Citation
Correlation between professors'inferences about students' self-concepts

Material Information

Title:
Correlation between professors'inferences about students' self-concepts and professors' knowledge of students' participation in a community college compensatory education program
Creator:
Jones, Charles William, 1948-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vii, 105 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Academic achievement ( jstor )
Academic communities ( jstor )
College students ( jstor )
Colleges ( jstor )
Community colleges ( jstor )
Educational research ( jstor )
Graduate students ( jstor )
High school students ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Compensatory education ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Foundations of Education -- UF ( lcsh )
Foundations of Education thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Interaction analysis in education ( lcsh )
Self-perception ( lcsh )
Teacher-student relationships ( lcsh )
Greater Orlando ( local )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 91-103.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Charles William Jones.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
022709413 ( ALEPH )
04893143 ( OCLC )
AAJ3638 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text









CORRELATION


ABOUT


STUDENTS


KNOWLEDGE


COMMUNITY


BETWEEN


PROFESSORS'


' SELF-CONCEPTS


STUDENTS'


COLLEGE


INFERENCES.
PROFESSORS


PARTICIPATION


COMPENSATORY


EDUCATION


IN A


PROGRAM


CHARLES


WILLIAM JONES


A DISSERTATION


PRESENTED


UNIVERSITY


PARTIAL


FULFILLMENT


DEGREE


DOCTOR


GRADUATE
FLORIDA


COUNCIL


REQUIREMENTS
PHILOSOPHY













ACKNOWLEDGMENT


would d


first


like


to thank


chairman,


Robert


Curran,


and my


committee members,


. Donald


Avila


William R


Mapl


Their patience


guidance over


several


years


work


have


been


deeply


appreciated.


gratitude


extend


college


profe


ssors


at Manatee


Junior


College,


Florida


tate


Univer-


Univer


Florida


Many


names


elude me


they


have


touched my


life


for nearly


twelve


years


would


hope


they


feel


that


their work


not been


vain


woul d


like


acknowledge


help


have


received at


Central


Florida


Community


College.


. Carolyn


West,


Director of


Special


ervi


, gave me a


job,


goal


and mo


importantly,


freedom and opportunity


grow.


rest


taff,


particu-


larly


John


son,


have


helped


me develop


ideas


which


research.


special


thank


goes


Becton


for hi


assi


tance with


tati


tical


analysis.


admini


trator


college


have


been most


helpful


well


From the


use o


taff


Program


Development


fund


to finance


tudi


to direct


assi


stance


with


research,


they


have


been


involved.


special


thank


is extended


to Robert


. Ritterhoff,


Dean


instructional


services


Admini


trative


stant,








very


special


secretary


ecial


thank


goes


Services


, my


out to Ms


typi


Bonni


rtma n


friend


been


dedicated


tolerance


diffi


ress


encouragement


magnitude


my work.


appreciation


that


to my


parents


and Mr


. Robert


Jones.


so many


ways


their


support


encouragement


alwa


been


there


. They


have


never


expected any more


than


that


did my


best at what


wanted


thank


them


freedom and


opportunity.


Finally


would d


like


expr


appreciation


person


really made


worthwhile


my wife


, Una.


loyalty


dedication


, patience


encouragement


love


understanding


have


been


so important.


Without


would


not have made















TABLE OF CONTENTS



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. .........................................ii

ABSTRACT............ ..... .........................................vi

CHAPTER I, STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM................................ 1

Introduction. ... .. ... .. ... .... .... 1
Purpose....................................................... 6

CHAPTER II, REVIEW OF LITERATURE................................... 8

Introduction .8........................ ........ .. ...... 8
Teacher Expectancies: Where Do They Come From?...............1
Program Label, Ability Grouping, or Perceived


Ability........
Teacher Expectancies
Teacher Expectancies
Teacher Expectancies
Status (SES)...
Teacher Bias.............
Tutoring...........
In-Class Situations.


Conclusion... ................


and Sex...........
and Race..........
and Socioeconomic


* S S S S Si a *


*5* *


Academic Blooming..... ........ ... ..
Falsification of Test Scores, IQ, or Track
Assignment .. ....... ...... ...... .


* ..
... .
* ...
* .
* .
* .*


. .. .
. .. ..16
. .17


* .
* .
* .


. .18
..... .20
*S ** .20
. .21
S. .21


. 24


CHAPTER III, HYPOTHESES..... .............. .. ..... ....... .... ...25

CHAPTER IV, THE DESIGN..... .... ....... ......... ........... ....28


Introduction......
Sampling.........
Variable Controls
Validity..........
Internal Val i
External Va i


S. .28
......... ... ... ........ ... .. ..29
di. .. 31

dity... .. ... ... .32


.23


i










CHAPTER VI, DATA COLLECTION........ .... ........... .... ... .....37

Procedure .... . 37

CHAPTER VII, DATA ANALYSIS................. ........................39


Response Rate....
Group Composition.
Scores.. .. ...


"...


. af .
*t *t C
* ...0


*:


*


0. 0.* *.*
0.**.. e **..


* .. C.. C
* a SC eat.
as......


Three-Way Analysis of Variance.


CHAPTER VIII, INTERPRETATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.....51


Interpretation of Data Analysis........
Hypothesis One.............. ...
Hypothesis Two... ... .
Hypothesis Three. .................
Hypothesis Four...........
Concl usion.... ... .. ........... ....


.. a .



* *. a *
* C *


* CC C C C
* S C C C
* C C *C*
* S CCC C
* C CC.


* *.t C
* CCS *
* S C C C
* C** C
S*t Ct


. 51
S. .51
.. ... 52
..... .53
S... 53
S.......54


APPENDIX A, FORMS AND LETTERS..........


. 57


APPENDIX B, THE SPECIAL SERVICES PROGRAM AT CENTRAL FLORIDA


COMMUNITY COLLEGE, OCALA, FLORIDA...


BIBLIOGRAPHY. ....... ................ ............... 91

References Cited.. ... .... .. .. .. ... .91
Additional Sources in the Areas of Teachers'
Perceptions and Expectations.............................95
Sources in the Areas of Remedial, Compensatory,
Developmental and Nontraditional Education.............. 100

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...... 1........ ....... ...... ......... ......04


63














Abstract


Dissertation


Univeristy of


Requi rements


for the


Presented


Florida


Degree


to the


Partial


Doctor


Graduate


Council


Fulfillment of
of Philosophy


CORRELATION


ABOUT


STUDENT


KNOWLEDGE


COMMUNITY


COLLEGE


BETWEEN


ELF-


STUDENT


PROFE


CONCEPT


' INFERENCE


AND PROFE


PARTICIPATION


COMPENSATORY


EDUCATION


SORS


IN A


PROGRAM


Charle


William Jones


August


1978


Chairman


Major


Robert


Department:


Curran


Foundation


Education


question wa


raised whether


knowledge


students


partici-


pation


In a


compensatory


education


program could


significantly


related


to professor


' inferences


about


student


-concepts.


A post


-test


only


control


group


design


was used


to investigate


possible


relationship.


relation


hips


between


among


student


race


sex and


program


label


professors


' inferences


about


students'


-concept


were


examined.


Thirty-two


professors


Central


Florida


Community


College


Ocala


Florida


were


randomly


selected


from


faculty


at that


college who


from all


their


section


at least


one white mal


one white


female


black male and


one bla


femal


who were


par-








Professors


' inferences


about


students


self-concepts


were


measured


on the


Florida


A Scale


Infer


Lea rner


Self


-Concept.


experimental


group


professor


were


tol d


explicitly


on the


rating


forms


that


students


were


participant


program


. Profe


ssors


control


group


received


no information on


students


participa-


tion


They were


asked


whether


they


knew


student


involved


program.


profe


ssor


knowledge


then


that


student


score was


deleted


from


data


forms


were


returned.


Half


instructors,


however,


failed


to complete


one or more


forms.


A three-way


analy


variance


(race


sex by


experimental


group)


was used


to t


hypoth


eses.


Only main


effect


were


detected.


significant


difference was


established


sex.


Race


was s


significant at


level


with


blacks


being


rated


lower than


whites.


Knowl edge


.057


level


program


higher


participation


scores


approached


reported when


significance


participation


was known.


significant


difference


race was


cons


istent


with


previous


tudie


examined


However,the numerical


trend


higher


scores


when


compensatory


label


known


was unexpected


Follow-


tudi


further


inquiry


into


dynamic


particular


program are


definitely needed.














CHAPTER


STATEMENT


OF THE


PROBLEM


Introdu


tion


Equality


opportunity


education


in recent


times,


become


priority


federal


government.


Many


tate


legi


latures


educational


well


systems


From


notion


education,


have


beginning,


equal

been


taken


initiative


the mythology


opportunity.

recognized as


Education,


direct


di reaction


America


incorporated


particularly


route


that


higher


opportunity


It wa


not until


decades


following


second World War,


however,


that


higher


education


began


identified as


a right


rather than


as a


privilege.


With


ssage of


Bill


Right


" and


inclusion


exten


ive educational


benefit


scores


American


would d


have


previous


cons


idered


college


education


unreal


headed


academia.


What many


these aspirant


encountered was


system


embelli


hed with


traditionalism,


elitism,


tumbling


block


tide of


attention


on education.


Civil


Right


first major


Movement


used great


breakthrough wa


1954


when


United


State


supreme


Court


ruled


Brown


. The


Board


of Fducati nn


(nockhart


. Kami


SF


Chnnpr.


1967~


that


~pna ril t.P


.


,


n. U








1957,


State of


Florida


implem


ented a


system of


junior


college


which e


poused an


opportunity


education


rivaled


by few


states


perhaps


world.


development


"Open


Door"


policy


seemed


certain


nsure


equality


opportunity


Many


these


colleges,


however,


were


nearly


open


until


more


than


decade


later.


federal


legislation


began


producing


programs


procedures


and guidelines


feel ng


eemed


to be


that


more money,


more


people,


and more


ilitie


would d


right


the wrong


and make


American


education


system


to i


promi


equal


opportunity.


1966


, the


so-call


Coleman


Report


hocked many


observer


gratified others


y proclaiming


that money


facilities


probably


have


little effec


on positive


change.


What


does


significantly


affect


itive


change


Unfortunately


definitive


researchers


answer


such as


that


(1970)


stion


Comb


been


(1959)


found.


or Purkey


Some


(1970)


contend


that


an important


kind


i nfl uence


consists


percep-


tions


attitude


belief


those


charged w


carrying


educational


process.


perceptions


attitudes


belief


significantly


determine


eventual


outcome


that


process


only


relates


individual


to entire


groups


or cla


sses


people


That


theoretical


approach


presuppposes


that


perception


expectations


that


individual


have


towards


other


are based on








There


are literally


thousand


characteristics


that


could


enumerated


concerning any


given


individual


Social


sure


resulting


legi


nation


have


used


primarily


on race and


sex and


esser degree


age.


Coleman


(1966),


(1970),


and Jencks


(197


have a


asserted


that


family


background


socioeconomic


tatus


are s


significant


chara


teri


affecting


educational


oppor


tuniti


explicit


belief


that


family


background


socioeconomic


status


affect


perceptions


hers.


would


probably


to a


ssume


that


Coleman


and Jencks


would d


concur.


character


which


research


on s


perception


some-


what


ignored at


post-


secondary


level


been


student


volvement


variety


programs developed


to enhance


educational


opportunity


resultant


label


associated with


those


programs.


rare


post


secondary


school


or college which


does


not have a


remedial,


compensatory


developmental


or nontraditional


program.


They


carry varlou


titles


descriptions,


implica-


tion


placing


student


into


one o


these


program


would appear


clear


that


student


incapable of


achieving


through


"normal"


route or


process


one reason or


another.


ssible


that


participation


one of


hese


programs


become


significant


chara


cter


istic


used


teachers


determining


their attitudes


values


belief


concerning


that


student


does


contribute


positive


or negative


set of


percep-


tion


val ues








financially


deficient


student


those


who are


culturally,


socially


or academically


sadvantaged


those


are handicapped


as well


change


very


important


because


previous


, inclusion


those


programs


almost


certainly meant


that


student


was from a


lower


socioeconomic


background.


new guidelines


have made


that


impli


ation much


a certainty


Central


orida


Community


College


Ocala


, Florida,


there


have


been


various


attempts


provide


educational


opportuni tie


academically


deficient


student


through


remediation


ince


the middle


ixties.


new department


was establi


to offer courses


various


It was


scipline


ignated as


student


Education


were academically


was not


defi


remedial


lent.


program.


It offered


five


three


semester


hour college


level


academic


courses


for fully


transferable credit.


program


used


variety


approa


including mastery


learning,


criterion


reference


, non-punitive grading


small


nstructor-


student


ratio,


emphasis


interpersonal


contact and


communi


ation


tutoring.


1974


special


ervi


grant


was awarded


to the


college and


specifically


to the


Education


Department.


ince


then


that


department


expanded


serves


nearly


thou


student


year


A complete


scription


of the


program


included


Appendi


With


support


admini


station


program has


expanded


clientele


include


anyone


can be


expected


to have


or has








returning adult


included with


those who


finan


ially,


cul-


turally


socially


or academically


disadvantaged


or handicapped.


services


utili


these


group


may vary


they


are all


same Ba


Education/


special


services


asses.


effect,


they


have


been


labeled


as Ba


Education/


special


service


student


evident


that


format


not the


usual


remedial


"bone- head"


program and


moving


further from that


tereotype with


continued


expans


. What


unclear


, however


is whether


other


faculty


on the


Central


Florida


campus


recogni


those


tinction


as they


relate


student


ince


inception,


Education/


special


Servi


program


drawn


great


criticism


come


from other


department


chairmen


and may well


politically motivated.


Some


the most


vocal


ritic


have


been


other


acuity members.


Most


criticism


seems


aimed at


educational


philosophy


theory


program and


method


while


some


seem


question


social


-political


theory


and application


equal


opportunity programs.


Stati


tically


program appear


success


The graduation


rate


for the


"high


students


through at


courses


program


equal


to or greater


than


rate


regular


students,


according


long


term


retention


tudy


carried on


program


impson,


1976)


Other


findings,


an unpubli


tudy


Coun


eling


Department of


Central


Florida


Community


College


(Weaver


, 1976),








also


unclear whether


faculty


campus


understand


what


Basi


Education/


special


Servi


program


about


whether any


criticism of


program may


affec


ting


students


are involved


Purpose


purpo


e of


tudy


to determine whether


knowledge of


students


being


Education/


special


ervi


students


related


instructors


' inf


erences


about


students


self-concept


Additionally


variables


race


sex will


examined


whether


they


contribute


variance


perception


instructors.


ignifi


chance


present


tudy will


ermine


whether


knowledge


student


being


labeled as


Education/


special


related


instructor'


perception of


student


s sel


-concept


and,


perception


whether


related


a po


itive


or negative


inferred


elf-concept,


whether


race


significant


factor


in the


perception


reported


instruc-


, (3)


whether


sex i


significant


factor


in perception


whether a


ombi nation


these


factor


significant


perception


held


by the


faculty


whether


further


tudy of


labeling of


student


as Basi


Education/


service


indicated.


particularly


important


to know whether


label,


Basic


Education/


special


services


contributing


negative


perceptions


their


since


required


students


hours


with


must


complete


instructor


othe


more t

r than


han


percent


Basi


w


:


v --








Additionally,


will


significant


because


emphasis


on higher


education.


the next


chapter


Review of


Literature,


will


indicate,


most


tudi


teacher


perceptions


have


been


done


elementary


secondary


level


. As


pressures


continue


to mount on


higher


education


equal


opportunity


education,


tudy


should


contribute


to a


better


under


standing


how to


make


those


programs


more


effective and whether what


goes


on i


elementary


secondary


level


similar


to what


goes


on at


college


level














CHAPTER


REVIEW


LITERATURE


Introduction


concept


that


one person


belief


affect


or be


related


to the


behavior of


another


person


certainly


new or


startling.


Folk


popular


literature


such as


Pygmalion


later drama-


tized as


Fair


Lady


or the ageless


Wizard of


exhal ted


power of


expectation


-fulfilling


prophecy


Although


human


behavior


an extremely


complex


subject


, there


seem


be a


great


deal


agreement


that


human


behavior


product


individual


interaction


with


environment.


particularly


significant


part


that


environment


other


people


their


behavior.


Numerou


constructs


label


have


been


developed


cate-


gori


ystemati


that


behavior


constructs


as c


culture,


social


structure,


social


organization,


social


system,


social


sti tuti on


etc.


are used


convey meaning


about


that


behavior


"Values


" is


or arranging


construct


behavior


into


which


used


category


express


under


tood a


priority


good or


bad or


even


irable


or undes


irable


individual


or group.


Exactly


how thpse


va~s 11


* r


dpvpl npd


nnt tntallv


anRt\Psd


"rn~n


.m,








social


scienti


or psychologist


tudi


human


behavior


nearly


imposs


ible


noti


vast


range of


interpre-


station


environment and


behavior


among


and within


cul tures


or even


individual


these


Lives.


particular


importance


compounding


variable


known as


perception.


seemingly


apparent


factor


been


seen


as s


nificant


ceptual


contend


enough


to give


ychol ogy,


that


whole


i included


world


label


explored


branch of


human


understood


ychology


psychology


terms


perceived


each


individual


Relating


perception


behavior,


Comb


states,


"All


behavior,


without


exception,


function of


behaver


perceptual


field at


instant


behaving.


He goes


on to


assert


Vt:


behavior


function


perception,


follows


that


to understand


behavior


will


be nece


sary


tudy


factor


influencing


perception in the


individual


(Avila


Comb


Purkey,


1971


118).


education,


-theori


Purkey


contends


significant


student'


others


conception


eval uate


academy


student


dire


ability


tly affect


turn


establi


limits


on h


success


school


. Teachers,


their


capacity


significant


others,


need


view


student


essentially


itive


ways


hol d


favorable


expectations"


(Purkey


1970


47).


senthal


Jacobson


(1968)


brought


intere


teacher


effects


on students


new height


when


they


publ i


Pygmalion


"The








numerous


tudi


to be


reviewed


following


pages,


have examined


stion.


important


hotomy


developed


field


need


to be elaborated


on because


application


research


at hand.


Jerome


tinction


. Dusek


between


(1975),


researcher


"teacher bias"


"teacher


field,


expectancy


make


usek


tate


"'teacher


' will


refer


significant


effects


teacher


' differential


expectations


student


' performance


case where expectan


have


been


induced


a principal


inves-


tigator


That


teacher


refers


manipulation


teacher


expectan


cies


principal


investigator


continues


with,


"The


term


'teacher expectancy


will


refer to


significant


effect


to the


teachers


' own


-generated


expectation


guarding


students


performance.


case


teachers'


own expectancy,


formed


however


teachers


form


related


students


' performance"


, 1975,


679)


Duse


(1973


, 1975)


Connell


usek


and Wheel


(1974),


Finn


(197


Brandt


and Hayden


(1974)


Cody


(1971),


(1973)


various


others


contend


that mixed


finding


tudie


particularly


those


intending


repl i


cate


enthal


Jacobson,


have


resulted


from a


confu


hese


tinction


The main


purpose


sertation


tudy


relation-


between


knowledge


program


label


teac


hers


' percep-


tion


student


so labeled.


basically,


an attempt


to deter-








literature


dealing


with


"tea


expectancy"


will


be covered


first.

Some "


literature on


teacher bia


" studied


related


will


"teacher


useful


" will


discussing


follow.

"teacher


expectancy"


and may


covered


there.


Teacher


Expectancies


Where


They


Come


From


Program


Label,


Ability Grouping,


or Perceived Ability


Although


no article


dealing with


expectancies


concerning


com-


pensatory


programs


higher


education were


found,


related areas


are presented


here


Hankinson


expectancie


(1970)


found


significant


students in Title


difference

non-Title


teacher


school


suggest


that


type


label


have


affected expectancie


because of


economic


composition


school


implici t


label


Finn


(197


could not


any main


effect


based on


in a


"teacher bia


" experiment.


appear


that


urban


teachers


tended


rate

low


equivalent


students.


writing

After


sample


higher for


reviewing


high


related


student


studied


than


Finn


made a


tinction


similar


Dusek


(1975)


concerning


natural


versus


induced


tudie


concluded


that


teachers


hol d


differ-


ential


expectation


for achievement,


that


these


expectations


evaluation


that


the most


influential


factor


affecting


those


perception


was the


perceived


ability


level


student


felt


that


was questionable whether manipulation,


particularly


based


on a


inale


test


score.


rru. '-LaL


a


ible.


v --- --








their expectation


development


their


students


ignifi-


cant


relationship


was establi


between


expec


station


achieve-


ment and


variab


accounting for variance


expectancy


scores


could not a


curately


establi


hed.


oshida


and Meyer


(1975)


found


no s


significant


difference


expectancy when


regular and


assroom teacher


were asked


rate


cofic


student


luded,


randomly


"The


labeled


result


as either


study


or regular


support


They


argument


labeling


perspective


call


into


tion


theoretical


framework


expectancy within


label


not differentially


the context


tudy"


affect


hida


teacher


Meyer


1975


. 535)


Foster,


learning


chmidt


abilitie


abatino


found


(1976)


exactly


related


oppo


area


hida


Meyers


(1975)


Two


group


elementary


teacher


were


hown


video-


tape of


control


boy wa


normal


group


normal


fourth


grade


was told,


engaged


prior


experimental


various


wing


group


tape


was told


activity


, that


that


learning


abled.


experimental


group


rated


boy more


negatively


<.001)


than


control


group


on referral


forms


filled out


after viewing.


They


concluded


that


, "The


data


obtained


study


strongly


suggest


that


label


learning


abl ed


generates


negative


on the


part


classroom


teacher


bias


efficient


to alter


tea c


ervation


actual


child


behavior"







Brandt


Hayden


(1974)


wanted


to attempt


pure


experimental


tudy


teacher


computer


They


responded


atti tude

imulated

d to the


expectancie


student


imaginary


on the


student


so they


computer


turned


to t


volunteer


volunteers


not know that


student


were


imaginary


were


fact,


given


vari ous


academic


data


on the


student.


results


suggested


that


hers


' attitudes and


expe


station


were more


influenced


actual


performance


Williams


(1975)


than


ascribed academic


tudied


sixteen


character


thousand male


istic


female


student


began


school


Toronto


1959.


found


that


ingle most


important


source of


teacher expectation was


school'


certification


students


' aptitude


ability


grouping


, even


when


students


' past


performance,


current


ambition


academic


aptitude were


held


constant.


Persell


(1976)


found


that most


tudie


tracking


that


have


been


done


United


states


have


tudied


effect


teacher expectations.


Flowers


(1966)


chrank


(1968,


1970)


sent


some


interest-


data


on per


ability


using


essentially


"teacher


hniques.


Flowers


(1966)


hifted


two experimental


group


seventh


grade


student


higher


ability


sections


than


their


test


scores


warranted


without


student


or teacher


know edge


control


group


matched on


achievement,


were


shifted.


ased on


teacher


answered que


tionnaires,


Flower


inferred


from


result


that


-- -







motivate


reputedly


higher


ability


students more


than


comparable


control


group


Schrank


(1968)


experiment


particularly


significant


because


dealt


with


college


level


instructors.


randomly


assigned one


hundred enli


ted airmen


at the


Uni ted


states


Force


Preparatory


school


to five


instructional


sections.


Instru


actors


were


told


that


sections


were


homogeneously


grouped


ability.


significant


differences


were


found when


section


grades


were


compared


"higher


group


" received


higher


grade


chrank


instructors


(1970)


knew


to ability.


replicated


that


that


study


student


tudy


no s


except


been


significant


that


time


grouped


difference


according


could


found


grade


section


Schrank


1970)


point


that


expectancy i


were


measured


were


only


inferred


feel


that


the most


that


can b


claimed


that


tracking


might


critical


influence on


teacher expectancie


that


further


tudy


needed


Persell


(1976)


noted


that


tudie


tracking


ability


grouping


that


have


addressed


tion


expectancy


eemed


concur with


F1 owers


(1966)


chrank


(1968


, 1970)


that


ability


grouping


appear


affect


teacher


perception and


pectation.


Cornbl eth


effect


Davi


teacher


Button


expectancy


(1974)


based


addressed


the question


on perceived ability.


he a








so that


they


were


unaware


tudy.


results


were


that


students


rated a


low were


given


significantly


fewer opportunities


respond and


interact.


students


rated


as high


received


significantly


more


di rect


question


even


lower


level


Bloom


Taxonomy


Also


students


rated


"low"


there was


decreasing amount


feedback


pupil


created


interactions.


Cornbleth


, Davi


and Button


concluded


that


teacher


expectation


resultant


havior may


be mitigated


actual


ssroom


experience.


Brandt


and Hayden


(1974)


found


ssroom


experience


more


influential


houl d


noted


that


their


tudy


dealt


with


inve


tigator generated


character


similar


"teacher


paradigm)


where


Cornbleth


(1974)


was dealing with


teacher


rated


haracteri


"teacher


expectancy


usek


(1973)


conducted


one and


half


year


experimental


longitudinal


study


"teacher


" and


"teacher


expectancy"


ects


on the


Stanford Achievement


Test


performance


children


second


grade


fourth


grade


ssrooms


found


no "bia


effects


. input


information


no effect


on teacher


expectation or


hers


student


were good


rformance.


predictor


However


academic


included


potential


that


teacher


expectation


were


based


on relevant


academic


criteria.


O'Connell


usek


and Wheel


(1974)


continued


original


study


their


finding


were


similar.


Guskin


(1970)


summari


their work


feelings








directly observabi


relevant


cues


are present


" (Guskin


uskin,


Teacher


1970,


Expectancie


Rowell


(1971)


attempted


tingui


attitudinal


expec-


tancy


difference


instructors


based


on s


students


' sex but


could


not reach


ignifi


cant


level


Finn


(197


tudy


find


differential


expectation


white


female


and male


no sex d


tinction


black


However,


those


distinction


seemed


to be


interrelated with


teacher


character


either


urban


or s


suburban.


Veldman


Brophy


(1974)


found


that


pupil


sex was not


factor


teacher predictions


test


scores,


.e.


was not


factor


teacher expectations


test


tudy


achievement


gains


on a


tandardi


zed achievement


second


third


graders.


Chang


between


(1975)


-concept,


correlational


academic


tudy


f the


achievement,


relationship


teachers


' ratings


children


-concept of one


hundred


ninety


seven


pupil


from


fourth,


fifth and


ixth


grades.


relationships


could


tingui


on the


student


' sex.


However


manipulated


Aron

student


(1975)


"teacher bia


' ethnicity,


sex,


tudy


and ability


in which


found


nificant


interaction


between


sex o


student and


teacher


expectations.


Van Al


(1973)


had attempted a


"teacher


s" study


but was


unable


establi


significant


relation


hips


between


student








study


Williams


(1975)


reported


earlier


find


student


sex to


related


to teacher expectations.


Teacher Expectancies


Race


Deit


Purkey


(1969)


studied


one hundred


forty


seven


white


graduate


student


College of


Education


the University


Florida.


graduate


students


been


employed


as cla


ssroom


teachers


within the previous


year


A hypothetical


dole


scent


boy wa


desc


ribed


n a


paragraph


including economic


family


back-


ground,


likes


like


previous


yea r'


cipline


records.


experimental


paragraph was


identi


except


incl uded


descriptor


"Negro


Either


an experimental


or a


control


paragraph


was d


tribute


randomly


each of


subjects


were


asked


read


paragraph


estimate


future


academic


performance


using


seven


point


scale


difference


between means


was not


significant


at the


level


They


concl uded


that


race was


factor


expectancy


Roeber


(1970)


completed a


similar


tudy


on thirty


female


ele-


mentary


school


personnel


from


Detroit area.


That


tudy


found


that


race was


significant


when


other


information


available,


e.g.,


test


scores


record


achievement


or comments


former


teachers.


contra


those


tudie


was one b


Buford


(1973)


. Fifteen


third


fourth


grade


teachers


in Title


school


a central


Texas


city were


asked


indicate expe


cted


student achievement.


was a








showed


significant


difference


expectation


based


on race.


teachers


expected


greater


achievement


from whites


than


was warranted


iy obj


ective


predictors


significantly


under-expected


for Mexicans


Pugh


(1974)


found


race


significantly


related


to evaluations


tape-


recording


junior


high


school


student


reading


same


brief


passage


tudy


conducted


Dade


County


Florida


results


indicated


that whites


were


favored


over


cks.


Blacks


were perceived as


white were


more


favored


than


whites


who were


per-


ceived


as bl a


tudy


Chang


(1975)


mentioned


previously,


seemed


indicate


that


teachers


were


coming


into


classroom with


differing


receptions


the child


-concept


those


differences


were


significant


on the


race.


Persell


s (1976)


review of


related


research


found


that


preponderance


tudie


indicated


that


race


influence


teacher


expectations.


While


there


nb c


lear-cut


deci


on whether


race


influence


the expectation


teachers,


there


enough


evidence


to make


such


relation


plau


Teacher


Expectancie


Socioeconomic


tatus


(1970)


presented


longitudinal


tudy


, following


ingle


group


of bla


students


began


kind


ergarten


1967


They


were


followed


served


through


second


grade.


. The








parent


name


, address,


phone


number,


ting


pre-school


experience


second


source was


upplied


school


social


worker of


students


lived


in homes


rece


giving


welfare


funds.


third


source was


interview


with


the mother and child.


fourth


ource of


information


was personal


experience


experience


other


teachers


with


older


ibling


None of


sources


was directly


related


academic


potential.


With


that


information


eight


days


observation


interaction


teacher


assigned


students


to three


groups


high,


medium and


found


four


dimen


ions


upon


which


kindergarten


teacher


based


her grouping


them


physical


appearance


interaction


behavior with


teacher


among


students


, (3)


use of


language


, (4)


social


background


that


the overwhelming


value was


middle e


lass


ease of


interaction with


adults,


high


degree


verbal


ation


standard


Engli


, ability


become


leader,


neat and


lean,


well


educated family,


employed and


living


together


interested


hild,


and ability


part


ipate


as a group member


Rist


concl uded


that


placement


children


then


appeared


to result


from


their


sess


or lacking


certain


ired


cultural


harac-


teristic


ceived


as important


uch grouping


an extent


carried on


that


through


commented,


firs t


"The


second


hild


journey


grade


through


early


grade


school


read


level


one social








non-Title


school


suggesting


that


knowledge of


economic


compo-


ition


school


could


affect


expectation


Jose


Jacobson


difference


Cody


(1968)


among


(1971)


tudy


attempted


were


variable


replication


unable


explanation


enthal


significant


offered


several


subject


was that


they


knew


children


their


background


therefore


knew what


child


could


expe


to do.


Persell


(1976)


reported


that


seven


tudie


dealing with


expectancy


socioeconomic


status


examined,


four


showed a


itive


relationship,


three


could


demon


state


no relationship


at all


Teacher


Al though


sent


research


not actually


"teacher


tudy,


those


tudie


have


been


influential


development


research.


literature


that


area


serve


to illuninate


what


currently


being


undertaken


"teacher expectancy"


area


tinct


group


"teacher bia


tudi


appear in


literature.


group


uses


tutoring


situation


for their


context


tudy while


othergroup


uses


situations.


Within


n-cl


tudie


two d


tinct


group


appear.


uses


"academic


blooming"


as pioneered


Rosenthal


bson


(1968),


while


other group


uses


sification


test


scores


or track


assign-


men ts.

Tutoring








both


teach


differently


to teach


different


amounts


children


depend


on their


regarding


child'


ability.


Rubovits


and Maehr


(1971)


tudied whether


tutors


differed


amount


attention


given


student


with


differing


ascribed


haracteri


tics.


label


"gifted"


non-gifted"


produced


no s


significant


produce


each


differences


different


the group


amount


pattern


More ques


attention


attention and


tion


prai


prai


given,


given


were


did

children


directed


toward


"gifted"


children.


replication


, Rubovits


Maehr


(1973)


found


similar


However,


white


students


receive more


attention


than


black


that


study.


Rothbart


, Dalfen,


Barrett


(1971)


done


similar


tudy


with


similar


results.


Al though


these


tudi


seem


to indicate


differential


treatment


based on


Beez


ascribed


(1968)


characteristic c


no difference


must


learning


noted


could


that,


tingui


except


hed when-


ever


learning was


assess


(1975)


suggest


that


finding


might


repre


merely


an attempt


tutor


to provide


optimal


learning


atmo


pheres


children with


differing


teaching


need


Class


situation


"Academic


blooming


enthal


and Jacobson


(1968)


randomly


chose


approximately


percent


children


eighteen


elementary








bloomers.


approximate


Acros


four


classrooms


point


year-end


advantage


retest


experimental


showed


group.


first


second


grade


the experimental


group


gained


as much


fi fteen


point


over


control


group


senthal


Jacobson


concluded


that


experimental group


showed


higher


gain


because


higher expectancies


teachers.


However


evere methodological


criticism


, particularly


Thorn-


dike


(1968,


1969)


and Jen


(1969)


question


regre


ssion


Claiborn


(1969)


have


haunted


tudy


Claiborn


(1969)


attempted


repli


cate


Rosenthal


and Jacobson


tudy


could


not produce


signifi


difference


gains.


Anderson


senthal


(1968)


investigated


"teacher bia


" with


retarded


boys


daycamp


. The


only


significant


change was


decrease


experimental


group.


Conn,

Rosenthal


Edwards


and Jacobson


, Rosenthal,


(1968)


and

and


Crown

found


(1968)


no s


attempted to


significant


replicate


changes.


senthal


Baratz


Hall


(1974)


attempted


replication


original


tudy


Only


using


fifth


grades


grade


one through


did the


experimental


an all

group s


black


;core


school.


significantly


higher than


claimed


control


group.


, no explanation was


Although


offered


"teacher


as to why


" effect


only


fifth


were


grade


showed


effect.


e and


Cody


(1971)


attempted


a replication of


Rosenthal


and Jacobson


1968)


would


produce


no s


significant


results.








and actual


student


achievement.


manipulation


section


tudy


could


produce


no s


ignifi


cant


change


, however,


teacher


ranking


strongly


related


actual


performance


They


concluded


that


teachers


not bias


student


performance


were


good predictors


student


academic


potential


"Teacher


tudi


, using


idea


academic


blooming


have


generally


failed


reply i


cate


and/or


tantiate


the original


finding


enthal


Jacobson


(1968).


ation


scores


~I0. or track assignment.
-a


Flower


(1966)


study,


prese


nted


earlier,


eemed


indicate


that


shifting


experimental


groups


higher


than


warranted


track


did affect


teachers


' expectation


. I


test


performance wa


ignifi


antly


different


, and achievement


test


scores


were


significantly


higher


experimental


group


in only


one of


school


Schrank


difference


tudie


when


(1968


tracking


, 1970),


assignment


significant


were


grade


manipulated.


tudy


used adult


students


instructors


one possible


explanation


might


that


teachers


' perception


expectancy


are more


affected


biased when


track


assignments


appear to


based


tantial


torical


data.


Fleming


Anttonen


(1971)


attempted


various


manipulations


scores


second


grader


including


not providing


them.


results


indicated


no "tea


her bia


" effects


on S


tanford


Achievement


Test


performance


-concept,


or school


grades.


IO,


or track


assia nment.


w










fact


that


teachers


hold


differential


expectation


ed on


various


factors


seems


well


establi


hed.


Whether


teacher


turn,


bias


learning of


student


known.


states


well,


the extent


are b


ased


abiliti
cation.


the s
style
if th


on so
, then
Rather


student


hat t
und,
the
. the


differences


ese


irrelevant


some


expectancies


t (1970
students


interest
to their


upon


to academic


), then
to be
school a


poorly


doing


present,
which t


performance
achievement


1975


. 680)


further


hers
the
the


teacher


objective


teachers


self-generated
data regarding
s not biasing s
' differential


assroom may


student


are based


success


treated


teachers


related


terms


research


form


their


relation
academic


with


reflect


expec


tanci


student
students'
behavior


effective


differing


on impressions


as is


sugge


Expectancies


manner


activities


aimed


academic


expectancie
p of these


situation


that


and may


needs.


edu-
toward


teaching
However


or information


by the work
may cause
bias their


contribute


achievement


determining


bases


are needed.


student


ases


student


The present


tudy


an attempt


to examine


p055


ible


bases


expectation


involved with


or perception


compensatory


held


y professors


education


program at


college

Central


student


Florida


Community


College


Ocala


Florida.


chapter


contained


repre


tentative


samples


kinds


work


that


have


been


attempted


field


tudy.


A more


exhaustive


bibliography


ting of


entitled


sources


"Additional


included

Sources


in th


second

Areas


part


of Teachers


receptions


Expectations














CHAPTER

HYPOTHE


doubtful


that


educator would


knowingly


establish


program,


procedure


or practice


that


would d


lead


instructor


lower


their


perception


student


-concept.


Unless


we po


tulate


some malicious


or s


ster


purpose


on the


part


those who


have


created and


implemented


equal


opportunity


programs,


we must


believe


that


they were


then


and are


well


-intended


persons.


literature,


as reported


previous


chapter,


indi


ates


that


there


is some


question


as to whether the


"labeling"


students


related


to the


teachers


subsequent


those


perception


students.


tudie


or expectation


addressing


held


labeling


"high


college


student


coul d


found.


There were


no s


specific


data


from other


researcher


studi


found make


plau


ible


that


labeling


assoc


iated with


ability g

suspicion


rouping may


that


have


knowledge


an effect


student


on teacher


expectancy


involvement


. The

program


at Central


their


Florida

equent p


Community


professors


College


become


may

even


affect


expectancy


stronger when


coupled with


turmoil


controversy whi


have


surrounded


Basic


Education/


special


services


Program.








equal


or greater


than


rate


regular


students.


That


information


been widely


disseminated


on the


Central


Florida


campu


could


have


effect


making


program part


ipants


appear more


Therefore,


likely


succeed


their program


label


because


could


being


generate


program.


positive expectation


on the


part


their


sequent


professors.


null


form of


hypothe


was used


to reduce


possi-


ability


error because


previous


data


clearer


indications


what


could


reasonably


expe


ted.


primary


empha-


tudy


was the


program


label,


Education/Special


ervi


variables


race


sex were


examined


Race


sex are


overlooked


both di


as poss


puted


ible


factors


sources


concerning


variance


expectancy


cannot


expectations.


This


true


only


as individual


factors


particularly


various


combination


order


to better


under


tand


problem


following


hypoth-


eses


will


tested


There will


scores


no s


on modified


significant


difference


Florida


cale


between


to Infer


the mean


Learner


-Concept


form


completed


nstru


actors


have


those who


have


expli


knowledge


student


being

There


labeled


will


as a


Education/Spe


no significant


difference


Services


between mean


student.

scores


on modified


Florida


black


and white


students.








There will


no significant


difference


between


mean


scores


on modified


Florida


Keys


group


combination


Basic


Education/Special


Services


label,


race,


and/or


sex.














CHAPTER


Introduction


that


was used


cribed


Campbel 1


Stanley


Experimental


Quasi-Experimental


Research


(1963)


"Postte


- Only


Control


Group


Design"


(Campbell


tanley,


1963


They


consider


true


experimental


design


symbol i


as follows:


According


Campbel 1


tanley,


"While


pretest


concept


deeply


embedded


thinking


research worker


education


chology,


actually


esse


ntial


to true


experimental


design


"Furthermor

frequently


" they


experiment


educational


with methods


for the


research

initial


. we must

introduction


entirely


new s


subject


matter


for which


protests


in t


ordinary


sense


are imposs


ible


" (Campbell


tanley,


1963


current


tudy


group


each


consi


sted


sixteen


faculty member


Central


Florida


Community


College


Ocala,


Florida.


or treat-


ment


was the


informing


an i


nstru


ctor


that


particular


student


* *


fact


, --v I *


Education/


,J


Decial


Service


-3 -


student.


Ilkr IA -


.








Sampling


instructor was


placed


into


an available


pool


computerized


student


distribution


anal


revealed


that


instructor


had at


least


one white male


student


one white


female


student,


one black male


student and one


black


female


student


who wa


currently


or previously


Education/Special


rvices


student


or her


sections.


Students


were


defined


as Basic


Education/Special


ervi


they were


currently


ation/Special


or previous


service


courses


enrolled


or more


faculty


Education/


special


rvices


department


were


eligible


included


pool.


groups


ixteen


instructors


were


randomly


selected


from


pool


One was


randomly


selected as


experimental


group


students


for whom the


instructor completed


Florida


Key were


hosen


following manner


computerized


student


tri bution


analy


four


groups


students


black male


back


female,


white male,


white


femal


were


identified


each


instructor


previously


stated,


only


those


instru


with


at least


one Ba


Education/


special


rvice


student


each


those


groups


was i


cluded


pool


available


subjects.


a part


ular


instructor


was selected


then


one s


student


from each


category was


randomly


selected


to have


Florida


completed


on him or


There


were


always equal


numbers


student


subjects


selected


each


categories


instructors


selected were


asked


to complete


equal


numbers


Florida


forms.








Variable


Control


variables


race


sex were


naturalistically


defined


and any


interactions


were


examined


controlled


stati


tically


Knowledge


whether


student


was a Ba


Education/


special


Servi


student


was more


difficult


control


experimental


group


(tho


e who


explicit


know edge)


was not


problem.


They were


explicitly


informed


student


label


on the


Florida


form.


control


group,


on the


other


hand,


was assumed


not to


have


know-


ledge


student


label


as Bas


Education/


special


ervi ces


control


that assumption


following


question


appeared


on the


control


group


form of


Florida


: "To


your


immediate


knowledge,


student


ever


taken


a Ba


Education/


services


course


know ."


Those


student


subjects


whose


structors


in t


control


group


indicated


" they


knew that


student


taken


a Basic


Education/


special


Service


course,


were


dropped


from


that


sample.


could


a source


error


an i


instructor


did not


accurate


report


know edge


concerning


that


student


attendance


Education/


special


services


class


was assumed


that


instructors


were


truthful


possible


that


responses


might


have


been


contaminated


fact


that


Basic


Education/


special


services


faculty member


was conducting


study


since


Basi


Education/


Servi


frequently


involved


on-campu


political


struggle


That


type


0








being


done


as a


doctoral


dissertation


from what


area


campu


and who


author was


pecifi


remained,


purpose


least


tudy


temporarily,


was not


stated


unknown.


A general


statement


that


inferred


self-concept


students


being


studied


included.


Anyone who


cons


idered


deliberately


sing


their


response


one way


or the


other


should not


have


known


which


recognized


that


having


Academi c


Dean


office


tribute


collect


data


could


have,


itself,


contaminated


respond


ses.


was seen


as the


lesser


poss


ible


evils.


Validity


Internal


Validity


According


to Campbell


tanley,


sign


very


good


internal


validity.


Internal


validity


utmost


importance


because of


need


to verify


that


what


seems


to be


happening


most


likely


actually


happening


since


tudy


focu


ing on


particular


problem


that


in a


particular


because


titution.

original


It may

nstruc


argued


tor pool


however,


was obtained


effect


that might


have


been


covered are only


generalizable


instructors


That


hare


probab


Education/


cha racteri


significant


ecial


services


with


because


students


those


instructors


in their


pool


not have


sses


unlikely


that


perceptions


or behaviors


those


instructors


will


have


SUI


direct


effect


on Bas


Education/


Soecial Se


rvice


-2


-


students


t


I








External


Validity


According


to Campbell


tanley,


threats


to external


validity


are at best


controlled


at worst


are only


possible


sources


mainly


concern.


lack


Interaction


a pretest.


testing


Interaction


treatment


selection


controlled


treat-


ment


poss


ible


source


concern


should


controlled


through


sampling and


ible


to external


tati


sources


tical


analy


concern


validity for


Reactive arrangement


are probably


tudy


hand.


great


Whether


are consid


threat


instructors


will


react


being


part


study


difficult


to predict


or determine.


The entire


stion


external


validity


probably


uperfluou


innumerable


variable


which


have


come


together


to produce


situation


at Central


Florida


Communi ty


College are


unlikely


found


anywhere


situation


intents


pur-


poses


unique.


general i


ation


other


situations


would be


very


rough appro


imation


finding


from


tudy


houl d


viewed


merely


as guide


to research at


other


ti tuti ons


perhaps as


a "yardsti


by which


compare


results


from


that


research.














CHAPTER


TRUMENTATION


Florida


cal e


Infer


Learner


-Concept


instrument


used


tudy


to measure


teacher


perceptions


was a


modified


version


Florida


to Infer


Learner


-Concept.


herein


referred


to as


Florida


Key.


Florida


began


originally


as the


Combs


Soper


cale


Inferring


-Concept


(Comb


, Soper


Courson,


1963)


That


instrument


was developed


out of


Combs


' recognition


that


-reports


-concept


were


only what


subject


willing


able


someone


necess


arily


what


individual


truly


believed


about


himse


Combs


believed


that


inferences


tra i ned


profess


ional


based


on o


servati on


would


be more


accurate


repre


entations


-concept


Purkey public


a modification


Comb


Soper


Scale


Inferring


-Concept


n 1968


(Purkey,


1968)


Purkey,


Cage


Graves


public


shed The Florida


cale


Infer


Learner


-Concept


1973


(Purkey


, Cage


and Graves,


1973)


Validity


Reliability


Construct


validity


was establ i


stati


tically


Concurrent








Reliability was


established


both


through


an analysis


variance


procedure


several


respondents


tudy


determining


efficient


reliability


employing


plit


-halve


procedure


respondent


that


same


tudy


. An


index


reliability


was obtained


through


the analy


f variance


procedure


Coefficient


reliability


using


plit-


halves


procedure


ranged


from


plit-


halve


estimate


reliability


total


score


across


teacher


sons


Florida


used


infer


learner


-concept


What


actually mea


sures


, according


personal


correspondence with


Purkey,


teacher


perception.


That


, it


no more


than


reflec-


tion


structor


behaviors.


evaluation


research


being


particular


undertaken


student


here


haracteri


preci


tics


that,


teacher


perceptions.


One of


particularly


valuable


aspects


using


this


cale,


as 1


tudy,


that


focu


instructor completing


form


on the


student


rather


than


on him or


should


tend


to minimize


danger


inherent


in what


essentially


report


perceptions.


There


various


reasons


for u


scale


other


than


"blind"


effect and establi


validity


reliability


readily


available,


inexpensive,


easy


to under


tand,


quickly


completed


copyri hted.


e.








Modification


original


orida


Key was


signed


el ementary


secondary


school


some


the word


phrases


were


inappropriate


college


level


assroom


use of


scale


with


comments


from


tructors


completing


forms


indicated a


need


space


to mark


"not applicabi


or unknown.


" Without


such


response


available


some


instructor


ft a


blank


pace while


others


indi


cate


score


zero.


use of


zero


score


indicates


teacher


knowledge


that


particular


behavior never oc


curs.


responses


alwa


accurately


reflect


what wa


intended


in those


cases.


original


form


information


on race and


sex i


not i


prominent


position


there


no place


indicate


special


infor


nation


such


as the


program


label


being


tudied


here


It was


determined


that


separate


forms


for each


group would


more


ective


than


attempting


use the


same


form with


different


cover


sheet


or s


supplement


because


differ


information


needed


from


control


experimental


groups.


The modifi

substantially a


action


i1ter


made


are not believed


i information


gathered


significantly


are expected


to increase


accuracy


under


standing


both


person


completing


form and


researcher.


Scoring


Florida


scored


simply


adding


responses


entered


for ea


I


oiuetinn


Rnth


a raw crnr


rill fl


mo;In


C mm~


.
.


V-


L.


.








perception


itive


instructor


self-concept


therefore


student


higher


learner)


or more


inferred


to be.


lower


raw or mean


scores


are,


then


lower or


positive


are the


instructor


perceptions


inferred


self


-concept.


A mean


means


Florida


Keys


completed


an instructor


will


calculated


used


assign


numerical


value


ceptions


tructors.


Mean


scores


will


used when


students


are the


unit of


analysis


original


form,


control


form,


experimental


form


are presented


in Appendix













CHAPTER


DATA


COLLECTION


Procedure


The Academic


Dean


office


was requested


subsequently


agreed


to admini


ster


the collection fthe


data


in an attempt


to increase


response


rate


reduce


poss


ible


reaction


to the


author'


position


at Central


Florida


Communi ty


College.


Each


instructor


included


tudy


received


package


material


through


campus mail


.The


package


contained


following


items


A letter


from the


Dean


explaining


tudy


providing


direction


completing


forms,


detailing


expected


time


return.


modified


Florida


form


each


student


subject


be evaluated


instru


copy


letter from


Dean


Appendi


package


were


distributed


through


campu


mail


and were


timed


to arrive


instructors


Mailboxes


on a


Monday morning


instruc-


tors


were


reque


return


them


Dean


office


Friday


cause


the minimal


time


needed


to complete


forms.


Those


nstruc-


tors


not respond


ly Thursday


received


a reminder


letter








overlap


student


among


instructors


because


a relatively


large


population


students


from which


sample.


was a


simple matter


matching


student


name


on the


completed


form with


master


instructors


student


participating


tudy.


the event


that


same


student


was s


elected


evaluated


instructor


small


blue


appeared on


back


Florida


form


lower


left


hand


corner


. A corresponding


appeared


next


to the


instructor


name on


the ma


ster


That


coding was


necessa


one instructor was


in the


experimental


group


and one


was in the


control


group.


difference


the modified


Florida


form


used


determine with


which


instructor that


student


belonged.


lack


name or code


should


have


helped


create


a feeling


anonymity which


should


have


increased


;y and willingness


participate.


houl d


have


further


served


to direct


structor


focu


towa rd


student


rather


than


on him or


herself


as he


or s


completed


form.


form


were


received


by Monday morning


following


Friday


tacted,


deadline,


ly telephone,


pecilaist


instructor


Academi


with


Dean


outstanding


office


forms


con-


requested


that


they


return


them as


quickly


as pos


form


were


returned


to the


Academic


Dean


offi


middle


second week


study.


They


were


then


turned


over


to the


author


analysis.














CHAPTER V

DATA ANALY


Response


Rate


A 100


percent


return


Florida


Key forms


was achieved.


However,


not all


form


returned were


usable.


depi


Table


instructors


control


group


indicated


they


knew


that


one or more


students


were


Education/


special


Services


students.


instructor


knew of


student


while


other


instructor


knew for


three


students.


Instructor


Were


Table


Control


Education/


instructors
II


Group
special


Who K
Serv i


:new the


tude


knowledge of


3 of


total
total


instructors


student


know edge


known..


student
nts


4..... ......1

4. ......... .0

. ............2
. ............4


scores


student


known


Education/


special


student


were


deleted


from


data


addition


ixteen


thirty-two


instructors


failed


complete


one or more of


orida


form


breakdown


y group


status


number completed


found


Table








Completion
Control a


Rate


Table 2
of Florida


Experimental


Group


Forms


Instructors


Control


epxE r i men ta l


The mo


commonly


reported


reason


for not


completing


forms


was that


student


either


dropped


earlier or


not attended


enough


for the


instructor


have


efficient


information


upon


which


to base


responses.


occurred


pite


student


ampling


popu-


lation


being


drawn


from the


Central


Florida


computer using


an indicator


currently


enrolled


those


courses.


Group


Composition


Table


indicate


number of


student


' Florida


scores


used


tudy


after


ubtracting


non-completed


forms


forms


students


control


group


whose


program


tatus


known


numbers


are broken


down


into


racial


sexual


characteristics.


Racial


exual


Group


Compo


Student


Table
ition


After Omi


Control


ssion


d Experimental
Deletions


Control


pxE er i mental


1. no. completing 4 of 4 7 8
2. 3 of 4 2 6
3. 2 of 4 6 2
4. 1 of 4 0
5. 0 of 4 0 0


1. whi te male 15 15
2. white female 10 12
3. black male 12
4. black female 11 15
5. total white 25 27
6. total black 22 27
7. total male 26 27
8. total female 21 27
9. total N 47 54


I









Racial


Table


exual


Experimental


Compos
Groups


ition


Control


instructor


vlr- c wV I -.- w.
1. white male 10 14
2. white female 4 1
3. black male 1 1
4. black female 1 0
5. total white 14 15
6. total black 2 1
7. total male 11 15
8. total female 5 1
9. total N 16 16


cores


scores


reported


instructor


both


group


presented


Table


The mean


score


each


student as


well


as a


mean


those mean


each


instructor


included.


Table


presents


student


' mean


scores


divided


race


sex and


group membership.


include


mean


, sum of


, sum


squared,


Table


sum of


compares


quares,and


instructors


standard


means


deviation


for the


each


control


group.


expert


mental


groups.


also


contains


total


group


mean


um of


sum of


squared,


um of


squares


standard


deviation


each


group.


Three


Analy


Variance


Originally


three way


analysis


variance


using


instructors


means


been


planned.


instructor


were


have


been


randomly


assigned


only


cell


within


three


paradigm of


program


label,


race


sex.


That


ign would


have made


each


cell


tinct


and wnil d


hlvU pnniali


r ~I E*-


infl ianro


nf 02rk 4


n raC ur tn i*


Cent ro 1


Fynprimpntal








an alternative


three-way


anal


of variance was


completed


using all


students


' mean


scores.


was executed


using


statistical


Package


for the


social


iences


(Nie


et al


., 1975)


computer


program


three-way


analysis


variance with


regression


solution.


regression


ol ution


was used


becau


se of


unequal


numbers


among


groups.


That


solution


recommended


unequal


number


limitation


clear


possible e


source


error


recognized


unequal


influence of in


structors


regression


solution


houl d


have minimi


error


cannot


cons


idered


totally


eliminated.


The only


ignifi


cant


value


achieved


was for main


effects


race.


was s


significant


. with


black


rated


lower


than


white


Main


effect


experimental


category


approached


significance


.057


important


to note


that


numeri


trend wa


higher


scores


when


instructors


knew explicitly


that


students


participated


mnBa


Education/


special


Services.


other main


effects,


-way


or three


-way


interactions


yielded


values


significant


level


result


entire


program are


presented


Table 8.





















oo0-
(0 tOr
'a-).


02
LflOO
0(Y)-[


Lnt~r-LOm
ainm c\Jl


Ocr,
* '0


cn
-



300
zu.r
4-'0r


U)
a.


mc,

L r-



U's


S'C

SC1
ftX
C1


EL LE U-U- U-U- ULr ,EL L lLS
3~~~~~~t ncc 'aoi mmc r=r3mm~ aml
h r-.


Srr; S


S S S:


9- '4(t) u


0Cj0
WVD



v-a)


4),


0000
O *\O
UNGOU


ZZ: M


.OL)


r0-


LA N.t~F
~aO2ODO


aL u.S


'I


U-ZU-SL


* S *
- CMm <[U


U-EU-1

a

9-cJCV


S 1L. S
flwc9


9-




II II

E L-


r-CltiCr


4-Jo


l~






















4*O~cOkf


~r r-cO '
* ar


(\Ie--


r~unnr-
a a S a
en icro ne


r-o
CuJ'.o
(U) *


u-s u-s,
fla m fl


rC'Jmlf


a- ru-s 1 (
3 ~~ enP b 1 P
U, Q


rC'J 4*


In 4)
C J
- r
4)
WV'
0.4)Q
SWu


SJ
4)0
C:


in coOc-
*ff000
r- r 0 e


SO 0' '0
a Ssl


r~ai
er(cO
0 *N


0- I
zL)


tn '0
c mu)


a- ru- u- ru- s
fl~cflca N, flcrf N
Cs. C'

r~c~c; "*
a a a S.'- a a


u-ru-sL

a a~

r-CNflq


cc


II


0
U O
*8- u-
CE)


oJ ~e
4-lU


q


1L r 1C r
3 S PO fO




















tnctflro
Or-Qoo


Cc a, t
S (O


LA r 0 L
c'jt)Oor
S S~~c


'0 tO
~Cr-Cno
C-b) S


ILLZU..
flaCflL


u-S u 1 s
nw~co


rCNJltfld


r..C%


cYvtJ


Un00\
O5r


u-Eu-S Z


(0














000o L


f~lcnc


O tt
r~fl
0 .0


Eu-SI
xcoa


0o0
0 0 t3o


ncocn~


,-e'Jc~t*


F~n~ CM


SI























CM O ^


~numc'j
CJeJDo


nbC'Jn


cnnd


cc.-
"sac-


r- C"J C


r-coo
rc'Jcc
(-
ZMCfl'J


0000
0000
*a t


oo 'n
u1ODOn
.0
r-flC% JZ


0u~cX r
o c.irm


0)0
r-E


*l


cnn.


II II


LL a








Table 6


Students' Mean Scores as F
roup Membership with N, Me
um of Squares and Standard


actors


an, Sum of
Deviation


Race, Sex
X, Sum of
for Each


Group


erimental


Control


Males


Black
Females


= 12
= 3.4
= 41

= 14


.40
57.52
.69
15


= 15
= 3.07
,= 46.1


3.23
= 35.


= 127.57
= 12.48
= 1.12


= 2.41
-= 26.54


G
S








Table 6


- continued


Experimental


Control


white


Males


Females


= 15
= 3.73


= 56.03
= 217.87
= 8.58


= 12


= 3.69
= 44.31
2 = 174.95


= 11.33


=153.29
= 3.29


= 49.31
= 172.39
= 10.29
= .86


= 10
= 3.41
= 34.12
2 = 128.37
= 11.95








Instructo
GrouD
Sum of X


Table


rs' Means for Co
s, Including Gro
, Sum of Squares


ntrol
up Me
and


and Experimental
ans, Sum of X,
Standard Deviation









Resul t


Three


Table 8
Way Analy


of Variance


Race
Sex


Experimental


Category


Source


Main


-Way
R


of Variation


Effects


Interactions
S


Sum of
Squares


.025
.895
.918
.977


Mean


Square


4.008
5.895
1.918
3.977


0.879
2.523
0.034
0.120


ignif


.755
.523
.797
.726


0.823
2.363
0.032
0.112


0.014
0.021
0.183
0.057


0.484
0.128
0.858
0.738


3-Way Interactions 0.581 1 0.581 0.545 0.462
R S E 0.581 1 0.581 0.545 0.462

Explained 14.558 7 2.080 1.948 0.071

Residual 99.266 93 1.067

Total 113.823 100 1.138


cases


were


process













CHAPTER


VIII


INTERPRETATION


RECOMMENDATIONS


Interpretation


Data


AND CONCLUSIONS


Analysis


Hypothe


The data


gathered and analyzed


tudy


fail


to reject


hypothe


no difference


The difference


three-way


is toward an


based


did approach


analysis


on knowledge


significant


variance.


expectation


level


pectedly,


for higher


program


.057)


perhaps,


-concept


label


using


tendency


students


when


professors


know


that


students


, or have


been,


Education/


special


Service


students.


Development of


-concept


students


positive expecta-


tion


students


instructor


goal


Education/


special


services


program.


Poss


ible


explanations


positive


trend


need


cons


idered.


mentioned


earlier,


program


research,


indicating


that


retention


special


and graduation


student


rate


high


equivalent


Education/


rate


tradi-


tional


students


been


widely


disseminated


on the


Central


Florida


campus


ssible


that


instructors


have


assimilated and


tegrated


that


information


into


their


evaluation


process








poss


ible


that


when


experimental


group was


told


explicitly


that


student


were


Education/Special


services


student


already


those


success


instructors


fully


completed


have


assumed


number of


that


college


student


credits.


umption


previous


success


could


have


conceivably


those


instructors


respond more positively


(higher


scores


various


question


on the


Florida


Another explanation may


hinge


on i


instructor


experiences


with


student


they


knew


to be


Basic


Education/


special


services.


rhetoric


protests


about


program may


be more


olated


than


expected.


fact,


many


instructor


have


positive


past


experiences


are merely


reporting


expectations


based on


those experien


ces.


It must


remembered,


however,


that


only


trend was


indicated.


Follow-up


tudie


would


definitely


seem to


indicated.


It would


important


to know


variance


difference


increases


or decrease


ervi


with


student


time.


, using


tudy


same


non-Basic


instrument


Education/


would d


special


useful


comparing


scores


could


establi


that


Education/


special


Servi


label has


no particularly


negative


affects


on i


instructor


perception


then


perhaps


similar


tudy


using


random


labeling


both


Education/


special


ervi


non-Ba


Education/


special


service


students


.would


Id more


prec


vision


to the


analy








difference


was s


ignifi


cant


at the


level.


Blacks


were


rated


significant


lower


than


whites.


three-way


analy


variance


, using


regression


solution


, yielded


no interactions


between


or among


race,


ex and


program


label


specific


studies


race would


useful


in attempt-


determination


gene


variance


It may


that


variance


product


expectations


related


academically


irrelevant


socioeconomic


data


It may


however,


that


variance


reflection


profes


sors


' prediction


based


on experience


suggested by


(1975)


studies.


Additional


research might


include


an examination


lation


between


profes


sors


' inferred


-concept


student


subsequent


success


rates


student


e cl


asses


clear


from


present


data


whether


education


occurring,


nor was


that


an objective


research


Hypothe


Three


hypoth


no difference


based


on s


students


sex i


accepted.


There


eemed


little


or no


indication


variance


based on


sex.


variable,


as a


primary


area


concern,


could


probably


deleted


from


future


tudie


Education/


special


Servi


program.


Hypothe


Four


hypothes i


that


there


will


no s


significant


difference


between


mean


scores


on modified


Florida


Keys


group


combina-








hypothesi


, however,


should


tested again


subsequent


studi


program.


could


an extra


measure of


understanding.


Conclusion


primary


purpo


e of


tudy wa


to determine whether


knowledge of


student


being


Education/Special


Service


students


was related


to instructor


' perception


means


ured


as inferred


concept


those


students.


that


end,


tudy


been


incon-


While


was accepted,


hypothes


it approached


no difference


significance


based


to the


on program


extent


label


that


ques


tion must


remain


open


re-examination.


fact


that


numerical


trend was


higher


expectation


when


label


was known was


neither


expected


nor predi


those


involved with


research or


literature


surveyed


planation and


interpretation of


trend


continue


to be open


SCUSS


was evident


from


results


data


collection


that


used


tudy


originally


planned


analysis


could


serious


affected


behavior of


both


students


instructor


college


etti ng.


research


concerning


program


label


or ability


grouping


done


elementary


secondary


school


seems


to bear


little


resemblance


to the


result


tudy.


tudy may


have added


an entirely


new dimen


under


tandi ng of


dynamics


v -


T .








Finally,


tudy


Education/


indicates


special


services


need


in-depth


program at


Central


studies


Florida


Communi ty


College.


must


determi


ned wh


their


merely


an i


olated program which


seems


to make


difference or whether


there


are underlying


duplicated at


other


general


principle


institutions.


procedure


those


which might


principal


pro-


cedure


can be


covered


, then more meaningful


gain


might


be made


in the


attempt


provide


real


opportunities


students


higher education.













APPENDIX A


FORMS


LETTERS














FLORIDA


NEVER:


VERY


ONCE


ELDOM


AWHILE


OCCASION-


ALLY


FAIRLY
OFTEN:


VERY


OFTEN


Name of


student


evaluated


Compared with


other


student


same


age,


does


this


student:


get
get
keep
say
tell


along
along


with other


with


calm when


good
the


thing


the
thin


students


teacher?
Qs Qo wr


about


truth about


ong?
school


school


work?


RELATING


speak
offer
offer


for hi


peak


answer qu


ask meaningful


look
join
talk


people in
in school
to others


idea


front
estion


tion


the eye?
activities


about


class


in class?
in class?


school


work?


ERTING


offer
write


ut new things to
to do extra work
independently?


school


school


on h


own?


INVESTING:


fini


attention


exhibit
recogni


school


school


goal


real


work?


to class
work with


getting


activities
care?


behavior?
limitation


COPING:


TOTAL


Ja


-r













FLORIDA


KEY:


-CONCEPT


A SCALE


(College


INFER


Modified)


LEARNER


Student:


Sex:


Male


Female


Race:


Black


White


Other


VERY


NEVER


SELDOM


ONCE


AWHILE


OCCASION-


ALLY


FAIRLY
OFTEN:


VERY
OFTEN


Compared with


other


students


same


age,


does


student


along


get
keep
say
tell


speak
offer
offer


along


with
with


calm when


good
the


thing
truth


to speak


answer


ask meaningful


look
join
tal k
seek
on hi
offer
write


fini


people in
in college


other
new


/her own?


or ask


other


the i
thing


about


about
s/her
in fr


Not Applicable
or Unknown


students


instructor?


go wrong.
the college
his/her work
own ideas?


ont


question
questions


the class


class


activities


s about
things


to do


independently?
his/her work?


attention


/her work


goal


exhibit


recognize


real i


/her work?
o in class


extra


class


work


activity


with care?


getting


behavior?
limitation


your


immediate


Education/
t know


knowledge ha


special


this


service


student


Department


taken


coursework













FLORIDA


-CONCEPT


A SCALE
(College


0 INFER LEARNER
Modified)


Student:


Race


Black


White


Other


Male


Female


Education/


special


rvices


VERY


NEVER


ELDOM:


ONCE


AWHILE


OCCASION-


ALLY:


FAIRLY
OFTEN:


OFTEN:


Compared with


other


students


same


age,


does


student


get
get
keep
say
tell
spea
offe
offe


along


with other


along with
calm when


good
the
k up
r to
r to


thing
truth


peak


the i
thing


about


t Applicable
or Unknown


student


instructor


go wrong?
the college?


is/her work
gn ideas?


about


/her o\


answer que


ask meaningful


look
join
talk


on h


people in
in college


other
new


/her own


front


class


tion


tion


he eye?
activities


about


ass?


St
her work?


thing


offer or


write


fini


to do


independently?
his/her work?


attention


exhibit
recogn i


/her work with


goal


real


getting


extra


work?


activities


care?


behavior?
limitation


VERY













elected


acuity Member


FROM


Robert


. Ritterhoff,


Dean


Instructional


Services


You are


being


cipate in a
a graduate s
the inferred


dents


asked


resea rch


student


research will


You will


take
tudy


at the


-concept


help


receive


being


Univer


few minutes


done


student


us all better


summary


as part o
of Florida
enrolled
understand


result


your


time


doctoral
study i


at Central


needs


part
work c


Florida


examining


stu-


so desire


Let me
at all
cited.


assure
times.


that


student


Your cooperation and


' right


priva


participation


cy will


are greatly


upheld
appre-


Directions


Enclo


enrolled


various


are short
in one of


behaviors


your


tionnaire


sses


using


concerning


You are


scale


student


asked
d near


to rate


ho are
the f


currently
requency


page


PLEASE
AFTER


DO NOT


HAVE


DISCUSS


COMPLETED


PART


CALE


WITH


STUDENT UNTIL


tion


indicate


not k
please


now


an answer or


indicate


unknown.


Please


have
not


a response
use the "0


particular


response


Please


return


completed


form


to the


Dean


Instructional


Servi


Thank


participating


result t


return


, please


to the


Dean


put your name


tudy.


at the


Instructional


bottom of


desire


s umma ry


heet and


erv1ces
















FROM


Robert


Ri tterhoff,


Dean


Instructional


Services


Questionnaires


tudy


on inferred


-concept


Recently yo
to complete


received


have


regard


u were
and r


yours.
already


sent


return


However,
returned


reminder.


several
them.


them,


hort


record


poss
than


ible
k you


tionnaires
indicate


that


and
that


we are


very much


were


asked


we have
error.
please


However,
take a f


ew minutes


success


stionnaire


Service


ve not yet
to help


f this study.
s, please call


completed
ut. Your


them,


won't


participation


have


the Office


replacement copies.


or mi


Dean


please just
crucial to


placed


your


Instructional


Thank


you again


your


participation.













APPENDIX


SPECIAL


SERVICE


PROGRAM


CENTRAL


This


FLORIDA
OCALA,


Appendix


COMMUNITY


FLORIDA


a copy


COLLEGE


program


hure


developed


and written


Carolyn


West


John


impson


Charles


William Jones














SPECIAL


SERVICES


PROGRAM


Purpose


Special


Servi


Program of


Central


Florida


Community


College


provides


comprehensive


approach


instruction


nontraditional


student


through


pecifi


ally


designed


academic


courses


couns


el ing


--personal,


academic,


career-and


tutorial


services.


spons


ored


college


United


states


Office of


Education.


students


erved


student


with


academic


, financial,


or phy


ical


deficiency


enrolled


in theacademi


courses


and may


receive


counseling


through


college


personnel


They


also may


receive


inten


coun-


selling


tutorial


assi


stance


from


personnel


hired through


federal


grant.


These


student


also


have


access


to referral


servi


community


state


agencies


that


can give


specific


kind


assi


stance--


Vocational


Rehabilitation,


Divi


Family


ervi


others.


section


students


student


elect


in the


program or may


advised


u... .


counselor


to enroll


becau


e of


* VS


hiqh


school


grades


- V


s


.








Major Goals


Program


provide


human


tic,


non-threatening


learning


environment.


provide


supportive


servi


needed


academic


success.


specific


Program Objectives


Academic


increase


reading


ability


minimum acceptable


level


improve writing


ability


minimum a


cceptabl e


level


improve


develop math


ability


kill


identify


necessary


solve


social


academic


problems.


career


success.


develop


successful


tudy


provide


support


individual


instruction.


Student Support


assi


student


dealing


tape


college


procedures


andregulations.


provide


assi


tance


obtaining


financial


support.


To ass


finding


solutions


personal


problem


hindering


academic


success.


assi


student


obtaining


needed medical


information


aid.


enl i


aid of


the community


fulfilling


student


needs.


assi


curriculum


innovation and modification


for th


low-


income


and/or


academically


or physically


disadvantaged


Affective


student.

Domain








foster


faculty


taff


community


acceptance


respect


student.


To build s

To develop

To broaden


elf-confidence


an awareness


student


academic


educational


cultural


environment


or career goal


spectrum.


Courses


Offered


Special


Service


Program


include


education


courses,


designed


"high


student


which


have


been


stence


since


1966--


first


as a


remedial,


non-c


redi t


program


then


as a


full


college


tran


fer group


courses


Cour


taught


academic


component


program


include


social


science,


Engli


, reading,


mathemati c


ychology


adju


stment.


are college


level


courses


and all


earn


three


hour


college


tran


redit


Math


Goal


teach


student math


and arithmetic


skill


necessary


academic


or career


goal


Objective


have


percent


student


earn


grade


or better


one term.


Strategies


students


begin


working


level


competence


they


arrive with


proceed


through


intermediate


algebra.


Individualized


instruction,


tutor


para-


profess


ional


are used


help


student.


class


meet


five


per week.


A pre-


st-test


are aiven


and evaluation


test-


* .3


A I *


- '








or career


courses.


Objective:


have


percent


reading


student


improving


their


reading ability


two grade


level


completion


course


Strategic


Student


learn


vocabulary


through


instruction


word attack


kill


, dictionary


usage,


word


pro-


nunciation,


word meaning,


usage


etymology


They


learn


comprehend


through


truction


practice


main


recalling


idea s


specific


selection


fact


by making


, picking


inferences.


They work


on critical


reading


through


instruction


recogn 1


implication


assumption


anal


yzing


argument


understanding


basic


logi


pre-


post


test


given


to determine


student


rate


progress


reading.


English


Goal


develop writing


skill


Objective


have


percent


student


write


level


deemed

courses


necessary


success


in college or career


term.


Strategies


Engli


course


involve


work


following


areas


spelling,


tuation


sentence


structure,


word

essay


usage,

organi


paragraphing

zation. Met


outlining,


hodology


revi


include


ion and

writing











Error


sentence


construction


are corrected


repeated writing


rewrite exercise


Eval nation


student


progress


determined


teacher


observation


improvement and


standardized


pre-


Social


post-test


science


Goal


develop


ability


identify


find


solution


social


problems


Ame rican


society


able


to 1


number of


cultural


aspects


that affect


individual


life.


Objective:


have


percent of all


students


complete


course


term.


trategies


content


center


around


sent


-day


American


society


evaluated.


titution


Pragmatic


society


solutions


are examined


problems


sought.


group


back


Methodology


interaction,


texts,


involve


problem-solving,


handout


use of


film


scuss


small


, paper


method of


teaching.


course


behavioral


with


student


being


able


work


on any


objective


they


choose


a particular


time.


Evaluation


on sati


fac-


tory


completion


objective


course.


tandardi


test


admini


tered


to measure


changes


attitude


over


semester.








Objective:


have


percent


students


enrolled


course


complete


obj ectives


term.


Strategies


course


onal


adju


tment


signed


to help


student


understand


Personality


self


-concept


tests


are given,


along


with


number


attitude


aptitude


inventor


These


then


interpreted


student


, helping


them


come


aware


their


strength


and aptitudes.


Tech-


niques


include


group


discu


ssions,


taped


"rap"


sess


ions


structured


group


experiences.


Special


Methods


Used


Cour


Warm personal


relation


between


instructors


students.


Small


classes


student


Audio


equipment


, including


sound-on-slide,


lecture


to rage,


photograph,


video-tape.


Individualized in


truction that allow


student


to move


own pace.


Videotaping


sess


ions


for playback


evaluate


teacher


technique


Open-end,


student


behavioral ized


response.


courses.


-punitive


A human


Teacher


grading.

classroom atmosphere.


Attitude








two.


Instructors


are more


tudent-centered


sense of


matching


necessity


students


learning


basic


skill


with


necess


of learning


about


these


. They


also


cons


ider


important


instructors


students


know


accept


each


other


tudent-


teacher


relation


ship.


ritual


dropped.


teacher


land of


safety;


instead


with


student.


blackboard


lecture


not h


main


tool


communication;


the work


group


guiding


process


teacher as


student as


"them"


gone


instead


Small


Group


Method


technique


used


small


group


student


method


Students


are divided


into


groups


or 6


as they


enroll


with


each


group


electing


own coordinator.


These


group


then


help


carry


the work


whether


that might


objective


select


projects


can act


complete,


as a


or day


facilitator


to day


to five


class


groups


work.


instead


teacher


relating


group


students.


student


seem


to establi


h relationship


easier


small


group.


They


identify


with


group members


more


than


with


total


lass.


strategy


students.


seems


Peer


help


prevent


teaching


common


development of


occurrence


"isolates"


these


among


groups.


Criterion


Reference


students


are taught


performance


objective


course


work


compete


based.


student


given


objective


"me"








Exam


There


are no final


exams


each


evaluation


each objective


completes


that


objective.


Grading


stem


Poss


ibly,


most


obvious


diff


erence


program


grading


possible


grade


given


are A


grade


treated


like


incomplete


grade


that


averaged


into


student


grade


point


average


change


an N


grade


into


grade


or C


student


re-enroll


following


semester


begins


working where


topped.


will,


in no case,


repeat


objectives


already


done.


student


Involvement


Special


rvices


been


built


around


needs


students.


They


have


been


involved


building


continuou


evaluation


program and


because


have


completely


student


-centered educa-


tional


experience.


Tutoring


Goal


provide


individual


assi


stance


student


achievement


academic


areas.


Objec


tive


provide


referred


student


with


tutor


basi


cation


academic


courses.


Strategies


Tutors


are assigned


basi


education


ssrooms


are allocated


individual


student


both


instructor


referral


Il l. l l


tudnpnt c<1f


-refrral


I








assignments


as test


retake


general


problem areas


h as


writing


defi


iencie


tutor


coordinator and


structor


elect


tutor


on the


basi


subject


area


know edge


personality


variable


(can


they


be effective with


disadvantaged


students)


coordinator


oversees


tutor


activities


acts


as a


liason


between


instructor


tutor


tutors


instruct and guide


only;


they


grade


test


or handle


ssroom bookkeeping.


Counse


ling


Goal


provide


student


support


peripheral


non-


academic


areas.


Objectives:


provide


assi


stance


obtaining


financial


support.


assi


problem


finding


hindering


solution


academic


personal


success.


develop


an awareness


educational


career


goal


assi


student


obtaining


needed


media


information


aid.


enl i


community


filling


student


need


Strateai


nrnnram


a full


-tuna


nnn...tanrhi nn


I Irnol anti


c


I


l< P


I .I.


.


.








To meet


with


acquaint


community


students


with


advisory


financial


board.


aid avail


initial

on hand,


intervi


ew; to keep


assi


forms


students


fill


them out.


onfer


with


those of


with


CFCC


other


application


Financial


institution


process


Offi


assi


admi


students


ssion


financial


aid.


maintain


atalogs


other


institution


programs.


To maintain


personal


contact


with


admi


ssion


recruiting


personnel


other


Florida


colleges


univer


cities.


recommend


student


to the


Talent


each


Program.


provide


spec


assi


stance


physically


abled


students.


To attend

conference


local

s for


workshop


" coun


elor


state


DHEW,


regional


Divi


student


support and


special


Program personnel


Community


Goal


involve


local


community


education


for the


advantaged


Ob.iective:


enl i


cl. ,u .


community


aaenci


fulfilling


, -,


*J .


. V


V I








Meetings


community


special


leaders


Servi


organic


staff


nations


with


to acquaint


area


with


program


purp


oses.


Referral


student


program counselor


to appropriate


ommuni ty


agencies


uch as


urity


Admini


traction,


Mental


Health


institute,


Vocational


Rehabilitation,


Munroe Memorial


pital,


hands


Teaching


Hospital,


Bureau


Blind


ervi


alth


Department.


Participation


local


community


clubs,


example


being

Liones


Pilot


Club


Club


donation


cholar


Braille


fund and


tionaries.


The maintenance


contact


high


school


teacher


admini


strators


also


school


board


personnel


from Marion,


Citru


Levy


counties.


Evaluation


Research


Goal


eval uate


Objective


effectiveness


identify


strength


special


and weakn


rvices


esses


Program.


program


desc


riptive


survey


evaluation


data


Strategies


An


eval uation


by Miami


-Dade


Divi


taff


under Dr


. Dwight


Burrough


1971


evaluation


southern


Association


Accredita-


tion


Committee


1974


summa ry


statement


John


Roueche


1976.


1976.








Comparison


Services


. Pre and


Special


retention


tandardi


services


graduation


testing


non-Special


rates.


reading


Engli


student


evaluation


Special


Services


instruc-


Yearly

Yearly


evaluation

evaluation


taff


di rector


director


taff


Research


Retention


Graduation


Figures


basi


different


types


retention


studies


are done


CFCC


Special


Services


program.


first


total


enrollment


versus


total


graduation


over


defined


time


span


type of


tudy


does


not take


into


account


enrollment


during


time


span


or new


graduates


after.


The other


type


uses


ingle


population


reduction


system


that


takes


time in college


group


(fall


term


arri


through


attending


successive


without


first


terms


graduate on,


series


graph


until


student


or have


topped


detail


have graduated,


attending


retention


disadvantaged


students


over


a three


year


period


compare


program


population


with


rest


campus.


emplo


ingle


population


reduction


method.
















Overall Retention


Retained










Terms


I II I II I


1972-73


1973-74


NSS = 438






31%


1974-75


is the retention rate of the non-Specia


Services student.


%
Retained


Terms


1972-73 1973-74 1974-75
























%
Retained









Terms


1972-73 1973-74 1974-75


3 is the retention rate of the control group population (those


below 150 (25th percentile and below) on the Florida


students with


Twelfth Grade Placement


test who had no courses or only one course in the Special Services


Program.


Retained


Terms


107't2-7 iot I 07C7C 11 t


FPSS


36%








second


figures


different


kinds


black


American


retention


studi


Study


- CFCC


Black


Ameri'can


Enrollment and


Graduation


- Dec


1976


All C
Total
Total


collegee (S
Enrolled
Graduate


Per Cent


Srvs


= 1190


. Included)


special


Total
Total


Per Cent


rvice


Enrolled
Graduate


Only
474


Study B


- CFCC Black American


ingle Population


Retention


Sen~t.


special
Time


Lost
Retained

Total Re
Per Cent


- May


rvices


Enrollment


Graduation
im


tainted


1975


special


First


Time


ervi


Lost
Retained w/o


I1
Total
Per C


Enrollment


= 46


Graduation
it


Retained


ent


= 37%


Study


- CFCC


Black


American


Graduate


Comparison


Sept


Non-


Total
Total


. 197


service


Enrolled
Graduates


Per Cent


= 716
= 42
= 6%


-.Dec


. 1976


special


Total
Total


rvice


Enrolled
Graduate


= 474


Per Cent


. 197








tudi


total


enrollment


figures


are generated


from


Sept.


total


graduate


are generated


from May


1974


forward


In all


studies


black


Ameri


cans


taking


only


one S


special


rvi ces


course


are not


counted


as S


special


ervi


student


tudy


a comparison


special


ervi


graduates


with


non-S


special


black


graduate


Florida


state


average


for the graduation


minority


Central


Florida


one ofthe


high


est minority


graduation


rates


tate.


Theoretical


Philosophical


Foundation


purpose


section


to d


scuss


various


aspects


Special


ervi


Program at


Central


Florida


Community


College


seem


be contributing


to retention


graduation


nontraditional


student


attempt


will


be made


to provide


background


, rationale


supporting


John


data


on techniques


Roueche


University


approaches.


Texa


foremost


author ti


on "nontraditional"


student


education


After


yea r


studying


both


successful


unsuccess


program


. Roueche


public


recommendation


Catching


Remedial


Education,


(1973)


Following


are the


recommendation


explanation


how they


are being


ticed at


Recommendation


community


college


should


.mphasi


- .


work


to achieve


. -~1


v


wo rk


..


e








noti


community


that


we do


intend


serve


student


will


give


us the opportunity


Roue


point


out that


administrative


support


critical,


particularly


from the


hief


executive.


current


program at


from


inception,


received


such


support


from


highest


admini


strators.


only


fair


to note


that


support


not always


path


least


resi


stance


those


admini


trators.


They


have


to deal


with


other


sectors


campu


whose


-interest


long


range


slion,


or other


reasons,


attempt


to impede


or terminate


effectiveness


program or


program


itself


support


must


strong


enough


allow


program


to develop


efficiently


tand on


own merits.


Recommendation


eparately


organic


divi


developmental


studies


should


created with


own s


taff


administrative


head


Roueche


tudie


and many


other


reported


literature


become


apparent


that


"wholi


tic"


approach


the mo


success


nontraditional


student


Most


frequently


nontradi-


tional


students


have


long


tory of limited


success


in most


academic


areas


These


students


develop attitudinal


-concept


problems


affect


their


social


family


live


as wel


as academic.


These


problem


are not


dealt


with a


effectively


piecemeal


erie


courses


experiences


as a


concerted


effort


team


spec


iaNi


sts.








one subject may


little


value


failing


other


courses


cannot


finan


aid,


or i


having


personal


problems.


Because


diverse


complex


need


come with


these


students


there must


lose


understanding


and working


relation


hip among


those


involved.


lead


to Roueche


next


recommendation.


Recommendation:


Only


instructors


volunteer to


teach


nontraditional


student


should ever


involved


developmental


programs.


personnel


special


service


Program at


S. C


there


because


they want


to be.


not a


matter of


newest


instructors


being


stuc


with


asses


others


not want,


or a


matter


"fitting


something


" for


"those"


students


after


other


need


have


been


met.


However,


having


developmental


courses


as the


primary


focu


several


instructors


insure


success


program


Several


year


ago a


study wa


done


group


of Univer


Flo ri da


pro-


fessor


to d


cover


"the


best


teaching


method


traveling


over the


United


states


they


found


that most


people


most


place


could


identify


"good"


teachers


However,


these


"good"


teachers


chara


teri


common.


What


they


seemed


hare wa


an attitude


about


people,


particularly


about


tuden


Comb


Avila


Purkey,


their


book,


Helping


Relationship


(1971),


found


that


following


character


tingui


good


"helpers"


from


poor ones:








Friendly-unfriendly.


friendly an
threatening


enhancing.
to themselves


well-intentioned


and coun


rather


elors).


Helpers


They


than


see others


not regard


see people


evil


-intentioned


as being


them a


as essentially


(teacher


Worthy-


worth


unworthy


rather than


dignity


maintained;


whose


account


they


integrity may


(teachers,


Helpers
unworthy.


see other people


They


integrity which mu
o not see people a


couns


violated


elors,


see them as
t be respect
unimportant


or treated


Internally-externally motivated


their


rather


tha


behavior
n as a


as essentially


external


product


prof


as o


essors
Helper


developing


event


as being


ssess-


being
little


s see people
from within


be molded


directed;


rather


esse


than


they


pass


Dependable
ntially tru


behaving


people


see people


ive or


inert


-undependable.


tworthy


lawful


as understandable


dictable, or
Helpful
potentially
impeding or


sources
tion and


1971,


negative
-hindering


fulfilling a
threatening.
satisfaction


suspicion


as creative
(teachers an


Helpers


dependable


They
rather


(teachers,
. Helpers


enhan


They
rather


(teacher


regard
than


counts


prof


dynamic


essors


see people


sense


behavior


capri


elors,


see people


regard
than a
(Comb


people


s sources


Avila


ous, unpre-
and profes
as being


rather


than


sors).


as important


Purkey


stra-


trans


lation


these


attitudes


into


day-


to-day


behavior


what


meant


human


stic


classroom atmo


here.


These


attitudes


depth


are manif


personal


tructured


ested


counseling.


into


prog ra m


behaviors


However,


in several


from


these


ways.


simple


attitudes


These


courtesy


also


structures


fulfill


some


. Roueche


other


recommendations.


Recommendation:


developmental


courses


should


carry


redit


graduation


program certification.


already


been


tated


most


nontraditional


student


come








That


procedure


tran


smits


to them our


lack


of confidence


them and


reaffirms


-concept a


unable


or unworthy.


If we


begin


indicating


that


they


cannot


make


we are merely


increa


road-


blocks


success.


program mu


st be


It mu


to help


remembered


student


that


achieve,


goal


to "weed


success-


them out"


Central


ori da,


we have


taken


recommendation


ultimate


y having


nontraditional


student


take


five


fully


tran


rable


credit


asses


which


have


been


modified


accommodate


those


students


' needs


. The


classes


remain


equivalent


to other


sections


those


same


courses


taught


various


department


on campus


arrangement


transmit


powerful


message


hese


students.


them that


we believe


them,


we care


about


them,


perhaps


most


importantly,


they


continue


their


academic


careers


y will


so because


they


can achieve;


because


we lower


our s


standard


or pass


them out of


sens


e of


obligation.


However


there


are critic


claim


that


standards


have


been


lowered and


grade


earned


these


asses


are meaning


ess.


These


laim


refuted


grading


police


which


not only maintain


s tan -


dards


also


fulfill


. Roueche


next


recommendation


Recommednation:


Grading


poll


practice


should


non-punitive


Whether we


use Benjamin


Bloom


term,


mastery


learning"


or the


phrase


criterion


Roueche


reference


believe


that


grading,


student


we i


should


special


graded


ervi


on a


, along with


criterion








me re ly


a comparison


students


' achievement.


approach minimizes


ompetiti on


ctor


and al


student


to work


their


goal


We i


Spec


service


agree


with


the mastery


learning


people


that


something


worth


learning we


serve our goal


assigning


derogatory


grade


which


tell


nothing about


student


not achieve


riterion.


terms


tinct


stem


standard


standard


, criterion


which


clarify


reference


not only maintain


student


what


establ i


quality


to be


clear


the academic


done.


Blumefeld,


tional


ston


ociation


and Waugh


entitled


ented


"Effect


paper


Criterion


to the American


Reference


Educa-


testing


Upon


e of


Remedial


Exam


Opportunities


" (1971).


tudy,


which


been


replicated,


they


found


that


using


higher


criterion


and make-up


exams


greater


percentage


student


achi eve


cri teri on.


the method we


employ


special


Service


can maintain


equivalency with


other


department


' courses


while


creasing


opportuni ties


success


students.


under


tand


how this


integrated


into


workable e


system we


must


look


another of


Roueche


recommendation


Recommendation:


Instruction


should


accommodate


individual


differences


permit


students


learn


proceed


their own


paces.


addition


criterion


reference we


have


developed


performnnanc


objectives


have


an open-ended


tem which


does


allow


students








sphere,


they


also


tend


have


great


need


structure.


Roueche


tudie


(1976)


and more


become


evident


recently


that many


Patricia


nontraditional


Cross


student


work


have


learning


tyle which


relief


heavily


on external


structure.


The use


behavioral


or performance objective


imposes


needed


structure while


criterion


reference


testing


grading


hel p


ensure


that


the objectives


are being


met.


keeping


asses


open-ended


we reaffirm our


goal


learning


success


without


imposing


arbitrary


time


boundaries


reading and


Engli


classes


, diagnostic


test


used


to determine


where


student


should


tart


and what


particular needs


he might


have.


then


work


at h


own pace


until


achieved


the minimum criteria.


interweaving of


human


approach


which


tends


warm,


non-directive


tructured


tends


with


col d


behavioral


rigid


approa


difficult


h which


apparently


necessary


program


to b


success


Some


critic


claim


that


type of


system may


artificially


retain


students.


Indeed,


many


student


will


find


necessary


remain n


school


longer


However,


tati


on the


special


Services


Program at


. indicate


that


hese


nontraditional


student


graduating


at an equal


or higher


rate


than


traditional


students.


They are


generally not


expected


to do


One of


ide effect


an effective


program which


should








averaged


effect


higher percentage of


students


achieving


higher


criterion


when


make-up


exams


are used


higher grade


point


average


must


acce


pted


as a


normal


part


these


programs.


Recommendation:


Curriculum offer


developmental


programs


houl d


rel evant.


type


recommendation


seems


so hackneyed


that


deserves


little


cons


ideration.


However,


with


nontraditional


students,


takes


on tremendous


increased


significance.


Roueche


review


s umma ry


literature


to 1968


, public


salvage,


Redirection


or Cu


tody


(1968)


was shown


that


most of


these


student


were


certain of


their


educational


ability


or goal


needed


result


and applications


very


quickly


they were


going


persi


courses


special


rvices


Program


are well


united


this


purpose.


social


science


class


takes


personal


and contem-


porary


perspective


material


personal


on American


society.


interest and


reading


structured


includes


so that


immediate


result


can be


realized.


Engli


classes


also


implement


very


personal


ment.


trategi


personal


learning and


and mater


developmental


ychology


and applie


increase


takes


to each


students


cognitive


student


involve-


data


life.


empha


zing


relevance


early


their


experience


we enhance


probability


their


remaining


in college.


Recommendation:


Regular


college


curriculum offerings


should


comprehen


sive.


--








Recommendation


counsel


ling


function


developmental


programs


must


be of


real


value


stud


ents.


Rouec


indicates


that


the main


problem area


that


encountered.


fortunate


that


special


services


grant


provides


full


-time


couns


elor


program.


free


real


counsel


ling


function


such


as testing


referral


assi


stance


career


onal


counseling and


institutional


liason


effort


been


experience


that


an academic


counsel


assigned


directly


the mo


to the


effe


developmental pr

ctive. Although


ogram and


counsel


working as


and advisor


team member

organization


vary


it i


important


that all


personnel


sens


itive


to the


needs


of nontraditional

Recommendation:


students.


Effort


should


be made


to alleviate


abrupt


transition


from


developmental


tudi


traditional


college


curricula


recommendation


been


implemented


at two level


- here


other


institution


when


student


trans


fer.


trate


gies


for the


transition


on thi


campus


include


formal


informal


cuss


ions


almost


special


Service


lasses


on s


survival


kill


as drop


and add


different


ting


techniques,


etc.


Also,


many


formal


informal


contacts


have


been


made


between


faculty


member


While


there


are no data


support


hypothes


seems


that








should


have


increased


their


success


rate,


although


again,


no data


are available.


If their


success


rate


increased,


quite


poss


ible


that


their


-concept as


teacher


also


increased.


they


feel


more


capable


helping,


then


when


nontraditional


student


does


reach


their


assroom


they may


feel


more


confident


to deal


with


them.


Also,


these


structors


are receiving


students


have


shown


them


selves


capable


in other


college


courses.


perceptions


expectation


both


students


instructors


should


be enhanced


previous


success


an almost


ircular


pattern


reinforcement


Servi


Program


produces


capable


student


who are


accepted


recogni


culty


in other


areas


and who


hang


those


aculty


members


' attitudes


about


program and more


importantly


about


nontraditional


students.


Even


after


student


leave


Special


rvices


courses


their


progress


monitored.


Whenever


they


need


assi


tance


such as


tutor-


ing,


they


know


they


can come


back


help.


when


they


ready


to transfer


, they


often


seek


advi


and a


stance.


per-


sonne


parti


cularly


counsel


, frequently make


needed


contact


help


with


necessary


arrangements.


Recommendation:


Once


programs


are establ i


, effe


ctiv


recruiting


trategi


should


deve


loped


to identify


enroll


nontraditional


student








on the


centile


Florida


on a


Twelfth


simi


Grade


Placement


standard


Test


test


or the equivalent


high


school


per-


grades


other


indications


possible


difficulty


traditional


educational


situations.


have


developed


reliable


referral


cess


from the other


department


to S


special


service


with


referral


past


yea r


being


made


from


Fine


Arts,


ness


Social


sciences


, Vocational,


Applied


sciences,


Natural


iences


, along


with


referral


from


communi ty.


When an


instructor


becomes


aware


that


student


need


kind of


help


available


Special


Service


program,


knows


can call


that


student


nferred.


Most


instructors


have


now realized


that


these


student


will


have


greater


opportunity


success.


allows


that


instructor


to direct


attention


to his


other


student


thout feel ing he


abandoned


them.


In most


cases


student


relieved


greatful


new opportunity


. Mo


t of


them do manage


make a


"comeback.


Recently,


Admi


ssion


Office


made


positive


step


towards


increasing


nontraditional


student


enrollment


hiring


minority


recruiter


. They


too followed


Roueche


recommendations


hiring a


minority member


job.


Financial


officer


been


attempting


recruit


peaking


to ju


parent


high


school


students.


feeling


that


parent


are aware of


what


available


going


they


are more


likely


to b


supportive.


During


Culture


Week,


college


invites


business








Special


rvices


believe


that


through


these


aspects


program we


traditional


that


have


students.


their experiences


been


While


able


increase


they


will


here


itive


enrollment of


Ce. C


and will


encourage


non-


we believe


them


stay


succeed.


While we


machinery,


recogn i


we believe


that


that


we are only


our


contribution


one gear


college


the area


retention


graduation


nontraditional


student


been


most


significant.














Faculty


Director


Staff


.......... ...Carolyn


Counselor


cretary


........Lance


...... .... .Bonnie


Lancaster


Zartman


Academic


..John


Jean
Bill


Simpson
Covell


Jone


Elvira
Desmon d


Byron
Dan B


- English
- Reading


- Social


Harri


Brannan


Dyce
ecton


- Engli


- Math


, Psychology


science,


- Social


- Learning


Psychology


, Reading


ience


, Psychology


special i


Educational


Aides


. ..S


helia


Linda


Thornton


Chester


- Reading,


- Tutor


Fitzgerald


Engli


Coordinator


- Reading














BIBLIOGRAPHY


Reference


Cited


Anderson, D. F.
Expectancy
Children."


American


enthal


and Social
Proceeding


Intera


Psychological


"Some


tion


76th


ociation,


Effects


on I


Interpersonal


institutionalized


Annual


. 479


Retarded


Convention


-480,


1968.


Aron


Robert.


Paper pre
sonnel an
1975, ERI


"Effects
sented at
d Guidance


C


ED1157


of Tea


her Expectancie


Annual


ssociatio


Meeting
n, New


of The


York,


Myth


or Reality?"


American


York,


Per-
March,


Avila,


Donald


Helping
Inc.. 1


Arthur W.


Relation


Comb


ourcebook.


971


William W.


ston


Purkey.


Allyn


The
Bacon,


Baum,


Frank


Wizard


York:


Random House,


1950


Beez


Behavior


"Influence


Convention
DD. 605-606


Pupil


Performance.


American


1968.


ychological
II h .a..


gnideecorP


psychological


Report
- --


on Tea


76th


Annual


sociation,


Blumefeld,


Gerald


Criterion Re
Opportunities
American Edu


1971


ERIC


Darrel


ference


oston,


testing


Paper pre


national


Upon
ented


each


and
the


Robert


Waugh.


Remedial


at the


Annual


ociation,


"Effect


Meeting
York, F


ED049310.


Exam


bruary


Brandt,


Larry


Attitude


Performance


no.3


SPP


Mary


as a


Ellen


tion


Level


-314,


Journal


June,


Hayden.
students


"Male


scribed


of Educational


Female


Motivation
Psychology,


Teacher


1974.


Buford
S


, Betty
student


Doctoral


Campbell,


"Teacher


ubgroups in
dissertation


Donald


Experimental Desi


Expectancy


Texa


Culturally


in Relation to


Texa


Julian


ns for Resear


student


M University,


tanley


. I. .


Different


Achievement


1973


Experimental


Chicaao


.


Rand


Quasi


McNal lv


-








Claiborn


Failure


William


"Expectancy


to Replicate.


-383


Effects


Journal


October,


1969.


in the


Educational


ssroom:


sychol ogy,


Coleman, J. S.
Report), D
Government


Equality
department
Printing


Educational


of Health,
Office, Wa


Opportunity.


action


shington


and
D.C.


(Coleman


Welfare,
1966.


Comb


Arthur


Donald


Relation


ston


Allyn


L. Avila,
ic Concept
Bacon, Inc


William


Purkey


Helping


Helping


Profes


1971.


Combs,


Arthur W


Harper


, and
Row,


nygg.


Individual


Behavior


York


1959.


Comb


, Arthur W1
ment of Se
Psychologi


D. W. Soper,
-Concept and S
1 Measurement,


Courson.


-Report." E
23. DD. 493-


"The Mea


national


500,


sure-


1963


Conn,


Edwards


Emotion


School
1968.


Children


senthal,


sponse


to Tea


Crowne.


her


ychological


s' Expectancy
Reports, v.22,


"Perception


Elementary


Cornbleth,


Catherine,


pectations


Pupil


Davi


. and


Achievement and


Chri


tine


Button.


Teacher-Pupil


Interaction.


social


ERIC


Education,


. 38


. 54-58,


January,


1974


EJ090


Cross


Patricia
- Toward


dividuali


F orida


, April


"Accent


action


instruction,
8. 1976.


on Learning:


Each.
Univer


Beyond


Education


Symposium on I
Florida, Gain


esville,


Deitz


Samuel


Performance


and William W


ased


on Race


Purkey.
Student.


"Tea


xpec


hological


station


Reprints,


June


1969


, ERIC


EJ0083


Duse


Jerome


Children
American
New York


"Teacher


s Learning and
Sociological A


, Augu


Experimenter
rformance."


association


1973,


ERIC


Annual


Effects


Paper presented at


Meeting


York,


ED083345.


usek,
o


Jerome


Educational


Teachers


Research


Children


s Learning


661


-684


Review


, Fall,


1975.


Finn,


Jeremy D
Review of


Expectation
national Re


Educational


search,


Environment


, pp.


-410,


"E X-


--


I


__








owners


"Effects


on the
Student


University


ested


Academic


Doctoral


1966.


an Arbitrary
Achievement
ssertation,


Accelerated
of Education
Teachers Col


Group


ally
lege,


Placement


Disadvantaged
Columbia


oster


, Glen


Expectancie
of Learning
1976.


Carl


chmidt,


Label


David


'Learning


sabilities


abatino.
abilitie


. 58


-61,


"Teacher


'." Journal
February,


Guskin,


Alan


Education


Samuel


Reading,


Addi


social


sychology
1970.


Hankin


son,


Oscar H.


Culturally


of Wi


scons


"Expe


Different


station


school


Behavior of


Doctoral


Pupil


ssertation,


Univ


, 1970.


Chri


topher.


hool ing


Inequality


Ameri ca


Reas


York


sessment


Family


Book


Jensen,
Sc


ientist


"Review of Pygmalion
v. 51, pp. 44A-45A,


Classroom.


American


1969.


Jose,


Jean


Relate


and John


Cody


to Attempted


"Teacher-


Change


Pupil


Teacher


Interaction


Expectan


Academic


Ability
Journal,


Achievement.


. 35-


American
January,


Educational
1971.


each


Lockhart,


William


. The


Minne


Board


sota


Yale


Kami


Education.


Publi


hing


Jesse


stitutional
1967.


. Choper


Law.


"Brown
. Paul,


Nie,


Norman


and
New

O'Connell


Dale
York


Edwa rd


"Follow


Educational


Hadlai


Bent


Hull,


Stati


McGraw-Hill


Jerome


tudy of Te
Psychology


Jean


tical


Book


Jenkin


Package


Company,


1970,


. Dus


her Expectancy
v. 10. DD. 325-


Karin


1975.


Richard


ects.


, June


teinbrenner


social


ences


Wheeler.
Journal


1974


Perse


Caroline


stations:


Hodge


Their


Implication


ting,


Tracking


Education


and Teachers


Expec-


Inequality.


A Literature


York


Institute
Foundation


Review


institute


Education,
ashington,


and Synthe
on Plurali


Washington,
D. C., April


Amer
Grouj
). C.
197'


ican


Jewi


p Identity
; National


S


ERIC


Committee,
National
science


6150


Purke


V .


William W.


"Reformation


'


I I IL.-


Public


.-J V.


hool


-


n. I


Invita-




Full Text
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 EIPXUBDQW_D4EZOR INGEST_TIME 2011-08-09T15:27:02Z PACKAGE AA00002204_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


CORRELATION BETWEEN PROFESSORS' INFERENCES
ABOUT STUDENTS' SELF-CONCEPTS AND PROFESSORS'
KNOWLEDGE OF STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION IN A
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAM
By
CHARLES WILLIAM JONES
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1978

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would first like to thank my chairman, Dr. Robert L. Curran,
and my committee members, Dr. Donald L. Avila and Dr. William R.
Maples. Their patience and guidance over several years of work
have been deeply appreciated. My gratitude extends to all of my
college professors at Manatee Junior College, Florida State Univer¬
sity and The University of Florida. Many of the names elude me but
they have touched my life for nearly twelve years. I would hope
they feel that their work has not been in vain.
I would also like to acknowledge the help I have received at
Central Florida Community College. Mrs. Carolyn West, Director of
Special Services, gave me a job, goals, and most importantly, the
freedom and opportunity to grow. The rest of the staff, particu¬
larly John Simpson, have helped me develop the ideas which led to
this research. A special thanks goes to Dan Becton for his assis¬
tance with the statistical analysis.
The administrators of the college have been most helpful as
well. From the use of Staff and Program Development funds to finance
my studies, to direct assistance with this research, they have been
involved. A special thank you is extended to Robert F. Ritterhoff,
Dean of Instructional Services and his Administrative Assistant,
Mrs. Dolores Melendez.
Dr. Lawrence Sutton and the staff of the Information Services
were most helpful with the computer sampling and I thank them.
ii

A very special thank you goes out to Ms. Bonnie Zartman. As
secretary for Special Services, my typist and friend, she has been
dedicated in her tolerance and encouragement of my work.
It is difficult to express the magnitude of my appreciation
that goes to my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Robert M. Jones. In so many
ways their support and encouragement has always been there. They
have never expected any more than that I did my best at what I wanted
to do. I thank them for the freedom and the opportunity.
Finally, I would like to express my appreciation of the person
who really made it all worthwhile; my wife, Una. Her loyalty,
dedication, patience, encouragement, love and understanding have
been so important. Without her I would not have made it.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
ABSTRACT vi
CHAPTER I, STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1
Introduction 1
Purpose 6
CHAPTER II, REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8
Introduction 8
Teacher Expectancies: Where Do They Come From? 11
Program Label, Ability Grouping, or Perceived
Ability 11
Teacher Expectancies and Sex 16
Teacher Expectancies and Race 17
Teacher Expectancies and Socioeconomic
Status (SES) 18
Teacher Bias 20
Tutoring 20
In-Class Situations 21
Academic Blooming 21
Falsification of Test Scores, IQ, or Track
Assignment 23
Conclusion 24
CHAPTER III, HYPOTHESES 25
CHAPTER IV, THE DESIGN 28
Introduction 28
Sampling 29
Variable Controls 30
Validity 31
Internal Validity 31
External Validity 32
CHAPTER V, INSTRUMENTATION 33
The Florida Key: A Scale to Infer Learner Self-Concept 33
Validity and Reliability 33
Reasons for Use 34
Modification 35
Scoring 35
iv

CHAPTER VI, DATA COLLECTION 37
Procedure 37
CHAPTER VII, DATA ANALYSIS 39
Response Rate 39
Group Composition 40
Scores 41
Three-Way Analysis of Variance 41
CHAPTER VIII, INTERPRETATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 51
Interpretation of Data Analysis 51
Hypothesis One 51
Hypothesis Two 52
Hypothesis Three 53
Hypothesis Four 53
Conclusion 54
APPENDIX A, FORMS AND LETTERS 57
APPENDIX B, THE SPECIAL SERVICES PROGRAM AT CENTRAL FLORIDA
COMMUNITY COLLEGE, OCALA, FLORIDA 63
BIBLIOGRAPHY 91
References Cited 91
Additional Sources in the Areas of Teachers'
Perceptions and Expectations 95
Sources in the Areas of Remedial, Compensatory,
Developmental and Nontraditional Education 100
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 104
v

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the Univeristy of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
CORRELATION BETWEEN PROFESSORS''INFERENCES
ABOUT STUDENTS' SELF-CONCEPTS AND PROFESSORS'
KNOWLEDGE OF STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION IN A
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAM
By
Charles William Jones
August 1978
Chairman: Robert L. Curran
Major Department: Foundations of Education
The question was raised whether knowledge of students' partici¬
pation in a compensatory education program could be significantly
related to professors' inferences about students' self-concepts.
A post-test only control group design was used to investigate the
possible relationship. The relationships between and among student's
race, sex and program label and professors' inferences about students'
self-concepts were also examined.
Thirty-two professors at Central Florida Community College in
Ocala, Florida, were randomly selected from all faculty at that
college who had from all of their sections at least one white male,
one white female, one black male and one black female who were par¬
ticipants in the college's Basic Education/Special Services compen¬
satory education program.
VI

Professors' inferences about students' self-concepts were
measured on the Florida Key: A Scale To Infer Learner Self-Concept.
The experimental group professors were told explicitly on the rating
forms that the students were participants in the program. Professors
in the control group received no information on students' participa¬
tion. They were asked whether they knew the student was involved
in the program. If the professor had knowledge then that student's
score was deleted from the data. All forms were returned. Half
of the instructors, however, failed to complete one or more of the
forms.
A three-way analysis of variance (race by sex by experimental
group) was used to test the hypotheses. Only main effects were
detected. No significant difference was established for sex. Race
was significant at the .021 level with blacks being rated lower than
whites. Knowledge of program participation approached significance
at the .057 level with higher scores reported when participation
was known.
The significant difference by race was consistent with previous
studies examined. However,the numerical trend for higher scores
when the compensatory label was known was unexpected. Follow-up
studies and further inquiries into the dynamics of this particular
program are definitely needed.
Chairman
VI 1

CHAPTER I
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Equality of opportunity in education has, in recent times, become
a top priority of the federal government. Many state legislatures and
educational systems have taken the initiative in this direction as
well. From the beginning, the mythology of America has incorporated
the notion of equal opportunity. Education, and particularly higher
education, has been recognized as a direct route to that opportunity.
It was not until the decades following the second World War, however,
that higher education began to be identified as a right rather than
as a privilege.
With the passage of the "G.I. Bill of Rights" and its inclusion
of extensive educational benefits, scores of Americans who would have
previously considered a college education unrealistic headed for
academia. What many of these aspirants encountered was a system
embellished with traditionalism, elitism, and stumbling blocks.
The rising tide of the Civil Rights Movement focused great
attention on education. The first major breakthrough was in 1954
when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Brown vs. The Board
of Education (Lockhart, Kamisar, and Choper, 1967) that separate
but equal was not equal. This decision and rulings of the court
increased and sanctioned demands for democracy at the door of
higher education.
1

2
In 1957, the State of Florida implemented a system of junior
colleges which espoused an opportunity of education rivaled by few
states in the U.S. and perhaps the world. The development of the
"Open Door" policy seemed certain to insure equality of opportunity.
Many of these colleges, however, were not nearly open until more than
a decade later.
As federal legislation began producing programs, procedures
and guidelines, the feeling seemed to be that more money, more people,
and more facilities would right the wrongs and make the American
education system live up to its promise of equal opportunity.
In 1966, the so-called Coleman Report shocked many observers and
gratified others by proclaiming that money and facilities probably
have little effect on positive change.
What does significantly affect positive change? Unfortunately
the definitive answer to that question has not been found. Some
researchers such as Rist (1970), Combs (1959) or Purkey (1970),
contend that an important kind of influence consists of the percep¬
tions, attitudes and beliefs of those charged with the carrying out
of the educational process. Their perceptions, attitudes and beliefs
significantly determine the eventual outcome of that process, not
only as it relates to individuals but to entire groups or classes
of people.
That theoretical approach presuppposes that the perceptions and
expectations that individuals have towards others are based on the
integration of knowledge of characteristics of those others with their
own past experiences. Very simply, knowledge of student characteris¬
tics may significantly affect the perceptions, attitudes and beliefs
that teachers hold about the student.

3
There are literally thousands of characteristics that could be
enumerated concerning any given individual. Social pressure and
resulting legislation have focused primarily on race and sex and,
to a lesser degree, age. Coleman (1966), Rist (1970), and Jencks
(1972) have asserted that family background and socioeconomic
status are significant characteristics affecting educational oppor¬
tunities. Rist is explicit in his belief that family background
and socioeconomic status affect the perceptions of teachers. It
would probably be safe to assume that Coleman and Jencks would concur.
One characteristic which research on such perceptions has some¬
what ignored at the post-secondary level has been the student's in¬
volvement in any of a variety of programs developed to enhance
educational opportunities and the resultant labels associated with
those programs. It is a rare post-secondary school or college which
does not have a remedial, compensatory, developmental or nontraditional
program. They carry various titles and descriptions, but the implica¬
tions of placing a student into one of these programs would appear to
be clear, i.e., that the student is incapable of achieving through the
"normal" route or process for one reason or another.
Is it possible that participation in one of these programs has
become a significant characteristic used by teachers in determining
their attitudes, values and beliefs concerning that student? And if
it has, does it contribute to a positive or negative set of percep¬
tions and values?
The question has become more important since the federal guide¬
lines for the main federal programs, Upward Bound, Talent Search and
Special Services, have been broadened to include and assist not only

4
financially deficient students but also those who are culturally,
socially or academically disadvantaged and those who are handicapped
as wel 1.
This change is very important because previously, inclusion in
those programs almost certainly meant that the student was from a
lower socioeconomic background. The new guidelines have made that
implication much less of a certainty.
At Central Florida Community College in Ocala, Florida, there
have been various attempts to provide educational opportunities for
academically deficient students through remediation since the middle
sixties. In 1972, a new department was established to offer courses
in various disciplines to students who were academically deficient.
It was designated as Basic Education but it was not a remedial program.
It offered five three semester hour college level academic courses
for fully transferable credit. The program used a variety of approaches
including mastery learning, criterion reference, non-punitive grading,
small instructor-student ratio, emphasizing interpersonal contact and
communication and tutoring.
In 1974 a Special Services grant was awarded to the college and
specifically to the Basic Education Department. Since then that
department has expanded and serves nearly a thousand students per year.
A complete description of the program is included in Appendix B.
With the support of the administration, the program has expanded
its clientele to include anyone who can be expected to have or has
been shown to have difficulty in a traditional academic setting.
This definition of eligible clientele has a tremendous range of
interpretation. Such groups as veterans, foreign nationals and

5
returning adults are included with those who are financially, cul¬
turally, socially or academically disadvantaged or handicapped.
The services utilized by these groups may vary, but they are all
in the same Basic Education/Special Services classes. In effect,
they have been labeled as Basic Education/Special Services students.
It is evident that this format is not the usual remedial or
"bone-head" program and is moving further from that stereotype with
its continued expansion. What is unclear, however, is whether other
faculty on the Central Florida campus recognize those distinctions
as they relate to the students.
Since its inception, the Basic Education/Special Services
program has drawn great criticism. Much of it has come from other
department chairmen and may well be politically motivated. Some of
the most vocal critics have been other faculty members. Most of the
criticism seems to be aimed at the educational philosophy and theory
of the program and its methods, while some seem to question the
social-political theory and application of equal opportunity programs.
Statistically at least, the program appears to be successful.
The graduation rate for the "high-risk" students who go through at
least two courses in the program is equal to or greater than the
rate for regular students, according to a long term retention study
carried on by the program (Simpson, 1976).
Other findings, in an unpublished study by the Counseling
Department of Central Florida Community College (Weaver, 1976),
indicated that there did seem to be a drop in grades in subsequent
related courses. No explanation for the drop was offered.

6
It is also unclear whether the faculty of the campus understand
what the Basic Education/Special Services program is all about or
whether any criticism of the program may be affecting the students
who are involved in it.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to determine whether knowledge of
students being Basic Education/Special Services students is related
to instructors' inferences about the students' self-concepts.
Additionally, the variables of race and sex will be examined to see
whether they contribute to variance in perceptions by instructors.
The significance of the present study will be to determine
(1) whether knowledge of a student being labeled as Basic Education/
Special Services is related to an instructor's perception of the
student's self-concept and, if the perception is, whether it is
related to a positive or negative inferred self-concept, (2) whether
race is a significant factor in the perceptions reported by instruc¬
tors, (3) whether sex is a significant factor in perceptions,
(4) whether a combination of these factors is significant in the
perceptions held by the faculty and (5) whether further study of
the labeling of students as Basic Education/Special Services is
indicated. It is particularly important to know whether the label,
Basic Education/Special Services, is contributing to any negative
perceptions since the students must complete more than 75 percent of
their required hours with instructors in other than the Basic
Education/Special Services program. Also, many of the students
will need follow-up services after they leave the Basic Education/
Special Services courses.

7
Additionally, this will be significant because of its emphasis
on higher education. As the next chapter, Review of the Literature,
will indicate, most studies of teacher perceptions have been done
at the elementary and secondary levels. As the pressures continue
to mount on higher education for equal opportunities of education,
this study should contribute to a better understanding of how to
make those programs more effective and whether what goes on in the
elementary and secondary levels is similar to what goes on at the
college level.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
The concept that one person's beliefs may affect or be related
to the behavior of another person is certainly not new or startling.
Folk wisdom and popular literature such as Pygmalion, later drama¬
tized as My Fair Lady, or the ageless Wizard of Oz, has exhalted
the power of expectation and self-fulfilling prophecy.
Although human behavior is an extremely complex subject, there
does seem to be a great deal of agreement that human behavior is a
product of the individual's interaction with the environment. A
particularly significant part of that environment is other people
and their behavior.
Numerous constructs and labels have been developed to cate¬
gorize and systematize that behavior. Such constructs as culture,
social structure, social organization, social system, social in¬
stitutions, etc., are used to convey meaning about that behavior.
"Values" is a construct which is used to express a prioritizing
or arranging of behaviors into categories understood as good or
bad or even desirable or undesirable by an individual or group.
Exactly how these values are developed is not totally agreed upon.
However, the weight of agreement certainly seems to be on the side
of an environmental interaction theory rather than a notion of
"a priori" development of these values.
8

9
As the social scientist or psychologist studies human behavior,
it is nearly impossible not to notice the vast range of interpre¬
tation of the environment and behavior among and within cultures
or even individuals themselves.
Of particular importance is the compounding variable known as
perception. This seemingly apparent factor has been seen as sig¬
nificant enough to give rise to a whole branch of psychology. Per¬
ceptual psychology, included in the label humanistic psychology,
contends that the world is explored and understood in terms of the
way it is perceived by each individual. Relating perceptions to
behavior, Combs states, "All behavior, without exception, is a
function of the behaver's perceptual field at the instant of behaving."
He goes on to assert, "If behavior is a function of perception, it
follows that to understand behavior it will be necessary to study
the factors influencing perception in the individual" (Avila, Combs,
and Purkey, 1971, p. 118).
In the field of education, self-theorist Purkey contends, "The
ways significant others evaluate the student directly affect the
student's conception of his academic ability. This in turn establishes
limits on his success in school. Teachers, in their capacity of
significant others, need to view students in essentially positive
ways and hold favorable expectations" (Purkey, 1970, p. 47).
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) brought interest in teacher effects
on students to new heights when they published Pygmalion in the
Classroom. In their book they seemed to present data that would
substantiate Purkey's and others' contentions that teacher expec¬
tations can be significant in student development. Over the years

10
numerous studies, to be reviewed in the following pages, have examined
this question. An important dichotomy has developed in this field
and needs to be elaborated on because of its application to the
research at hand.
Jerome B. Dusek (1975), a researcher in this field, makes the
distinction between "teacher bias" and "teacher expectancy." Dusek
states, "'teacher bias' will refer to significant effects due to
teachers' differential expectations for students' performance in
the case where expectancies have been induced by a principal inves¬
tigator. That is, teacher bias refers to a manipulation of the
teacher's expectancies by a principal investigator." He continues
with, "The term 'teacher expectancy' will refer to significant
effects due to the teachers' own, self-generated expectations re¬
garding students' performance. In this case, it is the teachers'
own expectancy, formed however teachers form it, which is related
to students' performance" (Dusek, 1975, p. 679).
Dusek (1973, 1975), O'Connell, Dusek and Wheeler (1974), Finn
(1972), Brandt and Hayden (1974), Jose and Cody (1971), Van Alst
(1973) and various others contend that mixed findings in studies,
and particularly those intending to replicate Rosenthal and Jacobson,
have resulted from a confusion of these distinctions.
The main purpose of this dissertation is to study the relation¬
ship between knowledge of a program label and the teachers' percep¬
tions of students so labeled. Basically, it is an attempt to deter¬
mine whether the knowledge of a student having been in a particular
program seems to be a basis for developing "teacher expectancy."
Additionally, the variables of sex, race and combinations of sex,
race and label will be examined.

11
The literature dealing with "teacher expectancy" will be covered
first. The literature on the related "teacher bias" will follow.
Some "teacher bias" studies will be useful in discussing "teacher
expectancy" and may be covered there.
Teacher Expectancies: Where Do They Come From?
Program Label, Ability Grouping, or Perceived Ability
Although no articles dealing with expectancies concerning com¬
pensatory programs in higher education were found, related areas
are presented here.
Hankinson (1970) found significant differences in teacher
expectancies for students in Title I and non-Title I schools. He
suggested that this type of label may have affected expectancies
because of the economic composition of the school implicit in the label.
Finn (1972) could not show any main effects based on IQ in a
"teacher bias" experiment. It did appear that urban teachers tended
to rate equivalent writing samples higher for high IQ students than
for low IQ students. After reviewing his and related studies, Finn
made a distinction similar to Dusek's (1975) concerning naturalistic
versus induced studies. He concluded that teachers did hold differ¬
ential expectations for achievement, that these expectations did
bias evaluations, and that the most influential factor affecting
those perceptions was the perceived ability level of the student.
He felt that it was questionable whether manipulation, particularly
based on a single test score, was feasible.
Schwarz and Cook (1972) examined the extreme program label
EMR (educable mentally retarded). They had teachers of EMRS rate

12
their expectations for development by their students. No signifi¬
cant relationship was established between expectation and achieve¬
ment and the variables accounting for variance in expectancy scores
could not accurately be established.
Yoshida and Meyers (1975) found no significant difference in
expectancy when regular and EMR classroom teachers were asked to
rate students randomly labeled as either EMR or regular. They
concluded, "The results of this study do not support the arguments
of the labeling perspective and call into question its theoretical
framework. The EMR label did not differentially affect the teacher's
expectancy within the context of this study" (Yoshida and Meyers,
1975, p. 535).
Foster, Schmidt, and Sabatino (1976) in the related area of
learning disabilities, found exactly the opposite of Yoshida and
Meyers (1975). Two groups of elementary teachers were shown a video¬
tape of a normal fourth grade boy engaged in various activities.
The control group was told, prior to viewing the tape, that the
boy was normal. The experimental group was told that he was learning
disabled. The experimental group rated the boy more negatively
(p.c.OOl) than the control group did on referral forms filled out
after viewing. They concluded that, "The data obtained in this
study strongly suggest that the label of learning disabled generates
a negative bias on the part of classroom teachers and this bias is
sufficient to alter teacher's observations of actual child behavior"
(Foster, Schmidt and Sabatino, 1976, p. 113).
Clearly, the question of label effects on expectancy has not
been answered.

13
Brandt and Hayden (1974) wanted to attempt a pure experimental
study of teacher attitudes and expectancies so they turned to the
computer. They simulated students on the computer and volunteer
teachers responded to the imaginary students. The volunteers did
not know that the students were imaginary and were, in fact, given
various academic data on the student. The results suggested that
the teachers' attitudes and expectations were more influenced by
actual performance than by ascribed academic characteristics.
Williams (1975) studied sixteen thousand male and female
students who began school in Toronto in 1959. He found that the
single most important source of teacher expectation was the school's
certification of the students' aptitude by ability grouping, even
when the students' past performance, current ambition and academic
aptitude were held constant.
Persell (1976) found that most studies of tracking that have
been done in the United States have not studied the effect on
teacher expectations.
Flowers (1966) and Schrank (1968, 1970) present some interest¬
ing data on perceived ability using essentially "teacher bias"
techniques. Flowers (1966) shifted two experimental groups of seventh
grade students to higher ability sections than their test scores
warranted without student or teacher knowledge. Two control groups,
matched on IQ and achievement, were not shifted. Based on teacher
answered questionnaires, Flowers inferred from the results that track
placement did affect teacher expectations. Teachers favored the high
ability groups and seemed to be more aware when those inferred to
be high ability needed remedial help. They also appeared to try to

14
motivate the reputedly higher ability students more than the comparable
control groups.
Schrank's (1968) experiment is particularly significant because
it dealt with college level instructors. He randomly assigned one
hundred enlisted airmen at the United States Air Force Preparatory
School to five instructional sections. Instructors were told that
the sections were homogeneously grouped by ability. Significant
differences were found when section grades were compared; the
"higher groups" received higher grades.
Schrank (1970) replicated the study except that time the
instructors knew that the students had not been grouped according
to ability. In that study no significant differences could be
found in grades by section.
Schrank (1970) points out that teacher expectancies were not
measured but were only inferred and he feels that the most that
can be claimed is that tracking might be a critical influence on
teacher expectancies, but that further study is needed.
Persell (1976) noted that studies of tracking and ability
grouping that have addressed the question of teacher expectancy
seemed to concur with Flowers (1966) and Schrank (1968, 1970) that
ability grouping did appear to affect teacher perception and ex¬
pectation.
Cornbleth, Davis and Button (1974) addressed the question of
effects of teacher expectancy based on perceived ability. She asked
student teachers to rate their secondary students in terms of ability
at the beginning of the class. Observational interactional studies
were carried on as part of the student teachers' regular evaluation

15
so that they were unaware of the study. The results were that
students rated as low were given significantly fewer opportunities
to respond and interact. Students rated as high received significantly
more direct questions, even at the lower levels of Bloom's Taxonomy.
Also for the students rated "low" there was a decreasing amount of
feedback in pupil created interactions. Cornbleth, Davis and Button
concluded that teacher expectations and resultant behavior may not
be mitigated by actual classroom experience.
Brandt and Hayden (1974) found the classroom experience more
influential, but it should be noted that their study dealt with
investigator generated characteristics (similar to a "teacher bias"
paradigm) whereas Cornbleth (1974) was dealing with teacher generated
characteristics (i.e. "teacher expectancy").
Dusek (1973) conducted a one and one half year experimental
longitudinal study of "teacher bias" and "teacher expectancy" effects
on the Stanford Achievement Test performance of children in two
second grade and two fourth grade classrooms. He found no "bias"
effects, i.e. input of false information had no effect on teacher
expectation or student performance. However, he concluded that
teachers were good predictors of academic potential and teacher
expectations were based on relevant academic criteria.
O'Connell, Dusek and Wheeler (1974) continued the original
study and their findings were similar.
Guskin and Guskin (1970) summarized their work and the feelings
of many investigators when they stated, "Labels and stereotypes
can have an important impact on perception when more reliable infor¬
mation is absent, but tend to have little significance when more

16
directly observable and relevant cues are present" (Guskin and
Guskin, 1970, p. 30).
Teacher Expectancies and Sex
Rowell (1971) attempted to distinguish attitudinal and expec¬
tancy differences for instructors based on students' sex but could
not reach significant levels.
Finn's (1972) study did find differential expectations for
white females and males, but no sex distinctions for blacks. However,
those distinctions seemed to be interrelated with the teacher
characteristic of either urban or suburban.
Veldman and Brophy (1974) found that pupil sex was not a factor
in teacher predictions of post-test scores, i.e., it was not a
factor in teacher expectations in a pre-post test study of achievement
gains on a standardized achievement test of second and third graders.
Chang (1975) did a correlational study of the relationship
between self-concept, academic achievement, and teachers' ratings
of childrens' self-concept of one hundred and ninety seven pupils
from fourth, fifth and sixth grades. No relationships could be
distinguished on the basis of students' sex.
However, Aron (1975) did a "teacher bias" study in which he
manipulated students' ethnicity, sex, and ability. He found sig¬
nificant interactions between sex of student and teacher expectations.
Van Alst (1973) had attempted a "teacher bias" study but was
unable to establish significant relationships between student sex
and teacher expectations.
More than anything else, these last two studies point to the
contradictory results referred to by Dusek (1975) when he examined
"teacher bias" experiments.

17
The study by Williams (1975), reported earlier, did find student
sex to be related to teacher expectations.
Teacher Expectancies and Race
Deitz and Purkey (1969) studied one hundred and forty seven
white graduate students in the College of Education at the University
of Florida. The graduate students had been employed as classroom
teachers within the previous two years. A hypothetical adolescent
boy was described in a paragraph including economic and family back¬
ground, likes and dislikes and the previous year's discipline records.
The experimental paragraph was identical except it included the
descriptor "Negro." Either an experimental or a control paragraph
was distributed randomly to each of the subjects. The subjects were
asked to read the paragraph and estimate the boy's future academic
performance using a seven point scale. The difference between means
was not significant at the .05 level. They concluded that race was
not a factor in expectancy.
Roeber (1970) completed a similar study on thirty female ele¬
mentary school personnel from the Detroit area. That study found
that race was not significant when other information was available,
e.g., test scores, record of achievement, or comments of former
teachers.
In contrast to those studies was one by Buford (1973). Fifteen
third and fourth grade teachers in Title I schools in a central Texas
city were asked to indicate expected student achievement. It was a
two year study with seven hundred and fifteen students.
Buford then computed an "objectively predicted achievement"
for the same students based on their cumulative record. The findings

18
showed significant differences in expectations based on race. The
teachers expected greater achievement from whites than was warranted
by objective predictors and significantly under-expected for Mexicans
and blacks.
Pugh (1974) found race to be significantly related to evaluations
of tape-recordings of junior high school students reading the same
brief passage in a study conducted in Dade County, Florida. The
results indicated that whites were favored over blacks. Blacks who
were perceived as white were more favored than whites who were per¬
ceived as black.
The study by Chang (1975) mentioned previously, seemed to
indicate that teachers were coming into the classroom with differing
perceptions of the child's self-concept and those differences were
significant on the basis of race.
Persell's (1976) review of related research found that the
preponderance of studies indicated that race did influence teacher
expectations.
While there is no clear-cut decision on whether race influences
the expectations of teachers, there is enough evidence to make such
a relationship plausible.
Teacher Expectancies and Socioeconomic Status (SES)
Ray Rist (1970) presented a longitudinal study, following a
single group of black students who began kindergarten in 1967. They
were followed and observed through the second grade.
At the beginning of the school year the kindergarten teacher
had four sources of information about students available to her.
The first was a pre-registration form which called for age of student,

19
parent's name, address, phone number, and a listing of pre-school
experiences. The second source was a list supplied by the school
social worker of students who lived in homes receiving welfare
funds. The third source was an interview with the mother and child.
The fourth source of information was personal experience and the
experience of other teachers with older siblings. None of the
sources was directly related to academic potential.
With that information plus eight days of observations and
interactions, the teacher assigned the students to three groups;
high, medium and low. Rist found four dimensions upon which the
kindergarten teacher based her grouping of them: (1) physical
appearance, (2) interaction behavior with the teacher and among
students, (3) use of language and, (4) social background.
Rist felt that the overwhelming value was middle class, i.e.,
ease of interaction with adults, high degree of verbalization in
standard English, ability to become a leader, neat and clean, well
educated family, employed and living together and interested in
the child, and ability to participate as a group member. Rist
concluded that placement of the children then appeared to result
from their possessing or lacking certain desired cultural charac¬
teristics perceived as important by the teacher.
Such grouping carried on through first and second grade to
such an extent that Rist commented, "The child's journey through
the early grades of school at one reading level and in one social
grouping appeared to be preordained from the eighth day of kinder¬
garten" (Rist, 1970, p. 435).
Hankinson's (1970) article, mentioned earlier, did find sig¬
nificant differences in teacher expectancy between Title I and

20
non-Title I schools, suggesting that knowledge of economic compo¬
sition of the school could affect expectations.
Jose and Cody (1971) attempted a replication of Rosenthal and
Jacobson's (1968) study but were unable to show any significant
difference among variables. The explanation offered by several of
the subjects was that they knew the children and their backgrounds
and therefore knew what the child could be expected to do.
Persell (1976) reported that of seven studies dealing with
expectancy and socioeconomic status examined, four showed a
positive relationship, but three could demonstrate no relationship
at all.
Teacher Bias
Although the present research is not actually a "teacher bias"
study, those studies have been influential in the development of
this research. The literature in that area may serve to illuninate
what is currently being undertaken in the "teacher expectancy" area.
Two distinct groups of "teacher bias" studies appear in the
literature. One group uses the tutoring situation for their context
of study while the othergroup uses in-class situations. Within
the in-class studies, two distinct groups appear. One uses "academic
blooming" as pioneered by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968), while the
other group uses falsification of test scores, IQ, or track assign¬
ments .
Tutoring
Beez (1968) did establish significant differences in achieve¬
ment by students whose tutors had been told that their student would
either adjust and do well or not. He suggested that teachers may

21
both teach differently and try to teach different amounts to children
depending on their bias regarding the child's ability.
Rubovits and Maehr (1971) studied whether tutors differed in
the amount of attention given to students with differing ascribed
characteristics. The labels "gifted" and "non-gifted" produced
no significant differences in amount of attention given, but did
produce a different pattern of attention and praise given to children
in each of the groups. More questions and praise were directed
towards "gifted" children.
In a replication, Rubovits and Maehr (1973) found similar re¬
sults. However, white students did receive more attention than
black in that study.
Rothbart, Dalfen, and Barrett (1971) had done a similar study
with similar results.
Although these studies seem to indicate differential treatment
based on ascribed characteristics it must be noted that, except for
Beez (1968), no difference in learning could be distinguished when¬
ever learning was assessed.
Dusek (1975) suggested that findings of this sort might represent
merely an attempt by the tutors to provide optimal learning atmospheres
for children with differing teaching needs.
In-Class Situations
"Academic blooming." Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) randomly
chose approximately 20 percent of the children in eighteen elementary
classrooms to be labeled as potential "academic bloomers." All students
were given an IQ test disguised as a test to predict "academic blooming.
Teachers were given the names of those randomly chosen as "academic

22
bloomers." Across all classrooms, the year-end IQ retest showed an
approximate four IQ point advantage for the experimental group. In
first and second grades the experimental group gained by as much as
fifteen points over the control group. Rosenthal and Jacobson
concluded that the experimental group showed higher gains because
of higher expectancies by teachers.
However, severe methodological criticism, particularly by Thorn¬
dike (1968, 1969) and Jensen (1969) and the question of regression
by Claiborn (1969), have haunted this study.
Claiborn (1969) attempted to replicate the Rosenthal and Jacobson
study but could not produce any significant differences in IQ gains.
Anderson and Rosenthal (1968) investigated "teacher bias" with
retarded boys at a daycamp. The only significant change was a decrease
in IQ by the experimental group.
Conn, Edwards, Rosenthal, and Crowne (1968) attempted to replicate
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) and found no significant changes.
Rosenthal, Baratz and Hall (1974) attempted a replication of the
original study using grades one through six of an all black school.
Only in the fifth grade did the experimental group score significantly
higher than the control group. Although "teacher bias" effects were
claimed, no explanation was offered as to why only the fifth grade
showed the effect.
Jose and Cody (1971) also attempted a replication of Rosenthal
and Jacobson (1968) but could produce no significant results.
Dusek and O'Connell (1973) and O'Connell, Dusek and Wheeler (1974)
repeated attempts to manipulate teacher expectancies in regard to
subject matters. They also attempted measuring the relationship be¬
tween teachers' own expectancies regarding the students' performance

23
and actual student achievement. The manipulation section of the
study could produce no significant changes, however, teacher ranking
was strongly related to actual performance. They concluded that
teachers did not bias student performance but were good predictors
of student academic potential.
"Teacher bias" studies, using the idea of academic blooming,
have generally failed to replicate and/or substantiate the original
findings of Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968).
Falsification of test scores, IQ, or track assignment. Flowers'
(1966) study, presented earlier, seemed to indicate that shifting of
the experimental groups to higher than warranted tracks did affect
teachers' expectations. IQ test performance was not significantly
different, and achievement test scores were significantly higher
for the experimental group in only one of the two schools.
Schrank's studies (1968, 1970), did show significant grade
differences when tracking assignments were manipulated. As this
study used adult students and instructors, one possible explanation
might be that teachers' perceptions and expectancies are more affected
and possibly biased when track assignments appear to be based on
substantial historical data.
Fleming and Anttonen (1971) attempted various manipulations of
IQ scores of second graders, including not providing them. The results
indicated no "teacher bias" effects on Stanford Achievement Test
performance, self-concept, or school grades.
While this section does not establish "teacher bias" effects,
it does seem to indicate that manipulation of certain variables,
particularly track assignment, may result in "teacher bias" effects
for teacher-rated performance measures.

24
Conclusion
The fact that teachers hold differential expectations based on
various factors seems well established. Whether teachers, in turn,
bias the learning of students is not known.
Dusek states it well,
To the extent that teachers' self-generated expectancies. . .
are based on sound, objective data regarding students'
abilities, then the teacher is not biasing students' edu¬
cation. Rather, the teachers' differential behavior toward
the students in the classroom may reflect effective teaching
style differences for students with differing needs. However,
if these expectancies are based on impressions or information
irrelevant to academic success, as is suggested by the work
of Rist (1970), then the teachers' expectancies may cause
some students to be treated in a manner that may bias their
interest in school and related activities and may contribute
to their doing poorly in terms of academic achievement. At
the present, further research aimed at determining the bases
upon which teachers form their expectancies for students'
performance and the relationship of these bases to students'
achievement in the academic situation are needed. (Dusek,
1975, p. 680).
The present study is an attempt to examine possible bases for
expectations or perceptions held by professors of college students
involved with a compensatory education program at Central Florida
Community College in Ocala, Florida.
This chapter has contained representative samples of the kinds
of work that have been attempted in this field of study. A more
exhaustive listing of sources is included in the second part of the
bibliography entitled "Additional Sources in the Areas of Teachers'
Perceptions and Expectations."

CHAPTER III
HYPOTHESES
It is doubtful that any educator would knowingly establish a
program, procedure or practice that would lead instructors to lower
their perceptions of a student's self-concept. Unless we postulate
some malicious or sinister purpose on the part of those who have
created and implemented equal opportunity programs, we must believe
that they were then, and are now, wel1-intended persons.
The literature, as reported in the previous chapter, indicates
that there is some question as to whether the "labeling" of students
is related to the subsequent perceptions or expectations held by
the teachers of those students. No studies addressing the labeing
of "high-risk" college students could be found.
There were no specific data from other researchers, but the
studies found make it plausible that labeling associated with
ability grouping may have an effect on teacher expectancy. The
suspicion that knowledge of student's involvement in the program
at Central Florida Community College may affect the expectancy of
their subsequent professors becomes even stronger when coupled with
the turmoil and controversy which have surrounded the Basic Education/
Special Services Program.
It might appear that only negative expectations could develop.
It is possible, however, that positive perceptions could develop as
well. The graduation and retention rate for the "high-risk" students
25

26
is equal to or greater than the rate for regular students. That
information has been widely disseminated on the Central Florida
campus and it could have the effect of making the program participants
appear more likely to succeed because of being in the program.
Therefore, their program label could generate positive expectations
on the part of their subsequent professors.
The null form of the hypothesis was used to reduce the possi¬
bility of error because of the lack of previous data and clearer
indications of what could reasonably be expected. The primary empha¬
sis of this study was the program label, Basic Education/Special
Services. The variables of race and sex were examined also. Race
and sex are both disputed factors concerning expectancy, and cannot
be overlooked as possible sources of variance in expectations. This
is true not only as individual factors, but particularly in various
combinations.
In order to better understand the problem the following hypoth¬
eses will be tested:
1. There will be no significant difference between the mean
scores on modified Florida Key: A Scale to Infer Learner
Self-Concept forms completed by instructors who have and
those who do not have explicit knowledge of a student's
being labeled as a Basic Education/Special Services student.
2. There will be no significant difference between mean scores
on modified Florida Keys for black and white students.
There will be no significant difference between mean scores
on modified Florida Keys for male and female students.
3.

27
4. There will be no significant difference between mean scores
on modified Florida Keys for any group combination of Basic
Education/Special Services label, race, and/or sex.

CHAPTER IV
THE DESIGN
Introduction
The design that was used is described in Campbell and Stanley's
Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design for Research (1963), as
the "Posttest - Only Control Group Design" (Campbell and Stanley,
1963, p. 25). They consider it a true experimental design and
symbolize it as follows:
R X 0
R 0
According to Campbell and Stanley, "While the pretest is a concept
deeply embedded in the thinking of research workers in education and
psychology, it is not actually essential to true experimental designs
"Furthermore," they add, "in educational research ... we must
frequently experiment with methods for the initial introduction of
entirely new subject matter, for which pretests in the ordinary sense
are impossible ..." (Campbell and Stanley, 1963, p. 25). In the
current study the groups each consisted of sixteen faculty members at
Central Florida Community College, Ocala, Florida. The "X," or treat
ment, was the informing of an instructor that a particular student
was, in fact, a Basic Education/Special Services student. The "0,"
or observation, was a modified version of The Florida Key: A Scale
to Infer Learner Self-Concept completed by the instructor.
28

29
Samp!ing
An instructor was placed into an available pool if a computerized
student distribution analysis revealed that instructor had at least
one white male student, one white female student, one black male
student and one black female student who was currently or previously
a Basic Education/Special Services student in all of his or her
sections. Students were defined as Basic Education/Special Services
if they were currently or previously enrolled in two or more Basic
Education/Special Services courses. The faculty in the Basic Education/
Special Services department were not eligible to be included in the pool.
Two groups of sixteen instructors were randomly selected from
the pool. One was randomly selected as the experimental group. The
students for whom the instructor completed a Florida Key were chosen
in the following manner. On a computerized student distribution
analysis the four groups of students, black male, balck female,
white male, white female, were identified for each instructor. As
previously stated, only those instructors with at least one Basic
Education/Special Services student in each of those groups was in¬
cluded in the pool of available subjects. If a particular instructor
was selected then one student from each student category was randomly
selected to have the Florida Key completed on him or her. There
were always equal numbers of student subjects selected in each of
the categories and all instructors selected were asked to complete
equal numbers of Florida Key forms.

30
Variable Controls
The variables of race and sex were naturalistically defined
and any interactions were examined and controlled statistically.
Knowledge of whether a student was a Basic Education/Special Services
student was more difficult to control. The experimental group
(those who had explicit knowledge) was not a problem. They were
explicitly informed of the student's label on the Florida Key form.
The control group, on the other hand, was assumed not to have know¬
ledge of the student's label as Basic Education/Special Services.
To control that assumption the following question appeared on the
control group form of the Florida Key: "To your immediate knowledge,
has this student ever taken a Basic Education/Special Services course?
Yes , No , I don't know ." Those student subjects whose in¬
structors in the control group indicated "yes," they knew that the
student had taken a Basic Education/Special Services course, were
dropped from that sample.
It could be a source of error if an instructor did not accurately
report his knowledge concerning that student's attendance in a Basic
Education/Special Services class. It was assumed that the instructors
were being truthful.
It is possible that the responses might have been contaminated
by the fact that a Basic Education/Special Services faculty member
was conducting the study since Basic Education/Special Services is
frequently involved in on-campus political struggles. That type
of contamination was hopefully avoided by having the office of the
Academic Dean distribute and collect the instruments. It was made
clear in a cover letter over the dean's signature that the study was

31
being done as a doctoral dissertation but from what area of campus
and who the author was remained, at least temporarily, unknown.
The specific purpose of the study was not stated. A general
statement to the effect that inferred self-concept of students was
being studied was included. Anyone who considered deliberately
biasing their response one way or the other should not have known
which way to go.
It is recognized that having the Academic Dean's office dis¬
tribute and collect the data could have, in itself, contaminated
the responses. It was seen as the lesser of the possible evils.
Validity
Internal Validity
According to Campbell and Stanley, this design has very good
internal validity. Internal validity is of the utmost importance
because of the need to verify that what seems to be happening is most
likely actually happening since this study is focusing on a particular
problem in a particular institution. It may be argued, however,
that because of the way the original instructor pool was obtained
any effects that might have been discovered are only generalizable
to instructors who share characteristics with those in the pool.
That is probably not significant because if instructors do not have
Basic Education/Special Services students in their classes, it is
unlikely that the perceptions or behaviors of those instructors
will have any direct effect on Basic Education/Special Services students.
Campbell and Stanley gave this design positive marks on all
factors they considered as threats to internal validity. That indicated
that they considered them all to be controlled by this design.

32
External Validity
According to Campbell and Stanley, threats to external validity
are at best controlled by the design and at worst are only possible
sources of concern. Interaction of testing and treatment is controlled
mainly by the lack of a pretest. Interaction of selection and treat¬
ment is a possible source of concern but should be controlled through
sampling and statistical analysis. Reactive arrangements are considered
possible sources of concern and are probably the greatest threats
to external validity for the study at hand. Whether the instructors
will react to being part of a study is difficult to predict or determine.
The entire question of external validity is probably superfluous.
The innumerable variables which have come together to produce the
situation at Central Florida Community College are most unlikely to
be found anywhere else. The situation is, for all intents and pur¬
poses, unique. Any generalizations to other situations would be very
rough approximations. Any findings from this study should be viewed
merely as guides to research at other institutions and perhaps as
a "yardstick" by which to compare results from that research.

CHAPTER V
INSTRUMENTATION
The Florida Key: A Scale to Infer Learner Self-Concept
The instrument used in this study to measure teacher perceptions
was a modified version of The Florida Key: A Scale to Infer Learner
Self-Concept. It is herein referred to as the Florida Key.
The Florida Key began originally as the Combs and Soper Scale
for Inferring Self-Concept (Combs, Soper and Courson, 1963). That
instrument was developed out of Combs' recognition that self-reports
of self-concept were only what the subject was willing and able to
disclose to someone else and not necessarily what the individual
truly believed about himself. Combs believed that inferences by
trained professionals, based on observation, would be more accurate
representations of self-concept.
Purkey published a modification of the Combs and Soper Scale
for Inferring Self-Concept in 1968 (Purkey, 1968). Purkey, Cage
and Graves published The Florida Key: A Scale to Infer Learner
Self-Concept in 1973 (Purkey, Cage and Graves, 1973).
Validity and Reliability
Construct validity was established statistically. Concurrent
validity with a self-report type self-concept scale could not be
achieved (Purkey, Cage and Graves, 1973). The lack of concurrent
validity was not considered detrimental to the use of the instrument.
33

34
Reliability was established both through an analysis of variance
procedure for several respondents in a study and by determining co¬
efficients of reliability employing the split-halves procedure for
all respondents in that same study. An index of reliability of .84
was obtained through the analysis of variance procedure. Coefficients
of reliability using the split-halves procedure ranged from .62 to
.96. The split-halves estimate of reliability of total score across
all teachers was .93.
Reasons for Use
The Florida Key is used to infer learner self-concept. What it
actually measures, according to personal correspondence with Dr.
Purkey, is teacher perception. That is, it is no more than a reflec¬
tion of an instructor's evaluation of particular student characteristics
and behaviors. The research being undertaken here is precisely that,
i.e., teacher perceptions.
One of the particularly valuable aspects of using this scale,
as in this study, is that the focus of the instructor completing the
form is on the student rather than on him or herself. This should
tend to minimize dangers inherent in what is essentially a self-
report of perceptions.
There are various reasons for using this scale other than the
"blind" effect and established validity and reliability. It is
readily available, inexpensive, easy to understand, quickly completed
and it is not copyrighted.

35
Modification
The original Florida Key was deisgned for elementary and secondary
schools and some of the words and phrases were inappropriate for the
college level. A classroom use of the scale with comments from in¬
structors completing the forms indicated a need for a space to mark
"not applicable, or unknown." Without such a response available some
instructors left a blank space while others indicated a score of zero.
The use of zero score indicates teacher knowledge that a particular
behavior never occurs. The responses did not always accurately reflect
what was intended in those cases.
On the original form the information on race and sex is not in
a prominent position and there is no place to indicate special infor¬
mation such as the program label being studied here.
It was determined that separate forms for each group would be
more effective than attempting to use the same form with different
cover sheets or supplements because of the different information
needed from the control and experimental groups.
The modifications made are not believed to significantly or
substantially alter the information gathered. They are expected
to increase accuracy and understanding both for the person completing
the form and for the researcher.
Scoring
The Florida Key is scored by simply adding up the responses
entered for each question. Both a raw score and a mean score are
calculated. The raw score only has meaning if all questions are
answered between 0 and 5. Since the scale is composed of all positive
questions, the higher the score, raw or mean, the more positive is

36
the perception of the instructor and therefore the higher or more
positive is the self-concept of the student (as learner) inferred
to be. The lower the raw or mean scores are, then the lower or
less positive are the instructor's perceptions and the inferred
self-concept.
A mean of the means of all Florida Keys completed by an instructor
will be calculated and used to assign a numerical value to the per¬
ceptions of the instructors. Mean scores will be used when students
are the unit of analysis.
The original form, the control form, and the experimental form
are presented in Appendix A.

CHAPTER VI
DATA COLLECTION
Procedure
The Academic Dean's office was requested and subsequently agreed
to administer the col lectionofthe data in an attempt to increase the
response rate and reduce any possible reaction to the author's position
at Central Florida Community College.
Each instructor included in the study received a package of
materials through campus mail. The package contained the following
items:
(1) A letter from the Dean explaining the study, providing
directions for completing the forms, and detailing the expected time
of return.
(2) One modified Florida Key form for each student subject to
be evaluated by the instructor.
A copy of the letter from the Dean is in Appendix A.
The packages were distributed through campus mail and were timed
to arrive in instructors' mailboxes on a Monday morning. The instruc¬
tors were requested to return them to the Dean's office by Friday be¬
cause of the minimal time needed to complete the forms. Those instruc¬
tors who did not respond by Thursday received a reminder letter. A
copy of that letter is in Appendix A.
The instructor's name did not appear on the Florida Key form at
all; nor was any special coding required. There was very little
37

38
overlap of students among instructors because of a relatively large
population of students from which to sample. It was a simple matter
of matching the student's name on the completed form with a master
list of instructors and students participating in the study. In
the event that the same student was selected to be evaluated by two
instructors, a small blue dot appeared on the back of the Florida
Key form in the lower left hand corner. A corresponding dot appeared
next to the instructor's name on the master list. That coding was
not necessary if one instructor was in the experimental group and one
was in the control group. The difference in the modified Florida
Key forms was used to determine with which instructor that student
belonged.
This lack of name or code should have helped to create a feeling
of anonymity which should have increased honesty and willingness to
participate. It should have further served to direct the instructor's
focus toward the student rather than on him or herself as he or she
completed the form.
If the forms were not received by Monday morning following the
Friday deadline, the Specilaist in the Academic Dean's office con¬
tacted, by telephone, instructors with outstanding forms and requested
that they return them as quickly as possible.
All forms were returned to the Academic Dean's office by the
middle of the second week of the study. They were then turned over
to the author for analysis.

CHAPTER VII
DATA ANALYSIS
Response Rate
A 100 percent return of Florida Key forms was achieved. However,
not all forms returned were usable. As depicted in Table 1, two
instructors in the control group indicated they knew that one or more
of the students were Basic Education/Special Services students. One
instructor knew of one student while the other instructor knew for three
students.
Table 1
Instructors in the Control Group Who Knew the Students
Were Basic Education/Special Services Students
1.
no. of
instructors who had knowledge of 1 of 4
1
2.
ll II
" " » " » 2 of 4
0
3.
ii n
" " " " 11 3 of 4
1
4.
ll ll
" " 11 " » 4 0f 4
0
5.
total
no. of instructors who had knowledge
2
6.
total
no. of students known
4
The scores for the students known to be Basic Education/Special
Services students were deleted from the data.
In addition, sixteen of the thirty-two instructors failed to
complete one or more of the Florida Key forms. A breakdown by group
status and number completed is found in Table 2.
39

40
Table 2
Completion Rate of Florida Key Forms for
the Control and Experimental Group Instructors
Control Experimental
1. no. completing 4 of 4
~T~
8
2. " " 3 of 4
2
6
~T. n 0 2 of 4
6
2
~T. " " 1 of 4
1
0
\T. n 11 0 of 4
0
0
The most commonly reported reason for not completing the forms
was that the student had either dropped earlier or had not attended
enough for the instructor to have sufficient information upon which
to base responses. This occurred despite the student sampling popu¬
lation being drawn from the Central Florida computer using an indicator
of currently enrolled in those courses.
Group Composition
Table 3 indicates the number of students' Florida Key scores
used in the study after subtracting non-completed forms and forms
for students in the control group whose program status was known.
The numbers are broken down into racial and sexual characteristics.
Table 3
Racial and Sexual Composition of Control and Experimental
Groups by Students After Omissions and Deletions
Control Experimental
1.
white male
15
15
2.
white female
10
12
3.
black male
n
12
4.
black female
n
15
5.
total white
25
27
6.
total black
22
27
7.
total male
26
27
8.
total female
~21~
27
9.
total N
47
54
While the race and sex of instructors were not variables used
in this study, that information is provided in Table 4.

41
Table 4
Racial and Sexual Composition of Control
and Experimental Groups by Instructors
Control
Experimental
1.
white male
10
14
2.
white female
4
1
3.
black male
1
1
4.
black female
1
0
5.
total white
14
15
6.
total black
2
1
7.
total male
11
15
8.
total female
5
1
9.
total N
16
16
Scores
The scores reported by instructors in both groups are presented
in Table 5. The mean score for each student as well as a mean of
those means for each instructor is included.
Table 6 presents the students' mean scores divided by race,
sex and group membership. It also includes N, mean, sum of X, sum
of X squared, sum of squares,and standard deviation for each group.
Table 7 compares instructors means for the control and experi¬
mental groups. It also contains total group mean, sum of X, sum of
X squared, sum of squares, and standard deviation for each group.
Three Way Analysis of Variance
Originally,a three way analysis of variance using instructors'
means had been planned. Instructors were to have been randomly
assigned to only one cell within a three way paradigm of program
label, race and sex. That design would have made each cell distinct
and would have equalized the influence of each instructor.
However, since over half of the instructors failed to complete
one or more forms, it was impossible to randomly assign them to the
various cells.

42
As an alternative a three-way analysis of variance was completed
using all students' mean scores. It was executed using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (Nie et al., 1975) computer program
three-way analysis of variance with the regression solution. The
regression solution was used because of the unequal numbers among the
groups. That solution is recommended by SPSS for unequal numbers.
One limitation and clear possible source of error recognized
is the unequal influence of instructors. The regression solution
should have minimized this error but it cannot be considered totally
eliminated.
The only significant F value achieved was for main effects by
race. It was significant at .021. with blacks rated lower than whites.
Main effects by experimental category approached significance at .057.
It is important to note that the numerical trend was for higher scores
when the instructors knew explicitly that the students had participated
in Basic Education/Special Services.
No other main effects, two-way or three-way interactions yielded
values of significant levels. The results of the entire program are
presented in Table 8.

Table 5
Student Mean Scores by Race, Sex, and Instructor and
Instructors' Means in the Control and Experimental Groups
Control Group
Instructor
's Student's
Student's
Instructor's
Student's
Student's
Race/Sex
Race/Sex
Mean Score
Race/Sex
Race/Sex
Mean Score
I. WF
1. WF
C/D
5. WM
1. WF
NC
2. WM
2.0
2. WM
2.60
3. BF
C/D
3. BF
3.60
4. BM
C/D
4. BM
4.14
Instructor's
Mean = 2.0
Instructor's Mean
= 3.45
2. WM
1. WF
4.44
6. WM
1. WF
NC
2. WM
NC
2. WM
3.58
3. BF
NC
3. BF
C/D
4. BM
3.29
4. BM
2.0
Instructor's
Mean = 2.0
Instructor's Mean
= 2.79
3. WM
I. WF
4.20
7. WF
1. WF
4.95
2. WM
3.63
2. WM
4.37
3. BF
NC
3. BF
3.25
4. BM
NC
4. BM
4.43
Instructor's
Mean = 3.91
Instructor's Mean
= 4.25
4. WF
1. WF
2.45
8. WF
1. WF
4.60
2. WM
2.89
2. WM
4.13
3. BF
2.87
3. BF
NC
4. BM
3.94
4. BM
NC
Instructor's
Mean = 3.04
Instructor's Mean
= 4.36
W = white
M = male
NC =
not completed
B = black
F = female
C/D =
: completed but deleted

Table 5 - continued
Control Group (cont.)
Instructor
Race/Sex
's
Student's
Race/Sex
Student's
Mean Score
Instructor's
Race/Sex
Student1s
Race/Sex
Student's
Mean Score
9. WM
1. WF
1.50
13. WM
1. WF
2.14
2. WM
1.80
2. WM
1.89
3. BF
0.00
3. BF
1.88
4. BM
1.18
4. BM
1.75
Instructor's
Mean
= 1.27
Instructor's Mean
= 1.91
10. BF
1. WF
3.00
14. WM
1. WF
3.17
2. WM
3.53
2. WM
3.76
3. BF
2.94
3. BF
0.28
4. BM
3.61
4. BM
3.61
Instructor's
Mean
= 3.27
Instructor's Mean = 2.70
11. WM
1. WF
NC
15. WM
1. WF
3.67
2. WM
3.37
2. WM
3.95
3. BF
2.29
3. BF
3.23
4. BM
NC
4. BM
3.17
Instructor's
Mean
= 2.83
Instructor's Mean
= 3.50
12. BM
1. WF
NC
16. WM
1. WF
NC
2. WM
3.54
2. WM
4.27
3. BF
1.60
3. BF
4.60
4. BM
4.46
4. BM
NC
Instructor's
Mean
= 3.20
Instructor's Mean
= 4.43
W = white M = male NC = not completed
B = black F = female C/D = completed but deleted

Table 5 - continued
Experimental Group
Instructor's
Student's
Student's
Instructor's
Student's
Student's
Race/Sex
Race/Sex
Mean Score
Race/Sex
Race/Sex
Mean Score
1. WM
1. WF
NC
5. WM
1. WF
3.05
2. WM
4.25
2. WM
1.73
3. BF
3.00
3. BF
3.93
4. BM
3.19
4. BM
1.00
Instructor's Mean
=
3.48
Instructor's Mean
= 2.43
2. WM
1. WF
4.00
6. WM
1. WF
4.18
2. WM
3.80
2. WM
3.45
3. BF
2.40
3. BF
2.36
4. BM
3.25
4. BM
NC
Instructor's Mean
=
3.36
Instructor's Mean
= 3.33
3. WM
1. WF
NC
7. WM
1. WF
3.25
2. WM
4.19
2. WM
2.67
3. BF
1.54
3. BF
2.00
4. BM
NC
4. BM
3.75
Instructor's Mean
=
2.86
Instructor's Mean
= 2.92
4. WM
1. WF
5.00
8. WM
1. WF
NC
2. WM
4.00
2. WM
3.73
3. BF
4.47
3. BF
3.36
4. BM
4.63
4. BM
2.86
Instructor's Mean
= 4.52
Instructor's Mean
= 3.32
W = white
M
= male
NC =
not completed
B = black
F
= female
C/D
= completed but deleted

Table 5 - Continued
Experimental Group (cont.)
Instructor
Race/Sex
's
Student's
Race/Sex
Student's
Mean Score
Instructor
Race/Sex
' s
Student's
Race/Sex
Student's
Mean Score
9.
WM
1.
WF
NC
13
WF
1.
WF
4.10
2.
WM
3.27
2.
WM
NC
3.
BF
2.68
3.
BF
2.63
4.
BM
1.80
4.
BM
4.21
Instructor's
Mean
= 2.
58
Instructor's
Mean
= 3.
65
10.
BM
1.
WF
4.00
14
WM
1.
WF
4.20
2.
WM
4.00
2.
WM
4.17
3.
BF
4.00
3.
BF
2.80
4.
BM
4.00
4.
BM
3.40
Instructor's
Mean
= 4.
00
Instructor's
Mean
= 3.
64
11.
WM
1.
WF
1.50
15
WM
1.
WF
2.25
2.
WM
4.89
2.
WM
3.22
3.
BF
2.94
3.
BF
3.63
4.
BM
NC
4.
BM
5.00
Instructor's
Mean
= 3.
11
Instructor's
Mean
= 3.
52
12.
WM
1.
WF
4.00
16
WM
1.
WF
4.78
2.
WM
4.25
2.
WM
4.41
3.
BF
4.38
3.
BF
NC
4.
BM
4.31
4.
BM
NC
Instructor's
Mean
= 4.
23
Instructor's
Mean
= 4.
59
W = white M = male NC = not completed
B = black F = female C/D = completed but deleted

47
Table 6
Students' Mean Scores as Factors of Race, Sex and
Group Membership with N, Mean, Sum of X, Sum of X2,
Sum of Squares and Standard Deviation for Each Group
Experimental Control
Black
Males
5.00
4.63
4.31
4.21
4.00
3.75
3.40
3.25
3.19
2.86
1.80
1.00
N = 12
M = 3.45
EX = 41.40
EX2 = 157.52
SS = 14.69
SD = 1.15
4.46
4.43
4.14
3.94
3.61
3.61
3.29
3.17
2.00
1.75
1.18
N = 11
M = 3.23
EX = 35.58
EX2 = 127.57
SS = 12.48
SD = 1.12
Black
Females
4.47
4.60
4.38
3.60
4.00
3.25
3.93
3.23
3.63
2.94
3.36
2.87
3.00
2.29
2.94
1.88
2.80
1.60
2.68
0.28
2.63
0.00
2.40
2.36
2.00
1.54
N = 15
N = 11
M = 3.07
M = 2.41
EX = 46.12
EX = 26.54
EX2 = 152.36
EX2 = 83.41
SS = 10.56
SS = 19.38
SD = .87
SD = 1.39

48
Table 6 - continued
Experimental Control
White
Males
4.89
4.37
4.41
4.27
4.25
4.13
4.25
3.95
4.19
3.76
4.17
3.63
4.00
3.58
4.00
3.54
3.80
3.53
3.73
3.37
3.45
2.89
3.27
2.60
3.22
2.00
2.67
1.89
1.73
1.80
N = 15
N = 15
M = 3.73
M = 3.29
EX,= 56.03
EX = 49.31
EX¿ = 217.87
n¿ = 172.39
SS = 8.58
SS = 10.29
SD = .78
SD = .86
White
Females
5.00
4.95
4.78
4.60
4.20
4.44
4.18
4.20
4.10
3.67
4.00
3.17
4.00
3.00
4.00
2.45
3.25
2.14
3.05
1.50
2.25
1.50
N = 12
N = 10
M = 3.69
M = 3.41
EX = 44.31
EX = 34.12
= 174.95
= 128.37
SS = 11.33
SS = 11.95
SD = 1.01
SD = 1.15

49
Table 7
Instructors' Means for Control and Experimental
Grouos, Including Group Means, Sum of X,
Sum of X , Sum of Squares and Standard Deviation
Control Experimental
1.
2.00
1.
3.48
2.
3.86
2.
3.36
3.
3.91
3.
2.86
4.
3.04
4.
4.52
5.
3.45
5.
2.43
6.
2.79
6.
3.33
7.
4.25
7.
2.92
8.
4.36
8.
3.32
9.
1.27
9.
2.58
10.
3.27
10.
4.00
11.
2.83
11.
3.11
12.
3.20
12.
4.23
13.
1.91
13.
3.65
14.
2.70
14.
3.64
15.
3.50
15.
3.52
16.
4.43
16.
4.59
N = 16
N = 16
M = 3.17
M = 3.47
EX = 50.77
EX = 55.54
IX¿ = 173.53
EX2 = 198.80
SS = 12.48
SS = 6.00
SD = .91
SD = .63

50
Table 8
Results of a Three Way Analysis of Variance
By Race
Sex
Experimental Category
Source of Variation
Sum of
Squares
DF
Mean
Square
F
Signif.
of F
Main Effects
12.025
3
4.008
3.755
0.014
R
5.895
1
5.895
5.523
0.021
S
1.918
1
1.918
1.797
0.183
E
3.977
1
3.977
3.726
0.057
2-Way Interactions
2.637
3
0.879
0.823
0.484
R S
2.523
1
2.523
2.363
0.128
R E
0.034
1
0.034
0.032
0.858
S E
0.120
1
0.120
0.112
0.738
3-Way Interactions
0.581
1
0.581
0.545
0.462
R S E
0.581
1
0.581
0.545
0.462
Explained
14.558
7
2.080
1.948
0.071
Residual
99.266
93
1.067
Total
113.823
100
1.138
101 cases were processed

51
CHAPTER VIII
INTERPRETATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Interpretation of Data Analysis
Hypothesis One
The data gathered and analyzed in this study fail to reject the
hypothesis of no difference based on knowledge of program label.
The difference did approach a significant level (.057) using the
three-way analysis of variance. Unexpectedly, perhaps, the tendency
is toward an expectation for higher self-concepts for students when
the professors know that the students are, or have been, Basic
Education/Special Services students.
Development of self-concept in students and positive expecta¬
tions of students by instructors are goals of the Basic Education/
Special Services program. Possible explanations of this positive
trend need to be considered.
As mentioned earlier, the program's research, indicating that
the retention and graduation rate for high risk Basic Education/
Special Services students is equivalent to the rate for the tradi¬
tional students, has been widely disseminated on the Central Florida
campus. It is possible that instructors have assimilated and in¬
tegrated that information into their evaluation process of new
students. It could increase their expectations for success for these
students and consequently lead them to project, or infer, higher
self-concepts for those students.

52
It is also possible that when the experimental group was told
explicitly that students were Basic Education/Special Services
students, those instructors may have assumed that the students had
already successfully completed a number of college credits. An as¬
sumption of previous success could have conceivably led those
instructors to respond more positively (higher scores) to the various
questions on the Florida Key.
Another explanation may hinge on instructors' past experiences
with students they knew to be in Basic Education/Special Services.
The rhetoric and protests about the program may be more isolated
than expected. In fact, many instructors may have had positive
past experiences and are merely reporting expectations based on
those experiences.
It must be remembered, however, that only a trend was indicated.
Follow-up studies would definitely seem to be indicated. It would
be important to know if the variance in the difference increases
or decreases with time. A study of non-Basic Education/Special
Services students, using the same instrument, would be useful for
comparing scores.
If it could be established that the Basic Education/Special
Services label has no particularly negative affects on instructors'
perceptions, then perhaps a similar study using random labeling
of both Basic Education/Special Services and non-Basic Education/
Special Services students .would yield more precision to the analysis
of the role of the program label in developing teacher expectancies.
Hypothesis Two
The data indicate that the hypothesis of no difference in
mean scores for black and white students must be rejected. The

53
difference was significant at the .021 level. Blacks were rated
significantly lower than whites.
The three-way analysis of variance, using the regression
solution, yielded no interactions between or among race, sex and
program label. Specific studies of race would be useful in attempt¬
ing a determination of the genesis of this variance. It may be that
the variance is the product of expectations related to academically
irrelevant socioeconomic data. It may be, however, that the variance
is a reflection of professors' predictions based on experience as
suggested by Dusek (1975) in his studies.
Additional research might include an examination of the re¬
lationship between professors' inferred self-concept of students
and subsequent success rates of the students in those classes.
It is not clear from the present data whether any biasing of
education is occuring, nor was that an objective of this research.
Hypothesis Three
The hypothesis of no difference based on students' sex is
accepted. There seemed to be little or no indication of variance
based on sex. This variable, as a primary area of concern, could
probably be deleted from future studies of the Basic Education/
Special Services program.
Hypothesis Four
The hypothesis that there will be no significant difference
between mean scores on modified Florida Keys for any group combina¬
tion of program label, race and sex is accepted. The three-way
analysis of variance, using the regression solution, indicated no
two-way or three-way interactions as being significant. This

54
hypothesis, however, should be tested again in any subsequent studies
of the program. It could add an extra measure of understanding.
Conclusion
The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether
knowledge of students being Basic Education/Special Services students
was related to instructors' perceptions measured as inferred self-
concept of those students. To that end, this study has been incon¬
el usive.
While the hypothesis of no difference based on program label
was accepted, it approached significance to the extent that the
question must remain open for re-examination.
The fact that the numerical trend was for higher expectations
when the label was known was neither expected nor predicted by those
involved with the research or by the literature surveyed. The ex¬
planation and interpretation of the trend continue to be open for
discussion.
It was evident from the results of the data collection that
the design used in this study and the originally planned analysis
could be seriously affected by the behavior of both students and
instructors in a college setting.
The research concerning program labels or ability grouping
done at the elementary and secondary schools seems to bear little
resemblance to the results of this study. This study may have added
an entirely new dimension to the understanding of the dynamics of
the labeling of students and must certainly be of interest to anyone
involved with this type of program in higher education.

55
Finally, this study indicates a need for in-depth studies of
the Basic Education/Special Services program at Central Florida
Community College. It must be determined whether this is merely
an isolated program which seems to make a difference or whether
there are underlying general principles and procedures which might
be duplicated at other institutions. If those principles and pro¬
cedures do exist and can be discovered, then more meaningful gains
might be made in the attempt to provide real opportunities for all
students in higher education.

APPENDIX A
FORMS AND LETTERS

FLORIDA KEY
VERY
NEVER: 0 SELDOM: 1
ONCE IN OCCASION- FAIRLY VERY
AWHILE: 2 ALLY: 3 OFTEN: 4 OFTEN: 5
Name of student to be evaluated
Compared with other students of the same age, does this student:
1. get along with other students?
2. get along with the teacher?
3. keep calm when things go wrong?
4. say good things about his school?
5. tell the truth about his school work?
RELATING:
6. speak up for his own ideas?
7. offer to speak in front of the class?
8. offer to answer questions in class?
9. ask meaningful questions in class?
10. look people in the eye?
11. join in school activities?
12. talk to others about his school work?
ASSERTING:
13. seek out new things to do in school on his own?
14. offer to do extra work in school?
15. write independently?
INVESTING:
16. finish his school work?
17. pay attention to class activities?
18. do his school work with care?
19. exhibit goal-setting behavior?
20. recognize realistic limitations?
COPING:
TOTAL:
Teacher:
Student's: Sex Age Grade
(ORIGINAL FORM)
57

58
THE FLORIDA KEY: A SCALE TO INFER LEARNER
SELF-CONCEPT (College Modified)
Student: Sex: Male Female
Race: Black White Other
VERY ONCE IN OCCASION- FAIRLY VERY
NEVER: 0 SELDOM: 1 AWHILE: 2 ALLY: 3 OFTEN: 4 OFTEN: 5
Compared with other students of the same age, does this student:
Not Applicable
or Unknown
1. get along with other students?
2. get along with the instructor?
3. keep calm when things go wrong?
4. say good things about the college?
5. tell the truth about his/her work?
6. speak up for his/her own ideas?
7. offer to speak in front of the class?
8. offer to answer questions in class?
9. ask meaningful questions in class?
10. look people in the eye?
11. join in college activities?
12. talk to others about his/her work?
13. seek out new things to do in class
on his/her own?
14. offer or ask to do extra work?
15. write independently?
16. finish his/her work?
17. pay attention to class activities?
18. do his/her work with care?
19. exhibit goal-setting behavior?
20. recognize realistic limitations?
To your immediate knowledge has this student taken coursework in the
Basic Education/Special Services Department? Yes No
I don't know
(CONTROL FORM)

59
THE FLORIDA KEY: A SCALE TO INFER LEARNER
SELF-CONCEPT (College Modified)
Student:
Race: Black White Other
Sex: Male Female
Basic Education/Special Services: Yes No
NEVER: 0
VERY
SELDOM: 1
ONCE IN
AWHILE: 2
OCCASION¬
ALLY: 3
FAIRLY
OFTEN: 4
VERY
OFTEN: 5
Compared with other students of the same age, does this student:
Not Applicable
or Unknown
1. get along with other students?
2. get along with the instructor?
3. keep calm when things go wrong?
4. say good things about the college?
5. tell the truth about his/her work?
6. speak up for his/her own ideas?
7. offer to speak in front of the class?
8. offer to answer questions in class?
9. ask meaningful questions in class?
10. look people in the eye?
11. join in college activities?
12. talk to others about his/her work?
13. seek out new things to do in class
on his/her own?
14. offer or ask to do extra work?
15. write independently?
16. finish his/her work?
17. pay attention to class activities?
18. do his/her work with care?
19. exhibit goal-setting behavior?
20. recognize realistic limitations?
(EXPERIMENTAL FORM)

60
TO: Selected Faculty Members
FROM: Robert F. Ritterhoff, Dean of Instructional Services
You are being asked to take just a few minutes of your time to parti¬
cipate in a research study being done as part of the doctoral work of
a graduate student at the University of Florida. The study is examining
the inferred self-concept of students enrolled at Central Florida.
This research will help us all better understand the needs of our stu¬
dents. You will receive a summary of the results if you so desire.
Let me assure you that the students' rights to privacy will be upheld
at all times. Your cooperation and participation are greatly appre¬
ciated.
Directions
Enclosed are short questionnaires concerning students who are currently
enrolled in one of your classes. You are asked to rate the frequency
of various behaviors using the scale listed near the top of the page.
PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS ANY PART OF THE SCALE WITH THE STUDENT UNTIL
AFTER YOU HAVE COMPLETED IT AND SENT IT IN.
If you do not know an answer or do not have a response to a particular
question please indicate so. Please do not use the "0" response to
indicate unknown.
Please return the completed forms to the Dean of Instructional Services
by:
Thank you for participating in this study. If you desire a summary of
the results, please putyourname at the bottom of this sheet and
return it to the Dean of Instructional Services.

61
TO:
FROM: Robert Ritterhoff, Dean of Instructional Services
RE: Questionnaires for study on inferred self-concept
Recently you were sent several short questionnaires and were asked
to complete and return them. Our records indicate that we have not
received yours. However, it is possible that we are in error. If
you have already returned them, thank you very much and please dis¬
regard this reminder.
However, if you have not yet completed them, won't you please just
take a few minutes to help out. Your participation is crucial to
the success of this study. If you have lost or misplaced your
questionnaires, please call the Office of the Dean of Instructional
Services for replacement copies.
Thank you again for your participation.

APPENDIX B
THE SPECIAL SERVICES PROGRAM
AT
CENTRAL FLORIDA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
OCALA, FLORIDA
This Appendix is a copy of a program
brochure developed and written by
Carolyn West, John Simpson, and
Charles William Jones

SPECIAL SERVICES PROGRAM
The Purpose
The Special Services Program of Central Florida Community
College provides a comprehensive approach to the instruction of
the nontraditional student through specifically designed academic
courses, counseling--personal, academic, and career-and tutorial
services. It is sponsored by the college and the United States
Office of Education.
Students Served
Any student with academic, financial, or physical deficiencies
may be enrolled in theacademic courses and may receive counseling
through college personnel. They also may receive intensive coun¬
seling and tutorial assistance from personnel hired through the
federal grant. These students also have access to referral services
to community and state agencies that can give specific kinds of
assistance--Vocational Rehabilitation, Division of Family Services
and others.
Selection of Students
Students may elect to be in the program or may be advised by
their counselor to enroll because of low high school grades, a low
score on the Florida Twelfth Grade Placement Test or, as in the case
of veterans or other adults, because they have been away from the
educational environment for a long period of time.
63

64
Major Goals of the Program
A. To provide a humanistic, non-threatening learning environment.
B. To provide the supportive services needed for academic success.
Specific Program Objectives
Academic
A. To increase reading ability to a minimum acceptable level.
B. To improve writing ability to a minimum acceptable level.
C. To improve the ability to identify and solve social problems.
D. To develop math skills necessary for academic and career success.
E. To develop successful study skills.
F. To provide support in individual instruction.
Student Support
A. To assist the student in dealing with the red tape of college
procedures andregulations.
B. To provide assistance in obtaining financial support.
C. To assist in finding solutions to personal problems hindering
academic success.
D. To assist the student in obtaining needed medical information
and aid.
E. To enlist the aid of the community in fulfilling student needs.
F. To assist in curriculum innovation and modification for the
low-income and/or academically or physically disadvantaged
student.
Affective Domain
A. To improve the self-concept and attitudes toward self.
B. To integrate the student into the mainstream of the cultural
and academic college process.

65
C. To foster faculty, staff and community acceptance and respect
for the student.
D. To build self-confidence in the academic environment.
E. To develop an awareness of educational or career goal.
F. To broaden the student's cultural spectrum.
Courses Offered
The Special Services Program includes basic education courses,
designed for "high-risk" students, which have been in existence since
1966--first as a remedial, non-credit program then as a full college
transfer group of courses in 1972. Courses taught in the academic
component of the program include: social science, English, reading,
mathematics and psychology of adjustment. All are college level
courses and all earn three hours college transfer credit.
Math
Goal: To teach the student math and arithmetic skills necessary
in academic or career goals.
Objective: To have 75 percent of students earn a grade of "C"
or better by the end of one term.
Strategies: Students begin working at the level of competence
they arrive with and proceed through intermediate
algebra. Individualized instruction, tutors and
a para-professional are used to help the student.
The class also meets five days per week. A pre-
and post-test are given and evaluation is by test¬
ing for competence in math skills.
Reading
Goal: To develop reading skills necessary for success in academic

66
or career courses.
Objective: To have 75 percent of the reading students improving
their reading ability by two grade levels at the
completion of the course.
Strategies: Students learn vocabulary through instruction in
word attack skills, dictionary usage, word pro¬
nunciation, word meaning, usage and etymology.
They learn comprehension through instruction and
practice in recalling specific facts, picking out
main ideas in selections and by making inferences.
They work on critical reading through instruction
in recognizing implications and assumptions, anal¬
yzing arguments and understanding basic logic. A
pre- and post-test is given to determine a student's
rate of progress in reading.
English
Goal: To develop writing skills.
Objective: To have 75 percent of students write at a level
deemed necessary for success in college or career
courses by the end of the term.
Strategies: The English course involves work in the following
areas: spelling, punctuation, sentence structure,
word usage, paragraphing, outlining, revision and
essay organization. Methodology include a writing
journal, behavioral objectives, group work in
writing and individualized instruction. Students
are taught to write clearly and with organization.

67
Errors in sentence construction are corrected by
repeated writing and rewrite exercises. Evaluation
of a student's progress is determined by teacher
observation of improvement and by a standardized
pre- and post-test.
Social Sciences
Goal: To develop the ability to identify and find solutions
to social problems in the American society. To be able
to list a number of cultural aspects that affect the
individual's life.
Objective: To have 75 percent of all students complete the
course by the end of the term.
Strategies: The content centers around the present-day American
society. Institutions of our society are examined
and evaluated. Pragmatic solutions to problems
are sought. Methodology involves the use of small
group interaction, problem-solving, films, paper¬
back texts, handouts and the discussion method of
teaching. The course is behavioralized with students
being able to work on any objective they choose at
a particular time. Evaluation is based on satisfac¬
tory completion of the objectives of the course. A
standardized test is administered to measure changes
in attitude over a semester.
Psychology
Goal: To facilitate the student's personal and social adjustment
and to introduce him to a choice of careers.

68
Objective: To have 95 percent of all students enrolled in the
course complete all objectives by the end of the
term.
Strategies: This is a course in personal adjustment designed
to help the student understand himself. Personality
and self-concept tests are given, along with a number
of attitude and aptitude inventories. These are
then interpreted to the students, helping them be¬
come aware of their strengths and aptitudes. Tech¬
niques include group discussions, taped "rap" sessions
and structured group experiences.
Special Methods Used in All Courses
A. Warm personal relationships between instructors and students.
B. Small classes; 15 to 25 students.
C. Audio-visual equipment, including sound-on-slide, lecture
storage, photograph, video-tape.
D. Individualized instruction that allows a student to move at
his own pace.
E. Videotaping of class sessions for playback to evaluate teacher
techniques and student response.
F. Open-end, behavioralized courses.
G. Non-punitive grading.
H. A humanistic classroom atmosphere.
Teacher Attitude
One major difference between the Special Services academic program
and other traditional academic programs is the teacher-student relation¬
ship. In Special Services there is not a "distance" factor between the

69
two. Instructors are more student-centered in the sense of matching
the necessity of students in learning basic skills with the necessity
of learning about themselves. They also consider it important for
instructors and students to know and accept each other in the student-
teacher relationship. So, a lot of ritual is dropped. The teacher's
desk is not his island of safety; instead he is with the student.
The blackboard and the lecture are not his main tools of communication;
the work group and the guiding process are. The teacher as "me" and
the student as "them" is gone; instead it is us.
Small Group Method
One technique used is the small group student method. Students
are divided into groups of 5 or 6 as they enroll in the class with each
group electing its own coordinator. These groups then help carry on
the work of the class, whether that might be objectives to select,
projects to complete, or day to day class work. In this way the teacher
can act as a facilitator to five groups instead of relating to one
group of 20 students.
The students seem to establish relationships easier in the small
group. They identify with group members more than with the total class.
This strategy seems to help prevent the development of "isolates" among
the students. Peer teaching is a common occurrence in these groups.
Criterion Reference
All students are taught by performance objectives and course work
is competency based. Each student is given a list of objectives which
tell him what he must do, how he is to do it, and how the objective
will be evaluated. He also knows the minimum level of performance
needed for acceptance. He is also given alternative objectives so that
he might have a choice on what he does.

70
Exams
There are no final exams; each evaluation for each objective
completes that objective.
Grading System
Possibly, the most obvious difference in this program is the
grading system. The possible grades given are A, B, C, and N. The
N grade is treated like an incomplete grade in that it is not averaged
into the student's grade point average.
To change an N grade into a grade of A, B, or C, the student
re-enrolls the following semester and begins working where he stopped.
He will, in no case, repeat objectives already done.
Student Involvement
Special Services has been built around the needs of students. They
have been involved in the building and continuous evaluation of the
program and because of this have a completely student-centered educa¬
tional experience.
Tutoring
Goal: To provide individual assistance for student achievement
in the academic areas.
Objective: To provide any referred student with a tutor in any
of the basic education academic courses.
Strategies: Tutors are assigned to basic education classrooms
and are allocated to individual students by both
instructor referral and student self-referral.
Students are also assigned out-of-class individ¬
ualized help as needed.
Students are tutored both on specific classroom

71
assignments (such as test retakes) and general
problem areas (such as writing deficiencies).
The tutor coordinator and the instructors select
tutors on the basis of subject area knowledge and
personality variables (can they be effective with
disadvantaged students).
The coordinator oversees all tutor activities and
acts as a liason between instructors and tutors.
The tutors instruct and guide only; they do not
grade tests or handle classroom bookkeeping.
Counselinq
Goal: To provide student support in the peripheral and non-
academic areas.
Objectives: 1. To provide assistance in obtaining financial
support.
2. To assist in finding solutions to personal
problems hindering academic success.
3. To develop an awareness of educational or
career goal.
4. To assist the student in obtaining needed
medical information and aid.
5. To enlist the aid of the community in ful¬
filling student needs.
Strategies: The program uses a full-time non-teaching counselor
whose specific duties are as follows:
1. To provide individual counseling and group
guidance.

72
2. To meet with the community advisory board.
3. To acquaint students with financial aid avail¬
able in initial interview; to keep forms and
packets on hand, and to assist students in fill¬
ing them out.
4. To confer with the CFCC Financial Aid Officer
and those of other institutions to assist students
with the application process for admission and
financial aid.
5. To maintain catalogs of other institutions and
programs.
6. To maintain personal contact with admissions
and recruiting personnel at other Florida
colleges and universities.
7. To recommend students to the Talent Search Program.
8. To provide special assistance to physically
disabled students.
9. To attend local workshops, state and regional
conferences for counselors and DHEW, Division
of Student Support and Special Program personnel.
Community
Goal: To involve the local community in education for the dis¬
advantaged.
Objective: To enlist the aid of community agencies in fulfilling
student needs.
Strategies: 1. The formation and regular meetings of a community
advisory group.

73
2. Meetings of the Special Services staff with
community leaders and organizations to acquaint
the area with the program purposes.
3. Referral of students via the program counselor
to appropriate community agencies such as Social
Security Administration, Mental Health Institute,
Vocational Rehabilitation, Munroe Memorial
Hospital, Shands Teaching Hospital, the Bureau
of Blind Services, and the Health Department.
4. Participation by local community clubs, examples
being the Pilot's Club scholarship fund and the
Lioness Club donation of Braille dictionaries.
5. The maintenance of contact with high school
teachers and administrators, also school board
personnel from Marion, Citrus, and Levy counties.
Evaluation and Research
Goal: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Special Services Program.
Objective: To identify the strengths and weaknesses of the program
by descriptive survey and outside evaluation data.
Strategies: 1. An evaluation by Miami-Dade I Division staff
under Dr. Dwight Burrough in 1971-72.
2. An evaluation by Southern Association Accredita¬
tion Committee in 1974.
3. A summary statement by Dr. John Roueche in 1976.
4. Follow-up studies of students after they leave
CFCC as required by the federal proposal.
5. Yearly tabulation of retention and degrees given.

74
6. Comparison of Special Services and non-Special
Services retention and graduation rates.
7. Pre and post standardized testing in reading
and English.
8. Student evaluation of Special Services instruc¬
tors.
9. Yearly evaluation of staff by director.
10.Yearly evaluation of director by staff.
Research
Retention and Graduation Figures
Two basic but different types of retention studies are done by
the CFCC Special Services program. The first is a total enrollment
versus total graduation over a defined time span. This type of study
does not take into account new enrollments during the time span or new
graduates after.
The other type uses a single population reduction system; that is,
it takes a first time in col lege group (fall term, 1972), and carries
it through successive terms until the students have graduated, are
attending without graduation, or have stopped attending.
The first series of graphs detail the retention of disadvantaged
students over a three year period and compares the program's population
with the rest of the campus. It employs a single population reduction
method.

75
I. Overall Retention
%
NSS = 438
31?,
F1g. 1 is the retention rate of the non-Spec1al Services student.
%
F1g. 2 Is the retention rate of those students taking two or more
courses 1n the Special Services Program.

76
*
Fig. 3 1s the retention rate of the control group population (those students with
below 150 (25th percentile and below) on the Florida Twelfth Grade Placement
test who had no courses or only one course 1n the Special Services Program.
%
F1g. 4 1s the retention rate of the full package (4 courses only) of the Special
Services Program.

77
The second set of figures is different kinds of black American
retention studies.
Study A - CFCC Black American Enrollment and Graduation
Sept. 1972 - Dec. 1976
All College (Sp
Srvs. Included)
Special Services Only
Total Enrolled
= 1190
Total Enrolled = 474
Total Graduates
= 138
Total Graduates = 96
Per Cent
= 12%
Per Cent = 20%
Study B - CFCC Black American Single Population Retention
Sept. 1972 - May 1975
Non-Special Services
First Time Enrollment = 19
Lost = 18
Retained w/o Graduation = 1
" via " = 0
Total Retained = 1
Per Cent = 5%
Special Services
First Time Enrollment = 46
Lost = 29
Retained w/o Graduation = 5
" via " = 12
Total Retained = 17
Per Cent = 37%
Study C - CFCC Black American Graduate Comparisons
Sept. 1972 - Dec. 1976
Non-Special Services
Special Services
Total Enrolled = 716
Total Enrolled = 474
Total Graduates = 42
Total Graduates = 96
Per Cent = 6%
Per Cent = 20%

78
In studies A & B total enrollment figures are generated from
Sept. 1972 but total graduates are generated from May 1974 forward.
In all the studies all black Americans taking only one Special
Services course are not counted as Special Services students.
Study C is a comparison of Special Services black graduates with
non-Special Services black graduates.
The Florida state average for the graduation of minorities is
8%. Central Florida has one ofthe highest minority graduation rates
in the state.
Theoretical and Philosophical Foundations
The purpose of this section is to discuss various aspects of the
Special Services Program at Central Florida Community College which
seem to be contributing to retention and graduation of nontraditional
students. An attempt will be made to provide background, rationale
and supporting data on techniques and approaches.
Dr. John Roueche of the University of Texas at Austin is one
of the foremost authorities on "nontraditional" student education.
After years of studying both successful and unsuccessful programs,
Dr. Roueche published his recommendations in Catching Up: Remedial
Education, (1973).
Following are the recommendations and explanations of how they
are being practiced at C.F.C.C.
Recommendation: #1
The community college should emphasize and work to achieve its
goal of serving all students in its community.
C.F.C.C. has done this in many ways of course, but the establishment
and maintenance of a strong Special Services Program has served

79
notice to our community that we do intend to serve any student who
will give us the opportunity to do so.
Roueche is quick to point out that administrative support is
critical, and particularly from the chief executive. The current
program at C.F.C.C. has, from its inception, received such support
from the highest administrators. It is only fair to note that such
support is not always the path of least resistance for those adminis¬
trators. They have to deal with other sectors of the campus whose
self-interests, lack of long range vision, or other reasons, attempt
to impede or terminate the effectiveness of the program or the program
itself. Support must be strong enough to allow the program to develop
sufficiently to stand on its own merits.
Recommendation: #2
A separately organized division of developmental studies should
be created with its own staff and administrative head.
In Roueche's studies and many others reported in the literature
it has become apparent that the "wholistic" approach is the most
successful with nontraditional students. Most frequently, nontradi-
tional students have a long history of limited success in most academic
areas. These students develop attitudinal and self-concept problems
which affect their social and family lives as well as academic.
These problems are not dealt with as effectively by a piecemeal
series of courses and experiences as a concerted effort by a team
of specialists.
When the energy of the team is directed and self-reinforcing, a
total atmosphere and environment is established which can support the
students while they get to where they want to be. Helping a student

80
in one subject may be of little value if he is failing his other
courses, cannot get financial aid, or is having personal problems.
Because of the diverse and complex needs which come with these students
there must be a close understanding and working relationship among
those involved. This leads to Roueche's next recommendation.
Recommendation: #3
Only instructors who volunteer to teach nontraditional students
should ever be involved in developmental programs.
The personnel in the Special Services Program at C.F.C.C. are
there because they want to be. It is not a matter of the newest
instructors being "stuck" with the classes others do not want, or a
matter of "fitting something in" for "those" students after other
needs have been met.
However, just having developmental courses as the primary focus
of several instructors does not insure a successful program. Several
years ago a study was done by a group of University of Florida pro¬
fessors to discover "the best" teaching methods. In traveling all
over the United States they found that most people in most places
could identify the "good" teachers. However, these "good" teachers
had few characteristics in common. What they seemed to share was
an attitude about people, and particularly about students. Combs,
Avila and Purkey, in their book, Helping Relationships (1971), found
that the following characteristics distinguished good "helpers" from
poor ones:
Able-unable. Helpers perceive others as having the
capacity to deal with their problems. They believe that
people can find adequate solutions to events, as opposed
to doubting the capacity of people to handle themselves
and their lives (teachers, counselors, priests, and
professors).

81
Friendly-unfriendly. Helpers see others as being
friendly and enhancing. They do not regard them as
threatening to themselves, but see people as essentially
well-intentioned rather than evil-intentioned (teachers
and counselors).
Worthy-unworthy. Helpers see other people as being
of worth rather than unworthy. They see them as possess¬
ing a dignity and integrity which must be respected and
maintained; they do not see people as unimportant beings
whose integrity may be violated or treated as of little
account (teachers, counselors, and professors).
Internally-externally motivated. Helpers see people
and their behavior as essentially developing from within
rather than as a product of external events to be molded
and directed; they see people as creative and dynamic
rather than passive or inert (teachers and professors).
Dependable-undependable. Helpers see people as
essentially trustworthy and dependable in the sense of
behaving in lawful ways. They regard the behavior of
people as understandable rather than capricious, unpre¬
dictable, or negative (teachers, counselors, and professors).
Helpful-hindering. Helpers see people as being
potentially fulfilling and enhancing to self rather than
impeding or threatening. They regard people as important
sources of satisfaction rather than as sources of frustra¬
tion and suspicion (teachers). (Combs, Avila & Purkey,
1971, pp. 12-13).
The translation of these attitudes into day-to-day behavior
is what is meant by a humanistic classroom atmosphere. These
attitudes are manifested in behaviors from simple courtesy to in-
depth personal counseling. However, these attitudes are also
structured into the program in several ways. These structures
fulfill some of Dr. Roueche's other recommendations.
Recomnendation: H
All developmental courses should carry credit for graduation or
program certification.
As has already been stated, most nontraditional students come
with moderate or no successful academic experiences. It is doubtful
that anyone needs to make it explicit by making them start below
"college level" or by not giving them credit for what they are doing.

82
That procedure transmits to them our lack of confidence in them and
reaffirms their self-concept as unable or unworthy. If we begin by
indicating that they cannot make it we are merely increasing road¬
blocks to success. It must be remembered that the goal of a success¬
ful program must be to help students achieve, not to "weed them out".
At Central Florida, we have taken this recommendation to its
ultimate by having nontraditional students take up to five fully
transferable credit classes which have been modified to accommodate
those students' needs. The classes remain equivalent to other sections
of those same courses taught in the various departments on campus.
This arrangement transmits powerful messages to these students. It
tells them that we believe in them, we care about them, and perhaps
most importantly, if they continue their academic careers they will
do so because they can achieve; not because we lower our standards
or pass them out of a sense of obligation.
However, there are critics who claim that standards have been
lowered and grades earned in these classes are meaningless. These
claims are refuted by grading policies which not only maintain stan¬
dards but also fulfill Dr. Roueche's next recommendation.
Recommednation: #5
Grading policies and practices should be non-punitive.
Whether we use Benjamin Bloom's term, "mastery learning", or the
phrase criterion reference grading, we in Special Services, along with
Dr. Roueche, believe that students should be graded on a criterion
relative to the subject and not to the other students in the class.
Criterion reference grading accepts that learning assignments should
be evaluated in relationship to a predetermined standard and not

83
merely a comparison of students' achievement. This approach minimizes
the competition factor and allows all students to work for their own
goals. We in Special Services agree with the mastery learning people
that if something is worth learning we do not serve our goal by
assigning derogatory grades which tell nothing about why the student
did not achieve the criterion.
In terms of standards, criterion reference establishes clear
and distinct standards which not only maintain quality in the academic
system but also clarify for the student what is to be done. In 1971,
Blumefeld, Boston and Waugh presented a paper to the American Educa¬
tional Association entitled "Effect of Criterion Reference Testing
Upon the Use of Remedial Exam Opportunities" (1971). In their study,
which has been replicated, they found that by using a higher criterion
and make-up exams, a greater percentage of students do achieve the
criterion. This is the method we employ in Special Services. We
can maintain equivalency with other departments' courses while in¬
creasing opportunities for success for our students.
To understand how this is integrated into a workable system we
must look at another of Roueche's recommendations.
Recommendation: #6
Instruction should accommodate individual differences and permit
students to learn and proceed at their own paces.
In addition to criterion reference we have developed performance
objectives and have an open-ended system which does allow students to
work at their own pace.
One of the paradoxes that faces developmental programs is that
while nontraditional students are best served in a humanistic atmo-

84
sphere, they also tend to have a great need for structure. In
Roueche's studies, and more recently in Dr. K. Patricia Cross' work
(1976), it has become evident that many nontraditional students have
a learning style which relies heavily on external structure.
The use of behavioral or performance objectives imposes the
needed structure while the criterion reference testing and grading
help ensure that the objectives are being met. By keeping the
classes open-ended we reaffirm our goals of learning and success
without imposing arbitrary time boundaries.
In the reading and English classes, diagnostic tests are used
to determine where a student should start and what particular needs
he might have. He then works at his own pace until he has achieved
at least the minimum criteria.
The interweaving of the humanistic approach which tends to be
warm, but non-directive, with the behavioral approach which is
structured but tends to be cold and rigid is difficult but apparently
necessary if the program is to be successful.
Some critics may claim that this type of system may artificially
retain students. Indeed, many students will find it necessary to
remain in school longer. However, the statistics on the Special
Services Program at C.F.C.C. indicate that these nontraditional
students are graduating at an equal or higher rate than the traditional
students. They are generally not expected to do so.
One of the side effects of an effective program which should be
noted is a higher grade point average in the classes. This phenom¬
enon is frequently cited as evidence that standards are being lowered
and grades inflated. However, with nothing lower than a "C" being

85
averaged in and the effect of a higher percentage of students achieving
a higher criterion when make-up exams are used, the higher grade point
average must be accepted as a normal part of these programs.
Recommendation: f7_
Curriculum offerings in developmental programs should be relevant.
This type of recommendation seems so hackneyed that it deserves
little consideration. However, with nontraditional students, it takes
on tremendously increased significance. In Roueche's review and
summary of the literature up to 1968, published in Salvage, Redirection
or Custody (1968) it was shown that most of these students were un¬
certain of their educational abilities or goals and needed to see
results and applications very quickly if they were going to persist.
The courses in the Special Services Program are well suited for
this purpose. The social science class takes a personal and contem¬
porary perspective on American society. The reading class includes
materials of personal interest and is structured so that immediate
results can be realized. The English classes also implement very
personal strategies and materials to increase the students' involve¬
ment. The personal developmental class takes cognitive data on
learning and psychology and applies it to each student's life. By
emphasizing this relevance early in their experience we enhance the
probability of their remaining in college.
Recommendation: #8
Regular college curriculum offerings should be comprehensive.
C.F.C.C. is definitely comprehensive in its offerings. This is
important for nontraditional students since they are frequently
unsure of their goals. It offers options and does not lock them into
either stereotyped programs or programs which may not fill their needs.

86
Recommendation: it9
The counseling function in developmental programs must be of
real value to students.
Roueche indicates that this is one of the main problem areas
that he has encountered. It is fortunate that the Special Services
grant provides for a full-time counselor in the program. He is free
to do real counseling functions such as testing, referral, aid
assistance, career and personal counseling and institutional liason
efforts.
It has been our experience that an academic counselor assigned
directly to the developmental program and working as a team member
is the most effective. Although counselor and advisor organization
may vary it is important that all personnel be sensitive to the needs
of nontraditional students.
Recommendation: ü10
Efforts should be made to alleviate the abrupt transition from
developmental studies to traditional college curricula.
This recommendation has been implemented at two levels - here at
C.F.C.C. and at other institutions when students transfer. Strategies
for the transition on this campus include formal and informal dis¬
cussions in almost all Special Services classes on survival skills,
such as drop and add, different testing techniques, etc. Also, many
formal and informal contacts have been made between faculty members.
While there are no data to support the hypothesis, it seems that
attitudes of instructors outside the Special Services area have changed.
Some teachers have realized that by removing the nontraditional
students from their basic classes their burden has been lightened.

87
It should have increased their success rate, although again, no data
are available. If their success rate has increased, it is quite
possible that their self-concept as teacher has also increased. If
they feel more capable of helping, then when the nontraditional student
does reach their classroom they may feel more confident to deal with
them.
Also, these instructors are receiving students who have shown
themselves capable in other college courses. The perceptions and
expectations of both students and instructors should be enhanced
by the previous success.
In an almost circular pattern of reinforcement, the Special
Services Program produces capable students who are accepted and
recognized by faculty in other areas and who change those faculty
members' attitudes about the program and more importantly about
nontraditional students.
Even after students leave the Special Services courses their
progress is monitored. Whenever they need assistance such as tutor¬
ing, they know they can come back for help. Also, when they are
ready to transfer, they often seek advice and assistance. The per¬
sonnel, and particularly the counselor, frequently make the needed
contacts and help with the necessary arrangements.
Recommendation: JU_
Once programs are established, effective recruiting strategies
should be developed to identify and enroll nontraditional students.
While the Special Services grant specifically prohibits recruit¬
ing, certain criteria have been established to screen into the program
prospective students. Those criteria have included: 150 or below

88
on the Florida Twelfth Grade Placement Test, or the equivalent per¬
centile on a similar standardized test, low high school grades or
other indications of possible difficulty in traditional educational
situations.
We have also developed a reliable referral process from the other
departments to Special Services, with referrals in the past year being
made from Fine Arts, Business, Social Sciences, Vocational, Applied
Sciences, and Natural Sciences, along with referrals from the community.
When an instructor becomes aware that a student needs the kind of help
available in the Special Services program, he knows he can call and get
that student trasnferred. Most instructors have now realized that
these students will have a greater opportunity for success. It also
allows that instructor to direct his attention to his other students
without feeling he has abandoned any of them. In most cases, the
student is relieved and greatful for the new opportunity. Most of
them do manage to make a "comeback."
Recently, the Admissions Office made a positive step towards
increasing the nontraditional student enrollment by hiring a minority
recruiter. They too followed Roueche's recommendations by hiring a
minority member for the job. The Financial Aid officer has been
attempting to recruit by speaking to just the parents of high school
students. The feeling is that if the parents are aware of what is
available and going on, they are more likely to be supportive.
During Black Culture Week, the college invites black business
and community leaders to be on campus and see first hand what C.F.C.C.
has to offer. Hopefully this program will expand and develop. This
brings us full circle to again emphasizing our goal of serving all
students in the community.

89
We in Special Services believe that through all of these aspects
of the program we have been able to increase our enrollment of non-
traditional students. While they are here at C.F.C.C., we believe
that their experiences will be positive and will encourage them to
stay and succeed.
While we recognize that we are only one gear in the college
machinery, we believe that our contribution in the area of retention
and graduation of nontraditional students has been most significant.

Faculty and Staff
Director
Counselor
Lance E. Lancaster
Secretary
Academic
Jean Coveil - Reading
Bill Jones - Social Science, Psychology
Elvira Harris - English, Reading
Desmond Brannan - Social Science, Psychology
Byron Dyce - Math
Dan Becton - Learning Specialist
Educational Aides ....Shelia Thornton - Reading, English
Rae Chester - Tutor Coordinator
Linda Fitzgerald - Reading

BIBLIOGRAPHY
References Cited
Anderson, D. F. and R. Rosenthal. "Some Effects of Interpersonal
Expectancy and Social Interaction on Institutionalized Retarded
Children." Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association, pp. 479-480, 1968.
Aron, Robert. "Effects of Teacher Expectancies: Myth or Reality?"
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Per¬
sonnel and Guidance Association, New York, New York, March,
1975, ERIC EDI 15722.
Avila, Donald L., Arthur W. Combs, and William W. Purkey. The
Helping Relationship Sourcebook. Boston: All.yn and Bacon,
Inc., 1971.
Baum, L. Frank. The Wizard of Oz. New York: Random House, 1950.
Beez, W. V. "Influence of Biased Psychological Reports on Teacher
Behavior and Pupil Performance." Proceedings of the 76th Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association, v.3,
pp. 605-606, 1968.
Blumefeld, Gerald J., Darrel Boston, and Robert Waugh. "Effect of
Criterion Reference Testing Upon the Use of Remedial Exam
Opportunities." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New York, February,
1971, ERIC ED049310.
Brandt, Larry J., and Mary Ellen Hayden. "Male and Female Teacher
Attitudes as a Function of Students' Ascribed Motivation and
Performance Levels." Journal of Educational Psychology, v.66,
no.3, pp. 309-314, June, 1974.
Buford, Betty L. "Teacher Expectancy of the Culturally Different
Student Subgroups in Texas in Relation to Student Achievement."
Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, 1973.
Campbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Stanley. Experimental and Quasi-
Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally
College Publishing Company, 1963.
Chang, Theresa S. "The Relationship Between Children's Self-Concept,
Teacher's Rating, and Academic Achievement." Presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association,
Washington, D.C., March 30 -April 3, 1975, ERIC ED106699.
91

92
Claiborn, William L. "Expectancy Effects in the Classroom: A
Failure to Replicate." Journal of Educational Psychology,
v.60, pp. 377-383, October, 1969.
Coleman, J. S. Equality of Educational Opportunity. (Coleman
Report), Department of Health, Education and Welfare, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1966.
Combs, Arthur W., Donald L. Avila, and William Purkey. Helping
Relationships: Basic Concepts for the Helping Professions.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971.
Combs, Arthur W., and D. Snygg. Individual Behavior. New York:
Harper and Row, 1959.
Combs, Arthur W., D. W. Soper, and C. C. Courson. "The Measure¬
ment of Self-Concept and Self-Report." Educational and
Psychological Measurement, v.23, pp. 493-500, 1963.
Conn, L., C. Edwards, R. Rosenthal, and D. Crowne. "Perception
of Emotion and Response to Teachers' Expectancy by Elementary
School Children." Psychological Reports, v.22, pp. 27-34,
1968.
Cornbleth, Catherine, 0. L. Davis Jr. and Christine Button. "Ex¬
pectations for Pupil Achievement and Teacher-Pupil Interaction."
Social Education, v. 38, no. 1, pp. 54-58, January, 1974,
ERIC EJ090262.
Cross, K. Patricia. "Accent on Learning: Beyond Education for
All - Toward Education for Each." The Symposium on In¬
dividualized Instruction, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida, April 8, 1976.
Deitz, Samuel M., and William W. Purkey. "Teacher Expectation of
Performance Based on Race of Student." Psychological Reprints,
v. 24, pp. 594, June, 1969, ERIC EJ008321.
Dusek, Jerome B. "Teacher and Experimenter Bias Effects on
Children's Learning and Performance." Paper presented at the
American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, New York,
New York, August 28, 1973, ERIC ED083345.
Dusek, Jerome B. "Do Teachers Bias Children's Learning?" Review
of Educational Research, v. 45, no. 3, pp. 661-684, Fall, 1975.
Finn, Jeremy D. "Expectations and the Educational Environment."
Review of Educational Research, v. 42, no. 3, pp. 387-410,
Summer, 1972, ERIC EJ068940.
Fleming, Elyse S., and Ralph G. Anttonen. "Teacher-Expectancy as
Related to the Academic and Personal Growth of Primary-Age
Chi 1 dren." Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, v. 36, no. 5, pp. 1-3), December, 1971, ERIC EJ57018.

93
Flowers, D. E. "Effects of an Arbitrary Accelerated Group Placement
on the Tested Academic Achievement of Educationally Disadvantaged
Students." Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1966.
Foster, Glen G., Carl R. Schmidt, and David Sabatino. "Teacher
Expectancies and the Label 'Learning Disabilities'." Journal
of Learning Disabilities, v. 9, no. 2, pp. 58-61, February,
1976.
Guskin, Alan E., and Samuel L. Guskin. A Social Psychology of
Education. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970.
Hankinson, Oscar H. "Expectations for and Behavior of Pupils in
Culturally Different Schools." Doctoral dissertation, Univ.
of Wisconsin, 1970.
Jencks, Christopher. Inequality: A Reassessment of Family and
Schooling in America. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1972.
Jensen, A. R. "Review of Pygmalion in the Classroom." American
Scientist, v. 51, pp. 44A-45A, 1969.
Jose, Jean and John J. Cody. "Teacher-Pupil Interaction As It
Relates to Attempted Changes in Teacher Expectancy of Academic
Ability and Achievement." American Educational Research
Journal, v. 8, pp. 35-39, January, 1971.
Lockhart, William B., Yale Kamisar, and Jesse H. Choper. "Brown
vs. The Board of Education." Constitutional Law. St. Paul,
Minnesota: West Publishing Co., 1967.
Nie, Norman H., C. Hadlai Hull, Jean G. Jenkins, Karin Steinbrenner,
and Dale H. Bent. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970, 1975.
O'Connell, Edward J., Jerome B. Dusek, and Richard J. Wheeler.
"Follow Up Study of Teacher Expectancy Effects." Journal of
Educational Psychology, v. 10, pp. 325-328, June, 1974.
Persell, Caroline Hodges. "Testing, Tracking and Teachers' Expec¬
tations: Their Implications for Education and Inequality.
A Literature Review and Synthesis." American Jewish Committee,
New York, Institute on Pluralism and Group Identity; National
Institute of Education, Washington, D. C.; National Science
Foundation, Washington, D. C., April, 1976, ERIC EDI26150.
Purkey, William W. "Reformation of the Public Schools: An Invita¬
tional Approach." Paper presented at Educational Conference
at the University of Virginia, January 18, 1976.
Purkey, William W. Self-Concept and School Achievement. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.

94
Purkey, William W. "The Search for Self: Evaluating Student Self-
Concepts." Florida Educational Research and Development Council
Research Bulletin, v. 4, no. 2, pp. 26-28, Summer, 1968.
Purkey, William W., Bob N. Cage, and William Graves. "The Florida
Key: A Scale to Infer Learner Self-Concept." Educational and
Psychological Measurements, v. 33, pp. 979-984, 1973.
Rist, Ray C. "Student Social Class and Teacher Expectations: The
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Ghetto Education." Harvard Edu¬
cational Review, v. 40, pp. 411-451, August, 1970.
Roeber, Edward D. "The Influence of Information About Students on
the Expectations of Teachers." Doctoral dissertation, Univer¬
sity of Michigan, 1970.
Rosenthal, Robert and Lenore Jacobson. Pygmalion in the Classroom.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968.
Rosenthal, Robert, S. S. Baratz, and C. M. Hall. "Teacher Behavior,
Teacher Expectations, and Gains in Pupils' Rated Creativity."
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, v. 124, pp. 115-121, 1974,
Rothbart, M. S. Dalfen, and R. Barrett. "Effects of Teachers' Ex¬
pectancy on Student-Teacher Interaction." Journal of Educational
Psychology, v. 62, pp. 49-54, 1971.
Roueche, John. Salvage, Redirection, or Custody. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1968.
Roueche, John E. and R. Wade Kirk. Catching Up: Remedial Education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1973.
Rowell, J. A. "Sex Differences in Achievement in Science and the
Expectations of Teachers." Australian Journal of Education,
v. 15, no. 1, pp. 16-29, March, 1971, ERIC EJ040313.
Rubovits, P., and M. Maehr. "Pygmalion Analyzed: Toward An Ex¬
planation of the Rosenthal-Jacobson Findings." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, v. 19, pp. 197-203, 1971.
Rubovits, P. and M. Maehr. "Pygmalion Black and White." Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, v. 25, pp. 210-217, 1973.
Schrank, Wilburn. "The Labeling Effects of Ability Grouping."
Journal of Educational Research, v. 62, pp. 51-52, 1968.
Schrank, Wilburn. "A Further Study of the Labeling Effects of
Ability Grouping." Journal of Educational Research, v. 63,
pp. 358-360, 1970.
Schwarz, Robert H., and John J. Cook. "Teacher Expectancy as it
Relates to the Academic Achievement of EMR Students." Journal
of Educational Research, v. 65, no. 9, pp. 383-386, May-June,
1972, ERIC EJ060486.

95
Shaw, George Bernard. Pygmalion. London: Dodd, Mead and Company,
Inc., 1913.
Simpson, John. "Retention of Disadvantaged Students at Central
Florida Community College." Basic Education/Special Services
Department, Central Florida Community College, Ocala, Florida,
Unpublished study, April, 1976.
Thorndike, R. L. "Review of Pygmalion in the Classroom." American
Educational Research Journal, v. 5, pp. 708-711, 1968.
Thorndike, R. L. "You Have to Know How to Tell Time." American
Educational Research Journal, v. 6, p. 692, 1969.
Van Alst, Jane Ann. "The Effects of Influenced Teacher and Student
Expectations on Student Performance in Tenth Grade Science."
Ed.D. Dissertation, Boston University School of Education,
p. 194, 1973, ERIC ED094962.
Veldman, Donald J., and Jere E. Brophy. "Measuring Teacher Effects
on Pupil Achievement." Journal of Educational Psychology,
v. 66, no. 3, pp. 319-324, June, 1974, ERIC EJ106704.
Weaver, Thomas L. "Success in Traditional Communications and Social
Science Courses of High-Risk Students Completing the Basic
Education Departments Non-Traditional English and Social Science
Courses." Central Florida Community College Counseling Depart¬
ment, Ocala, Florida, Unpublished, 1976.
Williams, Trevor. "Teacher Discrimination and Self-Fulfilling
Prophesies." A paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C.,
April, 1975, ERIC EDI06185.
Yoshida, Roland K. and C. Edward Meyers. "Effects of Labeling
Educable Mentally Retarded on Teachers' Expectancies for Change
in a Student's Performance." Journal of Educational Psychology,
v. 67, no. 4, pp. 521-527, 1975.
Additional Sources in the Areas of
Teachers' Perceptions and Expectations
Acland, Henry. "A Study of Teacher Effects Based on Students'
Achievement Scores." 37p., 1975, ERIC ED109064.
Alexander, Karl and Bruce K. Eckland. "Sex Differences in Educa¬
tional Attainment." American Sociological Review, v. 39,
pp. 668-682, October, 1975.
Anderson, T. H. "Are a Students' School-Related Behaviors Dependent
Upon What is Expected of Him?" Doctoral dissertation, Univ.
of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1970.

96
Barber, Theodore X. "Five Attempts to Replicate the Experimenter
Bias Effect." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
v. 33, pp. 1-14, 1969.
Beckman, Linda. "Effects of Students' Performance on Teachers'
and Observers' Attributions of Causality." Journal of
Educational Psychology, v. 61, no. 1, pp. 76-82, February,
1970, ERIC EJ16370.
Beggs, Donald L., G. Roy Mayer and Ernest L. Lewis. "The Effects
of Various Techniques of Interpreting Test Results on Teacher
Perception and Pupil Achievement." Measurement and Evaluation
in Guidance, v. 5, no. 1, pp. 290-297, April, 1972, ERIC EJ055863.
Brager, Gary L. "Teacher Expectancy and Mathematics Achievement."
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, v. 1, no. 2,
pp. 88-94, March, 1970, ERIC EJ039513.
Braun, Carl, Allan R. Neilsen, and Robert Dykstra. "Teacher Expec¬
tations: Prime Mover or Inhibitor?" The Elementary School
Journal, v. 76, pp. 181-188, December, 1975.
Brophy, J.E., and T. L. Good. "Teachers' Communication of Differ¬
ential Expectations for Children's Classroom Performance: Some
Behavioral Data." Journal of Educational Psychology, v. 61,
pp. 365-374, 1970.
Brophy, J. E., and T. L. Good. "Teacher Expectations: Beyond the
Pygmalion Controversy." Phi Delta Kappan, v. 54, pp. 276-278,
December, 1972.
Brophy, J. E., and T. L. Good. Teacher-Student Relationships:
Causes and Consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc., 1974.
Chaffee, John Jr., and Patricia Wagner. "Teachers Do Make a Dif¬
ference." American Education, v. 6, no. 4, pp. 23-25, May,
1970, ERIC EJ0205098.
Clark, Richard M. "A Study of Teacher Behavior and Attitudes in
Elementary Schools with High and Low Pupil Achievement."
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educa¬
tional Research Association, Washington, D. C., March 30 -
April 3, 1975, ERIC EDI 10925.
Coopersmith, Stanley, and Jan Silverman. "How to Enhance Pupil
Self-Esteem." Todays Education, v. 58, no. 4, pp. 28-29, April,
1969, ERIC EJ001937.
Dillingham, McKinley, and T. Bradford Johnson. "The Effect of
Teacher Attitudes and Self-Concept of Students on Academic
Success." Education for the Disadvantaged Child, v. 1, no. 4,
pp. 15-21, February,1973, ERIC EJ0090400.

97
Dunn, Carleta J., and Gerald T. Kowitz. "Teacher Perceptions of
Correlates of Academic Achievement." School Sociology,
v. 98, no. 2327, pp. 370-372, October,“T97ÍÍ,''WITÉ0026432.
Dusek, Jerome B. and Edward J. O'Connell. "Teacher Expectancy
Effects on the Achievement Test Performance of Elementary
School Children." Journal of Educational Psychology, v. 65,
pp. 371-377, 1973.
Elashoff, J. D. and R. E. Snow. Pygmalion Reconsidered. Worthington,
Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Co., 1971.
Finn, Jeremy D. "Teacher Expectations and Public Achievement: A
Naturalistic Study." Urban Education, v. 10, no. 2, pp. 175-
197, July, 1975, ERIC EJ125247.
Fleming, Elyse S., and Ralph G. Anttonen. "Teacher Expectancy
Effect Examined at Different Ability Levels." Journal of
Special Education, v. 5, no. 2, pp. 127-131, Summer, 1971,
ERIC EJ055871.
Fleming, Elyse S. and Ralph G. Anttonen. "Teacher Expectancy, or
My Fair Lady." American Educational Research Journal, v. 8,
pp. 241-252, 1971.
Gephart, W. "Will the Real Pygmalion Please Stand Up." American
Educational Research Journal, v. 7, pp. 473-475, May, Í970.
Gephart, W. and D. P. Antonopolos. "The Effects of Expectancy and
Other Research-Biasing Factors." Phi Delta Kappan, v. 50,
no. 10, pp. 579-583, 1969.
Flock, Marvin D. "Is There a Pygmalion in the Classroom?" Reading
Teacher, v. 25, no. 5, pp. 405-408, February, 1972, ERIC EJ050323.
Good, Thomas L. and J. E. Brophy. "Behavioral Expressions of Teacher
Attitudes." Journal of Educational Psychology, v. 63, no. 6,
pp. 617-624, 1972^
Good, Thomas L. and J. E. Brophy. "Changing Teacher and Student
Behavior: An Empirical Investigation." Journal of Educational
Psychology, v. 66, pp. 390-405, 1974.
Good, Thomas L. and Myron H. Dembo. "Teacher Expectations: Self-
Report Data." School Review, v. 81, pp. 247-253, February, 1973.
Good, Thomas L., J. Neville Sikes and J. E. Brophy. "Effects of
Teacher Sex and Student Sex on Classroom Interaction." Journal
of Educational Psychology, v. 65, no. 1, pp. 74-87, August,
1973, ERIC EJ083580.
Gumpert, P. and C. Gumpert. "The Teacher as Pygmalion Comments on
the Psychology of Expectation." Urban Review, v. 3, no. 1,
pp. 21-25, 1968.

98
Harari, H. and J. W. McDavid. "Name Stereotypes and Teacher Ex¬
pectancies." Journal of Educational Psychology, v. 65,
pp. 222-225, 197T
Harris, Beecher H. "No Labels, Please!" Language Arts, v. 53,
no. 8, pp. 906-910, November/December, 1976.
Henrikson, H. A. "An Investigation of the Influence of Teacher
Expectations Upon the Intellectual and Achievement Performance
of Disadvantaged Kindergarten Children." Doctoral dissertation,
Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1970.
Jensen, A. R. "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?"
Harvard Educational Review, v. 39, pp. 1-123, 1969.
Kehle, Thomas J. "Effect of Physical Attractiveness, Sex, and
Intelligence on Expectations for Students' Academic Ability
and Personality: A Replication." Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa¬
tion, San Francisco, April 19-23, 1976, ERIC ED124288.
Lawlor, Francis X. and Elizabeth P. Lawlor. "Teacher Expectations:
A Study of Their Genesis." Science Education, v. 57, pp. 9-
14, 1973.
Long, Barbara H., and Edmund H. Henderson. "Certain Determinants
of Academic Expectancies Among Southern and Non-Southern
Teachers." American Educational Research Journal, v. 11, no. 2,
pp. 137-148, Spring, 1974, ERIC EJ103293.
Meichenbaum, Donald H., K. Bowers, and R. Ross. "A Behavioral
Analysis of Teacher Expectancy Effect." Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, v. 13, no. 4, pp. 306-316, December,
1969, ERIC EJ013858.
Mendels, Glen E. and James P. Flanders. "Teachers' Expectations
and Pupil Performance." American Educational Research Journal,
v. 10, no. 3, pp. 203-212, Summer, 1973.
Mendoza, S. M., T. L. Good, and J. E. Brophy. "The Communication
of Teacher Expectations in a Junior High School." Paper pre¬
sented at the Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York, 1971.
Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York:
The Free Press, 1957.
Miller, Harry L. "Race vs. Class in Teachers' Expectations."
Psychological Reports, v. 32, no. 1, pp. 105-106, February,
1973, ERIC EJ0077323.
Moles, Oliver C., and Esther Perry. "Sources of Teacher Expectations
Early in First Grade." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D. C.,
March 30 - April 3, 1975, ERIC ED106000.

99
Moore, J. W., E. D. Gagne, and W. E. Hanck. "Conditions Moderating
the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Phenomenon." Paper presented at
the Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, 1973.
Moore, J.W., V. M. Means, and E. D. Gagne. "Expectancy Statements
in Meaningful Classroom Learning." Paper presented at the
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, 1973.
Palardy, J. Michael. "What Teachers Believe--What Children Achieve."
Elementary School Journal, v. 69, no. 7, pp. 370-374, April,
1969, ERIC EJ001930.
Pauk, Walter. "Some Factors That Influence Academic Achievement."
Journal of Reading, v. 15, no. 5, pp. 425-428, March, 1972,
ERIC EJ052600.
Pellegrini, R. J. and R. A. Hicks. "Prophecy Effects and Tutorial
Instruction for the Disadvantaged Child." American Educational
Research Journal, v. 9, pp. 413-418, 1972.
Peng, Samuel S. "Teacher Class-Expectations, Instructional Behaviors
and Pupil Achievement." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,
Illinois, April 15-19, 1974, ERIC ED088833.
Perseley, George. "Teacher Expectancy, Student Expectancy, and
Performance Feedback Effects on Academic Performance." Paper
presented at the Western Psychological Association Meeting,
Anaheim, Calif., April, 1973, ERIC ED090331.
Rist, Ray C. The Urban School: A Factory for Failure. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press, 1973.
Rosenshine, Barak. "The Stability of Teacher Effects Upon Student
Achievement." Review of Educational Research, v. 40, no. 5,
pp. 647-662, December, 1970.
Rosenthal, Robert. "Empirical vs. Decreed Validation of Clocks
and Tests." American Educational Research Journal, v. 6,
pp. 689-691, 1969.
Rosenthal, Robert. On the Social Psychology of the Self-Fulfilling
Prophecy: Further Evidence for Pygmalion Effects and Their
Mediating Mechanisms. New York: MSS Modular Publications, 1974
West, Charles K. and Thomas H. Anderson. "The Question of Prepon¬
derant Causation in Teacher Expectancy Research." Review of
Educational Research, v. 46, no. 4, pp. 613-630, Fall, 1976.
Wilkins, William E. "Teacher Expectations and Classroom Behaviors."
p. 33, 1972, ERIC ED090236.

TOO
Willis, Sherry L. "Formation of Teachers' Expectations of First
Grade Student's Academic Performance." Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 25 - March 1,
1973, ERIC ED078902.
Wiseman, S. "The Educational Obstacle Race: Factors That Hinder
Pupil Progress." Educational Research, v. 15, no. 2, pp. 87 -
93, February, 1973, ERIC EJ077188.
Sources in the Areas of Remedial, Compensatory,
Developmental and Nontraditional Education
Bertsch, Eilene. "The Small College Opens Its Doors: Who Runs the
High Risk College Programs." Paper presented at American Psy¬
chological Association Meeting, Miami Beach, Florida, Sept. 4,
1970, ERIC ED044482.
Bowers, John. "The Evaluation of a Special Education Opportunities
Program for Disadvantaged College Students. Final Report."
Illinois Univ., Urbana. Office of Instructional Resources,
June, 1971, ERIC ED260814.
Bracy, Randolph, Jr. "Compensatory Educational Programs--Is There
a Place in Higher Education?" University of Florida. Paper
submitted to the First National Congress of Black Professionals
in Higher Education, University of Texas, Austin, April 5-7,
1972, ERIC ED062451.
Cartey, Wilfred and Anne Morrison. "Compensatory Education Programs
in Higher Education. A Nationwide Survey." Report by the
Urban Center Curriculum Project. Columbia University, N. Y.,
February, 1970, ERIC ED058334.
Featherstone, Jane. "Reading as a Thinking Process: Implications
for the Educationally Disadvantaged College Student." Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Reading
Association, 19th meeting, New Orleans, May 1 - 4, 1974,
ERIC ED090502.
Ferrin, Richard I. "Developmental Programs in Midwestern Community
Colleges." College Entrance Exam Board, Evanston, Illinois,
February, 1971, ERIC ED248848.
Glasser, William. "Schools Without Failure." Instructor, v. 78,
no. 5, pp. 60-61, January, 1969, ERIC EJ000001.
Gold, Ben K. "Six Semester Persistence Study of Students Recommended
for Developmental Studies." Fall, 1970, Los Angeles City College,
California, August, 1974, ERIC ED094830.

101
Gwynne, Margaret, Joseph Canine and Martin Quigley. "Evaluation of
Remedial Programs in Community Colleges: Community College
Presidents' Views." Community College Center, Columbia Univ¬
ersity, New York, 1974, ERIC ED089810.
Hampton, Peter J. "Innovative Techniques in Teaching Academically
Disadvantaged College Students." Paper presented at the
American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Honolulu,
Hawaii, September, 1972, ERIC ED070785.
Haven, Elizabeth W. "Improving Placement Methods in Junior College."
Paper presented at the 1971 Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, February, 1971, New York,
ERIC ED047668.
"Impact: A Project Report on Compensatory Instruction in Community
Colleges." Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, Georgia,
Institute for Higher Educational Opportunity, October, 1972,
ERIC ED076180.
Knoell, Dorothy M. "The 'New Student' in the Community Colleges."
California Community Colleges, Sacramento, Office of the
Chancellor. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April 6,
1972, ERIC ED061930.
Losak, John and Neil Burns. "An Evaluation of the Community College
Studies Program for the Year 1969-70." Miami-Dade Community
College, March, 1971, ERIC ED056683.
Middle College Plan, U. S. Dept, of HEW, National Institute of
Education, June, 1973, ERIC ED089826.
Morrison, James L. and Reynolds Ferrante. "Compensatory Education
in Two-Year Colleges. Report No. 21." Pennsylvania State
University, University Park. Center for the Study of Higher
Education, April, 1973, ERIC ED078818.
Morrison, Lonnie. "A Comparison of the 'Educationally Disadvantaged'
Students Receiving Tutorial and Counseling Assistance with
Students Accepted Through Regular Admissions and Do Not Receive
Any Tutorial or Counseling Assistance." State University of
New York, Oswego College at Oswego College of Arts and Sciences,
August, 1974, ERIC ED095240.
"The Open Door, or the Revolving Door: Which Way, Texas?" Texas
State Legislature, Austin. Senate Interim Committee on Public
Junior Colleges, January 9, 1973, ERIC ED071655.
Otting, John R. "The Federal Committment to Education." Department
of HEW, 1974, ERIC ED091839.

102
"The Peer Teaching Program of Community College Studies." Miami-
Dade Community College, Florida, March, 1972, ERIC ED060837.
Romney, Miles C. and Joseph T. Okedara. "A Report on the Programs
for the Disadvantaged in the Oregon State System of Higher
Education." Oregon State System of Higher Education, Portland.
Office of Academic Affairs, November 17, 1969.
Rosner, Benjamin. "Open Admissions at the City University of New
York." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, Chicago, Illinois,
December 27, 1970, ERIC ED050676.
Ross, Sandra F. "A Study to Determine the Effect of Peer Tutoring
on the Reading Efficiency and Self-Concept of Disadvantaged
Community College Freshmen: Final Report." Tarrant County
Jr. College District, Ft. Worth, Texas, October, 1972, ERIC ED081415.
Roueche, John E. and Wade Kirk. "An Evaluation of Innovative Programs
Designed to Increase Persistence and Academic Performance of
High Risk Students in Community Colleges. Final Report."
Office of Education, Department of HEW, Washington, D.C., Sep¬
tember, 1972, ERIC ED067094.
Schafer, Michael, Edward Boddy, and Winston T. Bridges, Jr. "Imple¬
menting the Open Door: Compensatory Education in Florida's
Community Colleges. Phase I: Questionnaire Analyses." Florida
Community Junior College Inter-Institutional Research Council,
December, 1970, ERIC ED046370.
Sharon, Amiel T. "Effectiveness of Remediation in Junior College."
E.T.S., Princeton, N. J., September, 1970, ERIC ED051795.
Silberman, Charles. Crisis in the Classroom. New York: Random
House, 1970.
Stevenson, Jane L. "Implementing the Open Door: Compensatory
Education in Florida's Community Colleges. Phase II - English
Composition." Florida Community Junior College Inter-Institu¬
tional Research Council, 1970, ERIC ED042456.
"Success Breeds Success: Basic Studies. 1971-1972." Tarrant County
Junior College District, Ft. Worth, Texas, 1972, ERIC ED068083.
"Survey Report of State-Funded College Programs for 'Disadvantaged'
Students in Massachusetts." University of Massachusetts at
Amherst School of Education, March, 1972.
Tarrel, Thomas J. "The History of the General Curriculum of Forest
Park Community College in Saint Louis, Missouri, From Its Be¬
ginning to Fall, 1971." St. Louis Junior College District,
Missouri, Forest Park Community College, 1971, ERIC ED057780.

103
"Teaching and Learning for Educationally Disadvantaged Students in
Community Colleges." A summary report of two U.S. Office of
Education EPDA Workshops held under the Auspices of The Masters
College Program for Preparing Community College Teachers,
Chicago, Illinois, October 4-7 and November 15 - 17, 1971,
ERIC ED061941.
Tift, Rosa. "A Preliminary Report on Predicting the Success of
College Education Achievement Project Enrol lees at Albany State
College." Paper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New York, February,
1971, ERIC ED049710.
Tittle, Carol and Patricia Kay. "Selecting Tests for an Open
Admissions Population." City University of New York, New York,
Division of Teacher Education, February, 1971, ERIC ED048359.
Trent, William T. "College Compensatory Programs for Disadvantaged
Students. Report 3." ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education,
The George Washington University, Washington, D.C., September,
1970, ERIC ED042932.
Vaughn, George B. and Donald E. Puyear. "After Open Door: An
Approach to Developmental Education." U.C.L.A., March, 1972,
ERIC ED059714.
West, Carolyn, John Simpson, and Charles W. Jones. "Minority
Retention in a Community College Program for the Disadvantaged."
Basic Education/Special Services Department, Central Florida
Community College, Ocala, Florida, Unpublished study, 1976.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Charles William Jones was born on September 29, 1948, in Columbus,
Georgia, U.S.A. However, he grew-up and attended public schools in
Bradenton, Florida. After graduating from Manatee High School in 1966,
he attended Manatee Junior College and received an A.A. degree in 1968.
In the Fall of 1968 he attended Florida State University in Tallahassee,
Florida. He transferred to the University of Florida in January, 1969.
He received a B.A. degree in 1970 in philosophy. After studying at the
University of Florida's College of Law for two quarters he began his
graduate work in professional education in the College of Education,
University of Florida. He was awarded an M.Ed. in 1973, an Ed.S. in
1974, and a Ph.D. in 1978. All work was done through the Foundations
of Education Department.
Most of his extracurricular activities were involved with student
government and included service as mayor of a married housing complex.
Dr. Jones has been employed at Central Florida Community College
since January, 1974. He currently holds the rank of Associate Pro¬
fessor of Social Science and Psychology in the Basic Education/Special
Services Department. He has been President of the Faculty Senate for
two years and has served on numerous committees while at that college.
Organizational memberships currently include the Florida Associa¬
tion of Corrmunity Colleges, Kappa Delta Pi and Mensa. His nonpro¬
fessional interests include tennis, sports cars, sports car racing,
ornamental horticulture, guitar and traveling. He has traveled ex-
104

105
tensively throughout the Eastern United States, England and Western
Europe.
His professional interests include undergraduate teaching, teacher
education in developmental/compensatory education, higher education
administration, legal education and physical anthropology.
His wife, Una, is a student in the Art Department, College of
Fine Arts, University of Florida. Dr. Jones and his wife currently
reside in Ocala, Florida.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion
it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and
is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
obert L. Curran, Chairman
Professor of Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion
it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and
is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Cy^4>YL V/
Donald L. Avila
Professor of Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion
it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and
is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Associate Curator of Antlfropology and
Chairman of Social Sciences, Florida
State Museum and Associate Professor
of Anthropology
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Department of Foundations of Education in the College of Education
and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfill¬
ment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
August 1978
¿^lJMc±==i
Chairman, Foundations of Education
Dean, Graduate School

.U»K!X£I?.5.I.TY 0F florida
3a " HUI HUI l| |
1262 08556 9134




PAGE 1

&255(/$7,21 %(7:((1 352)(66256n ,1)(5(1&(6 $%287 678'(176n 6(/)&21&(376 $1' 352)(66256n .12:/('*( 2) 678'(176n 3$57,&,3$7,21 ,1 $ &20081,7< &2//(*( &203(16$725< ('8&$7,21 352*5$0 %\ &+$5/(6 :,//,$0 -21(6 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( &281&,/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

$&.12:/('*0(176 ZRXOG ILUVW OLNH WR WKDQN P\ FKDLUPDQ 'U 5REHUW / &XUUDQ DQG P\ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV 'U 'RQDOG / $YLOD DQG 'U :LOOLDP 5 0DSOHV 7KHLU SDWLHQFH DQG JXLGDQFH RYHU VHYHUDO \HDUV RI ZRUN KDYH EHHQ GHHSO\ DSSUHFLDWHG 0\ JUDWLWXGH H[WHQGV WR DOO RI P\ FROOHJH SURIHVVRUV DW 0DQDWHH -XQLRU &ROOHJH )ORULGD 6WDWH 8QLYHUn VLW\ DQG 7KH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 0DQ\ RI WKH QDPHV HOXGH PH EXW WKH\ KDYH WRXFKHG P\ OLIH IRU QHDUO\ WZHOYH \HDUV ZRXOG KRSH WKH\ IHHO WKDW WKHLU ZRUN KDV QRW EHHQ LQ YDLQ ZRXOG DOVR OLNH WR DFNQRZOHGJH WKH KHOS KDYH UHFHLYHG DW &HQWUDO )ORULGD &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 0UV &DURO\Q :HVW 'LUHFWRU RI 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV JDYH PH D MRE JRDOV DQG PRVW LPSRUWDQWO\ WKH IUHHGRP DQG RSSRUWXQLW\ WR JURZ 7KH UHVW RI WKH VWDII SDUWLFXn ODUO\ -RKQ 6LPSVRQ KDYH KHOSHG PH GHYHORS WKH LGHDV ZKLFK OHG WR WKLV UHVHDUFK $ VSHFLDO WKDQNV JRHV WR 'DQ %HFWRQ IRU KLV DVVLVn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f f Q

PAGE 3

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f f f P

PAGE 4

7$%/( 2) &217(176 $&.12:/('*0(176 LL $%675$&7 YL &+$37(5 67$7(0(17 2) 7+( 352%/(0 ,QWURGXFWLRQ 3XUSRVH &+$37(5 ,, 5(9,(: 2) /,7(5$785( ,QWURGXFWLRQ 7HDFKHU ([SHFWDQFLHV :KHUH 'R 7KH\ &RPH )URP" 3URJUDP /DEHO $ELOLW\ *URXSLQJ RU 3HUFHLYHG $ELOLW\ 7HDFKHU ([SHFWDQFLHV DQG 6H[ 7HDFKHU ([SHFWDQFLHV DQG 5DFH 7HDFKHU ([SHFWDQFLHV DQG 6RFLRHFRQRPLF 6WDWXV 6(6f 7HDFKHU %LDV 7XWRULQJ ,Q&ODVV 6LWXDWLRQV $FDGHPLF %ORRPLQJ )DOVLILFDWLRQ RI 7HVW 6FRUHV ,4 RU 7UDFN $VVLJQPHQW &RQFOXVLRQ &+$37(5 ,,, +<327+(6(6 &+$37(5 ,9 7+( '(6,*1 ,QWURGXFWLRQ 6DPSOLQJ 9DULDEOH &RQWUROV 9DOLGLW\ ,QWHUQDO 9DOLGLW\ ([WHUQDO 9DOLGLW\ &+$37(5 9 ,167580(17$7,21 7KH )ORULGD .H\ $ 6FDOH WR ,QIHU /HDUQHU 6HOI&RQFHSW 9DOLGLW\ DQG 5HOLDELOLW\ 5HDVRQV IRU 8VH 0RGLILFDWLRQ 6FRULQJ LY

PAGE 5

&+$37(5 9, '$7$ &2//(&7,21 3URFHGXUH &+$37(5 9,, '$7$ $1$/<6,6 5HVSRQVH 5DWH *URXS &RPSRVLWLRQ 6FRUHV 7KUHH:D\ $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH &+$37(5 9,,, ,17(535(7$7,216 5(&200(1'$7,216 $1' &21&/86,216 ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI 'DWD $QDO\VLV +\SRWKHVLV 2QH +\SRWKHVLV 7ZR +\SRWKHVLV 7KUHH +\SRWKHVLV )RXU &RQFOXVLRQ $33(1',; $ )2506 $1' /(77(56 $33(1',; % 7+( 63(&,$/ 6(59,&(6 352*5$0 $7 &(175$/ )/25,'$ &20081,7< &2//(*( 2&$/$ )/25,'$ %,%/,2*5$3+< 5HIHUHQFHV &LWHG $GGLWLRQDO 6RXUFHV LQ WKH $UHDV RI 7HDFKHUVn 3HUFHSWLRQV DQG ([SHFWDWLRQV 6RXUFHV LQ WKH $UHDV RI 5HPHGLDO &RPSHQVDWRU\ 'HYHORSPHQWDO DQG 1RQWUDGLWLRQDO (GXFDWLRQ %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ Y

PAGE 6

$EVWUDFW RI 'LVVHUWDWLRQ 3UHVHQWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH &RXQFLO RI WKH 8QLYHULVW\ RI )ORULGD LQ 3DUWLDO )XOILOOPHQW RI WKH 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH 'HJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ &255(/$7,21 %(7:((1 352)(66256nn,1)(5(1&(6 $%287 678'(176n 6(/)&21&(376 $1' 352)(66256n .12:/('*( 2) 678'(176n 3$57,&,3$7,21 ,1 $ &20081,7< &2//(*( &203(16$725< ('8&$7,21 352*5$0 %\ &KDUOHV :LOOLDP -RQHV $XJXVW &KDLUPDQ 5REHUW / &XUUDQ 0DMRU 'HSDUWPHQW )RXQGDWLRQV RI (GXFDWLRQ 7KH TXHVWLRQ ZDV UDLVHG ZKHWKHU NQRZOHGJH RI VWXGHQWVn SDUWLFLn SDWLRQ LQ D FRPSHQVDWRU\ HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDP FRXOG EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR SURIHVVRUVn LQIHUHQFHV DERXW VWXGHQWVn VHOIFRQFHSWV $ SRVWWHVW RQO\ FRQWURO JURXS GHVLJQ ZDV XVHG WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH SRVVLEOH UHODWLRQVKLS 7KH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ DQG DPRQJ VWXGHQWnV UDFH VH[ DQG SURJUDP ODEHO DQG SURIHVVRUVn LQIHUHQFHV DERXW VWXGHQWVn VHOIFRQFHSWV ZHUH DOVR H[DPLQHG 7KLUW\WZR SURIHVVRUV DW &HQWUDO )ORULGD &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH LQ 2FDOD )ORULGD ZHUH UDQGRPO\ VHOHFWHG IURP DOO IDFXOW\ DW WKDW FROOHJH ZKR KDG IURP DOO RI WKHLU VHFWLRQV DW OHDVW RQH ZKLWH PDOH RQH ZKLWH IHPDOH RQH EODFN PDOH DQG RQH EODFN IHPDOH ZKR ZHUH SDUn WLFLSDQWV LQ WKH FROOHJHnV %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV FRPSHQn VDWRU\ HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDP 9,

PAGE 7

3URIHVVRUVn LQIHUHQFHV DERXW VWXGHQWVn VHOIFRQFHSWV ZHUH PHDVXUHG RQ WKH )ORULGD .H\ $ 6FDOH 7R ,QIHU /HDUQHU 6HOI&RQFHSW 7KH H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS SURIHVVRUV ZHUH WROG H[SOLFLWO\ RQ WKH UDWLQJ IRUPV WKDW WKH VWXGHQWV ZHUH SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ WKH SURJUDP 3URIHVVRUV LQ WKH FRQWURO JURXS UHFHLYHG QR LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ VWXGHQWVn SDUWLFLSDn WLRQ 7KH\ ZHUH DVNHG ZKHWKHU WKH\ NQHZ WKH VWXGHQW ZDV LQYROYHG LQ WKH SURJUDP ,I WKH SURIHVVRU KDG NQRZOHGJH WKHQ WKDW VWXGHQWnV VFRUH ZDV GHOHWHG IURP WKH GDWD $OO IRUPV ZHUH UHWXUQHG +DOI RI WKH LQVWUXFWRUV KRZHYHU IDLOHG WR FRPSOHWH RQH RU PRUH RI WKH IRUPV $ WKUHHZD\ DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH UDFH E\ VH[ E\ H[SHULPHQWDO JURXSf ZDV XVHG WR WHVW WKH K\SRWKHVHV 2QO\ PDLQ HIIHFWV ZHUH GHWHFWHG 1R VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH ZDV HVWDEOLVKHG IRU VH[ 5DFH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO ZLWK EODFNV EHLQJ UDWHG ORZHU WKDQ ZKLWHV .QRZOHGJH RI SURJUDP SDUWLFLSDWLRQ DSSURDFKHG VLJQLILFDQFH DW WKH OHYHO ZLWK KLJKHU VFRUHV UHSRUWHG ZKHQ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ ZDV NQRZQ 7KH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH E\ UDFH ZDV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK SUHYLRXV VWXGLHV H[DPLQHG +RZHYHUWKH QXPHULFDO WUHQG IRU KLJKHU VFRUHV 9 r ZKHQ WKH FRPSHQVDWRU\ ODEHO ZDV NQRZQ ZDV XQH[SHFWHG )ROORZXS VWXGLHV DQG IXUWKHU LQTXLULHV LQWR WKH G\QDPLFV RI WKLV SDUWLFXODU SURJUDP DUH GHILQLWHO\ QHHGHG &KDLUPDQ 9,

PAGE 8

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f WKDW VHSDUDWH EXW HTXDO ZDV QRW HTXDO 7KLV GHFLVLRQ DQG UXOLQJV RI WKH FRXUW LQFUHDVHG DQG VDQFWLRQHG GHPDQGV IRU GHPRFUDF\ DW WKH GRRU RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ

PAGE 9

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f &RPEV f RU 3XUNH\ f FRQWHQG WKDW DQ LPSRUWDQW NLQG RI LQIOXHQFH FRQVLVWV RI WKH SHUFHSn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n WLFV PD\ VLJQLILFDQWO\ DIIHFW WKH SHUFHSWLRQV DWWLWXGHV DQG EHOLHIV WKDW WHDFKHUV KROG DERXW WKH VWXGHQW

PAGE 10

7KHUH DUH OLWHUDOO\ WKRXVDQGV RI FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WKDW FRXOG EH HQXPHUDWHG FRQFHUQLQJ DQ\ JLYHQ LQGLYLGXDO 6RFLDO SUHVVXUH DQG UHVXOWLQJ OHJLVODWLRQ KDYH IRFXVHG SULPDULO\ RQ UDFH DQG VH[ DQG WR D OHVVHU GHJUHH DJH &ROHPDQ f 5LVW f DQG -HQFNV f KDYH DVVHUWHG WKDW IDPLO\ EDFNJURXQG DQG VRFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXV DUH VLJQLILFDQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DIIHFWLQJ HGXFDWLRQDO RSSRUn WXQLWLHV 5LVW LV H[SOLFLW LQ KLV EHOLHI WKDW IDPLO\ EDFNJURXQG DQG VRFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXV DIIHFW WKH SHUFHSWLRQV RI WHDFKHUV ,W ZRXOG SUREDEO\ EH VDIH WR DVVXPH WKDW &ROHPDQ DQG -HQFNV ZRXOG FRQFXU 2QH FKDUDFWHULVWLF ZKLFK UHVHDUFK RQ VXFK SHUFHSWLRQV KDV VRPHn ZKDW LJQRUHG DW WKH SRVWVHFRQGDU\ OHYHO KDV EHHQ WKH VWXGHQWnV LQn YROYHPHQW LQ DQ\ RI D YDULHW\ RI SURJUDPV GHYHORSHG WR HQKDQFH HGXFDWLRQDO RSSRUWXQLWLHV DQG WKH UHVXOWDQW ODEHOV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKRVH SURJUDPV ,W LV D UDUH SRVWVHFRQGDU\ VFKRRO RU FROOHJH ZKLFK GRHV QRW KDYH D UHPHGLDO FRPSHQVDWRU\ GHYHORSPHQWDO RU QRQWUDGLWLRQDO SURJUDP 7KH\ FDUU\ YDULRXV WLWOHV DQG GHVFULSWLRQV EXW WKH LPSOLFDn WLRQV RI SODFLQJ D VWXGHQW LQWR RQH RI WKHVH SURJUDPV ZRXOG DSSHDU WR EH FOHDU LH WKDW WKH VWXGHQW LV LQFDSDEOH RI DFKLHYLQJ WKURXJK WKH QRUPDO URXWH RU SURFHVV IRU RQH UHDVRQ RU DQRWKHU ,V LW SRVVLEOH WKDW SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ RQH RI WKHVH SURJUDPV KDV EHFRPH D VLJQLILFDQW FKDUDFWHULVWLF XVHG E\ WHDFKHUV LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ WKHLU DWWLWXGHV YDOXHV DQG EHOLHIV FRQFHUQLQJ WKDW VWXGHQW" $QG LI LW KDV GRHV LW FRQWULEXWH WR D SRVLWLYH RU QHJDWLYH VHW RI SHUFHSn WLRQV DQG YDOXHV" 7KH TXHVWLRQ KDV EHFRPH PRUH LPSRUWDQW VLQFH WKH IHGHUDO JXLGHn OLQHV IRU WKH PDLQ IHGHUDO SURJUDPV 8SZDUG %RXQG 7DOHQW 6HDUFK DQG 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV KDYH EHHQ EURDGHQHG WR LQFOXGH DQG DVVLVW QRW RQO\

PAGE 11

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

PAGE 12

UHWXUQLQJ DGXOWV DUH LQFOXGHG ZLWK WKRVH ZKR DUH ILQDQFLDOO\ FXOn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f 2WKHU ILQGLQJV LQ DQ XQSXEOLVKHG VWXG\ E\ WKH &RXQVHOLQJ 'HSDUWPHQW RI &HQWUDO )ORULGD &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH :HDYHU f LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHUH GLG VHHP WR EH D GURS LQ JUDGHV LQ VXEVHTXHQW UHODWHG FRXUVHV 1R H[SODQDWLRQ IRU WKH GURS ZDV RIIHUHG

PAGE 13

,W LV DOVR XQFOHDU ZKHWKHU WKH IDFXOW\ RI WKH FDPSXV XQGHUVWDQG b ZKDW WKH %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV SURJUDP LV DOO DERXW RU ZKHWKHU DQ\ FULWLFLVP RI WKH SURJUDP PD\ EH DIIHFWLQJ WKH VWXGHQWV ZKR DUH LQYROYHG LQ LW 3XUSRVH 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ LV WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU NQRZOHGJH RI VWXGHQWV EHLQJ %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV VWXGHQWV LV UHODWHG WR LQVWUXFWRUVn LQIHUHQFHV DERXW WKH VWXGHQWVn VHOIFRQFHSWV $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH YDULDEOHV RI UDFH DQG VH[ ZLOO EH H[DPLQHG WR VHH ZKHWKHU WKH\ FRQWULEXWH WR YDULDQFH LQ SHUFHSWLRQV E\ LQVWUXFWRUV 7KH VLJQLILFDQFH RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZLOO EH WR GHWHUPLQH f ZKHWKHU NQRZOHGJH RI D VWXGHQW EHLQJ ODEHOHG DV %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV LV UHODWHG WR DQ LQVWUXFWRUnV SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH VWXGHQWnV VHOIFRQFHSW DQG LI WKH SHUFHSWLRQ LV ZKHWKHU LW LV UHODWHG WR D SRVLWLYH RU QHJDWLYH LQIHUUHG VHOIFRQFHSW f ZKHWKHU UDFH LV D VLJQLILFDQW IDFWRU LQ WKH SHUFHSWLRQV UHSRUWHG E\ LQVWUXFn WRUV f ZKHWKHU VH[ LV D VLJQLILFDQW IDFWRU LQ SHUFHSWLRQV f ZKHWKHU D FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKHVH IDFWRUV LV VLJQLILFDQW LQ WKH SHUFHSWLRQV KHOG E\ WKH IDFXOW\ DQG f ZKHWKHU IXUWKHU VWXG\ RI WKH ODEHOLQJ RI VWXGHQWV DV %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV LV LQGLFDWHG ,W LV SDUWLFXODUO\ LPSRUWDQW WR NQRZ ZKHWKHU WKH ODEHO %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV LV FRQWULEXWLQJ WR DQ\ QHJDWLYH SHUFHSWLRQV VLQFH WKH VWXGHQWV PXVW FRPSOHWH PRUH WKDQ SHUFHQW RI WKHLU UHTXLUHG KRXUV ZLWK LQVWUXFWRUV LQ RWKHU WKDQ WKH %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV SURJUDP $OVR PDQ\ RI WKH VWXGHQWV ZLOO QHHG IROORZXS VHUYLFHV DIWHU WKH\ OHDYH WKH %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV FRXUVHV

PAGE 14

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

PAGE 15

&+$37(5 ,, 5(9,(: 2) /,7(5$785( ,QWURGXFWLRQ 7KH FRQFHSW WKDW RQH SHUVRQnV EHOLHIV PD\ DIIHFW RU EH UHODWHG WR WKH EHKDYLRU RI DQRWKHU SHUVRQ LV FHUWDLQO\ QRW QHZ RU VWDUWOLQJ )RON ZLVGRP DQG SRSXODU OLWHUDWXUH VXFK DV 3\JPDOLRQ ODWHU GUDPDn WL]HG DV 0\ )DLU /DG\ RU WKH DJHOHVV :L]DUG RI 2] KDV H[KDOWHG WKH SRZHU RI H[SHFWDWLRQ DQG VHOIIXOILOOLQJ SURSKHF\ $OWKRXJK KXPDQ EHKDYLRU LV DQ H[WUHPHO\ FRPSOH[ VXEMHFW WKHUH GRHV VHHP WR EH D JUHDW GHDO RI DJUHHPHQW WKDW KXPDQ EHKDYLRU LV D SURGXFW RI WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV LQWHUDFWLRQ ZLWK WKH HQYLURQPHQW $ SDUWLFXODUO\ VLJQLILFDQW SDUW RI WKDW HQYLURQPHQW LV RWKHU SHRSOH DQG WKHLU EHKDYLRU 1XPHURXV FRQVWUXFWV DQG ODEHOV KDYH EHHQ GHYHORSHG WR FDWHn JRUL]H DQG V\VWHPDWL]H WKDW EHKDYLRU 6XFK FRQVWUXFWV DV FXOWXUH VRFLDO VWUXFWXUH VRFLDO RUJDQL]DWLRQ VRFLDO V\VWHP VRFLDO LQn VWLWXWLRQV HWF DUH XVHG WR FRQYH\ PHDQLQJ DERXW WKDW EHKDYLRU 9DOXHV LV D FRQVWUXFW ZKLFK LV XVHG WR H[SUHVV D SULRULWL]LQJ RU DUUDQJLQJ RI EHKDYLRUV LQWR FDWHJRULHV XQGHUVWRRG DV JRRG RU EDG RU HYHQ GHVLUDEOH RU XQGHVLUDEOH E\ DQ LQGLYLGXDO RU JURXS ([DFWO\ KRZ WKHVH YDOXHV DUH GHYHORSHG LV QRW WRWDOO\ DJUHHG XSRQ +RZHYHU WKH ZHLJKW RI DJUHHPHQW FHUWDLQO\ VHHPV WR EH RQ WKH VLGH RI DQ HQYLURQPHQWDO LQWHUDFWLRQ WKHRU\ UDWKHU WKDQ D QRWLRQ RI D SULRUL GHYHORSPHQW RI WKHVH YDOXHV

PAGE 16

$V WKH VRFLDO VFLHQWLVW RU SV\FKRORJLVW VWXGLHV KXPDQ EHKDYLRU LW LV QHDUO\ LPSRVVLEOH QRW WR QRWLFH WKH YDVW UDQJH RI LQWHUSUHn WDWLRQ RI WKH HQYLURQPHQW DQG EHKDYLRU DPRQJ DQG ZLWKLQ FXOWXUHV RU HYHQ LQGLYLGXDOV WKHPVHOYHV 2I SDUWLFXODU LPSRUWDQFH LV WKH FRPSRXQGLQJ YDULDEOH NQRZQ DV SHUFHSWLRQ 7KLV VHHPLQJO\ DSSDUHQW IDFWRU KDV EHHQ VHHQ DV VLJn QLILFDQW HQRXJK WR JLYH ULVH WR D ZKROH EUDQFK RI SV\FKRORJ\ 3HUn FHSWXDO SV\FKRORJ\ LQFOXGHG LQ WKH ODEHO KXPDQLVWLF SV\FKRORJ\ FRQWHQGV WKDW WKH ZRUOG LV H[SORUHG DQG XQGHUVWRRG LQ WHUPV RI WKH ZD\ LW LV SHUFHLYHG E\ HDFK LQGLYLGXDO 5HODWLQJ SHUFHSWLRQV WR EHKDYLRU &RPEV VWDWHV $OO EHKDYLRU ZLWKRXW H[FHSWLRQ LV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH EHKDYHUnV SHUFHSWXDO ILHOG DW WKH LQVWDQW RI EHKDYLQJ +H JRHV RQ WR DVVHUW ,I EHKDYLRU LV D IXQFWLRQ RI SHUFHSWLRQ LW IROORZV WKDW WR XQGHUVWDQG EHKDYLRU LW ZLOO EH QHFHVVDU\ WR VWXG\ WKH IDFWRUV LQIOXHQFLQJ SHUFHSWLRQ LQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO $YLOD &RPEV DQG 3XUNH\ S f ,Q WKH ILHOG RI HGXFDWLRQ VHOIWKHRULVW 3XUNH\ FRQWHQGV 7KH ZD\V VLJQLILFDQW RWKHUV HYDOXDWH WKH VWXGHQW GLUHFWO\ DIIHFW WKH VWXGHQWnV FRQFHSWLRQ RI KLV DFDGHPLF DELOLW\ 7KLV LQ WXUQ HVWDEOLVKHV OLPLWV RQ KLV VXFFHVV LQ VFKRRO 7HDFKHUV LQ WKHLU FDSDFLW\ RI VLJQLILFDQW RWKHUV QHHG WR YLHZ VWXGHQWV LQ HVVHQWLDOO\ SRVLWLYH ZD\V DQG KROG IDYRUDEOH H[SHFWDWLRQV 3XUNH\ S f 5RVHQWKDO DQG -DFREVRQ f EURXJKW LQWHUHVW LQ WHDFKHU HIIHFWV RQ VWXGHQWV WR QHZ KHLJKWV ZKHQ WKH\ SXEOLVKHG 3\JPDOLRQ LQ WKH &ODVVURRP ,Q WKHLU ERRN WKH\ VHHPHG WR SUHVHQW GDWD WKDW ZRXOG VXEVWDQWLDWH 3XUNH\nV DQG RWKHUVn FRQWHQWLRQV WKDW WHDFKHU H[SHFn WDWLRQV FDQ EH VLJQLILFDQW LQ VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW 2YHU WKH \HDUV

PAGE 17

QXPHURXV VWXGLHV WR EH UHYLHZHG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ SDJHV KDYH H[DPLQHG WKLV TXHVWLRQ $Q LPSRUWDQW GLFKRWRP\ KDV GHYHORSHG LQ WKLV ILHOG DQG QHHGV WR EH HODERUDWHG RQ EHFDXVH RI LWV DSSOLFDWLRQ WR WKH UHVHDUFK DW KDQG -HURPH % 'XVHN f D UHVHDUFKHU LQ WKLV ILHOG PDNHV WKH GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WHDFKHU ELDV DQG WHDFKHU H[SHFWDQF\ 'XVHN VWDWHV nWHDFKHU ELDVn ZLOO UHIHU WR VLJQLILFDQW HIIHFWV GXH WR WHDFKHUVn GLIIHUHQWLDO H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU VWXGHQWVn SHUIRUPDQFH LQ WKH FDVH ZKHUH H[SHFWDQFLHV KDYH EHHQ LQGXFHG E\ D SULQFLSDO LQYHVn WLJDWRU 7KDW LV WHDFKHU ELDV UHIHUV WR D PDQLSXODWLRQ RI WKH WHDFKHUnV H[SHFWDQFLHV E\ D SULQFLSDO LQYHVWLJDWRU +H FRQWLQXHV ZLWK 7KH WHUP nWHDFKHU H[SHFWDQF\n ZLOO UHIHU WR VLJQLILFDQW HIIHFWV GXH WR WKH WHDFKHUVn RZQ VHOIJHQHUDWHG H[SHFWDWLRQV UHn JDUGLQJ VWXGHQWVn SHUIRUPDQFH ,Q WKLV FDVH LW LV WKH WHDFKHUVn RZQ H[SHFWDQF\ IRUPHG KRZHYHU WHDFKHUV IRUP LW ZKLFK LV UHODWHG WR VWXGHQWVn SHUIRUPDQFH 'XVHN S f 'XVHN f 2n&RQQHOO 'XVHN DQG :KHHOHU f )LQQ f %UDQGW DQG +D\GHQ f -RVH DQG &RG\ f 9DQ $OVW f DQG YDULRXV RWKHUV FRQWHQG WKDW PL[HG ILQGLQJV LQ VWXGLHV DQG SDUWLFXODUO\ WKRVH LQWHQGLQJ WR UHSOLFDWH 5RVHQWKDO DQG -DFREVRQ KDYH UHVXOWHG IURP D FRQIXVLRQ RI WKHVH GLVWLQFWLRQV 7KH PDLQ SXUSRVH RI WKLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ LV WR VWXG\ WKH UHODWLRQn VKLS EHWZHHQ NQRZOHGJH RI D SURJUDP ODEHO DQG WKH WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSn WLRQV RI VWXGHQWV VR ODEHOHG %DVLFDOO\ LW LV DQ DWWHPSW WR GHWHU PLQH ZKHWKHU WKH NQRZOHGJH RI D VWXGHQW KDYLQJ EHHQ LQ D SDUWLFXODU SURJUDP VHHPV WR EH D EDVLV IRU GHYHORSLQJ WHDFKHU H[SHFWDQF\ $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH YDULDEOHV RI VH[ UDFH DQG FRPELQDWLRQV RI VH[ UDFH DQG ODEHO ZLOO EH H[DPLQHG

PAGE 18

7KH OLWHUDWXUH GHDOLQJ ZLWK WHDFKHU H[SHFWDQF\ ZLOO EH FRYHUHG ILUVW 7KH OLWHUDWXUH RQ WKH UHODWHG WHDFKHU ELDV ZLOO IROORZ 6RPH WHDFKHU ELDV VWXGLHV ZLOO EH XVHIXO LQ GLVFXVVLQJ WHDFKHU H[SHFWDQF\ DQG PD\ EH FRYHUHG WKHUH 7HDFKHU ([SHFWDQFLHV :KHUH 'R 7KH\ &RPH )URP" 3URJUDP /DEHO $ELOLW\ *URXSLQJ RU 3HUFHLYHG $ELOLW\ $OWKRXJK QR DUWLFOHV GHDOLQJ ZLWK H[SHFWDQFLHV FRQFHUQLQJ FRPn SHQVDWRU\ SURJUDPV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ ZHUH IRXQG UHODWHG DUHDV DUH SUHVHQWHG KHUH +DQNLQVRQ f IRXQG VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WHDFKHU H[SHFWDQFLHV IRU VWXGHQWV LQ 7LWOH DQG QRQ7LWOH VFKRROV +H VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKLV W\SH RI ODEHO PD\ KDYH DIIHFWHG H[SHFWDQFLHV EHFDXVH RI WKH HFRQRPLF FRPSRVLWLRQ RI WKH VFKRRO LPSOLFLW LQ WKH ODEHO )LQQ f FRXOG QRW VKRZ DQ\ PDLQ HIIHFWV EDVHG RQ ,4 LQ D WHDFKHU ELDV H[SHULPHQW ,W GLG DSSHDU WKDW XUEDQ WHDFKHUV WHQGHG WR UDWH HTXLYDOHQW ZULWLQJ VDPSOHV KLJKHU IRU KLJK ,4 VWXGHQWV WKDQ IRU ORZ ,4 VWXGHQWV $IWHU UHYLHZLQJ KLV DQG UHODWHG VWXGLHV )LQQ PDGH D GLVWLQFWLRQ VLPLODU WR 'XVHNnV f FRQFHUQLQJ QDWXUDOLVWLF YHUVXV LQGXFHG VWXGLHV +H FRQFOXGHG WKDW WHDFKHUV GLG KROG GLIIHUn HQWLDO H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU DFKLHYHPHQW WKDW WKHVH H[SHFWDWLRQV GLG ELDV HYDOXDWLRQV DQG WKDW WKH PRVW LQIOXHQWLDO IDFWRU DIIHFWLQJ WKRVH SHUFHSWLRQV ZDV WKH SHUFHLYHG DELOLW\ OHYHO RI WKH VWXGHQW +H IHOW WKDW LW ZDV TXHVWLRQDEOH ZKHWKHU PDQLSXODWLRQ SDUWLFXODUO\ EDVHG RQ D VLQJOH WHVW VFRUH ZDV IHDVLEOH 6FKZDU] DQG &RRN f H[DPLQHG WKH H[WUHPH SURJUDP ODEHO (05 HGXFDEOH PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHGf 7KH\ KDG WHDFKHUV RI (056 UDWH

PAGE 19

WKHLU H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU GHYHORSPHQW E\ WKHLU VWXGHQWV 1R VLJQLILn FDQW UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV HVWDEOLVKHG EHWZHHQ H[SHFWDWLRQ DQG DFKLHYHn PHQW DQG WKH YDULDEOHV DFFRXQWLQJ IRU YDULDQFH LQ H[SHFWDQF\ VFRUHV FRXOG QRW DFFXUDWHO\ EH HVWDEOLVKHG
PAGE 20

%UDQGW DQG +D\GHQ f ZDQWHG WR DWWHPSW D SXUH H[SHULPHQWDO VWXG\ RI WHDFKHU DWWLWXGHV DQG H[SHFWDQFLHV VR WKH\ WXUQHG WR WKH FRPSXWHU 7KH\ VLPXODWHG VWXGHQWV RQ WKH FRPSXWHU DQG YROXQWHHU WHDFKHUV UHVSRQGHG WR WKH LPDJLQDU\ VWXGHQWV 7KH YROXQWHHUV GLG QRW NQRZ WKDW WKH VWXGHQWV ZHUH LPDJLQDU\ DQG ZHUH LQ IDFW JLYHQ YDULRXV DFDGHPLF GDWD RQ WKH VWXGHQW 7KH UHVXOWV VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKH WHDFKHUVn DWWLWXGHV DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV ZHUH PRUH LQIOXHQFHG E\ DFWXDO SHUIRUPDQFH WKDQ E\ DVFULEHG DFDGHPLF FKDUDFWHULVWLFV :LOOLDPV f VWXGLHG VL[WHHQ WKRXVDQG PDOH DQG IHPDOH VWXGHQWV ZKR EHJDQ VFKRRO LQ 7RURQWR LQ +H IRXQG WKDW WKH VLQJOH PRVW LPSRUWDQW VRXUFH RI WHDFKHU H[SHFWDWLRQ ZDV WKH VFKRROnV FHUWLILFDWLRQ RI WKH VWXGHQWVn DSWLWXGH E\ DELOLW\ JURXSLQJ HYHQ ZKHQ WKH VWXGHQWVn SDVW SHUIRUPDQFH FXUUHQW DPELWLRQ DQG DFDGHPLF DSWLWXGH ZHUH KHOG FRQVWDQW 3HUVHOO f IRXQG WKDW PRVW VWXGLHV RI WUDFNLQJ WKDW KDYH EHHQ GRQH LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV KDYH QRW VWXGLHG WKH HIIHFW RQ WHDFKHU H[SHFWDWLRQV )ORZHUV f DQG 6FKUDQN f SUHVHQW VRPH LQWHUHVWn LQJ GDWD RQ SHUFHLYHG DELOLW\ XVLQJ HVVHQWLDOO\ WHDFKHU ELDV WHFKQLTXHV )ORZHUV f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

PAGE 21

PRWLYDWH WKH UHSXWHGO\ KLJKHU DELOLW\ VWXGHQWV PRUH WKDQ WKH FRPSDUDEOH FRQWURO JURXSV 6FKUDQNnV f H[SHULPHQW LV SDUWLFXODUO\ VLJQLILFDQW EHFDXVH LW GHDOW ZLWK FROOHJH OHYHO LQVWUXFWRUV +H UDQGRPO\ DVVLJQHG RQH KXQGUHG HQOLVWHG DLUPHQ DW WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV $LU )RUFH 3UHSDUDWRU\ 6FKRRO WR ILYH LQVWUXFWLRQDO VHFWLRQV ,QVWUXFWRUV ZHUH WROG WKDW WKH VHFWLRQV ZHUH KRPRJHQHRXVO\ JURXSHG E\ DELOLW\ 6LJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH IRXQG ZKHQ VHFWLRQ JUDGHV ZHUH FRPSDUHG WKH KLJKHU JURXSV UHFHLYHG KLJKHU JUDGHV 6FKUDQN f UHSOLFDWHG WKH VWXG\ H[FHSW WKDW WLPH WKH LQVWUXFWRUV NQHZ WKDW WKH VWXGHQWV KDG QRW EHHQ JURXSHG DFFRUGLQJ WR DELOLW\ ,Q WKDW VWXG\ QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV FRXOG EH IRXQG LQ JUDGHV E\ VHFWLRQ 6FKUDQN f SRLQWV RXW WKDW WHDFKHU H[SHFWDQFLHV ZHUH QRW PHDVXUHG EXW ZHUH RQO\ LQIHUUHG DQG KH IHHOV WKDW WKH PRVW WKDW FDQ EH FODLPHG LV WKDW WUDFNLQJ PLJKW EH D FULWLFDO LQIOXHQFH RQ WHDFKHU H[SHFWDQFLHV EXW WKDW IXUWKHU VWXG\ LV QHHGHG 3HUVHOO f QRWHG WKDW VWXGLHV RI WUDFNLQJ DQG DELOLW\ JURXSLQJ WKDW KDYH DGGUHVVHG WKH TXHVWLRQ RI WHDFKHU H[SHFWDQF\ VHHPHG WR FRQFXU ZLWK )ORZHUV f DQG 6FKUDQN f WKDW DELOLW\ JURXSLQJ GLG DSSHDU WR DIIHFW WHDFKHU SHUFHSWLRQ DQG H[n SHFWDWLRQ &RUQEOHWK 'DYLV DQG %XWWRQ f DGGUHVVHG WKH TXHVWLRQ RI HIIHFWV RI WHDFKHU H[SHFWDQF\ EDVHG RQ SHUFHLYHG DELOLW\ 6KH DVNHG VWXGHQW WHDFKHUV WR UDWH WKHLU VHFRQGDU\ VWXGHQWV LQ WHUPV RI DELOLW\ DW WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI WKH FODVV 2EVHUYDWLRQDO LQWHUDFWLRQDO VWXGLHV ZHUH FDUULHG RQ DV SDUW RI WKH VWXGHQW WHDFKHUVn UHJXODU HYDOXDWLRQ

PAGE 22

VR WKDW WKH\ ZHUH XQDZDUH RI WKH VWXG\ 7KH UHVXOWV ZHUH WKDW VWXGHQWV UDWHG DV ORZ ZHUH JLYHQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ IHZHU RSSRUWXQLWLHV WR UHVSRQG DQG LQWHUDFW 6WXGHQWV UDWHG DV KLJK UHFHLYHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH GLUHFW TXHVWLRQV HYHQ DW WKH ORZHU OHYHOV RI %ORRPnV 7D[RQRP\ $OVR IRU WKH VWXGHQWV UDWHG ORZ WKHUH ZDV D GHFUHDVLQJ DPRXQW RI IHHGEDFN LQ SXSLO FUHDWHG LQWHUDFWLRQV &RUQEOHWK 'DYLV DQG %XWWRQ FRQFOXGHG WKDW WHDFKHU H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG UHVXOWDQW EHKDYLRU PD\ QRW EH PLWLJDWHG E\ DFWXDO FODVVURRP H[SHULHQFH %UDQGW DQG +D\GHQ f IRXQG WKH FODVVURRP H[SHULHQFH PRUH LQIOXHQWLDO EXW LW VKRXOG EH QRWHG WKDW WKHLU VWXG\ GHDOW ZLWK LQYHVWLJDWRU JHQHUDWHG FKDUDFWHULVWLFV VLPLODU WR D WHDFKHU ELDV SDUDGLJPf ZKHUHDV &RUQEOHWK f ZDV GHDOLQJ ZLWK WHDFKHU JHQHUDWHG FKDUDFWHULVWLFV LH WHDFKHU H[SHFWDQF\f 'XVHN f FRQGXFWHG D RQH DQG RQH KDOI \HDU H[SHULPHQWDO ORQJLWXGLQDO VWXG\ RI WHDFKHU ELDV DQG WHDFKHU H[SHFWDQF\ HIIHFWV RQ WKH 6WDQIRUG $FKLHYHPHQW 7HVW SHUIRUPDQFH RI FKLOGUHQ LQ WZR VHFRQG JUDGH DQG WZR IRXUWK JUDGH FODVVURRPV +H IRXQG QR ELDV HIIHFWV LH LQSXW RI IDOVH LQIRUPDWLRQ KDG QR HIIHFW RQ WHDFKHU H[SHFWDWLRQ RU VWXGHQW SHUIRUPDQFH +RZHYHU KH FRQFOXGHG WKDW WHDFKHUV ZHUH JRRG SUHGLFWRUV RI DFDGHPLF SRWHQWLDO DQG WHDFKHU H[SHFWDWLRQV ZHUH EDVHG RQ UHOHYDQW DFDGHPLF FULWHULD 2n&RQQHOO 'XVHN DQG :KHHOHU f FRQWLQXHG WKH RULJLQDO VWXG\ DQG WKHLU ILQGLQJV ZHUH VLPLODU *XVNLQ DQG *XVNLQ f VXPPDUL]HG WKHLU ZRUN DQG WKH IHHOLQJV RI PDQ\ LQYHVWLJDWRUV ZKHQ WKH\ VWDWHG /DEHOV DQG VWHUHRW\SHV FDQ KDYH DQ LPSRUWDQW LPSDFW RQ SHUFHSWLRQ ZKHQ PRUH UHOLDEOH LQIRUn PDWLRQ LV DEVHQW EXW WHQG WR KDYH OLWWOH VLJQLILFDQFH ZKHQ PRUH

PAGE 23

GLUHFWO\ REVHUYDEOH DQG UHOHYDQW FXHV DUH SUHVHQW *XVNLQ DQG *XVNLQ S f 7HDFKHU ([SHFWDQFLHV DQG 6H[ 5RZHOO f DWWHPSWHG WR GLVWLQJXLVK DWWLWXGLQDO DQG H[SHFn WDQF\ GLIIHUHQFHV IRU LQVWUXFWRUV EDVHG RQ VWXGHQWVn VH[ EXW FRXOG QRW UHDFK VLJQLILFDQW OHYHOV )LQQnV f VWXG\ GLG ILQG GLIIHUHQWLDO H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU ZKLWH IHPDOHV DQG PDOHV EXW QR VH[ GLVWLQFWLRQV IRU EODFNV +RZHYHU WKRVH GLVWLQFWLRQV VHHPHG WR EH LQWHUUHODWHG ZLWK WKH WHDFKHU FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI HLWKHU XUEDQ RU VXEXUEDQ 9HOGPDQ DQG %URSK\ f IRXQG WKDW SXSLO VH[ ZDV QRW D IDFWRU LQ WHDFKHU SUHGLFWLRQV RI SRVWWHVW VFRUHV LH LW ZDV QRW D IDFWRU LQ WHDFKHU H[SHFWDWLRQV LQ D SUHSRVW WHVW VWXG\ RI DFKLHYHPHQW JDLQV RQ D VWDQGDUGL]HG DFKLHYHPHQW WHVW RI VHFRQG DQG WKLUG JUDGHUV &KDQJ f GLG D FRUUHODWLRQDO VWXG\ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ VHOIFRQFHSW DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW DQG WHDFKHUVn UDWLQJV RI FKLOGUHQVn VHOIFRQFHSW RI RQH KXQGUHG DQG QLQHW\ VHYHQ SXSLOV IURP IRXUWK ILIWK DQG VL[WK JUDGHV 1R UHODWLRQVKLSV FRXOG EH GLVWLQJXLVKHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI VWXGHQWVn VH[ +RZHYHU $URQ f GLG D WHDFKHU ELDV VWXG\ LQ ZKLFK KH PDQLSXODWHG VWXGHQWVn HWKQLFLW\ VH[ DQG DELOLW\ +H IRXQG VLJn QLILFDQW LQWHUDFWLRQV EHWZHHQ VH[ RI VWXGHQW DQG WHDFKHU H[SHFWDWLRQV 9DQ $OVW f KDG DWWHPSWHG D WHDFKHU ELDV VWXG\ EXW ZDV XQDEOH WR HVWDEOLVK VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ VWXGHQW VH[ DQG WHDFKHU H[SHFWDWLRQV 0RUH WKDQ DQ\WKLQJ HOVH WKHVH ODVW WZR VWXGLHV SRLQW WR WKH FRQWUDGLFWRU\ UHVXOWV UHIHUUHG WR E\ 'XVHN f ZKHQ KH H[DPLQHG WHDFKHU ELDV H[SHULPHQWV

PAGE 24

7KH VWXG\ E\ :LOOLDPV f UHSRUWHG HDUOLHU GLG ILQG VWXGHQW VH[ WR EH UHODWHG WR WHDFKHU H[SHFWDWLRQV 7HDFKHU ([SHFWDQFLHV DQG 5DFH 'HLW] DQG 3XUNH\ f VWXGLHG RQH KXQGUHG DQG IRUW\ VHYHQ ZKLWH JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV LQ WKH &ROOHJH RI (GXFDWLRQ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 7KH JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV KDG EHHQ HPSOR\HG DV FODVVURRP WHDFKHUV ZLWKLQ WKH SUHYLRXV WZR \HDUV $ K\SRWKHWLFDO DGROHVFHQW ER\ ZDV GHVFULEHG LQ D SDUDJUDSK LQFOXGLQJ HFRQRPLF DQG IDPLO\ EDFNn JURXQG OLNHV DQG GLVOLNHV DQG WKH SUHYLRXV \HDUnV GLVFLSOLQH UHFRUGV 7KH H[SHULPHQWDO SDUDJUDSK ZDV LGHQWLFDO H[FHSW LW LQFOXGHG WKH GHVFULSWRU 1HJUR (LWKHU DQ H[SHULPHQWDO RU D FRQWURO SDUDJUDSK ZDV GLVWULEXWHG UDQGRPO\ WR HDFK RI WKH VXEMHFWV 7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH DVNHG WR UHDG WKH SDUDJUDSK DQG HVWLPDWH WKH ER\nV IXWXUH DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH XVLQJ D VHYHQ SRLQW VFDOH 7KH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ PHDQV ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO 7KH\ FRQFOXGHG WKDW UDFH ZDV QRW D IDFWRU LQ H[SHFWDQF\ 5RHEHU f FRPSOHWHG D VLPLODU VWXG\ RQ WKLUW\ IHPDOH HOHn PHQWDU\ VFKRRO SHUVRQQHO IURP WKH 'HWURLW DUHD 7KDW VWXG\ IRXQG WKDW UDFH ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQW ZKHQ RWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV DYDLODEOH HJ WHVW VFRUHV UHFRUG RI DFKLHYHPHQW RU FRPPHQWV RI IRUPHU WHDFKHUV ,Q FRQWUDVW WR WKRVH VWXGLHV ZDV RQH E\ %XIRUG f )LIWHHQ WKLUG DQG IRXUWK JUDGH WHDFKHUV LQ 7LWOH VFKRROV LQ D FHQWUDO 7H[DV FLW\ ZHUH DVNHG WR LQGLFDWH H[SHFWHG VWXGHQW DFKLHYHPHQW ,W ZDV D WZR \HDU VWXG\ ZLWK VHYHQ KXQGUHG DQG ILIWHHQ VWXGHQWV %XIRUG WKHQ FRPSXWHG DQ REMHFWLYHO\ SUHGLFWHG DFKLHYHPHQW IRU WKH VDPH VWXGHQWV EDVHG RQ WKHLU FXPXODWLYH UHFRUG 7KH ILQGLQJV

PAGE 25

VKRZHG VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ H[SHFWDWLRQV EDVHG RQ UDFH 7KH WHDFKHUV H[SHFWHG JUHDWHU DFKLHYHPHQW IURP ZKLWHV WKDQ ZDV ZDUUDQWHG E\ REMHFWLYH SUHGLFWRUV DQG VLJQLILFDQWO\ XQGHUH[SHFWHG IRU 0H[LFDQV DQG EODFNV 3XJK f IRXQG UDFH WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR HYDOXDWLRQV RI WDSHUHFRUGLQJV RI MXQLRU KLJK VFKRRO VWXGHQWV UHDGLQJ WKH VDPH EULHI SDVVDJH LQ D VWXG\ FRQGXFWHG LQ 'DGH &RXQW\ )ORULGD 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW ZKLWHV ZHUH IDYRUHG RYHU EODFNV %ODFNV ZKR ZHUH SHUFHLYHG DV ZKLWH ZHUH PRUH IDYRUHG WKDQ ZKLWHV ZKR ZHUH SHUn FHLYHG DV EODFN 7KH VWXG\ E\ &KDQJ f PHQWLRQHG SUHYLRXVO\ VHHPHG WR LQGLFDWH WKDW WHDFKHUV ZHUH FRPLQJ LQWR WKH FODVVURRP ZLWK GLIIHULQJ SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH FKLOGnV VHOIFRQFHSW DQG WKRVH GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW RQ WKH EDVLV RI UDFH 3HUVHOOnV f UHYLHZ RI UHODWHG UHVHDUFK IRXQG WKDW WKH SUHSRQGHUDQFH RI VWXGLHV LQGLFDWHG WKDW UDFH GLG LQIOXHQFH WHDFKHU H[SHFWDWLRQV :KLOH WKHUH LV QR FOHDUFXW GHFLVLRQ RQ ZKHWKHU UDFH LQIOXHQFHV WKH H[SHFWDWLRQV RI WHDFKHUV WKHUH LV HQRXJK HYLGHQFH WR PDNH VXFK D UHODWLRQVKLS SODXVLEOH 7HDFKHU ([SHFWDQFLHV DQG 6RFLRHFRQRPLF 6WDWXV 6(6f 5D\ 5LVW f SUHVHQWHG D ORQJLWXGLQDO VWXG\ IROORZLQJ D VLQJOH JURXS RI EODFN VWXGHQWV ZKR EHJDQ NLQGHUJDUWHQ LQ 7KH\ ZHUH IROORZHG DQG REVHUYHG WKURXJK WKH VHFRQG JUDGH $W WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI WKH VFKRRO \HDU WKH NLQGHUJDUWHQ WHDFKHU KDG IRXU VRXUFHV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW VWXGHQWV DYDLODEOH WR KHU 7KH ILUVW ZDV D SUHUHJLVWUDWLRQ IRUP ZKLFK FDOOHG IRU DJH RI VWXGHQW

PAGE 26

SDUHQWn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f SK\VLFDO DSSHDUDQFH f LQWHUDFWLRQ EHKDYLRU ZLWK WKH WHDFKHU DQG DPRQJ VWXGHQWV f XVH RI ODQJXDJH DQG f VRFLDO EDFNJURXQG 5LVW IHOW WKDW WKH RYHUZKHOPLQJ YDOXH ZDV PLGGOH FODVV LH HDVH RI LQWHUDFWLRQ ZLWK DGXOWV KLJK GHJUHH RI YHUEDOL]DWLRQ LQ VWDQGDUG (QJOLVK DELOLW\ WR EHFRPH D OHDGHU QHDW DQG FOHDQ ZHOO HGXFDWHG IDPLO\ HPSOR\HG DQG OLYLQJ WRJHWKHU DQG LQWHUHVWHG LQ WKH FKLOG DQG DELOLW\ WR SDUWLFLSDWH DV D JURXS PHPEHU 5LVW FRQFOXGHG WKDW SODFHPHQW RI WKH FKLOGUHQ WKHQ DSSHDUHG WR UHVXOW IURP WKHLU SRVVHVVLQJ RU ODFNLQJ FHUWDLQ GHVLUHG FXOWXUDO FKDUDFn WHULVWLFV SHUFHLYHG DV LPSRUWDQW E\ WKH WHDFKHU 6XFK JURXSLQJ FDUULHG RQ WKURXJK ILUVW DQG VHFRQG JUDGH WR VXFK DQ H[WHQW WKDW 5LVW FRPPHQWHG 7KH FKLOGnV MRXUQH\ WKURXJK WKH HDUO\ JUDGHV RI VFKRRO DW RQH UHDGLQJ OHYHO DQG LQ RQH VRFLDO JURXSLQJ DSSHDUHG WR EH SUHRUGDLQHG IURP WKH HLJKWK GD\ RI NLQGHUn JDUWHQ 5LVW S f +DQNLQVRQnV f DUWLFOH PHQWLRQHG HDUOLHU GLG ILQG VLJn QLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WHDFKHU H[SHFWDQF\ EHWZHHQ 7LWOH DQG

PAGE 27

QRQ7LWOH VFKRROV VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW NQRZOHGJH RI HFRQRPLF FRPSRn VLWLRQ RI WKH VFKRRO FRXOG DIIHFW H[SHFWDWLRQV -RVH DQG &RG\ f DWWHPSWHG D UHSOLFDWLRQ RI 5RVHQWKDO DQG -DFREVRQnV f VWXG\ EXW ZHUH XQDEOH WR VKRZ DQ\ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ YDULDEOHV 7KH H[SODQDWLRQ RIIHUHG E\ VHYHUDO RI WKH VXEMHFWV ZDV WKDW WKH\ NQHZ WKH FKLOGUHQ DQG WKHLU EDFNJURXQGV DQG WKHUHIRUH NQHZ ZKDW WKH FKLOG FRXOG EH H[SHFWHG WR GR 3HUVHOO f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f ZKLOH WKH RWKHU JURXS XVHV IDOVLILFDWLRQ RI WHVW VFRUHV ,4 RU WUDFN DVVLJQn PHQWV 7XWRULQJ %HH] f GLG HVWDEOLVK VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ DFKLHYHn PHQW E\ VWXGHQWV ZKRVH WXWRUV KDG EHHQ WROG WKDW WKHLU VWXGHQW ZRXOG HLWKHU DGMXVW DQG GR ZHOO RU QRW +H VXJJHVWHG WKDW WHDFKHUV PD\

PAGE 28

ERWK WHDFK GLIIHUHQWO\ DQG WU\ WR WHDFK GLIIHUHQW DPRXQWV WR FKLOGUHQ GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKHLU ELDV UHJDUGLQJ WKH FKLOGnV DELOLW\ 5XERYLWV DQG 0DHKU f VWXGLHG ZKHWKHU WXWRUV GLIIHUHG LQ WKH DPRXQW RI DWWHQWLRQ JLYHQ WR VWXGHQWV ZLWK GLIIHULQJ DVFULEHG FKDUDFWHULVWLFV 7KH ODEHOV JLIWHG DQG QRQJLIWHG SURGXFHG QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ DPRXQW RI DWWHQWLRQ JLYHQ EXW GLG SURGXFH D GLIIHUHQW SDWWHUQ RI DWWHQWLRQ DQG SUDLVH JLYHQ WR FKLOGUHQ LQ HDFK RI WKH JURXSV 0RUH TXHVWLRQV DQG SUDLVH ZHUH GLUHFWHG WRZDUGV JLIWHG FKLOGUHQ ,Q D UHSOLFDWLRQ 5XERYLWV DQG 0DHKU f IRXQG VLPLODU UHn VXOWV +RZHYHU ZKLWH VWXGHQWV GLG UHFHLYH PRUH DWWHQWLRQ WKDQ EODFN LQ WKDW VWXG\ 5RWKEDUW 'DOIHQ DQG %DUUHWW f KDG GRQH D VLPLODU VWXG\ ZLWK VLPLODU UHVXOWV $OWKRXJK WKHVH VWXGLHV VHHP WR LQGLFDWH GLIIHUHQWLDO WUHDWPHQW EDVHG RQ DVFULEHG FKDUDFWHULVWLFV LW PXVW EH QRWHG WKDW H[FHSW IRU %HH] f QR GLIIHUHQFH LQ OHDUQLQJ FRXOG EH GLVWLQJXLVKHG ZKHQn HYHU OHDUQLQJ ZDV DVVHVVHG 'XVHN f VXJJHVWHG WKDW ILQGLQJV RI WKLV VRUW PLJKW UHSUHVHQW PHUHO\ DQ DWWHPSW E\ WKH WXWRUV WR SURYLGH RSWLPDO OHDUQLQJ DWPRVSKHUHV IRU FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLIIHULQJ WHDFKLQJ QHHGV ,Q&ODVV 6LWXDWLRQV $FDGHPLF EORRPLQJ 5RVHQWKDO DQG -DFREVRQ f UDQGRPO\ FKRVH DSSUR[LPDWHO\ SHUFHQW RI WKH FKLOGUHQ LQ HLJKWHHQ HOHPHQWDU\ FODVVURRPV WR EH ODEHOHG DV SRWHQWLDO DFDGHPLF EORRPHUV $OO VWXGHQWV ZHUH JLYHQ DQ ,4 WHVW GLVJXLVHG DV D WHVW WR SUHGLFW DFDGHPLF EORRPLQJ 7HDFKHUV ZHUH JLYHQ WKH QDPHV RI WKRVH UDQGRPO\ FKRVHQ DV DFDGHPLF

PAGE 29

EORRPHUV $FURVV DOO FODVVURRPV WKH \HDUHQG ,4 UHWHVW VKRZHG DQ DSSUR[LPDWH IRXU ,4 SRLQW DGYDQWDJH IRU WKH H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS ,Q ILUVW DQG VHFRQG JUDGHV WKH H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS JDLQHG E\ DV PXFK DV ILIWHHQ SRLQWV RYHU WKH FRQWURO JURXS 5RVHQWKDO DQG -DFREVRQ FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS VKRZHG KLJKHU JDLQV EHFDXVH RI KLJKHU H[SHFWDQFLHV E\ WHDFKHUV +RZHYHU VHYHUH PHWKRGRORJLFDO FULWLFLVP SDUWLFXODUO\ E\ 7KRUQn GLNH f DQG -HQVHQ f DQG WKH TXHVWLRQ RI UHJUHVVLRQ E\ &ODLERUQ f KDYH KDXQWHG WKLV VWXG\ &ODLERUQ f DWWHPSWHG WR UHSOLFDWH WKH 5RVHQWKDO DQG -DFREVRQ VWXG\ EXW FRXOG QRW SURGXFH DQ\ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ ,4 JDLQV $QGHUVRQ DQG 5RVHQWKDO f LQYHVWLJDWHG WHDFKHU ELDV ZLWK UHWDUGHG ER\V DW D GD\FDPS 7KH RQO\ VLJQLILFDQW FKDQJH ZDV D GHFUHDVH LQ ,4 E\ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS &RQQ (GZDUGV 5RVHQWKDO DQG &URZQH f DWWHPSWHG WR UHSOLFDWH 5RVHQWKDO DQG -DFREVRQ f DQG IRXQG QR VLJQLILFDQW FKDQJHV 5RVHQWKDO %DUDW] DQG +DOO f DWWHPSWHG D UHSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH RULJLQDO VWXG\ XVLQJ JUDGHV RQH WKURXJK VL[ RI DQ DOO EODFN VFKRRO 2QO\ LQ WKH ILIWK JUDGH GLG WKH H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS VFRUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ WKH FRQWURO JURXS $OWKRXJK WHDFKHU ELDV HIIHFWV ZHUH FODLPHG QR H[SODQDWLRQ ZDV RIIHUHG DV WR ZK\ RQO\ WKH ILIWK JUDGH VKRZHG WKH HIIHFW -RVH DQG &RG\ f DOVR DWWHPSWHG D UHSOLFDWLRQ RI 5RVHQWKDO DQG -DFREVRQ f EXW FRXOG SURGXFH QR VLJQLILFDQW UHVXOWV 'XVHN DQG 2n&RQQHOO f DQG 2n&RQQHOO 'XVHN DQG :KHHOHU f UHSHDWHG DWWHPSWV WR PDQLSXODWH WHDFKHU H[SHFWDQFLHV LQ UHJDUG WR VXEMHFW PDWWHUV 7KH\ DOVR DWWHPSWHG PHDVXULQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHn WZHHQ WHDFKHUVn RZQ H[SHFWDQFLHV UHJDUGLQJ WKH VWXGHQWVn SHUIRUPDQFH

PAGE 30

DQG DFWXDO VWXGHQW DFKLHYHPHQW 7KH PDQLSXODWLRQ VHFWLRQ RI WKH VWXG\ FRXOG SURGXFH QR VLJQLILFDQW FKDQJHV KRZHYHU WHDFKHU UDQNLQJ ZDV VWURQJO\ UHODWHG WR DFWXDO SHUIRUPDQFH 7KH\ FRQFOXGHG WKDW WHDFKHUV GLG QRW ELDV VWXGHQW SHUIRUPDQFH EXW ZHUH JRRG SUHGLFWRUV RI VWXGHQW DFDGHPLF SRWHQWLDO 7HDFKHU ELDV VWXGLHV XVLQJ WKH LGHD RI DFDGHPLF EORRPLQJ KDYH JHQHUDOO\ IDLOHG WR UHSOLFDWH DQGRU VXEVWDQWLDWH WKH RULJLQDO ILQGLQJV RI 5RVHQWKDO DQG -DFREVRQ f )DOVLILFDWLRQ RI WHVW VFRUHV ,4 RU WUDFN DVVLJQPHQW )ORZHUVn f VWXG\ SUHVHQWHG HDUOLHU VHHPHG WR LQGLFDWH WKDW VKLIWLQJ RI WKH H[SHULPHQWDO JURXSV WR KLJKHU WKDQ ZDUUDQWHG WUDFNV GLG DIIHFW WHDFKHUVn H[SHFWDWLRQV ,4 WHVW SHUIRUPDQFH ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW DQG DFKLHYHPHQW WHVW VFRUHV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU IRU WKH H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS LQ RQO\ RQH RI WKH WZR VFKRROV 6FKUDQNnV VWXGLHV f GLG VKRZ VLJQLILFDQW JUDGH GLIIHUHQFHV ZKHQ WUDFNLQJ DVVLJQPHQWV ZHUH PDQLSXODWHG $V WKLV VWXG\ XVHG DGXOW VWXGHQWV DQG LQVWUXFWRUV RQH SRVVLEOH H[SODQDWLRQ PLJKW EH WKDW WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV DQG H[SHFWDQFLHV DUH PRUH DIIHFWHG DQG SRVVLEO\ ELDVHG ZKHQ WUDFN DVVLJQPHQWV DSSHDU WR EH EDVHG RQ VXEVWDQWLDO KLVWRULFDO GDWD )OHPLQJ DQG $QWWRQHQ f DWWHPSWHG YDULRXV PDQLSXODWLRQV RI ,4 VFRUHV RI VHFRQG JUDGHUV LQFOXGLQJ QRW SURYLGLQJ WKHP 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG QR WHDFKHU ELDV HIIHFWV RQ 6WDQIRUG $FKLHYHPHQW 7HVW SHUIRUPDQFH VHOIFRQFHSW RU VFKRRO JUDGHV :KLOH WKLV VHFWLRQ GRHV QRW HVWDEOLVK WHDFKHU ELDV HIIHFWV LW GRHV VHHP WR LQGLFDWH WKDW PDQLSXODWLRQ RI FHUWDLQ YDULDEOHV SDUWLFXODUO\ WUDFN DVVLJQPHQW PD\ UHVXOW LQ WHDFKHU ELDV HIIHFWV IRU WHDFKHUUDWHG SHUIRUPDQFH PHDVXUHV

PAGE 31

&RQFOXVLRQ 7KH IDFW WKDW WHDFKHUV KROG GLIIHUHQWLDO H[SHFWDWLRQV EDVHG RQ YDULRXV IDFWRUV VHHPV ZHOO HVWDEOLVKHG :KHWKHU WHDFKHUV LQ WXUQ ELDV WKH OHDUQLQJ RI VWXGHQWV LV QRW NQRZQ 'XVHN VWDWHV LW ZHO 7R WKH H[WHQW WKDW WHDFKHUVn VHOIJHQHUDWHG H[SHFWDQFLHV DUH EDVHG RQ VRXQG REMHFWLYH GDWD UHJDUGLQJ VWXGHQWVn DELOLWLHV WKHQ WKH WHDFKHU LV QRW ELDVLQJ VWXGHQWVn HGXn FDWLRQ 5DWKHU WKH WHDFKHUVn GLIIHUHQWLDO EHKDYLRU WRZDUG WKH VWXGHQWV LQ WKH FODVVURRP PD\ UHIOHFW HIIHFWLYH WHDFKLQJ VW\OH GLIIHUHQFHV IRU VWXGHQWV ZLWK GLIIHULQJ QHHGV +RZHYHU LI WKHVH H[SHFWDQFLHV DUH EDVHG RQ LPSUHVVLRQV RU LQIRUPDWLRQ LUUHOHYDQW WR DFDGHPLF VXFFHVV DV LV VXJJHVWHG E\ WKH ZRUN RI 5LVW f WKHQ WKH WHDFKHUVn H[SHFWDQFLHV PD\ FDXVH VRPH VWXGHQWV WR EH WUHDWHG LQ D PDQQHU WKDW PD\ ELDV WKHLU LQWHUHVW LQ VFKRRO DQG UHODWHG DFWLYLWLHV DQG PD\ FRQWULEXWH WR WKHLU GRLQJ SRRUO\ LQ WHUPV RI DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW $W WKH SUHVHQW IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK DLPHG DW GHWHUPLQLQJ WKH EDVHV XSRQ ZKLFK WHDFKHUV IRUP WKHLU H[SHFWDQFLHV IRU VWXGHQWVn SHUIRUPDQFH DQG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI WKHVH EDVHV WR VWXGHQWVn DFKLHYHPHQW LQ WKH DFDGHPLF VLWXDWLRQ DUH QHHGHG 'XVHN S f 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ LV DQ DWWHPSW WR H[DPLQH SRVVLEOH EDVHV IRU H[SHFWDWLRQV RU SHUFHSWLRQV KHOG E\ SURIHVVRUV RI FROOHJH VWXGHQWV LQYROYHG ZLWK D FRPSHQVDWRU\ HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDP DW &HQWUDO )ORULGD &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH LQ 2FDOD )ORULGD 7KLV FKDSWHU KDV FRQWDLQHG UHSUHVHQWDWLYH VDPSOHV RI WKH NLQGV RI ZRUN WKDW KDYH EHHQ DWWHPSWHG LQ WKLV ILHOG RI VWXG\ $ PRUH H[KDXVWLYH OLVWLQJ RI VRXUFHV LV LQFOXGHG LQ WKH VHFRQG SDUW RI WKH ELEOLRJUDSK\ HQWLWOHG $GGLWLRQDO 6RXUFHV LQ WKH $UHDV RI 7HDFKHUVn 3HUFHSWLRQV DQG ([SHFWDWLRQV

PAGE 32

&+$37(5 ,,, +<327+(6(6 ,W LV GRXEWIXO WKDW DQ\ HGXFDWRU ZRXOG NQRZLQJO\ HVWDEOLVK D SURJUDP SURFHGXUH RU SUDFWLFH WKDW ZRXOG OHDG LQVWUXFWRUV WR ORZHU WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQV RI D VWXGHQWn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nV LQYROYHPHQW LQ WKH SURJUDP DW &HQWUDO )ORULGD &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH PD\ DIIHFW WKH H[SHFWDQF\ RI WKHLU VXEVHTXHQW SURIHVVRUV EHFRPHV HYHQ VWURQJHU ZKHQ FRXSOHG ZLWK WKH WXUPRLO DQG FRQWURYHUV\ ZKLFK KDYH VXUURXQGHG WKH %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV 3URJUDP ,W PLJKW DSSHDU WKDW RQO\ QHJDWLYH H[SHFWDWLRQV FRXOG GHYHORS ,W LV SRVVLEOH KRZHYHU WKDW SRVLWLYH SHUFHSWLRQV FRXOG GHYHORS DV ZHOO 7KH JUDGXDWLRQ DQG UHWHQWLRQ UDWH IRU WKH KLJKULVN VWXGHQWV

PAGE 33

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n VLV RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WKH SURJUDP ODEHO %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV 7KH YDULDEOHV RI UDFH DQG VH[ ZHUH H[DPLQHG DOVR 5DFH DQG VH[ DUH ERWK GLVSXWHG IDFWRUV FRQFHUQLQJ H[SHFWDQF\ DQG FDQQRW EH RYHUORRNHG DV SRVVLEOH VRXUFHV RI YDULDQFH LQ H[SHFWDWLRQV 7KLV LV WUXH QRW RQO\ DV LQGLYLGXDO IDFWRUV EXW SDUWLFXODUO\ LQ YDULRXV FRPELQDWLRQV ,Q RUGHU WR EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQG WKH SUREOHP WKH IROORZLQJ K\SRWKn HVHV ZLOO EH WHVWHG 7KHUH ZLOO EH QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH PHDQ VFRUHV RQ PRGLILHG )ORULGD .H\ $ 6FDOH WR ,QIHU /HDUQHU 6HOI&RQFHSW IRUPV FRPSOHWHG E\ LQVWUXFWRUV ZKR KDYH DQG WKRVH ZKR GR QRW KDYH H[SOLFLW NQRZOHGJH RI D VWXGHQWnV EHLQJ ODEHOHG DV D %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV VWXGHQW 7KHUH ZLOO EH QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ PHDQ VFRUHV RQ PRGLILHG )ORULGD .H\V IRU EODFN DQG ZKLWH VWXGHQWV 7KHUH ZLOO EH QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ PHDQ VFRUHV RQ PRGLILHG )ORULGD .H\V IRU PDOH DQG IHPDOH VWXGHQWV

PAGE 34

7KHUH ZLOO EH QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ PHDQ VFRUHV RQ PRGLILHG )ORULGD .H\V IRU DQ\ JURXS FRPELQDWLRQ RI %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV ODEHO UDFH DQGRU VH[

PAGE 35

&+$37(5 ,9 7+( '(6,*1 ,QWURGXFWLRQ 7KH GHVLJQ WKDW ZDV XVHG LV GHVFULEHG LQ &DPSEHOO DQG 6WDQOH\nV ([SHULPHQWDO DQG 4XDVL([SHULPHQWDO 'HVLJQ IRU 5HVHDUFK f DV WKH 3RVWWHVW 2QO\ &RQWURO *URXS 'HVLJQ &DPSEHOO DQG 6WDQOH\ S f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f ,Q WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ WKH JURXSV HDFK FRQVLVWHG RI VL[WHHQ IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV DW &HQWUDO )ORULGD &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 2FDOD )ORULGD 7KH ; RU WUHDWn PHQW ZDV WKH LQIRUPLQJ RI DQ LQVWUXFWRU WKDW D SDUWLFXODU VWXGHQW ZDV LQ IDFW D %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV VWXGHQW 7KH RU REVHUYDWLRQ ZDV D PRGLILHG YHUVLRQ RI 7KH )ORULGD .H\ $ 6FDOH WR ,QIHU /HDUQHU 6HOI&RQFHSW FRPSOHWHG E\ WKH LQVWUXFWRU

PAGE 36

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n FOXGHG LQ WKH SRRO RI DYDLODEOH VXEMHFWV ,I D SDUWLFXODU LQVWUXFWRU ZDV VHOHFWHG WKHQ RQH VWXGHQW IURP HDFK VWXGHQW FDWHJRU\ ZDV UDQGRPO\ VHOHFWHG WR KDYH WKH )ORULGD .H\ FRPSOHWHG RQ KLP RU KHU 7KHUH ZHUH DOZD\V HTXDO QXPEHUV RI VWXGHQW VXEMHFWV VHOHFWHG LQ HDFK RI WKH FDWHJRULHV DQG DOO LQVWUXFWRUV VHOHFWHG ZHUH DVNHG WR FRPSOHWH HTXDO QXPEHUV RI )ORULGD .H\ IRUPV

PAGE 37

9DULDEOH &RQWUROV 7KH YDULDEOHV RI UDFH DQG VH[ ZHUH QDWXUDOLVWLFDOO\ GHILQHG DQG DQ\ LQWHUDFWLRQV ZHUH H[DPLQHG DQG FRQWUROOHG VWDWLVWLFDOO\ .QRZOHGJH RI ZKHWKHU D VWXGHQW ZDV D %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV VWXGHQW ZDV PRUH GLIILFXOW WR FRQWURO 7KH H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS WKRVH ZKR KDG H[SOLFLW NQRZOHGJHf ZDV QRW D SUREOHP 7KH\ ZHUH H[SOLFLWO\ LQIRUPHG RI WKH VWXGHQWnV ODEHO RQ WKH )ORULGD .H\ IRUP 7KH FRQWURO JURXS RQ WKH RWKHU KDQG ZDV DVVXPHG QRW WR KDYH NQRZn OHGJH RI WKH VWXGHQWnV ODEHO DV %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV 7R FRQWURO WKDW DVVXPSWLRQ WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQ DSSHDUHG RQ WKH FRQWURO JURXS IRUP RI WKH )ORULGD .H\ 7R \RXU LPPHGLDWH NQRZOHGJH KDV WKLV VWXGHQW HYHU WDNHQ D %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV FRXUVH"
PAGE 38

EHLQJ GRQH DV D GRFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ EXW IURP ZKDW DUHD RI FDPSXV DQG ZKR WKH DXWKRU ZDV UHPDLQHG DW OHDVW WHPSRUDULO\ XQNQRZQ 7KH VSHFLILF SXUSRVH RI WKH VWXG\ ZDV QRW VWDWHG $ JHQHUDO VWDWHPHQW WR WKH HIIHFW WKDW LQIHUUHG VHOIFRQFHSW RI VWXGHQWV ZDV EHLQJ VWXGLHG ZDV LQFOXGHG $Q\RQH ZKR FRQVLGHUHG GHOLEHUDWHO\ ELDVLQJ WKHLU UHVSRQVH RQH ZD\ RU WKH RWKHU VKRXOG QRW KDYH NQRZQ ZKLFK ZD\ WR JR ,W LV UHFRJQL]HG WKDW KDYLQJ WKH $FDGHPLF 'HDQnV RIILFH GLVn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

PAGE 39

([WHUQDO 9DOLGLW\ $FFRUGLQJ WR &DPSEHOO DQG 6WDQOH\ WKUHDWV WR H[WHUQDO YDOLGLW\ DUH DW EHVW FRQWUROOHG E\ WKH GHVLJQ DQG DW ZRUVW DUH RQO\ SRVVLEOH VRXUFHV RI FRQFHUQ ,QWHUDFWLRQ RI WHVWLQJ DQG WUHDWPHQW LV FRQWUROOHG PDLQO\ E\ WKH ODFN RI D SUHWHVW ,QWHUDFWLRQ RI VHOHFWLRQ DQG WUHDWn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n SRVHV XQLTXH $Q\ JHQHUDOL]DWLRQV WR RWKHU VLWXDWLRQV ZRXOG EH YHU\ URXJK DSSUR[LPDWLRQV $Q\ ILQGLQJV IURP WKLV VWXG\ VKRXOG EH YLHZHG PHUHO\ DV JXLGHV WR UHVHDUFK DW RWKHU LQVWLWXWLRQV DQG SHUKDSV DV D \DUGVWLFN E\ ZKLFK WR FRPSDUH UHVXOWV IURP WKDW UHVHDUFK b

PAGE 40

&+$37(5 9 I ,167580(17$7,21 7KH )ORULGD .H\ $ 6FDOH WR ,QIHU /HDUQHU 6HOI&RQFHSW 7KH LQVWUXPHQW XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ WR PHDVXUH WHDFKHU SHUFHSWLRQV ZDV D PRGLILHG YHUVLRQ RI 7KH )ORULGD .H\ $ 6FDOH WR ,QIHU /HDUQHU 6HOI&RQFHSW ,W LV KHUHLQ UHIHUUHG WR DV WKH )ORULGD .H\ 7KH )ORULGD .H\ EHJDQ RULJLQDOO\ DV WKH &RPEV DQG 6RSHU 6FDOH IRU ,QIHUULQJ 6HOI&RQFHSW &RPEV 6RSHU DQG &RXUVRQ f 7KDW LQVWUXPHQW ZDV GHYHORSHG RXW RI &RPEVn UHFRJQLWLRQ WKDW VHOIUHSRUWV RI VHOIFRQFHSW ZHUH RQO\ ZKDW WKH VXEMHFW ZDV ZLOOLQJ DQG DEOH WR GLVFORVH WR VRPHRQH HOVH DQG QRW QHFHVVDULO\ ZKDW WKH LQGLYLGXDO WUXO\ EHOLHYHG DERXW KLPVHOI &RPEV EHOLHYHG WKDW LQIHUHQFHV E\ WUDLQHG SURIHVVLRQDOV EDVHG RQ REVHUYDWLRQ ZRXOG EH PRUH DFFXUDWH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV RI VHOIFRQFHSW 3XUNH\ SXEOLVKHG D PRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH &RPEV DQG 6RSHU 6FDOH IRU ,QIHUULQJ 6HOI&RQFHSW LQ 3XUNH\ f 3XUNH\ &DJH DQG *UDYHV SXELVKHG 7KH )ORULGD .H\ $ 6FDOH WR ,QIHU /HDUQHU 6HOI&RQFHSW LQ 3XUNH\ &DJH DQG *UDYHV f 9DOLGLW\ DQG 5HOLDELOLW\ &RQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ ZDV HVWDEOLVKHG VWDWLVWLFDOO\ &RQFXUUHQW YDOLGLW\ ZLWK D VHOIUHSRUW W\SH VHOIFRQFHSW VFDOH FRXOG QRW EH DFKLHYHG 3XUNH\ &DJH DQG *UDYHV f 7KH ODFN RI FRQFXUUHQW YDOLGLW\ ZDV QRW FRQVLGHUHG GHWULPHQWDO WR WKH XVH RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW

PAGE 41

5HOLDELOLW\ ZDV HVWDEOLVKHG ERWK WKURXJK DQ DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH SURFHGXUH IRU VHYHUDO UHVSRQGHQWV LQ D VWXG\ DQG E\ GHWHUPLQLQJ FRn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n WLRQ RI DQ LQVWUXFWRUn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

PAGE 42

0RGLILFDWLRQ 7KH RULJLQDO )ORULGD .H\ ZDV GHLVJQHG IRU HOHPHQWDU\ DQG VHFRQGDU\ VFKRROV DQG VRPH RI WKH ZRUGV DQG SKUDVHV ZHUH LQDSSURSULDWH IRU WKH FROOHJH OHYHO $ FODVVURRP XVH RI WKH VFDOH ZLWK FRPPHQWV IURP LQn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n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

PAGE 43

WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH LQVWUXFWRU DQG WKHUHIRUH WKH KLJKHU RU PRUH SRVLWLYH LV WKH VHOIFRQFHSW RI WKH VWXGHQW DV OHDUQHUf LQIHUUHG WR EH 7KH ORZHU WKH UDZ RU PHDQ VFRUHV DUH WKHQ WKH ORZHU RU OHVV SRVLWLYH DUH WKH LQVWUXFWRUnV SHUFHSWLRQV DQG WKH LQIHUUHG VHOIFRQFHSW $ PHDQ RI WKH PHDQV RI DOO )ORULGD .H\V FRPSOHWHG E\ DQ LQVWUXFWRU ZLOO EH FDOFXODWHG DQG XVHG WR DVVLJQ D QXPHULFDO YDOXH WR WKH SHUn FHSWLRQV RI WKH LQVWUXFWRUV 0HDQ VFRUHV ZLOO EH XVHG ZKHQ VWXGHQWV DUH WKH XQLW RI DQDO\VLV 7KH RULJLQDO IRUP WKH FRQWURO IRUP DQG WKH H[SHULPHQWDO IRUP DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ $SSHQGL[ $

PAGE 44

&+$37(5 9, '$7$ &2//(&7,21 3URFHGXUH 7KH $FDGHPLF 'HDQnV RIILFH ZDV UHTXHVWHG DQG VXEVHTXHQWO\ DJUHHG WR DGPLQLVWHU WKH FRO OHFWLRQ RIWKH GDWD LQ DQ DWWHPSW WR LQFUHDVH WKH UHVSRQVH UDWH DQG UHGXFH DQ\ SRVVLEOH UHDFWLRQ WR WKH DXWKRUnV SRVLWLRQ DW &HQWUDO )ORULGD &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH (DFK LQVWUXFWRU LQFOXGHG LQ WKH VWXG\ UHFHLYHG D SDFNDJH RI PDWHULDOV WKURXJK FDPSXV PDLO 7KH SDFNDJH FRQWDLQHG WKH IROORZLQJ LWHPV f $ OHWWHU IURP WKH 'HDQ H[SODLQLQJ WKH VWXG\ SURYLGLQJ GLUHFWLRQV IRU FRPSOHWLQJ WKH IRUPV DQG GHWDLOLQJ WKH H[SHFWHG WLPH RI UHWXUQ f 2QH PRGLILHG )ORULGD .H\ IRUP IRU HDFK VWXGHQW VXEMHFW WR EH HYDOXDWHG E\ WKH LQVWUXFWRU $ FRS\ RI WKH OHWWHU IURP WKH 'HDQ LV LQ $SSHQGL[ $ 7KH SDFNDJHV ZHUH GLVWULEXWHG WKURXJK FDPSXV PDLO DQG ZHUH WLPHG WR DUULYH LQ LQVWUXFWRUVn PDLOER[HV RQ D 0RQGD\ PRUQLQJ 7KH LQVWUXFn WRUV ZHUH UHTXHVWHG WR UHWXUQ WKHP WR WKH 'HDQnV RIILFH E\ )ULGD\ EHn FDXVH RI WKH PLQLPDO WLPH QHHGHG WR FRPSOHWH WKH IRUPV 7KRVH LQVWUXFn WRUV ZKR GLG QRW UHVSRQG E\ 7KXUVGD\ UHFHLYHG D UHPLQGHU OHWWHU $ FRS\ RI WKDW OHWWHU LV LQ $SSHQGL[ $ 7KH LQVWUXFWRUnV QDPH GLG QRW DSSHDU RQ WKH )ORULGD .H\ IRUP DW DOO QRU ZDV DQ\ VSHFLDO FRGLQJ UHTXLUHG 7KHUH ZDV YHU\ OLWWOH

PAGE 45

RYHUODS RI VWXGHQWV DPRQJ LQVWUXFWRUV EHFDXVH RI D UHODWLYHO\ ODUJH SRSXODWLRQ RI VWXGHQWV IURP ZKLFK WR VDPSOH ,W ZDV D VLPSOH PDWWHU RI PDWFKLQJ WKH VWXGHQWnV QDPH RQ WKH FRPSOHWHG IRUP ZLWK D PDVWHU OLVW RI LQVWUXFWRUV DQG VWXGHQWV SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ WKH VWXG\ ,Q WKH HYHQW WKDW WKH VDPH VWXGHQW ZDV VHOHFWHG WR EH HYDOXDWHG E\ WZR LQVWUXFWRUV D VPDOO EOXH GRW DSSHDUHG RQ WKH EDFN RI WKH )ORULGD .H\ IRUP LQ WKH ORZHU OHIW KDQG FRUQHU $ FRUUHVSRQGLQJ GRW DSSHDUHG QH[W WR WKH LQVWUXFWRUnV QDPH RQ WKH PDVWHU OLVW 7KDW FRGLQJ ZDV QRW QHFHVVDU\ LI RQH LQVWUXFWRU ZDV LQ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS DQG RQH ZDV LQ WKH FRQWURO JURXS 7KH GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH PRGLILHG )ORULGD .H\ IRUPV ZDV XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH ZLWK ZKLFK LQVWUXFWRU WKDW VWXGHQW EHORQJHG 7KLV ODFN RI QDPH RU FRGH VKRXOG KDYH KHOSHG WR FUHDWH D IHHOLQJ RI DQRQ\PLW\ ZKLFK VKRXOG KDYH LQFUHDVHG KRQHVW\ DQG ZLOOLQJQHVV WR Y SDUWLFLSDWH ,W VKRXOG KDYH IXUWKHU VHUYHG WR GLUHFW WKH LQVWUXFWRUnV IRFXV WRZDUG WKH VWXGHQW UDWKHU WKDQ RQ KLP RU KHUVHOI DV KH RU VKH FRPSOHWHG WKH IRUP ,I WKH IRUPV ZHUH QRW UHFHLYHG E\ 0RQGD\ PRUQLQJ IROORZLQJ WKH )ULGD\ GHDGOLQH WKH 6SHFLODLVW LQ WKH $FDGHPLF 'HDQnV RIILFH FRQn WDFWHG E\ WHOHSKRQH LQVWUXFWRUV ZLWK RXWVWDQGLQJ IRUPV DQG UHTXHVWHG WKDW WKH\ UHWXUQ WKHP DV TXLFNO\ DV SRVVLEOH $OO IRUPV ZHUH UHWXUQHG WR WKH $FDGHPLF 'HDQnV RIILFH E\ WKH PLGGOH RI WKH VHFRQG ZHHN RI WKH VWXG\ 7KH\ ZHUH WKHQ WXUQHG RYHU WR WKH DXWKRU IRU DQDO\VLV

PAGE 46

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} I WRWDO QR RI LQVWUXFWRUV ZKR KDG NQRZOHGJH WRWDO QR RI VWXGHQWV NQRZQ 7KH VFRUHV IRU WKH VWXGHQWV NQRZQ WR EH %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV VWXGHQWV ZHUH GHOHWHG IURP WKH GDWD ,Q DGGLWLRQ VL[WHHQ RI WKH WKLUW\WZR LQVWUXFWRUV IDLOHG WR FRPSOHWH RQH RU PRUH RI WKH )ORULGD .H\ IRUPV $ EUHDNGRZQ E\ JURXS VWDWXV DQG QXPEHU FRPSOHWHG LV IRXQG LQ 7DEOH

PAGE 47

7DEOH &RPSOHWLRQ 5DWH RI )ORULGD .H\ )RUPV IRU WKH &RQWURO DQG ([SHULPHQWDO *URXS ,QVWUXFWRUV &RQWURO ([SHULPHQWDO QR FRPSOHWLQJ RI LL LL RI + NL RI LL + RI LL ,W RI 7KH PRVW FRPPRQO\ UHSRUWHG UHDVRQ IRU QRW FRPSOHWLQJ WKH IRUPV ZDV WKDW WKH VWXGHQW KDG HLWKHU GURSSHG HDUOLHU RU KDG QRW DWWHQGHG HQRXJK IRU WKH LQVWUXFWRU WR KDYH VXIILFLHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ XSRQ ZKLFK WR EDVH UHVSRQVHV 7KLV RFFXUUHG GHVSLWH WKH VWXGHQW VDPSOLQJ SRSXn ODWLRQ EHLQJ GUDZQ IURP WKH &HQWUDO )ORULGD FRPSXWHU XVLQJ DQ LQGLFDWRU RI FXUUHQWO\ HQUROOHG LQ WKRVH FRXUVHV *URXS &RPSRVLWLRQ 7DEOH LQGLFDWHV WKH QXPEHU RI VWXGHQWVn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

PAGE 48

7DEOH 5DFLDO DQG 6H[XDO &RPSRVLWLRQ RI &RQWURO DQG ([SHULPHQWDO *URXSV E\ ,QVWUXFWRUV &RQWURO ([SHULPHQWDO ZKLWH PDOH ZKLWH IHPDOH EODFN PDOH EODFN IHPDOH WRWDO ZKLWH WRWDO EODFN WRWDO PDOH WRWDO IHPDOH WRWDO 1 6FRUHV 7KH VFRUHV UHSRUWHG E\ LQVWUXFWRUV LQ ERWK JURXSV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH 7KH PHDQ VFRUH IRU HDFK VWXGHQW DV ZHOO DV D PHDQ RI WKRVH PHDQV IRU HDFK LQVWUXFWRU LV LQFOXGHG 7DEOH SUHVHQWV WKH VWXGHQWVn PHDQ VFRUHV GLYLGHG E\ UDFH VH[ DQG JURXS PHPEHUVKLS ,W DOVR LQFOXGHV 1 PHDQ VXP RI ; VXP RI ; VTXDUHG VXP RI VTXDUHVDQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ IRU HDFK JURXS 7DEOH FRPSDUHV LQVWUXFWRUV PHDQV IRU WKH FRQWURO DQG H[SHULn PHQWDO JURXSV ,W DOVR FRQWDLQV WRWDO JURXS PHDQ VXP RI ; VXP RI ; VTXDUHG VXP RI VTXDUHV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ IRU HDFK JURXS 7KUHH :D\ $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH 2ULJLQDOO\D WKUHH ZD\ DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH XVLQJ LQVWUXFWRUVn PHDQV KDG EHHQ SODQQHG ,QVWUXFWRUV ZHUH WR KDYH EHHQ UDQGRPO\ DVVLJQHG WR RQO\ RQH FHOO ZLWKLQ D WKUHH ZD\ SDUDGLJP RI SURJUDP ODEHO UDFH DQG VH[ 7KDW GHVLJQ ZRXOG KDYH PDGH HDFK FHOO GLVWLQFW DQG ZRXOG KDYH HTXDOL]HG WKH LQIOXHQFH RI HDFK LQVWUXFWRU +RZHYHU VLQFH RYHU KDOI RI WKH LQVWUXFWRUV IDLOHG WR FRPSOHWH RQH RU PRUH IRUPV LW ZDV LPSRVVLEOH WR UDQGRPO\ DVVLJQ WKHP WR WKH YDULRXV FHOOV

PAGE 49

$V DQ DOWHUQDWLYH D WKUHHZD\ DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH ZDV FRPSOHWHG XVLQJ DOO VWXGHQWVn PHDQ VFRUHV ,W ZDV H[HFXWHG XVLQJ WKH 6WDWLVWLFDO 3DFNDJH IRU WKH 6RFLDO 6FLHQFHV 1LH HW DO f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

PAGE 50

7DEOH 6WXGHQW 0HDQ 6FRUHV E\ 5DFH 6H[ DQG ,QVWUXFWRU DQG ,QVWUXFWRUVn 0HDQV LQ WKH &RQWURO DQG ([SHULPHQWDO *URXSV &RQWURO *URXS ,QVWUXFWRU nV 6WXGHQWnV 6WXGHQWnV ,QVWUXFWRU nV 6WXGHQWnV 6WXGHQWnV 5DFH6H[ 5DFH6H[ 0HDQ 6FRUH 5DFH6H[ 5DFH6H[ 0HDQ 6FRUH :) :) &' :0 :) 1& :0 :0 %) &' %) %0 &' %0 ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ :0 :) :0 :) 1& :0 1& :0 %) 1& %) &' %0 %0 ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ :0 :) :) :) :0 :0 %) 1& %) %0 1& %0 ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ :) :) :) :) :0 :0 %) %) 1& %0 %0 1& ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ : ZKLWH 0 PDOH 1& QRW FRPSOHWHG % EODFN ) IHPDOH &' FRPSOHWHG EXW GHOHWHG

PAGE 51

7DEOH FRQWLQXHG &RQWURO *URXS FRQWf ,QVWUXFWRU nV 6WXGHQWnV 6WXGHQWnV ,QVWUXFWRU nV 6WXGHQWnV 6WXGHQWnV 5DFH6H[ 5DFH6H[ 0HDQ 6FRUH 5DFH6H[ 5DFH6H[ 0HDQ 6FRU :0 :) :0 :) :0 :0 %) %) %0 %0 ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ %) :) :0 :) :0 :0 %) %) %0 %0 ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ :0 :) 1& :0 :) :0 :0 %) %) %0 1& %0 ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ %0 :) 1& :0 :) 1& :0 :0 %) %) %0 %0 1& ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ : ZKLWH 0 PDOH 1& QRW FRPSOHWHG % EODFN ) IHPDOH &' FRPSOHWHG EXW GHOHWHG

PAGE 52

7DEOH FRQWLQXHG ([SHULPHQWDO *URXS ,QVWUXFWRUn V 6WXGHQWnV 6WXGHQWnV ,QVWUXFWRUn V 6WXGHQWnV 6WXGHQWnV 5DFH6H[ 5DFH6H[ 0HDQ 6FRUH 5DFH6H[ 5DFH6H[ 0HDQ 6FRUH :0 :) 1& :0 :) :0 :0 %) %) %0 %0 ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ :0 :) :0 :) :0 :0 %) %) %0 %0 1& ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ :0 :) 1& :0 :) :0 :0 %) %) %0 1& %0 ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ :0 :) :0 :) 1& :0 :0 %) %) %0 %0 ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ L ,QVWUXFWRUnV 0HDQ : ZKLWH 0 PDOH 1& QRW FRPSOHWHG % EODFN ) IHPDOH &' FRPSOHWHG EXW GHOHWHG

PAGE 53

7DEOH &RQWLQXHG ([SHULPHQWDO *URXS FRQWf ,QVWUXFWRU 5DFH6H[ nV 6WXGHQWnV 5DFH6H[ 6WXGHQWnV 0HDQ 6FRUH ,QVWUXFWRU 5DFH6H[ nV 6WXGHQWnV 5DFH6H[ 6WXGHQWnV 0HDQ 6FRUH :0 :) 1& :) :) :0 :0 1& %) %) %0 %0 ,QVWUXFWRUn V 0HDQ ,QVWUXFWRUn V 0HDQ %0 :) :0 :) :0 :0 %) %) %0 %0 ,QVWUXFWRUn V 0HDQ ,QVWUXFWRUn V 0HDQ :0 :) :0 :) :0 :0 %) %) %0 1& %0 ,QVWUXFWRUn V 0HDQ ,QVWUXFWRUn V 0HDQ :0 :) :0 :) :0 :0 %) %) 1& %0 %0 1& ,QVWUXFWRUn V 0HDQ ,QVWUXFWRUn V 0HDQ : ZKLWH 0 PDOH 1& QRW FRPSOHWHG % EODFN ) IHPDOH &' FRPSOHWHG EXW GHOHWHG

PAGE 54

7DEOH 6WXGHQWVn 0HDQ 6FRUHV DV )DFWRUV RI 5DFH 6H[ DQG *URXS 0HPEHUVKLS ZLWK 1 0HDQ 6XP RI ; 6XP RI ;6 6XP RI 6TXDUHV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ IRU (DFK *URXS

PAGE 55

7DEOH FRQWLQXHG

PAGE 56

7DEOH ,QVWUXFWRUVn 0HDQV IRU &RQWURO DQG ([SHULPHQWDO *URXRV ,QFOXGLQJ *URXS 0HDQV 6XP RI ; 6XP RI ; 6XP RI 6TXDUHV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ &RQWURO ([SHULPHQWDO 1 1 0 0 (; (; OO (; 66 66 6' 6'

PAGE 57

7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI D 7KUHH :D\ $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH %\ 5DFH 6H[ ([SHULPHQWDO &DWHJRU\ 6RXUFH RI 9DULDWLRQ 6XP RI 6TXDUHV ') 0HDQ 6TXDUH ) 6LJQLI RI ) 0DLQ (IIHFWV 5 6 ( :D\ ,QWHUDFWLRQV 5 6 5 ( 6 ( :D\ ,QWHUDFWLRQV 5 6 ( ([SODLQHG 5HVLGXDO 7RWDO FDVHV ZHUH SURFHVVHG

PAGE 58

&+$37(5 9,,, ,17(535(7$7,216 5(&200(1'$7,216 $1' &21&/86,216 ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI 'DWD $QDO\VLV +\SRWKHVLV 2QH 7KH GDWD JDWKHUHG DQG DQDO\]HG LQ WKLV VWXG\ IDLO WR UHMHFW WKH K\SRWKHVLV RI QR GLIIHUHQFH EDVHG RQ NQRZOHGJH RI SURJUDP ODEHO 7KH GLIIHUHQFH GLG DSSURDFK D VLJQLILFDQW OHYHO f XVLQJ WKH WKUHHZD\ DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH 8QH[SHFWHGO\ SHUKDSV WKH WHQGHQF\ LV WRZDUG DQ H[SHFWDWLRQ IRU KLJKHU VHOIFRQFHSWV IRU VWXGHQWV ZKHQ WKH SURIHVVRUV NQRZ WKDW WKH VWXGHQWV DUH RU KDYH EHHQ %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV VWXGHQWV 'HYHORSPHQW RI VHOIFRQFHSW LQ VWXGHQWV DQG SRVLWLYH H[SHFWDn WLRQV RI VWXGHQWV E\ LQVWUXFWRUV DUH JRDOV RI WKH %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV SURJUDP 3RVVLEOH H[SODQDWLRQV RI WKLV SRVLWLYH WUHQG QHHG WR EH FRQVLGHUHG $V PHQWLRQHG HDUOLHU WKH SURJUDPnV UHVHDUFK LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW WKH UHWHQWLRQ DQG JUDGXDWLRQ UDWH IRU KLJK ULVN %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV VWXGHQWV LV HTXLYDOHQW WR WKH UDWH IRU WKH WUDGLn WLRQDO VWXGHQWV KDV EHHQ ZLGHO\ GLVVHPLQDWHG RQ WKH &HQWUDO )ORULGD FDPSXV ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW LQVWUXFWRUV KDYH DVVLPLODWHG DQG LQ WHJUDWHG WKDW LQIRUPDWLRQ LQWR WKHLU HYDOXDWLRQ SURFHVV RI QHZ VWXGHQWV ,W FRXOG LQFUHDVH WKHLU H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU VXFFHVV IRU WKHVH VWXGHQWV DQG FRQVHTXHQWO\ OHDG WKHP WR SURMHFW RU LQIHU KLJKHU VHOIFRQFHSWV IRU WKRVH VWXGHQWV

PAGE 59

,W LV DOVR SRVVLEOH WKDW ZKHQ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS ZDV WROG H[SOLFLWO\ WKDW VWXGHQWV ZHUH %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV VWXGHQWV WKRVH LQVWUXFWRUV PD\ KDYH DVVXPHG WKDW WKH VWXGHQWV KDG DOUHDG\ VXFFHVVIXOO\ FRPSOHWHG D QXPEHU RI FROOHJH FUHGLWV $Q DVn VXPSWLRQ RI SUHYLRXV VXFFHVV FRXOG KDYH FRQFHLYDEO\ OHG WKRVH LQVWUXFWRUV WR UHVSRQG PRUH SRVLWLYHO\ KLJKHU VFRUHVf WR WKH YDULRXV TXHVWLRQV RQ WKH )ORULGD .H\ $QRWKHU H[SODQDWLRQ PD\ KLQJH RQ LQVWUXFWRUVn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n SHUFHSWLRQV WKHQ SHUKDSV D VLPLODU VWXG\ XVLQJ UDQGRP ODEHOLQJ RI ERWK %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV DQG QRQ%DVLF (GXFDWLRQ 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV VWXGHQWV ZRXOG \LHOG PRUH SUHFLVLRQ WR WKH DQDO\VLV RI WKH UROH RI WKH SURJUDP ODEHO LQ GHYHORSLQJ WHDFKHU H[SHFWDQFLHV +\SRWKHVLV 7ZR 7KH GDWD LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH K\SRWKHVLV RI QR GLIIHUHQFH LQ PHDQ VFRUHV IRU EODFN DQG ZKLWH VWXGHQWV PXVW EH UHMHFWHG 7KH

PAGE 60

GLIIHUHQFH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO %ODFNV ZHUH UDWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ORZHU WKDQ ZKLWHV 7KH WKUHHZD\ DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH XVLQJ WKH UHJUHVVLRQ VROXWLRQ \LHOGHG QR LQWHUDFWLRQV EHWZHHQ RU DPRQJ UDFH VH[ DQG SURJUDP ODEHO 6SHFLILF VWXGLHV RI UDFH ZRXOG EH XVHIXO LQ DWWHPSWn LQJ D GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RI WKH JHQHVLV RI WKLV YDULDQFH ,W PD\ EH WKDW WKH YDULDQFH LV WKH SURGXFW RI H[SHFWDWLRQV UHODWHG WR DFDGHPLFDOO\ LUUHOHYDQW VRFLRHFRQRPLF GDWD ,W PD\ EH KRZHYHU WKDW WKH YDULDQFH LV D UHIOHFWLRQ RI SURIHVVRUVn SUHGLFWLRQV EDVHG RQ H[SHULHQFH DV VXJJHVWHG E\ 'XVHN f LQ KLV VWXGLHV $GGLWLRQDO UHVHDUFK PLJKW LQFOXGH DQ H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH UHn ODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SURIHVVRUVn LQIHUUHG VHOIFRQFHSW RI VWXGHQWV DQG VXEVHTXHQW VXFFHVV UDWHV RI WKH VWXGHQWV LQ WKRVH FODVVHV ,W LV QRW FOHDU IURP WKH SUHVHQW GDWD ZKHWKHU DQ\ ELDVLQJ RI HGXFDWLRQ LV RFFXULQJ QRU ZDV WKDW DQ REMHFWLYH RI WKLV UHVHDUFK +\SRWKHVLV 7KUHH 7KH K\SRWKHVLV RI QR GLIIHUHQFH EDVHG RQ VWXGHQWVn VH[ LV DFFHSWHG 7KHUH VHHPHG WR EH OLWWOH RU QR LQGLFDWLRQ RI YDULDQFH EDVHG RQ VH[ 7KLV YDULDEOH DV D SULPDU\ DUHD RI FRQFHUQ FRXOG SUREDEO\ EH GHOHWHG IURP IXWXUH VWXGLHV RI WKH %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV SURJUDP +\SRWKHVLV )RXU 7KH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW WKHUH ZLOO EH QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ PHDQ VFRUHV RQ PRGLILHG )ORULGD .H\V IRU DQ\ JURXS FRPELQDn WLRQ RI SURJUDP ODEHO UDFH DQG VH[ LV DFFHSWHG 7KH WKUHHZD\ DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH XVLQJ WKH UHJUHVVLRQ VROXWLRQ LQGLFDWHG QR WZRZD\ RU WKUHHZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQV DV EHLQJ VLJQLILFDQW 7KLV

PAGE 61

K\SRWKHVLV KRZHYHU VKRXOG EH WHVWHG DJDLQ LQ DQ\ VXEVHTXHQW VWXGLHV RI WKH SURJUDP ,W FRXOG DGG DQ H[WUD PHDVXUH RI XQGHUVWDQGLQJ &RQFOXVLRQ 7KH SULPDU\ SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU NQRZOHGJH RI VWXGHQWV EHLQJ %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV VWXGHQWV ZDV UHODWHG WR LQVWUXFWRUVn SHUFHSWLRQV PHDVXUHG DV LQIHUUHG VHOI FRQFHSW RI WKRVH VWXGHQWV 7R WKDW HQG WKLV VWXG\ KDV EHHQ LQFRQn HO XVLYH :KLOH WKH K\SRWKHVLV RI QR GLIIHUHQFH EDVHG RQ SURJUDP ODEHO ZDV DFFHSWHG LW DSSURDFKHG VLJQLILFDQFH WR WKH H[WHQW WKDW WKH TXHVWLRQ PXVW UHPDLQ RSHQ IRU UHH[DPLQDWLRQ 7KH IDFW WKDW WKH QXPHULFDO WUHQG ZDV IRU KLJKHU H[SHFWDWLRQV ZKHQ WKH ODEHO ZDV NQRZQ ZDV QHLWKHU H[SHFWHG QRU SUHGLFWHG E\ WKRVH LQYROYHG ZLWK WKH UHVHDUFK RU E\ WKH OLWHUDWXUH VXUYH\HG 7KH H[n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

PAGE 62

)LQDOO\ WKLV VWXG\ LQGLFDWHV D QHHG IRU LQGHSWK VWXGLHV RI WKH %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV SURJUDP DW &HQWUDO )ORULGD &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH ,W PXVW EH GHWHUPLQHG ZKHWKHU WKLV LV PHUHO\ DQ LVRODWHG SURJUDP ZKLFK VHHPV WR PDNH D GLIIHUHQFH RU ZKHWKHU WKHUH DUH XQGHUO\LQJ JHQHUDO SULQFLSOHV DQG SURFHGXUHV ZKLFK PLJKW EH GXSOLFDWHG DW RWKHU LQVWLWXWLRQV ,I WKRVH SULQFLSOHV DQG SURn FHGXUHV GR H[LVW DQG FDQ EH GLVFRYHUHG WKHQ PRUH PHDQLQJIXO JDLQV PLJKW EH PDGH LQ WKH DWWHPSW WR SURYLGH UHDO RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU DOO VWXGHQWV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ

PAGE 63

$33(1',; $ )2506 $1' /(77(56

PAGE 64

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nV 6H[ $JH *UDGH 25,*,1$/ )250f

PAGE 65

7+( )/25,'$ .(< $ 6&$/( 72 ,1)(5 /($51(5 6(/)&21&(37 &ROOHJH 0RGLILHGf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
PAGE 66

7+( )/25,'$ .(< $ 6&$/( 72 ,1)(5 /($51(5 6(/)&21&(37 &ROOHJH 0RGLILHGf 6WXGHQW 5DFH %ODFN :KLWH 2WKHU 6H[ 0DOH )HPDOH %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV
PAGE 67

72 6HOHFWHG )DFXOW\ 0HPEHUV )520 5REHUW ) 5LWWHUKRII 'HDQ RI ,QVWUXFWLRQDO 6HUYLFHV
PAGE 68

72 )520 5REHUW 5LWWHUKRII 'HDQ RI ,QVWUXFWLRQDO 6HUYLFHV 5( 4XHVWLRQQDLUHV IRU VWXG\ RQ LQIHUUHG VHOIFRQFHSW 5HFHQWO\ \RX ZHUH VHQW VHYHUDO VKRUW TXHVWLRQQDLUHV DQG ZHUH DVNHG WR FRPSOHWH DQG UHWXUQ WKHP 2XU UHFRUGV LQGLFDWH WKDW ZH KDYH QRW UHFHLYHG \RXUV +RZHYHU LW LV SRVVLEOH WKDW ZH DUH LQ HUURU ,I \RX KDYH DOUHDG\ UHWXUQHG WKHP WKDQN \RX YHU\ PXFK DQG SOHDVH GLVn UHJDUG WKLV UHPLQGHU +RZHYHU LI \RX KDYH QRW \HW FRPSOHWHG WKHP ZRQnW \RX SOHDVH MXVW WDNH D IHZ PLQXWHV WR KHOS RXW
PAGE 69

$33(1',; % 7+( 63(&,$/ 6(59,&(6 352*5$0 $7 &(175$/ )/25,'$ &20081,7< &2//(*( 2&$/$ )/25,'$ 7KLV $SSHQGL[ LV D FRS\ RI D SURJUDP EURFKXUH GHYHORSHG DQG ZULWWHQ E\ &DURO\Q :HVW -RKQ 6LPSVRQ DQG &KDUOHV :LOOLDP -RQHV

PAGE 70

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n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

PAGE 71

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

PAGE 72

& 7R IRVWHU IDFXOW\ VWDII DQG FRPPXQLW\ DFFHSWDQFH DQG UHVSHFW IRU WKH VWXGHQW 7R EXLOG VHOIFRQILGHQFH LQ WKH DFDGHPLF HQYLURQPHQW ( 7R GHYHORS DQ DZDUHQHVV RI HGXFDWLRQDO RU FDUHHU JRDO ) 7R EURDGHQ WKH VWXGHQWn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n LQJ IRU FRPSHWHQFH LQ PDWK VNLOOV 5HDGLQJ *RDO 7R GHYHORS UHDGLQJ VNLOOV QHFHVVDU\ IRU VXFFHVV LQ DFDGHPLF

PAGE 73

RU FDUHHU FRXUVHV 2EMHFWLYH 7R KDYH SHUFHQW RI WKH UHDGLQJ VWXGHQWV LPSURYLQJ WKHLU UHDGLQJ DELOLW\ E\ WZR JUDGH OHYHOV DW WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKH FRXUVH 6WUDWHJLHV 6WXGHQWV OHDUQ YRFDEXODU\ WKURXJK LQVWUXFWLRQ LQ ZRUG DWWDFN VNLOOV GLFWLRQDU\ XVDJH ZRUG SURn QXQFLDWLRQ ZRUG PHDQLQJ XVDJH DQG HW\PRORJ\ 7KH\ OHDUQ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ WKURXJK LQVWUXFWLRQ DQG SUDFWLFH LQ UHFDOOLQJ VSHFLILF IDFWV SLFNLQJ RXW PDLQ LGHDV LQ VHOHFWLRQV DQG E\ PDNLQJ LQIHUHQFHV 7KH\ ZRUN RQ FULWLFDO UHDGLQJ WKURXJK LQVWUXFWLRQ LQ UHFRJQL]LQJ LPSOLFDWLRQV DQG DVVXPSWLRQV DQDOn \]LQJ DUJXPHQWV DQG XQGHUVWDQGLQJ EDVLF ORJLF $ SUH DQG SRVWWHVW LV JLYHQ WR GHWHUPLQH D VWXGHQWn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

PAGE 74

(UURUV LQ VHQWHQFH FRQVWUXFWLRQ DUH FRUUHFWHG E\ UHSHDWHG ZULWLQJ DQG UHZULWH H[HUFLVHV (YDOXDWLRQ RI D VWXGHQWnV SURJUHVV LV GHWHUPLQHG E\ WHDFKHU REVHUYDWLRQ RI LPSURYHPHQW DQG E\ D VWDQGDUGL]HG SUH DQG SRVWWHVW 6RFLDO 6FLHQFHV *RDO 7R GHYHORS WKH DELOLW\ WR LGHQWLI\ DQG ILQG VROXWLRQV WR VRFLDO SUREOHPV LQ WKH $PHULFDQ VRFLHW\ 7R EH DEOH WR OLVW D QXPEHU RI FXOWXUDO DVSHFWV WKDW DIIHFW WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV OLIH 2EMHFWLYH 7R KDYH SHUFHQW RI DOO VWXGHQWV FRPSOHWH WKH FRXUVH E\ WKH HQG RI WKH WHUP 6WUDWHJLHV 7KH FRQWHQW FHQWHUV DURXQG WKH SUHVHQWGD\ $PHULFDQ VRFLHW\ ,QVWLWXWLRQV RI RXU VRFLHW\ DUH H[DPLQHG DQG HYDOXDWHG 3UDJPDWLF VROXWLRQV WR SUREOHPV DUH VRXJKW 0HWKRGRORJ\ LQYROYHV WKH XVH RI VPDOO JURXS LQWHUDFWLRQ SUREOHPVROYLQJ ILOPV SDSHUn EDFN WH[WV KDQGRXWV DQG WKH GLVFXVVLRQ PHWKRG RI WHDFKLQJ 7KH FRXUVH LV EHKDYLRUDOL]HG ZLWK VWXGHQWV EHLQJ DEOH WR ZRUN RQ DQ\ REMHFWLYH WKH\ FKRRVH DW D SDUWLFXODU WLPH (YDOXDWLRQ LV EDVHG RQ VDWLVIDFn WRU\ FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKH REMHFWLYHV RI WKH FRXUVH $ VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVW LV DGPLQLVWHUHG WR PHDVXUH FKDQJHV LQ DWWLWXGH RYHU D VHPHVWHU 3V\FKRORJ\ *RDO 7R IDFLOLWDWH WKH VWXGHQWnV SHUVRQDO DQG VRFLDO DGMXVWPHQW DQG WR LQWURGXFH KLP WR D FKRLFH RI FDUHHUV

PAGE 75

2EMHFWLYH 7R KDYH SHUFHQW RI DOO VWXGHQWV HQUROOHG LQ WKH FRXUVH FRPSOHWH DOO REMHFWLYHV E\ WKH HQG RI WKH WHUP 6WUDWHJLHV 7KLV LV D FRXUVH LQ SHUVRQDO DGMXVWPHQW GHVLJQHG WR KHOS WKH VWXGHQW XQGHUVWDQG KLPVHOI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG VHOIFRQFHSW WHVWV DUH JLYHQ DORQJ ZLWK D QXPEHU RI DWWLWXGH DQG DSWLWXGH LQYHQWRULHV 7KHVH DUH WKHQ LQWHUSUHWHG WR WKH VWXGHQWV KHOSLQJ WKHP EHn FRPH DZDUH RI WKHLU VWUHQJWKV DQG DSWLWXGHV 7HFKn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n VKLS ,Q 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV WKHUH LV QRW D GLVWDQFH IDFWRU EHWZHHQ WKH

PAGE 76

WZR ,QVWUXFWRUV DUH PRUH VWXGHQWFHQWHUHG LQ WKH VHQVH RI PDWFKLQJ WKH QHFHVVLW\ RI VWXGHQWV LQ OHDUQLQJ EDVLF VNLOOV ZLWK WKH QHFHVVLW\ RI OHDUQLQJ DERXW WKHPVHOYHV 7KH\ DOVR FRQVLGHU LW LPSRUWDQW IRU LQVWUXFWRUV DQG VWXGHQWV WR NQRZ DQG DFFHSW HDFK RWKHU LQ WKH VWXGHQW WHDFKHU UHODWLRQVKLS 6R D ORW RI ULWXDO LV GURSSHG 7KH WHDFKHUnV GHVN LV QRW KLV LVODQG RI VDIHW\ LQVWHDG KH LV ZLWK WKH VWXGHQW 7KH EODFNERDUG DQG WKH OHFWXUH DUH QRW KLV PDLQ WRROV RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ WKH ZRUN JURXS DQG WKH JXLGLQJ SURFHVV DUH 7KH WHDFKHU DV PH DQG : WKH VWXGHQW DV WKHP LV JRQH LQVWHDG LW LV XV 6PDOO *URXS 0HWKRG 2QH WHFKQLTXH XVHG LV WKH VPDOO JURXS VWXGHQW PHWKRG 6WXGHQWV DUH GLYLGHG LQWR JURXSV RI RU DV WKH\ HQUROO LQ WKH FODVV ZLWK HDFK JURXS HOHFWLQJ LWV RZQ FRRUGLQDWRU 7KHVH JURXSV WKHQ KHOS FDUU\ RQ WKH ZRUN RI WKH FODVV ZKHWKHU WKDW PLJKW EH REMHFWLYHV WR VHOHFW SURMHFWV WR FRPSOHWH RU GD\ WR GD\ FODVV ZRUN ,Q WKLV ZD\ WKH WHDFKHU FDQ DFW DV D IDFLOLWDWRU WR ILYH JURXSV LQVWHDG RI UHODWLQJ WR RQH JURXS RI VWXGHQWV 7KH VWXGHQWV VHHP WR HVWDEOLVK UHODWLRQVKLSV HDVLHU LQ WKH VPDOO JURXS 7KH\ LGHQWLI\ ZLWK JURXS PHPEHUV PRUH WKDQ ZLWK WKH WRWDO FODVV 7KLV VWUDWHJ\ VHHPV WR KHOS SUHYHQW WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI LVRODWHV DPRQJ WKH VWXGHQWV 3HHU WHDFKLQJ LV D FRPPRQ RFFXUUHQFH LQ WKHVH JURXSV &ULWHULRQ 5HIHUHQFH $OO VWXGHQWV DUH WDXJKW E\ SHUIRUPDQFH REMHFWLYHV DQG FRXUVH ZRUN LV FRPSHWHQF\ EDVHG (DFK VWXGHQW LV JLYHQ D OLVW RI REMHFWLYHV ZKLFK WHOO KLP ZKDW KH PXVW GR KRZ KH LV WR GR LW DQG KRZ WKH REMHFWLYH ZLOO EH HYDOXDWHG +H DOVR NQRZV WKH PLQLPXP OHYHO RI SHUIRUPDQFH QHHGHG IRU DFFHSWDQFH +H LV DOVR JLYHQ DOWHUQDWLYH REMHFWLYHV VR WKDW KH PLJKW KDYH D FKRLFH RQ ZKDW KH GRHV

PAGE 77

([DPV 7KHUH DUH QR ILQDO H[DPV HDFK HYDOXDWLRQ IRU HDFK REMHFWLYH FRPSOHWHV WKDW REMHFWLYH *UDGLQJ 6\VWHP 3RVVLEO\ WKH PRVW REYLRXV GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKLV SURJUDP LV WKH JUDGLQJ V\VWHP 7KH SRVVLEOH JUDGHV JLYHQ DUH $ % & DQG 1 7KH 1 JUDGH LV WUHDWHG OLNH DQ LQFRPSOHWH JUDGH LQ WKDW LW LV QRW DYHUDJHG LQWR WKH VWXGHQWnV JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH 7R FKDQJH DQ 1 JUDGH LQWR D JUDGH RI $ % RU & WKH VWXGHQW UHHQUROOV WKH IROORZLQJ VHPHVWHU DQG EHJLQV ZRUNLQJ ZKHUH KH VWRSSHG +H ZLOO LQ QR FDVH UHSHDW REMHFWLYHV DOUHDG\ GRQH 6WXGHQW ,QYROYHPHQW 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV KDV EHHQ EXLOW DURXQG WKH QHHGV RI VWXGHQWV 7KH\ KDYH EHHQ LQYROYHG LQ WKH EXLOGLQJ DQG FRQWLQXRXV HYDOXDWLRQ RI WKH SURJUDP DQG EHFDXVH RI WKLV KDYH D FRPSOHWHO\ VWXGHQWFHQWHUHG HGXFDn WLRQDO H[SHULHQFH 7XWRULQJ *RDO 7R SURYLGH LQGLYLGXDO DVVLVWDQFH IRU VWXGHQW DFKLHYHPHQW LQ WKH DFDGHPLF DUHDV 2EMHFWLYH 7R SURYLGH DQ\ UHIHUUHG VWXGHQW ZLWK D WXWRU LQ DQ\ RI WKH EDVLF HGXFDWLRQ DFDGHPLF FRXUVHV 6WUDWHJLHV 7XWRUV DUH DVVLJQHG WR EDVLF HGXFDWLRQ FODVVURRPV DQG DUH DOORFDWHG WR LQGLYLGXDO VWXGHQWV E\ ERWK LQVWUXFWRU UHIHUUDO DQG VWXGHQW VHOIUHIHUUDO 6WXGHQWV DUH DOVR DVVLJQHG RXWRIFODVV LQGLYLGn XDOL]HG KHOS DV QHHGHG 6WXGHQWV DUH WXWRUHG ERWK RQ VSHFLILF FODVVURRP

PAGE 78

DVVLJQPHQWV VXFK DV WHVW UHWDNHVf DQG JHQHUDO SUREOHP DUHDV VXFK DV ZULWLQJ GHILFLHQFLHVf 7KH WXWRU FRRUGLQDWRU DQG WKH LQVWUXFWRUV VHOHFW WXWRUV RQ WKH EDVLV RI VXEMHFW DUHD NQRZOHGJH DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ YDULDEOHV FDQ WKH\ EH HIIHFWLYH ZLWK GLVDGYDQWDJHG VWXGHQWVf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n ILOOLQJ VWXGHQW QHHGV 6WUDWHJLHV 7KH SURJUDP XVHV D IXOOWLPH QRQWHDFKLQJ FRXQVHORU ZKRVH VSHFLILF GXWLHV DUH DV IROORZV 7R SURYLGH LQGLYLGXDO FRXQVHOLQJ DQG JURXS JXLGDQFH

PAGE 79

7R PHHW ZLWK WKH FRPPXQLW\ DGYLVRU\ ERDUG 7R DFTXDLQW VWXGHQWV ZLWK ILQDQFLDO DLG DYDLOn DEOH LQ LQLWLDO LQWHUYLHZ WR NHHS IRUPV DQG SDFNHWV RQ KDQG DQG WR DVVLVW VWXGHQWV LQ ILOOn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n DGYDQWDJHG 2EMHFWLYH 7R HQOLVW WKH DLG RI FRPPXQLW\ DJHQFLHV LQ IXOILOOLQJ VWXGHQW QHHGV 6WUDWHJLHV 7KH IRUPDWLRQ DQG UHJXODU PHHWLQJV RI D FRPPXQLW\ DGYLVRU\ JURXS

PAGE 80

0HHWLQJV RI WKH 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV VWDII ZLWK FRPPXQLW\ OHDGHUV DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQV WR DFTXDLQW WKH DUHD ZLWK WKH SURJUDP SXUSRVHV 5HIHUUDO RI VWXGHQWV YLD WKH SURJUDP FRXQVHORU WR DSSURSULDWH FRPPXQLW\ DJHQFLHV VXFK DV 6RFLDO 6HFXULW\ $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ 0HQWDO +HDOWK ,QVWLWXWH 9RFDWLRQDO 5HKDELOLWDWLRQ 0XQURH 0HPRULDO +RVSLWDO 6KDQGV 7HDFKLQJ +RVSLWDO WKH %XUHDX RI %OLQG 6HUYLFHV DQG WKH +HDOWK 'HSDUWPHQW 3DUWLFLSDWLRQ E\ ORFDO FRPPXQLW\ FOXEV H[DPSOHV EHLQJ WKH 3LORWn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n WLRQ &RPPLWWHH LQ $ VXPPDU\ VWDWHPHQW E\ 'U -RKQ 5RXHFKH LQ )ROORZXS VWXGLHV RI VWXGHQWV DIWHU WKH\ OHDYH &)&& DV UHTXLUHG E\ WKH IHGHUDO SURSRVDO
PAGE 81

&RPSDULVRQ RI 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV DQG QRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV UHWHQWLRQ DQG JUDGXDWLRQ UDWHV 3UH DQG SRVW VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVWLQJ LQ UHDGLQJ DQG (QJOLVK 6WXGHQW HYDOXDWLRQ RI 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV LQVWUXFn WRUV
PAGE 82

, 2YHUDOO 5HWHQWLRQ b 7HUPV ,, Q Q 6 166 )J V WKH UHWHQWLRQ UDWH RI WKH QRQ6SHFDO 6HUYLFHV VWXGHQW b )J V WKH UHWHQWLRQ UDWH RI WKRVH VWXGHQWV WDNLQJ WZR RU PRUH FRXUVHV Q WKH 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV 3URJUDP

PAGE 83

[ 0J )J b 5HWDLQHG V WKH UHWHQWLRQ UDWH RI EHORZ WK SHUFHQWLOH WHVW ZKR KDG QR FRXUVHV RU WKH FRQWURO JURXS SRSXODWLRQ WKRVH VWXGHQWV ZLWK DQG EHORZf RQ WKH )ORULGD 7ZHOIWK *UDGH 3ODFHPHQW RQO\ RQH FRXUVH Q WKH 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV 3URJUDP b 7HUPV )366 r )J V WKH UHWHQWLRQ UDWH RI WKH IXOO SDFNDJH FRXUVHV RQO\f RI WKH 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV 3URJUDP

PAGE 84

7KH VHFRQG VHW RI ILJXUHV LV GLIIHUHQW NLQGV RI EODFN $PHULFDQ UHWHQWLRQ VWXGLHV 6WXG\ $ &)&& %ODFN $PHULFDQ (QUROOPHQW DQG *UDGXDWLRQ 'HF $OO &ROOHJH 6S 6UYV ,QFOXGHGf 7RWDO (QUROOHG 7RWDO *UDGXDWHV 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV 2QO\ 7RWDO (QUROOHG 3HU &HQW b 7RWDO *UDGXDWHV 3HU &HQW b 6WXG\ % &)&& %ODFN $PHULFDQ 6LQJOH 3RSXODWLRQ 5HWHQWLRQ 6HSW 0D\ 1RQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV )LUVW 7LPH (QUROOPHQW /RVW 5HWDLQHG ZR *UDGXDWLRQ YLD 7RWDO 5HWDLQHG 3HU &HQW b 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV )LUVW 7LPH (QUROOPHQW /RVW 5HWDLQHG ZR *UDGXDWLRQ YLD 7RWDO 5HWDLQHG 3HU &HQW b 6WXG\ & &)&& %ODFN $PHULFDQ *UDGXDWH &RPSDULVRQV 6HSW 'HF Y f L \ U X 1RQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV f 9 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV 7RWDO (QUROOHG 7RWDO (QUROOHG 7RWDO *UDGXDWHV 7RWDO *UDGXDWHV 3HU &HQW b 3HU &HQW b

PAGE 85

,Q VWXGLHV $ t % WRWDO HQUROOPHQW ILJXUHV DUH JHQHUDWHG IURP 6HSW EXW WRWDO JUDGXDWHV DUH JHQHUDWHG IURP 0D\ IRUZDUG ,Q DOO WKH VWXGLHV DOO EODFN $PHULFDQV WDNLQJ RQO\ RQH 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV FRXUVH DUH QRW FRXQWHG DV 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV VWXGHQWV 6WXG\ & LV D FRPSDULVRQ RI 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV EODFN JUDGXDWHV ZLWK QRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV EODFN JUDGXDWHV 7KH )ORULGD VWDWH DYHUDJH IRU WKH JUDGXDWLRQ RI PLQRULWLHV LV b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f )ROORZLQJ DUH WKH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV DQG H[SODQDWLRQV RI KRZ WKH\ DUH EHLQJ SUDFWLFHG DW &)&& 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ 7KH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VKRXOG HPSKDVL]H DQG ZRUN WR DFKLHYH LWV JRDO RI VHUYLQJ DOO VWXGHQWV LQ LWV FRPPXQLW\ &)&& KDV GRQH WKLV LQ PDQ\ ZD\V RI FRXUVH EXW WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW DQG PDLQWHQDQFH RI D VWURQJ 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV 3URJUDP KDV VHUYHG

PAGE 86

QRWLFH WR RXU FRPPXQLW\ WKDW ZH GR LQWHQG WR VHUYH DQ\ VWXGHQW ZKR ZLOO JLYH XV WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR GR VR 5RXHFKH LV TXLFN WR SRLQW RXW WKDW DGPLQLVWUDWLYH VXSSRUW LV FULWLFDO DQG SDUWLFXODUO\ IURP WKH FKLHI H[HFXWLYH 7KH FXUUHQW SURJUDP DW &)&& KDV IURP LWV LQFHSWLRQ UHFHLYHG VXFK VXSSRUW IURP WKH KLJKHVW DGPLQLVWUDWRUV ,W LV RQO\ IDLU WR QRWH WKDW VXFK VXSSRUW LV QRW DOZD\V WKH SDWK RI OHDVW UHVLVWDQFH IRU WKRVH DGPLQLVn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

PAGE 87

LQ RQH VXEMHFW PD\ EH RI OLWWOH YDOXH LI KH LV IDLOLQJ KLV RWKHU FRXUVHV FDQQRW JHW ILQDQFLDO DLG RU LV KDYLQJ SHUVRQDO SUREOHPV %HFDXVH RI WKH GLYHUVH DQG FRPSOH[ QHHGV ZKLFK FRPH ZLWK WKHVH VWXGHQWV WKHUH PXVW EH D FORVH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG ZRUNLQJ UHODWLRQVKLS DPRQJ WKRVH LQYROYHG 7KLV OHDGV WR 5RXHFKHn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n IHVVRUV WR GLVFRYHU WKH EHVW WHDFKLQJ PHWKRGV ,Q WUDYHOLQJ DOO RYHU WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV WKH\ IRXQG WKDW PRVW SHRSOH LQ PRVW SODFHV FRXOG LGHQWLI\ WKH JRRG WHDFKHUV +RZHYHU WKHVH JRRG WHDFKHUV KDG IHZ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV LQ FRPPRQ :KDW WKH\ VHHPHG WR VKDUH ZDV DQ DWWLWXGH DERXW SHRSOH DQG SDUWLFXODUO\ DERXW VWXGHQWV &RPEV $YLOD DQG 3XUNH\ LQ WKHLU ERRN +HOSLQJ 5HODWLRQVKLSV f IRXQG WKDW WKH IROORZLQJ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV GLVWLQJXLVKHG JRRG KHOSHUV IURP SRRU RQHV $EOHXQDEOH +HOSHUV SHUFHLYH RWKHUV DV KDYLQJ WKH FDSDFLW\ WR GHDO ZLWK WKHLU SUREOHPV 7KH\ EHOLHYH WKDW SHRSOH FDQ ILQG DGHTXDWH VROXWLRQV WR HYHQWV DV RSSRVHG WR GRXEWLQJ WKH FDSDFLW\ RI SHRSOH WR KDQGOH WKHPVHOYHV DQG WKHLU OLYHV WHDFKHUV FRXQVHORUV SULHVWV DQG SURIHVVRUVf

PAGE 88

)ULHQGO\XQIULHQGO\ +HOSHUV VHH RWKHUV DV EHLQJ IULHQGO\ DQG HQKDQFLQJ 7KH\ GR QRW UHJDUG WKHP DV WKUHDWHQLQJ WR WKHPVHOYHV EXW VHH SHRSOH DV HVVHQWLDOO\ ZHOOLQWHQWLRQHG UDWKHU WKDQ HYLOLQWHQWLRQHG WHDFKHUV DQG FRXQVHORUVf :RUWK\XQZRUWK\ +HOSHUV VHH RWKHU SHRSOH DV EHLQJ RI ZRUWK UDWKHU WKDQ XQZRUWK\ 7KH\ VHH WKHP DV SRVVHVVn LQJ D GLJQLW\ DQG LQWHJULW\ ZKLFK PXVW EH UHVSHFWHG DQG PDLQWDLQHG WKH\ GR QRW VHH SHRSOH DV XQLPSRUWDQW EHLQJV ZKRVH LQWHJULW\ PD\ EH YLRODWHG RU WUHDWHG DV RI OLWWOH DFFRXQW WHDFKHUV FRXQVHORUV DQG SURIHVVRUVf ,QWHUQDOO\H[WHUQDOO\ PRWLYDWHG +HOSHUV VHH SHRSOH DQG WKHLU EHKDYLRU DV HVVHQWLDOO\ GHYHORSLQJ IURP ZLWKLQ UDWKHU WKDQ DV D SURGXFW RI H[WHUQDO HYHQWV WR EH PROGHG DQG GLUHFWHG WKH\ VHH SHRSOH DV FUHDWLYH DQG G\QDPLF UDWKHU WKDQ SDVVLYH RU LQHUW WHDFKHUV DQG SURIHVVRUVf 'HSHQGDEOHXQGHSHQGDEOH +HOSHUV VHH SHRSOH DV HVVHQWLDOO\ WUXVWZRUWK\ DQG GHSHQGDEOH LQ WKH VHQVH RI EHKDYLQJ LQ ODZIXO ZD\V 7KH\ UHJDUG WKH EHKDYLRU RI SHRSOH DV XQGHUVWDQGDEOH UDWKHU WKDQ FDSULFLRXV XQSUHn GLFWDEOH RU QHJDWLYH WHDFKHUV FRXQVHORUV DQG SURIHVVRUVf +HOSIXOKLQGHULQJ +HOSHUV VHH SHRSOH DV EHLQJ SRWHQWLDOO\ IXOILOOLQJ DQG HQKDQFLQJ WR VHOI UDWKHU WKDQ LPSHGLQJ RU WKUHDWHQLQJ 7KH\ UHJDUG SHRSOH DV LPSRUWDQW VRXUFHV RI VDWLVIDFWLRQ UDWKHU WKDQ DV VRXUFHV RI IUXVWUDn WLRQ DQG VXVSLFLRQ WHDFKHUVf &RPEV $YLOD t 3XUNH\ SS f 7KH WUDQVODWLRQ RI WKHVH DWWLWXGHV LQWR GD\WRGD\ EHKDYLRU LV ZKDW LV PHDQW E\ D KXPDQLVWLF FODVVURRP DWPRVSKHUH 7KHVH DWWLWXGHV DUH PDQLIHVWHG LQ EHKDYLRUV IURP VLPSOH FRXUWHV\ WR LQ GHSWK SHUVRQDO FRXQVHOLQJ +RZHYHU WKHVH DWWLWXGHV DUH DOVR VWUXFWXUHG LQWR WKH SURJUDP LQ VHYHUDO ZD\V 7KHVH VWUXFWXUHV IXOILOO VRPH RI 'U 5RXHFKHnV RWKHU UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 5HFRPQHQGDWLRQ + $OO GHYHORSPHQWDO FRXUVHV VKRXOG FDUU\ FUHGLW IRU JUDGXDWLRQ RU SURJUDP FHUWLILFDWLRQ $V KDV DOUHDG\ EHHQ VWDWHG PRVW QRQWUDGLWLRQDO VWXGHQWV FRPH ZLWK PRGHUDWH RU QR VXFFHVVIXO DFDGHPLF H[SHULHQFHV ,W LV GRXEWIXO WKDW DQ\RQH QHHGV WR PDNH LW H[SOLFLW E\ PDNLQJ WKHP VWDUW EHORZ FROOHJH OHYHO RU E\ QRW JLYLQJ WKHP FUHGLW IRU ZKDW WKH\ DUH GRLQJ

PAGE 89

7KDW SURFHGXUH WUDQVPLWV WR WKHP RXU ODFN RI FRQILGHQFH LQ WKHP DQG UHDIILUPV WKHLU VHOIFRQFHSW DV XQDEOH RU XQZRUWK\ ,I ZH EHJLQ E\ LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW WKH\ FDQQRW PDNH LW ZH DUH PHUHO\ LQFUHDVLQJ URDGn EORFNV WR VXFFHVV ,W PXVW EH UHPHPEHUHG WKDW WKH JRDO RI D VXFFHVVn IXO SURJUDP PXVW EH WR KHOS VWXGHQWV DFKLHYH QRW WR ZHHG WKHP RXW $W &HQWUDO )ORULGD ZH KDYH WDNHQ WKLV UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ WR LWV XOWLPDWH E\ KDYLQJ QRQWUDGLWLRQDO VWXGHQWV WDNH XS WR ILYH IXOO\ WUDQVIHUDEOH FUHGLW FODVVHV ZKLFK KDYH EHHQ PRGLILHG WR DFFRPPRGDWH WKRVH VWXGHQWVn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n GDUGV EXW DOVR IXOILOO 'U 5RXHFKHnV QH[W UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ 5HFRPPHGQDWLRQ *UDGLQJ SROLFLHV DQG SUDFWLFHV VKRXOG EH QRQSXQLWLYH :KHWKHU ZH XVH %HQMDPLQ %ORRPnV WHUP PDVWHU\ OHDUQLQJ RU WKH SKUDVH FULWHULRQ UHIHUHQFH JUDGLQJ ZH LQ 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV DORQJ ZLWK 'U 5RXHFKH EHOLHYH WKDW VWXGHQWV VKRXOG EH JUDGHG RQ D FULWHULRQ UHODWLYH WR WKH VXEMHFW DQG QRW WR WKH RWKHU VWXGHQWV LQ WKH FODVV &ULWHULRQ UHIHUHQFH JUDGLQJ DFFHSWV WKDW OHDUQLQJ DVVLJQPHQWV VKRXOG EH HYDOXDWHG LQ UHODWLRQVKLS WR D SUHGHWHUPLQHG VWDQGDUG DQG QRW

PAGE 90

PHUHO\ D FRPSDULVRQ RI VWXGHQWVn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n WLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ HQWLWOHG (IIHFW RI &ULWHULRQ 5HIHUHQFH 7HVWLQJ 8SRQ WKH 8VH RI 5HPHGLDO ([DP 2SSRUWXQLWLHV f ,Q WKHLU VWXG\ ZKLFK KDV EHHQ UHSOLFDWHG WKH\ IRXQG WKDW E\ XVLQJ D KLJKHU FULWHULRQ DQG PDNHXS H[DPV D JUHDWHU SHUFHQWDJH RI VWXGHQWV GR DFKLHYH WKH FULWHULRQ 7KLV LV WKH PHWKRG ZH HPSOR\ LQ 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV :H FDQ PDLQWDLQ HTXLYDOHQF\ ZLWK RWKHU GHSDUWPHQWVn FRXUVHV ZKLOH LQn FUHDVLQJ RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU VXFFHVV IRU RXU VWXGHQWV 7R XQGHUVWDQG KRZ WKLV LV LQWHJUDWHG LQWR D ZRUNDEOH V\VWHP ZH PXVW ORRN DW DQRWKHU RI 5RXHFKHnV UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ ,QVWUXFWLRQ VKRXOG DFFRPPRGDWH LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV DQG SHUPLW VWXGHQWV WR OHDUQ DQG SURFHHG DW WKHLU RZQ SDFHV ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR FULWHULRQ UHIHUHQFH ZH KDYH GHYHORSHG SHUIRUPDQFH REMHFWLYHV DQG KDYH DQ RSHQHQGHG V\VWHP ZKLFK GRHV DOORZ VWXGHQWV WR ZRUN DW WKHLU RZQ SDFH 2QH RI WKH SDUDGR[HV WKDW IDFHV GHYHORSPHQWDO SURJUDPV LV WKDW ZKLOH QRQWUDGLWLRQDO VWXGHQWV DUH EHVW VHUYHG LQ D KXPDQLVWLF DWPR

PAGE 91

VSKHUH WKH\ DOVR WHQG WR KDYH D JUHDW QHHG IRU VWUXFWXUH ,Q 5RXHFKHnV VWXGLHV DQG PRUH UHFHQWO\ LQ 'U 3DWULFLD &URVVn ZRUN f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n HQRQ LV IUHTXHQWO\ FLWHG DV HYLGHQFH WKDW VWDQGDUGV DUH EHLQJ ORZHUHG DQG JUDGHV LQIODWHG +RZHYHU ZLWK QRWKLQJ ORZHU WKDQ D & EHLQJ

PAGE 92

DYHUDJHG LQ DQG WKH HIIHFW RI D KLJKHU SHUFHQWDJH RI VWXGHQWV DFKLHYLQJ D KLJKHU FULWHULRQ ZKHQ PDNHXS H[DPV DUH XVHG WKH KLJKHU JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH PXVW EH DFFHSWHG DV D QRUPDO SDUW RI WKHVH SURJUDPV 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ &XUULFXOXP RIIHULQJV LQ GHYHORSPHQWDO SURJUDPV VKRXOG EH UHOHYDQW 7KLV W\SH RI UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ VHHPV VR KDFNQH\HG WKDW LW GHVHUYHV OLWWOH FRQVLGHUDWLRQ +RZHYHU ZLWK QRQWUDGLWLRQDO VWXGHQWV LW WDNHV RQ WUHPHQGRXVO\ LQFUHDVHG VLJQLILFDQFH ,Q 5RXHFKHnV UHYLHZ DQG VXPPDU\ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH XS WR SXEOLVKHG LQ 6DOYDJH 5HGLUHFWLRQ RU &XVWRG\ f LW ZDV VKRZQ WKDW PRVW RI WKHVH VWXGHQWV ZHUH XQn FHUWDLQ RI WKHLU HGXFDWLRQDO DELOLWLHV RU JRDOV DQG QHHGHG WR VHH UHVXOWV DQG DSSOLFDWLRQV YHU\ TXLFNO\ LI WKH\ ZHUH JRLQJ WR SHUVLVW 7KH FRXUVHV LQ WKH 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV 3URJUDP DUH ZHOO VXLWHG IRU WKLV SXUSRVH 7KH VRFLDO VFLHQFH FODVV WDNHV D SHUVRQDO DQG FRQWHPn SRUDU\ SHUVSHFWLYH RQ $PHULFDQ VRFLHW\ 7KH UHDGLQJ FODVV LQFOXGHV PDWHULDOV RI SHUVRQDO LQWHUHVW DQG LV VWUXFWXUHG VR WKDW LPPHGLDWH UHVXOWV FDQ EH UHDOL]HG 7KH (QJOLVK FODVVHV DOVR LPSOHPHQW YHU\ SHUVRQDO VWUDWHJLHV DQG PDWHULDOV WR LQFUHDVH WKH VWXGHQWVn LQYROYHn PHQW 7KH SHUVRQDO GHYHORSPHQWDO FODVV WDNHV FRJQLWLYH GDWD RQ OHDUQLQJ DQG SV\FKRORJ\ DQG DSSOLHV LW WR HDFK VWXGHQWnV OLIH %\ HPSKDVL]LQJ WKLV UHOHYDQFH HDUO\ LQ WKHLU H[SHULHQFH ZH HQKDQFH WKH SUREDELOLW\ RI WKHLU UHPDLQLQJ LQ FROOHJH 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ 5HJXODU FROOHJH FXUULFXOXP RIIHULQJV VKRXOG EH FRPSUHKHQVLYH f, &)&& LV GHILQLWHO\ FRPSUHKHQVLYH LQ LWV RIIHULQJV 7KLV LV LPSRUWDQW IRU QRQWUDGLWLRQDO VWXGHQWV VLQFH WKH\ DUH IUHTXHQWO\ XQVXUH RI WKHLU JRDOV ,W RIIHUV RSWLRQV DQG GRHV QRW ORFN WKHP LQWR HLWKHU VWHUHRW\SHG SURJUDPV RU SURJUDPV ZKLFK PD\ QRW ILOO WKHLU QHHGV

PAGE 93

5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ IW 7KH FRXQVHOLQJ IXQFWLRQ LQ GHYHORSPHQWDO SURJUDPV PXVW EH RI UHDO YDOXH WR VWXGHQWV 5RXHFKH LQGLFDWHV WKDW WKLV LV RQH RI WKH PDLQ SUREOHP DUHDV WKDW KH KDV HQFRXQWHUHG ,W LV IRUWXQDWH WKDW WKH 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV JUDQW SURYLGHV IRU D IXOOWLPH FRXQVHORU LQ WKH SURJUDP +H LV IUHH WR GR UHDO FRXQVHOLQJ IXQFWLRQV VXFK DV WHVWLQJ UHIHUUDO DLG DVVLVWDQFH FDUHHU DQG SHUVRQDO FRXQVHOLQJ DQG LQVWLWXWLRQDO OLDVRQ HIIRUWV ,W KDV EHHQ RXU H[SHULHQFH WKDW DQ DFDGHPLF FRXQVHORU DVVLJQHG GLUHFWO\ WR WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO SURJUDP DQG ZRUNLQJ DV D WHDP PHPEHU LV WKH PRVW HIIHFWLYH $OWKRXJK FRXQVHORU DQG DGYLVRU RUJDQL]DWLRQ PD\ YDU\ LW LV LPSRUWDQW WKDW DOO SHUVRQQHO EH VHQVLWLYH WR WKH QHHGV RI QRQWUDGLWLRQDO VWXGHQWV 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ (IIRUWV VKRXOG EH PDGH WR DOOHYLDWH WKH DEUXSW WUDQVLWLRQ IURP GHYHORSPHQWDO VWXGLHV WR WUDGLWLRQDO FROOHJH FXUULFXOD 7KLV UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ KDV EHHQ LPSOHPHQWHG DW WZR OHYHOV KHUH DW &)&& DQG DW RWKHU LQVWLWXWLRQV ZKHQ VWXGHQWV WUDQVIHU 6WUDWHJLHV IRU WKH WUDQVLWLRQ RQ WKLV FDPSXV LQFOXGH IRUPDO DQG LQIRUPDO GLVn FXVVLRQV LQ DOPRVW DOO 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV FODVVHV RQ VXUYLYDO VNLOOV VXFK DV GURS DQG DGG GLIIHUHQW WHVWLQJ WHFKQLTXHV HWF $OVR PDQ\ IRUPDO DQG LQIRUPDO FRQWDFWV KDYH EHHQ PDGH EHWZHHQ IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV :KLOH WKHUH DUH QR GDWD WR VXSSRUW WKH K\SRWKHVLV LW VHHPV WKDW DWWLWXGHV RI LQVWUXFWRUV RXWVLGH WKH 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV DUHD KDYH FKDQJHG 6RPH WHDFKHUV KDYH UHDOL]HG WKDW E\ UHPRYLQJ WKH QRQWUDGLWLRQDO VWXGHQWV IURP WKHLU EDVLF FODVVHV WKHLU EXUGHQ KDV EHHQ OLJKWHQHG

PAGE 94

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n DWWLWXGHV DERXW WKH SURJUDP DQG PRUH LPSRUWDQWO\ DERXW QRQWUDGLWLRQDO VWXGHQWV (YHQ DIWHU VWXGHQWV OHDYH WKH 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV FRXUVHV WKHLU SURJUHVV LV PRQLWRUHG :KHQHYHU WKH\ QHHG DVVLVWDQFH VXFK DV WXWRUn LQJ WKH\ NQRZ WKH\ FDQ FRPH EDFN IRU KHOS $OVR ZKHQ WKH\ DUH UHDG\ WR WUDQVIHU WKH\ RIWHQ VHHN DGYLFH DQG DVVLVWDQFH 7KH SHUn VRQQHO DQG SDUWLFXODUO\ WKH FRXQVHORU IUHTXHQWO\ PDNH WKH QHHGHG FRQWDFWV DQG KHOS ZLWK WKH QHFHVVDU\ DUUDQJHPHQWV 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ -0B 2QFH SURJUDPV DUH HVWDEOLVKHG HIIHFWLYH UHFUXLWLQJ VWUDWHJLHV VKRXOG EH GHYHORSHG WR LGHQWLI\ DQG HQUROO QRQWUDGLWLRQDO VWXGHQWV :KLOH WKH 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV JUDQW VSHFLILFDOO\ SURKLELWV UHFUXLWn LQJ FHUWDLQ FULWHULD KDYH EHHQ HVWDEOLVKHG WR VFUHHQ LQWR WKH SURJUDP SURVSHFWLYH VWXGHQWV 7KRVH FULWHULD KDYH LQFOXGHG RU EHORZ

PAGE 95

RQ WKH )ORULGD 7ZHOIWK *UDGH 3ODFHPHQW 7HVW RU WKH HTXLYDOHQW SHUn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n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

PAGE 96

:H LQ 6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV EHOLHYH WKDW WKURXJK DOO RI WKHVH DVSHFWV RI WKH SURJUDP ZH KDYH EHHQ DEOH WR LQFUHDVH RXU HQUROOPHQW RI QRQ WUDGLWLRQDO VWXGHQWV :KLOH WKH\ DUH KHUH DW &)&& ZH EHOLHYH WKDW WKHLU H[SHULHQFHV ZLOO EH SRVLWLYH DQG ZLOO HQFRXUDJH WKHP WR VWD\ DQG VXFFHHG :KLOH ZH UHFRJQL]H WKDW ZH DUH RQO\ RQH JHDU LQ WKH FROOHJH PDFKLQHU\ ZH EHOLHYH WKDW RXU FRQWULEXWLRQ LQ WKH DUHD RI UHWHQWLRQ DQG JUDGXDWLRQ RI QRQWUDGLWLRQDO VWXGHQWV KDV EHHQ PRVW VLJQLILFDQW

PAGE 97

)DFXOW\ DQG 6WDII 'LUHFWRU &DURO\Q :HVW &RXQVHORU /DQFH ( /DQFDVWHU 6HFUHWDU\ %RQQLH =DUWPDQ $FDGHPLF -RKQ 6LPSVRQ (QJOLVK 3V\FKRORJ\ -HDQ &RYHOO 5HDGLQJ %LOO -RQHV 6RFLDO 6FLHQFH 3V\FKRORJ\ (OYLUD +DUULV (QJOLVK 5HDGLQJ 'HVPRQG %UDQQDQ 6RFLDO 6FLHQFH 3V\FKRORJ\ %\URQ '\FH 0DWK 'DQ %HFWRQ /HDUQLQJ 6SHFLDOLVW (GXFDWLRQDO $LGHV 6KHOLD 7KRUQWRQ 5HDGLQJ (QJOLVK 5DH &KHVWHU 7XWRU &RRUGLQDWRU /LQGD )LW]JHUDOG 5HDGLQJ

PAGE 98

%,%/,2*5$3+< 5HIHUHQFHV &LWHG $QGHUVRQ ) DQG 5 5RVHQWKDO 6RPH (IIHFWV RI ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ([SHFWDQF\ DQG 6RFLDO ,QWHUDFWLRQ RQ ,QVWLWXWLRQDOL]HG 5HWDUGHG &KLOGUHQ 3URFHHGLQJV RI WKH WK $QQXDO &RQYHQWLRQ RI WKH $PHULFDQ 3V\FKRORJLFDO $VVRFLDWLRQ SS $URQ 5REHUW (IIHFWV RI 7HDFKHU ([SHFWDQFLHV 0\WK RU 5HDOLW\" 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH $QQXDO 0HHWLQJ RI 7KH $PHULFDQ 3HUn VRQQHO DQG *XLGDQFH $VVRFLDWLRQ 1HZ
PAGE 99

&ODLERUQ :LOOLDP / f([SHFWDQF\ (IIHFWV LQ WKH &ODVVURRP $ )DLOXUH WR 5HSOLFDWH -RXUQDO RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3V\FKRORJ\ Y SS 2FWREHU &ROHPDQ 6 (TXDOLW\ RI (GXFDWLRQDO 2SSRUWXQLW\ &ROHPDQ 5HSRUWf 'HSDUWPHQW RI +HDOWK (GXFDWLRQ DQG :HOIDUH 86 *RYHUQPHQW 3ULQWLQJ 2IILFH :DVKLQJWRQ '& &RPEV $UWKXU : 'RQDOG / $YLOD DQG :LOOLDP 3XUNH\ +HOSLQJ 5HODWLRQVKLSV %DVLF &RQFHSWV IRU WKH +HOSLQJ 3URIHVVLRQV %RVWRQ $OO\Q DQG %DFRQ ,QF &RPEV $UWKXU : DQG 6Q\JJ ,QGLYLGXDO %HKDYLRU 1HZ
PAGE 100

)ORZHUV ( (IIHFWV RI DQ $UELWUDU\ $FFHOHUDWHG *URXS 3ODFHPHQW RQ WKH 7HVWHG $FDGHPLF $FKLHYHPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQDOO\ 'LVDGYDQWDJHG 6WXGHQWV 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 7HDFKHUV &ROOHJH &ROXPELD 8QLYHUVLW\ )RVWHU *OHQ &DUO 5 6FKPLGW DQG 'DYLG 6DEDWLQR 7HDFKHU ([SHFWDQFLHV DQG WKH /DEHO n/HDUQLQJ 'LVDELOLWLHVn -RXUQDO RI /HDUQLQT 'LVDELOLWLHV Y QR SS )HEUXDU\ *XVNLQ $ODQ ( DQG 6DPXHO / *XVNLQ $ 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ RI (GXFDWLRQ 5HDGLQJ 0DVV $GGLVRQ:HVOH\ +DQNLQVRQ 2VFDU + ([SHFWDWLRQV IRU DQG %HKDYLRU RI 3XSLOV LQ &XOWXUDOO\ 'LIIHUHQW 6FKRROV 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 8QLY RI :LVFRQVLQ -HQFNV &KULVWRSKHU ,QHTXDOLW\ $ 5HDVVHVVPHQW RI )DPLO\ DQG 6FKRROLQJ LQ $PHULFD 1HZ
PAGE 101

3XUNH\ :LOOLDP : 7KH 6HDUFK IRU 6HOI (YDOXDWLQJ 6WXGHQW 6HOI &RQFHSWV )ORULGD (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW &RXQFLO 5HVHDUFK %XOOHWLQ Y QR SS 6XPPHU 3XUNH\ :LOOLDP : %RE 1 &DJH DQG :LOOLDP *UDYHV 7KH )ORULGD .H\ $ 6FDOH WR ,QIHU /HDUQHU 6HOI&RQFHSW (GXFDWLRQDO DQG 3V\FKRORJLFDO 0HDVXUHPHQWV Y SS 5LVW 5D\ & 6WXGHQW 6RFLDO &ODVV DQG 7HDFKHU ([SHFWDWLRQV 7KH 6HOI)XOILOOLQJ 3URSKHF\ LQ *KHWWR (GXFDWLRQ +DUYDUG (GXn FDWLRQDO 5HYLHZ Y SS $XJXVW 5RHEHU (GZDUG 7KH ,QIOXHQFH RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ $ERXW 6WXGHQWV RQ WKH ([SHFWDWLRQV RI 7HDFKHUV 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 8QLYHUn VLW\ RI 0LFKLJDQ 5RVHQWKDO 5REHUW DQG /HQRUH -DFREVRQ 3\JPDOLRQ LQ WKH &ODVVURRP 1HZ
PAGE 102

6KDZ *HRUJH %HUQDUG 3\JPDOLRQ /RQGRQ 'RGG 0HDG DQG &RPSDQ\ ,QF 6LPSVRQ -RKQ 5HWHQWLRQ RI 'LVDGYDQWDJHG 6WXGHQWV DW &HQWUDO )ORULGD &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV 'HSDUWPHQW &HQWUDO )ORULGD &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 2FDOD )ORULGD 8QSXEOLVKHG VWXG\ $SULO 7KRUQGLNH 5 / 5HYLHZ RI 3\JPDOLRQ LQ WKH &ODVVURRP $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK -RXUQDO Y SS 7KRUQGLNH 5 /
PAGE 103

%DUEHU 7KHRGRUH ; )LYH $WWHPSWV WR 5HSOLFDWH WKH ([SHULPHQWHU %LDV (IIHFW -RXUQDO RI &RQVXOWLQJ DQG &OLQLFDO 3V\FKRORJ\ Y SS %HFNPDQ /LQGD (IIHFWV RI 6WXGHQWVn 3HUIRUPDQFH RQ 7HDFKHUVn DQG 2EVHUYHUVn $WWULEXWLRQV RI &DXVDOLW\ -RXUQDO RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3V\FKRORJ\ Y QR SS )HEUXDU\ (5,& (%HJJV 'RQDOG / 5R\ 0D\HU DQG (UQHVW / /HZLV 7KH (IIHFWV RI 9DULRXV 7HFKQLTXHV RI ,QWHUSUHWLQJ 7HVW 5HVXOWV RQ 7HDFKHU 3HUFHSWLRQ DQG 3XSLO $FKLHYHPHQW 0HDVXUHPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ LQ *XLGDQFH Y QR SS $SULO (5,& (%UDJHU *DU\ / 7HDFKHU ([SHFWDQF\ DQG 0DWKHPDWLFV $FKLHYHPHQW -RXUQDO IRU 5HVHDUFK LQ 0DWKHPDWLFV (GXFDWLRQ Y QR SS 0DUFK (5,& (%UDXQ &DUO $OODQ 5 1HLOVHQ DQG 5REHUW '\NVWUD 7HDFKHU ([SHFn WDWLRQV 3ULPH 0RYHU RU ,QKLELWRU" 7KH (OHPHQWDU\ 6FKRRO -RXUQDO Y SS 'HFHPEHU %URSK\ -( DQG 7 / *RRG 7HDFKHUVn &RPPXQLFDWLRQ RI 'LIIHUn HQWLDO ([SHFWDWLRQV IRU &KLOGUHQnV &ODVVURRP 3HUIRUPDQFH 6RPH %HKDYLRUDO 'DWD -RXUQDO RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3V\FKRORJ\ Y SS %URSK\ ( DQG 7 / *RRG 7HDFKHU ([SHFWDWLRQV %H\RQG WKH 3\JPDOLRQ &RQWURYHUV\ 3KL 'HOWD .DSSDQ Y SS 'HFHPEHU %URSK\ ( DQG 7 / *RRG 7HDFKHU6WXGHQW 5HODWLRQVKLSV &DXVHV DQG &RQVHTXHQFHV 1HZ
PAGE 104

'XQQ &DUOHWD DQG *HUDOG 7 .RZLW] 7HDFKHU 3HUFHSWLRQV RI &RUUHODWHV RI $FDGHPLF $FKLHYHPHQW 6FKRRO 6RFLRORJ\ Y QR SS 2FWREHU 77< W57( 'XVHN -HURPH % DQG (GZDUG 2n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

PAGE 105

+DUDUL + DQG : 0F'DYLG 1DPH 6WHUHRW\SHV DQG 7HDFKHU ([n SHFWDQFLHV SS -RXUQDO 7 RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3V\FKRORJ\ Y +DUULV %HHFKHU + 1R /DEHOV 3OHDVH /DQJXDJH $UWV Y QR SS 1RYHPEHU'HFHPEHU +HQULNVRQ + $ $Q ,QYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH ,QIOXHQFH RI 7HDFKHU ([SHFWDWLRQV 8SRQ WKH ,QWHOOHFWXDO DQG $FKLHYHPHQW 3HUIRUPDQFH RI 'LVDGYDQWDJHG .LQGHUJDUWHQ &KLOGUHQ 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 8QLY RI ,OOLQRLV 8UEDQD&KDPSDLJQ -HQVHQ $ 5 +RZ 0XFK &DQ :H %RRVW ,4 DQG 6FKRODVWLF $FKLHYHPHQW" +DUYDUG (GXFDWLRQDO 5HYLHZ Y SS .HKOH 7KRPDV (IIHFW RI 3K\VLFDO $WWUDFWLYHQHVV 6H[ DQG ,QWHOOLJHQFH RQ ([SHFWDWLRQV IRU 6WXGHQWVn $FDGHPLF $ELOLW\ DQG 3HUVRQDOLW\ $ 5HSOLFDWLRQ 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH $QQXDO 0HHWLQJ RI WKH $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK $VVRFLDn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n ([SHFWDWLRQV DQG 3XSLO 3HUIRUPDQFH $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK -RXUQDO Y QR SS 6XPPHU 0HQGR]D 6 0 7 / *RRG DQG ( %URSK\ 7KH &RPPXQLFDWLRQ RI 7HDFKHU ([SHFWDWLRQV LQ D -XQLRU +LJK 6FKRRO 3DSHU SUHn VHQWHG DW WKH 0HHWLQJ RI WKH $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK $VVRFLDWLRQ 1HZ
PAGE 106

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
PAGE 107

722 :LOOLV 6KHUU\ / )RUPDWLRQ RI 7HDFKHUVn ([SHFWDWLRQV RI )LUVW *UDGH 6WXGHQWnV $FDGHPLF 3HUIRUPDQFH 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH $QQXDO 0HHWLQJ RI WKH $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK $VVRFLDWLRQ 1HZ 2UOHDQV /RXLVLDQD )HEUXDU\ 0DUFK (5,& (' :LVHPDQ 6 7KH (GXFDWLRQDO 2EVWDFOH 5DFH )DFWRUV 7KDW +LQGHU 3XSLO 3URJUHVV (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK Y QR SS )HEUXDU\ (5,& (6RXUFHV LQ WKH $UHDV RI 5HPHGLDO &RPSHQVDWRU\ 'HYHORSPHQWDO DQG 1RQWUDGLWLRQDO (GXFDWLRQ %HUWVFK (LOHQH 7KH 6PDOO &ROOHJH 2SHQV ,WV 'RRUV :KR 5XQV WKH +LJK 5LVN &ROOHJH 3URJUDPV 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW $PHULFDQ 3V\n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

PAGE 108

*Z\QQH 0DUJDUHW -RVHSK &DQLQH DQG 0DUWLQ 4XLJOH\ (YDOXDWLRQ RI 5HPHGLDO 3URJUDPV LQ &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJHV &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 3UHVLGHQWVn 9LHZV &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH &HQWHU &ROXPELD 8QLYn HUVLW\ 1HZ
PAGE 109

7KH 3HHU 7HDFKLQJ 3URJUDP RI &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 6WXGLHV 0LDPL 'DGH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH )ORULGD 0DUFK (5,& (' 5RPQH\ 0LOHV & DQG -RVHSK 7 2NHGDUD $ 5HSRUW RQ WKH 3URJUDPV IRU WKH 'LVDGYDQWDJHG LQ WKH 2UHJRQ 6WDWH 6\VWHP RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 2UHJRQ 6WDWH 6\VWHP RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 3RUWODQG 2IILFH RI $FDGHPLF $IIDLUV 1RYHPEHU 5RVQHU %HQMDPLQ 2SHQ $GPLVVLRQV DW WKH &LW\ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 1HZ
PAGE 110

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
PAGE 111

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ &KDUOHV :LOOLDP -RQHV ZDV ERUQ RQ 6HSWHPEHU LQ &ROXPEXV *HRUJLD 86$ +RZHYHU KH JUHZXS DQG DWWHQGHG SXEOLF VFKRROV LQ %UDGHQWRQ )ORULGD $IWHU JUDGXDWLQJ IURP 0DQDWHH +LJK 6FKRRO LQ KH DWWHQGHG 0DQDWHH -XQLRU &ROOHJH DQG UHFHLYHG DQ $$ GHJUHH LQ ,Q WKH )DOO RI KH DWWHQGHG )ORULGD 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ LQ 7DOODKDVVHH )ORULGD +H WUDQVIHUUHG WR WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ -DQXDU\ +H UHFHLYHG D %$ GHJUHH LQ LQ SKLORVRSK\ $IWHU VWXG\LQJ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGDn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n IHVVRU RI 6RFLDO 6FLHQFH DQG 3V\FKRORJ\ LQ WKH %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ6SHFLDO 6HUYLFHV 'HSDUWPHQW +H KDV EHHQ 3UHVLGHQW RI WKH )DFXOW\ 6HQDWH IRU WZR \HDUV DQG KDV VHUYHG RQ QXPHURXV FRPQLWWHHV ZKLOH DW WKDW FROOHJH 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO PHPEHUVKLSV FXUUHQWO\ LQFOXGH WKH )ORULGD $VVRFLDn WLRQ RI &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJHV .DSSD 'HOWD 3L DQG 0HQVD +LV QRQSURn IHVVLRQDO LQWHUHVWV LQFOXGH WHQQLV VSRUWV FDUV VSRUWV FDU UDFLQJ RUQDPHQWDO KRUWLFXOWXUH JXLWDU DQG WUDYHOLQJ +H KDV WUDYHOHG H[

PAGE 112

WHQVLYHO\ WKURXJKRXW WKH (DVWHUQ 8QLWHG 6WDWHV (QJODQG DQG :HVWHUQ (XURSH +LV SURIHVVLRQDO LQWHUHVWV LQFOXGH XQGHUJUDGXDWH WHDFKLQJ WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ LQ GHYHORSPHQWDOFRPSHQVDWRU\ HGXFDWLRQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ OHJDO HGXFDWLRQ DQG SK\VLFDO DQWKURSRORJ\ +LV ZLIH 8QD LV D VWXGHQW LQ WKH $UW 'HSDUWPHQW &ROOHJH RI )LQH $UWV 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 'U -RQHV DQG KLV ZLIH FXUUHQWO\ UHVLGH LQ 2FDOD )ORULGD

PAGE 113

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n PHQW RI WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ $XJXVW &KDLUPDQ )RXQGDWLRQV RI (GXFDWLRQ 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 114

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ LQ ODL ffff LLLLL LL ,, PL PL P XDDL PLO ,, O