Citation
Factors affecting goodness of fit in kindergarten classrooms

Material Information

Title:
Factors affecting goodness of fit in kindergarten classrooms
Creator:
Scott, Alicia Michelle, 1972-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 126 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Chess ( jstor )
Child psychology ( jstor )
Classrooms ( jstor )
Immatures ( jstor )
Parents ( jstor )
School adjustment ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Temperament ( jstor )
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2003.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Printout.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Alicia Michelle Scott.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright {Scott, Alicia}. 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:
52688406 ( OCLC )
ocm52688406

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text









FACTORS AFFECTING GOODNESS OF FIT
IN KINDERGARTEN CLASSROOMS














By

ALICIA MICHELLE SCOTT













A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2003

























Copyright 2003

By

Alicia Michelle Scott













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my family (Patricia Scott, Gerald Scott, and Kristina Scott)

for their love, support, and encouragement of all my endeavors. I also would

like to thank my fiance (Gary Geniesse) for his insight and support. In addition,

I would like to thank the school district staff and school principals in Alachua,

Citrus, Duval, and Seminole counties for supporting my research efforts. I owe

a great deal to the kindergarten teachers who graciously participated in this

study. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to the members of my

committee, Drs. Tina Smith-Bonahue, Thomas Oakland, Ann Seraphine, and

Kristen Kemple, for their guidance and support throughout this project.




















iii














TABLE OF CONTENTS



page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................iii

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... vii

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................ix

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1


Significance of the Study ................................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Study......................................................................................... 4
Summary and Overview of Remaining Chapters ............................................5

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..........................................................................6

Temperament Theory .............................................................................................6
Child Temperament................................................................................... 6
Adult Temperament.............................................................................. 13
Summary ................................................................................................... 17
Temperament and School Adjustment Variables.................................. 18
Interpersonal Relationships .....................................................................20
Academic Performance........................................................................ 27
Summary.................................................................................................. 29
Temperament and Teacher Beliefs ...................................................................... 30
Goodness of Fit ................................................................................................37

3 METHODS........................................................................................................ 49

Participants and Settings .............................................................................. 49
M easures........................................................................................................... 53

iv









C hild V ignettes .............................................................................................53
Teachers' Perceptions of School Adjustment and Success ...................55
Teacher Temperament Type ............................................................... 57
Teacher Demographic Information........................................................ 60
Procedure ............................................................................................................... 60
Child Vignettes ....................................................................................... 60
Teachers' Perceptions of School Adjustment and Success ...................61
Teacher Temperament Type ............................................................... 62
Teacher Demographic Information... ................................................... 64

4 R ESU LTS........................................................................................................... 66

Introduction....................................................................................................... 66
Teachers' Perceptions of Children's School Adjustment.................... 68
Teachers' Perceptions of Children's School Success ............................. 77

5 D ISCU SSIO N ................................................................................................... 83

Introduction............................................................................................. 83
Teachers' Perceptions of Children's School Adjustment and
Success...................................................................................................... 85
Child Temperament............................. ......................................85
Child Developmental Maturity................................................... 87
Parent Involvement ................................................................... 88
Teacher Temperament Type....................... ............ ........... ... 89
Implications for Practice ...................................................................... 91
Limitations of the Study ...................................................................... 94
Implications for Future Research .......................................... ............. 95

APPENDICES

A PRINCIPAL INVITATION LETTER ..............................................................98

B RESEARCH STUDY CONSENT FORM ........................................................ 100

C CHILD VIGNETTES AND SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT AND SUCCESS
QUESTIONNAIRE.............................................................................................. 102



v









D PILOT STUDY CONSENT FORM .................................................................... 112

E RELIABILITY STUDY CONSENT FORM ....................................................... 114

F TEACHER INFORMATION SURVEY ........................................................... 116

REFEREN C ES ........................................................................................................... 118

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................................................................................. 126






































vi













LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. Child Temperament Categories............................................... ............ 7

2. Adult Temperament Types.................................................................... 15

3. Teacher-Related Demographic Information Provided by Participants on
the Teacher Information Survey........................................... ................ 51

4. Teaching Environment Demographic Information Provided by
Participants on the Teacher Information Survey......................... .......... 52

5. Summary for School Adjustment Split Plot Repeated Measures ANOVA
for Within Subjects Effects............................................................... 71

6. Summary for School Adjustment Slit Plot Repeated Measures ANOVA
for Between Subjects Effects........................................... ....................... 72

7. Mean Adjustment Ratings for Child Temperament by Developmental
Maturity by Teacher Temperament Interaction Effect.............................. 72

8. Paired Samples T-Tests for Adjustment Ratings for Child Temperament
by Developmental Maturity by Teacher Temperament Interaction
Effect ............................................................................................................ 73

9. Mean Adjustment Ratings for Child Temperament by Developmental
Maturity by Parent Involvement Interaction Effect................................... 75

10. Paired Samples T-Tests for Adjustment Ratings for Child Temperament
by Developmental Maturity by Parent Involvement Interaction Effect... 75



vii









11. Summary for School Success Split Plot Repeated Measures ANOVA for
W ithin Subjects Effects................................................. .......................... 78

12. Summary for School Success Split Plot Repeated Measures ANOVA for
Between Subjects Effects............................................... ......................... 79

13. Mean School Success Ratings for Child Temperament by Developmental
Maturity by Parent Involvement Interaction Effect................................... 80

14. Paired Samples T-Tests for School Success Ratings for Child
Temperament by Developmental Maturity by Parent Involvement
Interaction Effect ........................................................................................ 80

































viii













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School

of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


FACTORS AFFECTING GOODNESS OF FIT
IN KINDERGARTEN CLASSROOMS

By

Alicia Michelle Scott

May 2003


Chairperson: Tina Smith-Bonahue
Major Department: Educational Psychology

Previous research has related temperament to academic, behavioral, and

social adjustment problems in childhood. In addition, a child's academic

performance and interactions with teachers may affect the child's school

adjustment and, as a result, his or her fit with the classroom environment. The

importance of goodness of fit between children's temperament and

environmental demands is well-documented. Research suggests that when a

poor fit exists, a child is at risk for poor developmental outcomes. Although

goodness of fit is considered to have many clinical applications, its importance



ix









has not been fully explored in school settings. This study examined whether

relationships exist among teachers' perceptions of kindergarten children's

school adjustment and success and certain child- and teacher-related variables.

Eighty-eight kindergarten teachers participated in this study, which attempted

to ascertain (a) whether relationships exist among teachers' perceptions of

children's school adjustment and four explanatory variables (i.e., child

temperament, child developmental maturity, parent involvement, and teacher

temperament) and (b) whether relationships exist among teachers' perceptions

of children's school success and four explanatory variables (i.e., child

temperament, child developmental maturity, parent involvement, and teacher

temperament).

With regard to the first question, significant main effects were found for

each of the four independent variables. In addition, significant interaction

effects were found among child temperament and developmental maturity;

child temperament and parent involvement; developmental maturity and

parent involvement; child temperament, developmental maturity, and teacher

temperament; and child temperament, developmental maturity, and parent

involvement.





x









With regard to the second question, significant main effects were found

for child temperament and developmental maturity. In addition, significant

interaction effects were found among child temperament and developmental

maturity as well as child temperament, developmental maturity, and parent

involvement.





































xi













CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The moder era of temperament research with young children began in

the 1950s with the landmark New York Longitudinal Study. Thomas, Chess,

and Birch (1968) defined temperament as a person's behavioral style.

Temperament also is defined as constitutionally determined dispositional

characteristics that influence the manner in which an individual's actions are

expressed (Stelmack & Stalikas, 1991). Many researchers believe that

children's temperament affects how they respond to objective features in the

environment (e.g., Bates, 1980; Carey, 1981; Carey & McDevitt, 1995; Rothbart,

Ahadi, & Hershey, 1994; Thomas & Chess, 1977). Certain temperament

characteristics have been identified as risk factors for future development

(Carey & McDevitt, 1995; Carson, 1994; Caspi & Silva, 1995). As a result,

temperament has been recognized as a significant contributor both to normal

and pathological development (Thomas & Chess, 1989).

Temperament has been linked to academic, behavioral, and social

adjustment. In addition, a child's academic performance and interactions with

teachers may affect the child's school adjustment and, as a result, his or her fit


1







2

with the classroom environment. Goodness of fit, defined as consonance

among a child's capacities, characteristics, and style of behaving and the

expectations and demands of the child's environment, contributes to positive

developmental outcomes (Thomas & Chess, 1977). Studies that examine

relationships among children's temperament and variables that may affect

goodness of fit may help researchers and practitioners understand why some

children are successful in school-related activities while others face significant

challenges.


Significance of the Study

The importance of goodness of fit between children's temperament and

environmental demands is well-documented. Based on the seminal work of

Thomas and Chess, consonance among children's abilities, characteristics, and

behavioral style and the expectations and demands of the environment is

believed to contribute to positive developmental outcomes for children.

Researchers have found that when a poor fit exists, a child is at risk for

academic, behavioral, and social adjustment difficulties (Chess & Thomas,

1986). Although goodness of fit is considered to have many clinical

applications, traditionally, researchers and theorists have addressed its

application to home environments; only recently has it begun to be explored







3

in school settings. To that end, the present study investigates relationships

among certain child- and teacher-related variables that may affect a child's

school adjustment and success. If variables that influence children's school

adjustment can be identified, practitioners (e.g., school psychologists,

guidance counselors, and teachers) may help children adapt their capabilities,

characteristics, and behavioral styles to better meet the expectations and

demands of the environment. Conversely, teachers may be able to learn to

adjust classroom expectations and demands to better meet the needs of

individual children. In addition, understanding how teachers' characteristics

and beliefs influence their students has implications for assisting teachers to

modify their beliefs and expectations in order to facilitate a better fit for all

students.

The factors that affect children's fit in the classroom have a number of

education-oriented implications. For example, children's kindergarten

experiences help set a tone for their school success (Birch & Ladd, 1997;

Maxwell & Eller, 1994; Skarpness & Carson, 1987). The fit between children's

characteristics and their teachers' beliefs and expectations are likely to

influence not only their initial experiences with education but their future

interactions and adjustment as well. In addition, practitioners (e.g., school







4

psychologists and guidance counselors) are in a position to consult with

teachers regarding challenging students. Therefore, an understanding of the

potential factors that contribute to a poor fit may provide implications for

teacher beliefs as well as consultation and interventions to achieve the goal of

promoting successful adjustment for children.


Purpose of the Study

This study examined teachers' judgments of children's school

adjustment and success based on child- and teacher-related variables,

including child temperament, child developmental maturity, parent

involvement, and teacher temperament type. Specifically, this study

addressed the following questions:

1. What relationships exist among teachers' perceptions of children's

school adjustment and the four explanatory variables (i.e., child

temperament, child developmental maturity, parental involvement,

and teacher temperament type)?

2. What relationships exist among teachers' perceptions of children's

school success and the four explanatory variables (i.e., child

temperament, child developmental maturity, parental involvement,

and teacher temperament type)?







5

Summary and Overview of Remaining Chapters

This study examined teachers' judgments of children's school

adjustment and success based on child- and teacher-related variables. Despite

the recognized importance of goodness of fit in clinical settings, its importance

in school settings has not been fully explored. As a result, this study

attempted to expand existing research and identify variables that may

contribute to goodness of fit in the classroom.

Chapter 2 provides a review of the relevant research in the areas of

temperament, school adjustment, academic performance, teacher beliefs, and

goodness of fit. Chapter 3 describes the research methodology and

procedures used in this study. Chapter 4 describes the results of the study.

Chapter 5 discusses how the results of the study relate to previous research,

addresses the limitations of the study, and provides implications for future

research.













CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Temperament Theory

Child Temperament

The seminal research on child temperament qualities of young children

was conducted by Thomas and Chess. They believe temperament "concerns

the way [authors' emphasis] in which an individual behaves" (Thomas &

Chess, 1977, p. 9), and equate it with behavioral style. Their New York

Longitudinal Study (NYLS) followed 141 children from infancy to early

childhood over a 6-year period. Based on this study, Thomas and Chess

(1977) proposed nine categories of temperament: activity level, rhythmicity,

approach or withdrawal, adaptability, threshold of responsiveness, intensity

of reaction, quality of mood, distractibility, and attention span and persistence

(see Table 1).

From these categories, Thomas and Chess (1977) defined three

temperament constellations. The easy child (approximately 40% of the NYLS

sample) is characterized by a high adaptability to change, approach to new




6








7

Table 1

Child Temperament Categories

Category Description
Activity Level Relates to the motor component of a child's functioning
as well as the daily proportion of active and inactive
intervals.

Rhythmicity Relates to the level of predictability of a child's natural
schedule, and can be relative to the child's sleep-wake
cycle, feeding pattern, hunger, and elimination schedule.
Relates to the predictability of social behaviors (e.g.,
habits, routines, etc.) as children mature.

Approach or Deals with how a child initially responds to any new
Withdrawal stimulus approach responses are considered positive,
whereas withdrawal responses are considered negative.

Adaptability Concerns how a child responds to altered situations.

Threshold of Relates to the intensity level of a stimulus required to
Responsiveness elicit a detectable response.

Intensity of Reaction Pertains to the energy level of a child's response.

Quality of Mood Concerns the amount of pleasant or unpleasant behavior
a child exhibits.

Distractibility Relates to the degree to which extraneous environmental
stimuli interfere with or alter the direction of a child's
ongoing behavior.

Attention Span and Attention span deals with the length of time a child
Persistence pursues an activity. Persistence refers to a child's ability
to continue an activity despite obstacles that may get in
the way of maintaining the child's activity direction.


Source: Carey, 1998; Thomas & Chess, 1977








8

stimuli, relative rhythmicity, and a mild mood that is primarily positive. The

difficult child (approximately 10% of the NYLS sample) is characterized by

intense, frequently negative mood expressions, a lack of rhythmicity,

withdrawal from new stimuli, and a lack of adaptability to changing stimuli.

The slow-to-warm-up child (approximately 15% of the NYLS sample) is

characterized by a concurrence of negative, mildly intense responses to new

stimuli with slow adaptability after recurrent contact, as well as a mild intensity

of reaction and relative rhythmicity (Thomas & Chess, 1977). However, not all

children fall into these three categories. Different temperament combinations

as well as varying behavioral manifestations in different situations resulted in

the inability to classify a child's temperament into a constellation for

approximately 30% of the NYLS sample (Thomas & Chess, 1977).

The basis of temperament is believed to be biological. It can be

identified in infancy and has been shown to be somewhat consistent into

childhood and adulthood (Bates, 1980; Henderson & Fox, 1998; Teglasi, 1998).

Research on the genetic basis of temperament relies primarily on twin studies

comparing monozygotic and dizygotic twins. Monozygotic twins have been

found to have a higher rate of concurrence on temperament variables than

dizygotic twins on parent-report temperament measures (Bates, 1980). When








9

examining this research, one should consider potential validity problems

associated with parent-report measures. However, in a study that did not rely

on parent reports, data were collected using content analyses of parent

interviews to score objective descriptions of children's behavior. Monozygotic

twins were found to be more similar than dizygotic twins on all nine of the

New York Longitudinal Study traits at 9 months of age (Torgersen &

Kringlen, 1978).

Additional research that does not rely solely on parent reports supports

the genetic nature of temperament. For example, monozygotic and dyzygotic

twins' activity levels were compared (Saudino & Eaton, 1991). Data were

collected using actometers, mechanical motion recorders that have been

described as a reliable and valid method for measuring infant activity.

Additional data were collected on infants' activity level from parent ratings.

Data from both the actometers as well as the parent ratings showed evidence

of genetic influences on activity level (Saudino & Eaton, 1991).

Temperament also is relatively stable from infancy through childhood.

Some degree of continuity should be expected when examining basic

characteristics that appear to be partially determined by genetic factors, (Carey,

1981). A study investigating the relationship between behavioral styles at age 3








10

and personality traits at age 18 found temperament in early childhood to be

related to adolescent behavioral and personality characteristics (Caspi & Silva,

1995). For example, children whose behavioral styles were characterized as

impulsive and undercontrolled at age 3 displayed personality styles reflecting

low behavioral constraint at age 18. These 18-year-olds described themselves

as danger-seeking and impulsive (Caspi & Silva, 1995). Further, activity level,

threshold of responsiveness, adaptability, and intensity were stable for both

boys and girls up to age five (McDevitt, 1977, as cited in Thomas & Chess,

1977). Rhythmicity was found to be stable for girls, and mood was found to be

stable for boys up to age five. From ages five to seven, activity level and mood

were stable for boys only.

While temperament characteristics are consistent over time, these

characteristics do not "necessarily follow a consistent linear course" (Thomas &

Chess, 1977, p. 171). They interact with the environment and, as a result, a

child's behavioral style is modified by both past and present influences.

Therefore, "consistency of a temperamental trait or constellation in an

individual over time ... may require stability in these interactional forces, such

as environmental influences, motivation, and abilities" (Thomas & Chess, 1977,

p. 172).










Although temperament is thought to have a biological basis, it also is

thought to be influenced by the environment (Bates, 1980). However, this

interaction is both complex and reciprocal, as a child's temperament also

influences his or her encounters with the environment (Carey, 1981). The

Transactional Model (Sameroff & Fiese, 1990) supports this concept. This

model proposes that developmental outcomes are not related to an

individual's characteristics alone or the experiential context alone. Rather, the

combination of an individual and his or her experience determines

developmental outcomes. As a result, the nature of the interaction generally is

described as more important than either temperament or the environment

alone.

Despite the transactional nature of temperament and environment,

some temperament profiles (e.g., characteristics associated with the difficult

child) appear to be more likely to result in childhood problems than do others

(Carey, 1981). Researchers contend that children's responses to objective

environmental features are affected by their temperament (e.g., Bates, 1980;

Carey, 1981; Carey & McDevitt, 1995; Rothbart et al., 1994; Thomas & Chess,

1977), and some responses are more adaptive than others. Carey and

McDevitt (1995) went so far as to say "that conflicts between temperament and








12

environment occupy much of the considerable ground between normal

behavior (and misbehavior) and major childhood pathology" (p. xi).

Temperament traits, such as those typically seen in a difficult child, are

associated with the development of learning difficulties, adjustment problems,

and psychopathology. For example, children with difficult temperaments

may be more vulnerable to stress, as seen in a study comparing school-aged

children's temperament with coping abilities and responses to stress. Less

rhythmic and more intense behavioral styles were found to be associated with

impulsivity/acting out and passive aggression. Further, higher intensity and

lower threshold of response were found to be related to higher stress

occurrence and stress impact (Carson, 1994). The New York Longitudinal

Study also found that individual differences in negative mood,

nonadaptability, lack of rhythmicity, and intensity during early childhood

were related to externalizing problems in late childhood. In addition, when

measured at 3, 4, and 5 years of age, difficult child characteristics were related

to numerous adjustment problems in school, at home, and during early

adulthood (Caspi & Silva, 1995).

A major limitation of temperament research is that much of it relies

heavily on parent-report measures of child temperament. The use of parent-








13

report measures is problematic in that there may be considerable bias in

parents' reports of their children's behavior and characteristics. Bates (1980)

reported only modest support for the external validity of these types of

measures. He cited a number of studies that found smaller within-pair

temperament similarity for dyzygotic twins than for monozygotic twins.

Genetic theory would suggest stronger similarities than were found.

However, McDevitt and Carey (1978) reported a number of reasons for

using parent-report measures. Parent-report measures provide a more

objective and standardized scoring procedure than interview procedures.

Every parent is asked exactly the same questions, in the same order, about

reactions appropriate for the child's age group. In addition, parent-reports

allow for the careful selection of test-item wording to yield a score clearly in

only one category. This prevents conceptual and statistical blurring of

multiple category interpretation that can occur with more traditional parent

interview techniques (McDevitt & Carey, 1978).


Adult Temperament

Whereas Thomas and Chess' temperament theory is typically related to

children, Jung's theory of temperament is more commonly applied to adults.

According to Jung, what is often thought of as random variation in behavior is








14

actually orderly and consistent, due to the basic differences in individuals'

preferences in using their perceptions and judgments. Perception relates to

the process of becoming aware of people, things, ideas, or happenings.

Judgment relates to the ways in which individuals come to conclusions about

what has been perceived (Jung's theory, 2001). In other words, these

preferences "affect not only what people attend to in any given situation, but

also how they draw conclusions about what they perceive" (Myers &

McCaulley, 1985, p. 2).

Jung described two basic attitudes (i.e., extraversion/introversion) and

four functions (i.e., sensing/intuitive and thinking/feeling) that direct the use

of perception and judgment (Jung, 1921/1971). Myers and Briggs later added

an additional attitude (i.e., judging/perceiving) (Myers & McCaulley, 1985)

(see Table 2). These four attitudes and functions are combined to create 16

psychological types.

Type theory suggests that although an individual will develop and use

each of the eight preferences, they will not be equally favored. Along each

dimension, an individual will normally have a predisposition for one end of

the continuum. The interaction among an individual's four preferred attitudes

and functions constitutes that individual's "type" (Meisgeier, Murphy, &








15

Table 2

Adult Temperament Types

Type Description
Extraversion (E) Relates to the orientations of energy. Extraversion directs
Introversion (I) energy primarily outward toward people and objects.
Introversion directs energy primarily inward toward
experiences and ideas.

Sensing (S) Deals with the processes of perception. Sensing focuses
Intuitive (N) mainly on the five senses, whereas intuition focuses
mainly on patterns and interrelationships.

Thinking (T) Relates to the functions of judgment. Thinking involves
Feeling (F) objectivity and basing conclusions on logic. Feeling
focuses on harmony and basing conclusions on values.

Judging (J) Deals with the processes an individual uses to deal with
Perceiving (P) the outer world. Judgment focuses on decisiveness and
closure and uses one of the judging processes (T or F).
Perceiving focuses on flexibility and uses one of the
perceiving processes (S or N).


Source: Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Quenk, 2000


Meisgeier, 1989). Type development is believed to be a lifelong process. As

individuals become older, they will consciously develop and use two of the

types more frequently. These two types are thought to be more interesting to

the individual; the other two types are thought to be less interesting and,

therefore, are more likely to be neglected. The environment plays a role in the

development of a person's type, as it fosters one's natural preferences or








16

discourages them by reinforcing activities that are less satisfying to the

individual (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998).

Temperament type affects the way individuals deal with their world.

This extends into the classroom, as teachers teach and interact with their

students. Researchers suggest that teachers primarily have ESFJ or ISFJ

psychological types (Grindler & Stratton, 1990; Macdaid, McCaulley, & Kainz,

1986). That is, while no consistent preference has been identified related to the

extraversion (E) or introversion (I) dimension, studies have suggested that

teachers are more likely to prefer sensing (S), feeling (F), and judging (J) types.

ESFJs are described as the friendliest and most compassionate of the

temperament types. Individuals with this type try to make life easier for

others and promote group cohesion. ISFJs are the most reliable of the

temperament types. They prefer to quietly gather facts and store them for

future use (Myers et al., 1998). Overall, individuals with the sensing and

judging preferences value precision, structure, and order in the classroom

(Meisgeier et al., 1989).

Teachers' temperament types affect how they structure their classrooms

and interact with their students. For example, teachers who prefer

extraversion have classrooms high in movement and noise, and like to give








17

their students choices. On the other hand, teachers who prefer introversion

are more likely to have orderly and quiet classrooms with more structured

learning activities (Myers et al., 1998). Temperament styles also influence how

teachers define student misbehavior. For example, high school teachers with a

sensing preference tend to identify anything that interferes with instruction as

misbehavior (Miner & Hyman, 1988).


Summary

With regard to child temperament, Thomas and Chess (1977) described

nine temperament categories and three temperament constellations as a result

of their research. Temperament is believed to be biological in nature in that it

appears in infancy and has been shown to be consistent into childhood and

adolescence. In addition, research on temperament characteristics of

monozygotic and dizygotic twins supports a genetic basis. A reciprocal

relationship is believed to exist between the biological nature of temperament

and environmental encounters. In other words, a child's temperament is

influenced by both biological and environmental influences as well as the

interaction between the two. Research has shown that children with certain

temperament characteristics may be more vulnerable to stress and more prone

to behavioral and adjustment problems.








18

Jung indicated that much of adults' behavior is due to basic differences

in their preferences in using perception and judgment. In other words,

perception and judgment affect what people attend to as well as how they draw

conclusions (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Jung, Myers, and Briggs described

basic attitudes (i.e., extraversion/introversion and judgment/perception) and

functions (i.e., sensing/intuitive and thinking/feeling) that direct the use of

perception and judgment (Jung 1921/1971; Myers & McCaulley, 1985). The

attitudes and functions can be combined into 16 four-letter types. A person's

type is determined based on his or her predisposition for one end of the

continuum along each of four dimensions. The interaction between an

individual's four preferred attitudes and functions constitutes that

individual's "type" (Meisgeier et al., 1989). Teachers primarily have ESFJ or

ISFJ temperament types (Grindler & Stratton, 1990; Macdaid et al., 1986).

Teachers' temperament types affect how they structure their classrooms,

teach, and interact with students.


Temperament and School Adjustment Variables

Understanding relationships between temperament and school

experiences is important because of the central role school plays in children's

lives. "With the exception of the family, no social institution plays a more








19

powerful role in children's lives" (Keogh, 1986, p. 89). Particularly important

are children's experiences in kindergarten, as this period is often the first time

children experience a formal school setting. Children are expected to adjust to

new social and academic demands and must form and maintain strategies to

cope with their social environment (Chess & Thomas, 1986; Hamre & Pianta,

2001). For example, children must learn to cooperate with nonparental

authority figures, successfully enter and become part of a new peer group,

become committed to academic development, and exhibit good performance

in academic skill building activities (Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995).

Children who are successfully adjusted relate well to the teacher and their

peers and are well suited to various learning experiences (Skarpness &

Carson, 1987).

Experiences during the initial contact with school can affect children's

self-concepts as well as their attitudes toward school (Rusher, McGrevin, &

Lambiotte, 1992). These experiences also can impact children's long-term

school experiences. For example, early adjustment to kindergarten may help

alleviate the stress that comes from the changes children experience

(Skarpness and Carson, 1987). On the other hand, children who have








20

difficulty adjusting as the school year progresses may continue to experience

long-term difficulties.

School adjustment can be characterized by a child's ability to cope with

the specific social and cognitive demands of the school environment (Cassel,

1962, as cited in Skarpness & Carson, 1987). Skarpness and Carson (1987)

defined successful adjustment as the extent to which a child is able to relate to

other students and the teacher, as well as how well suited he or she is to the

various learning experiences encountered in school. School-related demands

generally can be classified into two major categories: 1) those that are

interpersonal in nature and related to behavior that is adjusted and socially

appropriate and 2) those that involve academic performance and achievement

(Keogh, 1986). Each is discussed below.


Interpersonal Relationships

Relationships among children's adjustment to school and the school

environment's interpersonal features have not been an area of interest until

recent years. In addition, investigations on this topic have focused primarily

on children's peer relationships in classrooms (Birch & Ladd, 1997). This line

of research (e.g., Ladd, 1990; Parker & Asher, 1993; Ladd & Price, 1987) has

indicated that classroom peers play an important role in children's school








21

adjustment. Further, children who experience early difficulties with their

peers are at risk for later school adjustment problems (Birch & Ladd, 1997).

Peers are not the only individuals with whom children have important

relationships. Classroom teachers also may serve as key figures in children's

school-lives and, as a result, may affect children's school adjustment (Birch &

Ladd, 1997; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Keogh, 1986; Pianta, 1994; Pianta &

Steinberg, 1992). More of children's waking hours are spent with teachers

than with parents; therefore, the teacher-child relationship is an integral part

of the academic and social learning context and provides a context for

development itself (Pianta et al., 1995).

Some researchers believe that children's patterns of achievement are

well-established by the third grade and that few school experiences beyond

the third grade have the power to change that course (Alexander & Entwisle,

1988, as cited in Pianta & Steinberg, 1992). As a result, teachers in the primary

grades (K 2) are likely to have an important impact on a child's school

experiences. For example, teacher-child relationship patterns in kindergarten

predict later school adjustment as well as academic and behavioral outcomes

(Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Pianta & Nimetz, 1991; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992).










Teacher-child relationships play a critical regulatory role in children's

development. For example, teachers assist children in learning how to behave,

how to interact with others, and about the nature of the school environment.

This regulatory role is particularly important during periods in which

developmental processes are less buffered or are challenged by environmental

demands (Pianta et al., 1995). The early years of elementary school pose such

a challenge to young children. Teacher-child relationships can lend

organization and stability to developmental processes, assisting children to

modify or elaborate their existing coping strategies as well as to develop new

strategies (Pianta et al., 1995). Despite their importance as a feature of the

academic and social learning context and the potential implications for school

adjustment, teacher-child relationships "have received little attention in the

literature on school-related developmental outcomes" (Pianta et al., 1995, p.

296).

Patterns of kindergarten children's relationships with their teachers are

predictive of school achievement (Pianta & Nimetz, 1991; Pianta & Steinberg,

1991). One study examined kindergarten teachers' views about their

relationships with their students as measured on the Student-Teacher

Relationship Scale (STRS) (Pianta & Steinberg, 1992). The STRS was based on








23

research of teacher-child interactions and attachment theory. Three distinct

factors were revealed: closeness, dependency, and conflict/anger (Birch &

Ladd, 1997; Pianta et al., 1995). Closeness is described as encompassing the

degree of open communication and warmth existing between a child and his

or her teacher (Birch & Ladd, 1997). It may function as a support for young

children in the school environment. A positive student-teacher relationship in

kindergarten was associated with higher levels of competent behaviors and

fewer behavior problems (Pianta et al., 1995). A close relationship may

facilitate positive attitudes toward and greater involvement in school (Birch &

Ladd, 1997). Further, a close teacher-child relationship may serve as a

motivating factor for teachers to put forth more time and effort to promote the

child's success (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). In addition, based on parent-child

attachment theory, Birch and Ladd (1997) suggested that close student-teacher

relationships provide children with a secure base they can use to explore their

environment. Therefore, closeness may promote children's school

performance and learning (Birch & Ladd, 1997).

Dependency, a second factor of the teacher-child relationship, refers to

an over-reliance on the teacher as a source of support. It can be characterized

by "clingy" or possessive behaviors. Dependency in the teacher-student








24

relationship reportedly interferes with children's school adjustment (Birch &

Ladd, 1997). Overly dependent children may be hesitant in their explorations

of the school environment as well as in their social relationships. These

children more commonly experience feelings of loneliness and negative

attitudes toward school than do their non-dependent peers (Birch & Ladd,

1997).

Conflict/anger, the third factor of the teacher-child relationship, reflects

negative affect and may impair children's school adjustment because it acts as

a stressor in the school environment (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Pianta, 1994).

Conflictual teacher-child relationships involve a lack of rapport between the

teacher and the child as well as a sense of friction in their interactions.

Further, this type of relationship may result in teacher efforts to control a

child's behavior (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). A child who is a part of a conflictual

relationship may be limited in the extent to which he or she can rely on the

teacher as a source of support (Birch & Ladd, 1997). In addition, this type of

relationship may result in increased feelings of anxiety or anger, resulting in

withdrawal from school activities (e.g., becoming uninvolved or disengaged)

or feelings of alienation (e.g., loneliness and negative school attitudes).








25

Further, the stress associated with a conflictual relationship also may be

associated with impaired academic performance (Birch & Ladd, 1997).

Few studies address relationships between school adjustment and the

teacher-child relationship. One such study included 436 kindergarten children

and their 26 classroom teachers. Among the kindergarten children who were

recommended for retention, those who were not retained had more positive

teacher-child relationships than the children who were retained (Pianta &

Steinberg, 1992).

Relationships among the three aspects of the teacher-child relationship

(closeness, dependency, and conflict) and children's early school adjustment

were examined in a study that included 206 kindergarten children and their 16

classroom teachers (Birch & Ladd, 1997). Data collected during the fall

semester included measures of the teacher-child relationship (using a teacher-

report rating scale) and children's school adjustment. School adjustment

outcome indices included a readiness test, self-report rating scale on loneliness

and social dissatisfaction, self-report rating scale on school liking and school

avoidance, and teacher-report rating scale of children's school adjustment.

Closeness in the teacher-child relationship was positively related to

kindergartners' academic performance. A positive relationship also was








26

found between closeness and factors on the school adjustment rating scale

(i.e., self-directedness and school liking). In addition, the relationship between

dependency in the teacher-child relationship and school adjustment

difficulties was strong. Kindergartners who had a dependent relationship

with their teacher displayed lower academic performance, less positive

engagement with the school environment, and more negative school attitudes.

Kindergartners who displayed conflictual relationships with their teachers

also tended to have negative school attitudes and were rated by their teachers

as less self-directed, higher in school avoidance, and lower in cooperative

participation (Birch & Ladd, 1997).

Children's temperament characteristics are related to their interactions

with teachers (Chess & Thomas, 1986; Keogh & Burnstein, 1988; Paget, Nagle,

& Martin, 1984). For example, in a study of 18 preschool children, teachers

interacted more with preschool children with positive temperament profiles

than those with negative temperament profiles. However, among children

with disabilities, teachers interacted more frequently with children with

negative temperament than those with positive temperaments (Keogh &

Burnstein, 1988). In addition, in a study of the relationship among 217

children's temperament and communication abilities and their kindergarten








27

adjustment, less active children were perceived to be better adjusted. Further,

children with primarily positive moods were perceived to be better adjusted,

suggesting that children with more "favorable" temperament characteristics

may elicit more positive interactions with their teachers, which in turn

contributes to their adjustment (Skarpness & Carson, 1987).


Academic Performance

Temperament characteristics are related to learning and educational

performance (Martin & Gaddis, 1989; Keogh, 1986; Martin & Holbrook, 1985).

For example, in a study of the relationship between 104 first grade children's

temperament characteristics and their academic achievement, the

temperament characteristics of activity, adaptability, and persistence were

related to reading and mathematics achievement, even when controlling for

IQ. The two temperament characteristics that best predicted achievement

were persistence and adaptability (Martin & Holbrook, 1985). In addition, the

temperament characteristics of activity level, distractibility, and task

persistence were most related to achievement in early elementary school, and

activity level and distractibility were negatively associated with achievement

and teacher-assigned grades (Martin, 1989; Schoen & Nagle, 1994). Further,

the temperament factors of low task orientation (i.e., high activity, high








28

distractibility, and low attention span-persistence), low flexibility (i.e.,

negative quality of mood, low approach, and low adaptability), and high

reactivity (i.e., low threshold of responsiveness, high intensity of reaction, and

negative quality of mood) were most related to children's school performance

problems (Carey, 1998; Keogh, 1989).

With regard to academic demands, relationships between temperament

and achievement are not global. Instead, temperament seems to be more

evident in school tasks that require the regulation of attention, activity,

persistence, and distractibility than in tasks involving new problem-solving

strategies (Keogh, 1986). For example, attention span and distractibility may

be linked to "a child's ability to adjust to the academic requirements of

kindergarten" (Skarpness & Carson, 1987, p. 373). Some believe temperament

moderates children's academic performance by "'setting the stage' for the

acquisition of new learning" (Keogh, 1986, p. 99). For example, children who

are inhibited by new situations may have difficulty entering new activities or

handling fast-paced changes and, as a result, may be at risk for not keeping up

with the pace of instruction. The temperament characteristics of high

adaptability, high task persistence, high approach, and low negative

emotionality appear to protect a child from the occurrence of school-related








29

problems (Martin, 1994). Martin (1994) reported that this is likely to occur for

two reasons. First, persistence probably enhances children's learning,

regardless of their cognitive ability. Second, "children who have temperament

traits that make them more socially attractive are more likely to receive social

support" (p. 129).


Summary

School plays an important role in children's lives, and their adjustment

to school can impact their school experiences (Chess & Thomas, 1986; Keogh,

1986; Skarpness & Carson, 1987). School adjustment is defined as how well a

child is able to relate to peers and teachers as well as how well suited he or she

is to the various learning experiences encountered in school (Skarpness &

Carson, 1987). School-related demands that children encounter can be

classified as either those that are interpersonal in nature or those that involve

academic performance (Keogh, 1986). With regard to interpersonal demands,

teacher-child relationships play an important role in children's school

adjustment (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Keogh, 1986; Pianta et al., 1995). Children

who had negative relationships with their teachers had poorer adjustment to

school than those children who had more positive relationships with their

teachers (Birch & Ladd, 1997). Children's temperament characteristics also








30

affect their relationships with teachers (Keogh & Burnstein, 1988; Skarpness &

Carson, 1987). With regard to academic performance, temperament

characteristics are related to learning and educational performance (Martin &

Gaddis, 1989). That is, certain temperament characteristics may moderate a

child's academic performance by allowing him or her to enter new activities,

handle fast-paced classroom changes, and regulate the amount of attention or

persistence needed by a particular task (Keogh, 1986; Martin, 1994).


Temperament and Teacher Beliefs

Teachers' beliefs influence their decisions, judgments, teaching, and

interactions with children (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Bloom, 1992; Fang, 1996;

Isenberg, 1990; Keogh, 1986; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992). As a result, an

understanding of teachers' beliefs is important to promote a better

understanding of the variations that occur across individuals' teaching

practices (Isenberg, 1990). "Belief" can be defined as a psychologically held

understanding, proposition, or premise about the world that is considered to

be true (Richardson, 1996). Belief also is defined as a conception of some

reality containing sufficient credibility or validity to satisfy the person holding

the belief (Green, 1971; Pajares, 1992). Typically, a belief is contextually bound

and guides one's thoughts and behavior (Fang, 1996; Pajares, 1992;








31

Richardson, 1996). Goodenough (1963) reported that beliefs are "accepted as

guides for assessing the future, are cited in support of decisions, or are

referred to in passing judgment on the behavior of others" (p. 151). Beliefs are

similar to emotional attitudes in the sense that one can believe a proposition

without being aware of it. They fall on a continuum and can range from an

uncertain suspicion to absolute conviction (Smith & Shepard, 1988).

Beliefs differ from knowledge; beliefs are based on evaluation and

judgment whereas knowledge is based on conclusive facts (Nespor, 1987;

Pajares, 1992; Smith & Shepard, 1988). Beliefs, though assumed to be true by

those who hold them, do not require a truth condition (Green, 1971; Lehrer,

1990). On the other hand, knowledge is more concrete and typically has some

supporting evidence (Richardson, 1996). Beliefs also may have a stronger

affective and evaluative element than knowledge because affect usually

operates independently of the cognition associated with knowledge (Nespor,

1987).

By the time preservice teachers enter college, their beliefs about

teaching are generally well-established (Buchmann, 1987; Pajares, 1992), as

they are developed during individuals' "apprenticeship of observation"

(Lortie, 1975, p. 61), a first-hand view of what teachers do in the classroom








32

during their own formative educational experiences (Buchmann, 1987; Pajares,

1992; Richardson, 1996). The key to teachers' operating knowledge may be

found in this informal occupational socialization of teachers (Buchmann, 1987).

In addition to their experience as students, teachers' beliefs also are

shaped by their other personal experiences, which in turn are affected by their

temperaments. Personal experience includes aspects of life that contribute to

the development of a world view; intellectual and morale dispositions;

understandings of the connection between schooling and society; and other

forms of familial, personal, and cultural understanding (Richardson, 1996).

Once formed, beliefs about teaching tend to persevere and resist change

(Buchmann, 1987; Lortie, 1975; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992). This is partially

due to the fact that belief systems filter subsequent thinking and influence

how new phenomena are interpreted (Pajares, 1992). Although teachers'

beliefs can be changed, particularly at the inservice level, change may only

occur when a teacher is open-minded and willing to explore new ideas

(Richardson, 1996).

Teachers' beliefs and perceptions about their students affect many

aspects of the students' school experience. Korblau (1982) reported that

teachers have beliefs and perceptions of students' "teachability." That is,








33

teachers' beliefs serve as a benchmark upon which their judgments and

behaviors are based. He believes teachers' thoughts and actions about

students are influenced by the attributes they feel characterize "idealized

teachable" students.

Teachers' perceptions of the quality of their relationships with their

students are related to children's feelings of loneliness, school avoidance

desires, and performance on academic tasks. They also are related to teachers'

ratings of various school adjustment outcome indices (Birch & Ladd, 1997).

Many important teacher decisions, including grade retention, are based on

indices such as these. As a result, the quality of the teacher-child relationship

may have a significant impact in terms of the various educational paths

children follow throughout the course of their school experiences (Birch &

Ladd, 1997).

Literature on temperament suggests that teachers' beliefs about

children's temperaments affect their reactions to and interactions with

students (Kean, 1997; Keogh, 1986; Rothbart & Jones, 1998; Teglasi, 1998). For

example, teachers' judgments are influenced by children's temperament,

specifically task orientation (i.e., persistence and activity) and adaptability

(Keogh, 1986). The influence of children's temperaments on teachers' decision








34

strategies was studied in a sample of 321 elementary school children

(kindergarten, first grade, and third grade students) and their 13 teachers

(Pullis & Cadwell, 1982). Teachers rated students in five areas of classroom

functioning or behavior (intelligence, motivation, social skills, academic

performance, and working to potential); rated the students' temperament

characteristics; and, based on brief descriptions of five classroom situations,

reported how frequently they had to monitor the child's behavior in each

situation. A strong and consistent relationship emerged between teachers'

classroom decisions and students' temperament characteristics. Teachers were

particularly sensitive to students' task orientation characteristics students

with positive task orientation characteristics were considered to need less

supervision across all classroom situations (Pullis & Cadwell, 1982).

The effects of teachers' beliefs and values in relation to their classroom

interactions with children identified as having difficult and easy temperament

characteristics were studied in a sample of eight teachers and 32 children (16

with difficult temperaments and 16 with easy temperaments). Teachers

completed rating scales to assess the children's temperaments, and classroom

observations were completed to assess the teacher-child interactions (Kean,

1997). Findings revealed that more negative interactions took place with








35

difficult children than with the easy children. One explanation for this may be

that classrooms typically have clearly defined expectations that children will

complete set tasks, work quietly, and conform to teacher demands. Children

with difficult temperaments may experience problems complying with these

expectations. Findings also indicated that children with easy temperaments

displayed and received considerably more positive emotional and social

behaviors, while children with difficult temperaments displayed and received

considerably more negative emotional and social behaviors (Kean, 1997).

Kean (1997) concluded that early childhood educators should consider their

beliefs and values carefully as they develop more effective teaching techniques

for use with children with differing temperaments.

Teachers' evaluations of students and report card grades also are

influenced by their perceptions of the students' temperament (Keogh, 1986).

Children's task orientation and flexibility are related to teachers' estimates of

ability and grades. Students who were more task oriented and flexible

received higher grades than their achievement scores would predict (Pullis,

1979, as cited in Keogh, 1986). Further, students who met or exceeded

teachers' expectations across the attention span and distractibility

temperament characteristics were perceived by their teachers to be more








36

capable and better adjusted. However, when compared with other students

on objective measures of achievement, these students did not perform

significantly differently from other students (Henderson & Fox, 1998). In

addition, students who were less reactive than expected by their teachers also

were perceived to be more able and better adjusted. These students also

performed better than their peers on standardized achievement tests

(Henderson & Fox, 1998).

In summary, teachers' beliefs affect their decisions, teaching, and

interactions with children (Bloom, 1992; Fang, 1990; Keogh, 1986). A belief can

be defined as a psychologically held understanding about the world that is

considered to be true by the holder (Richardson, 1996). Preservice teachers

often enter college with well-established beliefs about teaching. These beliefs

are developed during an individual's own educational experience as a student

as well as through personal experiences (Buchmann, 1987; Pajares, 1992).

Whether teachers' beliefs can be modified during their professional

experience is unclear (Buchmann, 1987; Lortie, 1975; Nespor, 1987; Pajares,

1992; Richardson, 1996). Teachers' beliefs can affect children's school

experiences, including their academic performance, feelings of loneliness, and

school avoidance desires (Birch & Ladd, 1997). Teachers' beliefs about








37

temperament can affect their interactions with students (Keogh, 1986; Rothbart

& Jones, 1998). Teachers' decisions about students' supervision needs have

been related to temperament (Pullis & Cadwell, 1982). In addition, teacher-

assigned report card grades and teachers' perceptions of students' adjustment

also have been related to teachers' perceptions of students' temperaments

(Henderson & Fox, 1998; Pullis, 1989).


Goodness of Fit

Thomas and Chess' (1977) concept of "goodness of fit" has been found

to have clinical utility and also can be applied to educational settings.

Goodness of fit results when the properties of the environment and its
expectations and demands are in accord with the [child's] own
capacities, characteristics, and style of behaving. When this consonance
between [child] and environment is present, optimal development in a
progressive direction is possible. (p. 12)

Consonance among a child's temperament, environmental demands and

expectations, and other attributes is necessary for optimal development.

However, this does not imply that all behavioral manifestations of the child's

temperament characteristics should be accepted and/or encouraged (Thomas

& Chess, 1977). When consonance among a child's temperament and

environmental expectations and demands does not occur, interactional stress

and conflict result. As a result of a poor fit, the child reacts inappropriately,







38

which may lead to dysfunction in physical, academic, or social adjustment

(Carey, 1998). "The situation in which the poor fit occurs determines where

the symptoms will emerge while the child's temperament and coping

strategies affect the types of symptoms displayed" (Carey, 1998, p. 528).

Although certain temperament characteristics (e.g., high motor activity,

withdrawal tendencies, negative mood, marked distractibility, and extreme

persistence) may be normal for a young child, they may still interfere with

academic achievement, desirable school and play activities, and interpersonal

relations. Appropriate structure and guidance may be necessary when the

consequences of a child's temperament on behavior may be undesirable if

allowed unrestricted expression (Thomas & Chess, 1977). Carey (1998) argued

that the child's temperament itself is not as important as the fit he or she has

with the environment. Specifically, the pathology is not found in the child or

in the circumstances, but in the interaction between the two (Carey, 1998;

Chess & Thomas, 1999; Sameroff & Fiese, 1990).

At least two aspects of goodness of fit exist within the school setting:

children's interpersonal interactions and the content of instructional domains.

Relationships between children and teachers are of particular interest in the

current study. Classroom interactions are believed to influence the degree to








39

which a child experiences a good fit (Saft & Pianta, 2001). Keogh (1986)

suggested that a child's temperament is unlikely to have a direct effect on a

teacher's responses, except when a child's temperament characteristics are

extreme. Instead, the belief that temperament may have an "evocative" (Scarr,

1981, p. 1160) influence on teacher-child relationships is more reasonable. In

other words, children's temperaments evoke reactions from teachers that then

affect the child's school experiences (Keogh, 1986).

In addition, teachers' beliefs may influence the extent to which they will

tolerate behavioral manifestations of students' temperament characteristics

(Kean, 1997). For example, children with easy temperament profiles (i.e.,

approaching, adaptable, and positive in mood) are typically well liked by

teachers. Teachers usually respond to easy children with affection and

warmth and give these children frequent opportunities for instructional and

interpersonal interactions (Keogh, 1986). On the other hand, children with

difficult temperament profiles (i.e., irritable, withdrawing, and negative in

mood) are less likely to have positive, close relationships with their teachers

and instead are frequently limited to instructional or management matters

rather than interpersonal ones (Keogh, 1986). Therefore, depending on their

temperament patterns, the nature of children's school experiences may be








40

quite different. As a result, these differences may have long-term

consequences for children's feelings and attitudes toward themselves and

school (Keogh, 1986).

Teachers' experiences and beliefs about temperament also affect their

relationships with children (Keogh, 1986; Rothbart & Jones, 1998; Teglasi,

1998). For example, teachers may consider children with slow-to-warm-up

temperament profiles to be unmotivated or lazy by teachers. Further, they

may view children with active and/or distractible temperament characteristics

to be obstructive or purposefully mischievous. These beliefs result from

teachers' attributions about the causes of behavior and can affect the teacher-

child relationship as well as teachers' decisions (Keogh, 1986). As a result, the

child's fit in the classroom environment may be affected.

Teachers may react with negative feelings (e.g., anger, disappointment,

frustration, etc.) when conflict results from a poor fit. These feelings can be

particularly strong when the teacher infers that the child is misbehaving

intentionally (Pullis, 1989). As a result, the fit between the teacher and student

can worsen. Attempts to improve the student-teacher relationship and

facilitate a better fit require teachers to manage their feelings by attempting to

be objective and reevaluate the sources of the child's misbehavior (Pullis,








41

1989). Teachers also need to be aware of their personal comfort levels. In

other words, teachers should be aware of the behavioral styles they prefer and

those they may find irritating or uncomfortable. This self-understanding may

be beneficial because teachers may be better able to identify students with

whom they are likely to have a poor fit. This knowledge may then be used to

enhance understanding and to facilitate a better fit (Pullis, 1989).

The second aspect of goodness-of-fit in the school setting is associated

with the content of instructional domains. Certain temperament

characteristics may be more compatible with learning than others (Keogh,

1986). For example, children who are approaching, adaptable, and persistent

may be better able to handle complex and changing instruction. On the other

hand, children who are nonadaptable, nonpersistent, and withdrawing are

more likely to find instruction threatening and uncomfortable (Keogh, 1986).

Children who are approaching, adaptable, and persistent may feel more

comfortable in the classroom setting, a quality that also may promote their

ability to handle classroom demands. On the other hand, children with more

difficult temperament characteristics may have smaller comfort zones, a

quality that could increase the likelihood that they find instruction

threatening.








42

In addition, children's differences in their responses to the unfamiliar

may affect how easily they engage in learning tasks and how readily they

adapt to the expectations and demands of the classroom environment

(Henderson & Fox, 1998). Therefore, certain temperament profiles result in a

generalized response set (Keogh, 1986). Temperament also may affect a

child's preparation for learning. That is, some temperament characteristics

and profiles may set the stage for the acquisition of information, thereby

facilitating learning and a proper fit in the classroom environment (Keogh,

1986). For example, the qualities of low distractibility, high attention span,

and the ability to modulate activity level are important preparatory acts for

learning (Keogh, 1986). By understanding how temperament affects students,

teachers are better able to examine the demands of instructional activities and

determine the manner in which the demands could present problems for

children whose temperament characteristics do not facilitate learning. Thus,

teachers could identify ways to accommodate children's individual differences

and help create a better fit between children and their learning environment

(Pullis, 1989).

In a broad sense, goodness of fit can be seen as a reflection of a comfort

zone. For example, a child's comfort level in the classroom setting may be








43

related to his or her age, temperament, ability level, academic skills, social

competence, and relationships with peers and the teacher. A teacher's comfort

level may be related to his or her educational level, years of experience, beliefs

about teaching, and relationships with students. A good fit may not be

possible if a child or teacher is functioning outside his or her individual

comfort zone.

Relationships between teachers' levels of comfort and children's

temperament characteristics are of interest in this study. Although the

concept of a teacher "comfort zone" (Buysse, Wesley, Keyes, & Bailey, 1996)

has not been applied to temperament and goodness of fit, it has been studied

with regard to children's characteristics and inclusion (e.g., Buysse et al., 1996;

Wesley, Buysse, & Keyes, 2000). Research on individuals' comfort with

inclusion originated with Green and Stoneman (1989). They investigated the

comfort of parents of typically developing preschool children with having

children with disabilities included in their children's class. Parents were most

concerned about and least comfortable with preschoolers who displayed

behavior problems and severe disabilities being included in their children's

classes (Green & Stoneman, 1989).








44

Buysse and colleagues (1996) extended this research by exploring how

comfortable general early childhood educators were in serving individual

children with a variety of disabilities. The study included 52 early childhood

educators who taught in community childcare programs that had begun to

accept children with disabilities after primarily serving typically developing

children. Participants rated a child with disabilities from their classroom on

nine functional domains and then indicated their comfort level in serving

hypothetical children with a variety of disabilities who displayed different

levels of severity. Teachers were asked to complete the first profile on a child

currently in their classroom to provide them with an opportunity to consider

the actual domains of functioning in children with whom they were familiar

before they made judgments about hypothetical cases (Buysse et al., 1996).

Although the teachers were generally comfortable serving children with

special needs, their comfort levels decreased as the severity of the children's

disabilities increased. Further, teachers identified inappropriate behavior as a

key factor for having a limited comfort zone (Buysse et al., 1996). A follow-up

study of 84 early intervention professionals who consulted with teachers

about children with varying types, severity levels, and combinations of

disabilities, found they reported the least amount of comfort when consulting








45

about children with behavior, communication, and social skills disorders

(Wesley et al., 2000).

The findings from these two studies (Buysse et al., 1996; Wesley et al.,

2000) have important implications for the study of temperament and

children's fit in the classroom environment, particularly for children with

difficult temperaments, given their higher probability for developing

behavioral difficulties (Carey & McDevitt, 1995; Carson, 1994; Caspi & Silva,

1995; Thomas et al., 1968). If teachers are uncomfortable with their ability to

teach children with behavioral problems, then serving children with difficult

temperament characteristics also may fall outside their comfort zones. A

teacher's lack of comfort with these extreme characteristics may affect teacher-

child relationships and consequently a child's fit in the classroom.

Despite the impact of temperament and goodness of fit in educational

settings, its limitations also must be addressed. First, certain temperament

traits and patterns are more difficult to accommodate than others. "Children

who are negative and inflexible will fit into a narrower range of settings than

those who are pleasant and adaptable" (Carey, 1998, p. 528). Second, specific

adjustments that can be made in an effort to create a better fit for a child are

limited. Teachers and other school personnel may have the ability to make








46

adjustments in how they deal with certain children, how the physical

environment is laid out, and, to some extent, to the nature of the demands

placed on children. However, the degree of adjustments that can be made to a

somewhat fixed curriculum is limited (Carey, 1998). Third, teachers' ability to

provide individual attention to students is limited. For many teachers, finding

time to plan and implement accommodations and interventions for individual

students is difficult when trying to attend to the needs of their class as a

whole. This difficulty may be exacerbated if a poor teacher-child relationship

exists or if a teacher is operating outside his or her comfort zone in managing

the child's behavior.

In summary, goodness of fit is defined as consonance among a child's

characteristics and behavioral style and the expectations and demands of the

environment (Thomas & Chess, 1977). Such compatibility is thought to be a

key component of optimal development. When consonance between a child's

temperament-based behaviors and environmental expectations and demands

does not occur, interactional stress and conflict often results, leading to a poor

fit for the child. As a result of this poor fit, the child is at risk for academic,

behavioral, and social-emotional difficulties (Carey, 1998).








47

Keogh (1986) suggested there are two aspects of goodness of fit within

the educational setting: children's interpersonal interactions and the content of

instructional domains. With regard to interpersonal relationships,

temperament may have an evocative influence on teacher-child relationships;

different temperament characteristics may evoke positive or negative reactions

from teachers (Keogh, 1986; Scarr, 1981). In addition, teachers' beliefs may

influence the amount and intensity of emotionality they will tolerate from

students (Kean, 1997). As a result, the nature of the teacher-child relationship

likely will be affected. With regard to the content of instructional domain,

certain temperament characteristics may be more compatible with learning

than others. In other words, certain temperament characteristics may affect

how easily children engage in learning tasks and may help set the stage for the

acquisition of new information (Henderson & Fox, 1998; Keogh, 1986). An

understanding of students' temperament profiles may allow teachers to better

accommodate individual differences and thus facilitate a better fit with the

learning environment (Pullis, 1989).

Examined more broadly, goodness of fit can be conceptualized as a

type of comfort zone, a continuum along which a teacher feels at ease teaching

and interacting with a student (Buysse et al., 1996). For example, a teacher








48

may feel less comfortable with his or her ability to teach a child with difficult

temperament characteristics. Studies related to the inclusion of preschool

children with disabilities in regular education settings found teachers and

teacher-consultants felt more discomfort working with children with severe

disabilities, including those with behavior problems (Buysse et al., 1996;

Wesley et al., 2000). Therefore, when a child and his or her teacher feel

comfortable in the classroom setting, goodness of fit is likely to be fostered.














CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Participants and Settings

The participants included 88 Florida kindergarten teachers from

Alachua, Citrus, Duval, and Seminole counties. Permission to conduct

research was received in each school district prior to data collection. A letter

inviting participation (see Appendix A) was sent to elementary school

principals who approved or declined school-based participation. Research

packets, including consent forms (see Appendix B) and measurement

instruments, were distributed to kindergarten teachers at schools in which the

principal provided entry permission to the researcher.

The researcher was available to discuss the study with kindergarten

teachers in person or via phone or e-mail. Follow-up was done as necessary to

receive completed data from participating teachers or to collect study

materials from teachers who did not wish to participate. All kindergarten

teachers, including participants and those who chose not to participate, were

treated fairly, as prescribed by the American Psychological Association's

ethical guidelines (American Educational Research Association et al., 1999).

49








50

Thirty-eight principals in the four school districts allowed the

researcher to approach his or her kindergarten teachers, while 22 did not

provide entry permission. Most principals who did not allow the researcher

to contact their kindergarten teachers indicated that the teachers were not

interested in participating.

Two hundred forty participant research packets were distributed to

kindergarten teachers. Twenty-three teachers declined to participate and

returned their incomplete packets. One hundred twenty-nine packets were

not returned. The researcher received 88 completed packets. Table 3 provides

a summary of the demographic information provided by participants.

Participants were primarily female (98.85%) and ranged in age from 22 to 66

(x = 40.82, sd = 12.15). The majority hold a bachelor's degree (67.82%) and

have elementary certification with an early childhood endorsement (72.73%).

Participants' teaching experiences ranged from one to 35 years (x = 15.99, sd =

10.90). Their experience teaching kindergarten ranged from one-half to 35

years (x = 10.23, sd = 9.09).

A summary of participants' teaching environments during the 2001-

2002 academic year is provided in Table 4. Class sizes ranged from 16 to 34

students (3= 22.59, sd = 3.49). Participants referred a similar number of








51

Table 3

Teacher-Related Demographic Information Provided by Participants on the
Teacher Information Survey (TIS)

Mean/Standard
Variable Deviation Percent
Gender (n = 87*)
Female 98.85%
Male 1.15%

Ethnicity (n = 86)
Non-Hispanic, White 87.21%
African American 10.47%
Hispanic 1.16%
Asian 0.00%
Multiracial 1.16%
Other 0.00%

Age (n = 85)
Under 25 14.12%
25 35 27.06%
36 45 15.29%
46 55 30.59%
Over 55 12.94%

Most Advanced Educational Degree (n = 87)
Bachelors 67.82%
Masters 31.03%
Doctoral 1.15%

Type of Certification** (n = 87)
Elementary certification only 5.68%
Elementary certification with an early 72.73%
childhood endorsement
Birth to age four certification 3.41%
Age three to grade three certification 21.59%
Pre-K handicapped endorsement 3.41%
Other 17.05%








52

Table 3 Continued

Mean/Standard
Variable Deviation Percent
Years of Teaching Experience X = 15.99
sd = 10.90

Years of Experience Teaching Kindergarten X = 10.23
sd = 9.09

*Not all participants completed every item on the TIS.
**Percentages do not equal 100% as some participants were certified in more
than one area.


Table 4

Teaching Environment Demographic Information Provided by Participants on
the Teacher Information Survey (TIS)

Mean/Standard
Variable Deviation Percent
Number of Students in Class (n = 88) x = 22.59
sd = 3.49

Number of Students Referred for Retention x = 2.19
(n = 88) sd = 2.26

Number of Students Referred for Screening x = 2.14
by Child Study Team (n = 88) sd = 1.71

Estimated Socioeconomic Status of Students
(n = 88)
Low 21.84%
Low/Middle 43.68%
Middle 20.69%
Middle/High 11.49%
High 0%







53

children for retention (x = 2.19, sd = 2.26) as they did for special education

testing (x = 2.14, sd = 1.71). The majority of participants rated their school

populations' socioeconomic status as low/middle class (43.68%).


Measures

Child Vignettes

Information on teachers' beliefs about school adjustment was obtained

through ratings on eight vignettes about hypothetical kindergarten children

(see Appendix C). Five variables were held constant across all eight vignettes:

gender, race, physical health, socioeconomic status, and academic ability. All

eight children were described as Caucasian males who are physically healthy,

Head Start graduates, and of lower middle socioeconomic status. The children

had borderline academic ability (i.e., in the "slow learner" range). Three

variables were modified across the eight vignettes: temperament,

developmental maturity, and parent involvement. These variables were

dichotomous in nature; children were presented as having either an easy or

difficult temperament, as being either developmentally mature or immature,

and as having either involved or uninvolved parents.

As part of the instrument development, a pilot study was conducted to

examine the face validity of the vignettes. The participants were five








54

kindergarten teachers from Duval County. An elementary school was

identified and appropriate entry permission was obtained from the principal.

The researcher met with the kindergarten teachers at the school to discuss the

study, obtain consent for participation (see Appendix D), and distribute

materials.

Pilot study participants were asked to read the child vignettes and

complete the School Adjustment and Success Questionnaire (described below)

for each of the eight children. The vignettes were presented to pilot study

participants in random order. After the participants completed the vignette

packets, the researcher met with them to conduct a focus group. The purpose

of the focus group was to obtain participants' feedback on the vignettes and

questionnaire. The researcher asked participants about the information

presented regarding the children's skills and abilities. For example, the

researcher asked whether sufficient information was provided and whether

the information provided was appropriate of a "slow learner." In addition,

participants were asked whether enough information was provided in each

vignette to be able to answer the questionnaire items. Finally, participants

were asked whether any of the questionnaire items were confusing. This

information was used, in conjunction with dissertation committee members'








55

feedback, to prepare a final draft of the child vignettes and questionnaire to be

used in the reliability study and research study.

When asked about the types of academic skills included about the

children, pilot study participants indicated that information about the

children's knowledge of letter sounds was not included and constituted one of

the major areas students are expected to learn during kindergarten.

Participants also assisted the researcher in revising the children's achievement

level so that it was appropriate of "slow learners" at the end of the third nine

weeks grading period. The description was modified prior to conducting the

reliability study. Participants expressed the belief that sufficient information

was presented about each child to answer the questionnaire items. In

addition, they did not express any specific concerns about questionnaire items.


Teachers' Perceptions of School Adjustment and Success

After reading each vignette, participants were asked to respond to the

School Adjustment and Success Questionnaire (see Appendix C). The

questionnaire included 18 items. Fifteen items were adapted from the Teacher

Rating Scale of School Adjustment (Pianta, 1992) and three additional items,

developed by the researcher for this study, related to retention candidacy,

special education referral, and transition to first grade. Participants were







56

asked to rate each child based on the description using a five point Likert scale

ranging from "definitely would not apply" to "definitely would apply."

A reliability study was conducted as a part of the instrument

development. The participants were 105 collegiate students enrolled in

Educational Psychology, Child Development, and Infant Development

courses in the College of Education at the University of Florida. The sample

included some preservice teachers enrolled primarily in the Child

Development and Infant Development courses. The researcher obtained

permission from three course instructors to ask their students to participate.

The researcher met with students in two courses to discuss the study and

distribute consent forms (see Appendix E) and study materials (i.e., a cover

sheet with general instructions and the child vignettes packet). A written

description of the study, consent forms, and study materials were sent to the

instructor of the third course who read the description and distributed

materials to her class. Among the approximately 140 students who received

consent form/study material packets, 105 consented to participate and

completed study materials.

These participants were asked to read the child vignettes and complete

the School Adjustment and Success Questionnaire for each of the eight

children. The vignettes were presented to participants in random order.








57

Participants' ratings, with the seven reverse-scored items adjusted, across all

eight vignettes were used to establish the reliability of the School Adjustment

and Success Questionnaire.

Analyses using Cronbach's Alpha were conducted on the 15 school

adjustment items and the three school success items separately. For items

1-15, 24 of the 840 data sets were excluded from analysis due to missing data

(i.e., participants did not rate all 15 items). Based on 816 cases, the school

adjustment items yielded an a = .9536. For items 16-18, three of the 840 data

sets were excluded from analysis due to missing data (i.e., participants did not

rate all three items). Based on 837 cases, the school success items yielded an

a = .8629. Test scores that yield a reliability coefficient of at least .80 are

considered sufficiently reliable for most research purposes (Gall, Borg, & Gall,

1996). Therefore, analyses supported the use of the School Adjustment and

Success Questionnaire in the research study.


Teacher Temperament Type

Information on teachers' temperament characteristics was acquired

from their self-report ratings on the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI), a

measure of temperament type for individuals ages 14 through adulthood

(Briggs & Myers, 1998). This 93-item instrument provides data in each of the







58

three temperament type dichotomies originally defined by Jung, and the

fourth dichotomy described by Myers and Briggs (i.e., extraversion -

introversion, sensing feeling, thinking feeling, and judging perceiving).

Two types of items are presented in a forced-choice format. One type

describes a behavior or attitude and asks the participant to choose a response

based on personal preferences. The second type of item presents two words

and asks the participant to choose the most appealing word. Analysis of the

MBTI provides scores in each of the four temperament type dichotomies.

These scores are used to determine the participant's preference within each

type dichotomy and can be combined to determine the participant's four-letter

temperament type (e.g., ISTJ, ENFP) (Quenk, 2000).

Myers and colleagues (1998) reported estimates of the MBTI's reliability

and validity. For example, internal consistency was estimated using split-half

(logical split-half and consecutive split-half) and coefficient alpha procedures.

Split-half reliabilities of the four scales range from .89 to .94. Coefficient alpha

reliabilities of the four scales range from .88 to .93. In addition, test-retest

reliability of the four scales range from .83 to .97 in three studies (Myers et al.,

1998).








59

With regard to the validity of the MBTI, Myers and colleagues (1998)

reported that four separate exploratory factor analyses produced results that

were almost identical to the hypothesized structure of the MBTI. In addition,

the results of several confirmatory factor analyses are described in the MBTI

manual. When considered together, strong support exists for the construct

validity of the MBTI (Myers et al., 1998).

Myers and colleagues (1998) also provide evidence of concurrent

validity. The results of several studies are presented, including correlations

between the MBTI Form M and the Jungian Type Survey (i.e., E: .68 (p < .01), I:

.66 (p < .01), S: .54 (p < .01), N: .47 (p < .01), T: .33 (p < .01), and F: .23 (p < .05)).

Further, correlations between the MBTI Form G and the 16 Personality Factors

Questionnaire (5th Edition) were reported (e.g., E-extraversion: .68 (p<.05), I-

extraversion: -.61 (p<.05), S-tough-mindedness: .56 (p<.05), N-tough-

mindedness: -.56 (p<.05), J-self-control: .54 (p<.05), and P-self-control: -.57

(p<.05)). In addition, correlations between MBTI Form G and the Million

Index of Personality Styles were reported (e.g., E-extraverting: .67, I-

extraverting: -.71, E-introverting: -.63, I-introverting: .64, S-sensing: .75, N-

sensing: -.75, S-intuiting: -.60, N-intuiting: .60, T-thinking: .62, F-thinking: -

.57, T-feeling: -.62, F-feeling: .64, J-systematizing: .59, P-systematizing: -.60, J-








60

innovating: -.51, and P-innovating: .55 [all p<.01]). Overall, the concurrent

validity studies supported "the predictions of type theory regarding the

meaning of and the behaviors believed to be associated with the four

dichotomies" (Myers et al., 1998, p. 219).


Teacher Demographic Information

Participants also were asked to complete the Teacher Information

Survey, a scale developed by the researcher for this study (see Appendix F).

The purpose of this instrument was to obtain demographic information about

the participants. Teachers provided information about their background (e.g.,

age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, years of experience, etc.) and their

teaching environment (e.g., number of students in their class, average

socioeconomic status of their students, and number of referrals made for

special education and retention).


Procedure

Child Vignettes

Participating teachers were asked to read and respond to questions

pertaining to eight vignettes. The teachers received a packet containing a

cover sheet and the eight vignettes presented in random order. Teachers were








61

instructed to assume that they are kindergarten teachers in a medium-sized

school district. The school is located in a lower-middle class neighborhood

and has approximately 500 students in kindergarten through grade five.

Teachers were told to assume that they are the children's teacher and that it is

the end of the third nine-week grading period. They were instructed that each

of the eight children has certain characteristics in common:

They are Caucasian males who graduated from Head Start preschool
programs. Physically, they are all healthy. Academically, they are
described as slow learners. They catch on slowly to new academic
skills and concepts. For example, they know approximately 35 of 52
upper and lower case letters and approximately one-quarter of their
letter sounds. The children can count from 1 18. Their knowledge of
the days of the week is inconsistent. They have difficulty with concepts
such as before/after, alike/different, and sorting. The children enjoy
being read to, but they have difficulty recalling more than one or two
details from a story. When asked to draw a picture and write a
sentence describing the picture, they often write a few letters rather
than a few words. They have difficulty telling you what they've
written.

Teachers' Perceptions of School Adjustment and Success

Based on the information presented in each vignette, participants were

asked to respond to the School Adjustment and Success Questionnaire. They

were asked to consider the child described in each vignette separately.

Specific instructions for completing the questionnaire were included with the

scale. Teachers were instructed to reflect on the degree to which each of the








62

statements would be characteristic of that particular child. Teachers were

asked to rate each statement on a scale from 1 (definitely would not apply) to

5 (definitely would apply). Teacher's adjustment ratings were entered into a

database and a total adjustment score (the sum of the ratings for the first 15

items, with five reverse-scored items adjusted) was generated for each

vignette. The three school success items also were entered into the database

and a total success score (the sum of the ratings for items 16-18, with two

reverse-scored items adjusted) also was generated for each vignette.


Teacher Temperament Type

Participants were asked to complete the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

(MBTI). A question booklet and answer sheet was included in the packet each

teacher received. Specific instructions were included on the question booklet.

They directed the participant to read each question and mark his or her

answer on the separate answer sheet. The directions indicated that

participants should not spend too much time answering any one question, and

that participants should skip questions for which they could not decide on an

answer and return to it later. The directions also informed the participant that

his or her answers








63

will help show how you like to look at things and how you like to go
about deciding things. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers.
Knowing your own preferences and learning about other people's can
help you understand what your strengths are, what kinds of work you
might enjoy, and how people with different preferences can relate to
one another and contribute to society. (Briggs & Myers, 1998, p. 1)

Completed MBTIs were scored using the MBTI scoring templates.

There are four templates, one for each preference dichotomy (i.e., E I, S N,

T F, and J P). Use of the templates provided raw scores that were then

used to determine a participant's preference within each type dichotomy.

Participants' types (e.g., ISTJ, ENFP, etc.) were used in the data analyses.

Research suggests that teachers primarily have ESFJ or ISFJ types (Grindler &

Stratton, 1990; Macdaid et al., 1986). A data reduction procedure was used to

categorize participants' types as either the "teacher type" (i.e., ESFJ or ISFJ;

n = 34) or the "non-teacher type" (i.e., all other types; n = 54). Nine of the 87

participants had a three-letter type and one participant had a two-letter type

as they did not demonstrate a clear preference on at least one type dichotomy.

Figure 1 provides a summary of the distribution of MBTI types.

In appreciation for their participation, teachers received a written

report following the completion of their participation in the study, which

described their temperament type based on their responses to the MBTI.

Reports provided general information about the participant's temperament








64

type as well as how a teacher's type may affect his or her interactions with

students.


Teacher Demographic Information

Participants were asked to complete the 12-item Teacher Information

Survey that provided categorical data (i.e., educational degree, age, gender,

ethnicity, years of experience, educational background, number of students in

class, and students' socioeconomic status). In addition, it asked about the

teachers' special education and retention referrals during the 2001-2002 school

year. The Teacher Information Survey also asked teachers whether they had

completed the MBTI prior to participating in the current study.











Figure 1



Summary of Participants' Types on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator


Distribution of Types

Main Types
All I E IE N S NS F T FT P J PJ
Count 88 33 54 1 28 53 7 75 11 2 28 58 2
Percent 100% 38% 61% 1% 32% 60% 8% 85% 13% 2% 32% 66% 2%














Combinations
All INFP INFJ INTP INTJ ISFP ISFJ ISTP ISTJ ENFP ENFJ ENTP ENTJ ESFP ESFJ ESTP ESTJ Other
Count 88 2 2 1 1 2 21 1 0 11 9 0 1 6 13 3 4 11
Percent 100% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 24% 1% 0% 13% 10% 0% 1% 7% 15% 3% 5% 13%


















0.\
U'













CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Introduction

This study examined teachers' judgments of children's school

adjustment and success based on child- and teacher-related variables (i.e.,

child temperament, child developmental maturity, parent involvement, and

teacher temperament type). Specifically, this study addressed the following

questions:

1. What relationships exist among teachers' perceptions of children's

school adjustment and the four explanatory variables (i.e., child

temperament, child developmental maturity, parental involvement,

and teacher temperament type)?

2. What relationships exist among teachers' perceptions of children's

school success and the four explanatory variables (i.e., child

temperament, child developmental maturity, parental involvement,

and teacher temperament type)?

The study contained four explanatory variables: child temperament,

child developmental maturity, parent involvement, and teacher temperament


66








67

type. All four were measured on an ordinal scale (easy temperament vs.

difficult temperament, developmentally mature vs. developmentally

immature, involved parents vs. uninvolved parents, and ESFJ/ISFJ vs. other

types). The study contained two outcome variables: teacher perceptions of

school adjustment and teacher perceptions of school success. Outcome

variables also were measured on an ordinal scale.

Descriptive statistics (e.g., means and standard deviations; presented in

Chapter 3) were used to examine characteristics of the participants based on

information provided on the Teacher Information Survey. In addition, a data

reduction procedure was used to examine participants' responses to the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and determine the frequency count of the 16

types in the sample. Participants' types were collapsed into dichotomous

categories the "teacher type" (i.e., ESFJ/ISFJ) and "non-teacher type" (i.e., all

other types).

To address both research questions, split plot repeated measures

analysis of variance procedures were used. An alpha level of .05 was used for

initial and posthoc analyses. For question one, a split plot repeated measures

ANOVA was used to determine whether relationships exist among teachers'

perceptions of school adjustment and the explanatory variables (i.e., child








68

temperament, child developmental maturity, parental involvement, and

teacher temperament type). Child temperament, child developmental

maturity, and parent involvement were entered as within subjects variables.

Teacher temperament was entered as a between subjects variable. A series of

paired samples t-tests with a Bonferroni adjustment were conducted post hoc

to explore significant effects.

For question two, a split plot repeated measures ANOVA was used to

determine whether relationships exist among teachers' perceptions of school

success and the explanatory variables (i.e., child temperament, child

developmental maturity, parental involvement, and teacher temperament

type). Child temperament, child developmental maturity, and parent

involvement were entered as within subjects variables. Teacher temperament

was entered as a between subjects variable. Post-hoc analyses, using paired

samples t-tests with a Bonferroni adjustment, were conducted to explore

significant effects.


Teachers' Perceptions of Children's School Adjustment

Relationships among teachers' perceptions of children's school

adjustment and child temperament (ChTemp), child developmental maturity

(Maturity), parental involvement (Involve), and teacher temperament type








69

(TchTemp) were examined through the use of a split plot repeated measures

analysis of variance. As seen in Tables 5 and 6, main effects were observed for

the child temperament (F(1, 84) = 1114.018, p < .01), developmental maturity

(F(, 84) = 195.580, p < .01), parent involvement (F(, 84) = 22.874, p < .01), and

teacher temperament (F(1, 84) = 437.243, p < .05) variables. In addition,

significant interactions were found between child temperament and

developmental maturity (F(, 84) = 7.242, p < .01); child temperament and parent

involvement (F(, 84) = 16.492, p < .01); developmental maturity and parent

involvement (F(1, 84) = 6.739, p < .05); child temperament, developmental

maturity, and teacher temperament (F(, 84)= 5.822, p < .05); and child

temperament, developmental maturity, and parent involvement

(F(, 84) = 13.946, p < .01).

Post-hoc paired samples t-tests with a Bonferroni correction were

conducted to examine the nature of the child temperament by developmental

maturity by teacher temperament interaction and the child temperament by

developmental maturity by parent involvement interaction. Table 7 provides

a summary of the mean school adjustment ratings for the child temperament

by developmental maturity by teacher temperament interaction. The

proportion of the total variance accounted for by this interaction is .065.








70

Adjustment ratings are significantly higher for children with easy

temperament styles who are developmentally mature as rated by participants

with the non-teacher temperament type and lowest for children with difficult

temperaments who are developmentally immature as rated by participants

with the teacher type (t(6) = -24.159, p < .01; see Table 8). A paired samples t-

test indicates that mean differences between adjustment ratings by non-

teacher type participants for difficult, developmentally immature children and

difficult, developmentally mature children are larger than mean differences

between adjustment ratings by non-teacher type participants for easy,

developmentally immature children and easy, developmentally mature

children (t(1os) = 9.589, p < .01). Further, paired samples t-test results indicate

that mean differences between adjustment ratings by non-teacher type

participants for easy, developmentally immature children and easy,

developmentally mature children were significantly larger than mean

differences between adjustment ratings by teacher type participants for easy,

developmentally immature children and easy, developmentally mature

children (t(65) = -11.911, p> .01).








71

Table 5

Summary for School Adjustment Split Plot Repeated Measures ANOVA for
Within Subjects Effects

Source dfl df2 MS (Effect) F p 1
ChTemp 1 84 117673.872 1114.018 .000 .930

Maturity 1 84 6316.446 195.580 .000 .700

Involve 1 84 755.866 22.874 .000 .214

ChTemp TchTemp 1 84 2.326 .022 .882 .000

Maturity TchTemp 1 84 .748 .023 .879 .000

Involve TchTemp 1 84 16.017 .485 .488 .006

ChTemp Maturity 1 84 269.510 7.242 .009 .079

ChTemp Maturity *
ChTempMaturity 1 84 216.661 5.822 .018 .065
TchTemp

ChTemp Involve 1 84 445.778 16.492 .000 .164

ChTemp Involve *
ChTemp Involve 1 84 5.081 .188 .666 .002
TchTemp

Maturity Involve 1 84 195.529 6.739 ** .011 .074

Maturity Involve *
MaturityInvolve 1 84 15.471 .533 .467 .006
TchTemp

ChTemp Maturity *84 479.314 13.946 .000 .142
Involve

ChTemp Maturity .036 .850 .000
Involve TchTemp


Note: ChTemp = child temperament; Maturity = developmental maturity;
Involve = parent involvement; TchTemp = teacher temperament type

* p <.05
** < .05








72

Table 6

Summary for School Adjustment Split Plot Repeated Measures ANOVA for
Between Subjects Effects

Source dfl MS F P
Intercept 1 1621934.802 18197.574 .000 .995

TchTemp 1 437.243 4.906 ** .029 .055

Error 84 89.129



Table 7

Mean Adjustment Ratings for Child Temperament by Developmental
Maturity by Teacher Temperament Interaction Effect

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Std. Lower Upper
Interaction Variables Mean Error Bound Bound
Immature 32.875 .765 31.354 34.396
Non- Difficult
Nn- Mature 41.433 .805 39.831 43.034
Teacher
rImmature 61.933 .791 60.361 63.505
Type Easy 60.361 63.505
ype Easy Mature 65.635 .826 63.992 67.278
Immature 32.206 .946 30.325 34.086
Difficult
Teacher Mature 38.603 .996 36.622 40.584
Type Easy Immature 59.206 .978 57.262 61.150
Mature 65.338 1.022 63.306 67.370








73

Table 8

Paired Samples T-Tests for Adjustment Ratings for Child Temperament by
Developmental Maturity by Teacher Temperament Interaction Effect

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Std. Std. Lower Upper
Pair Mean Dev. Error t df Sig. Bound Bound
Non-Tch
TdcType/ Ty
Difficut/ Type -3432 1154 1.42 -24.159 65 .000 -37.16 -31.48
hEasy/
Immature
Mature
CaseA1 CaseB2 15.189 15862 1541 9.859* 105 .000 12134 18244
CaseC3 CaseD4 -2424 12278 1511 -.160 65 .73 -3261 2776
CaseA CaseC -3246 10768 1336 -2431 64 .018 -5.914 -578
CaseB CaseD -18.723 12673 157 -11.911* 64 .000 -21863 -15582

* <.01
1Case A = mean differences between ratings by non-teacher type participants
for difficult, developmentally immature children and difficult,
developmentally mature children
2Case B = mean differences between ratings by non-teacher type participants
for easy, developmentally immature children and easy, developmentally
mature children
3 Case C = mean differences between ratings by teacher type participants for
difficult, developmentally immature children and difficult, developmentally
mature children
4Case D = mean differences between ratings by teacher type participants for
easy, developmentally immature children and easy, developmentally mature
children







74

A summary of mean school adjustment ratings for the child

temperament by developmental maturity by parent involvement interaction is

provided in Table 9. A paired samples t-test indicates that adjustment ratings

are significantly higher for the child with an easy temperament style who is

developmentally mature and has involved parents than ratings for the child

with a difficult temperament who is developmentally immature and has

uninvolved parents (t(87) = -33.683, p < .006; see Table 10). The proportion of

total variance accounted for by the child temperament by developmental

maturity by parent involvement interaction is .142.

Further examination of this interaction using the paired samples t-test

procedure indicated five significant pairs. First, ratings for the child with a

difficult temperament who is developmentally immature and has involved

parents are significantly higher than ratings for the child with a difficult

temperament who is developmentally immature and has uninvolved parents

(t(86) = -8.673, p < .006). Second, ratings for the difficult child who is

developmentally mature and has uninvolved parents are significantly higher

than ratings for the difficult child who is developmentally immature and has

uninvolved parents (t(87 = -12.954, p < .006). Third, adjustment ratings are

significantly higher for the easy, developmentally immature child with








75

Table 9

Mean Adjustment Ratings for Child Temperament by Developmental
Maturity by Parent Involvement Interaction Effect

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Std. Lower Upper
Interaction Variables Mean Error Bound Bound
Uninvolved 29.247 .682 27.890 30.603
Immature
Involved 35.834 .756 34.331 37.337
Difficult
u Uninvolved 39.521 .725 38.079 40.964
Mature
Involved 40.514 .859 38.806 42.222
Uninvolved 60.629 .647 59.343 61.915
Immature
Involved 60.510 .843 58.833 62.186
Easy Uninvolved 64.929 .843 63.253 66.606
Mature
Involved 66.044 .759 64.535 67.552


Table 10

Paired Samples T-Tests of Adjustment Ratings for Child Temperament by
Developmental Maturity by Parent Involvement Interaction Effect

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Std. Std. Lower Upper
Pair Mean Dev. Error t df Sig. Bound Bound
Diffcult/ Easy/
Immature/ Mature/ -36.86 10.27 1.09 -33.683* 87 .000 -39.04 -34.69
Uninvolved Involved

Difficult/ Diffiult/
Immature/ Immature/ -6.45 6.93 .74 -8.673* 86 .000 -7.93 -4.97
Uninvolved Involved








76

Table 10 Continued

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Std. Std. Lower Upper
Pair Mean Dev. Error t df Sig. Bound Bound
Difficalt/ Difficult/
Mature/ Mature/ -1.02 8.44 .90 -1.131 86 .261 -2.82 .78
Uninvolved Involved

Difficult/ Difficult/
Immature/ Mature/ -10.74 7.78 .83 -12.954* 87 .000 -12.39 -9.09
Uninvolved Uninvolved

Difficult/ Difficult
Immature/ Mature/ -4.99 8.96 .97 -5.163* 85 .000 -6.91 -3.07
Involved Involved

Easy/ Easy/
Immature/ Immature/ .25 7.54 .80 .311 87 .756 -1.35 1.85
Uninvolved Involved

Easy/ Easy/
Mature/ Mature/ -1.14 8.22 .88 -1.297 87 .198 -2.88 .60
Uninvolved Involved

Easy/ Easy/
Immate/ Mature/ -4.24 8.21 .87 -4.845* 87 .000 -5.98 -2.50
Involved Uninvolved

Easy/ Easy/
Immature/ Mature/ -5.38 8.47 .90 -5.951* 87 .000 -7.17 -3.58
Involved Involved


* p<.006








77

involved parents than ratings for the easy, developmentally mature child with

involved parents (t(85) = -5.163, p < .006). Fourth, adjustment ratings were

significantly higher for the child with easy temperament characteristics who is

developmentally mature and has uninvolved parents than for the easy child

who is developmentally immature and has involved parents (t(87 = -4.845,

p < .006). Finally, adjustment ratings for the easy, developmentally mature

child with have involved parents are significantly higher than ratings for the

easy, developmentally immature child with involved parents (t(8s7 = -5.951,

p <.006).


Teachers' Perceptions of Children's School Success

A split plot repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to

explore the relationships among teachers' perceptions of children's school

success and child temperament (ChTemp), child developmental maturity

(Maturity), parental involvement (Involve), and teacher temperament type

(TchTemp). As seen in Tables 11 and 12, significant main effects were

observed for the child temperament (F(, 84) = 197.729, p < .01) and

developmental maturity (F(, 84) = 161.982, p < .01) variables. In addition,

significant interaction effects were found for child temperament and








78

Table 11

Summary for School Success Split Plot Repeated Measures ANOVA for
Within Subjects Effects

Source dfl df2 MS F p2 R
ChTemp 1 84 2248.601 197.729 .000 .702

Maturity 1 84 1121.699 161.982 .000 .659

Involve 1 84 2.205 .585 .446 .007

ChTemp TchTemp 1 84 2.473 .217 .642 .003

Maturity TchTemp 1 84 1.537E-03 .000 .988 .000

Involve TchTemp 1 84 1.263 .335 .564 .004

ChTemp Maturity 1 84 18.491 5.012 ** .028 .056

ChTemp Maturity 84 4.316 1.170 .282 .014
TchTemp

ChTemp Involve 1 84 12.248 2.918 .091 .034

ChTemp Involve 84 3.294 .785 .378 .009
TchTemp

Maturity Involve 1 84 2.125 .557 .457 .007

Maturity* Involve84 .346 .091 .764 .001
TchTemp

ChTemp Maturity* 1 84 22.967 5.679** .019 .063
Involve

ChTemp Maturity 1 84 9.920 2.453 .121 .028
Involve TchTemp


Note: ChTemp = child temperament; Maturity = developmental maturity;
Involve = parent involvement; TchTemp = teacher temperament type
* <.01
** <.05








79

Table 12

Summary for School Success Split Plot Repeated Measures ANOVA for
Between Subjects Effects

Source dfl MS F P2
Intercept 1 50316.141 2099.666 .000 .962

TchTemp 1 1.420 .059 .808 .001

Error 84 23.964


* < .01

developmental maturity (F(, 84) = 5.012, p < .05) and child temperament,

developmental maturity, and parent involvement (F(1,84) = 5.679, p < .05).

A summary of mean school success ratings for the child temperament by

developriental maturity by parent involvement interaction is provided in Table

13. The proportion of total variance accounted for by the interaction is .014, as

measured by the eta squared statistic. Post-hoc tests (i.e., paired samples t-tests

with a Bonferroni adjustment) were conducted to examine the nature of the

child temperament, developmental maturity, and parent involvement

interaction effect (see Table 14). School success ratings are significantly higher

for the child with an easy temperament style and who is developmentally

mature and has involved parents than ratings for the child with a difficult








80

Table 13

Mean School Success Ratings for Child Temperament by Developmental
Maturity by Parent Involvement Interaction Effect

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Std. Lower Upper
Interaction Variables Mean Error Bound Bound
Uninvolved 5.403 .242 4.921 5.885
Immature
e Involved 5.502 .237 5.032 5.973
Difficult
Uninvolved 8.856 .310 8.240 9.472
Mature
a e Involved 7.975 .320 7.339 8.611
Uninvolved 9.559 .291 8.980 10.138
Immature
Im e Involved 9.456 .360 8.740 10.171
Easy Uninvolved 11.586 .351 10.889 12.284
Mature
Involved 12.006 .330 11.349 12.663



Table 14

Paired Samples T-Tests of Success Ratings for Child Temperament by
Developmental Maturity by Parent Involvement Interaction Effect

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Std. Std. Lower Upper
Pair Mean Dev. Error t df Sig. Bound Bound
Difficult/ Easy/
Immature/ Mature/ -6.70 3.52 .38 -17.751* 86 .000 -7.45 -5.95
Uninvolved Involved

Difficult/ Difficult/
Immature/ Immature/ -.24 2.56 .27 -.881 86 .381 -.79 .30
Uninvolved Involved








81

Table 14 Continued

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Std. Std. Lower Upper
Pair Mean Dev. Error t df Sig. Bound Bound
Difficult/ Diffiult/
Mature/ Mature/ .91 2.99 .32 2.853* 87 .005 .28 1.54
Uninvolved Involved

Difficult/ Difficult/
Immature/ Mature/ -3.57 2.96 .32 -11.298* 87 .000 -4.20 -2.94
Uninvolved Uninvolved

Diffiult/ Difficul/
Immature/ Mature/ -2.40 3.35 .36 -6.689* 86 .000 -3.12 -1.69
Involved Involved

Easy/ Easy/
Immature/ Immature/ .14 3.05 .33 .421 86 .675 -.51 .79
Uninvolved Involved

Easy/ Easy/
Mature/ Mature/ -.53 2.64 .28 -1.871 86 .065 -1.09 .03
Uninvolved Involved

Easy/ Easy/
Immature/ Mature/ -2.01 3.49 .37 -5.377* 86 .000 -2.76 -1.27
Involved Uninvolved

Easy/ Easy/
Immature/ Mature/ -2.54 2.82 .30 -8.392* 86 .000 -3.14 -1.94
Involved Involved

* <.006








82

temperament who is developmentally immature and has uninvolved parents

(t(8) = -17.751, p <.006).

Further examination of this interaction using the paired samples t-test

procedure indicated five significant pairs. First, ratings for the difficult child

who is developmentally mature and has uninvolved parents were

significantly higher than ratings for the difficult child who is developmentally

mature with involved parents (t(87) = 2.853, p < .006). Second, ratings for the

child with difficult temperament characteristics who is developmentally

mature with uninvolved parents are significantly higher than ratings for the

difficult child who is developmentally immature with uninvolved parents

(t(8) = -11.298, p < .006). Third, ratings were significantly higher for the difficult

child with involved parents when the child was developmentally mature than

when he was developmentally immature (t(86) = -6.689, p < .01). Fourth, ratings

for the easy, developmentally mature child with uninvolved parents are

significantly higher than ratings for the easy, developmentally immature child

with involved parents (t(86) = -5.377, p < .006). Finally, ratings for the easy,

developmentally mature child with involved parents were significantly higher

than ratings for the easy, developmentally immature child with involved

parents (t(86) = -8.392, p < .006).













CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Introduction

Temperament refers to a person's behavioral style, a set of

constitutionally determined, dispositional characteristics that influence the

manner in which an individual's actions are expressed (Stelmack & Stalikas,

1991; Thomas, et al., 1968). Temperament affects how individuals respond to

objective features in the environment and influences future development (e.g.,

Bates, 1980; Carey, 1981; Carey & McDevitt, 1995; Carson, 1994; Caspi & Silva,

1995; Rothbart et al., 1994; Thomas & Chess, 1977). As a result, temperament

contributes to both normal and pathological development (Thomas & Chess,

1989).

Temperament has been linked to academic, behavioral, and social

adjustment (Carey, 1998). In addition, a child's academic performance and

interactions with teachers may affect the child's school adjustment and, as a

result, his or her fit with the classroom environment (Birch & Ladd, 1997;

Keogh, 2003; Martin & Gaddis 1989). Goodness of fit, defined as consonance

among a child's capabilities, characteristics, and style of behaving and the


83







84

expectations and demands of the child's environment, contributes to positive

developmental outcomes (Thomas & Chess, 1977).

The purpose of this study was to investigate relationships among a

number of child- and teacher-related variables that may affect a child's school

adjustment and success. If relationships among children's temperament and

variables that may affect goodness of fit can be identified, researchers and

practitioners may gain a better understanding of why some children are

successful in school-related activities while others face significant challenges.

Specifically, this study examined relationships among teacher's perceptions of

kindergarten children's school adjustment and success based on child

temperament, child developmental maturity, parent involvement, and teacher

temperament type.

School adjustment refers to how well suited a child is to the various

learning experiences encountered in schools (Skarpness & Carson, 1987).

Higher school adjustment ratings in the current study indicate a child is more

likely to seek challenges, enjoy school, and transition easily from one activity

to another. Results of this study suggest that participants' ratings of eight

hypothetical children's school adjustment vary significantly across the child

temperament, child developmental maturity, parent involvement, and teacher







85

temperament variables. In addition, significant interactions exist between

child temperament and developmental maturity; child temperament and

parent involvement; developmental maturity and parent involvement; child

temperament, developmental maturity, and teacher temperament; and child

temperament, developmental maturity, and parent involvement.

School success refers to a child's likelihood of having successful school

outcomes. Higher school success ratings indicate a child is less likely to be a

candidate for retention or referred for special education services and more

likely to make a successful transition to first grade. Results indicate that

participants' ratings of eight hypothetical children's school adjustment vary

significantly for the child temperament and child developmental maturity

variables. In addition, significant interaction effects exist for child

temperament and developmental maturity as well as for child temperament,

developmental maturity, and parent involvement.


Teachers' Perceptions of Children's School Adjustment and Success

Child Temperament

The finding that temperament significantly influences teachers'

perceptions of children's school adjustment and success was both expected

and consistent with a broader body of literature, which suggests that children








86

with difficult temperament characteristics are at-risk for academic, behavioral,

and school adjustment difficulties and poorer developmental outcomes (e.g.,

Carey, 1998; Caspi & Silva, 1995; Keogh, 1989; Skarpness & Carson, 1987).

Children with easy temperament styles have significantly higher school

adjustment and success ratings (indicating teachers perceived them as better

adjusted and more likely to have successful school outcomes) than the

children with difficult temperament styles.

Given the other variables in this study, temperament is consistently

seen as important. Children's temperament explains the highest proportion of

the variance in teachers' perceptions of school adjustment and success ratings.

Further, within each of the significant interaction effects, even with the

influence of the other variable(s), children with easy temperament styles

receive higher school adjustment and success ratings than their difficult child

counterparts.

This highlights the significant role temperament plays in a child's

development and school experiences. Children's temperaments affect their

academic performance (Keogh, 2003; Martin, 1989; Martin & Holbrook, 1985)

and influence teachers' perceptions of whether they will adjust well to and be

successful in the school environment. This is particularly important in the








87

current study when considering that all of the children are described as slow

learners. Despite this apparent similarity in ability level, children with easy

temperament characteristics receive high school adjustment and success

ratings.


Child Developmental Maturity

Research findings suggest that developmental maturity is significantly

related to children's school adjustment and success. Developmentally mature

children are rated as significantly better adjusted and more successful than the

more developmentally immature children. These findings are consistent with

child development theories.

In addition, developmental maturity interacts with other variables. For

example, participants rated children with easy temperaments who are

developmentally mature as the most well-adjusted and successful and

children with difficult temperaments who are developmentally immature as

the least well-adjusted and least likely to be successful. In addition, the

differences between school adjustment and school success ratings for difficult,

developmentally mature and difficult, developmentally immature children

were significantly larger than the difference between ratings for easy,

developmentally mature and easy, developmentally immature children.







88

This indicates that developmental maturity influences participants'

school adjustment and school success ratings for children with difficult

temperaments more so than it does for children with easy temperament styles,

suggesting that while developmental maturity contributes positively to

perceptions of a child's school adjustment and success, it may be particularly

important for children with difficult temperaments. Therefore, developmental

maturity may be a mediating factor that somewhat protects difficult children

from being perceived as more likely to have poor school success outcomes as

well as to have school adjustment difficulties.


Parent Involvement

Results of the study indicate that children with involved parents are

perceived to be better adjusted and more successful than children with

uninvolved parents. This difference is interesting, given that the hypothetical

children in the study had identical borderline readiness skills.

When considering teachers' perceptions of children's school adjustment

and success, other pairings that are significantly different suggest that parent

involvement influenced participants' ratings only for the child described as

difficult and developmentally immature (e.g., the difficult, developmentally

immature child with involved parents was perceived to be better adjusted








89

than the difficult, developmentally immature child with uninvolved parents).

Overall, the child temperament by developmental maturity by parent

involvement interaction further implies that developmental maturity and

parent involvement support teacher's views of a child's school adjustment and

success, particularly for children with difficult temperament styles. This

suggests that parent involvement may be a mediating factor that somewhat

protects difficult, developmentally immature children from school adjustment

difficulties.


Teacher Temperament Type

Research findings suggest that school adjustment ratings by

participants with the non-teacher type are significantly higher than ratings by

the participants with the teacher type. A significant interaction relative to

teachers' perceptions of children's school adjustment exists among the child

temperament, developmental maturity, and teacher temperament variables.

The highest adjustment ratings are observed for children with easy

temperament characteristics who are developmentally mature, as rated by

non-teacher type participants. The lowest adjustment ratings are observed for

children with difficult temperament styles who are developmentally

immature, as rated by participants with the teacher type. Overall, this




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 EV71AT02M_EWWERM INGEST_TIME 2014-11-05T22:21:57Z PACKAGE AA00024424_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

)$&7256 $))(&7,1* *22'1(66 2) ),7 ,1 .,1'(5*$57(1 &/$6652206 %\ $/,&,$ 0,&+(//( 6&277 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,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

&RS\ULJKW %\ $OLFLD 0LFKHOOH 6FRWW

PAGE 3

$&.12:/('*0(176 ZRXOG OLNH WR WKDQN P\ IDPLO\ 3DWULFLD 6FRWW *HUDOG 6FRWW DQG .ULVWLQD 6FRWWf IRU WKHLU ORYH VXSSRUW DQG HQFRXUDJHPHQW RI DOO P\ HQGHDYRUV DOVR ZRXOG OLNH WR WKDQN P\ ILDQF *DU\ *HQLHVVHf IRU KLV LQVLJKW DQG VXSSRUW ,Q DGGLWLRQ ZRXOG OLNH WR WKDQN WKH VFKRRO GLVWULFW VWDII DQG VFKRRO SULQFLSDOV LQ $ODFKXD &LWUXV 'XYDO DQG 6HPLQROH FRXQWLHV IRU VXSSRUWLQJ P\ UHVHDUFK HIIRUWV RZH D JUHDW GHDO WR WKH NLQGHUJDUWHQ WHDFKHUV ZKR JUDFLRXVO\ SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ )LQDOO\ ZRXOG OLNH WR H[SUHVV P\ DSSUHFLDWLRQ WR WKH PHPEHUV RI P\ FRPPLWWHH 'UV 7LQD 6PLWK%RQDKXH 7KRPDV 2DNODQG $QQ 6HUDSKLQH DQG .ULVWHQ .HPSOH IRU WKHLU JXLGDQFH DQG VXSSRUW WKURXJKRXW WKLV SURMHFW P

PAGE 4

7$%/( 2) &217(176 JDJH $&.12:/('*0(176 LQ /,67 2) 7$%/(6 YLL $%675$&7 L[ &+$37(56 ,1752'8&7,21 6LJQLILFDQFH RI WKH 6WXG\ 3XUSRVH RI WKH 6WXG\ 6XPPDU\ DQG 2YHUYLHZ RI 5HPDLQLQJ &KDSWHUV 5(9,(: 2) 7+( /,7(5$785( 7HPSHUDPHQW 7KHRU\ &KLOG 7HPSHUDPHQW $GXOW 7HPSHUDPHQW 6XPPDU\ 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG 6FKRRO $GMXVWPHQW 9DULDEOHV ,QWHUSHUVRQDO 5HODWLRQVKLSV $FDGHPLF 3HUIRUPDQFH 6XPPDU\ 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG 7HDFKHU %HOLHIV *RRGQHVV RI )LW 0(7+2'6 3DUWLFLSDQWV DQG 6HWWLQJV 0HDVXUHV LY

PAGE 5

&KLOG 9LJQHWWHV 7HDFKHUVn 3HUFHSWLRQV RI 6FKRRO $GMXVWPHQW DQG 6XFFHVV 7HDFKHU 7HPSHUDPHQW 7\SH 7HDFKHU 'HPRJUDSKLF ,QIRUPDWLRQ 3URFHGXUH &KLOG 9LJQHWWHV 7HDFKHUVn 3HUFHSWLRQV RI 6FKRRO $GMXVWPHQW DQG 6XFFHVV 7HDFKHU 7HPSHUDPHQW 7\SH 7HDFKHU 'HPRJUDSKLF ,QIRUPDWLRQ 5(68/76 ,QWURGXFWLRQ 7HDFKHUVn 3HUFHSWLRQV RI &KLOGUHQnV 6FKRRO $GMXVWPHQW 7HDFKHUVn 3HUFHSWLRQV RI &KLOGUHQnV 6FKRRO 6XFFHVV ',6&866,21 ,QWURGXFWLRQ 7HDFKHUVn 3HUFHSWLRQV RI &KLOGUHQnV 6FKRRO $GMXVWPHQW DQG 6XFFHVV &KLOG 7HPSHUDPHQW &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQWDO 0DWXULW\ 3DUHQW ,QYROYHPHQW 7HDFKHU 7HPSHUDPHQW 7\SH ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU 3UDFWLFH /LPLWDWLRQV RI WKH 6WXG\ ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU )XWXUH 5HVHDUFK $33(1',&(6 $ 35,1&,3$/ ,19,7$7,21 /(77(5 % 5(6($5&+ 678'< &216(17 )250 & &+,/' 9,*1(77(6 $1' 6&+22/ $'-8670(17 $1' 68&&(66 48(67,211$,5( Y

PAGE 6

' 3,/27 678'< &216(17 )250 ( 5(/,$%,/,7< 678'< &216(17 )250 ) 7($&+(5 ,1)250$7,21 6859(< 5()(5(1&(6 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ YL

PAGE 7

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

PAGE 8

6XPPDU\ IRU 6FKRRO 6XFFHVV 6SOLW 3ORW 5HSHDWHG 0HDVXUHV $129$ IRU :LWKLQ 6XEMHFWV (IIHFWV 6XPPDU\ IRU 6FKRRO 6XFFHVV 6SOLW 3ORW 5HSHDWHG 0HDVXUHV $129$ IRU %HWZHHQ 6XEMHFWV (IIHFWV 0HDQ 6FKRRO 6XFFHVV 5DWLQJV IRU &KLOG 7HPSHUDPHQW E\ 'HYHORSPHQWDO 0DWXULW\ E\ 3DUHQW ,QYROYHPHQW ,QWHUDFWLRQ (IIHFW 3DLUHG 6DPSOHV 77HVWV IRU 6FKRRO 6XFFHVV 5DWLQJV IRU &KLOG 7HPSHUDPHQW E\ 'HYHORSPHQWDO 0DWXULW\ E\ 3DUHQW ,QYROYHPHQW ,QWHUDFWLRQ (IIHFW 9OOO

PAGE 9

$EVWUDFW RI 'LVVHUWDWLRQ 3UHVHQWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ 3DUWLDO )XOILOOPHQW RI WKH 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH 'HJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ )$&7256 $))(&7,1* *22'1(66 2) ),7 ,1 .,1'(5*$57(1 &/$6652206 %\ $OLFLD 0LFKHOOH 6FRWW 0D\ &KDLUSHUVRQ 7LQD 6PLWK%RQDKXH 0DMRU 'HSDUWPHQW (GXFDWLRQDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 3UHYLRXV UHVHDUFK KDV UHODWHG WHPSHUDPHQW WR DFDGHPLF EHKDYLRUDO DQG VRFLDO DGMXVWPHQW SUREOHPV LQ FKLOGKRRG ,Q DGGLWLRQ D FKLOGnV DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH DQG LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK WHDFKHUV PD\ DIIHFW WKH FKLOGnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG DV D UHVXOW KLV RU KHU ILW ZLWK WKH FODVVURRP HQYLURQPHQW 7KH LPSRUWDQFH RI JRRGQHVV RI ILW EHWZHHQ FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO GHPDQGV LV ZHOOGRFXPHQWHG 5HVHDUFK VXJJHVWV WKDW ZKHQ D SRRU ILW H[LVWV D FKLOG LV DW ULVN IRU SRRU GHYHORSPHQWDO RXWFRPHV $OWKRXJK JRRGQHVV RI ILW LV FRQVLGHUHG WR KDYH PDQ\ FOLQLFDO DSSOLFDWLRQV LWV LPSRUWDQFH ,;

PAGE 10

KDV QRW EHHQ IXOO\ H[SORUHG LQ VFKRRO VHWWLQJV 7KLV VWXG\ H[DPLQHG ZKHWKHU UHODWLRQVKLSV H[LVW DPRQJ WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI NLQGHUJDUWHQ FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG VXFFHVV DQG FHUWDLQ FKLOG DQG WHDFKHUUHODWHG YDULDEOHV (LJKW\HLJKW NLQGHUJDUWHQ WHDFKHUV SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZKLFK DWWHPSWHG WR DVFHUWDLQ Df ZKHWKHU UHODWLRQVKLSV H[LVW DPRQJ WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG IRXU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV LH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQWf DQG Ef ZKHWKHU UHODWLRQVKLSV H[LVW DPRQJ WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO VXFFHVV DQG IRXU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV LH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQWf :LWK UHJDUG WR WKH ILUVW TXHVWLRQ VLJQLILFDQW PDLQ HIIHFWV ZHUH IRXQG IRU HDFK RI WKH IRXU LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV ,Q DGGLWLRQ VLJQLILFDQW LQWHUDFWLRQ HIIHFWV ZHUH IRXQG DPRQJ FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW DQG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW DQG SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DQG SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW DQG FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DQG SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW

PAGE 11

:LWK UHJDUG WR WKH VHFRQG TXHVWLRQ VLJQLILFDQW PDLQ HIIHFWV ZHUH IRXQG IRU FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW DQG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ ,Q DGGLWLRQ VLJQLILFDQW LQWHUDFWLRQ HIIHFWV ZHUH IRXQG DPRQJ FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW DQG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DV ZHOO DV FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DQG SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW [L

PAGE 12

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 7KH PRGHP HUD RI WHPSHUDPHQW UHVHDUFK ZLWK \RXQJ FKLOGUHQ EHJDQ LQ WKH V ZLWK WKH ODQGPDUN 1HZ
PAGE 13

ZLWK WKH FODVVURRP HQYLURQPHQW *RRGQHVV RI ILW GHILQHG DV FRQVRQDQFH DPRQJ D FKLOGnV FDSDFLWLHV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG VW\OH RI EHKDYLQJ DQG WKH H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG GHPDQGV RI WKH FKLOGnV HQYLURQPHQW FRQWULEXWHV WR SRVLWLYH GHYHORSPHQWDO RXWFRPHV 7KRPDV m6F &KHVV f 6WXGLHV WKDW H[DPLQH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG YDULDEOHV WKDW PD\ DIIHFW JRRGQHVV RI ILW PD\ KHOS UHVHDUFKHUV DQG SUDFWLWLRQHUV XQGHUVWDQG ZK\ VRPH FKLOGUHQ DUH VXFFHVVIXO LQ VFKRROUHODWHG DFWLYLWLHV ZKLOH RWKHUV IDFH VLJQLILFDQW FKDOOHQJHV 6LJQLILFDQFH RI WKH 6WXG\ 7KH LPSRUWDQFH RI JRRGQHVV RI ILW EHWZHHQ FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO GHPDQGV LV ZHOOGRFXPHQWHG %DVHG RQ WKH VHPLQDO ZRUN RI 7KRPDV DQG &KHVV FRQVRQDQFH DPRQJ FKLOGUHQnV DELOLWLHV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG EHKDYLRUDO VW\OH DQG WKH H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG GHPDQGV RI WKH HQYLURQPHQW LV EHOLHYHG WR FRQWULEXWH WR SRVLWLYH GHYHORSPHQWDO RXWFRPHV IRU FKLOGUHQ 5HVHDUFKHUV KDYH IRXQG WKDW ZKHQ D SRRU ILW H[LVWV D FKLOG LV DW ULVN IRU DFDGHPLF EHKDYLRUDO DQG VRFLDO DGMXVWPHQW GLIILFXOWLHV &KHVV t 7KRPDV f $OWKRXJK JRRGQHVV RI ILW LV FRQVLGHUHG WR KDYH PDQ\ FOLQLFDO DSSOLFDWLRQV WUDGLWLRQDOO\ UHVHDUFKHUV DQG WKHRULVWV KDYH DGGUHVVHG LWV DSSOLFDWLRQ WR KRPH HQYLURQPHQWV RQO\ UHFHQWO\ KDV LW EHJXQ WR EH H[SORUHG

PAGE 14

LQ VFKRRO VHWWLQJV 7R WKDW HQG WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ LQYHVWLJDWHV UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ FHUWDLQ FKLOG DQG WHDFKHUUHODWHG YDULDEOHV WKDW PD\ DIIHFW D FKLOGnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG VXFFHVV ,I YDULDEOHV WKDW LQIOXHQFH FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW FDQ EH LGHQWLILHG SUDFWLWLRQHUV HJ VFKRRO SV\FKRORJLVWV JXLGDQFH FRXQVHORUV DQG WHDFKHUVf PD\ KHOS FKLOGUHQ DGDSW WKHLU FDSDELOLWLHV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG EHKDYLRUDO VW\OHV WR EHWWHU PHHW WKH H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG GHPDQGV RI WKH HQYLURQPHQW &RQYHUVHO\ WHDFKHUV PD\ EH DEOH WR OHDUQ WR DGMXVW FODVVURRP H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG GHPDQGV WR EHWWHU PHHW WKH QHHGV RI LQGLYLGXDO FKLOGUHQ ,Q DGGLWLRQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ KRZ WHDFKHUVn FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG EHOLHIV LQIOXHQFH WKHLU VWXGHQWV KDV LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU DVVLVWLQJ WHDFKHUV WR PRGLI\ WKHLU EHOLHIV DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV LQ RUGHU WR IDFLOLWDWH D EHWWHU ILW IRU DOO VWXGHQWV 7KH IDFWRUV WKDW DIIHFW FKLOGUHQnV ILW LQ WKH FODVVURRP KDYH D QXPEHU RI HGXFDWLRQRULHQWHG LPSOLFDWLRQV )RU H[DPSOH FKLOGUHQnV NLQGHUJDUWHQ H[SHULHQFHV KHOS VHW D WRQH IRU WKHLU VFKRRO VXFFHVV %LUFK t /DGG 0D[ZHOO t (OOHU 6NDUSQHVV t &DUVRQ f 7KH ILW EHWZHHQ FKLOGUHQnV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG WKHLU WHDFKHUVn EHOLHIV DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV DUH OLNHO\ WR LQIOXHQFH QRW RQO\ WKHLU LQLWLDO H[SHULHQFHV ZLWK HGXFDWLRQ EXW WKHLU IXWXUH LQWHUDFWLRQV DQG DGMXVWPHQW DV ZHOO ,Q DGGLWLRQ SUDFWLWLRQHUV HJ VFKRRO

PAGE 15

SV\FKRORJLVWV DQG JXLGDQFH FRXQVHORUVf DUH LQ D SRVLWLRQ WR FRQVXOW ZLWK WHDFKHUV UHJDUGLQJ FKDOOHQJLQJ VWXGHQWV 7KHUHIRUH DQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH SRWHQWLDO IDFWRUV WKDW FRQWULEXWH WR D SRRU ILW PD\ SURYLGH LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU WHDFKHU EHOLHIV DV ZHOO DV FRQVXOWDWLRQ DQG LQWHUYHQWLRQV WR DFKLHYH WKH JRDO RI SURPRWLQJ VXFFHVVIXO DGMXVWPHQW IRU FKLOGUHQ 3XUSRVH RI WKH 6WXG\ 7KLV VWXG\ H[DPLQHG WHDFKHUVn MXGJPHQWV RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG VXFFHVV EDVHG RQ FKLOG DQG WHDFKHUUHODWHG YDULDEOHV LQFOXGLQJ FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SH 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKLV VWXG\ DGGUHVVHG WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQV :KDW UHODWLRQVKLSV H[LVW DPRQJ WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG WKH IRXU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV LH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ SDUHQWDO LQYROYHPHQW DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SHf" :KDW UHODWLRQVKLSV H[LVW DPRQJ WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO VXFFHVV DQG WKH IRXU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV LH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ SDUHQWDO LQYROYHPHQW DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SHf"

PAGE 16

6XPPDU\ DQG 2YHUYLHZ RI 5HPDLQLQJ &KDSWHUV 7KLV VWXG\ H[DPLQHG WHDFKHUVn MXGJPHQWV RI FKLOGUHQn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

PAGE 17

&+$37(5 5(9,(: 2) 7+( /,7(5$785( 7HPSHUDPHQW 7KHRU\ &KLOG 7HPSHUDPHQW 7KH VHPLQDO UHVHDUFK RQ FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW TXDOLWLHV RI \RXQJ FKLOGUHQ ZDV FRQGXFWHG E\ 7KRPDV DQG &KHVV 7KH\ EHOLHYH WHPSHUDPHQW FRQFHUQV WKH ZD\ >DXWKRUVn HPSKDVLV@ LQ ZKLFK DQ LQGLYLGXDO EHKDYHV 7KRPDV t &KHVV S f DQG HTXDWH LW ZLWK EHKDYLRUDO VW\OH 7KHLU 1HZ
PAGE 18

7DEOH &KLOG 7HPSHUDPHQW &DWHJRULHV &DWHJRU\ 'HVFULSWLRQ $FWLYLW\ /HYHO 5HODWHV WR WKH PRWRU FRPSRQHQW RI D FKLOGnV IXQFWLRQLQJ DV ZHOO DV WKH GDLO\ SURSRUWLRQ RI DFWLYH DQG LQDFWLYH LQWHUYDOV 5K\WKPLFLW\ 5HODWHV WR WKH OHYHO RI SUHGLFWDELOLW\ RI D FKLOGnV QDWXUDO VFKHGXOH DQG FDQ EH UHODWLYH WR WKH FKLOGnV VOHHSZDNH F\FOH IHHGLQJ SDWWHUQ KXQJHU DQG HOLPLQDWLRQ VFKHGXOH 5HODWHV WR WKH SUHGLFWDELOLW\ RI VRFLDO EHKDYLRUV HJ KDELWV URXWLQHV HWFf DV FKLOGUHQ PDWXUH $SSURDFK RU :LWKGUDZDO 'HDOV ZLWK KRZ D FKLOG LQLWLDOO\ UHVSRQGV WR DQ\ QHZ VWLPXOXV DSSURDFK UHVSRQVHV DUH FRQVLGHUHG SRVLWLYH ZKHUHDV ZLWKGUDZDO UHVSRQVHV DUH FRQVLGHUHG QHJDWLYH $GDSWDELOLW\ &RQFHUQV KRZ D FKLOG UHVSRQGV WR DOWHUHG VLWXDWLRQV 7KUHVKROG RI 5HVSRQVLYHQHVV 5HODWHV WR WKH LQWHQVLW\ OHYHO RI D VWLPXOXV UHTXLUHG WR HOLFLW D GHWHFWDEOH UHVSRQVH ,QWHQVLW\ RI 5HDFWLRQ 3HUWDLQV WR WKH HQHUJ\ OHYHO RI D FKLOGnV UHVSRQVH 4XDOLW\ RI 0RRG &RQFHUQV WKH DPRXQW RI SOHDVDQW RU XQSOHDVDQW EHKDYLRU D FKLOG H[KLELWV 'LVWUDFWLELOLW\ 5HODWHV WR WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK H[WUDQHRXV HQYLURQPHQWDO VWLPXOL LQWHUIHUH ZLWK RU DOWHU WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI D FKLOGnV RQJRLQJ EHKDYLRU $WWHQWLRQ 6SDQ DQG 3HUVLVWHQFH $WWHQWLRQ VSDQ GHDOV ZLWK WKH OHQJWK RI WLPH D FKLOG SXUVXHV DQ DFWLYLW\ 3HUVLVWHQFH UHIHUV WR D FKLOGnV DELOLW\ WR FRQWLQXH DQ DFWLYLW\ GHVSLWH REVWDFOHV WKDW PD\ JHW LQ WKH ZD\ RI PDLQWDLQLQJ WKH FKLOGnV DFWLYLW\ GLUHFWLRQ 6RXUFH &DUH\ 7KRPDV t &KHVV

PAGE 19

VWLPXOL UHODWLYH UK\WKPLFLW\ DQG D PLOG PRRG WKDW LV SULPDULO\ SRVLWLYH 7KH GLIILFXOW FKLOG DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI WKH 1
PAGE 20

H[DPLQLQJ WKLV UHVHDUFK RQH VKRXOG FRQVLGHU SRWHQWLDO YDOLGLW\ SUREOHPV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK SDUHQWUHSRUW PHDVXUHV +RZHYHU LQ D VWXG\ WKDW GLG QRW UHO\ RQ SDUHQW UHSRUWV GDWD ZHUH FROOHFWHG XVLQJ FRQWHQW DQDO\VHV RI SDUHQW LQWHUYLHZV WR VFRUH REMHFWLYH GHVFULSWLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRU 0RQR]\JRWLF WZLQV ZHUH IRXQG WR EH PRUH VLPLODU WKDQ GL]\JRWLF WZLQV RQ DOO QLQH RI WKH 1HZ
PAGE 21

DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ WUDLWV DW DJH IRXQG WHPSHUDPHQW LQ HDUO\ FKLOGKRRG WR EH UHODWHG WR DGROHVFHQW EHKDYLRUDO DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV &DVSL t 6LOYD f )RU H[DPSOH FKLOGUHQ ZKRVH EHKDYLRUDO VW\OHV ZHUH FKDUDFWHUL]HG DV LPSXOVLYH DQG XQGHUFRQWUROOHG DW DJH GLVSOD\HG SHUVRQDOLW\ VW\OHV UHIOHFWLQJ ORZ EHKDYLRUDO FRQVWUDLQW DW DJH 7KHVH \HDUROGV GHVFULEHG WKHPVHOYHV DV GDQJHUVHHNLQJ DQG LPSXOVLYH &DVSL t 6LOYD f )XUWKHU DFWLYLW\ OHYHO WKUHVKROG RI UHVSRQVLYHQHVV DGDSWDELOLW\ DQG LQWHQVLW\ ZHUH VWDEOH IRU ERWK ER\V DQG JLUOV XS WR DJH ILYH 0F'HYLWW DV FLWHG LQ 7KRPDV t &KHVV f 5K\WKPLFLW\ ZDV IRXQG WR EH VWDEOH IRU JLUOV DQG PRRG ZDV IRXQG WR EH VWDEOH IRU ER\V XS WR DJH ILYH )URP DJHV ILYH WR VHYHQ DFWLYLW\ OHYHO DQG PRRG ZHUH VWDEOH IRU ER\V RQO\ :KLOH WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DUH FRQVLVWHQW RYHU WLPH WKHVH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV GR QRW QHFHVVDULO\ IROORZ D FRQVLVWHQW OLQHDU FRXUVH 7KRPDV t &KHVV S f 7KH\ LQWHUDFW ZLWK WKH HQYLURQPHQW DQG DV D UHVXOW D FKLOGnV EHKDYLRUDO VW\OH LV PRGLILHG E\ ERWK SDVW DQG SUHVHQW LQIOXHQFHV 7KHUHIRUH FRQVLVWHQF\ RI D WHPSHUDPHQWDO WUDLW RU FRQVWHOODWLRQ LQ DQ LQGLYLGXDO RYHU WLPH PD\ UHTXLUH VWDELOLW\ LQ WKHVH LQWHUDFWLRQDO IRUFHV VXFK DV HQYLURQPHQWDO LQIOXHQFHV PRWLYDWLRQ DQG DELOLWLHV 7KRPDV t &KHVV S f

PAGE 22

$OWKRXJK WHPSHUDPHQW LV WKRXJKW WR KDYH D ELRORJLFDO EDVLV LW DOVR LV WKRXJKW WR EH LQIOXHQFHG E\ WKH HQYLURQPHQW %DWHV f +RZHYHU WKLV LQWHUDFWLRQ LV ERWK FRPSOH[ DQG UHFLSURFDO DV D FKLOGnV WHPSHUDPHQW DOVR LQIOXHQFHV KLV RU KHU HQFRXQWHUV ZLWK WKH HQYLURQPHQW &DUH\ f 7KH 7UDQVDFWLRQDO 0RGHO 6DPHURII t )LHVH f VXSSRUWV WKLV FRQFHSW 7KLV PRGHO SURSRVHV WKDW GHYHORSPHQWDO RXWFRPHV DUH QRW UHODWHG WR DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DORQH RU WKH H[SHULHQWLDO FRQWH[W DORQH 5DWKHU WKH FRPELQDWLRQ RI DQ LQGLYLGXDO DQG KLV RU KHU H[SHULHQFH GHWHUPLQHV GHYHORSPHQWDO RXWFRPHV $V D UHVXOW WKH QDWXUH RI WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ JHQHUDOO\ LV GHVFULEHG DV PRUH LPSRUWDQW WKDQ HLWKHU WHPSHUDPHQW RU WKH HQYLURQPHQW DORQH 'HVSLWH WKH WUDQVDFWLRQDO QDWXUH RI WHPSHUDPHQW DQG HQYLURQPHQW VRPH WHPSHUDPHQW SURILOHV HJ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH GLIILFXOW FKLOGf DSSHDU WR EH PRUH OLNHO\ WR UHVXOW LQ FKLOGKRRG SUREOHPV WKDQ GR RWKHUV &DUH\ f 5HVHDUFKHUV FRQWHQG WKDW FKLOGUHQnV UHVSRQVHV WR REMHFWLYH HQYLURQPHQWDO IHDWXUHV DUH DIIHFWHG E\ WKHLU WHPSHUDPHQW HJ %DWHV &DUH\ &DUH\ t 0F'HYLWW 5RWKEDUW HW DO 7KRPDV t &KHVV f DQG VRPH UHVSRQVHV DUH PRUH DGDSWLYH WKDQ RWKHUV &DUH\ DQG 0F'HYLWW f ZHQW VR IDU DV WR VD\ WKDW FRQIOLFWV EHWZHHQ WHPSHUDPHQW DQG

PAGE 23

HQYLURQPHQW RFFXS\ PXFK RI WKH FRQVLGHUDEOH JURXQG EHWZHHQ QRUPDO EHKDYLRU DQG PLVEHKDYLRUf DQG PDMRU FKLOGKRRG SDWKRORJ\ S [Lf 7HPSHUDPHQW WUDLWV VXFK DV WKRVH W\SLFDOO\ VHHQ LQ D GLIILFXOW FKLOG DUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI OHDUQLQJ GLIILFXOWLHV DGMXVWPHQW SUREOHPV DQG SV\FKRSDWKRORJ\ )RU H[DPSOH FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQWV PD\ EH PRUH YXOQHUDEOH WR VWUHVV DV VHHQ LQ D VWXG\ FRPSDULQJ VFKRRODJHG FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW ZLWK FRSLQJ DELOLWLHV DQG UHVSRQVHV WR VWUHVV /HVV UK\WKPLF DQG PRUH LQWHQVH EHKDYLRUDO VW\OHV ZHUH IRXQG WR EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LPSXOVLYLW\DFWLQJ RXW DQG SDVVLYH DJJUHVVLRQ )XUWKHU KLJKHU LQWHQVLW\ DQG ORZHU WKUHVKROG RI UHVSRQVH ZHUH IRXQG WR EH UHODWHG WR KLJKHU VWUHVV RFFXUUHQFH DQG VWUHVV LPSDFW &DUVRQ f 7KH 1HZ
PAGE 24

UHSRUW PHDVXUHV LV SUREOHPDWLF LQ WKDW WKHUH PD\ EH FRQVLGHUDEOH ELDV LQ SDUHQWVn UHSRUWV RI WKHLU FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRU DQG FKDUDFWHULVWLFV %DWHV f UHSRUWHG RQO\ PRGHVW VXSSRUW IRU WKH H[WHUQDO YDOLGLW\ RI WKHVH W\SHV RI PHDVXUHV +H FLWHG D QXPEHU RI VWXGLHV WKDW IRXQG VPDOOHU ZLWKLQSDLU WHPSHUDPHQW VLPLODULW\ IRU G\]\JRWLF WZLQV WKDQ IRU PRQR]\JRWLF WZLQV *HQHWLF WKHRU\ ZRXOG VXJJHVW VWURQJHU VLPLODULWLHV WKDQ ZHUH IRXQG +RZHYHU 0F'HYLWW DQG &DUH\ f UHSRUWHG D QXPEHU RI UHDVRQV IRU XVLQJ SDUHQWUHSRUW PHDVXUHV 3DUHQWUHSRUW PHDVXUHV SURYLGH D PRUH REMHFWLYH DQG VWDQGDUGL]HG VFRULQJ SURFHGXUH WKDQ LQWHUYLHZ SURFHGXUHV (YHU\ SDUHQW LV DVNHG H[DFWO\ WKH VDPH TXHVWLRQV LQ WKH VDPH RUGHU DERXW UHDFWLRQV DSSURSULDWH IRU WKH FKLOGnV DJH JURXS ,Q DGGLWLRQ SDUHQWUHSRUWV DOORZ IRU WKH FDUHIXO VHOHFWLRQ RI WHVWLWHP ZRUGLQJ WR \LHOG D VFRUH FOHDUO\ LQ RQO\ RQH FDWHJRU\ 7KLV SUHYHQWV FRQFHSWXDO DQG VWDWLVWLFDO EOXUULQJ RI PXOWLSOH FDWHJRU\ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ WKDW FDQ RFFXU ZLWK PRUH WUDGLWLRQDO SDUHQW LQWHUYLHZ WHFKQLTXHV 0F'HYLWW t &DUH\ f $GXOW 7HPSHUDPHQW :KHUHDV 7KRPDV DQG &KHVVn WHPSHUDPHQW WKHRU\ LV W\SLFDOO\ UHODWHG WR FKLOGUHQ -XQJnV WKHRU\ RI WHPSHUDPHQW LV PRUH FRPPRQO\ DSSOLHG WR DGXOWV $FFRUGLQJ WR -XQJ ZKDW LV RIWHQ WKRXJKW RI DV UDQGRP YDULDWLRQ LQ EHKDYLRU LV

PAGE 25

DFWXDOO\ RUGHUO\ DQG FRQVLVWHQW GXH WR WKH EDVLF GLIIHUHQFHV LQ LQGLYLGXDOVn SUHIHUHQFHV LQ XVLQJ WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQV DQG MXGJPHQWV 3HUFHSWLRQ UHODWHV WR WKH SURFHVV RI EHFRPLQJ DZDUH RI SHRSOH WKLQJV LGHDV RU KDSSHQLQJV -XGJPHQW UHODWHV WR WKH ZD\V LQ ZKLFK LQGLYLGXDOV FRPH WR FRQFOXVLRQV DERXW ZKDW KDV EHHQ SHUFHLYHG -XQJnV WKHRU\ f ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV WKHVH SUHIHUHQFHV DIIHFW QRW RQO\ ZKDW SHRSOH DWWHQG WR LQ DQ\ JLYHQ VLWXDWLRQ EXW DOVR KRZ WKH\ GUDZ FRQFOXVLRQV DERXW ZKDW WKH\ SHUFHLYH 0\HUV t 0F&DXOOH\ S f -XQJ GHVFULEHG WZR EDVLF DWWLWXGHV LH H[WUDYHUVLRQLQWURYHUVLRQf DQG IRXU IXQFWLRQV LH VHQVLQJLQWXLWLYH DQG WKLQNLQJIHHOLQJf WKDW GLUHFW WKH XVH RI SHUFHSWLRQ DQG MXGJPHQW -XQJ f 0\HUV DQG %ULJJV ODWHU DGGHG DQ DGGLWLRQDO DWWLWXGH LH MXGJLQJSHUFHLYLQJf 0\HUV t 0F&DXOOH\ f VHH 7DEOH f 7KHVH IRXU DWWLWXGHV DQG IXQFWLRQV DUH FRPELQHG WR FUHDWH SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SHV 7\SH WKHRU\ VXJJHVWV WKDW DOWKRXJK DQ LQGLYLGXDO ZLOO GHYHORS DQG XVH HDFK RI WKH HLJKW SUHIHUHQFHV WKH\ ZLOO QRW EH HTXDOO\ IDYRUHG $ORQJ HDFK GLPHQVLRQ DQ LQGLYLGXDO ZLOO QRUPDOO\ KDYH D SUHGLVSRVLWLRQ IRU RQH HQG RI WKH FRQWLQXXP 7KH LQWHUDFWLRQ DPRQJ DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV IRXU SUHIHUUHG DWWLWXGHV DQG IXQFWLRQV FRQVWLWXWHV WKDW LQGLYLGXDOnV W\SH 0HLVJHLHU 0XUSK\ t

PAGE 26

7DEOH $GXOW 7HPSHUDPHQW 7\SHV 7\SH ([WUDYHUVLQ (f ,QWURYHUVLRQ ,f 6HQVLQJ 6f ,QWXLWLYH 1f 7KLQNLQJ 7f )HHOLQJ )f -XGJLQJ -f 3HUFHLYLQJ 3f 'HVFULSWLRQ 5HODWHV WR WKH RULHQWDWLRQV RI HQHUJ\ ([WUDYHUVLQ GLUHFWV HQHUJ\ SULPDULO\ RXWZDUG WRZDUG SHRSOH DQG REMHFWV ,QWURYHUVLRQ GLUHFWV HQHUJ\ SULPDULO\ LQZDUG WRZDUG H[SHULHQFHV DQG LGHDV 'HDOV ZLWK WKH SURFHVVHV RI SHUFHSWLRQ 6HQVLQJ IRFXVHV PDLQO\ RQ WKH ILYH VHQVHV ZKHUHDV LQWXLWLRQ IRFXVHV PDLQO\ RQ SDWWHUQV DQG LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLSV 5HODWHV WR WKH IXQFWLRQV RI MXGJPHQW 7KLQNLQJ LQYROYHV REMHFWLYLW\ DQG EDVLQJ FRQFOXVLRQV RQ ORJLF )HHOLQJ IRFXVHV RQ KDUPRQ\ DQG EDVLQJ FRQFOXVLRQV RQ YDOXHV 'HDOV ZLWK WKH SURFHVVHV DQ LQGLYLGXDO XVHV WR GHDO ZLWK WKH RXWHU ZRUOG -XGJPHQW IRFXVHV RQ GHFLVLYHQHVV DQG FORVXUH DQG XVHV RQH RI WKH MXGJLQJ SURFHVVHV 7 RU )f 3HUFHLYLQJ IRFXVHV RQ IOH[LELOLW\ DQG XVHV RQH RI WKH SHUFHLYLQJ SURFHVVHV 6 RU 1f 6RXUFH 0\HUV t 0F&DXOOH\ 4XHQN 0HLVJHLHU f 7\SH GHYHORSPHQW LV EHOLHYHG WR EH D OLIHORQJ SURFHVV $V LQGLYLGXDOV EHFRPH ROGHU WKH\ ZLOO FRQVFLRXVO\ GHYHORS DQG XVH WZR RI WKH W\SHV PRUH IUHTXHQWO\ 7KHVH WZR W\SHV DUH WKRXJKW WR EH PRUH LQWHUHVWLQJ WR WKH LQGLYLGXDO WKH RWKHU WZR W\SHV DUH WKRXJKW WR EH OHVV LQWHUHVWLQJ DQG WKHUHIRUH DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR EH QHJOHFWHG 7KH HQYLURQPHQW SOD\V D UROH LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI D SHUVRQnV W\SH DV LW IRVWHUV RQHnV QDWXUDO SUHIHUHQFHV RU

PAGE 27

GLVFRXUDJHV WKHP E\ UHLQIRUFLQJ DFWLYLWLHV WKDW DUH OHVV VDWLVI\LQJ WR WKH LQGLYLGXDO 0\HUV 0F&DXOOH\ 4XHQN t +DPPHU f 7HPSHUDPHQW W\SH DIIHFWV WKH ZD\ LQGLYLGXDOV GHDO ZLWK WKHLU ZRUOG 7KLV H[WHQGV LQWR WKH FODVVURRP DV WHDFKHUV WHDFK DQG LQWHUDFW ZLWK WKHLU VWXGHQWV 5HVHDUFKHUV VXJJHVW WKDW WHDFKHUV SULPDULO\ KDYH (6)RU ,6)SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SHV *ULQGOHU t 6WUDWWRQ 0DFGDLG 0F&DXOOH\ t .DLQ] f 7KDW LV ZKLOH QR FRQVLVWHQW SUHIHUHQFH KDV EHHQ LGHQWLILHG UHODWHG WR WKH H[WUDYHUVLQ (f RU LQWURYHUVLRQ ,f GLPHQVLRQ VWXGLHV KDYH VXJJHVWHG WKDW WHDFKHUV DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR SUHIHU VHQVLQJ 6f IHHOLQJ )f DQG MXGJLQJ -f W\SHV (6)-V DUH GHVFULEHG DV WKH IULHQGOLHVW DQG PRVW FRPSDVVLRQDWH RI WKH WHPSHUDPHQW W\SHV ,QGLYLGXDOV ZLWK WKLV W\SH WU\ WR PDNH OLIH HDVLHU IRU RWKHUV DQG SURPRWH JURXS FRKHVLRQ ,6)-V DUH WKH PRVW UHOLDEOH RI WKH WHPSHUDPHQW W\SHV 7KH\ SUHIHU WR TXLHWO\ JDWKHU IDFWV DQG VWRUH WKHP IRU IXWXUH XVH 0\HUV HW DO f 2YHUDOO LQGLYLGXDOV ZLWK WKH VHQVLQJ DQG MXGJLQJ SUHIHUHQFHV YDOXH SUHFLVLRQ VWUXFWXUH DQG RUGHU LQ WKH FODVVURRP 0HLVJHLHU HW DO f 7HDFKHUVn WHPSHUDPHQW W\SHV DIIHFW KRZ WKH\ VWUXFWXUH WKHLU FODVVURRPV DQG LQWHUDFW ZLWK WKHLU VWXGHQWV )RU H[DPSOH WHDFKHUV ZKR SUHIHU H[WUDYHUVLQ KDYH FODVVURRPV KLJK LQ PRYHPHQW DQG QRLVH DQG OLNH WR JLYH

PAGE 28

WKHLU VWXGHQWV FKRLFHV 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG WHDFKHUV ZKR SUHIHU LQWURYHUVLRQ DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR KDYH RUGHUO\ DQG TXLHW FODVVURRPV ZLWK PRUH VWUXFWXUHG OHDUQLQJ DFWLYLWLHV 0\HUV HW DO f 7HPSHUDPHQW VW\OHV DOVR LQIOXHQFH KRZ WHDFKHUV GHILQH VWXGHQW PLVEHKDYLRU )RU H[DPSOH KLJK VFKRRO WHDFKHUV ZLWK D VHQVLQJ SUHIHUHQFH WHQG WR LGHQWLI\ DQ\WKLQJ WKDW LQWHUIHUHV ZLWK LQVWUXFWLRQ DV PLVEHKDYLRU 0LQHU t +\PDQ f 6XPPDU\ :LWK UHJDUG WR FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW 7KRPDV DQG &KHVV f GHVFULEHG QLQH WHPSHUDPHQW FDWHJRULHV DQG WKUHH WHPSHUDPHQW FRQVWHOODWLRQV DV D UHVXOW RI WKHLU UHVHDUFK 7HPSHUDPHQW LV EHOLHYHG WR EH ELRORJLFDO LQ QDWXUH LQ WKDW LW DSSHDUV LQ LQIDQF\ DQG KDV EHHQ VKRZQ WR EH FRQVLVWHQW LQWR FKLOGKRRG DQG DGROHVFHQFH ,Q DGGLWLRQ UHVHDUFK RQ WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI PRQR]\JRWLF DQG GL]\JRWLF WZLQV VXSSRUWV D JHQHWLF EDVLV $ UHFLSURFDO UHODWLRQVKLS LV EHOLHYHG WR H[LVW EHWZHHQ WKH ELRORJLFDO QDWXUH RI WHPSHUDPHQW DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO HQFRXQWHUV ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV D FKLOGnV WHPSHUDPHQW LV LQIOXHQFHG E\ ERWK ELRORJLFDO DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO LQIOXHQFHV DV ZHOO DV WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH WZR 5HVHDUFK KDV VKRZQ WKDW FKLOGUHQ ZLWK FHUWDLQ WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV PD\ EH PRUH YXOQHUDEOH WR VWUHVV DQG PRUH SURQH WR EHKDYLRUDO DQG DGMXVWPHQW SUREOHPV

PAGE 29

-XQJ LQGLFDWHG WKDW PXFK RI DGXOWVn EHKDYLRU LV GXH WR EDVLF GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKHLU SUHIHUHQFHV LQ XVLQJ SHUFHSWLRQ DQG MXGJPHQW ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV SHUFHSWLRQ DQG MXGJPHQW DIIHFW ZKDW SHRSOH DWWHQG WR DV ZHOO DV KRZ WKH\ GUDZ FRQFOXVLRQV 0\HUV t 0F&DXOOH\ f -XQJ 0\HUV DQG %ULJJV GHVFULEHG EDVLF DWWLWXGHV LH H[WUDYHUVLRQLQWURYHUVLRQ DQG MXGJPHQWSHUFHSWLRQf DQG IXQFWLRQV LH VHQVLQJLQWXLWLYH DQG WKLQNLQJIHHOLQJf WKDW GLUHFW WKH XVH RI SHUFHSWLRQ DQG MXGJPHQW -XQJ 0\HUV t 0F&DXOOH\ f 7KH DWWLWXGHV DQG IXQFWLRQV FDQ EH FRPELQHG LQWR IRXUOHWWHU W\SHV $ SHUVRQnV W\SH LV GHWHUPLQHG EDVHG RQ KLV RU KHU SUHGLVSRVLWLRQ IRU RQH HQG RI WKH FRQWLQXXP DORQJ HDFK RI IRXU GLPHQVLRQV 7KH LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV IRXU SUHIHUUHG DWWLWXGHV DQG IXQFWLRQV FRQVWLWXWHV WKDW LQGLYLGXDOnV W\SH 0HLVJHLHU HW DO f 7HDFKHUV SULPDULO\ KDYH (6)RU ,6)WHPSHUDPHQW W\SHV *ULQGOHU t 6WUDWWRQ 0DFGDLG HW DO f 7HDFKHUVn WHPSHUDPHQW W\SHV DIIHFW KRZ WKH\ VWUXFWXUH WKHLU FODVVURRPV WHDFK DQG LQWHUDFW ZLWK VWXGHQWV 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG 6FKRRO $GMXVWPHQW 9DULDEOHV 8QGHUVWDQGLQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ WHPSHUDPHQW DQG VFKRRO H[SHULHQFHV LV LPSRUWDQW EHFDXVH RI WKH FHQWUDO UROH VFKRRO SOD\V LQ FKLOGUHQnV OLYHV :LWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI WKH IDPLO\ QR VRFLDO LQVWLWXWLRQ SOD\V D PRUH

PAGE 30

SRZHUIXO UROH LQ FKLOGUHQnV OLYHV .HRJK S f 3DUWLFXODUO\ LPSRUWDQW DUH FKLOGUHQnV H[SHULHQFHV LQ NLQGHUJDUWHQ DV WKLV SHULRG LV RIWHQ WKH ILUVW WLPH FKLOGUHQ H[SHULHQFH D IRUPDO VFKRRO VHWWLQJ &KLOGUHQ DUH H[SHFWHG WR DGMXVW WR QHZ VRFLDO DQG DFDGHPLF GHPDQGV DQG PXVW IRUP DQG PDLQWDLQ VWUDWHJLHV WR FRSH ZLWK WKHLU VRFLDO HQYLURQPHQW &KHVV t 7KRPDV +DPUH t 3LDQWD f )RU H[DPSOH FKLOGUHQ PXVW OHDUQ WR FRRSHUDWH ZLWK QRQSDUHQWDO DXWKRULW\ ILJXUHV VXFFHVVIXOO\ HQWHU DQG EHFRPH SDUW RI D QHZ SHHU JURXS EHFRPH FRPPLWWHG WR DFDGHPLF GHYHORSPHQW DQG H[KLELW JRRG SHUIRUPDQFH LQ DFDGHPLF VNLOO EXLOGLQJ DFWLYLWLHV 3LDQWD 6WHLQEHUJ t 5ROOLQV f &KLOGUHQ ZKR DUH VXFFHVVIXOO\ DGMXVWHG UHODWH ZHOO WR WKH WHDFKHU DQG WKHLU SHHUV DQG DUH ZHOO VXLWHG WR YDULRXV OHDUQLQJ H[SHULHQFHV 6NDUSQHVV m6F &DUVRQ f ([SHULHQFHV GXULQJ WKH LQLWLDO FRQWDFW ZLWK VFKRRO FDQ DIIHFW FKLOGUHQnV VHOIFRQFHSWV DV ZHOO DV WKHLU DWWLWXGHV WRZDUG VFKRRO 5XVKHU 0F*UHYLQ t /DPELWWH f 7KHVH H[SHULHQFHV DOVR FDQ LPSDFW FKLOGUHQnV ORQJWHUP VFKRRO H[SHULHQFHV )RU H[DPSOH HDUO\ DGMXVWPHQW WR NLQGHUJDUWHQ PD\ KHOS DOOHYLDWH WKH VWUHVV WKDW FRPHV IURP WKH FKDQJHV FKLOGUHQ H[SHULHQFH 6NDUSQHVV DQG &DUVRQ f 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG FKLOGUHQ ZKR KDYH

PAGE 31

GLIILFXOW\ DGMXVWLQJ DV WKH VFKRRO \HDU SURJUHVVHV PD\ FRQWLQXH WR H[SHULHQFH ORQJWHUP GLIILFXOWLHV 6FKRRO DGMXVWPHQW FDQ EH FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ D FKLOGnV DELOLW\ WR FRSH ZLWK WKH VSHFLILF VRFLDO DQG FRJQLWLYH GHPDQGV RI WKH VFKRRO HQYLURQPHQW &DVVHO DV FLWHG LQ 6NDUSQHVV t &DUVRQ f 6NDUSQHVV DQG &DUVRQ f GHILQHG VXFFHVVIXO DGMXVWPHQW DV WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK D FKLOG LV DEOH WR UHODWH WR RWKHU VWXGHQWV DQG WKH WHDFKHU DV ZHOO DV KRZ ZHOO VXLWHG KH RU VKH LV WR WKH YDULRXV OHDUQLQJ H[SHULHQFHV HQFRXQWHUHG LQ VFKRRO 6FKRROUHODWHG GHPDQGV JHQHUDOO\ FDQ EH FODVVLILHG LQWR WZR PDMRU FDWHJRULHV f WKRVH WKDW DUH LQWHUSHUVRQDO LQ QDWXUH DQG UHODWHG WR EHKDYLRU WKDW LV DGMXVWHG DQG VRFLDOO\ DSSURSULDWH DQG f WKRVH WKDW LQYROYH DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH DQG DFKLHYHPHQW .HRJK f (DFK LV GLVFXVVHG EHORZ ,QWHUSHUVRQDO 5HODWLRQVKLSV 5HODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ FKLOGUHQnV DGMXVWPHQW WR VFKRRO DQG WKH VFKRRO HQYLURQPHQWnV LQWHUSHUVRQDO IHDWXUHV KDYH QRW EHHQ DQ DUHD RI LQWHUHVW XQWLO UHFHQW \HDUV ,Q DGGLWLRQ LQYHVWLJDWLRQV RQ WKLV WRSLF KDYH IRFXVHG SULPDULO\ RQ FKLOGUHQnV SHHU UHODWLRQVKLSV LQ FODVVURRPV %LUFK t /DGG f 7KLV OLQH RI UHVHDUFK HJ /DGG 3DUNHU t $VKHU /DGG t 3ULFH f KDV LQGLFDWHG WKDW FODVVURRP SHHUV SOD\ DQ LPSRUWDQW UROH LQ FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO

PAGE 32

DGMXVWPHQW )XUWKHU FKLOGUHQ ZKR H[SHULHQFH HDUO\ GLIILFXOWLHV ZLWK WKHLU SHHUV DUH DW ULVN IRU ODWHU VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW SUREOHPV %LUFK t /DGG f 3HHUV DUH QRW WKH RQO\ LQGLYLGXDOV ZLWK ZKRP FKLOGUHQ KDYH LPSRUWDQW UHODWLRQVKLSV &ODVVURRP WHDFKHUV DOVR PD\ VHUYH DV NH\ ILJXUHV LQ FKLOGUHQnV VFKRROOLYHV DQG DV D UHVXOW PD\ DIIHFW FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW %LUFK t /DGG +DPUH t 3LDQWD .HRJK 3LDQWD 3LDQWD m6F 6WHLQEHUJ f 0RUH RI FKLOGUHQnV ZDNLQJ KRXUV DUH VSHQW ZLWK WHDFKHUV WKDQ ZLWK SDUHQWV WKHUHIRUH WKH WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLS LV DQ LQWHJUDO SDUW RI WKH DFDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO OHDUQLQJ FRQWH[W DQG SURYLGHV D FRQWH[W IRU GHYHORSPHQW LWVHOI 3LDQWD HW DO f 6RPH UHVHDUFKHUV EHOLHYH WKDW FKLOGUHQnV SDWWHUQV RI DFKLHYHPHQW DUH ZHOOHVWDEOLVKHG E\ WKH WKLUG JUDGH DQG WKDW IHZ VFKRRO H[SHULHQFHV EH\RQG WKH WKLUG JUDGH KDYH WKH SRZHU WR FKDQJH WKDW FRXUVH $OH[DQGHU t (QWZLVOH DV FLWHG LQ 3LDQWD 6F 6WHLQEHUJ f $V D UHVXOW WHDFKHUV LQ WKH SULPDU\ JUDGHV f DUH OLNHO\ WR KDYH DQ LPSRUWDQW LPSDFW RQ D FKLOGnV VFKRRO H[SHULHQFHV )RU H[DPSOH WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLS SDWWHUQV LQ NLQGHUJDUWHQ SUHGLFW ODWHU VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DV ZHOO DV DFDGHPLF DQG EHKDYLRUDO RXWFRPHV +DPUH t 3LDQWD 3LDQWD tF 1LPHW] 3LDQWD t 6WHLQEHUJ f

PAGE 33

7HDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLSV SOD\ D FULWLFDO UHJXODWRU\ UROH LQ FKLOGUHQnV GHYHORSPHQW )RU H[DPSOH WHDFKHUV DVVLVW FKLOGUHQ LQ OHDUQLQJ KRZ WR EHKDYH KRZ WR LQWHUDFW ZLWK RWKHUV DQG DERXW WKH QDWXUH RI WKH VFKRRO HQYLURQPHQW 7KLV UHJXODWRU\ UROH LV SDUWLFXODUO\ LPSRUWDQW GXULQJ SHULRGV LQ ZKLFK GHYHORSPHQWDO SURFHVVHV DUH OHVV EXIIHUHG RU DUH FKDOOHQJHG E\ HQYLURQPHQWDO GHPDQGV 3LDQWD HW DO f 7KH HDUO\ \HDUV RI HOHPHQWDU\ VFKRRO SRVH VXFK D FKDOOHQJH WR \RXQJ FKLOGUHQ 7HDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLSV FDQ OHQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQG VWDELOLW\ WR GHYHORSPHQWDO SURFHVVHV DVVLVWLQJ FKLOGUHQ WR PRGLI\ RU HODERUDWH WKHLU H[LVWLQJ FRSLQJ VWUDWHJLHV DV ZHOO DV WR GHYHORS QHZ VWUDWHJLHV 3LDQWD HW DO f 'HVSLWH WKHLU LPSRUWDQFH DV D IHDWXUH RI WKH DFDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO OHDUQLQJ FRQWH[W DQG WKH SRWHQWLDO LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLSV KDYH UHFHLYHG OLWWOH DWWHQWLRQ LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH RQ VFKRROUHODWHG GHYHORSPHQWDO RXWFRPHV 3LDQWD HW DO S f 3DWWHUQV RI NLQGHUJDUWHQ FKLOGUHQnV UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK WKHLU WHDFKHUV DUH SUHGLFWLYH RI VFKRRO DFKLHYHPHQW 3LDQWD t 1LPHW] 3LDQWD t 6WHLQEHUJ f 2QH VWXG\ H[DPLQHG NLQGHUJDUWHQ WHDFKHUVn YLHZV DERXW WKHLU UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK WKHLU VWXGHQWV DV PHDVXUHG RQ WKH 6WXGHQW7HDFKHU 5HODWLRQVKLS 6FDOH 6756f 3LDQWD t 6WHLQEHUJ f 7KH 6756 ZDV EDVHG RQ

PAGE 34

UHVHDUFK RI WHDFKHUFKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQV DQG DWWDFKPHQW WKHRU\ 7KUHH GLVWLQFW IDFWRUV ZHUH UHYHDOHG FORVHQHVV GHSHQGHQF\ DQG FRQIOLFWDQJHU %LUFK t /DGG 3LDQWD HW DO f &ORVHQHVV LV GHVFULEHG DV HQFRPSDVVLQJ WKH GHJUHH RI RSHQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG ZDUPWK H[LVWLQJ EHWZHHQ D FKLOG DQG KLV RU KHU WHDFKHU %LUFK t /DGG f ,W PD\ IXQFWLRQ DV D VXSSRUW IRU \RXQJ FKLOGUHQ LQ WKH VFKRRO HQYLURQPHQW $ SRVLWLYH VWXGHQWWHDFKHU UHODWLRQVKLS LQ NLQGHUJDUWHQ ZDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK KLJKHU OHYHOV RI FRPSHWHQW EHKDYLRUV DQG IHZHU EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV 3LDQWD HW DO f $ FORVH UHODWLRQVKLS PD\ IDFLOLWDWH SRVLWLYH DWWLWXGHV WRZDUG DQG JUHDWHU LQYROYHPHQW LQ VFKRRO %LUFK t /DGG f )XUWKHU D FORVH WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLS PD\ VHUYH DV D PRWLYDWLQJ IDFWRU IRU WHDFKHUV WR SXW IRUWK PRUH WLPH DQG HIIRUW WR SURPRWH WKH FKLOGnV VXFFHVV +DPUH t 3LDQWD f ,Q DGGLWLRQ EDVHG RQ SDUHQWFKLOG DWWDFKPHQW WKHRU\ %LUFK DQG /DGG f VXJJHVWHG WKDW FORVH VWXGHQWWHDFKHU UHODWLRQVKLSV SURYLGH FKLOGUHQ ZLWK D VHFXUH EDVH WKH\ FDQ XVH WR H[SORUH WKHLU HQYLURQPHQW 7KHUHIRUH FORVHQHVV PD\ SURPRWH FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO SHUIRUPDQFH DQG OHDUQLQJ %LUFK t /DGG f 'HSHQGHQF\ D VHFRQG IDFWRU RI WKH WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLS UHIHUV WR DQ RYHUUHOLDQFH RQ WKH WHDFKHU DV D VRXUFH RI VXSSRUW ,W FDQ EH FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ FOLQJ\ RU SRVVHVVLYH EHKDYLRUV 'HSHQGHQF\ LQ WKH WHDFKHUVWXGHQW

PAGE 35

UHODWLRQVKLS UHSRUWHGO\ LQWHUIHUHV ZLWK FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW %LUFK t /DGG f 2YHUO\ GHSHQGHQW FKLOGUHQ PD\ EH KHVLWDQW LQ WKHLU H[SORUDWLRQV RI WKH VFKRRO HQYLURQPHQW DV ZHOO DV LQ WKHLU VRFLDO UHODWLRQVKLSV 7KHVH FKLOGUHQ PRUH FRPPRQO\ H[SHULHQFH IHHOLQJV RI ORQHOLQHVV DQG QHJDWLYH DWWLWXGHV WRZDUG VFKRRO WKDQ GR WKHLU QRQGHSHQGHQW SHHUV %LUFK m6F /DGG f &RQIOLFWDQJHU WKH WKLUG IDFWRU RI WKH WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLS UHIOHFWV QHJDWLYH DIIHFW DQG PD\ LPSDLU FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW EHFDXVH LW DFWV DV D VWUHVVRU LQ WKH VFKRRO HQYLURQPHQW %LUFK 6F /DGG 3LDQWD f &RQIOLFWXDO WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLSV LQYROYH D ODFN RI UDSSRUW EHWZHHQ WKH WHDFKHU DQG WKH FKLOG DV ZHOO DV D VHQVH RI IULFWLRQ LQ WKHLU LQWHUDFWLRQV )XUWKHU WKLV W\SH RI UHODWLRQVKLS PD\ UHVXOW LQ WHDFKHU HIIRUWV WR FRQWURO D FKLOGnV EHKDYLRU +DPUH 6F 3LDQWD f $ FKLOG ZKR LV D SDUW RI D FRQIOLFWXDO UHODWLRQVKLS PD\ EH OLPLWHG LQ WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK KH RU VKH FDQ UHO\ RQ WKH WHDFKHU DV D VRXUFH RI VXSSRUW %LUFK t /DGG f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKLV W\SH RI UHODWLRQVKLS PD\ UHVXOW LQ LQFUHDVHG IHHOLQJV RI DQ[LHW\ RU DQJHU UHVXOWLQJ LQ ZLWKGUDZDO IURP VFKRRO DFWLYLWLHV HJ EHFRPLQJ XQLQYROYHG RU GLVHQJDJHGf RU IHHOLQJV RI DOLHQDWLRQ HJ ORQHOLQHVV DQG QHJDWLYH VFKRRO DWWLWXGHVf

PAGE 36

)XUWKHU WKH VWUHVV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK D FRQIOLFWXDO UHODWLRQVKLS DOVR PD\ EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LPSDLUHG DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH %LUFK t /DGG f )HZ VWXGLHV DGGUHVV UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG WKH WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLS 2QH VXFK VWXG\ LQFOXGHG NLQGHUJDUWHQ FKLOGUHQ DQG WKHLU FODVVURRP WHDFKHUV $PRQJ WKH NLQGHUJDUWHQ FKLOGUHQ ZKR ZHUH UHFRPPHQGHG IRU UHWHQWLRQ WKRVH ZKR ZHUH QRW UHWDLQHG KDG PRUH SRVLWLYH WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLSV WKDQ WKH FKLOGUHQ ZKR ZHUH UHWDLQHG 3LDQWD t 6WHLQEHUJ f 5HODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ WKH WKUHH DVSHFWV RI WKH WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLS FORVHQHVV GHSHQGHQF\ DQG FRQIOLFWf DQG FKLOGUHQnV HDUO\ VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW ZHUH H[DPLQHG LQ D VWXG\ WKDW LQFOXGHG NLQGHUJDUWHQ FKLOGUHQ DQG WKHLU FODVVURRP WHDFKHUV %LUFK t /DGG f 'DWD FROOHFWHG GXULQJ WKH IDOO VHPHVWHU LQFOXGHG PHDVXUHV RI WKH WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLS XVLQJ D WHDFKHU UHSRUW UDWLQJ VFDOHf DQG FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW 6FKRRO DGMXVWPHQW RXWFRPH LQGLFHV LQFOXGHG D UHDGLQHVV WHVW VHOIUHSRUW UDWLQJ VFDOH RQ ORQHOLQHVV DQG VRFLDO GLVVDWLVIDFWLRQ VHOIUHSRUW UDWLQJ VFDOH RQ VFKRRO OLNLQJ DQG VFKRRO DYRLGDQFH DQG WHDFKHUUHSRUW UDWLQJ VFDOH RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW &ORVHQHVV LQ WKH WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV SRVLWLYHO\ UHODWHG WR NLQGHUJDUWQHUVn DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH $ SRVLWLYH UHODWLRQVKLS DOVR ZDV

PAGE 37

IRXQG EHWZHHQ FORVHQHVV DQG IDFWRUV RQ WKH VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW UDWLQJ VFDOH LH VHOIGLUHFWHGQHVV DQG VFKRRO OLNLQJf ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ GHSHQGHQF\ LQ WKH WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLS DQG VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW GLIILFXOWLHV ZDV VWURQJ .LQGHUJDUWQHUV ZKR KDG D GHSHQGHQW UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK WKHLU WHDFKHU GLVSOD\HG ORZHU DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH OHVV SRVLWLYH HQJDJHPHQW ZLWK WKH VFKRRO HQYLURQPHQW DQG PRUH QHJDWLYH VFKRRO DWWLWXGHV .LQGHUJDUWQHUV ZKR GLVSOD\HG FRQIOLFWXDO UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK WKHLU WHDFKHUV DOVR WHQGHG WR KDYH QHJDWLYH VFKRRO DWWLWXGHV DQG ZHUH UDWHG E\ WKHLU WHDFKHUV DV OHVV VHOIGLUHFWHG KLJKHU LQ VFKRRO DYRLGDQFH DQG ORZHU LQ FRRSHUDWLYH SDUWLFLSDWLRQ %LUFK t /DGG f &KLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DUH UHODWHG WR WKHLU LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK WHDFKHUV &KHVV t 7KRPDV .HRJK t %XPVWHLQ 3DJHW 1DJOH t 0DUWLQ f )RU H[DPSOH LQ D VWXG\ RI SUHVFKRRO FKLOGUHQ WHDFKHUV LQWHUDFWHG PRUH ZLWK SUHVFKRRO FKLOGUHQ ZLWK SRVLWLYH WHPSHUDPHQW SURILOHV WKDQ WKRVH ZLWK QHJDWLYH WHPSHUDPHQW SURILOHV +RZHYHU DPRQJ FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLVDELOLWLHV WHDFKHUV LQWHUDFWHG PRUH IUHTXHQWO\ ZLWK FKLOGUHQ ZLWK QHJDWLYH WHPSHUDPHQW WKDQ WKRVH ZLWK SRVLWLYH WHPSHUDPHQWV .HRJK t %XPVWHLQ f ,Q DGGLWLRQ LQ D VWXG\ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS DPRQJ FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DELOLWLHV DQG WKHLU NLQGHUJDUWHQ

PAGE 38

DGMXVWPHQW OHVV DFWLYH FKLOGUHQ ZHUH SHUFHLYHG WR EH EHWWHU DGMXVWHG )XUWKHU FKLOGUHQ ZLWK SULPDULO\ SRVLWLYH PRRGV ZHUH SHUFHLYHG WR EH EHWWHU DGMXVWHG VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW FKLOGUHQ ZLWK PRUH IDYRUDEOH WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV PD\ HOLFLW PRUH SRVLWLYH LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK WKHLU WHDFKHUV ZKLFK LQ WXUQ FRQWULEXWHV WR WKHLU DGMXVWPHQW 6NDUSQHVV t &DUVRQ f $FDGHPLF 3HUIRUPDQFH 7HPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DUH UHODWHG WR OHDUQLQJ DQG HGXFDWLRQDO SHUIRUPDQFH 0DUWLQ t *DGGLV .HRJK 0DUWLQ t +ROEURRN f )RU H[DPSOH LQ D VWXG\ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ ILUVW JUDGH FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG WKHLU DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW WKH WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI DFWLYLW\ DGDSWDELOLW\ DQG SHUVLVWHQFH ZHUH UHODWHG WR UHDGLQJ DQG PDWKHPDWLFV DFKLHYHPHQW HYHQ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU ,4 7KH WZR WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WKDW EHVW SUHGLFWHG DFKLHYHPHQW ZHUH SHUVLVWHQFH DQG DGDSWDELOLW\ 0DUWLQ t +ROEURRN f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI DFWLYLW\ OHYHO GLVWUDFWLELOLW\ DQG WDVN SHUVLVWHQFH ZHUH PRVW UHODWHG WR DFKLHYHPHQW LQ HDUO\ HOHPHQWDU\ VFKRRO DQG DFWLYLW\ OHYHO DQG GLVWUDFWLELOLW\ ZHUH QHJDWLYHO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DFKLHYHPHQW DQG WHDFKHUDVVLJQHG JUDGHV 0DUWLQ 6FKRHQ t 1DJOH f )XUWKHU WKH WHPSHUDPHQW IDFWRUV RI ORZ WDVN RULHQWDWLRQ LH KLJK DFWLYLW\ KLJK

PAGE 39

GLVWUDFWLELOLW\ DQG ORZ DWWHQWLRQ VSDQSHUVLVWHQFHf ORZ IOH[LELOLW\ LH QHJDWLYH TXDOLW\ RI PRRG ORZ DSSURDFK DQG ORZ DGDSWDELOLW\f DQG KLJK UHDFWLYLW\ LH ORZ WKUHVKROG RI UHVSRQVLYHQHVV KLJK LQWHQVLW\ RI UHDFWLRQ DQG QHJDWLYH TXDOLW\ RI PRRGf ZHUH PRVW UHODWHG WR FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO SHUIRUPDQFH SUREOHPV &DUH\ .HRJK f :LWK UHJDUG WR DFDGHPLF GHPDQGV UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ WHPSHUDPHQW DQG DFKLHYHPHQW DUH QRW JOREDO ,QVWHDG WHPSHUDPHQW VHHPV WR EH PRUH HYLGHQW LQ VFKRRO WDVNV WKDW UHTXLUH WKH UHJXODWLRQ RI DWWHQWLRQ DFWLYLW\ SHUVLVWHQFH DQG GLVWUDFWLELOLW\ WKDQ LQ WDVNV LQYROYLQJ QHZ SUREOHPVROYLQJ VWUDWHJLHV .HRJK f )RU H[DPSOH DWWHQWLRQ VSDQ DQG GLVWUDFWLELOLW\ PD\ EH OLQNHG WR D FKLOGnV DELOLW\ WR DGMXVW WR WKH DFDGHPLF UHTXLUHPHQWV RI NLQGHUJDUWHQ 6NDUSQHVV m6F &DUVRQ S f 6RPH EHOLHYH WHPSHUDPHQW PRGHUDWHV FKLOGUHQnV DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH E\ nVHWWLQJ WKH VWDJHn IRU WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI QHZ OHDUQLQJ .HRJK S f )RU H[DPSOH FKLOGUHQ ZKR DUH LQKLELWHG E\ QHZ VLWXDWLRQV PD\ KDYH GLIILFXOW\ HQWHULQJ QHZ DFWLYLWLHV RU KDQGOLQJ IDVWSDFHG FKDQJHV DQG DV D UHVXOW PD\ EH DW ULVN IRU QRW NHHSLQJ XS ZLWK WKH SDFH RI LQVWUXFWLRQ 7KH WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI KLJK DGDSWDELOLW\ KLJK WDVN SHUVLVWHQFH KLJK DSSURDFK DQG ORZ QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQDOLW\ DSSHDU WR SURWHFW D FKLOG IURP WKH RFFXUUHQFH RI VFKRROUHODWHG

PAGE 40

SUREOHPV 0DUWLQ f 0DUWLQ f UHSRUWHG WKDW WKLV LV OLNHO\ WR RFFXU IRU WZR UHDVRQV )LUVW SHUVLVWHQFH SUREDEO\ HQKDQFHV FKLOGUHQnV OHDUQLQJ UHJDUGOHVV RI WKHLU FRJQLWLYH DELOLW\ 6HFRQG FKLOGUHQ ZKR KDYH WHPSHUDPHQW WUDLWV WKDW PDNH WKHP PRUH VRFLDOO\ DWWUDFWLYH DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR UHFHLYH VRFLDO VXSSRUW S f 6XPPDU\ 6FKRRO SOD\V DQ LPSRUWDQW UROH LQ FKLOGUHQnV OLYHV DQG WKHLU DGMXVWPHQW WR VFKRRO FDQ LPSDFW WKHLU VFKRRO H[SHULHQFHV &KHVV t 7KRPDV .HRJK 6NDUSQHVV t &DUVRQ f 6FKRRO DGMXVWPHQW LV GHILQHG DV KRZ ZHOO D FKLOG LV DEOH WR UHODWH WR SHHUV DQG WHDFKHUV DV ZHOO DV KRZ ZHOO VXLWHG KH RU VKH LV WR WKH YDULRXV OHDUQLQJ H[SHULHQFHV HQFRXQWHUHG LQ VFKRRO 6NDUSQHVV t &DUVRQ f 6FKRROUHODWHG GHPDQGV WKDW FKLOGUHQ HQFRXQWHU FDQ EH FODVVLILHG DV HLWKHU WKRVH WKDW DUH LQWHUSHUVRQDO LQ QDWXUH RU WKRVH WKDW LQYROYH DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH .HRJK f :LWK UHJDUG WR LQWHUSHUVRQDO GHPDQGV WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLSV SOD\ DQ LPSRUWDQW UROH LQ FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW %LUFK t /DGG .HRJK 3LDQWD HW DO f &KLOGUHQ ZKR KDG QHJDWLYH UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK WKHLU WHDFKHUV KDG SRRUHU DGMXVWPHQW WR VFKRRO WKDQ WKRVH FKLOGUHQ ZKR KDG PRUH SRVLWLYH UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK WKHLU WHDFKHUV %LUFK t /DGG f &KLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DOVR

PAGE 41

DIIHFW WKHLU UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK WHDFKHUV .HRJK t %XPVWHLQ 6NDUSQHVV t &DUVRQ f :LWK UHJDUG WR DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DUH UHODWHG WR OHDUQLQJ DQG HGXFDWLRQDO SHUIRUPDQFH 0DUWLQ t *DGGLV f 7KDW LV FHUWDLQ WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV PD\ PRGHUDWH D FKLOGnV DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH E\ DOORZLQJ KLP RU KHU WR HQWHU QHZ DFWLYLWLHV KDQGOH IDVWSDFHG FODVVURRP FKDQJHV DQG UHJXODWH WKH DPRXQW RI DWWHQWLRQ RU SHUVLVWHQFH QHHGHG E\ D SDUWLFXODU WDVN .HRJK 0DUWLQ f 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG 7HDFKHU %HOLHIV 7HDFKHUVn EHOLHIV LQIOXHQFH WKHLU GHFLVLRQV MXGJPHQWV WHDFKLQJ DQG LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK FKLOGUHQ %LUFK t /DGG %ORRP )DQJ ,VHQEHUJ .HRJK 1HVSRU 3DMDUHV f $V D UHVXOW DQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WHDFKHUVn EHOLHIV LV LPSRUWDQW WR SURPRWH D EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH YDULDWLRQV WKDW RFFXU DFURVV LQGLYLGXDOVn WHDFKLQJ SUDFWLFHV ,VHQEHUJ f %HOLHI FDQ EH GHILQHG DV D SV\FKRORJLFDOO\ KHOG XQGHUVWDQGLQJ SURSRVLWLRQ RU SUHPLVH DERXW WKH ZRUOG WKDW LV FRQVLGHUHG WR EH WUXH 5LFKDUGVRQ f %HOLHI DOVR LV GHILQHG DV D FRQFHSWLRQ RI VRPH UHDOLW\ FRQWDLQLQJ VXIILFLHQW FUHGLELOLW\ RU YDOLGLW\ WR VDWLVI\ WKH SHUVRQ KROGLQJ WKH EHOLHI *UHHQ 3DMDUHV f 7\SLFDOO\ D EHOLHI LV FRQWH[WXDOO\ ERXQG DQG JXLGHV RQHnV WKRXJKWV DQG EHKDYLRU )DQJ 3DMDUHV

PAGE 42

5LFKDUGVRQ f *RRGHQRXJK f UHSRUWHG WKDW EHOLHIV DUH DFFHSWHG DV JXLGHV IRU DVVHVVLQJ WKH IXWXUH DUH FLWHG LQ VXSSRUW RI GHFLVLRQV RU DUH UHIHUUHG WR LQ SDVVLQJ MXGJPHQW RQ WKH EHKDYLRU RI RWKHUV S f %HOLHIV DUH VLPLODU WR HPRWLRQDO DWWLWXGHV LQ WKH VHQVH WKDW RQH FDQ EHOLHYH D SURSRVLWLRQ ZLWKRXW EHLQJ DZDUH RI LW 7KH\ IDOO RQ D FRQWLQXXP DQG FDQ UDQJH IURP DQ XQFHUWDLQ VXVSLFLRQ WR DEVROXWH FRQYLFWLRQ 6PLWK t 6KHSDUG f %HOLHIV GLIIHU IURP NQRZOHGJH EHOLHIV DUH EDVHG RQ HYDOXDWLRQ DQG MXGJPHQW ZKHUHDV NQRZOHGJH LV EDVHG RQ FRQFOXVLYH IDFWV 1HVSRU 3DMDUHV 6PLWK t 6KHSDUG f %HOLHIV WKRXJK DVVXPHG WR EH WUXH E\ WKRVH ZKR KROG WKHP GR QRW UHTXLUH D WUXWK FRQGLWLRQ *UHHQ /HKUHU f 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG NQRZOHGJH LV PRUH FRQFUHWH DQG W\SLFDOO\ KDV VRPH VXSSRUWLQJ HYLGHQFH 5LFKDUGVRQ f %HOLHIV DOVR PD\ KDYH D VWURQJHU DIIHFWLYH DQG HYDOXDWLYH HOHPHQW WKDQ NQRZOHGJH EHFDXVH DIIHFW XVXDOO\ RSHUDWHV LQGHSHQGHQWO\ RI WKH FRJQLWLRQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK NQRZOHGJH 1HVSRU f %\ WKH WLPH SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV HQWHU FROOHJH WKHLU EHOLHIV DERXW WHDFKLQJ DUH JHQHUDOO\ ZHOOHVWDEOLVKHG %XFKPDQQ 3DMDUHV f DV WKH\ DUH GHYHORSHG GXULQJ LQGLYLGXDOVn DSSUHQWLFHVKLS RI REVHUYDWLRQ /RUWLH S f D ILUVWKDQG YLHZ RI ZKDW WHDFKHUV GR LQ WKH FODVVURRP

PAGE 43

GXULQJ WKHLU RZQ IRUPDWLYH HGXFDWLRQDO H[SHULHQFHV %XFKPDQQ 3DMDUHV 5LFKDUGVRQ f 7KH NH\ WR WHDFKHUVn RSHUDWLQJ NQRZOHGJH PD\ EH IRXQG LQ WKLV LQIRUPDO RFFXSDWLRQDO VRFLDOL]DWLRQ RI WHDFKHUV %XFKPDQQ f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKHLU H[SHULHQFH DV VWXGHQWV WHDFKHUVn EHOLHIV DOVR DUH VKDSHG E\ WKHLU RWKHU SHUVRQDO H[SHULHQFHV ZKLFK LQ WXUQ DUH DIIHFWHG E\ WKHLU WHPSHUDPHQWV 3HUVRQDO H[SHULHQFH LQFOXGHV DVSHFWV RI OLIH WKDW FRQWULEXWH WR WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI D ZRUOG YLHZ LQWHOOHFWXDO DQG PRUDOH GLVSRVLWLRQV XQGHUVWDQGLQJV RI WKH FRQQHFWLRQ EHWZHHQ VFKRROLQJ DQG VRFLHW\ DQG RWKHU IRUPV RI IDPLOLDO SHUVRQDO DQG FXOWXUDO XQGHU VWDQGLQJ 5LFKDUGVRQ f 2QFH IRUPHG EHOLHIV DERXW WHDFKLQJ WHQG WR SHUVHYHUH DQG UHVLVW FKDQJH %XFKPDQQ /RUWLH 1HVSRU 3DMDUHV f 7KLV LV SDUWLDOO\ GXH WR WKH IDFW WKDW EHOLHI V\VWHPV ILOWHU VXEVHTXHQW WKLQNLQJ DQG LQIOXHQFH KRZ QHZ SKHQRPHQD DUH LQWHUSUHWHG 3DMDUHV f $OWKRXJK WHDFKHUVn EHOLHIV FDQ EH FKDQJHG SDUWLFXODUO\ DW WKH LQVHUYLFH OHYHO FKDQJH PD\ RQO\ RFFXU ZKHQ D WHDFKHU LV RSHQPLQGHG DQG ZLOOLQJ WR H[SORUH QHZ LGHDV 5LFKDUGVRQ f 7HDFKHUVn EHOLHIV DQG SHUFHSWLRQV DERXW WKHLU VWXGHQWV DIIHFW PDQ\ DVSHFWV RI WKH VWXGHQWVn VFKRRO H[SHULHQFH .RPEODX f UHSRUWHG WKDW WHDFKHUV KDYH EHOLHIV DQG SHUFHSWLRQV RI VWXGHQWVn WHDFKDELOLW\ 7KDW LV

PAGE 44

WHDFKHUVn EHOLHIV VHUYH DV D EHQFKPDUN XSRQ ZKLFK WKHLU MXGJPHQWV DQG EHKDYLRUV DUH EDVHG +H EHOLHYHV WHDFKHUVn WKRXJKWV DQG DFWLRQV DERXW VWXGHQWV DUH LQIOXHQFHG E\ WKH DWWULEXWHV WKH\ IHHO FKDUDFWHUL]H LGHDOL]HG WHDFKDEOH VWXGHQWV 7HDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH TXDOLW\ RI WKHLU UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK WKHLU VWXGHQWV DUH UHODWHG WR FKLOGUHQnV IHHOLQJV RI ORQHOLQHVV VFKRRO DYRLGDQFH GHVLUHV DQG SHUIRUPDQFH RQ DFDGHPLF WDVNV 7KH\ DOVR DUH UHODWHG WR WHDFKHUVn UDWLQJV RI YDULRXV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW RXWFRPH LQGLFHV %LUFK t /DGG f 0DQ\ LPSRUWDQW WHDFKHU GHFLVLRQV LQFOXGLQJ JUDGH UHWHQWLRQ DUH EDVHG RQ LQGLFHV VXFK DV WKHVH $V D UHVXOW WKH TXDOLW\ RI WKH WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLS PD\ KDYH D VLJQLILFDQW LPSDFW LQ WHUPV RI WKH YDULRXV HGXFDWLRQDO SDWKV FKLOGUHQ IROORZ WKURXJKRXW WKH FRXUVH RI WKHLU VFKRRO H[SHULHQFHV %LUFK t /DGG f /LWHUDWXUH RQ WHPSHUDPHQW VXJJHVWV WKDW WHDFKHUVn EHOLHIV DERXW FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQWV DIIHFW WKHLU UHDFWLRQV WR DQG LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK VWXGHQWV .HDQ .HRJK 5RWKEDUW m6F -RQHV 7HJODVL f )RU H[DPSOH WHDFKHUVn MXGJPHQWV DUH LQIOXHQFHG E\ FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW VSHFLILFDOO\ WDVN RULHQWDWLRQ LH SHUVLVWHQFH DQG DFWLYLW\f DQG DGDSWDELOLW\ .HRJK f 7KH LQIOXHQFH RI FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQWV RQ WHDFKHUVn GHFLVLRQ

PAGE 45

VWUDWHJLHV ZDV VWXGLHG LQ D VDPSOH RI HOHPHQWDU\ VFKRRO FKLOGUHQ NLQGHUJDUWHQ ILUVW JUDGH DQG WKLUG JUDGH VWXGHQWVf DQG WKHLU WHDFKHUV 3XOOLV t &DGZHOO f 7HDFKHUV UDWHG VWXGHQWV LQ ILYH DUHDV RI FODVVURRP IXQFWLRQLQJ RU EHKDYLRU LQWHOOLJHQFH PRWLYDWLRQ VRFLDO VNLOOV DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH DQG ZRUNLQJ WR SRWHQWLDOf UDWHG WKH VWXGHQWVn WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG EDVHG RQ EULHI GHVFULSWLRQV RI ILYH FODVVURRP VLWXDWLRQV UHSRUWHG KRZ IUHTXHQWO\ WKH\ KDG WR PRQLWRU WKH FKLOGnV EHKDYLRU LQ HDFK VLWXDWLRQ $ VWURQJ DQG FRQVLVWHQW UHODWLRQVKLS HPHUJHG EHWZHHQ WHDFKHUVn FODVVURRP GHFLVLRQV DQG VWXGHQWVn WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV 7HDFKHUV ZHUH SDUWLFXODUO\ VHQVLWLYH WR VWXGHQWVn WDVN RULHQWDWLRQ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV f§ VWXGHQWV ZLWK SRVLWLYH WDVN RULHQWDWLRQ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG WR QHHG OHVV VXSHUYLVLRQ DFURVV DOO FODVVURRP VLWXDWLRQV 3XOOLV t &DGZHOO f 7KH HIIHFWV RI WHDFKHUVn EHOLHIV DQG YDOXHV LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKHLU FODVVURRP LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK FKLOGUHQ LGHQWLILHG DV KDYLQJ GLIILFXOW DQG HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ZHUH VWXGLHG LQ D VDPSOH RI HLJKW WHDFKHUV DQG FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQWV DQG ZLWK HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQWVf 7HDFKHUV FRPSOHWHG UDWLQJ VFDOHV WR DVVHVV WKH FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQWV DQG FODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQV ZHUH FRPSOHWHG WR DVVHVV WKH WHDFKHUFKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQV .HDQ f )LQGLQJV UHYHDOHG WKDW PRUH QHJDWLYH LQWHUDFWLRQV WRRN SODFH ZLWK

PAGE 46

GLIILFXOW FKLOGUHQ WKDQ ZLWK WKH HDV\ FKLOGUHQ 2QH H[SODQDWLRQ IRU WKLV PD\ EH WKDW FODVVURRPV W\SLFDOO\ KDYH FOHDUO\ GHILQHG H[SHFWDWLRQV WKDW FKLOGUHQ ZLOO FRPSOHWH VHW WDVNV ZRUN TXLHWO\ DQG FRQIRUP WR WHDFKHU GHPDQGV &KLOGUHQ ZLWK GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQWV PD\ H[SHULHQFH SUREOHPV FRPSO\LQJ ZLWK WKHVH H[SHFWDWLRQV )LQGLQJV DOVR LQGLFDWHG WKDW FKLOGUHQ ZLWK HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQWV GLVSOD\HG DQG UHFHLYHG FRQVLGHUDEO\ PRUH SRVLWLYH HPRWLRQDO DQG VRFLDO EHKDYLRUV ZKLOH FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQWV GLVSOD\HG DQG UHFHLYHG FRQVLGHUDEO\ PRUH QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQDO DQG VRFLDO EHKDYLRUV .HDQ f .HDQ f FRQFOXGHG WKDW HDUO\ FKLOGKRRG HGXFDWRUV VKRXOG FRQVLGHU WKHLU EHOLHIV DQG YDOXHV FDUHIXOO\ DV WKH\ GHYHORS PRUH HIIHFWLYH WHDFKLQJ WHFKQLTXHV IRU XVH ZLWK FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLIIHULQJ WHPSHUDPHQWV 7HDFKHUVn HYDOXDWLRQV RI VWXGHQWV DQG UHSRUW FDUG JUDGHV DOVR DUH LQIOXHQFHG E\ WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH VWXGHQWVn WHPSHUDPHQW .HRJK f &KLOGUHQnV WDVN RULHQWDWLRQ DQG IOH[LELOLW\ DUH UHODWHG WR WHDFKHUVn HVWLPDWHV RI DELOLW\ DQG JUDGHV 6WXGHQWV ZKR ZHUH PRUH WDVN RULHQWHG DQG IOH[LEOH UHFHLYHG KLJKHU JUDGHV WKDQ WKHLU DFKLHYHPHQW VFRUHV ZRXOG SUHGLFW 3XOOLV DV FLWHG LQ .HRJK f )XUWKHU VWXGHQWV ZKR PHW RU H[FHHGHG WHDFKHUVn H[SHFWDWLRQV DFURVV WKH DWWHQWLRQ VSDQ DQG GLVWUDFWLELOLW\ WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ZHUH SHUFHLYHG E\ WKHLU WHDFKHUV WR EH PRUH

PAGE 47

FDSDEOH DQG EHWWHU DGMXVWHG +RZHYHU ZKHQ FRPSDUHG ZLWK RWKHU VWXGHQWV RQ REMHFWLYH PHDVXUHV RI DFKLHYHPHQW WKHVH VWXGHQWV GLG QRW SHUIRUP VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQWO\ IURP RWKHU VWXGHQWV +HQGHUVRQ t )R[ f ,Q DGGLWLRQ VWXGHQWV ZKR ZHUH OHVV UHDFWLYH WKDQ H[SHFWHG E\ WKHLU WHDFKHUV DOVR ZHUH SHUFHLYHG WR EH PRUH DEOH DQG EHWWHU DGMXVWHG 7KHVH VWXGHQWV DOVR SHUIRUPHG EHWWHU WKDQ WKHLU SHHUV RQ VWDQGDUGL]HG DFKLHYHPHQW WHVWV +HQGHUVRQ m6F )R[ f ,Q VXPPDU\ WHDFKHUVn EHOLHIV DIIHFW WKHLU GHFLVLRQV WHDFKLQJ DQG LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK FKLOGUHQ %ORRP )DQJ .HRJK f $ EHOLHI FDQ EH GHILQHG DV D SV\FKRORJLFDOO\ KHOG XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DERXW WKH ZRUOG WKDW LV FRQVLGHUHG WR EH WUXH E\ WKH KROGHU 5LFKDUGVRQ f 3UHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV RIWHQ HQWHU FROOHJH ZLWK ZHOOHVWDEOLVKHG EHOLHIV DERXW WHDFKLQJ 7KHVH EHOLHIV DUH GHYHORSHG GXULQJ DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV RZQ HGXFDWLRQDO H[SHULHQFH DV D VWXGHQW DV ZHOO DV WKURXJK SHUVRQDO H[SHULHQFHV %XFKPDQQ 3DMDUHV f :KHWKHU WHDFKHUVn EHOLHIV FDQ EH PRGLILHG GXULQJ WKHLU SURIHVVLRQDO H[SHULHQFH LV XQFOHDU %XFKPDQQ /RUWLH 1HVSRU 3DMDUHV 5LFKDUGVRQ f 7HDFKHUVn EHOLHIV FDQ DIIHFW FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO H[SHULHQFHV LQFOXGLQJ WKHLU DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH IHHOLQJV RI ORQHOLQHVV DQG VFKRRO DYRLGDQFH GHVLUHV %LUFK t /DGG f 7HDFKHUVn EHOLHIV DERXW

PAGE 48

WHPSHUDPHQW FDQ DIIHFW WKHLU LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK VWXGHQWV .HRJK 5RWKEDUW t -RQHV f 7HDFKHUVn GHFLVLRQV DERXW VWXGHQWVn VXSHUYLVLRQ QHHGV KDYH EHHQ UHODWHG WR WHPSHUDPHQW 3XOOLV t &DGZHOO f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WHDFKHU DVVLJQHG UHSRUW FDUG JUDGHV DQG WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI VWXGHQWVn DGMXVWPHQW DOVR KDYH EHHQ UHODWHG WR WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI VWXGHQWVn WHPSHUDPHQWV +HQGHUVRQ t )R[ 3XOOLV f *RRGQHVV RI )LW 7KRPDV DQG &KHVVn f FRQFHSW RI JRRGQHVV RI ILW KDV EHHQ IRXQG WR KDYH FOLQLFDO XWLOLW\ DQG DOVR FDQ EH DSSOLHG WR HGXFDWLRQDO VHWWLQJV *RRGQHVV RI ILW UHVXOWV ZKHQ WKH SURSHUWLHV RI WKH HQYLURQPHQW DQG LWV H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG GHPDQGV DUH LQ DFFRUG ZLWK WKH >FKLOGnV@ RZQ FDSDFLWLHV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG VW\OH RI EHKDYLQJ :KHQ WKLV FRQVRQDQFH EHWZHHQ >FKLOG@ DQG HQYLURQPHQW LV SUHVHQW RSWLPDO GHYHORSPHQW LQ D SURJUHVVLYH GLUHFWLRQ LV SRVVLEOH S f &RQVRQDQFH DPRQJ D FKLOGnV WHPSHUDPHQW HQYLURQPHQWDO GHPDQGV DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG RWKHU DWWULEXWHV LV QHFHVVDU\ IRU RSWLPDO GHYHORSPHQW +RZHYHU WKLV GRHV QRW LPSO\ WKDW DOO EHKDYLRUDO PDQLIHVWDWLRQV RI WKH FKLOGnV WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV VKRXOG EH DFFHSWHG DQGRU HQFRXUDJHG 7KRPDV t &KHVV f :KHQ FRQVRQDQFH DPRQJ D FKLOGnV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG GHPDQGV GRHV QRW RFFXU LQWHUDFWLRQDO VWUHVV DQG FRQIOLFW UHVXOW $V D UHVXOW RI D SRRU ILW WKH FKLOG UHDFWV LQDSSURSULDWHO\

PAGE 49

ZKLFK PD\ OHDG WR G\VIXQFWLRQ LQ SK\VLFDO DFDGHPLF RU VRFLDO DGMXVWPHQW &DUH\ f 7KH VLWXDWLRQ LQ ZKLFK WKH SRRU ILW RFFXUV GHWHUPLQHV ZKHUH WKH V\PSWRPV ZLOO HPHUJH ZKLOH WKH FKLOGnV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG FRSLQJ VWUDWHJLHV DIIHFW WKH W\SHV RI V\PSWRPV GLVSOD\HG &DUH\ S f $OWKRXJK FHUWDLQ WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV HJ KLJK PRWRU DFWLYLW\ ZLWKGUDZDO WHQGHQFLHV QHJDWLYH PRRG PDUNHG GLVWUDFWLELOLW\ DQG H[WUHPH SHUVLVWHQFHf PD\ EH QRUPDO IRU D \RXQJ FKLOG WKH\ PD\ VWLOO LQWHUIHUH ZLWK DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW GHVLUDEOH VFKRRO DQG SOD\ DFWLYLWLHV DQG LQWHUSHUVRQDO UHODWLRQV $SSURSULDWH VWUXFWXUH DQG JXLGDQFH PD\ EH QHFHVVDU\ ZKHQ WKH FRQVHTXHQFHV RI D FKLOGnV WHPSHUDPHQW RQ EHKDYLRU PD\ EH XQGHVLUDEOH LI DOORZHG XQUHVWULFWHG H[SUHVVLRQ 7KRPDV t &KHVV f &DUH\ f DUJXHG WKDW WKH FKLOGnV WHPSHUDPHQW LWVHOI LV QRW DV LPSRUWDQW DV WKH ILW KH RU VKH KDV ZLWK WKH HQYLURQPHQW 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKH SDWKRORJ\ LV QRW IRXQG LQ WKH FKLOG RU LQ WKH FLUFXPVWDQFHV EXW LQ WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH WZR &DUH\ &KHVV t 7KRPDV 6DPHURII t )LHVH f $W OHDVW WZR DVSHFWV RI JRRGQHVV RI ILW H[LVW ZLWKLQ WKH VFKRRO VHWWLQJ FKLOGUHQnV LQWHUSHUVRQDO LQWHUDFWLRQV DQG WKH FRQWHQW RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO GRPDLQV 5HODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ FKLOGUHQ DQG WHDFKHUV DUH RI SDUWLFXODU LQWHUHVW LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ &ODVVURRP LQWHUDFWLRQV DUH EHOLHYHG WR LQIOXHQFH WKH GHJUHH WR

PAGE 50

ZKLFK D FKLOG H[SHULHQFHV D JRRG ILW 6DIW t 3LDQWD f .HRJK f VXJJHVWHG WKDW D FKLOGnV WHPSHUDPHQW LV XQOLNHO\ WR KDYH D GLUHFW HIIHFW RQ D WHDFKHUnV UHVSRQVHV H[FHSW ZKHQ D FKLOGnV WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DUH H[WUHPH ,QVWHDG WKH EHOLHI WKDW WHPSHUDPHQW PD\ KDYH DQ HYRFDWLYH 6FDUU S f LQIOXHQFH RQ WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLSV LV PRUH UHDVRQDEOH ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQWV HYRNH UHDFWLRQV IURP WHDFKHUV WKDW WKHQ DIIHFW WKH FKLOGnV VFKRRO H[SHULHQFHV .HRJK f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WHDFKHUVn EHOLHIV PD\ LQIOXHQFH WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH\ ZLOO WROHUDWH EHKDYLRUDO PDQLIHVWDWLRQV RI VWXGHQWVn WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV .HDQ f )RU H[DPSOH FKLOGUHQ ZLWK HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW SURILOHV LH DSSURDFKLQJ DGDSWDEOH DQG SRVLWLYH LQ PRRGf DUH W\SLFDOO\ ZHOO OLNHG E\ WHDFKHUV 7HDFKHUV XVXDOO\ UHVSRQG WR HDV\ FKLOGUHQ ZLWK DIIHFWLRQ DQG ZDUPWK DQG JLYH WKHVH FKLOGUHQ IUHTXHQW RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO DQG LQWHUSHUVRQDO LQWHUDFWLRQV .HRJK f 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW SURILOHV LH LUULWDEOH ZLWKGUDZLQJ DQG QHJDWLYH LQ PRRGf DUH OHVV OLNHO\ WR KDYH SRVLWLYH FORVH UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK WKHLU WHDFKHUV DQG LQVWHDG DUH IUHTXHQWO\ OLPLWHG WR LQVWUXFWLRQDO RU PDQDJHPHQW PDWWHUV UDWKHU WKDQ LQWHUSHUVRQDO RQHV .HRJK f 7KHUHIRUH GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKHLU WHPSHUDPHQW SDWWHUQV WKH QDWXUH RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO H[SHULHQFHV PD\ EH

PAGE 51

TXLWH GLIIHUHQW $V D UHVXOW WKHVH GLIIHUHQFHV PD\ KDYH ORQJWHUP FRQVHTXHQFHV IRU FKLOGUHQnV IHHOLQJV DQG DWWLWXGHV WRZDUG WKHPVHOYHV DQG VFKRRO .HRJK f 7HDFKHUVn H[SHULHQFHV DQG EHOLHIV DERXW WHPSHUDPHQW DOVR DIIHFW WKHLU UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK FKLOGUHQ .HRJK 5RWKEDUW t -RQHV 7HJODVL f )RU H[DPSOH WHDFKHUV PD\ FRQVLGHU FKLOGUHQ ZLWK VORZWRZDUPXS WHPSHUDPHQW SURILOHV WR EH XQPRWLYDWHG RU OD]\ E\ WHDFKHUV )XUWKHU WKH\ PD\ YLHZ FKLOGUHQ ZLWK DFWLYH DQGRU GLVWUDFWLEOH WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WR EH REVWUXFWLYH RU SXUSRVHIXOO\ PLVFKLHYRXV 7KHVH EHOLHIV UHVXOW IURP WHDFKHUVn DWWULEXWLRQV DERXW WKH FDXVHV RI EHKDYLRU DQG FDQ DIIHFW WKH WHDFKHU FKLOG UHODWLRQVKLS DV ZHOO DV WHDFKHUVn GHFLVLRQV .HRJK f $V D UHVXOW WKH FKLOGnV ILW LQ WKH FODVVURRP HQYLURQPHQW PD\ EH DIIHFWHG 7HDFKHUV PD\ UHDFW ZLWK QHJDWLYH IHHOLQJV HJ DQJHU GLVDSSRLQWPHQW IUXVWUDWLRQ HWFf ZKHQ FRQIOLFW UHVXOWV IURP D SRRU ILW 7KHVH IHHOLQJV FDQ EH SDUWLFXODUO\ VWURQJ ZKHQ WKH WHDFKHU LQIHUV WKDW WKH FKLOG LV PLVEHKDYLQJ LQWHQWLRQDOO\ 3XOOLV f $V D UHVXOW WKH ILW EHWZHHQ WKH WHDFKHU DQG VWXGHQW FDQ ZRUVHQ $WWHPSWV WR LPSURYH WKH VWXGHQWWHDFKHU UHODWLRQVKLS DQG IDFLOLWDWH D EHWWHU ILW UHTXLUH WHDFKHUV WR PDQDJH WKHLU IHHOLQJV E\ DWWHPSWLQJ WR EH REMHFWLYH DQG UHHYDOXDWH WKH VRXUFHV RI WKH FKLOGnV PLVEHKDYLRU 3XOOLV

PAGE 52

f 7HDFKHUV DOVR QHHG WR EH DZDUH RI WKHLU SHUVRQDO FRPIRUW OHYHOV ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV WHDFKHUV VKRXOG EH DZDUH RI WKH EHKDYLRUDO VW\OHV WKH\ SUHIHU DQG WKRVH WKH\ PD\ ILQG LUULWDWLQJ RU XQFRPIRUWDEOH 7KLV VHOIXQGHUVWDQGLQJ PD\ EH EHQHILFLDO EHFDXVH WHDFKHUV PD\ EH EHWWHU DEOH WR LGHQWLI\ VWXGHQWV ZLWK ZKRP WKH\ DUH OLNHO\ WR KDYH D SRRU ILW 7KLV NQRZOHGJH PD\ WKHQ EH XVHG WR HQKDQFH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG WR IDFLOLWDWH D EHWWHU ILW 3XOOLV f 7KH VHFRQG DVSHFW RI JRRGQHVVRIILW LQ WKH VFKRRO VHWWLQJ LV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH FRQWHQW RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO GRPDLQV &HUWDLQ WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV PD\ EH PRUH FRPSDWLEOH ZLWK OHDUQLQJ WKDQ RWKHUV .HRJK f )RU H[DPSOH FKLOGUHQ ZKR DUH DSSURDFKLQJ DGDSWDEOH DQG SHUVLVWHQW PD\ EH EHWWHU DEOH WR KDQGOH FRPSOH[ DQG FKDQJLQJ LQVWUXFWLRQ 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG FKLOGUHQ ZKR DUH QRQDGDSWDEOH QRQSHUVLVWHQW DQG ZLWKGUDZLQJ DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR ILQG LQVWUXFWLRQ WKUHDWHQLQJ DQG XQFRPIRUWDEOH .HRJK f &KLOGUHQ ZKR DUH DSSURDFKLQJ DGDSWDEOH DQG SHUVLVWHQW PD\ IHHO PRUH FRPIRUWDEOH LQ WKH FODVVURRP VHWWLQJ D TXDOLW\ WKDW DOVR PD\ SURPRWH WKHLU DELOLW\ WR KDQGOH FODVVURRP GHPDQGV 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG FKLOGUHQ ZLWK PRUH GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV PD\ KDYH VPDOOHU FRPIRUW ]RQHV D TXDOLW\ WKDW FRXOG LQFUHDVH WKH OLNHOLKRRG WKDW WKH\ ILQG LQVWUXFWLRQ WKUHDWHQLQJ

PAGE 53

,Q DGGLWLRQ FKLOGUHQnV GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKHLU UHVSRQVHV WR WKH XQIDPLOLDU PD\ DIIHFW KRZ HDVLO\ WKH\ HQJDJH LQ OHDUQLQJ WDVNV DQG KRZ UHDGLO\ WKH\ DGDSW WR WKH H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG GHPDQGV RI WKH FODVVURRP HQYLURQPHQW +HQGHUVRQ t )R[ f 7KHUHIRUH FHUWDLQ WHPSHUDPHQW SURILOHV UHVXOW LQ D JHQHUDOL]HG UHVSRQVH VHW .HRJK f 7HPSHUDPHQW DOVR PD\ DIIHFW D FKLOGnV SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU OHDUQLQJ 7KDW LV VRPH WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG SURILOHV PD\ VHW WKH VWDJH IRU WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ WKHUHE\ IDFLOLWDWLQJ OHDUQLQJ DQG D SURSHU ILW LQ WKH FODVVURRP HQYLURQPHQW .HRJK f )RU H[DPSOH WKH TXDOLWLHV RI ORZ GLVWUDFWLELOLW\ KLJK DWWHQWLRQ VSDQ DQG WKH DELOLW\ WR PRGXODWH DFWLYLW\ OHYHO DUH LPSRUWDQW SUHSDUDWRU\ DFWV IRU OHDUQLQJ .HRJK f %\ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ KRZ WHPSHUDPHQW DIIHFWV VWXGHQWV WHDFKHUV DUH EHWWHU DEOH WR H[DPLQH WKH GHPDQGV RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO DFWLYLWLHV DQG GHWHUPLQH WKH PDQQHU LQ ZKLFK WKH GHPDQGV FRXOG SUHVHQW SUREOHPV IRU FKLOGUHQ ZKRVH WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV GR QRW IDFLOLWDWH OHDUQLQJ 7KXV WHDFKHUV FRXOG LGHQWLI\ ZD\V WR DFFRPPRGDWH FKLOGUHQnV LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV DQG KHOS FUHDWH D EHWWHU ILW EHWZHHQ FKLOGUHQ DQG WKHLU OHDUQLQJ HQYLURQPHQW 3XOOLV f ,Q D EURDG VHQVH JRRGQHVV RI ILW FDQ EH VHHQ DV D UHIOHFWLRQ RI D FRPIRUW ]RQH )RU H[DPSOH D FKLOGnV FRPIRUW OHYHO LQ WKH FODVVURRP VHWWLQJ PD\ EH

PAGE 54

UHODWHG WR KLV RU KHU DJH WHPSHUDPHQW DELOLW\ OHYHO DFDGHPLF VNLOOV VRFLDO FRPSHWHQFH DQG UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK SHHUV DQG WKH WHDFKHU $ WHDFKHUnV FRPIRUW OHYHO PD\ EH UHODWHG WR KLV RU KHU HGXFDWLRQDO OHYHO \HDUV RI H[SHULHQFH EHOLHIV DERXW WHDFKLQJ DQG UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK VWXGHQWV $ JRRG ILW PD\ QRW EH SRVVLEOH LI D FKLOG RU WHDFKHU LV IXQFWLRQLQJ RXWVLGH KLV RU KHU LQGLYLGXDO FRPIRUW ]RQH 5HODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ WHDFKHUVn OHYHOV RI FRPIRUW DQG FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DUH RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKLV VWXG\ $OWKRXJK WKH FRQFHSW RI D WHDFKHU FRPIRUW ]RQH %X\VVH :HVOH\ .H\HV t %DLOH\ f KDV QRW EHHQ DSSOLHG WR WHPSHUDPHQW DQG JRRGQHVV RI ILW LW KDV EHHQ VWXGLHG ZLWK UHJDUG WR FKLOGUHQnV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG LQFOXVLRQ HJ %X\VVH HW DO :HVOH\ %X\VVH t .H\HV f 5HVHDUFK RQ LQGLYLGXDOVn FRPIRUW ZLWK LQFOXVLRQ RULJLQDWHG ZLWK *UHHQ DQG 6WRQHPDQ f 7KH\ LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH FRPIRUW RI SDUHQWV RI W\SLFDOO\ GHYHORSLQJ SUHVFKRRO FKLOGUHQ ZLWK KDYLQJ FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLVDELOLWLHV LQFOXGHG LQ WKHLU FKLOGUHQnV FODVV 3DUHQWV ZHUH PRVW FRQFHUQHG DERXW DQG OHDVW FRPIRUWDEOH ZLWK SUHVFKRROHUV ZKR GLVSOD\HG EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV DQG VHYHUH GLVDELOLWLHV EHLQJ LQFOXGHG LQ WKHLU FKLOGUHQnV FODVVHV *UHHQ t 6WRQHPDQ f

PAGE 55

%X\VVH DQG FROOHDJXHV f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f $OWKRXJK WKH WHDFKHUV ZHUH JHQHUDOO\ FRPIRUWDEOH VHUYLQJ FKLOGUHQ ZLWK VSHFLDO QHHGV WKHLU FRPIRUW OHYHOV GHFUHDVHG DV WKH VHYHULW\ RI WKH FKLOGUHQnV GLVDELOLWLHV LQFUHDVHG )XUWKHU WHDFKHUV LGHQWLILHG LQDSSURSULDWH EHKDYLRU DV D NH\ IDFWRU IRU KDYLQJ D OLPLWHG FRPIRUW ]RQH %X\VVH HW DO f $ IROORZXS VWXG\ RI HDUO\ LQWHUYHQWLRQ SURIHVVLRQDOV ZKR FRQVXOWHG ZLWK WHDFKHUV DERXW FKLOGUHQ ZLWK YDU\LQJ W\SHV VHYHULW\ OHYHOV DQG FRPELQDWLRQV RI GLVDELOLWLHV IRXQG WKH\ UHSRUWHG WKH OHDVW DPRXQW RI FRPIRUW ZKHQ FRQVXOWLQJ

PAGE 56

DERXW FKLOGUHQ ZLWK EHKDYLRU FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG VRFLDO VNLOOV GLVRUGHUV :HVOH\ HW DO f 7KH ILQGLQJV IURP WKHVH WZR VWXGLHV %X\VVH HW DO :HVOH\ HW DO f KDYH LPSRUWDQW LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU WKH VWXG\ RI WHPSHUDPHQW DQG FKLOGUHQnV ILW LQ WKH FODVVURRP HQYLURQPHQW SDUWLFXODUO\ IRU FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQWV JLYHQ WKHLU KLJKHU SUREDELOLW\ IRU GHYHORSLQJ EHKDYLRUDO GLIILFXOWLHV &DUH\ t 0F'HYLWW &DUVRQ &DVSL t 6LOYD 7KRPDV HW DO f ,I WHDFKHUV DUH XQFRPIRUWDEOH ZLWK WKHLU DELOLW\ WR WHDFK FKLOGUHQ ZLWK EHKDYLRUDO SUREOHPV WKHQ VHUYLQJ FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DOVR PD\ IDOO RXWVLGH WKHLU FRPIRUW ]RQHV $ WHDFKHUnV ODFN RI FRPIRUW ZLWK WKHVH H[WUHPH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV PD\ DIIHFW WHDFKHU FKLOG UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG FRQVHTXHQWO\ D FKLOGnV ILW LQ WKH FODVVURRP 'HVSLWH WKH LPSDFW RI WHPSHUDPHQW DQG JRRGQHVV RI ILW LQ HGXFDWLRQDO VHWWLQJV LWV OLPLWDWLRQV DOVR PXVW EH DGGUHVVHG )LUVW FHUWDLQ WHPSHUDPHQW WUDLWV DQG SDWWHUQV DUH PRUH GLIILFXOW WR DFFRPPRGDWH WKDQ RWKHUV &KLOGUHQ ZKR DUH QHJDWLYH DQG LQIOH[LEOH ZLOO ILW LQWR D QDUURZHU UDQJH RI VHWWLQJV WKDQ WKRVH ZKR DUH SOHDVDQW DQG DGDSWDEOH &DUH\ S f 6HFRQG VSHFLILF DGMXVWPHQWV WKDW FDQ EH PDGH LQ DQ HIIRUW WR FUHDWH D EHWWHU ILW IRU D FKLOG DUH OLPLWHG 7HDFKHUV DQG RWKHU VFKRRO SHUVRQQHO PD\ KDYH WKH DELOLW\ WR PDNH

PAGE 57

DGMXVWPHQWV LQ KRZ WKH\ GHDO ZLWK FHUWDLQ FKLOGUHQ KRZ WKH SK\VLFDO HQYLURQPHQW LV ODLG RXW DQG WR VRPH H[WHQW WR WKH QDWXUH RI WKH GHPDQGV SODFHG RQ FKLOGUHQ +RZHYHU WKH GHJUHH RI DGMXVWPHQWV WKDW FDQ EH PDGH WR D VRPHZKDW IL[HG FXUULFXOXP LV OLPLWHG &DUH\ f 7KLUG WHDFKHUVn DELOLW\ WR SURYLGH LQGLYLGXDO DWWHQWLRQ WR VWXGHQWV LV OLPLWHG )RU PDQ\ WHDFKHUV ILQGLQJ WLPH WR SODQ DQG LPSOHPHQW DFFRPPRGDWLRQV DQG LQWHUYHQWLRQV IRU LQGLYLGXDO VWXGHQWV LV GLIILFXOW ZKHQ WU\LQJ WR DWWHQG WR WKH QHHGV RI WKHLU FODVV DV D ZKROH 7KLV GLIILFXOW\ PD\ EH H[DFHUEDWHG LI D SRRU WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLS H[LVWV RU LI D WHDFKHU LV RSHUDWLQJ RXWVLGH KLV RU KHU FRPIRUW ]RQH LQ PDQDJLQJ WKH FKLOGnV EHKDYLRU ,Q VXPPDU\ JRRGQHVV RI ILW LV GHILQHG DV FRQVRQDQFH DPRQJ D FKLOGnV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG EHKDYLRUDO VW\OH DQG WKH H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG GHPDQGV RI WKH HQYLURQPHQW 7KRPDV t &KHVV f 6XFK FRPSDWLELOLW\ LV WKRXJKW WR EH D NH\ FRPSRQHQW RI RSWLPDO GHYHORSPHQW :KHQ FRQVRQDQFH EHWZHHQ D FKLOGnV WHPSHUDPHQWEDVHG EHKDYLRUV DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG GHPDQGV GRHV QRW RFFXU LQWHUDFWLRQDO VWUHVV DQG FRQIOLFW RIWHQ UHVXOWV OHDGLQJ WR D SRRU ILW IRU WKH FKLOG $V D UHVXOW RI WKLV SRRU ILW WKH FKLOG LV DW ULVN IRU DFDGHPLF EHKDYLRUDO DQG VRFLDOHPRWLRQDO GLIILFXOWLHV &DUH\ f

PAGE 58

.HRJK f VXJJHVWHG WKHUH DUH WZR DVSHFWV RI JRRGQHVV RI ILW ZLWKLQ WKH HGXFDWLRQDO VHWWLQJ FKLOGUHQnV LQWHUSHUVRQDO LQWHUDFWLRQV DQG WKH FRQWHQW RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO GRPDLQV :LWK UHJDUG WR LQWHUSHUVRQDO UHODWLRQVKLSV WHPSHUDPHQW PD\ KDYH DQ HYRFDWLYH LQIOXHQFH RQ WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLSV GLIIHUHQW WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV PD\ HYRNH SRVLWLYH RU QHJDWLYH UHDFWLRQV IURP WHDFKHUV .HRJK 6FDUU f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WHDFKHUVn EHOLHIV PD\ LQIOXHQFH WKH DPRXQW DQG LQWHQVLW\ RI HPRWLRQDOLW\ WKH\ ZLOO WROHUDWH IURP VWXGHQWV .HDQ f $V D UHVXOW WKH QDWXUH RI WKH WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLS OLNHO\ ZLOO EH DIIHFWHG :LWK UHJDUG WR WKH FRQWHQW RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO GRPDLQ FHUWDLQ WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV PD\ EH PRUH FRPSDWLEOH ZLWK OHDUQLQJ WKDQ RWKHUV ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV FHUWDLQ WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV PD\ DIIHFW KRZ HDVLO\ FKLOGUHQ HQJDJH LQ OHDUQLQJ WDVNV DQG PD\ KHOS VHW WKH VWDJH IRU WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ +HQGHUVRQ t )R[ .HRJK f $Q XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI VWXGHQWVn WHPSHUDPHQW SURILOHV PD\ DOORZ WHDFKHUV WR EHWWHU DFFRPPRGDWH LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV DQG WKXV IDFLOLWDWH D EHWWHU ILW ZLWK WKH OHDUQLQJ HQYLURQPHQW 3XOOLV f ([DPLQHG PRUH EURDGO\ JRRGQHVV RI ILW FDQ EH FRQFHSWXDOL]HG DV D W\SH RI FRPIRUW ]RQH D FRQWLQXXP DORQJ ZKLFK D WHDFKHU IHHOV DW HDVH WHDFKLQJ DQG LQWHUDFWLQJ ZLWK D VWXGHQW %X\VVH HW DO f )RU H[DPSOH D WHDFKHU

PAGE 59

PD\ IHHO OHVV FRPIRUWDEOH ZLWK KLV RU KHU DELOLW\ WR WHDFK D FKLOG ZLWK GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV 6WXGLHV UHODWHG WR WKH LQFOXVLRQ RI SUHVFKRRO FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLVDELOLWLHV LQ UHJXODU HGXFDWLRQ VHWWLQJV IRXQG WHDFKHUV DQG WHDFKHUFRQVXOWDQWV IHOW PRUH GLVFRPIRUW ZRUNLQJ ZLWK FKLOGUHQ ZLWK VHYHUH GLVDELOLWLHV LQFOXGLQJ WKRVH ZLWK EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV %X\VVH HW DO :HVOH\ HW DO f 7KHUHIRUH ZKHQ D FKLOG DQG KLV RU KHU WHDFKHU IHHO FRPIRUWDEOH LQ WKH FODVVURRP VHWWLQJ JRRGQHVV RI ILW LV OLNHO\ WR EH IRVWHUHG

PAGE 60

&+$37(5 0(7+2'6 3DUWLFLSDQWV DQG 6HWWLQJV 7KH SDUWLFLSDQWV LQFOXGHG )ORULGD NLQGHUJDUWHQ WHDFKHUV IURP $ODFKXD &LWUXV 'XYDO DQG 6HPLQROH FRXQWLHV 3HUPLVVLRQ WR FRQGXFW UHVHDUFK ZDV UHFHLYHG LQ HDFK VFKRRO GLVWULFW SULRU WR GDWD FROOHFWLRQ $ OHWWHU LQYLWLQJ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ VHH $SSHQGL[ $f ZDV VHQW WR HOHPHQWDU\ VFKRRO SULQFLSDOV ZKR DSSURYHG RU GHFOLQHG VFKRROEDVHG SDUWLFLSDWLRQ 5HVHDUFK SDFNHWV LQFOXGLQJ FRQVHQW IRUPV VHH $SSHQGL[ %f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nV HWKLFDO JXLGHOLQHV $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK $VVRFLDWLRQ HW DO f

PAGE 61

7KLUW\HLJKW SULQFLSDOV LQ WKH IRXU VFKRRO GLVWULFWV DOORZHG WKH UHVHDUFKHU WR DSSURDFK KLV RU KHU NLQGHUJDUWHQ WHDFKHUV ZKLOH GLG QRW SURYLGH HQWU\ SHUPLVVLRQ 0RVW SULQFLSDOV ZKR GLG QRW DOORZ WKH UHVHDUFKHU WR FRQWDFW WKHLU NLQGHUJDUWHQ WHDFKHUV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH WHDFKHUV ZHUH QRW LQWHUHVWHG LQ SDUWLFLSDWLQJ 7ZR KXQGUHG IRUW\ SDUWLFLSDQW UHVHDUFK SDFNHWV ZHUH GLVWULEXWHG WR NLQGHUJDUWHQ WHDFKHUV 7ZHQW\WKUHH WHDFKHUV GHFOLQHG WR SDUWLFLSDWH DQG UHWXUQHG WKHLU LQFRPSOHWH SDFNHWV 2QH KXQGUHG WZHQW\QLQH SDFNHWV ZHUH QRW UHWXUQHG 7KH UHVHDUFKHU UHFHLYHG FRPSOHWHG SDFNHWV 7DEOH SURYLGHV D VXPPDU\ RI WKH GHPRJUDSKLF LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLGHG E\ SDUWLFLSDQWV 3DUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH SULPDULO\ IHPDOH bf DQG UDQJHG LQ DJH IURP WR F VG f 7KH PDMRULW\ KROG D EDFKHORUnV GHJUHH bf DQG KDYH HOHPHQWDU\ FHUWLILFDWLRQ ZLWK DQ HDUO\ FKLOGKRRG HQGRUVHPHQW bf 3DUWLFLSDQWVn WHDFKLQJ H[SHULHQFHV UDQJHG IURP RQH WR \HDUV [ VG f 7KHLU H[SHULHQFH WHDFKLQJ NLQGHUJDUWHQ UDQJHG IURP RQHKDOI WR \HDUV [ VG f $ VXPPDU\ RI SDUWLFLSDQWVn WHDFKLQJ HQYLURQPHQWV GXULQJ WKH DFDGHPLF \HDU LV SURYLGHG LQ 7DEOH &ODVV VL]HV UDQJHG IURP WR VWXGHQWV F VG f 3DUWLFLSDQWV UHIHUUHG D VLPLODU QXPEHU RI

PAGE 62

7DEOH 7HDFKHU5HODWHG 'HPRJUDSKLF ,QIRUPDWLRQ 3URYLGHG E\ 3DUWLFLSDQWV RQ WKH 7HDFKHU ,QIRUPDWLRQ 6XUYH\ 7,6 9DULDEOH 0HDQ6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ 3HUFHQW *HQGHU Q rf )HPDOH b 0DOH b (WKQLFLW\ Q f 1RQ+LVSDQLF :KLWH b $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ b +LVSDQLF b $VLDQ b 0XOWLUDFLDO b 2WKHU b $JH Q f 8QGHU b b b b 2YHU b 0RVW $GYDQFHG (GXFDWLRQDO 'HJUHH Q f %DFKHORUV b 0DVWHUV b 'RFWRUDO b 7\SH RI &HUWLILFDWLRQrr Q f (OHPHQWDU\ FHUWLILFDWLRQ RQO\ b (OHPHQWDU\ FHUWLILFDWLRQ ZLWK DQ HDUO\ b FKLOGKRRG HQGRUVHPHQW %LUWK WR DJH IRXU FHUWLILFDWLRQ b $JH WKUHH WR JUDGH WKUHH FHUWLILFDWLRQ b 3UH. KDQGLFDSSHG HQGRUVHPHQW b 2WKHU b

PAGE 63

7DEOH &RQWLQXHG 9DULDEOH 0HDQ6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ 3HUFHQW
PAGE 64

FKLOGUHQ IRU UHWHQWLRQ [ VG f DV WKH\ GLG IRU VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHVWLQJ [ VG f 7KH PDMRULW\ RI SDUWLFLSDQWV UDWHG WKHLU VFKRRO SRSXODWLRQVn VRFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXV DV ORZPLGGOH FODVV bf 0HDVXUHV &KLOG 9LJQHWWHV ,QIRUPDWLRQ RQ WHDFKHUVn EHOLHIV DERXW VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW ZDV REWDLQHG WKURXJK UDWLQJV RQ HLJKW YLJQHWWHV DERXW K\SRWKHWLFDO NLQGHUJDUWHQ FKLOGUHQ VHH $SSHQGL[ &f )LYH YDULDEOHV ZHUH KHOG FRQVWDQW DFURVV DOO HLJKW YLJQHWWHV JHQGHU UDFH SK\VLFDO KHDOWK VRFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXV DQG DFDGHPLF DELOLW\ $OO HLJKW FKLOGUHQ ZHUH GHVFULEHG DV &DXFDVLDQ PDOHV ZKR DUH SK\VLFDOO\ KHDOWK\ +HDG 6WDUW JUDGXDWHV DQG RI ORZHU PLGGOH VRFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXV 7KH FKLOGUHQ KDG ERUGHUOLQH DFDGHPLF DELOLW\ LH LQ WKH VORZ OHDUQHU UDQJHf 7KUHH YDULDEOHV ZHUH PRGLILHG DFURVV WKH HLJKW YLJQHWWHV WHPSHUDPHQW GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DQG SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW 7KHVH YDULDEOHV ZHUH GLFKRWRPRXV LQ QDWXUH FKLOGUHQ ZHUH SUHVHQWHG DV KDYLQJ HLWKHU DQ HDV\ RU GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW DV EHLQJ HLWKHU GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH RU LPPDWXUH DQG DV KDYLQJ HLWKHU LQYROYHG RU XQLQYROYHG SDUHQWV $V SDUW RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW GHYHORSPHQW D SLORW VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR H[DPLQH WKH IDFH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH YLJQHWWHV 7KH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH ILYH

PAGE 65

NLQGHUJDUWHQ WHDFKHUV IURP 'XYDO &RXQW\ $Q HOHPHQWDU\ VFKRRO ZDV LGHQWLILHG DQG DSSURSULDWH HQWU\ SHUPLVVLRQ ZDV REWDLQHG IURP WKH SULQFLSDO 7KH UHVHDUFKHU PHW ZLWK WKH NLQGHUJDUWHQ WHDFKHUV DW WKH VFKRRO WR GLVFXVV WKH VWXG\ REWDLQ FRQVHQW IRU SDUWLFLSDWLRQ VHH $SSHQGL[ 'f DQG GLVWULEXWH PDWHULDOV 3LORW VWXG\ SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR UHDG WKH FKLOG YLJQHWWHV DQG FRPSOHWH WKH 6FKRRO $GMXVWPHQW DQG 6XFFHVV 4XHVWLRQQDLUH GHVFULEHG EHORZf IRU HDFK RI WKH HLJKW FKLOGUHQ 7KH YLJQHWWHV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG WR SLORW VWXG\ SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ UDQGRP RUGHU $IWHU WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV FRPSOHWHG WKH YLJQHWWH SDFNHWV WKH UHVHDUFKHU PHW ZLWK WKHP WR FRQGXFW D IRFXV JURXS 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKH IRFXV JURXS ZDV WR REWDLQ SDUWLFLSDQWVn IHHGEDFN RQ WKH YLJQHWWHV DQG TXHVWLRQQDLUH 7KH UHVHDUFKHU DVNHG SDUWLFLSDQWV DERXW WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ SUHVHQWHG UHJDUGLQJ WKH FKLOGUHQnV VNLOOV DQG DELOLWLHV )RU H[DPSOH WKH UHVHDUFKHU DVNHG ZKHWKHU VXIILFLHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV SURYLGHG DQG ZKHWKHU WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLGHG ZDV DSSURSULDWH RI D VORZ OHDUQHU ,Q DGGLWLRQ SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH DVNHG ZKHWKHU HQRXJK LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV SURYLGHG LQ HDFK YLJQHWWH WR EH DEOH WR DQVZHU WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH LWHPV )LQDOO\ SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH DVNHG ZKHWKHU DQ\ RI WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH LWHPV ZHUH FRQIXVLQJ 7KLV LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV XVHG LQ FRQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK GLVVHUWDWLRQ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUVn

PAGE 66

IHHGEDFN WR SUHSDUH D ILQDO GUDIW RI WKH FKLOG YLJQHWWHV DQG TXHVWLRQQDLUH WR EH XVHG LQ WKH UHOLDELOLW\ VWXG\ DQG UHVHDUFK VWXG\ :KHQ DVNHG DERXW WKH W\SHV RI DFDGHPLF VNLOOV LQFOXGHG DERXW WKH FKLOGUHQ SLORW VWXG\ SDUWLFLSDQWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH FKLOGUHQnV NQRZOHGJH RI OHWWHU VRXQGV ZDV QRW LQFOXGHG DQG FRQVWLWXWHG RQH RI WKH PDMRU DUHDV VWXGHQWV DUH H[SHFWHG WR OHDUQ GXULQJ NLQGHUJDUWHQ 3DUWLFLSDQWV DOVR DVVLVWHG WKH UHVHDUFKHU LQ UHYLVLQJ WKH FKLOGUHQnV DFKLHYHPHQW OHYHO VR WKDW LW ZDV DSSURSULDWH RI VORZ OHDUQHUV DW WKH HQG RI WKH WKLUG QLQH ZHHNV JUDGLQJ SHULRG 7KH GHVFULSWLRQ ZDV PRGLILHG SULRU WR FRQGXFWLQJ WKH UHOLDELOLW\ VWXG\ 3DUWLFLSDQWV H[SUHVVHG WKH EHOLHI WKDW VXIILFLHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV SUHVHQWHG DERXW HDFK FKLOG WR DQVZHU WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH LWHPV ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH\ GLG QRW H[SUHVV DQ\ VSHFLILF FRQFHUQV DERXW TXHVWLRQQDLUH LWHPV 7HDFKHUVn 3HUFHSWLRQV RI 6FKRRO $GMXVWPHQW DQG 6XFFHVV $IWHU UHDGLQJ HDFK YLJQHWWH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR UHVSRQG WR WKH 6FKRRO $GMXVWPHQW DQG 6XFFHVV 4XHVWLRQQDLUH VHH $SSHQGL[ &f 7KH TXHVWLRQQDLUH LQFOXGHG LWHPV )LIWHHQ LWHPV ZHUH DGDSWHG IURP WKH 7HDFKHU 5DWLQJ 6FDOH RI 6FKRRO $GMXVWPHQW 3LDQWD f DQG WKUHH DGGLWLRQDO LWHPV GHYHORSHG E\ WKH UHVHDUFKHU IRU WKLV VWXG\ UHODWHG WR UHWHQWLRQ FDQGLGDF\ VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ UHIHUUDO DQG WUDQVLWLRQ WR ILUVW JUDGH 3DUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH

PAGE 67

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f DQG VWXG\ PDWHULDOV LH D FRYHU VKHHW ZLWK JHQHUDO LQVWUXFWLRQV DQG WKH FKLOG YLJQHWWHV SDFNHWf $ ZULWWHQ GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH VWXG\ FRQVHQW IRUPV DQG VWXG\ PDWHULDOV ZHUH VHQW WR WKH LQVWUXFWRU RI WKH WKLUG FRXUVH ZKR UHDG WKH GHVFULSWLRQ DQG GLVWULEXWHG PDWHULDOV WR KHU FODVV $PRQJ WKH DSSUR[LPDWHO\ VWXGHQWV ZKR UHFHLYHG FRQVHQW IRUPVWXG\ PDWHULDO SDFNHWV FRQVHQWHG WR SDUWLFLSDWH DQG FRPSOHWHG VWXG\ PDWHULDOV 7KHVH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR UHDG WKH FKLOG YLJQHWWHV DQG FRPSOHWH WKH 6FKRRO $GMXVWPHQW DQG 6XFFHVV 4XHVWLRQQDLUH IRU HDFK RI WKH HLJKW FKLOGUHQ 7KH YLJQHWWHV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG WR SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ UDQGRP RUGHU

PAGE 68

3DUWLFLSDQWVn UDWLQJV ZLWK WKH VHYHQ UHYHUVHVFRUHG LWHPV DGMXVWHG DFURVV DOO HLJKW YLJQHWWHV ZHUH XVHG WR HVWDEOLVK WKH UHOLDELOLW\ RI WKH 6FKRRO $GMXVWPHQW DQG 6XFFHVV 4XHVWLRQQDLUH $QDO\VHV XVLQJ &URQEDFKnV $OSKD ZHUH FRQGXFWHG RQ WKH VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW LWHPV DQG WKH WKUHH VFKRRO VXFFHVV LWHPV VHSDUDWHO\ )RU LWHPV RI WKH GDWD VHWV ZHUH H[FOXGHG IURP DQDO\VLV GXH WR PLVVLQJ GDWD LH SDUWLFLSDQWV GLG QRW UDWH DOO LWHPVf %DVHG RQ FDVHV WKH VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW LWHPV \LHOGHG DQ D )RU LWHPV WKUHH RI WKH GDWD VHWV ZHUH H[FOXGHG IURP DQDO\VLV GXH WR PLVVLQJ GDWD LH SDUWLFLSDQWV GLG QRW UDWH DOO WKUHH LWHPVf %DVHG RQ FDVHV WKH VFKRRO VXFFHVV LWHPV \LHOGHG DQ D 7HVW VFRUHV WKDW \LHOG D UHOLDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQW RI DW OHDVW DUH FRQVLGHUHG VXIILFLHQWO\ UHOLDEOH IRU PRVW UHVHDUFK SXUSRVHV *DOO %RUJ t *DOO f 7KHUHIRUH DQDO\VHV VXSSRUWHG WKH XVH RI WKH 6FKRRO $GMXVWPHQW DQG 6XFFHVV 4XHVWLRQQDLUH LQ WKH UHVHDUFK VWXG\ 7HDFKHU 7HPSHUDPHQW 7\SH ,QIRUPDWLRQ RQ WHDFKHUVn WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ZDV DFTXLUHG IURP WKHLU VHOIUHSRUW UDWLQJV RQ WKH 0\HUV%ULJJV 7\SH ,QYHQWRU\ 0%7,f D PHDVXUH RI WHPSHUDPHQW W\SH IRU LQGLYLGXDOV DJHV WKURXJK DGXOWKRRG %ULJJV t 0\HUV f 7KLV LWHP LQVWUXPHQW SURYLGHV GDWD LQ HDFK RI WKH

PAGE 69

WKUHH WHPSHUDPHQW W\SH GLFKRWRPLHV RULJLQDOO\ GHILQHG E\ -XQJ DQG WKH IRXUWK GLFKRWRP\ GHVFULEHG E\ 0\HUV DQG %ULJJV LH H[WUDYHUVLQ LQWURYHUVLRQ VHQVLQJ IHHOLQJ WKLQNLQJ IHHOLQJ DQG MXGJLQJ SHUFHLYLQJf 7ZR W\SHV RI LWHPV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ D IRUFHGFKRLFH IRUPDW 2QH W\SH GHVFULEHV D EHKDYLRU RU DWWLWXGH DQG DVNV WKH SDUWLFLSDQW WR FKRRVH D UHVSRQVH EDVHG RQ SHUVRQDO SUHIHUHQFHV 7KH VHFRQG W\SH RI LWHP SUHVHQWV WZR ZRUGV DQG DVNV WKH SDUWLFLSDQW WR FKRRVH WKH PRVW DSSHDOLQJ ZRUG $QDO\VLV RI WKH 0%7, SURYLGHV VFRUHV LQ HDFK RI WKH IRXU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SH GLFKRWRPLHV 7KHVH VFRUHV DUH XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH SDUWLFLSDQWnV SUHIHUHQFH ZLWKLQ HDFK W\SH GLFKRWRP\ DQG FDQ EH FRPELQHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH SDUWLFLSDQWnV IRXUOHWWHU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SH HJ ,67(1)3f 4XHQN f 0\HUV DQG FROOHDJXHV f UHSRUWHG HVWLPDWHV RI WKH 0%7,nV UHOLDELOLW\ DQG YDOLGLW\ )RU H[DPSOH LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ ZDV HVWLPDWHG XVLQJ VSOLWKDOI ORJLFDO VSOLWKDOI DQG FRQVHFXWLYH VSOLWKDOIf DQG FRHIILFLHQW DOSKD SURFHGXUHV 6SOLWKDOI UHOLDELOLWLHV RI WKH IRXU VFDOHV UDQJH IURP WR &RHIILFLHQW DOSKD UHOLDELOLWLHV RI WKH IRXU VFDOHV UDQJH IURP WR ,Q DGGLWLRQ WHVWUHWHVW UHOLDELOLW\ RI WKH IRXU VFDOHV UDQJH IURP WR LQ WKUHH VWXGLHV 0\HUV HW DO f

PAGE 70

:LWK UHJDUG WR WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH 0%,7 0\HUV DQG FROOHDJXHV f UHSRUWHG WKDW IRXU VHSDUDWH H[SORUDWRU\ IDFWRU DQDO\VHV SURGXFHG UHVXOWV WKDW ZHUH DOPRVW LGHQWLFDO WR WKH K\SRWKHVL]HG VWUXFWXUH RI WKH 0%7, ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH UHVXOWV RI VHYHUDO FRQILUPDWRU\ IDFWRU DQDO\VHV DUH GHVFULEHG LQ WKH 0%7, PDQXDO :KHQ FRQVLGHUHG WRJHWKHU VWURQJ VXSSRUW H[LVWV IRU WKH FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ RI WKH 0%7, 0\HUV HW DO f 0\HUV DQG FROOHDJXHV f DOVR SURYLGH HYLGHQFH RI FRQFXUUHQW YDOLGLW\ 7KH UHVXOWV RI VHYHUDO VWXGLHV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQFOXGLQJ FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKH 0%7, )RUP 0 DQG WKH -XQJLDQ 7\SH 6XUYH\ LH ( S f S f 6 S f 1 S f 7 S f DQG ) S ff )XUWKHU FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKH 0%7, )RUP DQG WKH 3HUVRQDOLW\ )DFWRUV 4XHVWLRQQDLUH WK (GLWLRQf ZHUH UHSRUWHG HJ (H[WUDYHUVLRQ Sf H[WUDYHUVLRQ Sf 6WRXJKPLQGHGQHVV Sf 1WRXJK PLQGHGQHVV Sf -VHOIFRQWURO Sf DQG 3VHOIFRQWURO Sff ,Q DGGLWLRQ FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ 0%7, )RUP DQG WKH 0LOOLRQ ,QGH[ RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ 6W\OHV ZHUH UHSRUWHG HJ (H[WUDYHUWLQJ H[WUDYHUWLQJ (LQWURYHUWLQJ LQWURYHUWLQJ 6VHQVLQJ 1 VHQVLQJ 6LQWXLWLQJ 1LQWXLWLQJ 7WKLQNLQJ )WKLQNLQJ 7IHHOLQJ )IHHOLQJ -V\VWHPDWL]LQJ 3V\VWHPDWL]LQJ -

PAGE 71

LQQRYDWLQJ DQG 3LQQRYDWLQJ >DOO S@f 2YHUDOO WKH FRQFXUUHQW YDOLGLW\ VWXGLHV VXSSRUWHG WKH SUHGLFWLRQV RI W\SH WKHRU\ UHJDUGLQJ WKH PHDQLQJ RI DQG WKH EHKDYLRUV EHOLHYHG WR EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH IRXU GLFKRWRPLHV 0\HUV HW DO S f 7HDFKHU 'HPRJUDSKLF ,QIRUPDWLRQ 3DUWLFLSDQWV DOVR ZHUH DVNHG WR FRPSOHWH WKH 7HDFKHU ,QIRUPDWLRQ 6XUYH\ D VFDOH GHYHORSHG E\ WKH UHVHDUFKHU IRU WKLV VWXG\ VHH $SSHQGL[ )f 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV LQVWUXPHQW ZDV WR REWDLQ GHPRJUDSKLF LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV 7HDFKHUV SURYLGHG LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKHLU EDFNJURXQG HJ DJH JHQGHU HWKQLFLW\ HGXFDWLRQDO OHYHO \HDUV RI H[SHULHQFH HWFf DQG WKHLU WHDFKLQJ HQYLURQPHQW HJ QXPEHU RI VWXGHQWV LQ WKHLU FODVV DYHUDJH VRFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXV RI WKHLU VWXGHQWV DQG QXPEHU RI UHIHUUDOV PDGH IRU VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ DQG UHWHQWLRQf 3URFHGXUH &KLOG 9LJQHWWHV 3DUWLFLSDWLQJ WHDFKHUV ZHUH DVNHG WR UHDG DQG UHVSRQG WR TXHVWLRQV SHUWDLQLQJ WR HLJKW YLJQHWWHV 7KH WHDFKHUV UHFHLYHG D SDFNHW FRQWDLQLQJ D FRYHU VKHHW DQG WKH HLJKW YLJQHWWHV SUHVHQWHG LQ UDQGRP RUGHU 7HDFKHUV ZHUH

PAGE 72

LQVWUXFWHG WR DVVXPH WKDW WKH\ DUH NLQGHUJDUWHQ WHDFKHUV LQ D PHGLXPVL]HG VFKRRO GLVWULFW 7KH VFKRRO LV ORFDWHG LQ D ORZHUPLGGOH FODVV QHLJKERUKRRG DQG KDV DSSUR[LPDWHO\ VWXGHQWV LQ NLQGHUJDUWHQ WKURXJK JUDGH ILYH 7HDFKHUV ZHUH WROG WR DVVXPH WKDW WKH\ DUH WKH FKLOGUHQn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nYH ZULWWHQ 7HDFKHUVn 3HUFHSWLRQV RI 6FKRRO $GMXVWPHQW DQG 6XFFHVV %DVHG RQ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ SUHVHQWHG LQ HDFK YLJQHWWH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR UHVSRQG WR WKH 6FKRRO $GMXVWPHQW DQG 6XFFHVV 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 7KH\ ZHUH DVNHG WR FRQVLGHU WKH FKLOG GHVFULEHG LQ HDFK YLJQHWWH VHSDUDWHO\ 6SHFLILF LQVWUXFWLRQV IRU FRPSOHWLQJ WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH ZHUH LQFOXGHG ZLWK WKH VFDOH 7HDFKHUV ZHUH LQVWUXFWHG WR UHIOHFW RQ WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK HDFK RI WKH

PAGE 73

VWDWHPHQWV ZRXOG EH FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI WKDW SDUWLFXODU FKLOG 7HDFKHUV ZHUH DVNHG WR UDWH HDFK VWDWHPHQW RQ D VFDOH IURP GHILQLWHO\ ZRXOG QRW DSSO\f WR GHILQLWHO\ ZRXOG DSSO\f 7HDFKHUnV DGMXVWPHQW UDWLQJV ZHUH HQWHUHG LQWR D GDWDEDVH DQG D WRWDO DGMXVWPHQW VFRUH WKH VXP RI WKH UDWLQJV IRU WKH ILUVW LWHPV ZLWK ILYH UHYHUVHVFRUHG LWHPV DGMXVWHGf ZDV JHQHUDWHG IRU HDFK YLJQHWWH 7KH WKUHH VFKRRO VXFFHVV LWHPV DOVR ZHUH HQWHUHG LQWR WKH GDWDEDVH DQG D WRWDO VXFFHVV VFRUH WKH VXP RI WKH UDWLQJV IRU LWHPV ZLWK WZR UHYHUVHVFRUHG LWHPV DGMXVWHGf DOVR ZDV JHQHUDWHG IRU HDFK YLJQHWWH 7HDFKHU 7HPSHUDPHQW 7\SH 3DUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR FRPSOHWH WKH 0\HUV%ULJJV 7\SH ,QGLFDWRU 0%7,f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

PAGE 74

ZLOO KHOS VKRZ KRZ \RX OLNH WR ORRN DW WKLQJV DQG KRZ \RX OLNH WR JR DERXW GHFLGLQJ WKLQJV 7KHUH DUH QR nULJKWn RU nZURQJn DQVZHUV .QRZLQJ \RXU RZQ SUHIHUHQFHV DQG OHDUQLQJ DERXW RWKHU SHRSOHnV FDQ KHOS \RX XQGHUVWDQG ZKDW \RXU VWUHQJWKV DUH ZKDW NLQGV RI ZRUN \RX PLJKW HQMR\ DQG KRZ SHRSOH ZLWK GLIIHUHQW SUHIHUHQFHV FDQ UHODWH WR RQH DQRWKHU DQG FRQWULEXWH WR VRFLHW\ %ULJJV t 0\HUV S f &RPSOHWHG 0%7,V ZHUH VFRUHG XVLQJ WKH 0%7, VFRULQJ WHPSODWHV 7KHUH DUH IRXU WHPSODWHV RQH IRU HDFK SUHIHUHQFH GLFKRWRP\ LH ( 6 1 7 ) DQG 3f 8VH RI WKH WHPSODWHV SURYLGHG UDZ VFRUHV WKDW ZHUH WKHQ XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH D SDUWLFLSDQWnV SUHIHUHQFH ZLWKLQ HDFK W\SH GLFKRWRP\ 3DUWLFLSDQWVn W\SHV HJ ,67(1)3 HWFf ZHUH XVHG LQ WKH GDWD DQDO\VHV 5HVHDUFK VXJJHVWV WKDW WHDFKHUV SULPDULO\ KDYH (6)RU ,6)W\SHV *ULQGOHU t 6WUDWWRQ 0DFGDLG HW DO f $ GDWD UHGXFWLRQ SURFHGXUH ZDV XVHG WR FDWHJRUL]H SDUWLFLSDQWVn W\SHV DV HLWKHU WKH WHDFKHU W\SH LH (6)RU ,6)Q f RU WKH QRQWHDFKHU W\SH LH DOO RWKHU W\SHV Q f 1LQH RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV KDG D WKUHHOHWWHU W\SH DQG RQH SDUWLFLSDQW KDG D WZROHWWHU W\SH DV WKH\ GLG QRW GHPRQVWUDWH D FOHDU SUHIHUHQFH RQ DW OHDVW RQH W\SH GLFKRWRP\ )LJXUH SURYLGHV D VXPPDU\ RI WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI 0%7, W\SHV ,Q DSSUHFLDWLRQ IRU WKHLU SDUWLFLSDWLRQ WHDFKHUV UHFHLYHG D ZULWWHQ UHSRUW IROORZLQJ WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKHLU SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WKH VWXG\ ZKLFK GHVFULEHG WKHLU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SH EDVHG RQ WKHLU UHVSRQVHV WR WKH 0%7, 5HSRUWV SURYLGHG JHQHUDO LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH SDUWLFLSDQWnV WHPSHUDPHQW

PAGE 75

W\SH DV ZHOO DV KRZ D WHDFKHUnV W\SH PD\ DIIHFW KLV RU KHU LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK VWXGHQWV 7HDFKHU 'HPRJUDSKLF ,QIRUPDWLRQ 3DUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR FRPSOHWH WKH LWHP 7HDFKHU ,QIRUPDWLRQ 6XUYH\ WKDW SURYLGHG FDWHJRULFDO GDWD LH HGXFDWLRQDO GHJUHH DJH JHQGHU HWKQLFLW\ \HDUV RI H[SHULHQFH HGXFDWLRQDO EDFNJURXQG QXPEHU RI VWXGHQWV LQ FODVV DQG VWXGHQWVn VRFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXVf ,Q DGGLWLRQ LW DVNHG DERXW WKH WHDFKHUVn VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ DQG UHWHQWLRQ UHIHUUDOV GXULQJ WKH VFKRRO \HDU 7KH 7HDFKHU ,QIRUPDWLRQ 6XUYH\ DOVR DVNHG WHDFKHUV ZKHWKHU WKH\ KDG FRPSOHWHG WKH 0%7, SULRU WR SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\

PAGE 76

)LJXUH 6XPPDU\ RI 3DUWLFLSDQWVn 7\SHV RQ WKH 0\HUV%ULJJV 7\SH ,QGLFDWRU 'LVWULEXWLRQ RI 7\SHV 0DLQ 7\SHV $OO &RXQW 3HUFHQW b ( ,( b b b 1 V 16 ) 7 )7 b b b b b b 3 3b b b VR ( ,( 1 6 16 ) 7 )7 3-3&RPELQDWLRQV &RXQW 3HUFHQW $OO ,1)3 ,1),173 ,17,6)3 ,6),673 ,67(1)3 (1)(173 (17(6)3 (6)(673 (672WKHU b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b 2]' }73 ,1):73 ,:7,6)3 ,6),73 ,67(1)3 (1)(173 (17(6)3 (6)(673 (672tP

PAGE 77

&+$37(5 5(68/76 ,QWURGXFWLRQ 7KLV VWXG\ H[DPLQHG WHDFKHUVn MXGJPHQWV RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG VXFFHVV EDVHG RQ FKLOG DQG WHDFKHUUHODWHG YDULDEOHV LH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SHf 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKLV VWXG\ DGGUHVVHG WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQV :KDW UHODWLRQVKLSV H[LVW DPRQJ WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG WKH IRXU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV LH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ SDUHQWDO LQYROYHPHQW DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SHf" :KDW UHODWLRQVKLSV H[LVW DPRQJ WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO VXFFHVV DQG WKH IRXU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV LH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ SDUHQWDO LQYROYHPHQW DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SHf" 7KH VWXG\ FRQWDLQHG IRXU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW

PAGE 78

W\SH $OO IRXU ZHUH PHDVXUHG RQ DQ RUGLQDO VFDOH HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW YV GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH YV GHYHORSPHQWDOA LPPDWXUH LQYROYHG SDUHQWV YV XQLQYROYHG SDUHQWV DQG (6)-,6)YV RWKHU W\SHVf 7KH VWXG\ FRQWDLQHG WZR RXWFRPH YDULDEOHV WHDFKHU SHUFHSWLRQV RI VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG WHDFKHU SHUFHSWLRQV RI VFKRRO VXFFHVV 2XWFRPH YDULDEOHV DOVR ZHUH PHDVXUHG RQ DQ RUGLQDO VFDOH 'HVFULSWLYH VWDWLVWLFV HJ PHDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV SUHVHQWHG LQ &KDSWHU f ZHUH XVHG WR H[DPLQH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV EDVHG RQ LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLGHG RQ WKH 7HDFKHU ,QIRUPDWLRQ 6XUYH\ ,Q DGGLWLRQ D GDWD UHGXFWLRQ SURFHGXUH ZDV XVHG WR H[DPLQH SDUWLFLSDQWVn UHVSRQVHV WR WKH 0\HUV%ULJJV 7\SH ,QGLFDWRU DQG GHWHUPLQH WKH IUHTXHQF\ FRXQW RI WKH W\SHV LQ WKH VDPSOH 3DUWLFLSDQWVn W\SHV ZHUH FROODSVHG LQWR GLFKRWRPRXV FDWHJRULHV WKH WHDFKHU W\SH LH (6)-,6)-f DQG QRQWHDFKHU W\SH LH DOO RWKHU W\SHVf 7R DGGUHVV ERWK UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV VSOLW SORW UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH SURFHGXUHV ZHUH XVHG $Q DOSKD OHYHO RI ZDV XVHG IRU LQLWLDO DQG SRVWKRF DQDO\VHV )RU TXHVWLRQ RQH D VSOLW SORW UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV $129$ ZDV XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU UHODWLRQVKLSV H[LVW DPRQJ WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG WKH H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV LH FKLOG

PAGE 79

WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ SDUHQWDO LQYROYHPHQW DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SHf &KLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DQG SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW ZHUH HQWHUHG DV ZLWKLQ VXEMHFWV YDULDEOHV 7HDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW ZDV HQWHUHG DV D EHWZHHQ VXEMHFWV YDULDEOH $ VHULHV RI SDLUHG VDPSOHV WWHVWV ZLWK D %RQIHUURQL DGMXVWPHQW ZHUH FRQGXFWHG SRVW KRF WR H[SORUH VLJQLILFDQW HIIHFWV )RU TXHVWLRQ WZR D VSOLW SORW UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV $129$ ZDV XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU UHODWLRQVKLSV H[LVW DPRQJ WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI VFKRRO VXFFHVV DQG WKH H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV LH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ SDUHQWDO LQYROYHPHQW DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SHf &KLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DQG SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW ZHUH HQWHUHG DV ZLWKLQ VXEMHFWV YDULDEOHV 7HDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW ZDV HQWHUHG DV D EHWZHHQ VXEMHFWV YDULDEOH 3RVWKRF DQDO\VHV XVLQJ SDLUHG VDPSOHV WWHVWV ZLWK D %RQIHUURQL DGMXVWPHQW ZHUH FRQGXFWHG WR H[SORUH VLJQLILFDQW HIIHFWV 7HDFKHUVn 3HUFHSWLRQV RI &KLOGUHQnV 6FKRRO $GMXVWPHQW 5HODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW &K7HPSf FKLOG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ 0DWXULW\f SDUHQWDO LQYROYHPHQW ,QYROYHf DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SH

PAGE 80

7FK7HPSf ZHUH H[DPLQHG WKURXJK WKH XVH RI D VSOLW SORW UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH $V VHHQ LQ 7DEOHV DQG PDLQ HIIHFWV ZHUH REVHUYHG IRU WKH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW )L f S f GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ )L f S f SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW )D f S f DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW )D f S f YDULDEOHV ,Q DGGLWLRQ VLJQLILFDQW LQWHUDFWLRQV ZHUH IRXQG EHWZHHQ FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW DQG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ )D f S f FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW DQG SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW )D f S f GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DQG SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW )D f S f FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW )D f S f DQG FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DQG SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW )D f S f 3RVWKRF SDLUHG VDPSOHV WWHVWV ZLWK D %RQIHUURQL FRUUHFWLRQ ZHUH FRQGXFWHG WR H[DPLQH WKH QDWXUH RI WKH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW E\ GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ E\ WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW LQWHUDFWLRQ DQG WKH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW E\ GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ E\ SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW LQWHUDFWLRQ 7DEOH SURYLGHV D VXPPDU\ RI WKH PHDQ VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW UDWLQJV IRU WKH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW E\ GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ E\ WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW LQWHUDFWLRQ 7KH SURSRUWLRQ RI WKH WRWDO YDULDQFH DFFRXQWHG IRU E\ WKLV LQWHUDFWLRQ LV

PAGE 81

$GMXVWPHQW UDWLQJV DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU IRU FKLOGUHQ ZLWK HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW VW\OHV ZKR DUH GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH DV UDWHG E\ SDUWLFLSDQWV ZLWK WKH QRQWHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SH DQG ORZHVW IRU FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQWV ZKR DUH GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH DV UDWHG E\ SDUWLFLSDQWV ZLWK WKH WHDFKHU W\SH Wf S VHH 7DEOH f $ SDLUHG VDPSOHV W WHVW LQGLFDWHV WKDW PHDQ GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ DGMXVWPHQW UDWLQJV E\ QRQn WHDFKHU W\SH SDUWLFLSDQWV IRU GLIILFXOW GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH FKLOGUHQ DQG GLIILFXOW GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH FKLOGUHQ DUH ODUJHU WKDQ PHDQ GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ DGMXVWPHQW UDWLQJV E\ QRQWHDFKHU W\SH SDUWLFLSDQWV IRU HDV\ GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH FKLOGUHQ DQG HDV\ GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH FKLOGUHQ WLRVf S f )XUWKHU SDLUHG VDPSOHV WWHVW UHVXOWV LQGLFDWH WKDW PHDQ GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ DGMXVWPHQW UDWLQJV E\ QRQWHDFKHU W\SH SDUWLFLSDQWV IRU HDV\ GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH FKLOGUHQ DQG HDV\ GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH FKLOGUHQ ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ ODUJHU WKDQ PHDQ GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ DGMXVWPHQW UDWLQJV E\ WHDFKHU W\SH SDUWLFLSDQWV IRU HDV\ GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH FKLOGUHQ DQG HDV\ GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH FKLOGUHQ Wf S f

PAGE 82

7DEOH :LWKLQ 6XEMHFWV (IIHFWV 6RXUFH GIO GI 06 n(IIHFWnf ) e +L &K7HPS r 0DWXULW\ r ,QYROYH r &K7HPS r 7FK7HPS 0DWXULW\ r 7FK7HPS ,QYROYH r 7FK7HPS &K7HPS r 0DWXULW\ r &K7HPS r 0DWXULW\ r 7FK7HPS rr &K7HPS r ,QYROYH r &K7HPS r ,QYROYH r 7FK7HPS 0DWXULW\ r ,QYROYH rr 0DWXULW\ r ,QYROYH r 7FK7HPS &K7HPS r 0DWXULW\ r ,QYROYH r &K7HPS r 0DWXULW\ r ,QYROYH r 7FK7HPS 1RWH &K7HPS FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW 0DWXULW\ GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ ,QYROYH SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW 7FK7HPS WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SH r e rr S

PAGE 83

7DEOH 6XPPDU\ IRU 6FKRRO $GMXVWPHQW 6SOLW 3ORW 5HSHDWHG 0HDVXUHV $129$ IRU %HWZHHQ 6XEMHFWV (IIHFWV 6RXUFH GIO 06 ) e ,QWHUFHSW r 7FK7HPS rr (UURU 7DEOH 0HDQ $GMXVWPHQW 5DWLQJV IRU &KLOG 7HPSHUDPHQW E\ 'HYHORSPHQWDO 0DWXULW\ E\ 7HDFKHU 7HPSHUDPHQW ,QWHUDFWLRQ (IIHFW b &RQILGHQFH ,QWHUYDO RI WKH 'LIIHUHQFH 6WG /RZHU 8SSHU ,QWHUDFWLRQ 9DULDEOHV 0HDQ (UURU %RXQG %RXQG 1RQ 'LIILFXOW ,PPDWXUH 7HDFKHU 7\SH 0DWXUH (DV\ ,PPDWXUH 0DWXUH 'LIILFXOW ,PPDWXUH 7HDFKHU 0DWXUH 7\SH (DV\ ,PPDWXUH 0DWXUH

PAGE 84

7DEOH 3DLUHG 6DPSOHV 77HVWV IRU $GMXVWPHQW 5DWLQJV IRU &KLOG 7HPSHUDPHQW E\ 'HYHORSPHQWDO 0DWXULW\ E\ 7HDFKHU 7HPSHUDPHQW ,QWHUDFWLRQ (IIHFW b &RQILGHQFH ,QWHUYDO RI WKH 'LIIHUHQFH 3DLU 0HDQ 6WG 'HY 6WG (UURU W GI 6LJ /RZHU %RXQG 8SSHU %RXQG 7FK7\SH 'LIILFXOW ,PPDWXUH 1RQ7HK 7\SH (DV\ 0DWXUH &DVH $ &DVH% r &DVH & &DVH &DVH $ &DVH& &DVH% &DVH' r r e &DVH $ PHDQ GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ UDWLQJV E\ QRQWHDFKHU W\SH SDUWLFLSDQWV IRU GLIILFXOW GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH FKLOGUHQ DQG GLIILFXOW GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH FKLOGUHQ &DVH % PHDQ GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ UDWLQJV E\ QRQWHDFKHU W\SH SDUWLFLSDQWV IRU HDV\ GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH FKLOGUHQ DQG HDV\ GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH FKLOGUHQ &DVH & PHDQ GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ UDWLQJV E\ WHDFKHU W\SH SDUWLFLSDQWV IRU GLIILFXOW GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH FKLOGUHQ DQG GLIILFXOW GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH FKLOGUHQ &DVH PHDQ GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ UDWLQJV E\ WHDFKHU W\SH SDUWLFLSDQWV IRU HDV\ GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH FKLOGUHQ DQG HDV\ GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH FKLOGUHQ

PAGE 85

$ VXPPDU\ RI PHDQ VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW UDWLQJV IRU WKH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW E\ GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ E\ SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW LQWHUDFWLRQ LV SURYLGHG LQ 7DEOH $ SDLUHG VDPSOHV WWHVW LQGLFDWHV WKDW DGMXVWPHQW UDWLQJV DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU IRU WKH FKLOG ZLWK DQ HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW VW\OH ZKR LV GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH DQG KDV LQYROYHG SDUHQWV WKDQ UDWLQJV IRU WKH FKLOG ZLWK D GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW ZKR LV GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH DQG KDV XQLQYROYHG SDUHQWV Wf S VHH 7DEOH f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f S f 6HFRQG UDWLQJV IRU WKH GLIILFXOW FKLOG ZKR LV GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH DQG KDV XQLQYROYHG SDUHQWV DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ UDWLQJV IRU WKH GLIILFXOW FKLOG ZKR LV GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH DQG KDV XQLQYROYHG SDUHQWV Wf S f 7KLUG DGMXVWPHQW UDWLQJV DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU IRU WKH HDV\ GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH FKLOG ZLWK

PAGE 86

7DEOH 0HDQ $GMXVWPHQW 5DWLQJV IRU &KLOG 7HPSHUDPHQW E\ 'HYHORSPHQWDO 0DWXULW\ E\ 3DUHQW ,QYROYHPHQW ,QWHUDFWLRQ (IIHFW b &RQILGHQFH ,QWHUYDO RI WKH 'LIIHUHQFH 6WG /RZHU 8SSHU ,QWHUDFWLRQ 9DULDEOHV 0HDQ (UURU %RXQG %RXQG ,PPDWXUH 8QLQYROYHG 'LIILFXOW ,QYROYHG 0DWXUH 8QLQYROYHG ,QYROYHG ,PPDWXUH 8QLQYROYHG (DV\ ,QYROYHG 0DWXUH 8QLQYROYHG ,QYROYHG 7DEOH 3DLUHG 6DPSOHV 77HVWV RI $GMXVWPHQW 5DWLQJV IRU &KLOG 7HPSHUDPHQW E\ 'HYHORSPHQWDO 0DWXULW\ E\ 3DUHQW ,QYROYHPHQW ,QWHUDFWLRQ (IIHFW 3DLU 0HDQ 6WG 'HY 6WG (UURU W GI 6LJ b &RQILGHQFH ,QWHUYDO RI WKH 'LIIHUHQFH /RZHU 8SSHU %RXQG %RXQG 'LIILFXOW (DV\ ,PPDWXUH 0DWXUH r 8QLQYROYHG ,QYROYHG 'LIILFXOW 'LIILFXOW ,PPDWXUH ,PPDWXUH r 8QLQYROYHG ,QYROYHG

PAGE 87

7DEOH &RQWLQXHG b &RQILGHQFH ,QWHUYDO RI WKH 'LIIHUHQFH 6WG 6WG /RZHU 8SSHU 3DLU 0HDQ 'HY (UURU W GI 6LJ %RXQG %RXQG 'LIILFXOW 0DWXUH 8QLQYROYHG 'LIILFXOW 0DWXUH ,QYROYHG 'LIILFXOW ,PPDWXUH 8QLQYROYHG 'LIILFXOW 0DWXUH 8QLQYROYHG frn 'LIILFXOW ,PPDWXUH ,QYROYHG 'LIILFXOW 0DWXUH ,QYROYHG r (DV\ ,PPDWXUH 8QLQYROYHG (DV\ ,PPDWXUH ,QYROYHG (DV\ 0DWXUH 8QLQYROYHG (DV\ 0DWXUH ,QYROYHG (DV\ ,PPDWXUH ,QYROYHG (DV\ 0DWXUH 8QLQYROYHG r (DV\ ,PPDWXUH ,QYROYHG (DV\ 0DWXUH ,QYROYHG r r S

PAGE 88

LQYROYHG SDUHQWV WKDQ UDWLQJV IRU WKH HDV\ GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH FKLOG ZLWK LQYROYHG SDUHQWV Wf S f )RXUWK DGMXVWPHQW UDWLQJV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU IRU WKH FKLOG ZLWK HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ZKR LV GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH DQG KDV XQLQYROYHG SDUHQWV WKDQ IRU WKH HDV\ FKLOG ZKR LV GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH DQG KDV LQYROYHG SDUHQWV Wf S f )LQDOO\ DGMXVWPHQW UDWLQJV IRU WKH HDV\ GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH FKLOG ZLWK KDYH LQYROYHG SDUHQWV DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ UDWLQJV IRU WKH HDV\ GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH FKLOG ZLWK LQYROYHG SDUHQWV Wf S f 7HDFKHUVn 3HUFHSWLRQV RI &KLOGUHQnV 6FKRRO 6XFFHVV $ VSOLW SORW UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR H[SORUH WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO VXFFHVV DQG FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW &K7HPSf FKLOG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ 0DWXULW\f SDUHQWDO LQYROYHPHQW ,QYROYHf DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SH 7FK7HPSf $V VHHQ LQ 7DEOHV DQG VLJQLILFDQW PDLQ HIIHFWV ZHUH REVHUYHG IRU WKH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW )D f S f DQG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ )D f S f YDULDEOHV ,Q DGGLWLRQ VLJQLILFDQW LQWHUDFWLRQ HIIHFWV ZHUH IRXQG IRU FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW DQG

PAGE 89

7DEOH 6XPPDU\ IRU 6FKRRO 6XFFHVV 6SOLW 3ORW 5HSHDWHG 0HDVXUHV $129$ IRU :LWKLQ 6XEMHFWV (IIHFWV 6RXUFH GIO GI 06 ) e &K7HPS r 0DWXULW\ r ,QYROYH &K7HPS r 7FK7HPS 0DWXULW\ r 7FK7HPS ( ,QYROYH r 7FK7HPS &K7HPS r 0DWXULW\ rr &K7HPS r 0DWXULW\ r 7FK7HPS &K7HPS r ,QYROYH &K7HPS r ,QYROYH r 7FK7HPS 0DWXULW\ r ,QYROYH 0DWXULW\ r ,QYROYH r 7FK7HPS &K7HPS r 0DWXULW\ r ,QYROYH rr &K7HPS r 0DWXULW\ r ,QYROYH r 7FK7HPS 1RWH &K7HPS FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW 0DWXULW\ GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ ,QYROYH SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW 7FK7HPS WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SH r J rr S

PAGE 90

7DEOH 6XPPDU\ IRU 6FKRRO 6XFFHVV 6SOLW 3ORW 5HSHDWHG 0HDVXUHV $129$ IRU %HWZHHQ 6XEMHFWV (IIHFWV 6RXUFH GIO 06 ) 3 Q" ,QWHUFHSW r 7FK7HPS (UURU r e GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ )L f S f DQG FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DQG SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW )D f S f $ VXPPDU\ RI PHDQ VFKRRO VXFFHVV UDWLQJV IRU WKH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW E\ GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ E\ SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW LQWHUDFWLRQ LV SURYLGHG LQ 7DEOH 7KH SURSRUWLRQ RI WRWDO YDULDQFH DFFRXQWHG IRU E\ WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ LV DV PHDVXUHG E\ WKH HWD VTXDUHG VWDWLVWLF 3RVWKRF WHVWV LH SDLUHG VDPSOHV WWHVWV ZLWK D %RQIHUURQL DGMXVWPHQWf ZHUH FRQGXFWHG WR H[DPLQH WKH QDWXUH RI WKH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DQG SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW LQWHUDFWLRQ HIIHFW VHH 7DEOH f 6FKRRO VXFFHVV UDWLQJV DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU IRU WKH FKLOG ZLWK DQ HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW VW\OH DQG ZKR LV GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH DQG KDV LQYROYHG SDUHQWV WKDQ UDWLQJV IRU WKH FKLOG ZLWK D GLIILFXOW

PAGE 91

7DEOH 0HDQ 6FKRRO 6XFFHVV 5DWLQJV IRU &KLOG 7HPSHUDPHQW E\ 'HYHORSPHQWDO 0DWXULW\ E\ 3DUHQW ,QYROYHPHQW ,QWHUDFWLRQ (IIHFW b &RQILGHQFH ,QWHUYDO RI WKH 'LIIHUHQFH 6WG /RZHU 8SSHU ,QWHUDFWLRQ 9DULDEOHV 0HDQ (UURU %RXQG %RXQG ,PPDWXUH 8QLQYROYHG 'LIILFXOW ,QYROYHG 0DWXUH 8QLQYROYHG ,QYROYHG ,PPDWXUH 8QLQYROYHG (DV\ ,QYROYHG 0DWXUH 8QLQYROYHG ,QYROYHG 7DEOH 3DLUHG 6DPSOHV 77HVWV RI 6XFFHVV 5DWLQJV IRU &KLOG 7HPSHUDPHQW E\ 'HYHORSPHQWDO 0DWXULW\ E\ 3DUHQW ,QYROYHPHQW ,QWHUDFWLRQ (IIHFW b &RQILGHQFH ,QWHUYDO RI WKH 'LIIHUHQFH 6WG 6WG /RZHU 8SSHU 3DLU 0HDQ 'HY (UURU W GI 6LJ %RXQG %RXQG 'LIILFXOW (DV\ ,PPDWXUH 0DWLQJ r 8QLQYROYHG ,QYROYHG 'LIILFXOW 'LIILFXOW ,PPDWXUH ,PPDWXUH 8QLQYROYHG ,QYROYHG

PAGE 92

7DEOH &RQWLQXHG b &RQILGHQFH ,QWHUYDO RI WKH 'LIIHUHQFH 6WG 6WG /RZHU 8SSHU 3DLU 0HDQ 'HY (UURU W GI 6LJ %RXQG %RXQG 'LIILFXOW 0DWXUH 8QLQYROYHG 'LIILFXOW 0DWXUH ,QYROYHG r 'LIILFXOW ,PPDWXUH 8QLQYROYHG 'LIILFXOW 0DWXUH 8QLQYROYHG r 'LIILFXOW ,PPDWXUH ,QYROYHG 'LIILFXOW 0DWXUH ,QYROYHG r (DV\ ,PPDWXUH 8QLQYROYHG (DV\ ,PPDWXUH ,QYROYHG (DV\ 0DWXUH 8QLQYROYHG (DV\ 0DWXUH ,QYROYHG (DV\ ,PPDWXUH ,QYROYHG (DV\ 0DWXUH 8QLQYROYHG r (DV\ ,PPDWXUH ,QYROYHG (DV\ 0DWXUH ,QYROYHG r r S

PAGE 93

WHPSHUDPHQW ZKR LV GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH DQG KDV XQLQYROYHG SDUHQWV Wf S f )XUWKHU H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKLV LQWHUDFWLRQ XVLQJ WKH SDLUHG VDPSOHV WWHVW SURFHGXUH LQGLFDWHG ILYH VLJQLILFDQW SDLUV )LUVW UDWLQJV IRU WKH GLIILFXOW FKLOG ZKR LV GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH DQG KDV XQLQYROYHG SDUHQWV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ UDWLQJV IRU WKH GLIILFXOW FKLOG ZKR LV GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH ZLWK LQYROYHG SDUHQWV Wf S f 6HFRQG UDWLQJV IRU WKH FKLOG ZLWK GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ZKR LV GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH ZLWK XQLQYROYHG SDUHQWV DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ UDWLQJV IRU WKH GLIILFXOW FKLOG ZKR LV GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH ZLWK XQLQYROYHG SDUHQWV Wf S f 7KLUG UDWLQJV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU IRU WKH GLIILFXOW FKLOG ZLWK LQYROYHG SDUHQWV ZKHQ WKH FKLOG ZDV GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH WKDQ ZKHQ KH ZDV GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH Wf S f )RXUWK UDWLQJV IRU WKH HDV\ GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH FKLOG ZLWK XQLQYROYHG SDUHQWV DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ UDWLQJV IRU WKH HDV\ GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH FKLOG ZLWK LQYROYHG SDUHQWV Wf S f )LQDOO\ UDWLQJV IRU WKH HDV\ GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH FKLOG ZLWK LQYROYHG SDUHQWV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ UDWLQJV IRU WKH HDV\ GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH FKLOG ZLWK LQYROYHG SDUHQWV Wf S f

PAGE 94

&+$37(5 ',6&866,21 ,QWURGXFWLRQ 7HPSHUDPHQW UHIHUV WR D SHUVRQnV EHKDYLRUDO VW\OH D VHW RI FRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\ GHWHUPLQHG GLVSRVLWLRQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WKDW LQIOXHQFH WKH PDQQHU LQ ZKLFK DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV DFWLRQV DUH H[SUHVVHG 6WHOPDFN t 6WDOLNDV 7KRPDV HW DO f 7HPSHUDPHQW DIIHFWV KRZ LQGLYLGXDOV UHVSRQG WR REMHFWLYH IHDWXUHV LQ WKH HQYLURQPHQW DQG LQIOXHQFHV IXWXUH GHYHORSPHQW HJ %DWHV &DUH\ &DUH\ t 0F'HYLWW &DUVRQ &DVSL t 6LOYD 5RWKEDUW HW DO 7KRPDV t &KHVV f $V D UHVXOW WHPSHUDPHQW FRQWULEXWHV WR ERWK QRUPDO DQG SDWKRORJLFDO GHYHORSPHQW 7KRPDV t &KHVV f 7HPSHUDPHQW KDV EHHQ OLQNHG WR DFDGHPLF EHKDYLRUDO DQG VRFLDO DGMXVWPHQW &DUH\ f ,Q DGGLWLRQ D FKLOGnV DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH DQG LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK WHDFKHUV PD\ DIIHFW WKH FKLOGnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG DV D UHVXOW KLV RU KHU ILW ZLWK WKH FODVVURRP HQYLURQPHQW %LUFK t /DGG .HRJK 0DUWLQ t *DGGLV f *RRGQHVV RI ILW GHILQHG DV FRQVRQDQFH DPRQJ D FKLOGnV FDSDELOLWLHV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG VW\OH RI EHKDYLQJ DQG WKH

PAGE 95

H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG GHPDQGV RI WKH FKLOGnV HQYLURQPHQW FRQWULEXWHV WR SRVLWLYH GHYHORSPHQWDO RXWFRPHV 7KRPDV t &KHVV f 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR LQYHVWLJDWH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ D QXPEHU RI FKLOG DQG WHDFKHUUHODWHG YDULDEOHV WKDW PD\ DIIHFW D FKLOGnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG VXFFHVV ,I UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG YDULDEOHV WKDW PD\ DIIHFW JRRGQHVV RI ILW FDQ EH LGHQWLILHG UHVHDUFKHUV DQG SUDFWLWLRQHUV PD\ JDLQ D EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI ZK\ VRPH FKLOGUHQ DUH VXFFHVVIXO LQ VFKRROUHODWHG DFWLYLWLHV ZKLOH RWKHUV IDFH VLJQLILFDQW FKDOOHQJHV 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKLV VWXG\ H[DPLQHG UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ WHDFKHUnV SHUFHSWLRQV RI NLQGHUJDUWHQ FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG VXFFHVV EDVHG RQ FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SH 6FKRRO DGMXVWPHQW UHIHUV WR KRZ ZHOO VXLWHG D FKLOG LV WR WKH YDULRXV OHDUQLQJ H[SHULHQFHV HQFRXQWHUHG LQ VFKRROV 6NDUSQHVV t &DUVRQ f +LJKHU VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW UDWLQJV LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ LQGLFDWH D FKLOG LV PRUH OLNHO\ WR VHHN FKDOOHQJHV HQMR\ VFKRRO DQG WUDQVLWLRQ HDVLO\ IURP RQH DFWLYLW\ WR DQRWKHU 5HVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ VXJJHVW WKDW SDUWLFLSDQWVn UDWLQJV RI HLJKW K\SRWKHWLFDO FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW YDU\ VLJQLILFDQWO\ DFURVV WKH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW DQG WHDFKHU

PAGE 96

WHPSHUDPHQW YDULDEOHV ,Q DGGLWLRQ VLJQLILFDQW LQWHUDFWLRQV H[LVW EHWZHHQ FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW DQG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW DQG SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DQG SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW DQG FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DQG SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW 6FKRRO VXFFHVV UHIHUV WR D FKLOGnV OLNHOLKRRG RI KDYLQJ VXFFHVVIXO VFKRRO RXWFRPHV +LJKHU VFKRRO VXFFHVV UDWLQJV LQGLFDWH D FKLOG LV OHVV OLNHO\ WR EH D FDQGLGDWH IRU UHWHQWLRQ RU UHIHUUHG IRU VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ VHUYLFHV DQG PRUH OLNHO\ WR PDNH D VXFFHVVIXO WUDQVLWLRQ WR ILUVW JUDGH 5HVXOWV LQGLFDWH WKDW SDUWLFLSDQWVn UDWLQJV RI HLJKW K\SRWKHWLFDO FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW YDU\ VLJQLILFDQWO\ IRU WKH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW DQG FKLOG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ YDULDEOHV ,Q DGGLWLRQ VLJQLILFDQW LQWHUDFWLRQ HIIHFWV H[LVW IRU FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW DQG GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DV ZHOO DV IRU FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DQG SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW 7HDFKHUVn 3HUFHSWLRQV RI &KLOGUHQnV 6FKRRO $GMXVWPHQW DQG 6XFFHVV &KLOG 7HPSHUDPHQW 7KH ILQGLQJ WKDW WHPSHUDPHQW VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQIOXHQFHV WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG VXFFHVV ZDV ERWK H[SHFWHG DQG FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK D EURDGHU ERG\ RI OLWHUDWXUH ZKLFK VXJJHVWV WKDW FKLOGUHQ

PAGE 97

ZLWK GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DUH DWULVN IRU DFDGHPLF EHKDYLRUDO DQG VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW GLIILFXOWLHV DQG SRRUHU GHYHORSPHQWDO RXWFRPHV HJ &DUH\ &DVSL t 6LOYD .HRJK 6NDUSQHVV t &DUVRQ f &KLOGUHQ ZLWK HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW VW\OHV KDYH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG VXFFHVV UDWLQJV LQGLFDWLQJ WHDFKHUV SHUFHLYHG WKHP DV EHWWHU DGMXVWHG DQG PRUH OLNHO\ WR KDYH VXFFHVVIXO VFKRRO RXWFRPHVf WKDQ WKH FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW VW\OHV *LYHQ WKH RWKHU YDULDEOHV LQ WKLV VWXG\ WHPSHUDPHQW LV FRQVLVWHQWO\ VHHQ DV LPSRUWDQW &KLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW H[SODLQV WKH KLJKHVW SURSRUWLRQ RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG VXFFHVV UDWLQJV )XUWKHU ZLWKLQ HDFK RI WKH VLJQLILFDQW LQWHUDFWLRQ HIIHFWV HYHQ ZLWK WKH LQIOXHQFH RI WKH RWKHU YDULDEOHVf FKLOGUHQ ZLWK HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW VW\OHV UHFHLYH KLJKHU VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG VXFFHVV UDWLQJV WKDQ WKHLU GLIILFXOW FKLOG FRXQWHUSDUWV 7KLV KLJKOLJKWV WKH VLJQLILFDQW UROH WHPSHUDPHQW SOD\V LQ D FKLOGnV GHYHORSPHQW DQG VFKRRO H[SHULHQFHV &KLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQWV DIIHFW WKHLU DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH .HRJK 0DUWLQ 0DUWLQ t +ROEURRN f DQG LQIOXHQFH WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI ZKHWKHU WKH\ ZLOO DGMXVW ZHOO WR DQG EH VXFFHVVIXO LQ WKH VFKRRO HQYLURQPHQW 7KLV LV SDUWLFXODUO\ LPSRUWDQW LQ WKH

PAGE 98

FXUUHQW VWXG\ ZKHQ FRQVLGHULQJ WKDW DOO RI WKH FKLOGUHQ DUH GHVFULEHG DV VORZ OHDUQHUV 'HVSLWH WKLV DSSDUHQW VLPLODULW\ LQ DELOLW\ OHYHO FKLOGUHQ ZLWK HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV UHFHLYH KLJK VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG VXFFHVV UDWLQJV &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQWDO 0DWXULW\ 5HVHDUFK ILQGLQJV VXJJHVW WKDW GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR FKLOGUHQn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

PAGE 99

7KLV LQGLFDWHV WKDW GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ LQIOXHQFHV SDUWLFLSDQWVn VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG VFKRRO VXFFHVV UDWLQJV IRU FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQWV PRUH VR WKDQ LW GRHV IRU FKLOGUHQ ZLWK HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW VW\OHV VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW ZKLOH GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ FRQWULEXWHV SRVLWLYHO\ WR SHUFHSWLRQV RI D FKLOGn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n SHUFHSWLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG VXFFHVV RWKHU SDLULQJV WKDW DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW VXJJHVW WKDW SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW LQIOXHQFHG SDUWLFLSDQWVn UDWLQJV RQO\ IRU WKH FKLOG GHVFULEHG DV GLIILFXOW DQG GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH HJ WKH GLIILFXOW GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH FKLOG ZLWK LQYROYHG SDUHQWV ZDV SHUFHLYHG WR EH EHWWHU DGMXVWHG

PAGE 100

WKDQ WKH GLIILFXOW GHYHORSPHQWDOA LPPDWXUH FKLOG ZLWK XQLQYROYHG SDUHQWVf 2YHUDOO WKH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW E\ GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ E\ SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW LQWHUDFWLRQ IXUWKHU LPSOLHV WKDW GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DQG SDUHQW LQYROYHPHQW VXSSRUW WHDFKHUnV YLHZV RI D FKLOGn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n SHUFHSWLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW H[LVWV DPRQJ WKH FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ DQG WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW YDULDEOHV 7KH KLJKHVW DGMXVWPHQW UDWLQJV DUH REVHUYHG IRU FKLOGUHQ ZLWK HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ZKR DUH GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ PDWXUH DV UDWHG E\ QRQWHDFKHU W\SH SDUWLFLSDQWV 7KH ORZHVW DGMXVWPHQW UDWLQJV DUH REVHUYHG IRU FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW VW\OHV ZKR DUH GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPPDWXUH DV UDWHG E\ SDUWLFLSDQWV ZLWK WKH WHDFKHU W\SH 2YHUDOO WKLV

PAGE 101

LQWHUDFWLRQ VXJJHVWV WKDW GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\ LQIOXHQFHV WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW SDUWLFXODUO\ IRU GLIILFXOW FKLOGUHQ 7KLV LQIOXHQFH LV VWURQJHU IRU WHDFKHUV ZLWK WKH QRQWHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SH $OWKRXJK SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK GRHV QRW VSHFLILFDOO\ DGGUHVV WKLV LVVXH RQH SRVVLEOH UHDVRQ IRU WKH GLIIHUHQFH LQ UDWLQJV LV WKDW WKH VHQVLQJ DQG MXGJLQJ DVSHFWV RI WKH WHDFKHU WHPSHUDPHQW W\SH LH (6)-,6)-f PD\ LQIOXHQFH WKHVH WHDFKHUV WR EH PRUH GHFLVLYH LQ WKHLU UDWLQJV ZKHUHDV SDUWLFLSDQWV ZLWK WKH QRQWHDFKHU W\SH SDUWLFXODUO\ WKRVH ZLWK WKH SHUFHLYLQJ DQGRU LQWXLWLYH DWWLWXGH>V@f PD\ EH PRUH DFFHSWLQJ RI GLIIHULQJ TXDOLWLHV LQ WKHLU RSLQLRQV RI DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU FKLOGUHQ )RU H[DPSOH LQGLYLGXDOV ZLWK WKH 6JURXSLQJ RI W\SHV DUH UHDOLVWLF GHFLVLRQ PDNHUV 7KH\ DOVR DUH GHVFULEHG DV FRQVHUYDWLYH DQG VHHNLQJ RUGHU LQ WKHLU HQYLURQPHQW 6-V UHO\ RQ IDFWXDO DQG H[SHULHQWLDO GDWD LQ PDNLQJ GHFLVLRQV 0\HUV HW DO f 7KHVH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV VXSSRUW WKDW SDUWLFLSDQWV ZLWK WKH WHDFKHU W\SH ZRXOG EH PRUH OLNHO\ WR SURYLGH ORZHU VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW UDWLQJV DV WKH\ DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR KDYH WKRURXJKO\ H[DPLQHG WKH IDFWV SUHVHQWHG DERXW HDFK FKLOG UDWKHU WKDQ IRFXVLQJ RQ D JXW UHDFWLRQ )XUWKHU EHFDXVH WKHVH WHDFKHUV DUH FRQVHUYDWLYH DQG YDOXH FODVVURRP RUGHU WKH\ PD\ EH OHVV DFFHSWLQJ RI FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLIILFXOWLHV DV WKHVH FKLOGUHQ DUH OHVV OLNHO\ WR FRQIRUP WR WKH WHDFKHUVn H[SHFWHG VWDQGDUGV

PAGE 102

,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU 3UDFWLFH )LQGLQJV IURP WKLV VWXG\ SURYLGH VHYHUDO LPSRUWDQW LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU SUDFWLFH )RU H[DPSOH WKH OLWHUDWXUH VXJJHVWV WKDW FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV KDYH D KLJKHU ULVN IRU EHKDYLRUDO VRFLDO DQG DFDGHPLF GLIILFXOWLHV ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH\ KDYH D KLJKHU ULVN IRU VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW GLIILFXOWLHV %DWHV &DUH\ &DUH\ t 0F'HYLWW &DUVRQ &DVSL t 6LOYD 5RWKEDUW HW DO 7KRPDV t &KHVV f 5HVXOWV IURP WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ VXSSRUW WKHVH ILQGLQJV $OWKRXJK WHPSHUDPHQW GRHV QRW FDXVH EHKDYLRU FHUWDLQ WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV HJ GLVWUDFWLELOLW\ ODFN RI SHUVLVWHQFH QHJDWLYH PRRG HWFf SUHGLVSRVH FKLOGUHQ IRU GLIILFXOWLHV .HRJK f ,W LV LPSRUWDQW IRU SUDFWLWLRQHUV HJ VFKRRO SV\FKRORJLVWV JXLGDQFH FRXQVHORUV DQG NLQGHUJDUWHQ WHDFKHUVf WR UHFRJQL]H WKHVH SUHGLVSRVLWLRQV DQG WR DVVLVW FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQWV WR KHOS WKHP OHDUQ WR PRGLI\ WKHLU EHKDYLRU LQ PRUH SRVLWLYH GLUHFWLRQV ZKHQ QHFHVVDU\ $ FKLOGnV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG IHDWXUHV LQ KLV RU KHU HQYLURQPHQW LQWHUDFW DQG WKHVH LQWHUDFWLRQV DUH RIWHQ PRUH LPSRUWDQW WKDW DQ\ VLQJOH FKLOG RU HQYLURQPHQWDO FKDUDFWHULVWLF ZKHQ FRQVLGHULQJ FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG VXFFHVV GLIILFXOWLHV &DUH\ 6DPHURII t )LHVH f $V D UHVXOW LW LV

PAGE 103

LPSRUWDQW IRU SUDFWLWLRQHUV WR ORRN IRU ZD\V LQ ZKLFK D FKLOGn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

PAGE 104

WHPSHUDPHQW VW\OHV WKHVH GLIIHUHQFHV DUH QRW DV QRWLFHDEOH 7KLV LQGLFDWHV WKDW SUDFWLWLRQHUV VKRXOG EH DZDUH RI SRVVLEOH SURWHFWLYH IDFWRUV VXFK DV WKHVH WKDW FDQ EH HPSKDVL]HG WR DVVLVW VWXGHQWV 3UDFWLWLRQHUV DOVR VKRXOG ORRN IRU RWKHU SURWHFWLYH IDFWRUV WKDW PD\ H[LVW IRU VWXGHQWV WKDW FDQ EH HPSKDVL]HG WR LPSURYH FKLOGUHQnV RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU VXFFHVV 'RLQJ VR FRXOG LQFUHDVH WKH OLNHOLKRRG WKDW FKLOGUHQ ZLOO KDYH D JRRG ILW ZLWKLQ WKHLU NLQGHUJDUWHQ FODVVURRPV 7KLV VWXG\ DOVR VXJJHVWV WKDW WHDFKHUV VKRXOG EH DZDUH RI WKHLU EHOLHIV DERXW FKLOGUHQ VR WKDW VRPH VWXGHQWV DUH QRW SXW DW D GLVDGYDQWDJH RYHU RWKHUV %HOLHIV LQIOXHQFH WHDFKHUVn UHDFWLRQV WR DQG LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK VWXGHQWV .HDQ .HRJK 5RWKEDUW t -RQHV 7HJODVL f 7KLV LV SDUWLFXODUO\ LPSRUWDQW IRU NLQGHUJDUWHQ WHDFKHUV DV NLQGHUJDUWHQ VWXGHQWVn H[SHULHQFHV LPSDFW WKHLU ORQJWHUP VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW 5XVKHU HW DO 6NDUSQHVV t &DUVRQ f ,I WHDFKHUV DUH DZDUH RI WKHLU EHOLHIV WKH\ FDQ ZRUN WR HQVXUH WKDW WKHVH EHOLHIV GR QRW QHJDWLYHO\ LPSDFW WKHLU VWXGHQWV 7KLV FDQ EH SDUWLFXODUO\ LPSRUWDQW LQ SURPRWLQJ D JRRG ILW IRU FKLOGUHQ ZLWKLQ WKH FODVVURRP )XUWKHU WHDFKHUV VKRXOG EHFRPH DZDUH RI WKHLU RZQ WHPSHUDPHQW W\SHV 7HDFKHUV ZKR KDYH WKH W\SLFDO WHDFKHU W\SH DUH FRQVHUYDWLYH DQG VHHN

PAGE 105

RUGHU LQ WKHLU FODVVURRPV GXH WR WKH VHQVLQJ DQG MXGJLQJ DVSHFWV RI WKHLU W\SHV $V D UHVXOW WKH\ PD\ EH OHVV DFFHSWLQJ RI FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG EHKDYLRUV FRPPRQ RI GLIILFXOW FKLOGUHQ )XUWKHU WKH\ PD\ EH OHVV FRPIRUWDEOH ZRUNLQJ ZLWK WKHVH FKLOGUHQ LQ RWKHU ZRUGV WHDFKLQJ FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV PD\ IDOO RXWVLGH WKHVH WHDFKHUVn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n UDWLQJV ZHUH EDVHG RQ GHVFULSWLRQV RI K\SRWKHWLFDO FKLOGUHQ UDWKHU WKDQ DFWXDO FKLOGUHQ $OWKRXJK WKLV JLYHV UHVHDUFKHUV DQG SUDFWLWLRQHUV DQ LQVLJKW LQWR WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV WKH XVH RI K\SRWKHWLFDO VFHQDULRV LV DQ DUWLILFLDO PHDVXUH RI WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO

PAGE 106

DGMXVWPHQW DQG VFKRRO VXFFHVV )XUWKHU JHQHUDOL]DWLRQ RI UHVHDUFK ILQGLQJV LV OLPLWHG EDVHG RQ WKH GHVFULSWLRQV LQ WKH FKLOG YLJQHWWHV HJ ER\V ZKR DUH VORZ OHDUQHUVf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n SHUFHSWLRQV RI NLQGHUJDUWHQ FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG VXFFHVV $GGLWLRQDO H[SORUDWLRQ RI WKHVH UHODWLRQVKLSV VKRXOG EH FRQGXFWHG WR SURYLGH IXUWKHU VXSSRUW IRU WKHVH UHODWLRQVKLSV 5HVHDUFK LQYHVWLJDWLQJ WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI DFWXDO VWXGHQWV LQ WKHLU FODVVHV DOVR PD\ HQKDQFH WKH FXUUHQW ILQGLQJV

PAGE 107

$Q DGGLWLRQDO LPSOLFDWLRQ IRU IXWXUH UHVHDUFK LQFOXGHV ORRNLQJ DW WKH LQGLYLGXDO DGXOW WHPSHUDPHQW DWWLWXGHV DQG IXQFWLRQV HJ VHQVLQJMXGJLQJ YV LQWXLWLYHSHUFHLYLQJ SUHIHUHQFHVf UDWKHU WKDQ XVLQJ MXVW WKH WHDFKHU W\SH DQG QRQWHDFKHU W\SH 7KLV ZRXOG SURYLGH PRUH LQGHSWK LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WKH LQIOXHQFH RI WHPSHUDPHQW RQ WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG VXFFHVV )LQDOO\ WKH FXUUHQW UHVHDUFK GHVLJQ FRXOG EH DGMXVWHG WR V\VWHPDWLFDOO\ H[DPLQH YDULDEOHV KHOG FRQVWDQW LQ WKLV VWXG\ &KDUDFWHULVWLFV YDULHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ HJ GHYHORSPHQWDO PDWXULW\f ZHUH IRXQG WR KDYH VXFK D UREXVW HIIHFW RQ WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV WKDW WKH\ FRXOG EH KHOG FRQVWDQW LQ IXWXUH VWXGLHV )RU H[DPSOH WKH K\SRWKHWLFDO FKLOGUHQ FRXOG EH JLUOV RU WKH\ FRXOG KDYH DYHUDJH LQWHOOHFWXDO DELOLW\ 7KLV ZRXOG SURYLGH D EURDGHU SHUVSHFWLYH RQ WKH LQIOXHQFH RI WHPSHUDPHQW RQ WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW DQG VXFFHVV

PAGE 108

$33(1',; $ 35,1&,3$/ ,19,7$7,21 /(77(5

PAGE 109

5(6($5&+ 678'< 35,1&,3$/ ,19,7$7,21 /(77(5 'HDU (OHPHQWDU\ 6FKRRO 3ULQFLSDO 0\ QDPH LV $OLFLD 6FRWW DQG DP D GRFWRUDO FDQGLGDWH LQ VFKRRO SV\FKRORJ\ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD DQG D VFKRRO SV\FKRORJLVW IRU WKH 'XYDO &RXQW\ 3XEOLF 6FKRROV $V D SDUW RI P\ JUDGXDWH UHVHDUFK ZRXOG OLNH WR LQYLWH \RXU NLQGHUJDUWHQ WHDFKHUV WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ D UHVHDUFK VWXG\ WKDW LV EHLQJ FRQGXFWHG WR H[SORUH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ NLQGHUJDUWHQ FKLOGUHQ DQG WHDFKHUVn WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG WHDFKHUVn LPSUHVVLRQV RI FKLOGUHQn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f DQG WKH WHDFKLQJ HQYLURQPHQW IRU H[DPSOH QXPEHU RI VWXGHQWV LQ \RXU FODVVf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n SDUWLFLSDWLRQ WKH\ ZLOO HDFK UHFHLYH D ZULWWHQ UHSRUW GHVFULELQJ WKHLU WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DP DOVR RIIHULQJ WR VKDUH D FRS\ RI WKH UHVHDUFK UHVXOWV ZKHQ WKH VWXG\ LV FRPSOHWHG 7KLV VXPPDU\ ZLOO EH DYDLODEOH WR \RX DQG \RXU WHDFKHUV XSRQ UHTXHVWf KDYH HQFORVHG FRQVHQW IRUPV IRU \RXU NLQGHUJDUWHQ WHDFKHUV ,I \RX JLYH \RXU SHUPLVVLRQ IRU PH WR FROOHFW GDWD IURP \RXU WHDFKHUV SOHDVH GLVWULEXWH WKH FRQVHQW IRUPV WR WKHP ,I \RX KDYH DQ\ TXHVWLRQV SOHDVH GR QRW KHVLWDWH WR FRQWDFW PH DW H[W RU 'U 6PLWK DW 4XHVWLRQV RU FRQFHUQV DERXW UHVHDUFK SDUWLFLSDQWVn ULJKWV PD\ EH GLUHFWHG WR WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 5HYLHZ %RDUG 8),5%f RIILFH DW 32 %R[ *DLQHVYLOOH )/ RU 7KDQN \RX LQ DGYDQFH IRU \RXU VXSSRUW 6LQFHUHO\ 2[FXRL + $OLFLD 0 6FRWW 0$( XQLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 5HYLHZ %RDUG ,55 3URWRFRO r"BU!Q m$ )RU 8VH 7KURXJK t> IDM>

PAGE 110

$33(1',; % 5(6($5&+ 678'< &216(17 )250

PAGE 111

5(6($5&+ 678'< &216(17 )250 'HDU 7HDFKHU 0\ QDPH LV $OLFLD 6FRWW DQG DP D GRFWRUDO FDQGLGDWH LQ VFKRRO SV\FKRORJ\ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD $V D SDUW RI P\ JUDGXDWH UHVHDUFK ZRXOG OLNH WR LQYLWH \RX WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ D UHVHDUFK VWXG\ WKDW LV EHLQJ FRQGXFWHG WR H[SORUH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ NLQGHUJDUWHQ FKLOGUHQ DQG WHDFKHUVn WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG WHDFKHUVn LPSUHVVLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV DGMXVWPHQW WR VFKRRO
PAGE 112

$33(1',; & &+,/' 9,*1(77(6 $1' 6&+22/ $'-8670(17 $1' 68&&(66 48(67,211$,5(

PAGE 113

5HVHDUFK 9LJQHWWHV $VVXPH \RX DUH D .LQGHUJDUWHQ WHDFKHU LQ D PHGLXPVL]HG VFKRRO GLVWULFW 7KH VFKRRO LV ORFDWHG LQ D ORZHUPLGGOH FODVV QHLJKERUKRRG DQG KDV DSSUR[LPDWHO\ VWXGHQWV LQ .LQGHUJDUWHQ WKURXJK JUDGH ILYH
PAGE 114

'DYLG 'DYLG WXUQHG \HDUV ROG LQ ODWH 1RYHPEHU +H KDV JRRG ILQH DQG JURVV PRWRU VNLOOV DQG ZHOOGHYHORSHG ODQJXDJH VNLOOV 'DYLG JHWV DORQJ ZHOO ZLWK RWKHU FKLOGUHQ WKH WHDFKHU DQG WKH WHDFKHUnV DLGH :KHQ FKDOOHQJHG E\ DQ DGXOW RU FRQIURQWHG E\ D FKLOG KH TXLFNO\ EDFNV GRZQ LQ RUGHU WR DYRLG FRQIURQWDWLRQV +RZHYHU 'DYLG LV QRW SDVVLYH +H OLNHV WR PDNH GHFLVLRQV DQG W\SLFDOO\ KDV D FOHDU LGHD DERXW ZKDW FHQWHU KHnOO FKRRVH ILUVW $ KDUG ZRUNHU 'DYLG LV DEOH WR LJQRUH FODVVURRP GLVWUDFWLRQV DQG XVXDOO\ DSSURDFKHV DVVLJQPHQWV LQ D VWHSE\VWHS PDQQHU $ SDUHQW GURSV KLP RII LQ WKH PRUQLQJ DQG SLFNV KLP XS LQ WKH DIWHUQRRQ %RWK SDUHQWV FRPPXQLFDWH UHJXODUO\ ZLWK \RX DERXW 'DYLGnV SURJUHVV 5HPHPEHULQJ WKH DWWULEXWHV FRPPRQ WR DOO WKH FKLOGUHQ LH &DXFDVLDQ PDOH KHDOWK\ +HDG 6WDUW JUDGXDWH VORZ OHDUQHUf DQG WKDW LW LV WKH HQG RI WKH WKLUG ZHHN JUDGLQJ SHULRG SOHDVH UHIOHFW RQ WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK HDFK RI WKH IROORZLQJ VWDWHPHQWV ZRXOG EH FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI WKH FKLOG GHVFULEHG DERYH 8VLQJ WKH VFDOH EHORZ FLUFOH WKH DSSURSULDWH QXPEHU IRU HDFK LWHP 'HILQLWHO\ :RXOG :RXOGQf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

PAGE 115

0DWWKHZ 0DWWKHZ FHOHEUDWHG KLV WK ELUWKGD\ DW WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI 1RYHPEHU +H ZDV WRLOHW WUDLQHG DW DJH f DQG ZDONHG DW DJH PRQWKV 0DWWKHZ KDV D ORW RI HQHUJ\ DQG KDV D KDUG WLPH UHPDLQLQJ LQ KLV VHDW ,I KH VLWV DW DOO KH VTXLUPV EXW KH RIWHQ VLPSO\ JHWV XS DQG PRYHV DURXQG WKH FODVVURRP :KHQ KH LV KDSS\ 0DWWKHZ LV HQWKXVLDVWLF DQG FKDUPLQJ +RZHYHU KH EHFRPHV H[WUHPHO\ XSVHW ZKHQ GLVDSSRLQWHG DERXW VRPHWKLQJ RU \RX FRUUHFW KLV PLVWDNHV +H KDV KDG VHYHUDO WHPSHU WDQWUXPV WKLV \HDU 2Q PRVW WDVNV KH WHQGV WR ZRUN LQ EXUVWV SHULRGV RI LQWHQVH HIIRUW ZLWK VORZ SHULRGV LQ EHWZHHQ 0DWWKHZnV SDUHQWV DUH YHU\ VXSSRUWLYH DQG FRQFHUQHG DERXW KLV DFDGHPLF SURJUHVV 7KH\ DUH WKH ILUVW WR VLJQ XS ZKHQ \RX DVN IRU YROXQWHHUV IRU FODVV SDUWLHV RU SHUIRUPDQFHV 5HPHPEHULQJ WKH DWWULEXWHV FRPPRQ WR DOO WKH FKLOGUHQ LH &DXFDVLDQ PDOH KHDOWK\ +HDG 6WDUW JUDGXDWH VORZ OHDUQHUf DQG WKDW LW LV WKH HQG RI WKH WKLUG ZHHN JUDGLQJ SHULRG SOHDVH UHIOHFW RQ WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK HDFK RI WKH IROORZLQJ VWDWHPHQWV ZRXOG EH FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI WKH FKLOG GHVFULEHG DERYH 8VLQJ WKH VFDOH EHORZ FLUFOH WKH DSSURSULDWH QXPEHU IRU HDFK LWHP 'HILQLWHO\ :RXOG :RXOGQf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

PAGE 116

*DU\ *DU\ WXUQHG ILYH LQ ODWH -XQH $OWKRXJK KLV VSHHFK LV PRVWO\ LQWHOOLJLEOH KLV V\QWD[ DQG JUDPPDU DUH RIWHQ LQFRUUHFW IRU H[DPSOH KH VD\V WKLQJV OLNH KDG PH D GRJ EXW KHU GLHGf *DU\nV ILQH PRWRU VNLOOV DUH LPPDWXUH IRU H[DPSOH KH KDV WURXEOH FXWWLQJ ZLWK VFLVVRUV DQG VHHPV FOXPV\ ZKHQ SOD\LQJ ZLWK EORFNVf *DU\ VHHPV FRPIRUWDEOH ZLWK FODVV URXWLQHV +H ZRUNV KDUG DQG OLNHV WR FRPSOHWH KLV ZRUN RQ WLPH *DU\ LV FDUHIXO DQG XVXDOO\ WKLQNV EHIRUH KH DFWV +H LV FRQFHUQHG DERXW JHWWLQJ DORQJ ZLWK RWKHUV DQG KDV VHYHUDO IULHQGV LQ WKH FODVV *DU\nV SDUHQWV DUH DOVR KDUG ZRUNLQJ $OWKRXJK WKH\ ERWK KDYH MREV DQG FDQnW JHW RII ZRUN IRU FRQIHUHQFHV RU ILHOG WULSV WKH\ ZRUN ZLWK KLP UHJXODUO\ WR UHLQIRUFH ZKDW \RX DUH WHDFKLQJ 5HPHPEHULQJ WKH DWWULEXWHV FRPPRQ WR DOO WKH FKLOGUHQ LH &DXFDVLDQ PDOH KHDOWK\ +HDG 6WDUW JUDGXDWH VORZ OHDUQHUf DQG WKDW LW LV WKH HQG RI WKH WKLUG ZHHN JUDGLQJ SHULRG SOHDVH UHIOHFW RQ WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK HDFK RI WKH IROORZLQJ VWDWHPHQWV ZRXOG EH FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI WKH FKLOG GHVFULEHG DERYH 8VLQJ WKH VFDOH EHORZ FLUFOH WKH DSSURSULDWH QXPEHU IRU HDFK LWHP 'HILQLWHO\ :RXOG :RXOGQf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

PAGE 117

-RKQ -RKQ FHOHEUDWHG KLV WK ELUWKGD\ LQ PLG-XO\ +LV JURVV PRWRU VNLOOV DUH QRW ZHOO GHYHORSHG DQG KH LV FOXPV\ -RKQnV ILQH PRWRU VNLOOV DUH HYHQ OHVV GHYHORSHG +H KROGV WKH SHQFLO KDOIZD\ XS DQG VWLOO FDQnW ZULWH KLV QDPH GHVSLWH WKH IDFW WKDW \RXnYH VSHQW D ORW RI WLPH RQ LW -RKQ WDONV WR KLV SHHUV QR PDWWHU ZKHUH KH LV VHDWHG 2WKHU VWXGHQWV WU\ WR LJQRUH KLP DQG FRPSODLQ ZKHQ \RX DVVLJQ KLP WR WKHLU WDEOHV -RKQ QHYHU FRPSOHWHV DVVLJQPHQWV RQ WLPH DQG KDV GLIILFXOW\ VWLFNLQJ WR WKH FODVV URXWLQH +H LV RYHUO\ FXULRXV DQG DOZD\V ZDQWV WR NQRZ ZK\ HYHQ DERXW WKH PRVW EDVLF RI FODVVURRP UXOHV -RKQnV SDUHQWV VKDUH \RXU FRQFHUQV DQG IUHTXHQWO\ FKHFN LQ ZLWK \RX WR VHH KRZ KH LV SURJUHVVLQJ 7KH\ UHDG ZLWK KLP HYHU\ QLJKW 5HPHPEHULQJ WKH DWWULEXWHV FRPPRQ WR DOO WKH FKLOGUHQ LH &DXFDVLDQ PDOH KHDOWK\ +HDG 6WDUW JUDGXDWH VORZ OHDUQHUf DQG WKDW LW LV WKH HQG RI WKH WKLUG ZHHN JUDGLQJ SHULRG SOHDVH UHIOHFW RQ WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK HDFK RI WKH IROORZLQJ VWDWHPHQWV ZRXOG EH FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI WKH FKLOG GHVFULEHG DERYH 8VLQJ WKH VFDOH EHORZ FLUFOH WKH DSSURSULDWH QXPEHU IRU HDFK LWHP 'HILQLWHO\ :RXOG :RXOGQf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

PAGE 118

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nW KDYH WLPH WR GLVFXVV LW 5HPHPEHULQJ WKH DWWULEXWHV FRPPRQ WR DOO WKH FKLOGUHQ LH &DXFDVLDQ PDOH KHDOWK\ +HDG 6WDUW JUDGXDWH VORZ OHDUQHUf DQG WKDW LW LV WKH HQG RI WKH WKLUG ZHHN JUDGLQJ SHULRG SOHDVH UHIOHFW RQ WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK HDFK RI WKH IROORZLQJ VWDWHPHQWV ZRXOG EH FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI WKH FKLOG GHVFULEHG DERYH 8VLQJ WKH VFDOH EHORZ FLUFOH WKH DSSURSULDWH QXPEHU IRU HDFK LWHP 'HILQLWHO\ :RXOG :RXOGQfW 1HXWUDO :RXOG $SSO\ 'HILQLWHO\ 1RW $SSO\ 5HDOO\ $SSO\ 1RW 6XUH 6RPHZKDW :RXOG $SSO\ /LNHV WR FRPH WR VFKRRO ,V VHOIGLUHFWHG ,V VORZ WR ZDUP XS WR WHDFKHU ,V LQWHUHVWHG LQ FODVVURRP DFWLYLWLHV 1HHGV FRQVWDQW VXSHUYLVLRQ 3DUWLFLSDWHV ZLOOLQJO\ LQ FODVVURRP DFWLYLWLHV ,V FKHHUIXO DW VFKRRO 1HHGV D ORW RI KHOS DQG JXLGDQFH ,V HDV\ WR PDQDJH 6HHNV FKDOOHQJHV +DV IXQ DW VFKRRO +DV GLVFLSOLQH SUREOHPV $SSURDFKHV QHZ DFWLYLWLHV ZLWK HQWKXVLDVP &RPSODLQV DERXW VFKRRO 0DNHV WUDQVLWLRQ IURP RQH DFWLYLW\ WR DQRWKHU HDVLO\ ,V D FDQGLGDWH IRU UHWHQWLRQ 6KRXOG EH UHIHUUHG IRU VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ VHUYLFHV :LOO PDNH D VXFFHVVIXO WUDQVLWLRQ WR ILUVW JUDGH

PAGE 119

5D\PRQG 5D\PRQG WXUQHG LQ PLG1RYHPEHU $YHUDJH WR VOLJKWO\ DERYH DYHUDJH LQ KHLJKW KH LV ZHOOFRRUGLQDWHG DQG UHDFKHG DOO KLV PLOHVWRQHV EHIRUH RU ZLWKLQ WKH QRUPDO WLPH IUDPH 5D\PRQG HQMR\V LQWHUDFWLQJ ZLWK KLV SHHUV DQG SUHIHUV WR ZRUN RQ D SURMHFW ZLWK RWKHUV WKDQ E\ KLPVHOI +H QHHGV D ORW RI DWWHQWLRQ DQG VRPHWLPHV VHHPV WR SUHIHU QHJDWLYH DWWHQWLRQ WR EHLQJ LJQRUHG 5D\PRQG JHWV ERUHG HDVLO\ DQG RIWHQ KDV GLIILFXOW\ FRPSOHWLQJ ZRUN +H LV WKH PRVW IUHTXHQW FODVV WDWWOHWHOOHU +LV SDUHQWV GRQnW VHQG 5D\PRQG WR VFKRRO ZLWK DSSURSULDWH PDWHULDOV DQG DUH GLIILFXOW WR UHDFK E\ WHOHSKRQH :KHQ \RX WHOHSKRQH WKHP \RX XVXDOO\ JHW WKH DQVZHULQJ PDFKLQH DQG WKH\ GRQnW UHWXUQ \RXU FDOOV 5HPHPEHULQJ WKH DWWULEXWHV FRPPRQ WR DOO WKH FKLOGUHQ LH &DXFDVLDQ PDOH KHDOWK\ +HDG 6WDUW JUDGXDWH VORZ OHDUQHUf DQG WKDW LW LV WKH HQG RI WKH WKLUG ZHHN JUDGLQJ SHULRG SOHDVH UHIOHFW RQ WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK HDFK RI WKH IROORZLQJ VWDWHPHQWV ZRXOG EH FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI WKH FKLOG GHVFULEHG DERYH 8VLQJ WKH VFDOH EHORZ FLUFOH WKH DSSURSULDWH QXPEHU IRU HDFK LWHP 'HILQLWHO\ :RXOG :RXOGQf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

PAGE 120

-DPHV -DPHV KDG KLV WK ELUWKGD\ DW WKH HQG RI -XQH +H ZDV WRLOHW WUDLQHG D IHZ PRQWKV DIWHU KLV UG ELUWKGD\ DQG E\ SDUHQW UHSRUW VWLOO KDV EHG ZHWWLQJ DFFLGHQWV DW QLJKW +H LV VPDOO LQ VL]H FRPSDUHG WR WKH RWKHU FKLOGUHQ DQG LVQnW DV JRRG DW JDPHV WKDW UHTXLUH JURVV PRWRU FRRUGLQDWLRQ OLNH NLFNEDOO RU WEDOOf DV KLV SHHUV -DPHV RIWHQ DFWV VLOO\ DQG LV FRQVLGHUHG VRFLDOO\ LPPDWXUH -DPHV ORYHV WR OHDUQ DQG LV H[FLWHG ZKHQHYHU \RX VWDUW D QHZ XQLW +H LV D JRRG OLVWHQHU WDNHV GLUHFWLRQV HDVLO\ DQG OLNHV WR NQRZ ZKDW LV H[SHFWHG RI KLP -DPHV LV YHU\ V\PSDWKHWLF WRZDUG KLV SHHUV LV ZHOOOLNHG DQG KDV WZR FORVH FODVVURRP IULHQGV +LV SDUHQWV KDYH PLVVHG WKH ODVW WKUHH FRQIHUHQFHV \RX VFKHGXOHG ZLWK WKHP RYHU D WKUHHPRQWK SHULRGf DQG XVXDOO\ GRQnW VLJQ DQG UHWXUQ SURJUHVV UHSRUWV RU UHSRUW FDUGV -DPHVn GHVFULSWLRQV RI ZKDW KH GRHV DW KRPH QHYHU LQFOXGH VFKRROUHODWHG DFWLYLWLHV OLNH UHDGLQJ RU GUDZLQJ 5HPHPEHULQJ WKH DWWULEXWHV FRPPRQ WR DOO WKH FKLOGUHQ LH &DXFDVLDQ PDOH KHDOWK\ +HDG 6WDUW JUDGXDWH VORZ OHDUQHUf DQG WKDW LW LV WKH HQG RI WKH WKLUG ZHHN JUDGLQJ SHULRG SOHDVH UHIOHFW RQ WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK HDFK RI WKH IROORZLQJ VWDWHPHQWV ZRXOG EH FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI WKH FKLOG GHVFULEHG DERYH 8VLQJ WKH VFDOH EHORZ FLUFOH WKH DSSURSULDWH QXPEHU IRU HDFK LWHP 'HILQLWHO\ :RXOG :RXOGQf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

PAGE 121

0DUN 0DUN FHOHEUDWHG KLV WK ELUWKGD\ LQ ODWH -XO\ +H FULHV HDVLO\ DQG KDV WROG \RX WKDW KH VWLOO ZHWV WKH EHG RQ RFFDVLRQ 0DUNnV ODQJXDJH LV QRW ZHOO GHYHORSHG IRU H[DPSOH KH GRHVQnW XVH LUUHJXODU SDVW WHQVH YHUEV FRUUHFWO\ KH VD\V JRHG WR WKH FDIHWHULD DQG HDWHG SL]]D IRU GLQQHUf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
PAGE 122

$33(1',; 3,/27 678'< &216(17 )250

PAGE 123

3,/27 678'< &216(17 )250 'HDU 7HDFKHU 0\ QDPH LV $OLFLD 6FRWW DQG DP D GRFWRUDO FDQGLGDWH LQ VFKRRO SV\FKRORJ\ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD $V D SDUW RI P\ JUDGXDWH UHVHDUFK ZRXOG OLNH WR LQYLWH \RX WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH SUHOLPLQDU\ SRUWLRQ RI D UHVHDUFK VWXG\ WKDW LV EHLQJ FRQGXFWHG WR H[SORUH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ NLQGHUJDUWHQ FKLOGUHQnV DQG WHDFKHUVn WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG WHDFKHUVn LPSUHVVLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV DGMXVWPHQW WR VFKRRO
PAGE 124

$33(1',; ( 5(/,$%,/,7< 678'< &216(17 )250

PAGE 125

5(/,$%,/,7< 678'< &216(17 )250 'HDU 3UHVHUYLFH 7HDFKHU 0\ QDPH LV $OLFLD 6FRWW DQG DP D GRFWRUDO FDQGLGDWH LQ VFKRRO SV\FKRORJ\ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD $V D SDUW RI P\ JUDGXDWH UHVHDUFK ZRXOG OLNH WR LQYLWH \RX WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH SUHOLPLQDU\ SRUWLRQ RI D UHVHDUFK VWXG\ WKDW LV EHLQJ FRQGXFWHG WR H[SORUH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ NLQGHUJDUWHQ FKLOGUHQnV DQG WHDFKHUVn WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG WHDFKHUVn LPSUHVVLRQV RI FKLOGUHQnV DGMXVWPHQW WR VFKRRO
PAGE 126

$33(1',; ) 7($&+(5 ,1)250$7,21 6859(<

PAGE 127

7HDFKHU ,QIRUPDWLRQ 6XUYH\ :KDW LV \RXU PRVW DGYDQFHG HGXFDWLRQDO GHJUHH" FKHFN RQH DQG VSHFLI\ GHJUHH W\SHf %DFKHORUnV LQ 0DVWHUnV LQ 6SHFLDOLVW LQ 'RFWRUDO LQ :KDW W\SH RI FHUWLILFDWLRQ GR \RX KDYH" FKHFN DOO WKDW DSSO\f (OHPHQWDU\ FHUWLILFDWLRQ RQO\ (OHPHQWDU\ FHUWLILFDWLRQ ZLWK DQ HDUO\ FKLOGKRRG HQGRUVHPHQW %LUWK WR DJH IRXU FHUWLILFDWLRQ $JH WKUHH WR JUDGH WKUHH FHUWLILFDWLRQ 3UH. KDQGLFDSSHG HQGRUVHPHQW 2WKHU SOHDVH VSHFLI\f :KDW LV \RXU JHQGHU" FKHFN RQHf )HPDOH 0DOH :KDW LV \RXU HWKQLFLW\" FKHFN RQHf 1RQ+LVSDQLF :KLWH $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ +LVSDQLF $VLDQ 0XOWLUDFLDO 2WKHU SOHDVH VSHFLI\f :KDW LV \RXU DJH" +RZ PDQ\ \HDUV RI WHDFKLQJ H[SHULHQFH GR \RX KDYH" +RZ PDQ\ \HDUV RI H[SHULHQFH WHDFKLQJ NLQGHUJDUWHQ GR \RX KDYH"

PAGE 128

+RZ PDQ\ FKLOGUHQ DUH LQ \RXU FODVV" *HQHUDOO\ VSHDNLQJ KRZ ZRXOG \RX GHVFULEH \RXU VWXGHQWVn VRFLRHFRQRPLF EDFNJURXQGV" /RZ /RZ0LGGOH 0LGGOH 0LGGOH+LJK +LJK 'XULQJ WKH VFKRRO \HDU KRZ PDQ\ FKLOGUHQ GLG \RX UHIHU IRU UHWHQWLRQ" 'XULQJ WKH VFKRRO \HDU KRZ PDQ\ FKLOGUHQ GLG \RX UHIHU IRU VFUHHQLQJ E\ WKH &KLOG 6WXG\ 7HDP" +DYH \RX HYHU WDNHQ WKH 0\HUV%ULJJV 7\SH ,QGLFDWRU EHIRUH" ,I \RX NQRZ ZKDW LV \RXU OHWWHU W\SH"

PAGE 129

5()(5(1&(6 $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK $VVRFLDWLRQ $PHULFDQ 3V\FKRORJLFDO $VVRFLDWLRQ 1DWLRQDO &RXQ FLO RQ 0HDVXUHPHQW LQ (GXFDWLRQ f 6WDQGDUGV IRU HGXFDWLRQDO DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO WHVWLQJ :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ 3V\FKRORJLFDO $VVRFLDWLRQ %DWHV ( f 7KH FRQFHSW RI GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW 0HUULOO 3DOPHU 4XDUWHUO\ %LUFK 6 + t /DGG : f 7KH WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLS DQG FKLOGUHQnV HDUO\ VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW 7RXPDO RI 6FKRRO 3V\FKRORJ\ %ORRP 3 f /RRNLQJ LQVLGH +HOSLQJ WHDFKHUV DVVHVV WKHLU EHOLHIV DQG YDOXHV &KLOG &DUH ,QIRUPDWLRQ ([FKDQJH %ULJJV & t 0\HUV % f 0\HUV%ULJJV 7\SH ,QGLFDWRU )RUP 0f 3DOR $OWR &$ &RQVXOWLQJ 3V\FKRORJLVWV 3UHVV %XFKPDQQ 0 f 7HDFKLQJ NQRZOHGJH 7KH OLJKWV WKDW WHDFKHUV OLYH E\ 2[IRUG 5HYLHZ RI (GXFDWLRQ %X\VVH 9 :HVOH\ 3 .H\HV / t %DLOH\ % f $VVHVVLQJ WKH FRPIRUW ]RQH RI FKLOG FDUH WHDFKHUV LQ VHUYLQJ \RXQJ FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLVDELOLWLHV 7RXPDO RI (DUO\ ,QWHUYHQWLRQ &DUH\ : % f 7KH LPSRUWDQFH RI WHPSHUDPHQWHQYLURQPHQW LQWHUDFWLRQ IRU FKLOG KHDOWK DQG GHYHORSPHQW ,Q 0 /HZLV t / $ 5RVHQEOXP (GVf 7KH XQFRPPRQ FKLOG SS f 1HZ
PAGE 130

&DUH\ : % t 0F'HYLWW 6 & f &RSLQJ ZLWK FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW $ JXLGH IRU SURIHVVLRQDOV 1HZ 2QOLQH@ $YDLODEOH KWWS ZZZIFODXIOHGXFJLELQFJLZUDSaORXLVU FJLGV1 &DVSL $ t 6LOYD 3 $ f 7HPSHUDPHQWDO TXDOLWLHV DW DJH WKUHH SUHGLFW SHUVRQDOLW\ WUDLWV LQ \RXQJ DGXOWKRRG /RQJLWXGLQDO HYLGHQFH IURP D ELUWK FRKRUW &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW &KHVV 6 t 7KRPDV $ f 7HPSHUDPHQW LQ FOLQLFDO SUDFWLFH 1HZ
PAGE 131

+DPUH % t 3LDQWD 5 & f (DUO\ WHDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG WKH WUDMHFWRU\ RI FKLOGUHQnV VFKRRO RXWFRPHV WKURXJK HLJKWK JUDGH &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW +HQGHUVRQ + $ t )R[ 1 $ f ,QKLELWHG DQG XQLQKLELWHG FKLOGUHQ &KDOOHQJHV LQ VFKRRO VHWWLQJV 6FKRRO 3V\FKRORJ\ 5HYLHZ ,VHQEHUJ 3 f 7HDFKHUVn WKLQNLQJ DQG EHOLHIV DQG FODVVURRP SUDFWLFHV &KLOGKRRG (GXFDWLRQ -XQJ & f 3V\FKRORJLFDO W\SHV 5 ) & +XOO 5HYLVLRQ RI 7UDQV E\ + %D\QHVf 3ULQFHWRQ 13ULQFHWRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV 2ULJLQDO ZRUN SXEOLVKHG f -XQJnV 7KHRU\ RI 3V\FKRORJLFDO 7\SHV DQG WKH 0%7,p ,QVWUXPHQW f 5HWULHYHG 1RYHPEHU IURP KWWSZZZPEWLRUJ7KHB0%7,B,QVWUXPHQW2YHUYLHZFIP .HDQ f 7HDFKHU HWKQRWKHRULHV DQG FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW ,PSDFW RQ FODVVURRP WKHRULHV $XVWUDOLDQ -RXUQDO RI (DUO\ &KLOGKRRG .HRJK % f 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG VFKRROLQJ 0HDQLQJ RI *RRGQHVV RI )LW" ,Q /HPHU 9 t /HPHU 5 0 (GVf 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG VRFLDO LQWHUDFWLRQ LQ LQIDQWV DQG FKLOGUHQ 1HZ GLUHFWLRQV IRU &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW QR SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV ,QF .HRJK % f $SSO\LQJ WHPSHUDPHQW UHVHDUFK WR VFKRRO ,Q .RKQVWDPP $ %DWHV ( t 5RWKEDUW 0 (GVf 7HPSHUDPHQW LQ FKLOGKRRG SS f &KLFKHVWHU 8. :LOH\ .HRJK % f 7HPSHUDPHQW LQ WKH FODVVURRP 8QGHUVWDQGLQJ LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV %DOWLPRUH 0' 3DXO + %URRNV 3XEOLVKLQJ .HRJK % t %XPVWHLQ 1 f 5HODWLRQVKLS RI WHPSHUDPHQW WR SUHVFKRROHUVn LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK SHHUV DQG WHDFKHUV ([FHSWLRQDO &KLOGUHQ f

PAGE 132

.RUQEODX % f 7KH WHDFKDEOH SXSLO VXUYH\ $ WHFKQLTXH IRU DVVHVVLQJ WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI SXSLO DWWULEXWHV 3V\FKRORJ\ LQ WKH 6FKRROV A f /DGG : f +DYLQJ IULHQGV NHHSLQJ IULHQGV PDNLQJ IULHQGV DQG EHLQJ OLNHG E\ SHHUV LQ WKH FODVVURRP 3UHGLFWRUV RI FKLOGUHQnV HDUO\ VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW" &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW /DGG : t 3ULFH 0 f 3UHGLFWLQJ FKLOGUHQnV VRFLDO DQG VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW IROORZLQJ WKH WUDQVLWLRQ IURP SUHVFKRRO WR NLQGHUJDUWHQ &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW /HKUHU f 7KHRU\ RI NQRZOHGJH %RXOGHU &2 :HVWYLHZ 3UHVV /RUWLH & f 6FKRRO WHDFKHU $ VRFLRORJLFDO VWXG\ &KLFDJR 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &KLFDJR 3UHVV 0DFGDLG 3 0F&DXOOH\ 0 + t .DLQ] 5 f 0YHUV%ULJJV 7\SH ,QGLFDWRU DWODV RI W\SH WDEOHV VW HGf *DLQHVYLOOH )/ &HQWHU IRU $SSOLFDWLRQV RI 3V\FKRORJLFDO 7\SH ,QF 0DUWLQ 5 3 f $FWLYLW\ OHYHO GLVWUDFWLELOLW\ DQG SHUVLVWHQFH &ULWLFDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV LQ HDUO\ VFKRROLQJ ,Q $ .RKQVWDPP ( %DWHV t 0 5RWKEDUW (GVf 7HPSHUDPHQW LQ FKLOGKRRG SS f &KLFKHVWHU 8. :LOH\ 0DUWLQ 5 3 f &KLOG WHPSHUDPHQW DQG FRPPRQ SUREOHPV LQ VFKRROLQJ +\SRWKHVHV DERXW FDXVDO FRUUHODWLRQV 7RXPDO RI 6FKRRO 3V\FKRORJ\ 0DUWLQ 5 3 t *DGGLV / f 3RWHQWLDO LQGLUHFW JHQHWLF HIIHFWV RQ OHDUQLQJ $ ORQJLWXGLQDO VWXG\ RI WHPSHUDPHQW HIIHFWV RQ DFKLHYHPHQW LQ HOHPHQWDU\ VFKRRO (DVW /DQVLQJ 0, 1DWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU 5HVHDUFK RQ 7HDFKHU /HDUQLQJ (5,& 'RFXPHQW 5HSURGXFWLRQ 6HUYLFH 1R (' f 0DUWLQ 5 3 t +ROEURRN f 5HODWLRQVKLS RI WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WR WKH DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW RI ILUVWJUDGH FKLOGUHQ 7RXPDO RI 3V\FKRHGXFDWLRQDO $VVHVVPHQW

PAGE 133

0D[ZHOO / t (OOHU 6 f &KLOGUHQnV WUDQVLWLRQ WR NLQGHUJDUWHQ
PAGE 134

3LDQWD 5 & f 6WXGHQW7HDFKHU 5HODWLRQVKLS 6FDOH &KDUORWWHVYLOOH 9$ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 9LUJLQLD 3LDQWD 5 & f 3DWWHUQV RI UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ FKLOGUHQ DQG NLQGHUJDUWHQ FKLOGUHQ -RXUQDO RI 6FKRRO 3V\FKRORJ\ 3LDQWD 5 & t 1LPHWD 6 f 5HODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ FKLOGUHQ DQG WHDFKHUV $VVRFLDWLRQV ZLWK EHKDYLRU DW KRPH DQG LQ WKH FODVVURRP 7RXPDO RI $SSOLHG 'HYHORSPHQWDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 3LDQWD 5 & t 6WHLQEHUJ 0 f 7HDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG WKH SURFHVV RI DGMXVWLQJ WR VFKRRO ,Q 5 & 3LDQWD (Gf %H\RQG WKH SDUHQW 7KH UROH RI RWKHU DGXOWV LQ FKLOGUHQnV OLYHV SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\ %DVV 3LDQWD 5 & 6WHLQEHUJ 0 6 t 5ROOLQV % f 7KH ILUVW WZR \HDUV RI VFKRRO 7HDFKHUFKLOG UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG GHIOHFWLRQV LQ FKLOGUHQnV FODVVURRP DGMXVWPHQW 'HYHORSPHQW DQG 3V\FKRSDWKRORJ\ 3XOOLV 0 f *RRGQHVV RI ILW LQ FODVVURRP UHODWLRQVKLSV ,Q : % &DUH\ t 6 & 0F'HYLWW (GVf &OLQLFDO DQG HGXFDWLRQDO DSSOLFDWLRQV RI WHPSHUDPHQW UHVHDUFK SS f $PVWHUGDP 6ZHWV t =HLWOLQJHU 3XOOLV 0 t &DGZHOO f 7KH LQIOXHQFH RI FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RQ WHDFKHUVn GHFLVLRQ VWUDWHJLHV $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 7RXPDO 4XHQN 1 / f (VVHQWLDOV RI 0YHUV%ULJJV 7\SH ,QGLFDWRU DVVHVVPHQW 1HZ
PAGE 135

5RWKEDUW 0 t -RQHV / % f 7HPSHUDPHQW VHOIUHJXODWLRQ DQG HGXFDWLRQ 6FKRRO 3V\FKRORJ\ 5HYLHZ 5XVKHU $ 6 0F*UHYLQ & = t /DPELRWWH f %HOLHI V\VWHPV RI HDUO\ FKLOGKRRG WHDFKHUV DQG SULQFLSDOV UHJDUGLQJ HDUO\ FKLOGKRRG HGXFDWLRQ (DUO\ &KLOGKRRG 5HVHDUFK 4XDUWHUO\ 6DIW ( : t 3LDQWD 5 & f 7HDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKHLU UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK VWXGHQWV (IIHFWV RI FKLOG DJH JHQGHU DQG HWKQLFLW\ RQ WHDFKHUV DQG FKLOGUHQ 6FKRRO 3V\FKRORJ\ 4XDUWHUO\ 6DPHURII $ t )LHVH % + f 7UDQVDFWLRQDO UHJXODWLRQ DQG HDUO\ LQWHUYHQWLRQ ,Q 6 0HLVHOV t 3 6KRQNRII (GVf +DQGERRN RI HDUO\ FKLOGKRRG LQWHUYHQWLRQ SS f &DPEULGJH &DPEULGJH 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV 6DXGLQR t (DWRQ : f ,QIDQW WHPSHUDPHQW DQG JHQHWLFV $Q REMHFWLYH WZLQ VWXG\ RI PRWRU DFWLYLW\ &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW 6FDUU 6 f 7HVWLQJ IRU FKLOGUHQ $VVHVVPHQW RI WKH PDQ\ GHWHUPLQDQWV RI LQWHOOHFWXDO FRPSHWHQFH $PHULFDQ 3V\FKRORJLVW 6FKRHQ 0 t 1DJOH 5 f 3UHGLFWLRQ RI VFKRRO UHDGLQHVV IURP NLQGHUJDUWHQ WHPSHUDPHQW VFRUHV -RXUQDO RI 6FKRRO 3V\FKRORJ\ f 6NDUSQHVV / 5 t &DUVRQ f &RUUHODWHV RI NLQGHUJDUWHQ DGMXVWPHQW 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG FRPPXQLFDWLYH FRPSHWHQFH (DUO\ &KLOGKRRG 5HVHDUFK 4XDUWHUO\ 6PLWK 0 / t 6KHSDUG / $ f .LQGHUJDUWHQ UHDGLQHVV DQG UHWHQWLRQ $ TXDOLWDWLYH VWXG\ RI WHDFKHUVn EHOLHIV DQG SUDFWLFHV $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 7RXPDO 6WHOPDFN 5 0 t 6WDOLNDV $ f *DOHQ DQG WKH KXPRXU WKHRU\ RI WHPSHUDPHQW 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG ,QGLYLGXDO 'LIIHUHQFHV

PAGE 136

7HJODVL + f ,QWURGXFWLRQ WR WKH PLQLVHULHV ,PSOLFDWLRQV RI WHPSHUDPHQW IRU WKH SUDFWLFH RI VFKRRO SV\FKRORJ\ 6FKRRO 3V\FKRORJ\ 5HYLHZ 7KRPDV $ t &KHVV 6 f 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG GHYHORSPHQW 1HZ
PAGE 137

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

PAGE 138

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

PAGE 139

7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH )DFXOW\ RI WKH &ROOHJH RI (GXFDWLRQ DQG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO DQG ZDV DFFHSWHG DV SDUWLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 0D\ 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 140

*) QR c rr1


FACTORS AFFECTING GOODNESS OF FIT
IN KINDERGARTEN CLASSROOMS
By
ALICIA MICHELLE SCOTT
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2003

Copyright 2003
By
Alicia Michelle Scott

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my family (Patricia Scott, Gerald Scott, and Kristina Scott)
for their love, support, and encouragement of all my endeavors. I also would
like to thank my fiancé (Gary Geniesse) for his insight and support. In addition,
I would like to thank the school district staff and school principals in Alachua,
Citrus, Duval, and Seminole counties for supporting my research efforts. I owe
a great deal to the kindergarten teachers who graciously participated in this
study. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to the members of my
committee, Drs. Tina Smith-Bonahue, Thomas Oakland, Ann Seraphine, and
Kristen Kemple, for their guidance and support throughout this project.
m

TABLE OF CONTENTS
gage
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS in
LIST OF TABLES vii
ABSTRACT ix
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Significance of the Study 2
Purpose of the Study 4
Summary and Overview of Remaining Chapters 5
2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 6
Temperament Theory 6
Child Temperament 6
Adult Temperament 13
Summary 17
Temperament and School Adjustment Variables 18
Interpersonal Relationships 20
Academic Performance 27
Summary 29
Temperament and Teacher Beliefs 30
Goodness of Fit 37
3 METHODS 49
Participants and Settings 49
Measures 53
iv

Child Vignettes 53
Teachers' Perceptions of School Adjustment and Success 55
Teacher Temperament Type 57
Teacher Demographic Information 60
Procedure 60
Child Vignettes 60
Teachers' Perceptions of School Adjustment and Success 61
Teacher Temperament Type 62
Teacher Demographic Information 64
4 RESULTS 66
Introduction 66
Teachers' Perceptions of Children's School Adjustment 68
Teachers' Perceptions of Children's School Success 77
5 DISCUSSION 83
Introduction 83
Teachers' Perceptions of Children's School Adjustment and
Success 85
Child Temperament 85
Child Developmental Maturity 87
Parent Involvement 88
Teacher Temperament Type 89
Implications for Practice 91
Limitations of the Study 94
Implications for Future Research 95
APPENDICES
A PRINCIPAL INVITATION LETTER 98
B RESEARCH STUDY CONSENT FORM 100
C CHILD VIGNETTES AND SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT AND SUCCESS
QUESTIONNAIRE 102
v

D PILOT STUDY CONSENT FORM
112
E RELIABILITY STUDY CONSENT FORM 114
F TEACHER INFORMATION SURVEY 116
REFERENCES 118
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 126
vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Child Temperament Categories 7
2. Adult Temperament Types 15
3. Teacher-Related Demographic Information Provided by Participants on
the Teacher Information Survey 51
4. Teaching Environment Demographic Information Provided by
Participants on the Teacher Information Survey 52
5. Summary for School Adjustment Split Plot Repeated Measures ANOVA
for Within Subjects Effects 71
6. Summary for School Adjustment Slit Plot Repeated Measures ANOVA
for Between Subjects Effects 72
7. Mean Adjustment Ratings for Child Temperament by Developmental
Maturity by Teacher Temperament Interaction Effect 72
8. Paired Samples T-Tests for Adjustment Ratings for Child Temperament
by Developmental Maturity by Teacher Temperament Interaction
Effect 73
9. Mean Adjustment Ratings for Child Temperament by Developmental
Maturity by Parent Involvement Interaction Effect 75
10. Paired Samples T-Tests for Adjustment Ratings for Child Temperament
by Developmental Maturity by Parent Involvement Interaction Effect... 75
vii

11. Summary for School Success Split Plot Repeated Measures ANOVA for
Within Subjects Effects 78
12. Summary for School Success Split Plot Repeated Measures ANOVA for
Between Subjects Effects 79
13. Mean School Success Ratings for Child Temperament by Developmental
Maturity by Parent Involvement Interaction Effect 80
14. Paired Samples T-Tests for School Success Ratings for Child
Temperament by Developmental Maturity by Parent Involvement
Interaction Effect 80
Vlll

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
FACTORS AFFECTING GOODNESS OF FIT
IN KINDERGARTEN CLASSROOMS
By
Alicia Michelle Scott
May 2003
Chairperson: Tina Smith-Bonahue
Major Department: Educational Psychology
Previous research has related temperament to academic, behavioral, and
social adjustment problems in childhood. In addition, a child's academic
performance and interactions with teachers may affect the child's school
adjustment and, as a result, his or her fit with the classroom environment. The
importance of goodness of fit between children's temperament and
environmental demands is well-documented. Research suggests that when a
poor fit exists, a child is at risk for poor developmental outcomes. Although
goodness of fit is considered to have many clinical applications, its importance
IX

has not been fully explored in school settings. This study examined whether
relationships exist among teachers' perceptions of kindergarten children's
school adjustment and success and certain child- and teacher-related variables.
Eighty-eight kindergarten teachers participated in this study, which attempted
to ascertain (a) whether relationships exist among teachers' perceptions of
children's school adjustment and four explanatory variables (i.e., child
temperament, child developmental maturity, parent involvement, and teacher
temperament) and (b) whether relationships exist among teachers' perceptions
of children's school success and four explanatory variables (i.e., child
temperament, child developmental maturity, parent involvement, and teacher
temperament).
With regard to the first question, significant main effects were found for
each of the four independent variables. In addition, significant interaction
effects were found among child temperament and developmental maturity;
child temperament and parent involvement; developmental maturity and
parent involvement; child temperament, developmental maturity, and teacher
temperament; and child temperament, developmental maturity, and parent
involvement.

With regard to the second question, significant main effects were found
for child temperament and developmental maturity. In addition, significant
interaction effects were found among child temperament and developmental
maturity as well as child temperament, developmental maturity, and parent
involvement.
xi

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The modem era of temperament research with young children began in
the 1950s with the landmark New York Longitudinal Study. Thomas, Chess,
and Birch (1968) defined temperament as a person's behavioral style.
Temperament also is defined as constitutionally determined dispositional
characteristics that influence the manner in which an individual's actions are
expressed (Stelmack & Stalikas, 1991). Many researchers believe that
children's temperament affects how they respond to objective features in the
environment (e.g., Bates, 1980; Carey, 1981; Carey «Sc McDevitt, 1995; Rothbart,
Ahadi, «Sc Hershey, 1994; Thomas & Chess, 1977). Certain temperament
characteristics have been identified as risk factors for future development
(Carey temperament has been recognized as a significant contributor both to normal
and pathological development (Thomas «Sc Chess, 1989).
Temperament has been linked to academic, behavioral, and social
adjustment. In addition, a child's academic performance and interactions with
teachers may affect the child's school adjustment and, as a result, his or her fit
1

2
with the classroom environment. Goodness of fit, defined as consonance
among a child's capacities, characteristics, and style of behaving and the
expectations and demands of the child's environment, contributes to positive
developmental outcomes (Thomas «Sc Chess, 1977). Studies that examine
relationships among children's temperament and variables that may affect
goodness of fit may help researchers and practitioners understand why some
children are successful in school-related activities while others face significant
challenges.
Significance of the Study
The importance of goodness of fit between children's temperament and
environmental demands is well-documented. Based on the seminal work of
Thomas and Chess, consonance among children's abilities, characteristics, and
behavioral style and the expectations and demands of the environment is
believed to contribute to positive developmental outcomes for children.
Researchers have found that when a poor fit exists, a child is at risk for
academic, behavioral, and social adjustment difficulties (Chess & Thomas,
1986). Although goodness of fit is considered to have many clinical
applications, traditionally, researchers and theorists have addressed its
application to home environments; only recently has it begun to be explored

in school settings. To that end, the present study investigates relationships
among certain child- and teacher-related variables that may affect a child's
school adjustment and success. If variables that influence children's school
adjustment can be identified, practitioners (e.g., school psychologists,
guidance counselors, and teachers) may help children adapt their capabilities,
characteristics, and behavioral styles to better meet the expectations and
demands of the environment. Conversely, teachers may be able to learn to
adjust classroom expectations and demands to better meet the needs of
individual children. In addition, understanding how teachers' characteristics
and beliefs influence their students has implications for assisting teachers to
modify their beliefs and expectations in order to facilitate a better fit for all
students.
The factors that affect children's fit in the classroom have a number of
education-oriented implications. For example, children's kindergarten
experiences help set a tone for their school success (Birch & Ladd, 1997;
Maxwell & Eller, 1994; Skarpness & Carson, 1987). The fit between children's
characteristics and their teachers' beliefs and expectations are likely to
influence not only their initial experiences with education but their future
interactions and adjustment as well. In addition, practitioners (e.g., school

4
psychologists and guidance counselors) are in a position to consult with
teachers regarding challenging students. Therefore, an understanding of the
potential factors that contribute to a poor fit may provide implications for
teacher beliefs as well as consultation and interventions to achieve the goal of
promoting successful adjustment for children.
Purpose of the Study
This study examined teachers' judgments of children's school
adjustment and success based on child- and teacher-related variables,
including child temperament, child developmental maturity, parent
involvement, and teacher temperament type. Specifically, this study
addressed the following questions:
1. What relationships exist among teachers' perceptions of children's
school adjustment and the four explanatory variables (i.e., child
temperament, child developmental maturity, parental involvement,
and teacher temperament type)?
2. What relationships exist among teachers' perceptions of children's
school success and the four explanatory variables (i.e., child
temperament, child developmental maturity, parental involvement,
and teacher temperament type)?

5
Summary and Overview of Remaining Chapters
This study examined teachers' judgments of children's school
adjustment and success based on child- and teacher-related variables. Despite
the recognized importance of goodness of fit in clinical settings, its importance
in school settings has not been fully explored. As a result, this study
attempted to expand existing research and identify variables that may
contribute to goodness of fit in the classroom.
Chapter 2 provides a review of the relevant research in the areas of
temperament, school adjustment, academic performance, teacher beliefs, and
goodness of fit. Chapter 3 describes the research methodology and
procedures used in this study. Chapter 4 describes the results of the study.
Chapter 5 discusses how the results of the study relate to previous research,
addresses the limitations of the study, and provides implications for future
research.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Temperament Theory
Child Temperament
The seminal research on child temperament qualities of young children
was conducted by Thomas and Chess. They believe temperament "concerns
the way [authors' emphasis] in which an individual behaves" (Thomas &
Chess, 1977, p. 9), and equate it with behavioral style. Their New York
Longitudinal Study (NYLS) followed 141 children from infancy to early
childhood over a 6-year period. Based on this study, Thomas and Chess
(1977) proposed nine categories of temperament: activity level, rhythmicity,
approach or withdrawal, adaptability, threshold of responsiveness, intensity
of reaction, quality of mood, distractibility, and attention span and persistence
(see Table 1).
From these categories, Thomas and Chess (1977) defined three
temperament constellations. The easy child (approximately 40% of the NYLS
sample) is characterized by a high adaptability to change, approach to new
6

7
Table 1
Child Temperament Categories
Category
Description
Activity Level
Relates to the motor component of a child's functioning
as well as the daily proportion of active and inactive
intervals.
Rhythmicity
Relates to the level of predictability of a child's natural
schedule, and can be relative to the child's sleep-wake
cycle, feeding pattern, hunger, and elimination schedule.
Relates to the predictability of social behaviors (e.g.,
habits, routines, etc.) as children mature.
Approach or
Withdrawal
Deals with how a child initially responds to any new
stimulus - approach responses are considered positive,
whereas withdrawal responses are considered negative.
Adaptability
Concerns how a child responds to altered situations.
Threshold of
Responsiveness
Relates to the intensity level of a stimulus required to
elicit a detectable response.
Intensity of Reaction
Pertains to the energy level of a child's response.
Quality of Mood
Concerns the amount of pleasant or unpleasant behavior
a child exhibits.
Distractibility
Relates to the degree to which extraneous environmental
stimuli interfere with or alter the direction of a child's
ongoing behavior.
Attention Span and
Persistence
Attention span deals with the length of time a child
pursues an activity. Persistence refers to a child's ability
to continue an activity despite obstacles that may get in
the way of maintaining the child's activity direction.
Source: Carey, 1998; Thomas & Chess, 1977

stimuli, relative rhythmicity, and a mild mood that is primarily positive. The
difficult child (approximately 10% of the NYLS sample) is characterized by
intense, frequently negative mood expressions, a lack of rhythmicity,
withdrawal from new stimuli, and a lack of adaptability to changing stimuli.
The slow-to-warm-up child (approximately 15% of the NYLS sample) is
characterized by a concurrence of negative, mildly intense responses to new
stimuli with slow adaptability after recurrent contact, as well as a mild intensity
of reaction and relative rhythmicity (Thomas & Chess, 1977). However, not all
children fall into these three categories. Different temperament combinations
as well as varying behavioral manifestations in different situations resulted in
the inability to classify a child's temperament into a constellation for
approximately 30% of the NYLS sample (Thomas & Chess, 1977).
The basis of temperament is believed to be biological. It can be
identified in infancy and has been shown to be somewhat consistent into
childhood and adulthood (Bates, 1980; Henderson & Fox, 1998; Teglasi, 1998).
Research on the genetic basis of temperament relies primarily on twin studies
comparing monozygotic and dizygotic twins. Monozygotic twins have been
found to have a higher rate of concurrence on temperament variables than
dizygotic twins on parent-report temperament measures (Bates, 1980). When

9
examining this research, one should consider potential validity problems
associated with parent-report measures. However, in a study that did not rely
on parent reports, data were collected using content analyses of parent
interviews to score objective descriptions of children's behavior. Monozygotic
twins were found to be more similar than dizygotic twins on all nine of the
New York Longitudinal Study traits at 9 months of age (Torgersen &
Kringlen, 1978).
Additional research that does not rely solely on parent reports supports
the genetic nature of temperament. For example, monozygotic and dyzygotic
twins' activity levels were compared (Saudino & Eaton, 1991). Data were
collected using actometers, mechanical motion recorders that have been
described as a reliable and valid method for measuring infant activity.
Additional data were collected on infants' activity level from parent ratings.
Data from both the actometers as well as the parent ratings showed evidence
of genetic influences on activity level (Saudino & Eaton, 1991).
Temperament also is relatively stable from infancy through childhood.
Some degree of continuity should be expected when examining basic
characteristics that appear to be partially determined by genetic factors, (Carey,
1981). A study investigating the relationship between behavioral styles at age 3

10
and personality traits at age 18 found temperament in early childhood to be
related to adolescent behavioral and personality characteristics (Caspi & Silva,
1995). For example, children whose behavioral styles were characterized as
impulsive and undercontrolled at age 3 displayed personality styles reflecting
low behavioral constraint at age 18. These 18-year-olds described themselves
as danger-seeking and impulsive (Caspi & Silva, 1995). Further, activity level,
threshold of responsiveness, adaptability, and intensity were stable for both
boys and girls up to age five (McDevitt, 1977, as cited in Thomas & Chess,
1977). Rhythmicity was found to be stable for girls, and mood was found to be
stable for boys up to age five. From ages five to seven, activity level and mood
were stable for boys only.
While temperament characteristics are consistent over time, these
characteristics do not "necessarily follow a consistent linear course" (Thomas &
Chess, 1977, p. 171). They interact with the environment and, as a result, a
child's behavioral style is modified by both past and present influences.
Therefore, "consistency of a temperamental trait or constellation in an
individual over time ... may require stability in these interactional forces, such
as environmental influences, motivation, and abilities" (Thomas & Chess, 1977,
p. 172).

11
Although temperament is thought to have a biological basis, it also is
thought to be influenced by the environment (Bates, 1980). However, this
interaction is both complex and reciprocal, as a child's temperament also
influences his or her encounters with the environment (Carey, 1981). The
Transactional Model (Sameroff & Fiese, 1990) supports this concept. This
model proposes that developmental outcomes are not related to an
individual's characteristics alone or the experiential context alone. Rather, the
combination of an individual and his or her experience determines
developmental outcomes. As a result, the nature of the interaction generally is
described as more important than either temperament or the environment
alone.
Despite the transactional nature of temperament and environment,
some temperament profiles (e.g., characteristics associated with the difficult
child) appear to be more likely to result in childhood problems than do others
(Carey, 1981). Researchers contend that children's responses to objective
environmental features are affected by their temperament (e.g., Bates, 1980;
Carey, 1981; Carey & McDevitt, 1995; Rothbart et al., 1994; Thomas & Chess,
1977), and some responses are more adaptive than others. Carey and
McDevitt (1995) went so far as to say "that conflicts between temperament and

12
environment occupy much of the considerable ground between normal
behavior (and misbehavior) and major childhood pathology" (p. xi).
Temperament traits, such as those typically seen in a difficult child, are
associated with the development of learning difficulties, adjustment problems,
and psychopathology. For example, children with difficult temperaments
may be more vulnerable to stress, as seen in a study comparing school-aged
children's temperament with coping abilities and responses to stress. Less
rhythmic and more intense behavioral styles were found to be associated with
impulsivity/acting out and passive aggression. Further, higher intensity and
lower threshold of response were found to be related to higher stress
occurrence and stress impact (Carson, 1994). The New York Longitudinal
Study also found that individual differences in negative mood,
nonadaptability, lack of rhythmicity, and intensity during early childhood
were related to externalizing problems in late childhood. In addition, when
measured at 3, 4, and 5 years of age, difficult child characteristics were related
to numerous adjustment problems in school, at home, and during early
adulthood (Caspi & Silva, 1995).
A major limitation of temperament research is that much of it relies
heavily on parent-report measures of child temperament. The use of parent-

13
report measures is problematic in that there may be considerable bias in
parents' reports of their children's behavior and characteristics. Bates (1980)
reported only modest support for the external validity of these types of
measures. He cited a number of studies that found smaller within-pair
temperament similarity for dyzygotic twins than for monozygotic twins.
Genetic theory would suggest stronger similarities than were found.
However, McDevitt and Carey (1978) reported a number of reasons for
using parent-report measures. Parent-report measures provide a more
objective and standardized scoring procedure than interview procedures.
Every parent is asked exactly the same questions, in the same order, about
reactions appropriate for the child's age group. In addition, parent-reports
allow for the careful selection of test-item wording to yield a score clearly in
only one category. This prevents conceptual and statistical blurring of
multiple category interpretation that can occur with more traditional parent
interview techniques (McDevitt & Carey, 1978).
Adult Temperament
Whereas Thomas and Chess' temperament theory is typically related to
children, Jung's theory of temperament is more commonly applied to adults.
According to Jung, what is often thought of as random variation in behavior is

14
actually orderly and consistent, due to the basic differences in individuals'
preferences in using their perceptions and judgments. Perception relates to
the process of becoming aware of people, things, ideas, or happenings.
Judgment relates to the ways in which individuals come to conclusions about
what has been perceived (Jung's theory, 2001). In other words, these
preferences "affect not only what people attend to in any given situation, but
also how they draw conclusions about what they perceive" (Myers &
McCaulley, 1985, p. 2).
Jung described two basic attitudes (i.e., extraversion/introversion) and
four functions (i.e., sensing/intuitive and thinking/feeling) that direct the use
of perception and judgment (Jung, 1921/1971). Myers and Briggs later added
an additional attitude (i.e., judging/perceiving) (Myers & McCaulley, 1985)
(see Table 2). These four attitudes and functions are combined to create 16
psychological types.
Type theory suggests that although an individual will develop and use
each of the eight preferences, they will not be equally favored. Along each
dimension, an individual will normally have a predisposition for one end of
the continuum. The interaction among an individual's four preferred attitudes
and functions constitutes that individual's "type" (Meisgeier, Murphy, &

15
Table 2
Adult Temperament Types
Type
Extraversión (E) -
Introversion (I)
Sensing (S) -
Intuitive (N)
Thinking (T) -
Feeling (F)
Judging (J) -
Perceiving (P)
Description
Relates to the orientations of energy. Extraversión directs
energy primarily outward toward people and objects.
Introversion directs energy primarily inward toward
experiences and ideas.
Deals with the processes of perception. Sensing focuses
mainly on the five senses, whereas intuition focuses
mainly on patterns and interrelationships.
Relates to the functions of judgment. Thinking involves
objectivity and basing conclusions on logic. Feeling
focuses on harmony and basing conclusions on values.
Deals with the processes an individual uses to deal with
the outer world. Judgment focuses on decisiveness and
closure and uses one of the judging processes (T or F).
Perceiving focuses on flexibility and uses one of the
perceiving processes (S or N).
Source: Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Quenk, 2000
Meisgeier, 1989). Type development is believed to be a lifelong process. As
individuals become older, they will consciously develop and use two of the
types more frequently. These two types are thought to be more interesting to
the individual; the other two types are thought to be less interesting and,
therefore, are more likely to be neglected. The environment plays a role in the
development of a person's type, as it fosters one's natural preferences or

16
discourages them by reinforcing activities that are less satisfying to the
individual (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998).
Temperament type affects the way individuals deal with their world.
This extends into the classroom, as teachers teach and interact with their
students. Researchers suggest that teachers primarily have ESFJ or ISFJ
psychological types (Grindler & Stratton, 1990; Macdaid, McCaulley, & Kainz,
1986). That is, while no consistent preference has been identified related to the
extraversión (E) or introversion (I) dimension, studies have suggested that
teachers are more likely to prefer sensing (S), feeling (F), and judging (J) types.
ESFJs are described as the friendliest and most compassionate of the
temperament types. Individuals with this type try to make life easier for
others and promote group cohesion. ISFJs are the most reliable of the
temperament types. They prefer to quietly gather facts and store them for
future use (Myers et al., 1998). Overall, individuals with the sensing and
judging preferences value precision, structure, and order in the classroom
(Meisgeier et al., 1989).
Teachers' temperament types affect how they structure their classrooms
and interact with their students. For example, teachers who prefer
extraversión have classrooms high in movement and noise, and like to give

17
their students choices. On the other hand, teachers who prefer introversion
are more likely to have orderly and quiet classrooms with more structured
learning activities (Myers et al., 1998). Temperament styles also influence how
teachers define student misbehavior. For example, high school teachers with a
sensing preference tend to identify anything that interferes with instruction as
misbehavior (Miner & Hyman, 1988).
Summary
With regard to child temperament, Thomas and Chess (1977) described
nine temperament categories and three temperament constellations as a result
of their research. Temperament is believed to be biological in nature in that it
appears in infancy and has been shown to be consistent into childhood and
adolescence. In addition, research on temperament characteristics of
monozygotic and dizygotic twins supports a genetic basis. A reciprocal
relationship is believed to exist between the biological nature of temperament
and environmental encounters. In other words, a child's temperament is
influenced by both biological and environmental influences as well as the
interaction between the two. Research has shown that children with certain
temperament characteristics may be more vulnerable to stress and more prone
to behavioral and adjustment problems.

18
Jung indicated that much of adults' behavior is due to basic differences
in their preferences in using perception and judgment. In other words,
perception and judgment affect what people attend to as well as how they draw
conclusions (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Jung, Myers, and Briggs described
basic attitudes (i.e., extraversion/introversion and judgment/perception) and
functions (i.e., sensing/intuitive and thinking/feeling) that direct the use of
perception and judgment (Jung 1921/1971; Myers & McCaulley, 1985). The
attitudes and functions can be combined into 16 four-letter types. A person's
type is determined based on his or her predisposition for one end of the
continuum along each of four dimensions. The interaction between an
individual's four preferred attitudes and functions constitutes that
individual's "type" (Meisgeier et al., 1989). Teachers primarily have ESFJ or
ISFJ temperament types (Grindler & Stratton, 1990; Macdaid et al., 1986).
Teachers' temperament types affect how they structure their classrooms,
teach, and interact with students.
Temperament and School Adjustment Variables
Understanding relationships between temperament and school
experiences is important because of the central role school plays in children's
lives. "With the exception of the family, no social institution plays a more

19
powerful role in children's lives" (Keogh, 1986, p. 89). Particularly important
are children's experiences in kindergarten, as this period is often the first time
children experience a formal school setting. Children are expected to adjust to
new social and academic demands and must form and maintain strategies to
cope with their social environment (Chess & Thomas, 1986; Hamre & Pianta,
2001). For example, children must learn to cooperate with nonparental
authority figures, successfully enter and become part of a new peer group,
become committed to academic development, and exhibit good performance
in academic skill building activities (Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995).
Children who are successfully adjusted relate well to the teacher and their
peers and are well suited to various learning experiences (Skarpness «Sc
Carson, 1987).
Experiences during the initial contact with school can affect children's
self-concepts as well as their attitudes toward school (Rusher, McGrevin, &
Lambiótte, 1992). These experiences also can impact children's long-term
school experiences. For example, early adjustment to kindergarten may help
alleviate the stress that comes from the changes children experience
(Skarpness and Carson, 1987). On the other hand, children who have

20
difficulty adjusting as the school year progresses may continue to experience
long-term difficulties.
School adjustment can be characterized by a child's ability to cope with
the specific social and cognitive demands of the school environment (Cassel,
1962, as cited in Skarpness & Carson, 1987). Skarpness and Carson (1987)
defined successful adjustment as the extent to which a child is able to relate to
other students and the teacher, as well as how well suited he or she is to the
various learning experiences encountered in school. School-related demands
generally can be classified into two major categories: 1) those that are
interpersonal in nature and related to behavior that is adjusted and socially
appropriate and 2) those that involve academic performance and achievement
(Keogh, 1986). Each is discussed below.
Interpersonal Relationships
Relationships among children's adjustment to school and the school
environment's interpersonal features have not been an area of interest until
recent years. In addition, investigations on this topic have focused primarily
on children's peer relationships in classrooms (Birch & Ladd, 1997). This line
of research (e.g., Ladd, 1990; Parker & Asher, 1993; Ladd & Price, 1987) has
indicated that classroom peers play an important role in children's school

21
adjustment. Further, children who experience early difficulties with their
peers are at risk for later school adjustment problems (Birch & Ladd, 1997).
Peers are not the only individuals with whom children have important
relationships. Classroom teachers also may serve as key figures in children's
school-lives and, as a result, may affect children's school adjustment (Birch &
Ladd, 1997; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Keogh, 1986; Pianta, 1994; Pianta «Sc
Steinberg, 1992). More of children's waking hours are spent with teachers
than with parents; therefore, the teacher-child relationship is an integral part
of the academic and social learning context and provides a context for
development itself (Pianta et al., 1995).
Some researchers believe that children's patterns of achievement are
well-established by the third grade and that few school experiences beyond
the third grade have the power to change that course (Alexander & Entwisle,
1988, as cited in Pianta grades (K - 2) are likely to have an important impact on a child's school
experiences. For example, teacher-child relationship patterns in kindergarten
predict later school adjustment as well as academic and behavioral outcomes
(Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Pianta &c Nimetz, 1991; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992).

22
Teacher-child relationships play a critical regulatory role in children's
development. For example, teachers assist children in learning how to behave,
how to interact with others, and about the nature of the school environment.
This regulatory role is particularly important during periods in which
developmental processes are less buffered or are challenged by environmental
demands (Pianta et al., 1995). The early years of elementary school pose such
a challenge to young children. Teacher-child relationships can lend
organization and stability to developmental processes, assisting children to
modify or elaborate their existing coping strategies as well as to develop new
strategies (Pianta et al., 1995). Despite their importance as a feature of the
academic and social learning context and the potential implications for school
adjustment, teacher-child relationships "have received little attention in the
literature on school-related developmental outcomes" (Pianta et al., 1995, p.
296).
Patterns of kindergarten children's relationships with their teachers are
predictive of school achievement (Pianta & Nimetz, 1991; Pianta & Steinberg,
1991). One study examined kindergarten teachers' views about their
relationships with their students as measured on the Student-Teacher
Relationship Scale (STRS) (Pianta & Steinberg, 1992). The STRS was based on

23
research of teacher-child interactions and attachment theory. Three distinct
factors were revealed: closeness, dependency, and conflict/anger (Birch &
Ladd, 1997; Pianta et al., 1995). Closeness is described as encompassing the
degree of open communication and warmth existing between a child and his
or her teacher (Birch & Ladd, 1997). It may function as a support for young
children in the school environment. A positive student-teacher relationship in
kindergarten was associated with higher levels of competent behaviors and
fewer behavior problems (Pianta et al., 1995). A close relationship may
facilitate positive attitudes toward and greater involvement in school (Birch &
Ladd, 1997). Further, a close teacher-child relationship may serve as a
motivating factor for teachers to put forth more time and effort to promote the
child's success (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). In addition, based on parent-child
attachment theory, Birch and Ladd (1997) suggested that close student-teacher
relationships provide children with a secure base they can use to explore their
environment. Therefore, closeness may promote children's school
performance and learning (Birch & Ladd, 1997).
Dependency, a second factor of the teacher-child relationship, refers to
an over-reliance on the teacher as a source of support. It can be characterized
by "clingy" or possessive behaviors. Dependency in the teacher-student

24
relationship reportedly interferes with children's school adjustment (Birch &
Ladd, 1997). Overly dependent children may be hesitant in their explorations
of the school environment as well as in their social relationships. These
children more commonly experience feelings of loneliness and negative
attitudes toward school than do their non-dependent peers (Birch & Ladd,
1997).
Conflict/anger, the third factor of the teacher-child relationship, reflects
negative affect and may impair children's school adjustment because it acts as
a stressor in the school environment (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Pianta, 1994).
Conflictual teacher-child relationships involve a lack of rapport between the
teacher and the child as well as a sense of friction in their interactions.
Further, this type of relationship may result in teacher efforts to control a
child's behavior (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). A child who is a part of a conflictual
relationship may be limited in the extent to which he or she can rely on the
teacher as a source of support (Birch & Ladd, 1997). In addition, this type of
relationship may result in increased feelings of anxiety or anger, resulting in
withdrawal from school activities (e.g., becoming uninvolved or disengaged)
or feelings of alienation (e.g., loneliness and negative school attitudes).

25
Further, the stress associated with a conflictual relationship also may be
associated with impaired academic performance (Birch & Ladd, 1997).
Few studies address relationships between school adjustment and the
teacher-child relationship. One such study included 436 kindergarten children
and their 26 classroom teachers. Among the kindergarten children who were
recommended for retention, those who were not retained had more positive
teacher-child relationships than the children who were retained (Pianta &
Steinberg, 1992).
Relationships among the three aspects of the teacher-child relationship
(closeness, dependency, and conflict) and children's early school adjustment
were examined in a study that included 206 kindergarten children and their 16
classroom teachers (Birch & Ladd, 1997). Data collected during the fall
semester included measures of the teacher-child relationship (using a teacher-
report rating scale) and children's school adjustment. School adjustment
outcome indices included a readiness test, self-report rating scale on loneliness
and social dissatisfaction, self-report rating scale on school liking and school
avoidance, and teacher-report rating scale of children's school adjustment.
Closeness in the teacher-child relationship was positively related to
kindergartners' academic performance. A positive relationship also was

26
found between closeness and factors on the school adjustment rating scale
(i.e., self-directedness and school liking). In addition, the relationship between
dependency in the teacher-child relationship and school adjustment
difficulties was strong. Kindergartners who had a dependent relationship
with their teacher displayed lower academic performance, less positive
engagement with the school environment, and more negative school attitudes.
Kindergartners who displayed conflictual relationships with their teachers
also tended to have negative school attitudes and were rated by their teachers
as less self-directed, higher in school avoidance, and lower in cooperative
participation (Birch & Ladd, 1997).
Children's temperament characteristics are related to their interactions
with teachers (Chess & Thomas, 1986; Keogh & Bumstein, 1988; Paget, Nagle,
& Martin, 1984). For example, in a study of 18 preschool children, teachers
interacted more with preschool children with positive temperament profiles
than those with negative temperament profiles. However, among children
with disabilities, teachers interacted more frequently with children with
negative temperament than those with positive temperaments (Keogh &
Bumstein, 1988). In addition, in a study of the relationship among 217
children's temperament and communication abilities and their kindergarten

27
adjustment, less active children were perceived to be better adjusted. Further,
children with primarily positive moods were perceived to be better adjusted,
suggesting that children with more "favorable" temperament characteristics
may elicit more positive interactions with their teachers, which in turn
contributes to their adjustment (Skarpness & Carson, 1987).
Academic Performance
Temperament characteristics are related to learning and educational
performance (Martin & Gaddis, 1989; Keogh, 1986; Martin & Holbrook, 1985).
For example, in a study of the relationship between 104 first grade children's
temperament characteristics and their academic achievement, the
temperament characteristics of activity, adaptability, and persistence were
related to reading and mathematics achievement, even when controlling for
IQ. The two temperament characteristics that best predicted achievement
were persistence and adaptability (Martin & Holbrook, 1985). In addition, the
temperament characteristics of activity level, distractibility, and task
persistence were most related to achievement in early elementary school, and
activity level and distractibility were negatively associated with achievement
and teacher-assigned grades (Martin, 1989; Schoen & Nagle, 1994). Further,
the temperament factors of low task orientation (i.e., high activity, high

28
distractibility, and low attention span-persistence), low flexibility (i.e.,
negative quality of mood, low approach, and low adaptability), and high
reactivity (i.e., low threshold of responsiveness, high intensity of reaction, and
negative quality of mood) were most related to children's school performance
problems (Carey, 1998; Keogh, 1989).
With regard to academic demands, relationships between temperament
and achievement are not global. Instead, temperament seems to be more
evident in school tasks that require the regulation of attention, activity,
persistence, and distractibility than in tasks involving new problem-solving
strategies (Keogh, 1986). For example, attention span and distractibility may
be linked to "a child's ability to adjust to the academic requirements of
kindergarten" (Skarpness & Carson, 1987, p. 373). Some believe temperament
moderates children's academic performance by "'setting the stage' for the
acquisition of new learning" (Keogh, 1986, p. 99). For example, children who
are inhibited by new situations may have difficulty entering new activities or
handling fast-paced changes and, as a result, may be at risk for not keeping up
with the pace of instruction. The temperament characteristics of high
adaptability, high task persistence, high approach, and low negative
emotionality appear to protect a child from the occurrence of school-related

29
problems (Martin, 1994). Martin (1994) reported that this is likely to occur for
two reasons. First, persistence probably enhances children's learning,
regardless of their cognitive ability. Second, "children who have temperament
traits that make them more socially attractive are more likely to receive social
support" (p. 129).
Summary
School plays an important role in children's lives, and their adjustment
to school can impact their school experiences (Chess & Thomas, 1986; Keogh,
1986; Skarpness & Carson, 1987). School adjustment is defined as how well a
child is able to relate to peers and teachers as well as how well suited he or she
is to the various learning experiences encountered in school (Skarpness &
Carson, 1987). School-related demands that children encounter can be
classified as either those that are interpersonal in nature or those that involve
academic performance (Keogh, 1986). With regard to interpersonal demands,
teacher-child relationships play an important role in children's school
adjustment (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Keogh, 1986; Pianta et al., 1995). Children
who had negative relationships with their teachers had poorer adjustment to
school than those children who had more positive relationships with their
teachers (Birch & Ladd, 1997). Children's temperament characteristics also

30
affect their relationships with teachers (Keogh & Bumstein, 1988; Skarpness &
Carson, 1987). With regard to academic performance, temperament
characteristics are related to learning and educational performance (Martin &
Gaddis, 1989). That is, certain temperament characteristics may moderate a
child's academic performance by allowing him or her to enter new activities,
handle fast-paced classroom changes, and regulate the amount of attention or
persistence needed by a particular task (Keogh, 1986; Martin, 1994).
Temperament and Teacher Beliefs
Teachers' beliefs influence their decisions, judgments, teaching, and
interactions with children (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Bloom, 1992; Fang, 1996;
Isenberg, 1990; Keogh, 1986; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992). As a result, an
understanding of teachers' beliefs is important to promote a better
understanding of the variations that occur across individuals' teaching
practices (Isenberg, 1990). "Belief" can be defined as a psychologically held
understanding, proposition, or premise about the world that is considered to
be true (Richardson, 1996). Belief also is defined as a conception of some
reality containing sufficient credibility or validity to satisfy the person holding
the belief (Green, 1971; Pajares, 1992). Typically, a belief is contextually bound
and guides one's thoughts and behavior (Fang, 1996; Pajares, 1992;

31
Richardson, 1996). Goodenough (1963) reported that beliefs are "accepted as
guides for assessing the future, are cited in support of decisions, or are
referred to in passing judgment on the behavior of others" (p. 151). Beliefs are
similar to emotional attitudes in the sense that one can believe a proposition
without being aware of it. They fall on a continuum and can range from an
uncertain suspicion to absolute conviction (Smith & Shepard, 1988).
Beliefs differ from knowledge; beliefs are based on evaluation and
judgment whereas knowledge is based on conclusive facts (Nespor, 1987;
Pajares, 1992; Smith & Shepard, 1988). Beliefs, though assumed to be true by
those who hold them, do not require a truth condition (Green, 1971; Lehrer,
1990). On the other hand, knowledge is more concrete and typically has some
supporting evidence (Richardson, 1996). Beliefs also may have a stronger
affective and evaluative element than knowledge because affect usually
operates independently of the cognition associated with knowledge (Nespor,
1987).
By the time preservice teachers enter college, their beliefs about
teaching are generally well-established (Buchmann, 1987; Pajares, 1992), as
they are developed during individuals' "apprenticeship of observation"
(Lortie, 1975, p. 61), a first-hand view of what teachers do in the classroom

32
during their own formative educational experiences (Buchmann, 1987; Pajares,
1992; Richardson, 1996). The key to teachers' operating knowledge may be
found in this informal occupational socialization of teachers (Buchmann, 1987).
In addition to their experience as students, teachers' beliefs also are
shaped by their other personal experiences, which in turn are affected by their
temperaments. Personal experience includes aspects of life that contribute to
the development of a world view; intellectual and morale dispositions;
understandings of the connection between schooling and society; and other
forms of familial, personal, and cultural understanding (Richardson, 1996).
Once formed, beliefs about teaching tend to persevere and resist change
(Buchmann, 1987; Lortie, 1975; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992). This is partially
due to the fact that belief systems filter subsequent thinking and influence
how new phenomena are interpreted (Pajares, 1992). Although teachers'
beliefs can be changed, particularly at the inservice level, change may only
occur when a teacher is open-minded and willing to explore new ideas
(Richardson, 1996).
Teachers' beliefs and perceptions about their students affect many
aspects of the students' school experience. Komblau (1982) reported that
teachers have beliefs and perceptions of students' "teachability." That is,

33
teachers' beliefs serve as a benchmark upon which their judgments and
behaviors are based. He believes teachers' thoughts and actions about
students are influenced by the attributes they feel characterize "idealized
teachable" students.
Teachers' perceptions of the quality of their relationships with their
students are related to children's feelings of loneliness, school avoidance
desires, and performance on academic tasks. They also are related to teachers'
ratings of various school adjustment outcome indices (Birch & Ladd, 1997).
Many important teacher decisions, including grade retention, are based on
indices such as these. As a result, the quality of the teacher-child relationship
may have a significant impact in terms of the various educational paths
children follow throughout the course of their school experiences (Birch &
Ladd, 1997).
Literature on temperament suggests that teachers' beliefs about
children's temperaments affect their reactions to and interactions with
students (Kean, 1997; Keogh, 1986; Rothbart «Sc Jones, 1998; Teglasi, 1998). For
example, teachers' judgments are influenced by children's temperament,
specifically task orientation (i.e., persistence and activity) and adaptability
(Keogh, 1986). The influence of children's temperaments on teachers' decision

34
strategies was studied in a sample of 321 elementary school children
(kindergarten, first grade, and third grade students) and their 13 teachers
(Pullis & Cadwell, 1982). Teachers rated students in five areas of classroom
functioning or behavior (intelligence, motivation, social skills, academic
performance, and working to potential); rated the students' temperament
characteristics; and, based on brief descriptions of five classroom situations,
reported how frequently they had to monitor the child's behavior in each
situation. A strong and consistent relationship emerged between teachers'
classroom decisions and students' temperament characteristics. Teachers were
particularly sensitive to students' task orientation characteristics — students
with positive task orientation characteristics were considered to need less
supervision across all classroom situations (Pullis & Cadwell, 1982).
The effects of teachers' beliefs and values in relation to their classroom
interactions with children identified as having difficult and easy temperament
characteristics were studied in a sample of eight teachers and 32 children (16
with difficult temperaments and 16 with easy temperaments). Teachers
completed rating scales to assess the children's temperaments, and classroom
observations were completed to assess the teacher-child interactions (Kean,
1997). Findings revealed that more negative interactions took place with

35
difficult children than with the easy children. One explanation for this may be
that classrooms typically have clearly defined expectations that children will
complete set tasks, work quietly, and conform to teacher demands. Children
with difficult temperaments may experience problems complying with these
expectations. Findings also indicated that children with easy temperaments
displayed and received considerably more positive emotional and social
behaviors, while children with difficult temperaments displayed and received
considerably more negative emotional and social behaviors (Kean, 1997).
Kean (1997) concluded that early childhood educators should consider their
beliefs and values carefully as they develop more effective teaching techniques
for use with children with differing temperaments.
Teachers' evaluations of students and report card grades also are
influenced by their perceptions of the students' temperament (Keogh, 1986).
Children's task orientation and flexibility are related to teachers' estimates of
ability and grades. Students who were more task oriented and flexible
received higher grades than their achievement scores would predict (Pullis,
1979, as cited in Keogh, 1986). Further, students who met or exceeded
teachers' expectations across the attention span and distractibility
temperament characteristics were perceived by their teachers to be more

36
capable and better adjusted. However, when compared with other students
on objective measures of achievement, these students did not perform
significantly differently from other students (Henderson & Fox, 1998). In
addition, students who were less reactive than expected by their teachers also
were perceived to be more able and better adjusted. These students also
performed better than their peers on standardized achievement tests
(Henderson «Sc Fox, 1998).
In summary, teachers' beliefs affect their decisions, teaching, and
interactions with children (Bloom, 1992; Fang, 1990; Keogh, 1986). A belief can
be defined as a psychologically held understanding about the world that is
considered to be true by the holder (Richardson, 1996). Preservice teachers
often enter college with well-established beliefs about teaching. These beliefs
are developed during an individual's own educational experience as a student
as well as through personal experiences (Buchmann, 1987; Pajares, 1992).
Whether teachers' beliefs can be modified during their professional
experience is unclear (Buchmann, 1987; Lortie, 1975; Nespor, 1987; Pajares,
1992; Richardson, 1996). Teachers' beliefs can affect children's school
experiences, including their academic performance, feelings of loneliness, and
school avoidance desires (Birch & Ladd, 1997). Teachers' beliefs about

37
temperament can affect their interactions with students (Keogh, 1986; Rothbart
& Jones, 1998). Teachers' decisions about students' supervision needs have
been related to temperament (Pullis & Cadwell, 1982). In addition, teacher-
assigned report card grades and teachers' perceptions of students' adjustment
also have been related to teachers' perceptions of students' temperaments
(Henderson & Fox, 1998; Pullis, 1989).
Goodness of Fit
Thomas and Chess' (1977) concept of "goodness of fit" has been found
to have clinical utility and also can be applied to educational settings.
Goodness of fit results when the properties of the environment and its
expectations and demands are in accord with the [child's] own
capacities, characteristics, and style of behaving. When this consonance
between [child] and environment is present, optimal development in a
progressive direction is possible, (p. 12)
Consonance among a child's temperament, environmental demands and
expectations, and other attributes is necessary for optimal development.
However, this does not imply that all behavioral manifestations of the child's
temperament characteristics should be accepted and/or encouraged (Thomas
& Chess, 1977). When consonance among a child's temperament and
environmental expectations and demands does not occur, interactional stress
and conflict result. As a result of a poor fit, the child reacts inappropriately,

38
which may lead to dysfunction in physical, academic, or social adjustment
(Carey, 1998). "The situation in which the poor fit occurs determines where
the symptoms will emerge while the child's temperament and coping
strategies affect the types of symptoms displayed" (Carey, 1998, p. 528).
Although certain temperament characteristics (e.g., high motor activity,
withdrawal tendencies, negative mood, marked distractibility, and extreme
persistence) may be normal for a young child, they may still interfere with
academic achievement, desirable school and play activities, and interpersonal
relations. Appropriate structure and guidance may be necessary when the
consequences of a child's temperament on behavior may be undesirable if
allowed unrestricted expression (Thomas & Chess, 1977). Carey (1998) argued
that the child's temperament itself is not as important as the fit he or she has
with the environment. Specifically, the pathology is not found in the child or
in the circumstances, but in the interaction between the two (Carey, 1998;
Chess & Thomas, 1999; Sameroff & Fiese, 1990).
At least two aspects of goodness of fit exist within the school setting:
children's interpersonal interactions and the content of instructional domains.
Relationships between children and teachers are of particular interest in the
current study. Classroom interactions are believed to influence the degree to

39
which a child experiences a good fit (Saft & Pianta, 2001). Keogh (1986)
suggested that a child's temperament is unlikely to have a direct effect on a
teacher's responses, except when a child's temperament characteristics are
extreme. Instead, the belief that temperament may have an "evocative" (Scarr,
1981, p. 1160) influence on teacher-child relationships is more reasonable. In
other words, children's temperaments evoke reactions from teachers that then
affect the child's school experiences (Keogh, 1986).
In addition, teachers' beliefs may influence the extent to which they will
tolerate behavioral manifestations of students' temperament characteristics
(Kean, 1997). For example, children with easy temperament profiles (i.e.,
approaching, adaptable, and positive in mood) are typically well liked by
teachers. Teachers usually respond to easy children with affection and
warmth and give these children frequent opportunities for instructional and
interpersonal interactions (Keogh, 1986). On the other hand, children with
difficult temperament profiles (i.e., irritable, withdrawing, and negative in
mood) are less likely to have positive, close relationships with their teachers
and instead are frequently limited to instructional or management matters
rather than interpersonal ones (Keogh, 1986). Therefore, depending on their
temperament patterns, the nature of children's school experiences may be

40
quite different. As a result, these differences may have long-term
consequences for children's feelings and attitudes toward themselves and
school (Keogh, 1986).
Teachers' experiences and beliefs about temperament also affect their
relationships with children (Keogh, 1986; Rothbart «Sc Jones, 1998; Teglasi,
1998). For example, teachers may consider children with slow-to-warm-up
temperament profiles to be unmotivated or lazy by teachers. Further, they
may view children with active and/or distractible temperament characteristics
to be obstructive or purposefully mischievous. These beliefs result from
teachers' attributions about the causes of behavior and can affect the teacher-
child relationship as well as teachers' decisions (Keogh, 1986). As a result, the
child's fit in the classroom environment may be affected.
Teachers may react with negative feelings (e.g., anger, disappointment,
frustration, etc.) when conflict results from a poor fit. These feelings can be
particularly strong when the teacher infers that the child is misbehaving
intentionally (Pullis, 1989). As a result, the fit between the teacher and student
can worsen. Attempts to improve the student-teacher relationship and
facilitate a better fit require teachers to manage their feelings by attempting to
be objective and reevaluate the sources of the child's misbehavior (Pullis,

41
1989). Teachers also need to be aware of their personal comfort levels. In
other words, teachers should be aware of the behavioral styles they prefer and
those they may find irritating or uncomfortable. This self-understanding may
be beneficial because teachers may be better able to identify students with
whom they are likely to have a poor fit. This knowledge may then be used to
enhance understanding and to facilitate a better fit (Pullis, 1989).
The second aspect of goodness-of-fit in the school setting is associated
with the content of instructional domains. Certain temperament
characteristics may be more compatible with learning than others (Keogh,
1986). For example, children who are approaching, adaptable, and persistent
may be better able to handle complex and changing instruction. On the other
hand, children who are nonadaptable, nonpersistent, and withdrawing are
more likely to find instruction threatening and uncomfortable (Keogh, 1986).
Children who are approaching, adaptable, and persistent may feel more
comfortable in the classroom setting, a quality that also may promote their
ability to handle classroom demands. On the other hand, children with more
difficult temperament characteristics may have smaller comfort zones, a
quality that could increase the likelihood that they find instruction
threatening.

42
In addition, children's differences in their responses to the unfamiliar
may affect how easily they engage in learning tasks and how readily they
adapt to the expectations and demands of the classroom environment
(Henderson & Fox, 1998). Therefore, certain temperament profiles result in a
generalized response set (Keogh, 1986). Temperament also may affect a
child's preparation for learning. That is, some temperament characteristics
and profiles may set the stage for the acquisition of information, thereby
facilitating learning and a proper fit in the classroom environment (Keogh,
1986). For example, the qualities of low distractibility, high attention span,
and the ability to modulate activity level are important preparatory acts for
learning (Keogh, 1986). By understanding how temperament affects students,
teachers are better able to examine the demands of instructional activities and
determine the manner in which the demands could present problems for
children whose temperament characteristics do not facilitate learning. Thus,
teachers could identify ways to accommodate children's individual differences
and help create a better fit between children and their learning environment
(Pullis, 1989).
In a broad sense, goodness of fit can be seen as a reflection of a comfort
zone. For example, a child's comfort level in the classroom setting may be

43
related to his or her age, temperament, ability level, academic skills, social
competence, and relationships with peers and the teacher. A teacher's comfort
level may be related to his or her educational level, years of experience, beliefs
about teaching, and relationships with students. A good fit may not be
possible if a child or teacher is functioning outside his or her individual
comfort zone.
Relationships between teachers' levels of comfort and children's
temperament characteristics are of interest in this study. Although the
concept of a teacher "comfort zone" (Buysse, Wesley, Keyes, & Bailey, 1996)
has not been applied to temperament and goodness of fit, it has been studied
with regard to children's characteristics and inclusion (e.g., Buysse et al., 1996;
Wesley, Buysse, & Keyes, 2000). Research on individuals' comfort with
inclusion originated with Green and Stoneman (1989). They investigated the
comfort of parents of typically developing preschool children with having
children with disabilities included in their children's class. Parents were most
concerned about and least comfortable with preschoolers who displayed
behavior problems and severe disabilities being included in their children's
classes (Green & Stoneman, 1989).

44
Buysse and colleagues (1996) extended this research by exploring how
comfortable general early childhood educators were in serving individual
children with a variety of disabilities. The study included 52 early childhood
educators who taught in community childcare programs that had begun to
accept children with disabilities after primarily serving typically developing
children. Participants rated a child with disabilities from their classroom on
nine functional domains and then indicated their comfort level in serving
hypothetical children with a variety of disabilities who displayed different
levels of severity. Teachers were asked to complete the first profile on a child
currently in their classroom to provide them with an opportunity to consider
the actual domains of functioning in children with whom they were familiar
before they made judgments about hypothetical cases (Buysse et al., 1996).
Although the teachers were generally comfortable serving children with
special needs, their comfort levels decreased as the severity of the children's
disabilities increased. Further, teachers identified inappropriate behavior as a
key factor for having a limited comfort zone (Buysse et al., 1996). A follow-up
study of 84 early intervention professionals who consulted with teachers
about children with varying types, severity levels, and combinations of
disabilities, found they reported the least amount of comfort when consulting

45
about children with behavior, communication, and social skills disorders
(Wesley et al., 2000).
The findings from these two studies (Buysse et al., 1996; Wesley et al.,
2000) have important implications for the study of temperament and
children's fit in the classroom environment, particularly for children with
difficult temperaments, given their higher probability for developing
behavioral difficulties (Carey & McDevitt, 1995; Carson, 1994; Caspi & Silva,
1995; Thomas et al., 1968). If teachers are uncomfortable with their ability to
teach children with behavioral problems, then serving children with difficult
temperament characteristics also may fall outside their comfort zones. A
teacher's lack of comfort with these extreme characteristics may affect teacher-
child relationships and consequently a child's fit in the classroom.
Despite the impact of temperament and goodness of fit in educational
settings, its limitations also must be addressed. First, certain temperament
traits and patterns are more difficult to accommodate than others. "Children
who are negative and inflexible will fit into a narrower range of settings than
those who are pleasant and adaptable" (Carey, 1998, p. 528). Second, specific
adjustments that can be made in an effort to create a better fit for a child are
limited. Teachers and other school personnel may have the ability to make

46
adjustments in how they deal with certain children, how the physical
environment is laid out, and, to some extent, to the nature of the demands
placed on children. However, the degree of adjustments that can be made to a
somewhat fixed curriculum is limited (Carey, 1998). Third, teachers' ability to
provide individual attention to students is limited. For many teachers, finding
time to plan and implement accommodations and interventions for individual
students is difficult when trying to attend to the needs of their class as a
whole. This difficulty may be exacerbated if a poor teacher-child relationship
exists or if a teacher is operating outside his or her comfort zone in managing
the child's behavior.
In summary, goodness of fit is defined as consonance among a child's
characteristics and behavioral style and the expectations and demands of the
environment (Thomas & Chess, 1977). Such compatibility is thought to be a
key component of optimal development. When consonance between a child's
temperament-based behaviors and environmental expectations and demands
does not occur, interactional stress and conflict often results, leading to a poor
fit for the child. As a result of this poor fit, the child is at risk for academic,
behavioral, and social-emotional difficulties (Carey, 1998).

47
Keogh (1986) suggested there are two aspects of goodness of fit within
the educational setting: children's interpersonal interactions and the content of
instructional domains. With regard to interpersonal relationships,
temperament may have an evocative influence on teacher-child relationships;
different temperament characteristics may evoke positive or negative reactions
from teachers (Keogh, 1986; Scarr, 1981). In addition, teachers' beliefs may
influence the amount and intensity of emotionality they will tolerate from
students (Kean, 1997). As a result, the nature of the teacher-child relationship
likely will be affected. With regard to the content of instructional domain,
certain temperament characteristics may be more compatible with learning
than others. In other words, certain temperament characteristics may affect
how easily children engage in learning tasks and may help set the stage for the
acquisition of new information (Henderson & Fox, 1998; Keogh, 1986). An
understanding of students' temperament profiles may allow teachers to better
accommodate individual differences and thus facilitate a better fit with the
learning environment (Pullis, 1989).
Examined more broadly, goodness of fit can be conceptualized as a
type of comfort zone, a continuum along which a teacher feels at ease teaching
and interacting with a student (Buysse et al., 1996). For example, a teacher

48
may feel less comfortable with his or her ability to teach a child with difficult
temperament characteristics. Studies related to the inclusion of preschool
children with disabilities in regular education settings found teachers and
teacher-consultants felt more discomfort working with children with severe
disabilities, including those with behavior problems (Buysse et al., 1996;
Wesley et al., 2000). Therefore, when a child and his or her teacher feel
comfortable in the classroom setting, goodness of fit is likely to be fostered.

CHAPTER 3
METHODS
Participants and Settings
The participants included 88 Florida kindergarten teachers from
Alachua, Citrus, Duval, and Seminole counties. Permission to conduct
research was received in each school district prior to data collection. A letter
inviting participation (see Appendix A) was sent to elementary school
principals who approved or declined school-based participation. Research
packets, including consent forms (see Appendix B) and measurement
instruments, were distributed to kindergarten teachers at schools in which the
principal provided entry permission to the researcher.
The researcher was available to discuss the study with kindergarten
teachers in person or via phone or e-mail. Follow-up was done as necessary to
receive completed data from participating teachers or to collect study
materials from teachers who did not wish to participate. All kindergarten
teachers, including participants and those who chose not to participate, were
treated fairly, as prescribed by the American Psychological Association's
ethical guidelines (American Educational Research Association et al., 1999).
49

50
Thirty-eight principals in the four school districts allowed the
researcher to approach his or her kindergarten teachers, while 22 did not
provide entry permission. Most principals who did not allow the researcher
to contact their kindergarten teachers indicated that the teachers were not
interested in participating.
Two hundred forty participant research packets were distributed to
kindergarten teachers. Twenty-three teachers declined to participate and
returned their incomplete packets. One hundred twenty-nine packets were
not returned. The researcher received 88 completed packets. Table 3 provides
a summary of the demographic information provided by participants.
Participants were primarily female (98.85%) and ranged in age from 22 to 66
(3c = 40.82, sd = 12.15). The majority hold a bachelor's degree (67.82%) and
have elementary certification with an early childhood endorsement (72.73%).
Participants' teaching experiences ranged from one to 35 years (x = 15.99, sd =
10.90). Their experience teaching kindergarten ranged from one-half to 35
years (x = 10.23, sd = 9.09).
A summary of participants' teaching environments during the 2001-
2002 academic year is provided in Table 4. Class sizes ranged from 16 to 34
students (3c = 22.59, sd = 3.49). Participants referred a similar number of

51
Table 3
Teacher-Related Demographic Information Provided by Participants on the
Teacher Information Survey (TIS1
Variable
Mean/Standard
Deviation
Percent
Gender (n = 87*)
Female
98.85%
Male
1.15%
Ethnicity (n = 86)
Non-Hispanic, White
87.21%
African American
10.47%
Hispanic
1.16%
Asian
0.00%
Multiracial
1.16%
Other
0.00%
Age (n = 85)
Under 25
14.12%
25-35
27.06%
36-45
15.29%
46-55
30.59%
Over 55
12.94%
Most Advanced Educational Degree (n = 87)
Bachelors
67.82%
Masters
31.03%
Doctoral
1.15%
Type of Certification** (n = 87)
Elementary certification only
5.68%
Elementary certification with an early
72.73%
childhood endorsement
Birth to age four certification
3.41%
Age three to grade three certification
21.59%
Pre-K handicapped endorsement
3.41%
Other
17.05%

52
Table 3 - Continued
Variable
Mean/Standard
Deviation Percent
Years of Teaching Experience
x = 15.99
sd = 10.90
Years of Experience Teaching Kindergarten
5c = 10.23
sd = 9.09
*Not all participants completed every item on the TIS.
’‘'^Percentages do not equal 100% as some participants were certified in more
than one area.
Table 4
Teaching Environment Demographic Information Provided by Participants on
the Teacher Information Survey (TIS)
Variable
Mean/Standard
Deviation
Percent
Number of Students in Class (n = 88)
3c = 22.59
sd = 3.49
Number of Students Referred for Retention
3c =2.19
(n = 88)
sd = 2.26
Number of Students Referred for Screening
3c =2.14
by Child Study Team (n = 88)
Estimated Socioeconomic Status of Students
(n = 88)
sd = 1.71
Low
21.84%
Low/Middle
43.68%
Middle
20.69%
Middle/High
11.49%
High
0%

53
children for retention (x = 2.19, sd = 2.26) as they did for special education
testing (x = 2.14, sd = 1.71). The majority of participants rated their school
populations' socioeconomic status as low/middle class (43.68%).
Measures
Child Vignettes
Information on teachers' beliefs about school adjustment was obtained
through ratings on eight vignettes about hypothetical kindergarten children
(see Appendix C). Five variables were held constant across all eight vignettes:
gender, race, physical health, socioeconomic status, and academic ability. All
eight children were described as Caucasian males who are physically healthy,
Head Start graduates, and of lower middle socioeconomic status. The children
had borderline academic ability (i.e., in the "slow learner" range). Three
variables were modified across the eight vignettes: temperament,
developmental maturity, and parent involvement. These variables were
dichotomous in nature; children were presented as having either an easy or
difficult temperament, as being either developmentally mature or immature,
and as having either involved or uninvolved parents.
As part of the instrument development, a pilot study was conducted to
examine the face validity of the vignettes. The participants were five

54
kindergarten teachers from Duval County. An elementary school was
identified and appropriate entry permission was obtained from the principal.
The researcher met with the kindergarten teachers at the school to discuss the
study, obtain consent for participation (see Appendix D), and distribute
materials.
Pilot study participants were asked to read the child vignettes and
complete the School Adjustment and Success Questionnaire (described below)
for each of the eight children. The vignettes were presented to pilot study
participants in random order. After the participants completed the vignette
packets, the researcher met with them to conduct a focus group. The purpose
of the focus group was to obtain participants' feedback on the vignettes and
questionnaire. The researcher asked participants about the information
presented regarding the children's skills and abilities. For example, the
researcher asked whether sufficient information was provided and whether
the information provided was appropriate of a "slow learner." In addition,
participants were asked whether enough information was provided in each
vignette to be able to answer the questionnaire items. Finally, participants
were asked whether any of the questionnaire items were confusing. This
information was used, in conjunction with dissertation committee members'

55
feedback, to prepare a final draft of the child vignettes and questionnaire to be
used in the reliability study and research study.
When asked about the types of academic skills included about the
children, pilot study participants indicated that information about the
children's knowledge of letter sounds was not included and constituted one of
the major areas students are expected to learn during kindergarten.
Participants also assisted the researcher in revising the children's achievement
level so that it was appropriate of "slow learners" at the end of the third nine
weeks grading period. The description was modified prior to conducting the
reliability study. Participants expressed the belief that sufficient information
was presented about each child to answer the questionnaire items. In
addition, they did not express any specific concerns about questionnaire items.
Teachers' Perceptions of School Adjustment and Success
After reading each vignette, participants were asked to respond to the
School Adjustment and Success Questionnaire (see Appendix C). The
questionnaire included 18 items. Fifteen items were adapted from the Teacher
Rating Scale of School Adjustment (Pianta, 1992) and three additional items,
developed by the researcher for this study, related to retention candidacy,
special education referral, and transition to first grade. Participants were

56
asked to rate each child based on the description using a five point Likert scale
ranging from "definitely would not apply" to "definitely would apply."
A reliability study was conducted as a part of the instrument
development. The participants were 105 collegiate students enrolled in
Educational Psychology, Child Development, and Infant Development
courses in the College of Education at the University of Florida. The sample
included some preservice teachers enrolled primarily in the Child
Development and Infant Development courses. The researcher obtained
permission from three course instructors to ask their students to participate.
The researcher met with students in two courses to discuss the study and
distribute consent forms (see Appendix E) and study materials (i.e., a cover
sheet with general instructions and the child vignettes packet). A written
description of the study, consent forms, and study materials were sent to the
instructor of the third course who read the description and distributed
materials to her class. Among the approximately 140 students who received
consent form/study material packets, 105 consented to participate and
completed study materials.
These participants were asked to read the child vignettes and complete
the School Adjustment and Success Questionnaire for each of the eight
children. The vignettes were presented to participants in random order.

57
Participants' ratings, with the seven reverse-scored items adjusted, across all
eight vignettes were used to establish the reliability of the School Adjustment
and Success Questionnaire.
Analyses using Cronbach's Alpha were conducted on the 15 school
adjustment items and the three school success items separately. For items
1-15, 24 of the 840 data sets were excluded from analysis due to missing data
(i.e., participants did not rate all 15 items). Based on 816 cases, the school
adjustment items yielded an a = .9536. For items 16-18, three of the 840 data
sets were excluded from analysis due to missing data (i.e., participants did not
rate all three items). Based on 837 cases, the school success items yielded an
a = .8629. Test scores that yield a reliability coefficient of at least .80 are
considered sufficiently reliable for most research purposes (Gall, Borg, & Gall,
1996). Therefore, analyses supported the use of the School Adjustment and
Success Questionnaire in the research study.
Teacher Temperament Type
Information on teachers' temperament characteristics was acquired
from their self-report ratings on the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI), a
measure of temperament type for individuals ages 14 through adulthood
(Briggs & Myers, 1998). This 93-item instrument provides data in each of the

58
three temperament type dichotomies originally defined by Jung, and the
fourth dichotomy described by Myers and Briggs (i.e., extraversión -
introversion, sensing - feeling, thinking - feeling, and judging - perceiving).
Two types of items are presented in a forced-choice format. One type
describes a behavior or attitude and asks the participant to choose a response
based on personal preferences. The second type of item presents two words
and asks the participant to choose the most appealing word. Analysis of the
MBTI provides scores in each of the four temperament type dichotomies.
These scores are used to determine the participant's preference within each
type dichotomy and can be combined to determine the participant's four-letter
temperament type (e.g., ISTJ, ENFP) (Quenk, 2000).
Myers and colleagues (1998) reported estimates of the MBTI's reliability
and validity. For example, internal consistency was estimated using split-half
(logical split-half and consecutive split-half) and coefficient alpha procedures.
Split-half reliabilities of the four scales range from .89 to .94. Coefficient alpha
reliabilities of the four scales range from .88 to .93. In addition, test-retest
reliability of the four scales range from .83 to .97 in three studies (Myers et al.,
1998).

59
With regard to the validity of the MBIT, Myers and colleagues (1998)
reported that four separate exploratory factor analyses produced results that
were almost identical to the hypothesized structure of the MBTI. In addition,
the results of several confirmatory factor analyses are described in the MBTI
manual. When considered together, strong support exists for the construct
validity of the MBTI (Myers et al., 1998).
Myers and colleagues (1998) also provide evidence of concurrent
validity. The results of several studies are presented, including correlations
between the MBTI Form M and the Jungian Type Survey (i.e., E: .68 (p < .01), I:
.66 (p < .01), S: .54 (p < .01), N: .47 (p < .01), T: .33 (p < .01), and F: .23 (p < .05)).
Further, correlations between the MBTI Form G and the 16 Personality Factors
Questionnaire (5th Edition) were reported (e.g., E-extraversion: .68 (p<.05), I-
extraversion: -.61 (p<.05), S-tough-mindedness: .56 (p<.05), N-tough-
mindedness: -.56 (p<.05), J-self-control: .54 (p<.05), and P-self-control: -.57
(p<.05)). In addition, correlations between MBTI Form G and the Million
Index of Personality Styles were reported (e.g., E-extraverting: .67,1-
extraverting: -.71, E-introverting: -.63,1-introverting: .64, S-sensing: .75, N-
sensing: -.75, S-intuiting: -.60, N-intuiting: .60, T-thinking: .62, F-thinking: -
.57, T-feeling: -.62, F-feeling: .64, J-systematizing: .59, P-systematizing: -.60, J-

60
innovating: -.51, and P-innovating: .55 [all p<.01]). Overall, the concurrent
validity studies supported "the predictions of type theory regarding the
meaning of and the behaviors believed to be associated with the four
dichotomies" (Myers et al., 1998, p. 219).
Teacher Demographic Information
Participants also were asked to complete the Teacher Information
Survey, a scale developed by the researcher for this study (see Appendix F).
The purpose of this instrument was to obtain demographic information about
the participants. Teachers provided information about their background (e.g.,
age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, years of experience, etc.) and their
teaching environment (e.g., number of students in their class, average
socioeconomic status of their students, and number of referrals made for
special education and retention).
Procedure
Child Vignettes
Participating teachers were asked to read and respond to questions
pertaining to eight vignettes. The teachers received a packet containing a
cover sheet and the eight vignettes presented in random order. Teachers were

61
instructed to assume that they are kindergarten teachers in a medium-sized
school district. The school is located in a lower-middle class neighborhood
and has approximately 500 students in kindergarten through grade five.
Teachers were told to assume that they are the children's teacher and that it is
the end of the third nine-week grading period. They were instructed that each
of the eight children has certain characteristics in common:
They are Caucasian males who graduated from Head Start preschool
programs. Physically, they are all healthy. Academically, they are
described as slow learners. They catch on slowly to new academic
skills and concepts. For example, they know approximately 35 of 52
upper and lower case letters and approximately one-quarter of their
letter sounds. The children can count from 1 -18. Their knowledge of
the days of the week is inconsistent. They have difficulty with concepts
such as before/after, alike/different, and sorting. The children enjoy
being read to, but they have difficulty recalling more than one or two
details from a story. When asked to draw a picture and write a
sentence describing the picture, they often write a few letters rather
than a few words. They have difficulty telling you what they've
written.
Teachers' Perceptions of School Adjustment and Success
Based on the information presented in each vignette, participants were
asked to respond to the School Adjustment and Success Questionnaire. They
were asked to consider the child described in each vignette separately.
Specific instructions for completing the questionnaire were included with the
scale. Teachers were instructed to reflect on the degree to which each of the

62
statements would be characteristic of that particular child. Teachers were
asked to rate each statement on a scale from 1 (definitely would not apply) to
5 (definitely would apply). Teacher's adjustment ratings were entered into a
database and a total adjustment score (the sum of the ratings for the first 15
items, with five reverse-scored items adjusted) was generated for each
vignette. The three school success items also were entered into the database
and a total success score (the sum of the ratings for items 16-18, with two
reverse-scored items adjusted) also was generated for each vignette.
Teacher Temperament Type
Participants were asked to complete the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI). A question booklet and answer sheet was included in the packet each
teacher received. Specific instructions were included on the question booklet.
They directed the participant to read each question and mark his or her
answer on the separate answer sheet. The directions indicated that
participants should not spend too much time answering any one question, and
that participants should skip questions for which they could not decide on an
answer and return to it later. The directions also informed the participant that
his or her answers

63
will help show how you like to look at things and how you like to go
about deciding things. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers.
Knowing your own preferences and learning about other people's can
help you understand what your strengths are, what kinds of work you
might enjoy, and how people with different preferences can relate to
one another and contribute to society. (Briggs & Myers, 1998, p. 1)
Completed MBTIs were scored using the MBTI scoring templates.
There are four templates, one for each preference dichotomy (i.e., E -1, S - N,
T - F, and J - P). Use of the templates provided raw scores that were then
used to determine a participant's preference within each type dichotomy.
Participants' types (e.g., ISTJ, ENFP, etc.) were used in the data analyses.
Research suggests that teachers primarily have ESFJ or ISFJ types (Grindler &
Stratton, 1990; Macdaid et al., 1986). A data reduction procedure was used to
categorize participants' types as either the "teacher type" (i.e., ESFJ or ISFJ;
n = 34) or the "non-teacher type" (i.e., all other types; n = 54). Nine of the 87
participants had a three-letter type and one participant had a two-letter type
as they did not demonstrate a clear preference on at least one type dichotomy.
Figure 1 provides a summary of the distribution of MBTI types.
In appreciation for their participation, teachers received a written
report following the completion of their participation in the study, which
described their temperament type based on their responses to the MBTI.
Reports provided general information about the participant's temperament

64
type as well as how a teacher's type may affect his or her interactions with
students.
Teacher Demographic Information
Participants were asked to complete the 12-item Teacher Information
Survey that provided categorical data (i.e., educational degree, age, gender,
ethnicity, years of experience, educational background, number of students in
class, and students' socioeconomic status). In addition, it asked about the
teachers' special education and retention referrals during the 2001-2002 school
year. The Teacher Information Survey also asked teachers whether they had
completed the MBTI prior to participating in the current study.

Figure 1
Summary of Participants' Types on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Distribution of Types
Main Types
All
Count 88
Percent 100%
I E IE
33 54 1
38% 61% 1%
N
s
NS
F
T
FT
28
53
7
75
11
2
32%
60%
8%
85%
13%
2%
P J PJ
28 58 2
32% 66% 2%
so
I E IE N S NS F T FT PJPJ
Combinations
Count
Percent
All
INFP
INFJ
INTP
INTJ
ISFP
ISFJ
ISTP
ISTJ
ENFP
ENFJ
ENTP
ENTJ
ESFP
ESFJ
ESTP
ESTJ
Other
88
2
2
1
1
2
21
1
0
11
9
0
1
6
13
3
4
11
100%
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
24%
1%
0%
13%
10%
0%
1%
7%
15%
3%
5%
13%
OzD
INFP INFJ INTP IMTJ ISFP ISFJ I8TP ISTJ ENFP ENFJ ENTP ENTJ ESFP ESFJ ESTP ESTJ Ottw

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Introduction
This study examined teachers' judgments of children's school
adjustment and success based on child- and teacher-related variables (i.e.,
child temperament, child developmental maturity, parent involvement, and
teacher temperament type). Specifically, this study addressed the following
questions:
1. What relationships exist among teachers' perceptions of children's
school adjustment and the four explanatory variables (i.e., child
temperament, child developmental maturity, parental involvement,
and teacher temperament type)?
2. What relationships exist among teachers' perceptions of children's
school success and the four explanatory variables (i.e., child
temperament, child developmental maturity, parental involvement,
and teacher temperament type)?
The study contained four explanatory variables: child temperament,
child developmental maturity, parent involvement, and teacher temperament
66

67
type. All four were measured on an ordinal scale (easy temperament vs.
difficult temperament developmentally mature vs. developmental^
immature, involved parents vs. uninvolved parents, and ESFJ/ISFJ vs. other
types). The study contained two outcome variables: teacher perceptions of
school adjustment and teacher perceptions of school success. Outcome
variables also were measured on an ordinal scale.
Descriptive statistics (e.g., means and standard deviations; presented in
Chapter 3) were used to examine characteristics of the participants based on
information provided on the Teacher Information Survey. In addition, a data
reduction procedure was used to examine participants' responses to the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and determine the frequency count of the 16
types in the sample. Participants' types were collapsed into dichotomous
categories - the "teacher type" (i.e., ESFJ/ISFJ) and "non-teacher type" (i.e., all
other types).
To address both research questions, split plot repeated measures
analysis of variance procedures were used. An alpha level of .05 was used for
initial and posthoc analyses. For question one, a split plot repeated measures
ANOVA was used to determine whether relationships exist among teachers'
perceptions of school adjustment and the explanatory variables (i.e., child

68
temperament, child developmental maturity, parental involvement, and
teacher temperament type). Child temperament, child developmental
maturity, and parent involvement were entered as within subjects variables.
Teacher temperament was entered as a between subjects variable. A series of
paired samples t-tests with a Bonferroni adjustment were conducted post hoc
to explore significant effects.
For question two, a split plot repeated measures ANOVA was used to
determine whether relationships exist among teachers' perceptions of school
success and the explanatory variables (i.e., child temperament, child
developmental maturity, parental involvement, and teacher temperament
type). Child temperament, child developmental maturity, and parent
involvement were entered as within subjects variables. Teacher temperament
was entered as a between subjects variable. Post-hoc analyses, using paired
samples t-tests with a Bonferroni adjustment, were conducted to explore
significant effects.
Teachers' Perceptions of Children's School Adjustment
Relationships among teachers' perceptions of children's school
adjustment and child temperament (ChTemp), child developmental maturity
(Maturity), parental involvement (Involve), and teacher temperament type

69
(TchTemp) were examined through the use of a split plot repeated measures
analysis of variance. As seen in Tables 5 and 6, main effects were observed for
the child temperament (F(i, 84) = 1114.018, p < .01), developmental maturity
(F(i, 84) = 195.580, p < .01), parent involvement (Fa, 84) = 22.874, p < .01), and
teacher temperament (Fa, 84) = 437.243, p < .05) variables. In addition,
significant interactions were found between child temperament and
developmental maturity (Fa, 84) = 7.242, p < .01); child temperament and parent
involvement (Fa, 84) = 16.492, p < .01); developmental maturity and parent
involvement (Fa, 84) = 6.739, p < .05); child temperament, developmental
maturity, and teacher temperament (Fa, 84) = 5.822, p < .05); and child
temperament, developmental maturity, and parent involvement
(Fa, 84) = 13.946, p < .01).
Post-hoc paired samples t-tests with a Bonferroni correction were
conducted to examine the nature of the child temperament by developmental
maturity by teacher temperament interaction and the child temperament by
developmental maturity by parent involvement interaction. Table 7 provides
a summary of the mean school adjustment ratings for the child temperament
by developmental maturity by teacher temperament interaction. The
proportion of the total variance accounted for by this interaction is .065.

Adjustment ratings are significantly higher for children with easy
temperament styles who are developmentally mature as rated by participants
with the non-teacher temperament type and lowest for children with difficult
temperaments who are developmentally immature as rated by participants
with the teacher type (t(65) = -24.159, p < .01; see Table 8). A paired samples t-
test indicates that mean differences between adjustment ratings by non¬
teacher type participants for difficult, developmentally immature children and
difficult, developmentally mature children are larger than mean differences
between adjustment ratings by non-teacher type participants for easy,
developmentally immature children and easy, developmentally mature
children (t(ios) = 9.589, p < .01). Further, paired samples t-test results indicate
that mean differences between adjustment ratings by non-teacher type
participants for easy, developmentally immature children and easy,
developmentally mature children were significantly larger than mean
differences between adjustment ratings by teacher type participants for easy,
developmentally immature children and easy, developmentally mature
children (t(65) = -11.911, p > .01).

71
Table 5
Within Subjects Effects
Source
dfl
df2
MS ('Effect')
F
£
Hi
ChTemp
1
84
117673.872
1114.018 *
.000
.930
Maturity
1
84
6316.446
195.580 *
.000
.700
Involve
1
84
755.866
22.874 *
.000
.214
ChTemp * TchTemp
1
84
2.326
.022
.882
.000
Maturity * TchTemp
1
84
.748
.023
.879
.000
Involve * TchTemp
1
84
16.017
.485
.488
.006
ChTemp * Maturity
1
84
269.510
7.242 *
.009
.079
ChTemp * Maturity *
TchTemp
1
84
216.661
5.822 **
.018
.065
ChTemp * Involve
1
84
445.778
16.492 *
.000
.164
ChTemp * Involve *
TchTemp
1
84
5.081
.188
.666
.002
Maturity * Involve
1
84
195.529
6.739 **
.011
.074
Maturity * Involve *
TchTemp
1
84
15.471
.533
.467
.006
ChTemp * Maturity *
Involve
1
84
479.314
13.946 *
.000
.142
ChTemp * Maturity *
Involve * TchTemp
1
84
1.244
.036
.850
.000
Note: ChTemp = child temperament; Maturity = developmental maturity;
Involve = parent involvement; TchTemp = teacher temperament type
* £<.01
** p< .05

72
Table 6
Summary for School Adjustment Split Plot Repeated Measures ANOVA for
Between Subjects Effects
Source
dfl
MS
F
£
Intercept
1
1621934.802
18197.574 *
.000
.995
TchTemp
1
437.243
4.906 **
.029
.055
Error
84
89.129
Table 7
Mean Adjustment Ratings for Child Temperament by Developmental
Maturity by Teacher Temperament Interaction Effect
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Std.
Lower
Upper
Interaction Variables
Mean
Error
Bound
Bound
Non-
Difficult
Immature
32.875
.765
31.354
39.831
34.396
43.034
Teacher
Type
Mature
41.433
.805
Easy
Immature
61.933
.791
60.361
63.505
Mature
65.635
.826
63.992
67.278
Difficult
Immature
32.206
.946
30.325
34.086
Teacher
Mature
38.603
.996
36.622
40.584
Type
Easy
Immature
59.206
.978
57.262
61.150
Mature
65.338
1.022
63.306
67.370

73
Table 8
Paired Samples T-Tests for Adjustment Ratings for Child Temperament by
Developmental Maturity by Teacher Temperament Interaction Effect
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Pair
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Std.
Error
t
df
Sig.
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
TchType/
Difficult/
Immature
Non-Teh
Type/
Easy/
Mature
-3432
1154
1.42
-24.159
65
.000
-37.16
-31.48
Case A1
CaseB2
15.189
15362
1541
9359*
105
.000
12134
18244
Case C3
Case D4
-2424
12278
1511
-.160
65
373
-3261
2776
Case A
CaseC
-3246
10.768
1336
-2431
64
.018
-5.914
-578
CaseB
CaseD
-18.723
12673
157
-11.911*
64
.000
-21363
-15582
* £<.01
1 Case A = mean differences between ratings by non-teacher type participants
for difficult, developmentally immature children and difficult,
developmentally mature children
2 Case B = mean differences between ratings by non-teacher type participants
for easy, developmentally immature children and easy, developmentally
mature children
3 Case C = mean differences between ratings by teacher type participants for
difficult, developmentally immature children and difficult, developmentally
mature children
4 Case D = mean differences between ratings by teacher type participants for
easy, developmentally immature children and easy, developmentally mature
children

74
A summary of mean school adjustment ratings for the child
temperament by developmental maturity by parent involvement interaction is
provided in Table 9. A paired samples t-test indicates that adjustment ratings
are significantly higher for the child with an easy temperament style who is
developmentally mature and has involved parents than ratings for the child
with a difficult temperament who is developmentally immature and has
uninvolved parents (t<87) = -33.683, p < .006; see Table 10). The proportion of
total variance accounted for by the child temperament by developmental
maturity by parent involvement interaction is .142.
Further examination of this interaction using the paired samples t-test
procedure indicated five significant pairs. First, ratings for the child with a
difficult temperament who is developmentally immature and has involved
parents are significantly higher than ratings for the child with a difficult
temperament who is developmentally immature and has uninvolved parents
(t<86) = -8.673, p < .006). Second, ratings for the difficult child who is
developmentally mature and has uninvolved parents are significantly higher
than ratings for the difficult child who is developmentally immature and has
uninvolved parents (t(87) = -12.954, p < .006). Third, adjustment ratings are
significantly higher for the easy, developmentally immature child with

75
Table 9
Mean Adjustment Ratings for Child Temperament by Developmental
Maturity by Parent Involvement Interaction Effect
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Interaction Variables
Mean
Std.
Error
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Immature
Difficult
Mature
Uninvolved
29.247
.682
27.890
30.603
Involved
35.834
.756
34.331
37.337
Uninvolved
39.521
.725
38.079
40.964
Involved
40.514
.859
38.806
42.222
Immature
Easy
Mature
Uninvolved
60.629
.647
59.343
61.915
Involved
60.510
.843
58.833
62.186
Uninvolved
64.929
.843
63.253
66.606
Involved
66.044
.759
64.535
67.552
Table 10
Paired Samples T-Tests of Adjustment Ratings for Child Temperament by
Developmental Maturity by Parent Involvement Interaction Effect
Pair
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Std.
Error t
df
Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Difficult/
Easy/
Immature/
Mature/
-36.86
10.27
1.09 -33.683*
87
.000
-39.04
-34.69
Uninvolved
Involved
Difficult/
Difficult/
Immature/
Immature/
-6.45
6.93
.74 -8.673*
86
.000
-7.93
-4.97
Uninvolved
Involved

76
Table 10 Continued
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Std. Std. Lower Upper
Pair
Mean
Dev.
Error
t
df
Sig.
Bound
Bound
Difficult/
Mature/
Uninvolved
Difficult/
Mature/
Involved
-1.02
8.44
.90
-1.131
86
.261
-2.82
.78
Difficult/
Immature/
Uninvolved
Difficult/
Mature/
Uninvolved
-10.74
7.78
.83
-12.954*
87
.000
-12.39
-9.09
Difficult/
Immature/
Involved
Difficult/
Mature/
Involved
-4.99
8.96
.97
-5.163*
85
.000
-6.91
-3.07
Easy/
Immature/
Uninvolved
Easy/
Immature/
Involved
.25
7.54
.80
.311
87
.756
-1.35
1.85
Easy/
Mature/
Uninvolved
Easy/
Mature/
Involved
-1.14
8.22
.88
-1.297
87
.198
-2.88
.60
Easy/
Immature/
Involved
Easy/
Mature/
Uninvolved
-4.24
8.21
.87
-4.845*
87
.000
-5.98
-2.50
Easy/
Immature/
Involved
Easy/
Mature/
Involved
-5.38
8.47
.90
-5.951*
87
.000
-7.17
-3.58
* p < .006

77
involved parents than ratings for the easy, developmentally mature child with
involved parents (t<85) = -5.163, p < .006). Fourth, adjustment ratings were
significantly higher for the child with easy temperament characteristics who is
developmentally mature and has uninvolved parents than for the easy child
who is developmentally immature and has involved parents (t<87) = -4.845,
p < .006). Finally, adjustment ratings for the easy, developmentally mature
child with have involved parents are significantly higher than ratings for the
easy, developmentally immature child with involved parents (t(87) = -5.951,
p < .006).
Teachers' Perceptions of Children's School Success
A split plot repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to
explore the relationships among teachers' perceptions of children's school
success and child temperament (ChTemp), child developmental maturity
(Maturity), parental involvement (Involve), and teacher temperament type
(TchTemp). As seen in Tables 11 and 12, significant main effects were
observed for the child temperament (Fa, 84) = 197.729, p < .01) and
developmental maturity (Fa, 84) = 161.982, p < .01) variables. In addition,
significant interaction effects were found for child temperament and

78
Table 11
Summary for School Success Split Plot Repeated Measures ANOVA for
Within Subjects Effects
Source
dfl
df2
MS
F
£
ChTemp
1
84
2248.601
197.729 *
.000
.702
Maturity
1
84
1121.699
161.982 *
.000
.659
Involve
1
84
2.205
.585
.446
.007
ChTemp * TchTemp
1
84
2.473
.217
.642
.003
Maturity * TchTemp
1
84
1.537E-03
.000
.988
.000
Involve * TchTemp
1
84
1.263
.335
.564
.004
ChTemp * Maturity
1
84
18.491
5.012 **
.028
.056
ChTemp * Maturity *
TchTemp
1
84
4.316
1.170
.282
.014
ChTemp * Involve
1
84
12.248
2.918
.091
.034
ChTemp * Involve *
TchTemp
1
84
3.294
.785
.378
.009
Maturity * Involve
1
84
2.125
.557
.457
.007
Maturity * Involve *
TchTemp
1
84
.346
.091
.764
.001
ChTemp * Maturity *
Involve
1
84
22.967
5.679 **
.019
.063
ChTemp * Maturity *
Involve * TchTemp
1
84
9.920
2.453
.121
.028
Note: ChTemp = child temperament; Maturity = developmental maturity;
Involve = parent involvement; TchTemp = teacher temperament type
* g<.01
** p < .05

79
Table 12
Summary for School Success Split Plot Repeated Measures ANOVA for
Between Subjects Effects
Source
dfl
MS
F
P
n?
Intercept
1
50316.141
2099.666 *
.000
.962
TchTemp
1
1.420
.059
.808
.001
Error
84
23.964
* £<.01
developmental maturity (F(i, 84) = 5.012, p < .05) and child temperament,
developmental maturity, and parent involvement (Fa, 84) = 5.679, p < .05).
A summary of mean school success ratings for the child temperament by
developmental maturity by parent involvement interaction is provided in Table
13. The proportion of total variance accounted for by the interaction is .014, as
measured by the eta squared statistic. Post-hoc tests (i.e., paired samples t-tests
with a Bonferroni adjustment) were conducted to examine the nature of the
child temperament, developmental maturity, and parent involvement
interaction effect (see Table 14). School success ratings are significantly higher
for the child with an easy temperament style and who is developmentally
mature and has involved parents than ratings for the child with a difficult

80
Table 13
Mean School Success Ratings for Child Temperament by Developmental
Maturity by Parent Involvement Interaction Effect
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Std. Lower Upper
Interaction Variables Mean Error Bound Bound
Immature
Uninvolved
5.403
.242
4.921
5.885
Difficult
Involved
5.502
.237
5.032
5.973
Mature
Uninvolved
8.856
.310
8.240
9.472
Involved
7.975
.320
7.339
8.611
Immature
Uninvolved
9.559
.291
8.980
10.138
Easy
Involved
9.456
.360
8.740
10.171
Mature
Uninvolved
11.586
.351
10.889
12.284
Involved
12.006
.330
11.349
12.663
Table 14
Paired Samples T-Tests of Success Ratings for Child Temperament by
Developmental Maturity by Parent Involvement Interaction Effect
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Std. Std. Lower Upper
Pair Mean Dev. Error t df Sig. Bound Bound
Difficult/ Easy/
Immature/ Mating -6.70 3.52 .38 -17.751* 86 .000 -7.45 -5.95
Uninvolved Involved
Difficult/ Difficult/
Immature/ Immature/ -.24 2.56 .27 -.881 86 .381 -.79 .30
Uninvolved Involved

81
Table 14 Continued
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Std. Std. Lower Upper
Pair
Mean
Dev.
Error
t
df
Sig.
Bound
Bound
Difficult/
Mature/
Uninvolved
Difficult/
Mature/
Involved
.91
2.99
.32
2.853*
87
.005
.28
1.54
Difficult/
Immature/
Uninvolved
Difficult/
Mature/
Uninvolved
-3.57
2.96
.32
-11.298*
87
.000
-4.20
-2.94
Difficult/
Immature/
Involved
Difficult/
Mature/
Involved
-2.40
3.35
.36
-6.689*
86
.000
-3.12
-1.69
Easy/
Immature/
Uninvolved
Easy/
Immature/
Involved
.14
3.05
.33
.421
86
.675
-.51
.79
Easy/
Mature/
Uninvolved
Easy/
Mature/
Involved
-.53
2.64
.28
-1.871
86
.065
-1.09
.03
Easy/
Immature/
Involved
Easy/
Mature/
Uninvolved
-2.01
3.49
.37
-5.377*
86
.000
-2.76
-1.27
Easy/
Immature/
Involved
Easy/
Mature/
Involved
-2.54
2.82
.30
-8.392*
86
.000
-3.14
-1.94
* p < .006

82
temperament who is developmentally immature and has uninvolved parents
(t(86) = -17.751, p < .006).
Further examination of this interaction using the paired samples t-test
procedure indicated five significant pairs. First, ratings for the difficult child
who is developmentally mature and has uninvolved parents were
significantly higher than ratings for the difficult child who is developmentally
mature with involved parents (t<87) = 2.853, p < .006). Second, ratings for the
child with difficult temperament characteristics who is developmentally
mature with uninvolved parents are significantly higher than ratings for the
difficult child who is developmentally immature with uninvolved parents
(t(87) = -11.298, p < .006). Third, ratings were significantly higher for the difficult
child with involved parents when the child was developmentally mature than
when he was developmentally immature (t(86) = -6.689, p < .01). Fourth, ratings
for the easy, developmentally mature child with uninvolved parents are
significantly higher than ratings for the easy, developmentally immature child
with involved parents (t<86) = -5.377, p < .006). Finally, ratings for the easy,
developmentally mature child with involved parents were significantly higher
than ratings for the easy, developmentally immature child with involved
parents (t<86) = -8.392, p < .006).

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Introduction
Temperament refers to a person's behavioral style, a set of
constitutionally determined, dispositional characteristics that influence the
manner in which an individual's actions are expressed (Stelmack & Stalikas,
1991; Thomas, et al., 1968). Temperament affects how individuals respond to
objective features in the environment and influences future development (e.g.,
Bates, 1980; Carey, 1981; Carey & McDevitt, 1995; Carson, 1994; Caspi & Silva,
1995; Rothbart et al., 1994; Thomas & Chess, 1977). As a result, temperament
contributes to both normal and pathological development (Thomas & Chess,
1989).
Temperament has been linked to academic, behavioral, and social
adjustment (Carey, 1998). In addition, a child's academic performance and
interactions with teachers may affect the child's school adjustment and, as a
result, his or her fit with the classroom environment (Birch & Ladd, 1997;
Keogh, 2003; Martin & Gaddis 1989). Goodness of fit, defined as consonance
among a child's capabilities, characteristics, and style of behaving and the
83

84
expectations and demands of the child's environment, contributes to positive
developmental outcomes (Thomas & Chess, 1977).
The purpose of this study was to investigate relationships among a
number of child- and teacher-related variables that may affect a child's school
adjustment and success. If relationships among children's temperament and
variables that may affect goodness of fit can be identified, researchers and
practitioners may gain a better understanding of why some children are
successful in school-related activities while others face significant challenges.
Specifically, this study examined relationships among teacher's perceptions of
kindergarten children's school adjustment and success based on child
temperament, child developmental maturity, parent involvement, and teacher
temperament type.
School adjustment refers to how well suited a child is to the various
learning experiences encountered in schools (Skarpness & Carson, 1987).
Higher school adjustment ratings in the current study indicate a child is more
likely to seek challenges, enjoy school, and transition easily from one activity
to another. Results of this study suggest that participants' ratings of eight
hypothetical children's school adjustment vary significantly across the child
temperament, child developmental maturity, parent involvement, and teacher

85
temperament variables. In addition, significant interactions exist between
child temperament and developmental maturity; child temperament and
parent involvement; developmental maturity and parent involvement; child
temperament, developmental maturity, and teacher temperament; and child
temperament, developmental maturity, and parent involvement.
School success refers to a child's likelihood of having successful school
outcomes. Higher school success ratings indicate a child is less likely to be a
candidate for retention or referred for special education services and more
likely to make a successful transition to first grade. Results indicate that
participants' ratings of eight hypothetical children's school adjustment vary
significantly for the child temperament and child developmental maturity
variables. In addition, significant interaction effects exist for child
temperament and developmental maturity as well as for child temperament,
developmental maturity, and parent involvement.
Teachers' Perceptions of Children's School Adjustment and Success
Child Temperament
The finding that temperament significantly influences teachers'
perceptions of children's school adjustment and success was both expected
and consistent with a broader body of literature, which suggests that children

86
with difficult temperament characteristics are at-risk for academic, behavioral,
and school adjustment difficulties and poorer developmental outcomes (e.g.,
Carey, 1998; Caspi & Silva, 1995; Keogh, 1989; Skarpness & Carson, 1987).
Children with easy temperament styles have significantly higher school
adjustment and success ratings (indicating teachers perceived them as better
adjusted and more likely to have successful school outcomes) than the
children with difficult temperament styles.
Given the other variables in this study, temperament is consistently
seen as important. Children's temperament explains the highest proportion of
the variance in teachers' perceptions of school adjustment and success ratings.
Further, within each of the significant interaction effects, even with the
influence of the other variable(s), children with easy temperament styles
receive higher school adjustment and success ratings than their difficult child
counterparts.
This highlights the significant role temperament plays in a child's
development and school experiences. Children's temperaments affect their
academic performance (Keogh, 2003; Martin, 1989; Martin & Holbrook, 1985)
and influence teachers' perceptions of whether they will adjust well to and be
successful in the school environment. This is particularly important in the

87
current study when considering that all of the children are described as slow
learners. Despite this apparent similarity in ability level, children with easy
temperament characteristics receive high school adjustment and success
ratings.
Child Developmental Maturity
Research findings suggest that developmental maturity is significantly
related to children's school adjustment and success. Developmentally mature
children are rated as significantly better adjusted and more successful than the
more developmentally immature children. These findings are consistent with
child development theories.
In addition, developmental maturity interacts with other variables. For
example, participants rated children with easy temperaments who are
developmentally mature as the most well-adjusted and successful and
children with difficult temperaments who are developmentally immature as
the least well-adjusted and least likely to be successful. In addition, the
differences between school adjustment and school success ratings for difficult,
developmentally mature and difficult, developmentally immature children
were significantly larger than the difference between ratings for easy,
developmentally mature and easy, developmentally immature children.

88
This indicates that developmental maturity influences participants'
school adjustment and school success ratings for children with difficult
temperaments more so than it does for children with easy temperament styles,
suggesting that while developmental maturity contributes positively to
perceptions of a child's school adjustment and success, it may be particularly
important for children with difficult temperaments. Therefore, developmental
maturity may be a mediating factor that somewhat protects difficult children
from being perceived as more likely to have poor school success outcomes as
well as to have school adjustment difficulties.
Parent Involvement
Results of the study indicate that children with involved parents are
perceived to be better adjusted and more successful than children with
uninvolved parents. This difference is interesting, given that the hypothetical
children in the study had identical borderline readiness skills.
When considering teachers' perceptions of children's school adjustment
and success, other pairings that are significantly different suggest that parent
involvement influenced participants' ratings only for the child described as
difficult and developmentally immature (e.g., the difficult, developmentally
immature child with involved parents was perceived to be better adjusted

89
than the difficult, developmental^ immature child with uninvolved parents).
Overall, the child temperament by developmental maturity by parent
involvement interaction further implies that developmental maturity and
parent involvement support teacher's views of a child's school adjustment and
success, particularly for children with difficult temperament styles. This
suggests that parent involvement may be a mediating factor that somewhat
protects difficult, developmentally immature children from school adjustment
difficulties.
Teacher Temperament Type
Research findings suggest that school adjustment ratings by
participants with the non-teacher type are significantly higher than ratings by
the participants with the teacher type. A significant interaction relative to
teachers' perceptions of children's school adjustment exists among the child
temperament, developmental maturity, and teacher temperament variables.
The highest adjustment ratings are observed for children with easy
temperament characteristics who are developmentally mature, as rated by
non-teacher type participants. The lowest adjustment ratings are observed for
children with difficult temperament styles who are developmentally
immature, as rated by participants with the teacher type. Overall, this

90
interaction suggests that developmental maturity influences teachers'
perceptions of children's school adjustment, particularly for difficult children.
This influence is stronger for teachers with the non-teacher temperament type.
Although previous research does not specifically address this issue, one
possible reason for the difference in ratings is that the sensing and judging
aspects of the teacher temperament type (i.e., ESFJ/ISFJ) may influence these
teachers to be more decisive in their ratings, whereas participants with the
non-teacher type (particularly those with the perceiving and/or intuitive
attitude[s]) may be more accepting of differing qualities in their opinions of
and expectations for children. For example, individuals with the SJ grouping
of types are realistic decision makers. They also are described as conservative
and seeking order in their environment. SJs rely on factual and experiential
data in making decisions (Myers et al., 1998). These characteristics support
that participants with the teacher type would be more likely to provide lower
school adjustment ratings as they are more likely to have thoroughly
examined the facts presented about each child, rather than focusing on a gut
reaction. Further, because these teachers are conservative and value
classroom order, they may be less accepting of children with difficulties as
these children are less likely to conform to the teachers' expected standards.

91
Implications for Practice
Findings from this study provide several important implications for
practice. For example, the literature suggests that children with difficult
temperament characteristics have a higher risk for behavioral, social, and
academic difficulties. In addition, they have a higher risk for school
adjustment difficulties (Bates, 1980; Carey, 1981; Carey & McDevitt, 1995;
Carson, 1994; Caspi & Silva, 1995; Rothbart et al., 1994; Thomas & Chess,
1977). Results from the current study support these findings. Although
temperament does not cause behavior, certain temperament characteristics
(e.g., distractibility, lack of persistence, negative mood, etc.) predispose
children for difficulties (Keogh, 2003). It is important for practitioners (e.g.,
school psychologists, guidance counselors, and kindergarten teachers) to
recognize these predispositions and to assist children with difficult
temperaments to help them learn to modify their behavior in more positive
directions when necessary.
A child's temperament and features in his or her environment interact,
and these interactions are often more important that any single child or
environmental characteristic when considering children's school adjustment
and success difficulties (Carey, 1981; Sameroff & Fiese, 1990). As a result, it is

92
important for practitioners to look for ways in which a child's environment
can be adapted to serve as a positive influence on the child. For example,
understanding the implications of difficult temperament characteristics may
assist teachers to adapt the classroom environment, to the extent possible, to
better meet the needs of children.
This study suggests that teachers perceive children with difficult
temperament characteristics to have more school adjustment and success
difficulties than their peers with easy temperament styles. In addition,
children who are developmentally mature or have involved parents also are
perceived to be better adjusted and more successful. These variables also
interact. Overall, developmental maturity and parent involvement appear to
serve as mediating variables. That is, children who have difficult
temperaments and are developmentally mature and/or have involved parents
received higher school adjustment and school success ratings despite the fact
that all of the children have the same academic abilities. Therefore,
developmental maturity and parent involvement may be seen as protective
factors that help insulate children with difficult temperaments from school
adjustment and success difficulties. Although developmental maturity and
parent involvement also tend to increase ratings for children with easy

93
temperament styles, these differences are not as noticeable. This indicates that
practitioners should be aware of possible protective factors such as these that
can be emphasized to assist students. Practitioners also should look for other
protective factors that may exist for students that can be emphasized to
improve children's opportunities for success. Doing so could increase the
likelihood that children will have a good fit within their kindergarten
classrooms.
This study also suggests that teachers should be aware of their beliefs
about children so that some students are not put at a disadvantage over
others. Beliefs influence teachers' reactions to and interactions with students
(Kean, 1997; Keogh, 1986; Rothbart & Jones, 1998; Teglasi, 1998). This is
particularly important for kindergarten teachers, as kindergarten students'
experiences impact their long-term school adjustment (Rusher et al., 1992;
Skarpness & Carson, 1987). If teachers are aware of their beliefs, they can
work to ensure that these beliefs do not negatively impact their students. This
can be particularly important in promoting a good fit for children within the
classroom.
Further, teachers should become aware of their own temperament
types. Teachers who have the typical teacher type are conservative and seek

94
order in their classrooms due to the sensing and judging aspects of their types.
As a result, they may be less accepting of characteristics and behaviors
common of difficult children. Further, they may be less comfortable working
with these children; in other words, teaching children with difficult
temperament characteristics may fall outside these teachers' comfort zones.
By understanding their own type, teachers are in a position to recognize this
work to broaden their skills to widen their comfort zones. This has the
potential to increase the likelihood that a difficult child will have a poor fit
with his or her kindergarten teacher and classroom environment.
Limitations of the Study
Although this study has several significant findings, its limitations also
must be considered. For example, the sample is restricted to kindergarten
teachers who willingly participated. It is possible that systematic differences
related to school adjustment and success ratings may exist between teachers
who were willing and unwilling to participate in this study.
Second, participants' ratings were based on descriptions of hypothetical
children rather than actual children. Although this gives researchers and
practitioners an insight into teachers' perceptions, the use of hypothetical
scenarios is an artificial measure of teachers' perceptions of children's school

95
adjustment and school success. Further, generalization of research findings is
limited based on the descriptions in the child vignettes (e.g., boys who are
slow learners).
Third, the School Adjustment and Success Questionnaire is a new
instrument. Although information gathered on reliability supports its use in
this study, additional research needs to be conducted to support it as a reliable
and valid measure.
Fourth, the current study is limited as it includes only two types of
teacher and child temperament styles. A wider range of teacher and child
temperament styles would allow for a more thorough investigation of these
two variables. Finally, greater exploration of interactions could have been
accomplished by including additional types of analyses.
Implications for Future Research
The current study provides an indication that child- and teacher-related
variables influence teachers' perceptions of kindergarten children's school
adjustment and success. Additional exploration of these relationships should
be conducted to provide further support for these relationships. Research
investigating teachers' perceptions of actual students in their classes also may
enhance the current findings.

96
An additional implication for future research includes looking at the
individual adult temperament attitudes and functions (e.g., sensing-judging
vs. intuitive-perceiving preferences) rather than using just the teacher type
and non-teacher type. This would provide more in-depth information
regarding the influence of temperament on teachers' perceptions of children's
school adjustment and success.
Finally, the current research design could be adjusted to systematically
examine variables held constant in this study. Characteristics varied in this
study (e.g., developmental maturity) were found to have such a robust effect
on teachers' perceptions that they could be held constant in future studies.
For example, the hypothetical children could be girls or they could have
average intellectual ability. This would provide a broader perspective on the
influence of temperament on teachers' perceptions of children's school
adjustment and success.

APPENDIX A
PRINCIPAL INVITATION LETTER

RESEARCH STUDY PRINCIPAL INVITATION LETTER
Dear Elementary School Principal:
My name is Alicia Scott and I am a doctoral candidate in school psychology at the
University of Florida and a school psychologist for the Duval County Public Schools. As a part
of my graduate research, I would like to invite your kindergarten teachers to participate in a
research study that is being conducted to explore the relationship between kindergarten
children and teachers' temperament characteristics and teachers' impressions of children's
adjustment to school.
Participating kindergarten teachers will be asked to complete a series of questionnaires.
First, they will be asked to read eight cases about hypothetical children. After reading each case,
they will be asked to respond to a series of questions about the child presented. Second, they
will be asked to complete a questionnaire that will provide information about their
temperament characteristics. Finally, they will be asked to complete a questionnaire that will
provide me with information about their background (for example, education level and years
of experience) and the teaching environment (for example, number of students in your class).
These three questionnaires should take approximately one hour to complete.
I am inviting each school in the district to participate. Men and women will be selected to
participate in this study based on their status as kindergarten teachers. There is no risk to your
staff members. They are free to withdraw their permission for participation at any time
without consequence. Each participating teacher will be assigned a confidential number. Their
names will not be revealed to anyone, with the exception of my advisor and I, or appear in any
written work. In appreciation of teachers' participation, they will each receive a written report
describing their temperament characteristics. I am also offering to share a copy of the research
results when the study is completed. This summary will be available to you and your teachers
(upon request).
I have enclosed consent forms for your kindergarten teachers. If you give your permission
for me to collect data from your teachers, please distribute the consent forms to them. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 904/693-7942, ext. 324 or Dr. Smith
at 352/392-0723. Questions or concerns about research participants' rights may be directed to
the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (UFIRB) office at PO Box 112250,
Gainesville, FL 32611-2250 or 352/392-0433.
Thank you in advance for your support.
Sincerely,
Alicia M. Scott, M.A.E.
university of Florida
Institutional Review Board (IRR 02
Protocol# 1 - «-/A. 1
For Use Through. -&[ IfaS-
98

APPENDIX B
RESEARCH STUDY CONSENT FORM

RESEARCH STUDY CONSENT FORM
Dear Teacher:
My name is Alicia Scott and I am a doctoral candidate in school psychology at the
University of Florida. As a part of my graduate research, I would like to invite you to
participate in a research study that is being conducted to explore the relationship between
kindergarten children and teachers' temperament characteristics and teachers' impressions of
children's adjustment to school.
You will be asked to complete a series of questionnaires. First, you will be asked to read
eight case descriptions about hypothetical children. After reading each case, you will be asked
to respond to a series of questions about the child presented. Second, you will be asked to
complete a questionnaire that will provide information about your temperament
characteristics. Finally, you will be asked to complete a questionnaire that will provide me
with information about your background (for example, education level and, years of
experience) and the teaching environment (for example, number of students in your class).
These three questionnaires should take approximately one hour to complete.
You have been selected to participate in this study based on your status as a kindergarten
teacher. There is no risk to you, and your refusal to give consent will not in any way affect
your status at school. You are free to withdraw your permission for participation at any time
without consequence. Each participating teacher will be assigned a confidential number. Your
name will not be revealed to anyone, with the exception of my advisor and I, or appear in any
written work. In appreciation of your participation, you will receive a written report
describing your temperament characteristics. An additional benefit of participation includes
the opportunity to further research about children's development and school success. I would
also be happy to provide you with a summary of the research results when the study is
completed (upon request).
Please complete the attached signature page, indicating your consent to participate in my
study, and return it to me. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
904/693-7942, ext. 324 or Dr. Smith at 352/392-0723. Questions or concerns about research
participants' rights may be directed to the University of Florida Institutional Review Board
(UFIRB) office at PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250 or 352/392-0433.
Sincerely,
Alicia M. Scott, M.A.E.
Please read the above description, sign below, and return the bottom portion only.
I, , have read the procedure described in the attached letter and
voluntarily agree to participate in Alicia Scott's study. I acknowledge that I have received a
copy of the above description.
Teacher Signature
Date
100
APPROVED BY
University of Florida
Institutional Rpyiew Board f'F
Protocol* ¿.Ofol *" n/a1
For Lise Through.
i i

APPENDIX C
CHILD VIGNETTES AND
SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT AND SUCCESS QUESTIONNAIRE

Research Vignettes
Assume you are a Kindergarten teacher in a medium-sized school district.
The school is located in a lower-middle class neighborhood and has
approximately 500 students in Kindergarten through grade five.
You will be asked to answer questions about case descriptions that briefly
describe eight children. For each case, you should assume that you are the
child's teacher and that it is the end of the third nine-week grading period.
Each of the eight children has certain characteristics in common. They are
Caucasian males who graduated from Head Start preschool programs.
Physically, they are all healthy. Academically, they are described as slow
learners. They catch on slowly to new academic skills and concepts. For
example, they know approximately 35 of 52 upper and lower case letters and
approximately one-quarter of their letter sounds. The children can count from
1 -18. Their knowledge of the days of the week is inconsistent. They have
difficulty with concepts such as before/after, alike/different, and sorting. The
children enjoy being read to, but they have difficulty recalling more than one
or two details from a story. When asked to draw a picture and write a
sentence describing the picture, they often write a few letters rather than a few
words. They have difficulty telling you what they've written.
Please read each case and answer the questions based on the information
presented. Please consider each child separately.
102

103
David
David turned 6 years old in late November. He has good fine and gross motor skills
and well-developed language skills. David gets along well with other children, the
teacher, and the teacher's aide. When challenged by an adult or confronted by a
child, he quickly backs down in order to avoid confrontations. However, David is
not passive. He likes to make decisions and typically has a clear idea about what
center he'll choose first. A hard worker, David is able to ignore classroom
distractions and usually approaches assignments in a step-by-step manner. A parent
drops him off in the morning and picks him up in the afternoon. Both parents
communicate regularly with you about David's progress.
Remembering the attributes common to all the children (i.e., Caucasian male,
healthy, Head Start graduate, slow learner) and that it is the end of the third 9-week
grading period, please reflect on the degree to which each of the following
statements would be characteristic of the child described above. Using the scale
below, circle the appropriate number for each item.
Definitely Would
Wouldn’t
Neutral,
Would Apply
Definitely
Not Apply
Really Apply
Not Sure
Somewhat
Would Apply
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1.
2.
Likes to come to 1 2
school
Is self-directed 1 2
3 4
3 4
5
5
10. Seeks challenges
11. Has fun at school
3. Is slow to warm up to
teacher
1 2 3 4 5 12. Has discipline problems
4. Is interested in
classroom activities
1 2 3 4 5 13. Approaches new activities
with enthusiasm
5. Needs constant
supervision
6. Participates willingly in
classroom activities
7. Is cheerful at school
1
2 3 4 5
14. Complains about school
1
2 3 4 5
15. Makes transition from one
activity to another easily
1
2 3 4 5
16. Is a candidate for
retention
8. Needs a lot of help
and guidance
9. Is easy to manage
1 2 3 4 5 17. Should be referred for
special education services
1 2 3 4 5 18. Will make a successful
transition to first grade

104
Matthew
Matthew celebrated his 6th birthday at the beginning of November. He was toilet
trained at age 2’/2 and walked at age 10 months. Matthew has a lot of energy and
has a hard time remaining in his seat. If he sits at all, he squirms, but he often simply
gets up and moves around the classroom. When he is happy, Matthew is
enthusiastic and charming. However, he becomes extremely upset when
disappointed about something or you correct his mistakes. He has had several
temper tantrums this year. On most tasks, he tends to work in bursts - periods of
intense effort with slow periods in between. Matthew's parents are very supportive
and concerned about his academic progress. They are the first to sign up when you
ask for volunteers for class parties or performances.
Remembering the attributes common to all the children (i.e., Caucasian male,
healthy, Head Start graduate, slow learner) and that it is the end of the third 9-week
grading period, please reflect on the degree to which each of the following
statements would be characteristic of the child described above. Using the scale
below, circle the appropriate number for each item.
Definitely Would
Wouldn’t
Neutral,
Would Apply
Definitely
Not Apply
Really Apply
Not Sure
Somewhat
Would Apply
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1. Likes to come to
school
2. Is self-directed
3. Is slow to warm up to
teacher
4. Is Interested In
classroom activities
5. Needs constant
supervision
6. Participates willingly in
classroom activities
7. Is cheerful at school
8. Needs a lot of help
and guidance
9. Is easy to manage
1 2 3 4 5 10. Seeks challenges
1 2 3 4 5 11. Has fun at school
1 2 3 4 5 12. Has discipline problems
1 2 3 4 5 13. Approaches new activities
with enthusiasm
1 2 3 4 5 14. Complains about school
1 2 3 4 5 15. Makes transition from one
activity to another easily
1 2 3 4 5 16. Is a candidate for
retention
1 2 3 4 5 17. Should be referred for
special education services
1 2 3 4 5 18. Will make a successful
transition to first grade

105
Gary
Gary turned five in late June. Although his speech is mostly intelligible, his syntax
and grammar are often incorrect (for example, he says things like "I had me a dog,
but her died"). Gary's fine motor skills are immature (for example, he has trouble
cutting with scissors and seems clumsy when playing with blocks). Gary seems
comfortable with class routines. He works hard and likes to complete his work on
time. Gary is careful and usually thinks before he acts. He is concerned about
getting along with others and has several friends in the class. Gary's parents are also
hard working. Although they both have jobs and can't get off work for conferences
or field trips, they work with him regularly to reinforce what you are teaching.
Remembering the attributes common to all the children (i.e., Caucasian male,
healthy, Head Start graduate, slow learner) and that it is the end of the third 9-week
grading period, please reflect on the degree to which each of the following
statements would be characteristic of the child described above. Using the scale
below, circle the appropriate number for each item.
Definitely Would
Wouldn’t
Neutral,
Would Apply
Definitely
Not Apply
Really Apply
Not Sure
Somewhat
Would Apply
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1.
Likes to come to
school
1 2
3 4
5
2. Is self-directed
1 2 3 4 5
3. Is slow to warm up to
teacher
1 2 3 4 5
10. Seeks challenges
11. Has fun at school
12. Has discipline problems
4. Is interested in
classroom activities
5. Needs constant
supervision
6. Participates willingly in
classroom activities
7. Is cheerful at school
8. Needs a lot of help
and guidance
9. Is easy to manage
1 2 3 4 5 13. Approaches new activities
with enthusiasm
1 2 3 4 5 14. Complains about school
1 2 3 4 5 15. Makes transition from one
activity to another easily
1 2 3 4 5 16. Is a candidate for
retention
1 2 3 4 5 17. Should be referred for
special education services
1 2 3 4 5 18. Will make a successful
transition to first grade

106
John
John celebrated his 5th birthday in mid-July. His gross motor skills are not well-
developed, and he is clumsy. John's fine motor skills are even less developed. He
holds the pencil half-way up and still can't write his name despite the fact that
you've spent a lot of time on it. John talks to his peers no matter where he is seated.
Other students try to ignore him and complain when you assign him to their tables.
John never completes assignments on time and has difficulty sticking to the class
routine. He is overly curious and always wants to know "why," even about the most
basic of classroom rules. John's parents share your concerns, and frequently check in
with you to see how he is progressing. They read with him every night.
Remembering the attributes common to all the children (i.e., Caucasian male,
healthy, Head Start graduate, slow learner) and that it is the end of the third 9-week
grading period, please reflect on the degree to which each of the following
statements would be characteristic of the child described above. Using the scale
below, circle the appropriate number for each item.
Definitely Would
Wouldn’t
Neutral,
Would Apply
Definitely
Not Apply
Really Apply
Not Sure
Somewhat
Would Apply
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Likes to come to 1
school
Is self-directed 1
Is slow to warm up to 1
teacher
Is interested in 1
classroom activities
Needs constant 1
supervision
Participates willingly in 1
classroom activities
Is cheerful at school 1
Needs a lot of help 1
and guidance
Is easy to manage 1
2 3 4 5
10.
Seeks challenges
2 3 4 5
11.
Has fun at school
2 3 4 5
12.
Has discipline problems
2 3 4 5
13.
Approaches new activities
with enthusiasm
2 3 4 5
14.
Complains about school
2 3 4 5
15.
Makes transition from one
activity to another easily
2 3 4 5
16.
Is a candidate for
retention
2 3 4 5
17.
Should be referred for
special education services
2 3 4 5
18.
Will make a successful
transition to first grade

107
Theo
Theo turned 6 years old in early November. He was easily toilet trained and began
talking at 11 months of age. His motor skills are well developed and coordinated.
Theo is skilled at understanding people and is well-liked by his peers. He enjoys
working independently on projects. Theo works at a steady pace. He keeps his desk
and cubby neat and orderly. Theo is enrolled in the after-school program. Both his
parents have two jobs. They do not keep up with his classroom activities and
progress and ignore notes that you send home. When you telephoned them about an
issue, they responded they didn't have time to discuss it.
Remembering the attributes common to all the children (i.e., Caucasian male,
healthy, Head Start graduate, slow learner) and that it is the end of the third 9-week
grading period, please reflect on the degree to which each of the following
statements would be characteristic of the child described above. Using the scale
below, circle the appropriate number for each item.
Definitely Would
Wouldn’t
Neutral,
Would Apply
Definitely
Not Apply
Really Apply
Not Sure
Somewhat
Would Apply
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1. Likes to come to
school
2. Is self-directed
3. Is slow to warm up to
teacher
4. Is interested in
classroom activities
5. Needs constant
supervision
6. Participates willingly in
classroom activities
7. Is cheerful at school
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
8. Needs a lot of help
and guidance
9. Is easy to manage
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
10. Seeks challenges
11. Has fun at school
12. Has discipline problems
13. Approaches new activities
with enthusiasm
14. Complains about school
15. Makes transition from one
activity to another easily
16. Is a candidate for
retention
17. Should be referred for
special education services
18. Will make a successful
transition to first grade

108
Raymond
Raymond turned 6 in mid-November. Average to slightly above average in height, he
is well-coordinated and reached all his milestones before or within the normal time
frame. Raymond enjoys interacting with his peers and prefers to work on a project
with others than by himself. He needs a lot of attention and sometimes seems to prefer
negative attention to being ignored. Raymond gets bored easily and often has
difficulty completing work. He is the most frequent class tattle-teller. His parents
don't send Raymond to school with appropriate materials and are difficult to reach by
telephone. When you telephone them, you usually get the answering machine and
they don't return your calls.
Remembering the attributes common to all the children (i.e., Caucasian male,
healthy, Head Start graduate, slow learner) and that it is the end of the third 9-week
grading period, please reflect on the degree to which each of the following
statements would be characteristic of the child described above. Using the scale
below, circle the appropriate number for each item.
Definitely Would
Wouldn’t
Neutral,
Would Apply
Definitely
Not Apply
Really Apply
Not Sure
Somewhat
Would Apply
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1. Likes to come to
school
2. Is self-directed
3. Is slow to warm up to
teacher
4. Is interested in
classroom activities
5. Needs constant
supervision
6. Participates willingly in
classroom activities
7. Is cheerful at school
8. Needs a lot of help
and guidance
9. Is easy to manage
1 2 3 4 5 10. Seeks challenges
1 2 3 4 5 11. Has fun at school
1 2 3 4 5 12. Has discipline problems
1 2 3 4 5 13. Approaches new activities
with enthusiasm
1 2 3 4 5 14. Complains about school
1 2 3 4 5 15. Makes transition from one
activity to another easily
1 2 3 4 5 16. Is a candidate for
retention
1 2 3 4 5 17. Should be referred for
special education services
1 2 3 4 5 18. Will make a successful
transition to first grade

109
James
James had his 5th birthday at the end of June. He was toilet trained a few months after
his 3rd birthday and, by parent report, still has bed wetting accidents at night. He is
small in size compared to the other children, and isn't as good at games that require
gross motor coordination (like kickball or t-ball) as his peers. James often acts silly and is
considered socially immature. James loves to leam and is excited whenever you start a
new unit. He is a good listener, takes directions easily, and likes to know what is
expected of him. James is very sympathetic toward his peers, is well-liked, and has two
close classroom friends. His parents have missed the last three conferences you
scheduled with them (over a three-month period) and usually don't sign and return
progress reports or report cards. James' descriptions of what he does at home never
include school-related activities like reading or drawing.
Remembering the attributes common to all the children (i.e., Caucasian male,
healthy, Head Start graduate, slow learner) and that it is the end of the third 9-week
grading period, please reflect on the degree to which each of the following
statements would be characteristic of the child described above. Using the scale
below, circle the appropriate number for each item.
Definitely Would
Wouldn’t
Neutral,
Would Apply
Definitely
Not Apply
Really Apply
Not Sure
Somewhat
Would Apply
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Likes to come to 1
school
Is self-directed 1
Is slow to warm up to 1
teacher
Is interested in 1
classroom activities
Needs constant 1
supervision
Participates willingly in 1
classroom activities
Is cheerful at school 1
Needs a lot of help 1
and guidance
Is easy to manage 1
2 3 4 5
10.
Seeks challenges
2 3 4 5
11.
Has fun at school
2 3 4 5
12.
Has discipline problems
2 3 4 5
13.
Approaches new activities
with enthusiasm
2 3 4 5
14.
Complains about school
2 3 4 5
15.
Makes transition from one
activity to another easily
2 3 4 5
16.
Is a candidate for
retention
2 3 4 5
17.
Should be referred for
special education services
2 3 4 5
18.
Will make a successful
transition to first grade

110
Mark
Mark celebrated his 5th birthday in late July. He cries easily and has told you that he still
wets the bed on occasion. Mark's language is not well developed - for example, he
doesn't use irregular past tense verbs correctly (he says "I goed to the cafeteria," and "I
eated pizza for dinner"). He also has some articulation problems. Mark seems socially
immature, and he reports that he prefers to play with younger children. Mark tends to
be impulsive and acts before thinking. Mark has a hard time with classroom rules and
routines. For example, he frequently debates with or challenges peers and adults. Mark
is very disruptive in class, and the other children seem to dislike him. He has a hard
time following step-by-step directions. Without a lot of structure, Mark starts more than
one task at a time and never finishes any of them. You haven't heard from his parents
since open house in September.
Remembering the attributes common to all the children (i.e., Caucasian male,
healthy, Head Start graduate, slow learner) and that it is the end of the third 9-week
grading period, please reflect on the degree to which each of the following
statements would be characteristic of the child described above. Using the scale
below, circle the appropriate number for each item.
Definitely Would
Wouldn’t
Neutral,
Would Apply
Definitely
Not Apply
Really Apply
Not Sure
Somewhat
Would Apply
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1.
Likes to come to
school
1 2
3 4
5
2. Is self-directed
1 2 3 4 5
3. Is slow to warm up to
teacher
1 2 3 4 5
10. Seeks challenges
11. Has fun at school
12. Has discipline problems
4. Is interested In
classroom activities
5. Needs constant
supervision
6. Participates willingly in
classroom activities
7. Is cheerful at school
8. Needs a lot of help
and guidance
9. Is easy to manage
1 2 3 4 5 13. Approaches new activities
with enthusiasm
1 2 3 4 5 14. Complains about school
1 2 3 4 5 15. Makes transition from one
activity to another easily
1 2 3 4 5 16. Is a candidate for
retention
1 2 3 4 5 17. Should be referred for
special education services
1 2 3 4 5 18. Will make a successful
transition to first grade

APPENDIX D
PILOT STUDY CONSENT FORM

PILOT STUDY CONSENT FORM
Dear Teacher:
My name is Alicia Scott and I am a doctoral candidate in school psychology at the
University of Florida. As a part of my graduate research, I would like to invite you to
participate in the preliminary portion of a research study that is being conducted to explore the
relationship between kindergarten children's and teachers' temperament characteristics and
teachers' impressions of children's adjustment to school.
You will be asked to participate in a focus group to explore the appropriateness of a
measure to be used in the study. First, you will be asked to read eight case descriptions about
hypothetical children. After reading each case, you will be asked to respond to a series of
questions about the child presented. Second, you will be asked to participate in a focus group
meeting, during which we will discuss the vignettes and questionnaires. Reading the cases and
answering the questionnaires should take approximately 45 minutes to complete. The focus
group meeting will take approximately 30 minutes, and will be held at your school.
Your have been selected to participate in this study based on your status as a kindergarten
teacher. There is no risk to you, and your refusal to give consent will not in any way affect your
status at school. You are free to withdraw your permission for participation at any time without
consequence. Your name will not be revealed to anyone, with the exception of my advisor and
I, or appear in any written work. Benefits include the opportunity to further research about
children's development and school success. In addition, I would be happy to provide you with
a summary of the research results when the study is completed (upon request).
Please complete the signature form below, indicating your consent to participate in my
study, and return it to me. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
904/693-7942, ext. 324 or Dr. Tina Smith (advisor) at 352/392-0723. Questions or concerns about
research participants' rights may be directed to the University of Florida Institutional Review
Board (UFIRB) office at PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250 or 352/392-0433.
Sincerely,
Alicia M. Scott, M.A.E.
Please read the above description, sign below, and return the bottom portion only.
I, / have read the procedure described in the attached letter and
voluntarily agree to participate in Alicia Scott's study. I acknowledge that I have received a
copy of the above description.
Teacher Signature
Date
approved by
University of Florida
I
112

APPENDIX E
RELIABILITY STUDY CONSENT FORM

RELIABILITY STUDY CONSENT FORM
Dear Preservice Teacher:
My name is Alicia Scott and I am a doctoral candidate in school psychology at the
University of Florida. As a part of my graduate research, I would like to invite you to
participate in the preliminary portion of a research study that is being conducted to explore the
relationship between kindergarten children's and teachers' temperament characteristics and
teachers' impressions of children's adjustment to school.
You will be asked to participate in a pilot study to provide preliminary data on a
measure to be used in my research. You will be asked to read eight case descriptions about
hypothetical children. After reading each case, you will be asked to respond to a series of
questions about the child presented. Reading the vignettes and answering the questionnaires
should take approximately 45 minutes to complete. r'
You have been selected to participate in this study based on your status as a preservice
teacher. There is no risk to you, and your refusal to give consent will not in any way affect your
status in your course or with your instructor. You are free to withdraw your permission for
participation at any time without consequence. Your name will not be revealed to anyone, with
the exception of my advisor and I, or appear in any written work. Your cotuse instructor may
choose to provide you with extra credit for your completed participation in this study. The
availability and terms of extra credit will be decided upon by your instructor. In addition, I
would be happy to provide you with a summary of the research results when the study is
completed (upon request).
Please complete the signature form below, indicating your consent to participate in my
study, and return it to me. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
904/693-7942, ext. 324 or Dr. Tina Smith (advisor) at 352/392-0723. Questions or concerns about
research participants' rights may be directed to the University of Florida Institutional Review
Board (UFIRB) office at PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250 or 352/392-0433.
Sincerely, j
Alicia M. Scott, M.A.E.
Please read the above description, sign below, and return the bottom portion only.
I, , have read the procedure described in the attached letter and
voluntarily agree to participate in Alicia Scott's study. I acknowledge that I have received a
copy of the above description.
Preservice Teacher Signature
114

APPENDIX F
TEACHER INFORMATION SURVEY

Teacher Information Survey
1. What is your most advanced educational degree? (check one and specify
degree type)
Bachelor's in
Master's in
Specialist in
Doctoral in
2. What type of certification do you have? (check all that apply)
Elementary certification only
Elementary certification with an early childhood endorsement
Birth to age four certification
Age three to grade three certification
Pre-K handicapped endorsement
Other (please specify)
3. What is your gender? (check one)
Female
Male
4. What is your ethnicity? (check one)
Non-Hispanic, White
African American
Hispanic
Asian
Multiracial
Other (please specify)
5. What is your age?
6. How many years of teaching experience do you have?
7. How many years of experience teaching kindergarten do you have?
116

117
8. How many children are in your class?
9. Generally speaking, how would you describe your students'
socioeconomic backgrounds?
Low
Low/Middle
Middle
Middle/High
High
10. During the 2001-2002 school year, how many children did you refer for
retention?
11. During the 2001-2002 school year, how many children did you refer for
screening by the Child Study Team?
12. Have you ever taken the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator before?
If you know, what is your 4-letter type?

REFERENCES
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological
Association, National Coun cil on Measurement in Education. (1999).
Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Bates, J. E. (1980). The concept of difficult temperament. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 26, 299-319.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and
children's early school adjustment. Toumal of School Psychology. 35, 61-79.
Bloom, P. J. (1992). Looking inside: Helping teachers assess their
beliefs and values. Child Care Information Exchange. 88,11-13.
Briggs, K. C, & Myers, I. B. (1998). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Form
M). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Buchmann, M. (1987). Teaching knowledge: The lights that teachers
live by. Oxford Review of Education, 13,151-164.
Buysse, V., Wesley, P., Keyes, L., & Bailey, D. B. (1996). Assessing the
comfort zone of child care teachers in serving young children with disabilities.
Toumal of Early Intervention, 20,189-203.
Carey, W. B. (1981). The importance of temperament-environment
interaction for child health and development. In M. Lewis, & L. A. Rosenblum
(Eds.), The uncommon child (pp. 31-55). New York: Plenum.
Carey, W. B. (1998). Temperament and behavior problems in the
classroom. School Psychology Review. 27, 522-533.
118

119
Carey, W. B., & McDevitt, S. C. (1995). Coping with children's
temperament: A guide for professionals. New York: Basic Books.
Carson, D. K. (1994). Temperament and school-aged children's coping
abilities and response to stress. Tournal of Genetic Psychology [On-line], 155.
Available: http:// www.fcla.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~louisr/
cgids//N016766351.
Caspi, A., & Silva, P. A. (1995). Temperamental qualities at age three
predict personality traits in young adulthood: Longitudinal evidence from a
birth cohort. Child Development, 66, 486-498.
Chess, S., & Thomas, A. (1986). Temperament in clinical practice. New
York: The Guildford Press.
Chess, S., & Thomas, A. (1999). Goodness of fit: Clinical applications
from infancy through adult life. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices.
Educational Research, 38(1), 47-65.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An
introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Goodenough, W. H. (1963). Cooperation in change. New York: Russel
Sage Foundation.
Green, A. L., & Stoneman, Z. (1989). Attitudes of mothers and fathers
of nonhandicapped children. Tournal of Early Intervention, 13, 292-304.
Green, T. (1971). The activities of teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.
Grindler, M. C, & Stratton, B. D. (1990). Type indicator and its
relationship to teaching and learning styles. Action in Teacher Education,
12(1), 32-38.

120
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships
and the trajectory of children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child
Development. 72, 625-638.
Henderson, H. A., & Fox, N. A. (1998). Inhibited and uninhibited
children: Challenges in school settings. School Psychology Review, 27, 492-
505.
Isenberg, J. P. (1990). Teachers' thinking and beliefs and classroom
practices. Childhood Education, 66, 322-327.
Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types (R. F. C. Hull, Revision of Trans,
by H. G. Baynes). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work
published 1921).
Jung's Theory of Psychological Types and the MBTI® Instrument.
(2001). Retrieved November 15, 2002, from
http://www.mbti.org/The_MBTI_Instrument/Overview.cfm.
Kean, J. (1997). Teacher ethnotheories and child temperament: Impact
on classroom theories. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 22(31,13-18.
Keogh, B. K. (1986). Temperament and schooling: Meaning of
"Goodness of Fit"? In Lemer, J. V., & Lemer, R. M. (Eds.), Temperament and
social interaction in infants and children: New directions for Child
Development, no. 31 (pp. 89-108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Keogh, B. K. (1989). Applying temperament research to school. In
Kohnstamm, G. A., Bates, J. E., & Rothbart, M. K. (Eds.), Temperament in
childhood (pp. 437-450). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Keogh, B., K. (2003). Temperament in the classroom: Understanding
individual differences. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing.
Keogh, B. K., & Bumstein, N. D. (1988). Relationship of temperament
to preschoolers' interactions with peers and teachers. Exceptional Children,
54(5), 456-461.

121
Kornblau, B. (1982). The teachable pupil survey: A technique for
assessing teachers' perceptions of pupil attributes. Psychology in the Schools.
1^ 170-174. ’
Ladd, G. W. (1990). Having friends, keeping friends, making friends,
and being liked by peers in the classroom: Predictors of children's early school
adjustment? Child Development. 61,1081-1100.
Ladd, G. W., & Price, J. M. (1987). Predicting children's social and
school adjustment following the transition from preschool to kindergarten.
Child Development, 58,1168-1189.
Lehrer, K. (1990). Theory of knowledge. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
Lortie, D. C. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Macdaid, G. P., McCaulley, M. H., & Kainz, R. I. (1986). Mvers-Briggs
Type Indicator atlas of type tables (1st ed.). Gainesville, FL: Center for
Applications of Psychological Type, Inc.
Martin, R. P. (1989). Activity level, distractibility, and persistence:
Critical characteristics in early schooling. In G. A. Kohnstamm, J. E. Bates, &
M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 451-461). Chichester,
UK: Wiley.
Martin, R. P. (1994). Child temperament and common problems in
schooling: Hypotheses about causal correlations. Toumal of School
Psychology. 32(21.119-134.
Martin, R. P., & Gaddis, L. (1989). Potential indirect genetic effects on
learning: A longitudinal study of temperament effects on achievement in
elementary school. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher
Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 316 654)
Martin, R. P., & Holbrook, J. (1985). Relationship of temperament
characteristics to the academic achievement of first-grade children. Toumal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 3,131-140.

122
Maxwell, K. L., & Eller, S. K. (1994). Children's transition to
kindergarten. Young Children. 49(61, 56-63.
McDevitt, S. C, & Carey, W. M. (1978). The measurement of
temperament in 3-7 year old children. Toumal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 19, 245-253.
Meisgeier, C, Murphy, E., «Se Meisgeier, C. (1989). A teacher's guide to
type: A new perspective on individual differences in the classroom. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Miner, M. G., & Hyman, I. A. (1988). Psychological types of secondary
teachers and their ratings of the seriousness of student misbehaviors. Toumal
of Psychological Type, 14, 25-31.
Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the
development and use of the Mvers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., «Sc Hammer, A. L. (1998).
MBTI manual: A guide to the development and use of the Mvers-Briggs Type
Indicator (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Toumal
of Curriculum Studies, 19, 317-328.
Paget, K., Nagle, R., & Martin, R. P. (1984). Intercorrelations between
temperament characteristics and first-grade teacher-student interactions.
Toumal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 12, 547-560.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research:
Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.
Parker, J. G., <§c Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality
in middle childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of
loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychopathology, 29,
611-621.

123
Pianta, R. C. (1992). Student-Teacher Relationship Scale.
Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.
Pianta, R. C. (1994). Patterns of relationships between children and
kindergarten children. Journal of School Psychology, 32,15-31.
Pianta, R. C, & Nimeta, S. (1991). Relationships between children and
teachers: Associations with behavior at home and in the classroom. Toumal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 12, 379-393.
Pianta, R. C, & Steinberg, M. (1992). Teacher-child relationships and
the process of adjusting to school. In R. C. Pianta (Ed.), Beyond the parent:
The role of other adults in children's lives (pp. 61-80). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Pianta, R. C, Steinberg, M. S., & Rollins, K. B. (1995). The first two
years of school: Teacher-child relationships and deflections in children's
classroom adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 295-312.
Pullis, M. (1989). Goodness of fit in classroom relationships. In W. B.
Carey, & S. C. McDevitt (Eds.), Clinical and educational applications of
temperament research (pp. 117-120). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Pullis, M., & Cadwell, J. (1982). The influence of children's
temperament characteristics on teachers' decision strategies. American
Educational Research Toumal, 19,165-181.
Quenk, N. L. (2000). Essentials of Mvers-Briggs Type Indicator
assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to
teach. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on
teacher education (pp. 102-119). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Hershey, K. L. (1994). Temperament
and social behavior in children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 21-39.

124
Rothbart, M. K., & Jones, L. B. (1998). Temperament, self-regulation,
and education. School Psychology Review. 27, 479-491.
Rusher, A. S., McGrevin, C. Z., & Lambiotte, J. G. (1992). Belief
systems of early childhood teachers and principals regarding early childhood
education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 277-296.
Saft, E. W., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of their
relationships with students: Effects of child age, gender, and ethnicity on
teachers and children. School Psychology Quarterly, 16,125-141.
Sameroff, A. J., & Fiese, B. H. (1990). Transactional regulation and
early intervention. In S. J. Meisels, & J. P. Shonkoff (Eds.), Handbook of early
childhood intervention (pp. 119-149). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Saudino, K. J., & Eaton, W. (1991). Infant temperament and genetics:
An objective twin study of motor activity. Child Development, 62,1167-1174.
Scarr, S. (1981). Testing for children: Assessment of the many
determinants of intellectual competence. American Psychologist, 36,1159-
1166.
Schoen, M. J., & Nagle, R. J. (1994). Prediction of school readiness from
kindergarten temperament scores. Journal of School Psychology, 32(2), 135-
147.
Skarpness, L. R., & Carson, D. K. (1987). Correlates of kindergarten
adjustment: Temperament and communicative competence. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 2, 367-376.
Smith, M. L., & Shepard, L. A. (1988). Kindergarten readiness and
retention: A qualitative study of teachers' beliefs and practices. American
Educational Research Toumal, 25, 307-333.
Stelmack, R. M., & Stalikas, A. (1991). Galen and the humour theory of
temperament. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 255-263.

125
Teglasi, H. (1998). Introduction to the mini-series: Implications of
temperament for the practice of school psychology. School Psychology
Review, 27, 475-478.
Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New
York: Brunner/Mazel.
Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1989). Temperament and personality. In G.
A. Kohnstamm, J. E. Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in
childhood (pp. 249-261). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Thomas, A., Chess, S., & Birch, H. G. (1968). Temperament and
behavior disorders in children. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Torgersen, A. M., & Kringlen, E. (1978). Genetic aspects of
temperamental differences in infants, journal of the American Academy of
Child Psychiatry, 17, 433-444.
Wesley, P., Buysse, V., & Keyes, L. (2000). Comfort zone revisited:
Child characteristics and professional comfort with inclusion, journal of Early
Intervention, 23,105-115.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Alicia Michelle Scott was bom in Gainesville, Florida, on March 2,1972.
She grew up in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, and Slidell, Louisiana, before
returning to Florida to live in Longwood. She is a graduate of Lake Brantley
High School in Altamonte Springs, Florida. Alicia received her Bachelor of
Science degree in psychology, Bachelor of Arts degree in criminology, and
Master of Arts in Education in school psychology from the University of
Florida. She currently lives in Jacksonville, Florida, where she serves as a
school psychologist with the Duval County Public Schools.
126

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.
Tina Smith-Bonahue, Chair
Associate Professor of
Educational Psychology
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.
Thomas Oakland
Professor of Educational Psychology
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.
Anne Seraphine
Assistant Professor of
Educational Psychology
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 oí Doctor of Philosophy.
Kristen Kemple ^
Associate Professor of
Teaching and Learning

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of
Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
May 2003
Dean, Graduate School

64GF10 no ¡
01/12/04 34760°™ ¡p