Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1981. / Typescript. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 99-102).

Thesis (Ed.D.)--Teachers College, Columbia University, 2008. / Adviser: John Black. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ed.M.)--Boston University

<p> The following study was done to research how teachers and students are experiencing the one-to one educational model at the high school level. The research questions used to guide the study are as follows: How do teachers and students experience one-to-one learning? What are the implications of using the one-to-one technology model? To research these questions, a case study approach was used. Teachers were interviewed as well as both teachers and students completing surveys about how they experience the one-to-one technology every day. The main topics that were studied were 21st century skills, classroom uses and student engagement, teacher attitudes, training, technology support, costs, and student responsibility. Data was collected and analyzed from teacher interviews, student surveys, and teacher surveys. Data analysis indicated that there are both positive and negative experiences when it comes to using the one-to-one technology model at the high school level. The advantages are student responsibility and student engagement, communication, and convenience. The disadvantages are student responsibility, restrictions, and training. This paper indicates experiences and implications of the model as well as recommendations for its use.</p><p>

[No abstract submitted] / Education, Faculty of / Graduate

No description available.

In an era filled with tremendous technology advancement as well as increased levels of uncertainty, entrepreneurs as a cohort of aspiring thinkers and doers are trained as problem solvers for the modern challenges. Many universities and entrepreneur education centers have invested tremendous resources in terms of mentors, organization support, capitals and more. Building a well-functional mentoring program has always been difficult to most such educational centers. The objective of this quantitative research study is to update a survey that measures perceived mentoring effectiveness for entrepreneurs and hopefully provide entrepreneur educational centers with a scientific tool to measure the quality of mentoring in relation to the development of entrepreneurs. This study strives to answer five research questions: (1) What is the internal consistency reliability of the updated survey? (2) To what degree is one factor distinct from but related to other factors in Mentor Relation Scale and Entrepreneur Self-Efficacy Scale? (3) What is the statistical association between the mentoring factors and entrepreneur self-efficacy factors? (4) Is there any significant mean difference among various demographics? (5) What are the statistical association between mentor net promoter scores (NPS) and mentoring factors and entrepreneur self-efficacy? To answer them, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Pearson Correlations, multiple regressions, T-test and ANOVA were performed. Results showed four new mentoring factors with strong statistical significance. They were “Trust (TRU),” “Clarity (CLA),” “Communality (COM),” and “Business Growth (GRW).” Similarly, results also showed four new self-efficacy factors with strong statistical significance. They are “Design (DES),” “financials (FIN),” “Business plan (BUS),” and “operations (OPE)”. Second, regression results showed that mentoring factors GRW positively and significantly predict three self-efficacy factors DES, FIN, and BUS; in addition, GRW positively and significantly predict the average of all self-efficacy factors. Furthermore, mentoring factors COM and GRW both positively and significantly predict self-efficacy factor OPE. In other words, entrepreneurs who received more support and encouragement toward business growth were likely to rate themselves higher in self-efficacy scores. Finally, and most importantly, mentoring factor “communality (COM)” and “clarity (CLA)” as well as self-efficacy factor “financials (FIN)” were found to positively predict mentoring NPS. In other words, if a mentor helps entrepreneurs to facilitate a sense of mutual exchange and support, gain clear understandings about the strengths and weaknesses in themselves and their ideas, and offer strong support in financial planning and management, entrepreneurs are more likely to recommend this mentor to others. Other findings were further discussed and implications offered.

No description available.

Historically, the assessment of power has suffered from a dearth of psychometrically sound instrumentation. As a result, much of the research on power has been of questionable value. The primary purpose of this study was to assess the validity of the Randolph et al. Power Base Survey; an instrument designed to measure social power. A second purpose was to investigate any ancillary relationships between power profiles, leadership styles, and demographic information. This research is significant because the development of a valid power instrument could potentially make substantial contributions to personnel evaluation and placement (i.e. determining worker/worker and worker/job compatibility) in industry, education, mental health, or any other fields where supervisor-supervisee relations play a prominent role. Several groups of subjects participated in the study. A group of business graduate students provided support for the instrument's reliability using a test-retest procedure. A team of expert judges and a group of undergraduates from a business management course provided substantial face validity evidence for the Power Base Survey. The team of expert judges also gathered strong content validity evidence in support of the Power Base Survey. Little criterion-related validity evidence was obtained to support the Power Base Survey using a sample of 40 supervisors and 80 supervisees. However, these results were likely due to the hypotheses that were investigated since it was easy to find support for alternative hypotheses and explanations in the literature, and because the other validation evidence obtained from the study supported the Power Base Survey. The instrument's construct validity appeared to be strong as measured by inter-item correlations, subscale correlations, and correlations between the Power Base Survey and other power instrumentation in the field. In conclusion, the Randolph et al. Power Base Survey fared fairly well in terms of face validity and construct validity after being subjected to an ambitious validation investigation. Direct application of the Power Base Survey seems to be in order, though as with most instruments, additional evidence of validity would be beneficial.

No description available.