The primary purpose of this research paper was to study performance anxiety among middle school students during a sight-reading audition. Furthermore, this sutdy asks whether the manner in which directions are presented by the sight-reading adjudicator during the course of an audition has significant impact on the performance outcome. Participants (n=75) were middle school students attending a highly rated band program in the Miami-Dade County (Miami, FL) area. By use of investigator-derived surveys, levels of trait and state anxiety were determined before and after the sight-reading performance. Means and standard deviations were calculated for perceived anxiety and for the resulting scores of the performance. A t-testcompared the control and experimental groups perceived level of anxiety, where statistically significant results were found at the pp

Thesis (LLM. (Labour Law)) --University of Limpopo, 2014 / This mini-dissertation deals with the adjudication and conciliation of the pension fund complaints as regulated by the Pension Funds, Act, 24 of 1956 (the Act). Section 30E of the Act gives the Pension Funds Adjudicator powers to investigate any complaint that has been lodged within the period of 3 years as prescribed by the law. This mini-dissertation further discusses the powers of the Adjudicator and the way the Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator was established. The research further discusses the determinations issued by the Adjudicator which are ground-breaking which interpret the Act.

The construction industry has been plagued with an increasing number of claims and high litigation costs. How do we reduce conflict and litigation in the construction process? On one hand, leaders of the construction industry in the United States (US) focused their efforts on improving alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. For instance, the American Society of Civil Engineers has introduced the Dispute Review Board (DRB) as a complementary provision to standard US construction practices. The establishment of the DRB to solve construction disputes on the job, avoid claims, and reduce project costs has proven considerable success. On the other hand, construction industry leaders in the United Kingdom (UK) have focused some of their efforts on improving general contract conditions. The Council of the Institution of Civil Engineers of the UK has introduced the New Engineering Contract (NEC) to the construction industry as an alternative to presently used contracts. The NEC proposes to be an innovative, non-adversarial mechanism to resolve disputes on the job, avoid and reduce claims, and to assuage rising litigation costs in the construction industry. It too has proven considerable success in its efforts. This research concentrates on the DRB and the NEC as attempts by construction leaders to modernize and improve construction practices. In summary, the research compares the success stories of the DRB and the NEC as approaches to combating the adversarial nature, increasing number of disputes and rising litigation costs in the construction industry. The main conclusions ascertained in this research are as follows. Despite coming from similar business environments, construction industry leaders in the US and the UK embarked on different methods to address the issues plaguing the industry and to improve construction practices. Both in the US and the UK, construction leaders were mostly influenced to proactively seek and implement change in construction practices by experts from within the engineering and construction industry vanguard. The undertaking of these changes have shown similar success stories and the results have produced substantial impacts on the construction process. In conclusion, the efforts of construction leaders to implement the DRB and the NEC have provided effective mechanisms in improving communication and relations, and managing disputes in a timely fashion at the job site level. / Master of Science

Prior to the introduction of section 37C into the Pension Funds Act. 24 of 1956, the benefit payable as a result of the death of a member would devolve in accordance with his last will and testament or the provisions of intestate succession. The advent of section 37C brought a statutory regime which expressly excludes freedom of testation and rather looks to the board of a fund to distribute the death benefit. The board may only pay the dependants of a deceased (either factual or legal) or the persons he has recorded on his nomination form. The section relies on the board to exercise its discretion in a manner which results in an equitable distribution of the death benefit notwithstanding that it does not provide any guidelines as to how this is to be achieved. Accordingly, numerous decisions are challenged by the identified beneficiaries because they are unhappy with the manner in which the board exercised its discretion. This results in complaints being lodged with the Pension Funds Adjudicator. Many such complaints should never have arisen or could have been easily solved by a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the board. The problem is that these complaints are adding to an already burdened office. Adequate training and understanding of the obligations of section 37C would probably result in fewer complaints to the Adjudicator. This dissertation examines whether the determinations which have been issued by the Adjudicator in respect of section 37C indicate a need for such training and understanding and, if they do, what possible remedies there might be to cure such a problem. Recommendations arising from this are that trustees must receive training focused on section 37C and proposed practical protocols to assist a board when exercising its duty to make an equitable distribution. / Jurisprudence / LL.M.

Prior to the introduction of section 37C into the Pension Funds Act. 24 of 1956, the benefit payable as a result of the death of a member would devolve in accordance with his last will and testament or the provisions of intestate succession. The advent of section 37C brought a statutory regime which expressly excludes freedom of testation and rather looks to the board of a fund to distribute the death benefit. The board may only pay the dependants of a deceased (either factual or legal) or the persons he has recorded on his nomination form. The section relies on the board to exercise its discretion in a manner which results in an equitable distribution of the death benefit notwithstanding that it does not provide any guidelines as to how this is to be achieved. Accordingly, numerous decisions are challenged by the identified beneficiaries because they are unhappy with the manner in which the board exercised its discretion. This results in complaints being lodged with the Pension Funds Adjudicator. Many such complaints should never have arisen or could have been easily solved by a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the board. The problem is that these complaints are adding to an already burdened office. Adequate training and understanding of the obligations of section 37C would probably result in fewer complaints to the Adjudicator. This dissertation examines whether the determinations which have been issued by the Adjudicator in respect of section 37C indicate a need for such training and understanding and, if they do, what possible remedies there might be to cure such a problem. Recommendations arising from this are that trustees must receive training focused on section 37C and proposed practical protocols to assist a board when exercising its duty to make an equitable distribution. / Jurisprudence / LL. M.