cd5dcd5e693f9e1673696319fad6465d967747
55574 F20101221_AABRQV donaldson_k_Page_05.pro
aca9d11d027e6b76e2d8429d45d8ce04
ea1eb7b1042aa3492092c1f9465723cc34281219
1968 F20101221_AABRLY donaldson_k_Page_37.txt
f6508f2b9641684ce0f0d057f06eb754
09e196213df05712d1031c4df09d46098845ccfd
18707 F20101221_AABRQW donaldson_k_Page_06.pro
3a0774a83a1348efd87ef965ae34a212
ed9848c9346ef0a52d18920f98f4994f546d3fb7
4167 F20101221_AABRJA donaldson_k_Page_45thm.jpg
943286a036b073925ac188093493b865
16d34cc229a7315a2f524641f45c254303805853
F20101221_AABRLZ donaldson_k_Page_30thm.jpg
e7cb87f207c81dee413956498ee4276f
937e0b51ffe11b3fd43087847044a704d41a74d4
37228 F20101221_AABRQX donaldson_k_Page_08.pro
84fb9ed5e655d38d819af6ded2d670ca
53a0456f6d7d8d7a8785924f2de6624ea759d02d
2065 F20101221_AABRJB donaldson_k_Page_26.txt
8675bf60a4cfde83e058e67e492aefbe
ebf504fcdec1d0fb410051798f1b21469e88b463
81431 F20101221_AABROA donaldson_k_Page_08.jpg
92ae2a186d890b23263ccd69f5506e48
e13764f7a0e9ca42b2b3968ad4c3eccc0df47bea
53338 F20101221_AABRQY donaldson_k_Page_10.pro
7f6bcb9342bb2c316c97f744a4670e52
9dad7af9822f46d0c7da6c80ff8b0faee2f9e7a1
106607 F20101221_AABRJC donaldson_k_Page_20.jpg
0a534ad06359c5616c1fa825089a404b
5a96ce7f69a65343dee41d3da9d900beccbdccdc
103703 F20101221_AABROB donaldson_k_Page_11.jpg
6d4eaec1019e2dcceb46fd01070fbddc
1f1e18805218d54d42d7e19db684f3fd8ef2aa1c
51713 F20101221_AABRQZ donaldson_k_Page_11.pro
35bed89dc7acc97deb561e09cacc6f11
ae9a6817380051696d20e3ccb4b8d0146c08e8bd
1972 F20101221_AABRJD donaldson_k_Page_25.txt
9961b396d7523963834dfc5479ee70e2
aeb93bfb3ee09abb120e87603360b7011153e700
818574 F20101221_AABRJE donaldson_k_Page_22.jp2
ea299ef9210fbcba7161bb68a14a0a6f
c03261edc1fd66e6c39aecbe8ed15584908fd7a1
107294 F20101221_AABROC donaldson_k_Page_13.jpg
57253f5ae174a5ddd2f15d6a2a4598ca
dc49b1bb1518bdba99bb67a1327fcda585606793
32858 F20101221_AABRJF donaldson_k_Page_33.jpg
48bac0f22f370bbd22c9e9429a5899b8
eebb325a70d4cdf1151badd802662b7012e4fb3b
2069 F20101221_AABRTA donaldson_k_Page_01thm.jpg
f207a56e665ac0509632ab3d1e06272a
350e2589996b43dbfac62c50d7020c5a97cd46ce
99052 F20101221_AABROD donaldson_k_Page_16.jpg
8585dfc3693a98258701adb5ea375dc4
d8353b5fb30378f45a8150e1b4bc0dc4716adbb5
2418 F20101221_AABRJG donaldson_k_Page_42.txt
64be7e8869201de3496d8e1093cb4544
a55335bce1df01e441b71e1eedbef91839510394
1266 F20101221_AABRTB donaldson_k_Page_02.QC.jpg
446768f26248697bfbe9f2837b944037
d615fd346b18d56ea4c32c33f49d334a2f698c2b
99866 F20101221_AABROE donaldson_k_Page_17.jpg
86a57fd5f0c624b1ccc1561677cfbfd8
712b9894932aec556390a096104c967521f9a552
36252 F20101221_AABRJH donaldson_k_Page_12.QC.jpg
dd65d35e7d1382b4395c14768c7aecc7
9702e65b4a46427f32ac0b3dd594a2626d6ff425
906 F20101221_AABRTC donaldson_k_Page_03thm.jpg
1a3dd2279deadb075d127ce0222cdbc2
6cc6f30bb4a3848ca7b1bc82dce29e42438bb366
106401 F20101221_AABROF donaldson_k_Page_18.jpg
6db50a55677fe9281e5e5ef49423a83a
437ce4a7d3b1c134dbd5176a66f19d9e752d0113
110577 F20101221_AABRJI donaldson_k_Page_12.jpg
0f6a73c311cbc51b3f6867b702c87f1e
d58d1d35977caf86ad36072e43d1732d59337c97
4482 F20101221_AABRTD donaldson_k_Page_05thm.jpg
8f1b56c03d4ec061843d777b6cedd012
754ad5c452c8781aa428edd2fbf7e769d261f1db
123133 F20101221_AABROG donaldson_k_Page_21.jpg
d0d87fb3e46a3ad4eeb06d5aac88b4b9
471c0e3d824ea4677ca25c035c678ba216154eef
F20101221_AABRJJ donaldson_k_Page_21.tif
e39caf0360fc5280cafa518e2920030d
87ff30eda2dbd223f8dcb101b4c2576b242a5811
9875 F20101221_AABRTE donaldson_k_Page_06.QC.jpg
d7866e0ba5b211aa11d6dedecded1d48
343ec0a794efd5cf1993146e5b4a8019f6385ba3
77909 F20101221_AABROH donaldson_k_Page_22.jpg
71f8194d40edb23004f2c15ad7966d8f
7d88a9ba6806cebee580d291e75e9895bc652192
547 F20101221_AABRJK donaldson_k_Page_02thm.jpg
b6f05017af603167d5fb5df617362c78
dca6a32dba4cb3d04d11c583624ca16f63bb1fc7
1178 F20101221_AABRTF donaldson_k_Page_07thm.jpg
d426a978ac70fc8cc228015eb5e9685a
9117c5439b060803fe42dabeaf6625147a51e26b
102260 F20101221_AABROI donaldson_k_Page_24.jpg
8069eb1ded77d012bece4c07d7b379a7
940f62097cd31bd674638b3ac74aaf9dc3977a88
1051972 F20101221_AABRJL donaldson_k_Page_20.jp2
40a5070a82e04cd34f40beff31964ee9
d0cb129aec27743a285555f0ffc81cfe52eec13a
25846 F20101221_AABRTG donaldson_k_Page_08.QC.jpg
9f3cd3c4a13dfbde50f06c3355849773
fa17d8d6b5ca2f78c1260e0daa978a894e78c886
102508 F20101221_AABROJ donaldson_k_Page_25.jpg
5ace3706c614214fa422ddafae59c8de
919667f97b716954cde70149bbf13f96272d85b7
789 F20101221_AABRJM donaldson_k_Page_06.txt
6760dfb4cfc634c2feaaffe2d544bc81
8f774737e11cbfef5c6121e521a1ea59fa1aea22
106185 F20101221_AABROK donaldson_k_Page_26.jpg
eb19c3c068b0f0a49542431aee43c956
7da03e3cc9375d0f4ce1731f3f1017ad41417fd3
101381 F20101221_AABRJN donaldson_k_Page_09.jpg
c88d1c07564652be8d3288e8987fbc33
520d74b5549edbeac415483a900b95e51cee57ba
6612 F20101221_AABRTH donaldson_k_Page_08thm.jpg
a137572c51803d55350a365ffd0f3749
4780b36872cf942d8e119cd24a20a467fa9a9354
104748 F20101221_AABROL donaldson_k_Page_30.jpg
8a4b7caaf973702b2793ef138834fd47
2840910d3ef36545d222a9dccaf707af1ae9e38e
104368 F20101221_AABRJO donaldson_k_Page_19.jpg
d83745abc0e05e364619f236196a7394
88e0768315c3945ba877f7d2185f8997bde0f320
8144 F20101221_AABRTI donaldson_k_Page_09thm.jpg
fd92e8ad94141e9f8c22e441084cf7bd
f752f3147c3665d33788986e4943298e87ce32f4
53655 F20101221_AABROM donaldson_k_Page_32.jpg
a3e855150586199518193d6a38fcac20
ba491ce5cdd24437c3bb04188a26376411d408fd
8334 F20101221_AABRJP donaldson_k_Page_39thm.jpg
c80a4927cb2a1456ea8c87a6c9ba84ad
46ee7045e5b51458d64f4056dcd10439f9646c04
36437 F20101221_AABRTJ donaldson_k_Page_10.QC.jpg
7fda5988d899b1b159786a879f3f13a8
18a1b8e70f5663ef1973d83a2c777ba97177acc7
52143 F20101221_AABRON donaldson_k_Page_34.jpg
6aa48ceb430f8596d707fab4fbc18bcd
f6edcc09503a341121754c23211c10e552c1499f
2084 F20101221_AABRJQ donaldson_k_Page_09.txt
f0512c8cde3b236333dd91f28bfefc72
5b119db31af8e6eee0783ba30c464d14bc8f937d
8576 F20101221_AABRTK donaldson_k_Page_10thm.jpg
7796d0a67cb4a8faa871783082afa28a
ccb48cc3c16416b83e7625b6caa34699134308e5
32892 F20101221_AABROO donaldson_k_Page_35.jpg
52b31ba4e1909dc7a9c52d375eff853f
ff9784bd5352469af357efb9a6976316b6bdc181
2038 F20101221_AABRJR donaldson_k_Page_11.txt
7d1724366687c3494ceebabf9e206774
9ee19a451069920e2ac2afd1781e8bd92d27c179
34042 F20101221_AABRTL donaldson_k_Page_11.QC.jpg
8c39c14d0e3773a18940482532bcbcbd
4a229eef35628965a18532f0674cd6d9281a28f5
102242 F20101221_AABROP donaldson_k_Page_37.jpg
bc3cc9833fec6e048bf84de04b852877
ad183665b77e7d6492103bf3ce8acbefd60c334d
36029 F20101221_AABRJS donaldson_k_Page_40.QC.jpg
4b4ca5e3380ccb92d7650790f147d771
fd60d06661806150376d666a73bd571bc59816e5
9046 F20101221_AABRTM donaldson_k_Page_12thm.jpg
75488feef7c5edbe0769546b8c18d720
f108656107e1e35498ea4f437df27361af4ace6d
103789 F20101221_AABROQ donaldson_k_Page_39.jpg
46c8f71f65793ac35e89e2cb7c583e21
cdfeae531d5f05054766084053fd864fb6077b22
31566 F20101221_AABRJT donaldson_k_Page_15.pro
df7c4271ae29140866cb6a0709f88e1d
7d6dd777ee48302a84a681fc34253aa9c3dc8b07
34300 F20101221_AABRTN donaldson_k_Page_13.QC.jpg
3297beaa048218d19a17ea4467a4857b
5474ac7f65b774ad3b51f5eff790383b33af148a
53899 F20101221_AABROR donaldson_k_Page_41.jpg
0444f1f327b559fcb3e786d2ec420365
750e2ad2d58f75bec2c53535a53452e4dc762319
54649 F20101221_AABRJU donaldson_k_Page_40.pro
33fd1ab034ce954a1518cfae0ca5960f
7718666de98243de8fb05914e490ef8b73e17b5a
8600 F20101221_AABRTO donaldson_k_Page_13thm.jpg
c6363414c87a348998397bf6284c9489
c0cf528b72f227b3cbdf3235684ff2002c21cb6f
76356 F20101221_AABROS donaldson_k_Page_44.jpg
f7f1d4a3e978c48f452a0731f37ef547
6d78ba34b87f07138f3e58b424ed5a6ceaed17bc
8361 F20101221_AABRJV donaldson_k_Page_24thm.jpg
987a5b648ebd0e68349776b2727f467c
3dd521429e79ffedf875afbc4b82f05e5100c586
8896 F20101221_AABRTP donaldson_k_Page_14thm.jpg
d7fdeef3bfa85a28830f4e0ceba7d287
f2c416cf702dfd38330dcc294ee6470cc25d9836
2032 F20101221_AABRJW donaldson_k_Page_27.txt
d82319462e16bcdb58d102ef90cab816
ff9056ac71e4158bfb85f6e79fdb25e708e30930
20028 F20101221_AABRTQ donaldson_k_Page_15.QC.jpg
fc941b86b7379d0d06daf259a52a9370
33396f4b08bd2752c7f85354c5b8b6a7d8539063
29730 F20101221_AABROT donaldson_k_Page_02.jp2
86aed6312886755837dee4ed8b3a8ced
3f1192feca42bac5490d01ff8018e2d3492d6d83
F20101221_AABRJX donaldson_k_Page_27.tif
ef8bb276ea58ff5d308108a9a0ad6007
219055ae3b1dec578e0a72f83a1dc697f2401b2a
34511 F20101221_AABRTR donaldson_k_Page_18.QC.jpg
48974c8445bea247735fbb3609e1083e
47ad3a7ad61c998c77a1a0bd167515acc2fd48a8
77048 F20101221_AABROU donaldson_k_Page_03.jp2
ec3b0dd482812152f87b0612ed11dbc7
fd209c6fee821dcce4806204125e396d292d7cc5
104206 F20101221_AABRJY donaldson_k_Page_07.jp2
42fce0718556bd8638eec791dbb302c8
4409d0ae1ab6381d3dff48819745734b2cf06c3c
33776 F20101221_AABRTS donaldson_k_Page_19.QC.jpg
ee1abc84888f4af391c5c3af043d17cb
b1d23e7be1a18597193bceacc03aaf0a0a0a3a6a
532919 F20101221_AABROV donaldson_k_Page_04.jp2
3275ca8517f681733fa3f5fde17e226b
9dd30b2a5c810ec58c763e60b7b520a32f57622e
F20101221_AABRJZ donaldson_k_Page_27thm.jpg
84b49ae7e9d691af85eac60de100f7ce
e41ce8cc4e048ddfc135f7cdea1a3b7d3130b383
8138 F20101221_AABRTT donaldson_k_Page_19thm.jpg
0893b7111c1872f1f650b88c3fa637bd
acea604c5eb2198a0b71c6a4a5e89b49444f5e31
609672 F20101221_AABROW donaldson_k_Page_06.jp2
145807899ccd9519c470e07c476a5a3d
81ba0886a3d469bcf32404706311abca992d9988
38051 F20101221_AABRTU donaldson_k_Page_21.QC.jpg
f38f7b6180cf52be2e5052a928033211
565c6b36a26712fd21ab53551f9c5b287e9595b4
875684 F20101221_AABROX donaldson_k_Page_08.jp2
02057c238ae6ec4a5ff5baac3990ffcc
00a2ce8a786df9552d3bbb0f57d4e18dad3d3109
21975 F20101221_AABRTV donaldson_k_Page_22.QC.jpg
28d1987a868eb9b6f29569cab59b1591
535cea892a5627d011d12db61c92645eca0d6e64
1051961 F20101221_AABROY donaldson_k_Page_09.jp2
183efd47d9f6376f507f92e371319c0b
fb2bd2a45663f93d8a021a4712edb93cdac85064
5131 F20101221_AABRTW donaldson_k_Page_23thm.jpg
9d695db65c729065f6266c8c744bfc09
31ac93aeded8a927dda09616dba089c71230f405
110861 F20101221_AABRMA donaldson_k_Page_14.jpg
233af19ab8957244788a4430e63ae2d9
f2fd4c024ba611cb5261c2af007bf1e2739e5a08
1051974 F20101221_AABROZ donaldson_k_Page_10.jp2
09872bfa163929fc8e308adb7945000a
e64eda73e686c1a0b504d34f971cc7fcd5484a30
8258 F20101221_AABRTX donaldson_k_Page_25thm.jpg
bcdd52cabbdba33035be36de4bd7e3b6
9d21da28f03d8407a97832f7bdabfc8cd0d99097
2791 F20101221_AABRMB donaldson_k_Page_33thm.jpg
7e82637a5ad4667e7332e83129b3fa84
a08dee1f795730be5c9ea1617b6cf8afef61e8d5
55489 F20101221_AABRRA donaldson_k_Page_12.pro
28a678350c9b84b4413e5df4589eb278
22f26b4eb101c55535a23bb9aa76fc9cd9ebf58f
34785 F20101221_AABRTY donaldson_k_Page_26.QC.jpg
d75dc834c3b01ba95cdbc79be53e95cd
856c53e4471f60ffce97c42b7bbad000198b57c5
8169 F20101221_AABRMC donaldson_k_Page_36thm.jpg
4204c9c5810671413002c9813ee49c87
2507d48fda732afb5fab541615ed10ce7090e89e
54555 F20101221_AABRRB donaldson_k_Page_14.pro
6eb312bed3568748099171ca135b46e9
adb9686107b7b15a08ba5fa404b1752f683ea3fe
34399 F20101221_AABRTZ donaldson_k_Page_27.QC.jpg
2af0578b73ac7ad26a6496a23e20cb8c
a97200e53812bd9c55c751532fdcc1fff7315b54
794370 F20101221_AABRMD donaldson_k_Page_34.jp2
6854d6a0e01f97d04bd2b90cdea7339f
0e0f72212e9bbfb00bd346d916f3a49564cb7f7b
48069 F20101221_AABRRC donaldson_k_Page_16.pro
0a01baad419a90fba0c8563661e4b270
6067172a579c4971c0af6828e05db14497ab8933
33338 F20101221_AABRME donaldson_k_Page_25.QC.jpg
052c1811102796fb130f695b9f7e5a49
77ce65664e9a1b0554bfd0b76160f3b477d8a6ee
48882 F20101221_AABRRD donaldson_k_Page_17.pro
06ddb0f93ff6cdbf72c44370faf28402
8342d0149066d3d663462ed6e04ed479a5d96e28
F20101221_AABRMF donaldson_k_Page_43.tif
7b18bdd907fbeea89b3f6ab8974cd16c
ae9b6694205e94a47db3a6fb320bdec14ec3d3ad
52886 F20101221_AABRRE donaldson_k_Page_18.pro
d92bb0d5987751c0178d64181758a94b
ce03978f476b8f1f4db60655256d172ad0a23d38
F20101221_AABRMG donaldson_k_Page_06.tif
0402e06cfad62d934aca0b08b7c6e3b6
d16eb16aae76479d76d0ffb98f86e00d187caf55
F20101221_AABRMH donaldson_k_Page_24.tif
faf496ab78242f2ed8bc795112285e4d
a2c2b2d3ab454794fff59dce237b66ec19bbbd69
53836 F20101221_AABRRF donaldson_k_Page_20.pro
3d373e857d5d0a6bf73f08d6e2ee6457
940bdc43191be59822ea20074aee842a41715a1a
335476 F20101221_AABRMI donaldson_k.pdf
7e2279e5e83ca2a2762ef332c91798c5
b7231300f3b0c8480f165920cfeb788a8a9d20d9
58249 F20101221_AABRRG donaldson_k_Page_21.pro
2da98fa35aa60bc461d0ad2b09ec5eea
8e99ad2e00a37767802f481b03a4fe31c2e7ab00
16354 F20101221_AABRMJ donaldson_k_Page_45.QC.jpg
a4490091cec219c6dcf3ba905b75e29f
fa9ea81880978f7763f96620f56f906cba5d1941
38364 F20101221_AABRRH donaldson_k_Page_22.pro
6e40a4b955b976ac01efe4db61f8a1df
31714e859cda7f02a188ad264a405497b120efcc
1051931 F20101221_AABRMK donaldson_k_Page_30.jp2
ad4c164a482bc1eb0542e53902d7ff71
86b47b6853e006edeff742915ab6bb04ed3ddf58
20135 F20101221_AABRRI donaldson_k_Page_23.pro
2cfaf0f81ed1b2a66fa7823393484ede
e015a60918b364e388ee8ef30a6dd8268fc91a00
1051962 F20101221_AABRML donaldson_k_Page_05.jp2
b99b93f1f0412257f7402e6d8d648013
95501bca1d2779a44c6a68e3b832108d85e26db8
50356 F20101221_AABRRJ donaldson_k_Page_24.pro
fc983136f0db8417dd954afd46b3aae7
ea84a0d409de2ea1354dd78086882f045b49f78d
9209 F20101221_AABRMM donaldson_k_Page_07.jpg
0e4ccd1bb0edf096a52074e7f45168bd
b83337bbd1f2d55d13d72e3dd26f8e103885b115
52240 F20101221_AABRRK donaldson_k_Page_26.pro
512a6429befc6ccf282edf016c9f60ae
98daa695bcc2aa0d64119bede9cee624b6ffebd4
594324 F20101221_AABRMN donaldson_k_Page_23.jp2
8b672b1b1839d6e377fe897a68c0e56e
46a8d465671b5312fe0e855a152f77608bc1c3ef
51443 F20101221_AABRRL donaldson_k_Page_27.pro
d4000a2d2933bbc8c899323a6f1c6d2f
3222002bd46a7744594dd1d5fddd1cce6d5105c5
2047 F20101221_AABRMO donaldson_k_Page_30.txt
dc0971cdcf4052a2f245f987cd0ec82c
2d4fb79aa07ec3ec6f1b62244b5168e0dc64176c
52618 F20101221_AABRRM donaldson_k_Page_28.pro
11aa01be51a719bf8707cc7393e7fe23
17d38c9b158d95819f0605474ebc08987443e8ae
60048 F20101221_AABRMP donaldson_k_Page_42.pro
5bc76b52274f1518934f696ba711cdf0
a949629aaff03fb2d992a012661baf56e872522b
49392 F20101221_AABRRN donaldson_k_Page_29.pro
1733932d32d78b2f6fd1106a72cb33f2
40afb63f52e8acb7b1ec9ea260c98f1cd025d53d
F20101221_AABRMQ donaldson_k_Page_08.tif
72a26520c27c05874d54bd09329007c8
5770831fcc91e04fd956baea1a518be45a7a9f0b
51751 F20101221_AABRRO donaldson_k_Page_30.pro
d4187108eb29591f1f09675958db5000
4dadde8644f3c90626a7cf9e5dd91acaefd2dad0
F20101221_AABRMR donaldson_k_Page_11.tif
a2cec9623fe25cfa9e62e3d5fc398acd
7351f0d2254c025920f9efd4059f99dc103dd3a4
22759 F20101221_AABRMS donaldson_k_Page_45.pro
1bd53cfa073bd8b0ad6f83dd33e1bef0
7ad72f1a309fb1946883ccb322f0edd3ed630c8a
32907 F20101221_AABRRP donaldson_k_Page_31.pro
fc6c636760012811d9d47628d508be2b
5b59168559acee0fb26f975a3136093744dcd185
54252 F20101221_AABRMT donaldson_k_Page_23.jpg
8233a4329783a2bdca4cf72c9ee464d7
d527084b90e094723b4ac9e9934a5690d8578873
42182 F20101221_AABRRQ donaldson_k_Page_32.pro
a4eccbd3957be083b8ea28f0c39b6374
39ae59f6b08277b03bea7394d03dc9af86b21fe2
F20101221_AABRMU donaldson_k_Page_13.txt
5d30cb70dcd5432df60c811e77b0036e
d3d5ee395dd1550501227a71edd974854592028e
41058 F20101221_AABRRR donaldson_k_Page_34.pro
f975ac4fd434e7b4a41a88c585577d69
beb24a3795a556306d3cd2408915be06f5ea12b7
2473 F20101221_AABRMV donaldson_k_Page_43.txt
a84033bea51059f8cb50a0d1c4baa3a1
97ca34081249ac5da7c44f9b4eab136dd34dbb5a
29094 F20101221_AABRRS donaldson_k_Page_35.pro
5e8709aa97249c9329e937122c60626f
5b980ae93de7d5e78a3a472e24d604744ca578f2
511093 F20101221_AABRMW donaldson_k_Page_33.jp2
877a02fba546b6dccbddcb76dabc1aeb
433c8e9f35586cf4efb9a5844d288feea312c218
49516 F20101221_AABRRT donaldson_k_Page_36.pro
2695cad06127808204300d246e00dfba
12658ecf416b879056c88dca892fd1ad243281c4
F20101221_AABRMX donaldson_k_Page_17.tif
e7d4dce4718b241a2da4dc9c3d84862a
d90c426176945c6a6173d720840bacd71d7a610e
53496 F20101221_AABRRU donaldson_k_Page_38.pro
70fee794d43890d1c2e48608c11bd485
966931b72f7ffca2ad94013c989dd5b0aa6ef20c
33943 F20101221_AABRMY donaldson_k_Page_30.QC.jpg
9868f147197e86dcc2ddc3fe7672e3d6
c204b860226475b963376b5fbe56400d48752368
51343 F20101221_AABRRV donaldson_k_Page_39.pro
0f45a5df62dc90a5746efd5d90256c84
baf04bb936339143b2e5a0a822cbd4369c007524
7583 F20101221_AABRKA donaldson_k_Page_03.jpg
02466b99e91ca23f7891513af5785d6e
ec32ac7cec2305ae31d1364b3b9a55f7191c93ca
1051969 F20101221_AABRMZ donaldson_k_Page_38.jp2
1a847ca04e413acd2957334ba2777396
4a6650a8047a3b4fa9a75dea3d461ac6952097d6
61192 F20101221_AABRRW donaldson_k_Page_43.pro
e29d78b7098bb353b99e9f785ec8f093
6a7952f1e597161a56b3059dd258626d60633958
106736 F20101221_AABRKB donaldson_k_Page_28.jpg
fc9bc840ce37654b95d2d3d5ed9b3787
29613705a00dbab2e060f6cec17d246f436e6b89
36823 F20101221_AABRRX donaldson_k_Page_44.pro
9f67bcd2443ea88e5c485cc5f7bc4329
2a52ff8f7b48566f0cd645a0bf353ac445b309ad
1051977 F20101221_AABRPA donaldson_k_Page_11.jp2
23d5a7b2a47f7f4477f73dcdc7c4ce71
77a265511962f9414385572984656eddf6bae429
486 F20101221_AABRRY donaldson_k_Page_01.txt
8412f5626a80d04cb7bb5c6524a0517d
5ee95cca37f84f1b40d23af9b043e85340cc463e
1051966 F20101221_AABRKC donaldson_k_Page_17.jp2
b257f3146cb3c1cbd8066fc273f82dc2
a3826b3c0926e3bf11c4a24e2e8e9883847cd46b
1051956 F20101221_AABRPB donaldson_k_Page_12.jp2
1bd913d23108d1081e6daaa1346718fa
b24d07fa5ec71f5608bf0288d9b0d5a00a9e8026
97 F20101221_AABRRZ donaldson_k_Page_02.txt
bb525cee8f60562a88dc75a6344925ba
e6468d72867094cd883daf8191af757e2aa098a6
2142 F20101221_AABRKD donaldson_k_Page_14.txt
089d5490151ddb33792a5ccca4cd6b6f
3c9a2bf89d5c2e25f4bf918286bbeaed129e0346
F20101221_AABRPC donaldson_k_Page_14.jp2
12392e660bac05854088ff1ca9aeadf0
3b83876f6378dba9049802e46e758de34f6412da
24984 F20101221_AABRKE donaldson_k_Page_41.pro
3199e80bb90bd9bbfa04e26c4b223144
0dc5f600dfea6f31328c5a919a933f8c9fb0528b
34980 F20101221_AABRUA donaldson_k_Page_28.QC.jpg
213a2f066853bf8d81e30879a189dcef
f291fcd6208a60ebfb535209b203e06c82450603
107534 F20101221_AABRKF donaldson_k_Page_10.jpg
e2bebb976620c68c667db4f86d8d0d0f
f714ab90b230d813036f3b53563f1bbcc6cef8c0
33009 F20101221_AABRUB donaldson_k_Page_29.QC.jpg
505eb321b93824c24dcd412dea18d706
82542f2578730bf7380fd99dc3ff7344119c3ef3
710539 F20101221_AABRPD donaldson_k_Page_15.jp2
40c3af25af16b8d0d5b331c78cbf8afa
4ecbe990584b9098fbcce32bdd9bfb12424acbd7
3008 F20101221_AABRKG donaldson_k_Page_07.QC.jpg
4c8b6cfe699501411ce37c83c20f9c89
9f7b7b9fe89f9d1feff03e6c1043021889519fd7
8291 F20101221_AABRUC donaldson_k_Page_29thm.jpg
7526aaace21f97bcc3d8a3c611ed894c
4b930620f73f6132547148b9ba5ce164708b51c6
1051975 F20101221_AABRPE donaldson_k_Page_16.jp2
b1fe1311b90824e203dad9c5654f4d77
527c5fd67f9ff086c23602280446f0c07501489f
5033 F20101221_AABRKH donaldson_k_Page_22thm.jpg
521d01950a7466b1de8c3b69495bbc30
345355b23d23560d853e82b1a2e97505e4b5f166
23066 F20101221_AABRUD donaldson_k_Page_31.QC.jpg
6140dc78c659201c22800d9f464a885a
91f0fa53ac43e364dccd9ffe4ec2e632342bd853
F20101221_AABRPF donaldson_k_Page_21.jp2
f108880466cbe2a091a1b279ec52ae98
c23c0a3ad68feff78a4ce74882a67c08e6caeb9a
9119 F20101221_AABRKI donaldson_k_Page_21thm.jpg
677625789efa08dd7fbc88466de17cde
7a3aa787bfeab2ee8f772edeee08c94a5509173e
5670 F20101221_AABRUE donaldson_k_Page_31thm.jpg
a517f57d9eba39829a33c1bebde780cc
03e8bfc48c293babce84137ef457dc75f9d7dc38
1051959 F20101221_AABRPG donaldson_k_Page_25.jp2
29a600e93f5c289d3e5cf260863f367c
62daa10145fa1dd83f61943a66a5f9224cd56cfd
7946 F20101221_AABRKJ donaldson_k_Page_17thm.jpg
6314c73853bfb65d76467900cff2f707
65ac581ce812fd816b76bc38904f2a8d34f38127
14757 F20101221_AABRUF donaldson_k_Page_32.QC.jpg
2d123952fa5d9eae5bf8c9b76497542e
73f5c673e79ba71bb8841fe79d0825b3c290cebd
F20101221_AABRPH donaldson_k_Page_26.jp2
e8d5cd28a5d83ce6817571105cbd3be2
7d1990a546f7cbcee2ffb062f96ab8a4fa65615c
53048 F20101221_AABRKK donaldson_k_Page_13.pro
371e4863588a111057c1a87f0558f5d9
03a8532bfc2148b8dacecd4178df9a5cf176d78a
3791 F20101221_AABRUG donaldson_k_Page_34thm.jpg
e0037d9425c3540fc9b2bd250ac39a22
063e8a4ea80bdb7403f946a7a5c7109fa20fd2bf
819530 F20101221_AABRPI donaldson_k_Page_32.jp2
32b73e3c7e7593ecf9450e11abbb29a1
ff2d12b28a51c25400c9520d64dbeb55dde7fc49
8681 F20101221_AABRKL donaldson_k_Page_20thm.jpg
0ab269c0d7de84257dab131d5c70565d
15b3e1fdc26ff9ef5832a46915509a5f42207194
10308 F20101221_AABRUH donaldson_k_Page_35.QC.jpg
1b1283f3c49f068e4a56261ecaa5bd00
681fa468d33fb87102462676c1f1e7cef81c6f19
507795 F20101221_AABRPJ donaldson_k_Page_35.jp2
23037802c3b120115793db6cb69552bd
1a846e251a29f0e4b9434769390a97d655b70ad0
49730 F20101221_AABRKM donaldson_k_Page_09.pro
2b223325d080aecb7cdbdbe2a6c28495
93b9cab1c696376e6e785ad1cbccf922ba51a151
1051976 F20101221_AABRPK donaldson_k_Page_36.jp2
57b60965c898256cbf90fbd4fb06c857
4ccaa8b2293df21c5f88764c15f9164e2c652864
130938 F20101221_AABRKN donaldson_k_Page_43.jpg
7ebbc839f1c0280ed27718bfb829819d
02a2156f0ef7b56bd51913ff622bbf9d9f3ffcaa
2829 F20101221_AABRUI donaldson_k_Page_35thm.jpg
b71c6473694c200c106f91d9951149c7
a7c80c4b137f6e168e15696c3da6131bb6a41516
1051973 F20101221_AABRPL donaldson_k_Page_37.jp2
f3449719cea96d5015b2578ccd6c42f3
b2183fcb4d27c502885779b365d54d104d3ec877
33235 F20101221_AABRKO donaldson_k_Page_09.QC.jpg
dfe98635b55277990b28aa709fe50be9
3b69fff8f6cf977329c0a4c2f3b739cd4953d0fa
32355 F20101221_AABRUJ donaldson_k_Page_37.QC.jpg
e6ea51167ccd27d92391a62ee5a29891
95b4c35dfc9811667bd437a229b2b34a6fe87bba
1051968 F20101221_AABRPM donaldson_k_Page_39.jp2
28dd262fe300dd644fe0a31a5e3b4a09
cad998ab2beec07e4da7c369fffeae73be09eea0
49772 F20101221_AABRKP donaldson_k_Page_37.pro
37accfd7ca9174e2d1b9d21ddc81e848
87e204c36fbd26fa84f739e486f5f12ab7c8d4c1
8331 F20101221_AABRUK donaldson_k_Page_37thm.jpg
a26dc881f4e2b87e174a960ceb56177f
1095bee15ec591a318b83119d5b3584e5fc6ef56
F20101221_AABRPN donaldson_k_Page_40.jp2
2196dee7decf9418d55baa8c05fb0714
28c5a6994a8e905460aac938f2252a48f883f499
29522 F20101221_AABRKQ donaldson_k_Page_33.pro
b6c92ae48170797f3b34cbd649652130
bd657a072fa7ada8a656fadf2ebef3e98602fc04
1051984 F20101221_AABRPO donaldson_k_Page_42.jp2
9406a51390e96c5b11ed5c305a22f4a2
8c8158812deacc3e2bee64eb541f0aa2e8709ea1
8763 F20101221_AABRKR donaldson_k_Page_11thm.jpg
666d131ee5b5c90b7c6d26476156a7a9
0083c13950f79bbb52156b8367bc03502197e2f3
34913 F20101221_AABRUL donaldson_k_Page_38.QC.jpg
838ca0235a1ca2f2057dfe16fe4e36dd
bea36cf131dd60d1528db415cd005e508d352e25
1051978 F20101221_AABRPP donaldson_k_Page_43.jp2
badbde86b0a01ac7833dfb6a45cbcf7e
a465eb5478d3d84f26a4475a6442619142d77cc5
10134 F20101221_AABRKS donaldson_k_Page_33.QC.jpg
a75b8424db672224861ff42aee2568a7
3035cb0da443a573db1c6e19760f34c8e6710bac
8635 F20101221_AABRUM donaldson_k_Page_38thm.jpg
9a35f21d6aa8052158798d6310660879
e4c2a12c2cdc6af52ee3f767e5b752cb88a60a42
523217 F20101221_AABRPQ donaldson_k_Page_45.jp2
f4e380234bc7f59e5619ab27fcc32e90
1ca2ebea64c8fac117b9ff860f76feebcb647149
F20101221_AABRKT donaldson_k_Page_30.tif
34402e72199189ef29b13ce399825896
3a7d49039befca5f39c08a82732be639a5d8277a
33325 F20101221_AABRUN donaldson_k_Page_39.QC.jpg
1a88a8e41977b12d5c69c50f5bdf1d8f
f4344d517517594f41841fa36835435a8eec2301
F20101221_AABRPR donaldson_k_Page_01.tif
51535e767a3ce049dc4a03e89b3e4a60
89dc95c73cb2f5cc05808f4b82dc652397b880f5
32143 F20101221_AABRKU donaldson_k_Page_16.QC.jpg
11707c4bab4fa8c0710d1b02f4b44885
b1c888509fb8c9729114d4e69d7df120c6496de5
9005 F20101221_AABRUO donaldson_k_Page_40thm.jpg
4b3e91782471752fe562cabaeaa9f98c
779423d4f4372618236f92d88ddb15c681d61b9e
F20101221_AABRPS donaldson_k_Page_02.tif
2a08d193004e511eb13e0cb373aebedf
353a4d5d49c8d7340d43e1e860de08a50b1ba770
9252 F20101221_AABRKV donaldson_k_Page_43thm.jpg
e4f62ceba64c82d1638b1510a1148b8a
d394b39485f29cc63b93d75a0895dcb837c74b9e
18088 F20101221_AABRUP donaldson_k_Page_41.QC.jpg
93eddff8e0f11c9aaa87707c07bfeee7
e4ee52b8502449ee98d677ee4cba819dbbf83d28
F20101221_AABRPT donaldson_k_Page_03.tif
433c3434a792930c02a42b7b283c47d0
5f9a114cb5c2e03409ce551e63310c7bf66847f4
14720 F20101221_AABRKW donaldson_k_Page_34.QC.jpg
a6b8d0383238b9bfe07b9711c05d5637
2424ac0b903199d8efd676e941890091fd75dcb3
36172 F20101221_AABRUQ donaldson_k_Page_42.QC.jpg
6d5145a925e754a905d962eb44add2d1
41343baec2fa807afdb7ee9aa5899a7cb279ef80
F20101221_AABRPU donaldson_k_Page_05.tif
a6b047d92d2a1a3b1389fd63662c0ee1
35ae83db245a0fe6aafe124db59212715e4b41bd
F20101221_AABRKX donaldson_k_Page_04.tif
99266a0915a73c7d940ea039f7cac8dd
9edc5e90935563f23e699c8e2bd1637a81e4ca4e
36962 F20101221_AABRUR donaldson_k_Page_43.QC.jpg
4a727a403d4f9a0177aedae427b14128
885af31dec994eb846266731c57e5ff7e3d65149
F20101221_AABRPV donaldson_k_Page_07.tif
b0ac67a9e79118fb273d68fe3a3932e8
5176805a29869dcab246d375fbb13e9ea01cac92
108170 F20101221_AABRKY donaldson_k_Page_38.jpg
133eeb50e772c1de9cd720cf29fc72db
78508c3ff16d06a08d187ef8c217a66387c88f50
23124 F20101221_AABRUS donaldson_k_Page_44.QC.jpg
4f9df056df0e015e36d45f9197145034
2854cad34d763338701ff440f43f25b5eb4aaf47
F20101221_AABRPW donaldson_k_Page_09.tif
29f8f8ede5d5ebda6205c7ac60c30711
1c6d2574bc62bf6afcb6d44875d6b6ba03dd4db6
101312 F20101221_AABRKZ donaldson_k_Page_29.jpg
76f5fc339380993c13ebf206df1d4b0b
5b027e8bae0d0991954e8eda17c8c771f4f281d7
5816 F20101221_AABRUT donaldson_k_Page_44thm.jpg
2b867016ba771b75867326c27f1e42e0
4e77d2c23c85f8efd57f9bbfc1e77ab5fe85bc92
F20101221_AABRPX donaldson_k_Page_10.tif
92a8e5a9ba94211e0b4612b2478e0319
03e96053db75d29576a9f99db12175c5b0fa7665
55475 F20101221_AABRUU UFE0024813_00001.mets FULL
8eaa1549286d1dba5c6f3ff94b7f5fd9
fd9c4edc2ea683ecfd343ba4d3222e7e939bcc27
F20101221_AABRPY donaldson_k_Page_12.tif
f89068693e682b30cb5feedde90d89f7
f62cfa13cdc45adf4977962e30e35eb67f512dbd
32610 F20101221_AABRNA donaldson_k_Page_24.QC.jpg
0e921c73b05c18863e43e19437b1f081
f515f0eb9bcfb346dc84a5f9ca04563c7ee39634
F20101221_AABRPZ donaldson_k_Page_13.tif
aba874c786627c3caf330c85b68c8a8a
8fd13a1353ea63721da5a92bb587aab1225ae2c6
108312 F20101221_AABRNB donaldson_k_Page_40.jpg
c0980f63db6e91b393b26fbeae219dd3
172eb0225f1164b9171efd7dc201f595a6e33372
205 F20101221_AABRSA donaldson_k_Page_03.txt
1c93c94c150ae9261653820631aa04da
0bba546b7587ad7d1bcadf29a1314160c1b2be10
35719 F20101221_AABRNC donaldson_k_Page_06.jpg
f756ec9f48ceaafd409a00a8f8ce5de4
aac1e38d5983e2dfb6787720a992a864c5c335f0
954 F20101221_AABRSB donaldson_k_Page_04.txt
47975d5d6b8d3f93fe6392ac2fda572d
c2af84d517bdca1d38e9a9dc33dba2b49b6af0df
F20101221_AABRND donaldson_k_Page_15.tif
bbef5ec7c1e05df8b46bfb501e1c4ec7
c5e1b96c424db5c6a7018c6c6a01140baf73c52f
198 F20101221_AABRSC donaldson_k_Page_07.txt
a8485c7768e4dbf6d02c7fd06425f974
91aa5e01603a2ea749872402f90c3887fe80cc5a
2129 F20101221_AABRNE donaldson_k_Page_19.txt
33b9a24f8ff0158c70aa471d1afd6838
09f3fcbf05a133dc213ff096df46da61a4f6ef86
1699 F20101221_AABRSD donaldson_k_Page_08.txt
c012c2f6699de2cf0efd2e9ab3bcdc8e
b47e24f88408399d1aa05a250021ecec80c3a0ce
1051933 F20101221_AABRNF donaldson_k_Page_19.jp2
bea41b8b083528e2f62146add9693ab4
99e8c061f3f57c097e5b18292cd1f59d370ff013
2137 F20101221_AABRSE donaldson_k_Page_10.txt
26e25ec323d0dd5f01b5465582ed3c26
7dc8508310f33d0134bcde3f55093e14b5df4000
5403 F20101221_AABRNG donaldson_k_Page_07.pro
bf4debbaaf1231ed5d926389784a4ced
71b3a8ddbcbe3d5f9183d7f947249705ff7ae83b
1316 F20101221_AABRSF donaldson_k_Page_15.txt
0406adeeb329ce34bd1f377460eee937
378f33be7e989a1789ced7a101eca00aad250aa7
16847 F20101221_AABRNH donaldson_k_Page_04.QC.jpg
8da3b637ceb0c9ed74d89ad322bfb314
4996cf09ae872a0e42413007885910f58f1eb69a
49777 F20101221_AABRNI donaldson_k_Page_25.pro
9221329b11615547fde382bd27d7c890
a569602c902bb19e586be048aa922281e6c0047a
2042 F20101221_AABRSG donaldson_k_Page_16.txt
4ac05d10a135e2eae72c7c103cb9fbaf
375122f6df2adcc4c8027b7f12e28ecf3428d8a8
1051970 F20101221_AABRNJ donaldson_k_Page_18.jp2
49cbea54404a4f4dcea9ec7bde1b6904
23e32561defda23a81e5bb3481df1695c0c04ce2
F20101221_AABRIN donaldson_k_Page_41.tif
235facc95e401827421f884f4c7305a1
b337137e14cc684286454cfa806f803079ced181
1990 F20101221_AABRSH donaldson_k_Page_17.txt
3387bb65cfeab3662ab32fdc3c7b896a
3bb19ce5747e61ddf89b81ecc34cdfee706e2485
F20101221_AABRNK donaldson_k_Page_20.tif
9e40a5963713ab43455f4bb064e6c7ea
7b0d1e7e4242c0bb9b6de76518bb9aaf192dd937
51939 F20101221_AABRIO donaldson_k_Page_19.pro
e397541b94ab0d5dd7d59b6bce90c4ca
6f3c4c15f92dbcabaceabd7d409639a9ed74606b
2090 F20101221_AABRSI donaldson_k_Page_18.txt
dbf65bab01aa5e4a4859872ed571a796
847c18df4e2765f0df41fcc6b1832529585fb213
2960 F20101221_AABRNL donaldson_k_Page_03.QC.jpg
a5e1399e6f99b0ddd07054ae3f100da9
6701e4916ef27b407810faaf0cc2841c90c7ee15
F20101221_AABRIP donaldson_k_Page_37.tif
79e758b3d11b6997b0fb1fb9f23e3228
593082022bda4ce31a7ee04d81b0bc41d9d8cd43
2183 F20101221_AABRSJ donaldson_k_Page_20.txt
ad8fe6ce1ae799537fc0b68a911025b8
293a46e7402cc475484ea50f6d412146f5971030
F20101221_AABRNM donaldson_k_Page_28.jp2
5ef4152be8d8aad9fe3257015739bc33
8ab89ff1e93f01cfe67df885a5b8ebc78a14a8fd
49978 F20101221_AABRIQ donaldson_k_Page_45.jpg
8a2fab692526eb8eaab9d3e1150daef0
f5eeaa7a9ceab02e3834ff9a5706eb2702b8bb32
2385 F20101221_AABRSK donaldson_k_Page_21.txt
2e59021cb9ad42a8e462f342b329336a
d79af11d1d4dfee2c22f1aea2edd772f99c21d58
7948 F20101221_AABRNN donaldson_k_Page_16thm.jpg
f75b80771bf44991ddb621f4801bc3cd
fc847dce0f6fed0149d7e5c299b538526649f997
1889 F20101221_AABRIR donaldson_k_Page_32.txt
89894b139910195f62409bb8df5b9f29
b361d16d919cabac185d852a61f2a557fb43158f
1729 F20101221_AABRSL donaldson_k_Page_22.txt
7d37ff0531dd9f9ab736b2b539aed08e
32ad76cf6772bf722fd7ec796a776074fd635637
1051941 F20101221_AABRNO donaldson_k_Page_24.jp2
b52a4c4b2d02b8366ed37b42959e2c62
d1b6462a75ac06718a4b6ade05f883e6adfba884
890559 F20101221_AABRIS donaldson_k_Page_44.jp2
867564dce59a4d7b0bbd6d0a13e57391
021be02a67b4b4a14e5ec1fc986fc79b82d2d8e1
1039 F20101221_AABRSM donaldson_k_Page_23.txt
1951f4c94f5fb2870c608244b98bf78a
a4fdd993b93fcf9fb9ad14c9055afb148b5ab45a
128672 F20101221_AABRNP donaldson_k_Page_42.jpg
3f3ecf825cddfc0761057bbacee583ef
6c87cee6a20de8fb31ea13771ea638f8d48f3e9e
2178 F20101221_AABRIT donaldson_k_Page_12.txt
d7beeb20cb3edd56ff49901643231d3a
f10bd4df500135077f1774bbf4720340665c3de8
2072 F20101221_AABRSN donaldson_k_Page_24.txt
bc4327b7b9b70108d8a509d96c96df4e
8376b08eef051f6b507cee086f5255781bc58598
35910 F20101221_AABRNQ donaldson_k_Page_14.QC.jpg
18af3cb76a2ea45dd04f821d6cbdd59a
095a9fb57f0480a95cd7fa306399276880348b08
238972 F20101221_AABRIU donaldson_k_Page_01.jp2
9eec8016b5c0bc943da0692e6030d4bf
aa66db190974ebf3591f311e6ef6c27b98792763
2074 F20101221_AABRSO donaldson_k_Page_28.txt
2a24a94520fda2e2652c9bc4cedcf3d9
8bb1eb7b586eb1d10e78e81ea3870841435e1cfa
32863 F20101221_AABRNR donaldson_k_Page_17.QC.jpg
adebf86e4d677dcfbbbdd109446c99ce
21a739cb86f6528e8ceca606b20eacdb334df4ed
106419 F20101221_AABRIV donaldson_k_Page_27.jpg
a5e26b10e12f97783d9dba7d9fef5774
39519d321d8d08092084e9c696970a0c7cd69873
1313 F20101221_AABRSP donaldson_k_Page_31.txt
2694844938eb0e62157d722d1c7aef68
b0c3c5bd0cf4e66c3e70612d0b05ee99d5faffad
3877 F20101221_AABRNS donaldson_k_Page_32thm.jpg
080bf950395c05ada3a7e7bc2a2b9bec
59fccb5932801f7dfc716b673064f52a34ef819c
4138 F20101221_AABRIW donaldson_k_Page_04thm.jpg
42ea9671369aaa32c697c2eb96cba7da
05b791dce386abe4da0c6052c95c59b29d89b07e
1549 F20101221_AABRSQ donaldson_k_Page_33.txt
28fff092f7f6cd852736d0b3b0903fe7
a9933a74ecb0cb5184eab1b13a3ec7bdef1b0b62
F20101221_AABRNT donaldson_k_Page_27.jp2
42977420bac927e22a5f0738c14dc755
dd41ebf294dc9539f736a9c8cd71331d048f20c7
F20101221_AABRIX donaldson_k_Page_13.jp2
96a2834b2c6e87546ab45a15216cf9f2
5edf2a209c7218ccde361ed9dd536bcf47894114
1837 F20101221_AABRSR donaldson_k_Page_34.txt
218249bba0ea62353fc5c41b83419b4c
446fb637eb19969b1be7434ea0e55a259520ae61
71522 F20101221_AABRNU UFE0024813_00001.xml
72c2a8bf191ae2a56a6e8679fd1e3ff3
5872d8c3a819c79d13f58daa9ea2c2bbae11cc56
32813 F20101221_AABRIY donaldson_k_Page_36.QC.jpg
d3d133697072c9fd2d90c8f5dc2acbae
c1dcf391adc4e520ea4a07965c2a88c51b029edd
1507 F20101221_AABRSS donaldson_k_Page_35.txt
9293bd244788c7e6b910a101ebcfb5ad
648ac3a4937d8ae8f7edd2b5eb6e9ebe588e1a9f