No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

There are several effective treatment methods and evidence based practices (EBP) for teaching children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). The use of EBPs is federally mandated, but it is often overwhelming for teachers to identify and implement available best practices with fidelity in the absence of ongoing training and support (Alexander, Ayres & Smith, 2015). Teachers often display low implementation fidelity, and, specifically, special education teachers often struggle with progress monitoring and data collection, which are essential elements of EBPs. Although most teachers are familiar with direct and frequent measurement for data collection, less than half reported using this type of progress monitoring in their classroom, stating several barriers including lack of time and knowledge (Wesson, King & Deno, 1984). One way to affect teacher implementation and behavior change is through different consultation styles, including performance feedback or a commitment emphasis approach. Performance feedback is a widely used and effective method to improve teacher implementation and treatment fidelity (Burns, Peters & Noell, 2008; Sanetti, & Kratochwill, 2009; Solomon, Klein & Politylo, 2012). A commitment emphasis model is a social influence strategy, which also shows continuing support for teacher behavior change (Noell et al. 2005). This study evaluated a strategy for increasing teachers’ completion of the Student Learning Profile (SLP), a curriculum-based student assessment that is administered as part of the Strategies for Teaching based on Autism Research (STAR; Arick, Krug, Loos & Falco, 2004), using a randomized control group design to compare a performance feedback model with a commitment emphasis plus prompt model of consultation. Overall, the study found a significant effect for teacher SLP completion at time-point one for teachers’ in the experimental group using a commitment emphasis model, but less so over time. Implications for researchers, clinicians and educators are also explored. / Special Education

Principal Academic Optimism is an hypothesized latent construct that has strong theoretical foundations in both educational research and educational psychology. Academic Optimism derives from research on school academic optimism and teacher academic optimism, which originated via Hoys, Tarters, and Woolfolk Hoys (2006a; 2006b) merger of school climate research with research on learned optimism, stemming from Martin Seligmans (1998, 2006) research on positive psychology. Principal Academic Optimism expands upon discoveries of School Academic Optimism and Teacher Academic Optimism. The theoretical framework of Principal Academic Optimism is built upon a strong research foundation of the organizational health model, social capital theory, social cognitive theory and positive psychology. The purpose of this research is to revise Riegel's (2012) Principal Academic Optimism Scale, thereby creating and testing a comprehensive measure of Principal Academic Optimism. The questionnaire used to accomplish this goal was a revised version of Riegel's Principal Academic Optimism Scale and Tschannen-Moran's and Gareis's (2004) Principal Trust Scale. By incorporating a measure for principal trust in faculty with a measure of principal trust in clients (parents and students), a more comprehensive measure of Principal Academic Optimism was validated and found reliable (α = 0.908). Perhaps the most compelling finding of the study was the significant negative relationship between principals' perception of trust in clients whose schools have high percentages of students receiving free and reduced price lunches (r = -0.444; p < 0.05). Principals with high percentages of free and reduced price lunch rates explained 72.203% of the variance in principals' self-reported perception of trust in clients. Principals of schools with 61%-80% or 81%+ percentages of free and reduced price lunch rates reported lower levels of trust in clients (parents and students). / Ed. D.

This study investigated teacher beliefs and organizational climate constructs of collective efficacy, faculty trust, academic emphasis, enabling bureaucracy, and mindfulness as antecedents for implemented professional development. Researchers previously combined collective efficacy, faculty trust, and academic emphasis into academic optimism. Using Conscious Discipline as professional development and book study as delivery, in this mixed methodology study, 489 teachers in 17 suburban elementary schools completed surveys measuring organizational climate constructs, teacher beliefs about classroom management, and self-reported degree of imlementation. Morning greeting and classroom walkthrough observations collected evidence of implementation. Sixteen focus group teachers from four elementary schools explained the degree of implementation. This study found that (a) Teacher and school demographic data correlated with organizational climate constructs; (b) Teacher beliefs and faculty mindfulness explained 65.7% of variance in self-reported degree of implementation; and (c) Socioeconomic status, book club participation, and teacher beliefs explained 77.1% of variance in observation degree of implementation. / Ph. D.

La présente recherche met en évidence un phénomène qui est le fond commun des manières d’apparaître analysées par la phénoménologie française contemporaine. Ce phénomène est mis en évidence par l’analyse des œuvres de Jean-Luc Marion, Mihel Henry et Emmanuel Lévinas. L’analyse de l’œuvre de Marion permet de définir la métaphysique : celle-ci considère que l’apparaître est nécessairement la prérogative d’un Je. Contre cette idée, la phénoménologie met en évidence un phénomène qui apparaît avant qu’un Je ne s’en reçoive. Ce qui se montre ainsi de soi-même est le phénoménal. C’est sur fond de ce phénoménal que la donation se déploie, et si la donation ne donne plus son contenu à l’apparaître, elle est déploiement des phases qui structurent la phénoménalité. L’analyse de l’œuvre de Henry permet de distinguer la manière d’apparaître du phénoménal de celle du Je. Le contenu de l’apparaître du phénoménal est identiquement sa manière d’apparaître, et en cela le phénoménal est affectivité. Mais cette affectivité est impersonnelle et se dit d’une foison de tonalités affectives. Elle doit donc être distinguée du fait de se sentir soi-même considéré en lui-même qu’est cette essence de l’affectivité où le Soi se saisit de son ipséité. L’analyse de l’œuvre de Lévinas permet de décrire le déploiement des phases de la phénoménalité en deux mouvements. Par un mouvement d’en-stase, l’essence de l’affectivité se distille du phénoménal. Par un mouvement d’extase, le gouffre de l’« il y a », l’idée d’infini et la distance phénoménologique s’évaporent du phénoménal. L’unité de ces deux mouvements contraires est nommée diastase, et cette diastase est comprise comme quête d’emphase. / This researh highlights a phenomenon that is the common bakground of the various modes of manifestation analysed by the french contemporary phenomenology. That phenomenon is highlighted by the analysis of the works of Jean-LucMarion, Mihel Henry and Emmanuel Levinas. The analysis of the works of Marion brings us to a definition of the metaphysics : it considers that the manifestation is always the prerogative of a subject. Against this idea, the phenomenology highlights a phenomenon that appears before any subject. The phenomenon that shows itself that way is the phenomenal. It’s on that that the donation spreads, and if that donation does not give its content to the manifestation, it is the deployment of the phases that structure the phenomenality. The analysis of the works of Henry brings us to a distinction between the way that the phenomenal appears and the way that the ego appears. The contents of the manifestation of the phenomenal is also its way of appearance, and in that sense, the phenomenal is affectivity. But that kind of affectivity is impersonal, and concerns an abundance of affective qualities. It must be distinguish from the fact to feel itself considered in itself whih is that essence of affectivity on whih the self seize its selfhood. The analysis of the works of Levinas allows a description of the deployment of the phases of the phenomenality in two movements. By a movement of enstasis, the essence of affectivity gets distilled from the phenomenal. By a movement of extasis, the gulf of the « there is », the idea of infinity, and the phenomenological distance, evaporates from the phenomenal. The unity of these two movements is called diastasis.

As empresas alocam seus recursos escassos entre dois processos fundamentais: de criação de valor (ex. inovando, produzindo e entregando produtos ao mercado) e de apropriação de valor (ex. extraindo lucros do mercado). Embora ambos os processos sejam pré-requisito para a vantagem competitiva sustentável, a empresa possui considerável liberdade para decidir qual processo será enfatizado. Configura-se um trade-off estratégico que é representado por uma ênfase estratégica, ou seja, a ênfase relativa que a empresa emprega na apropriação de valor em relação à criação de valor. No entanto, poucas pesquisas exploraram o impacto desse trade-off no desempenho financeiro. Quais são os impactos da mudança da ênfase estratégica (criação de valor versus apropriação de valor) no desempenho financeiro das empresas no contexto brasileiro? Uma métrica de ênfase estratégica baseada nos gastos em P&D (criação de valor) e nos gastos de Marketing (apropriação de valor) foi testada e validada no contexto brasileiro. Em seguida, analisou-se o impacto financeiro deste trade-off por meio de cinco indicadores de desempenho (Retorno da Ação, Giro do Ativo, Margem Líquida, q de Tobin e Crescimento de Vendas) por meio de regressões múltiplas. Adicionalmente o trade-off foi investigado segundo três fatores: o ambiente tecnológico, a rentabilidade prévia e a estratégia do passado. A ênfase estratégica foi validada como indicador que mensura o trade-off entre criação de valor (exploration) e apropriação de valor (exploitation) no contexto brasileiro. Quando a empresa enfatiza mais a apropriação de valor relativamente à criação de valor, maior é o Giro do Ativo e o Crescimento das Vendas. Esses resultados podem ser fruto da administração míope de marketing, ou seja, a ênfase excessiva nos resultados de curto prazo por meio da redução dos investimentos em marketing. Isso não minimiza a relevância do processo de criação de valor, mas evidencia a importância dos mecanismos de isolamento na apropriação de parte do valor criado. Duas características da empresa se revelaram como moderadoras da relação entre a ênfase estratégica e o desempenho financeiro: a estratégia passada e a rentabilidade anterior. A estratégia anterior influencia a ênfase estratégica por meio dos retornos marginais decrescentes. As empresas que mudam sua ênfase estratégica anterior, seja criação de valor ou apropriação de valor, tendem a apresentar retornos superiores (maiores Margem Líquida, Giro do Ativo, Crescimento de Vendas e q de Tobin). Também se identificou que a rentabilidade anterior influencia a estratégia atual da empresa. Se a empresa foi lucrativa, a apropriação de valor é mantida para garantir uma Margem Líquida e um q de Tobin maiores. Por outro lado, as empresas com prejuízo se voltam à criação de valor para fomentar novas oportunidades de ganhos. Por fim, apresentam-se as limitações do estudo com a agenda de pesquisas futuras. / Firms allocate their limited resources between two fundamental processes of creating value (i.e., innovating, producing, and delivering products to the market) and appropriating value (i.e., extracting profits in the marketplace). Although both value creation and value appropriation are required for achieving sustained competitive advantage, a firm has significant latitude in deciding the extent to which it emphasizes one process over the other. There is a strategic trade-off represented by the strategic emphasis: the relative emphasis a firm places on value appropriation relative to value creation. However, few researches have explored the financial impact of this trade-off. What impact does strategic emphasis shift (i.e., emphasis on value creation versus value appropriation) have on firm‟s financial performance in the Brazilian context? A strategic emphasis metric based on the R&D spending (value creation) and on marketing spending (value appropriation) was tested and validated in the Brazilian context. Then, the financial impact of this trade-off was analyzed by five performance metrics (Stock Return, Asset Turnover, Net Margin, Tobin‟s Q and Sales Growth) by multiple regressions. In addition, the trade-off was investigated according three factors: technological environment, previous profitability and past strategy. The strategic emphasis was validated as a metric that measures the trade-off among value creation (exploration) and value appropriation (exploitation) in the Brazilian context. When the firm emphasizes more in value appropriation than the value creation, the Asset Turnover and the Sales Growth are higher. These results may occur because of the myopic marketing management, in other words, an overemphasis on the current term financial performance and the use of marketing tools to inflate current profitability measures. This doesn‟t understate the relevance of the value creation process, but rather highlight the importance of the isolating mechanisms in the appropriation of the part of the value created. Two firm‟s characteristics moderate the relation of strategic emphasis and financial performance: the past strategy and the previous profitability. The past strategy affects the strategic emphasis by the diminishing marginal returns. Firms that change their strategic emphasis (value creation or value appropriation), tend to present superior return (higher Net Margin, Asset Turnover, Sales Growth and Tobin‟s Q). Also the previous profitability influences the current firm‟s strategy. If the firm was profitable, the value appropriation is maintained to guarantee higher Net Margin and Tobin‟s Q. On the other hand, the firms with negative profitability turn to value creation to promote new opportunities of gains. Finally, research limitations and future research agenda is presented.

As empresas alocam seus recursos escassos entre dois processos fundamentais: de criação de valor (ex. inovando, produzindo e entregando produtos ao mercado) e de apropriação de valor (ex. extraindo lucros do mercado). Embora ambos os processos sejam pré-requisito para a vantagem competitiva sustentável, a empresa possui considerável liberdade para decidir qual processo será enfatizado. Configura-se um trade-off estratégico que é representado por uma ênfase estratégica, ou seja, a ênfase relativa que a empresa emprega na apropriação de valor em relação à criação de valor. No entanto, poucas pesquisas exploraram o impacto desse trade-off no desempenho financeiro. Quais são os impactos da mudança da ênfase estratégica (criação de valor versus apropriação de valor) no desempenho financeiro das empresas no contexto brasileiro? Uma métrica de ênfase estratégica baseada nos gastos em P&D (criação de valor) e nos gastos de Marketing (apropriação de valor) foi testada e validada no contexto brasileiro. Em seguida, analisou-se o impacto financeiro deste trade-off por meio de cinco indicadores de desempenho (Retorno da Ação, Giro do Ativo, Margem Líquida, q de Tobin e Crescimento de Vendas) por meio de regressões múltiplas. Adicionalmente o trade-off foi investigado segundo três fatores: o ambiente tecnológico, a rentabilidade prévia e a estratégia do passado. A ênfase estratégica foi validada como indicador que mensura o trade-off entre criação de valor (exploration) e apropriação de valor (exploitation) no contexto brasileiro. Quando a empresa enfatiza mais a apropriação de valor relativamente à criação de valor, maior é o Giro do Ativo e o Crescimento das Vendas. Esses resultados podem ser fruto da administração míope de marketing, ou seja, a ênfase excessiva nos resultados de curto prazo por meio da redução dos investimentos em marketing. Isso não minimiza a relevância do processo de criação de valor, mas evidencia a importância dos mecanismos de isolamento na apropriação de parte do valor criado. Duas características da empresa se revelaram como moderadoras da relação entre a ênfase estratégica e o desempenho financeiro: a estratégia passada e a rentabilidade anterior. A estratégia anterior influencia a ênfase estratégica por meio dos retornos marginais decrescentes. As empresas que mudam sua ênfase estratégica anterior, seja criação de valor ou apropriação de valor, tendem a apresentar retornos superiores (maiores Margem Líquida, Giro do Ativo, Crescimento de Vendas e q de Tobin). Também se identificou que a rentabilidade anterior influencia a estratégia atual da empresa. Se a empresa foi lucrativa, a apropriação de valor é mantida para garantir uma Margem Líquida e um q de Tobin maiores. Por outro lado, as empresas com prejuízo se voltam à criação de valor para fomentar novas oportunidades de ganhos. Por fim, apresentam-se as limitações do estudo com a agenda de pesquisas futuras. / Firms allocate their limited resources between two fundamental processes of creating value (i.e., innovating, producing, and delivering products to the market) and appropriating value (i.e., extracting profits in the marketplace). Although both value creation and value appropriation are required for achieving sustained competitive advantage, a firm has significant latitude in deciding the extent to which it emphasizes one process over the other. There is a strategic trade-off represented by the strategic emphasis: the relative emphasis a firm places on value appropriation relative to value creation. However, few researches have explored the financial impact of this trade-off. What impact does strategic emphasis shift (i.e., emphasis on value creation versus value appropriation) have on firm‟s financial performance in the Brazilian context? A strategic emphasis metric based on the R&D spending (value creation) and on marketing spending (value appropriation) was tested and validated in the Brazilian context. Then, the financial impact of this trade-off was analyzed by five performance metrics (Stock Return, Asset Turnover, Net Margin, Tobin‟s Q and Sales Growth) by multiple regressions. In addition, the trade-off was investigated according three factors: technological environment, previous profitability and past strategy. The strategic emphasis was validated as a metric that measures the trade-off among value creation (exploration) and value appropriation (exploitation) in the Brazilian context. When the firm emphasizes more in value appropriation than the value creation, the Asset Turnover and the Sales Growth are higher. These results may occur because of the myopic marketing management, in other words, an overemphasis on the current term financial performance and the use of marketing tools to inflate current profitability measures. This doesn‟t understate the relevance of the value creation process, but rather highlight the importance of the isolating mechanisms in the appropriation of the part of the value created. Two firm‟s characteristics moderate the relation of strategic emphasis and financial performance: the past strategy and the previous profitability. The past strategy affects the strategic emphasis by the diminishing marginal returns. Firms that change their strategic emphasis (value creation or value appropriation), tend to present superior return (higher Net Margin, Asset Turnover, Sales Growth and Tobin‟s Q). Also the previous profitability influences the current firm‟s strategy. If the firm was profitable, the value appropriation is maintained to guarantee higher Net Margin and Tobin‟s Q. On the other hand, the firms with negative profitability turn to value creation to promote new opportunities of gains. Finally, research limitations and future research agenda is presented.

As empresas alocam seus recursos escassos entre dois processos fundamentais: de criação de valor (ex. inovando, produzindo e entregando produtos ao mercado) e de apropriação de valor (ex. extraindo lucros do mercado). Embora ambos os processos sejam pré-requisito para a vantagem competitiva sustentável, a empresa possui considerável liberdade para decidir qual processo será enfatizado. Configura-se um trade-off estratégico que é representado por uma ênfase estratégica, ou seja, a ênfase relativa que a empresa emprega na apropriação de valor em relação à criação de valor. No entanto, poucas pesquisas exploraram o impacto desse trade-off no desempenho financeiro. Quais são os impactos da mudança da ênfase estratégica (criação de valor versus apropriação de valor) no desempenho financeiro das empresas no contexto brasileiro? Uma métrica de ênfase estratégica baseada nos gastos em P&D (criação de valor) e nos gastos de Marketing (apropriação de valor) foi testada e validada no contexto brasileiro. Em seguida, analisou-se o impacto financeiro deste trade-off por meio de cinco indicadores de desempenho (Retorno da Ação, Giro do Ativo, Margem Líquida, q de Tobin e Crescimento de Vendas) por meio de regressões múltiplas. Adicionalmente o trade-off foi investigado segundo três fatores: o ambiente tecnológico, a rentabilidade prévia e a estratégia do passado. A ênfase estratégica foi validada como indicador que mensura o trade-off entre criação de valor (exploration) e apropriação de valor (exploitation) no contexto brasileiro. Quando a empresa enfatiza mais a apropriação de valor relativamente à criação de valor, maior é o Giro do Ativo e o Crescimento das Vendas. Esses resultados podem ser fruto da administração míope de marketing, ou seja, a ênfase excessiva nos resultados de curto prazo por meio da redução dos investimentos em marketing. Isso não minimiza a relevância do processo de criação de valor, mas evidencia a importância dos mecanismos de isolamento na apropriação de parte do valor criado. Duas características da empresa se revelaram como moderadoras da relação entre a ênfase estratégica e o desempenho financeiro: a estratégia passada e a rentabilidade anterior. A estratégia anterior influencia a ênfase estratégica por meio dos retornos marginais decrescentes. As empresas que mudam sua ênfase estratégica anterior, seja criação de valor ou apropriação de valor, tendem a apresentar retornos superiores (maiores Margem Líquida, Giro do Ativo, Crescimento de Vendas e q de Tobin). Também se identificou que a rentabilidade anterior influencia a estratégia atual da empresa. Se a empresa foi lucrativa, a apropriação de valor é mantida para garantir uma Margem Líquida e um q de Tobin maiores. Por outro lado, as empresas com prejuízo se voltam à criação de valor para fomentar novas oportunidades de ganhos. Por fim, apresentam-se as limitações do estudo com a agenda de pesquisas futuras. / Firms allocate their limited resources between two fundamental processes of creating value (i.e., innovating, producing, and delivering products to the market) and appropriating value (i.e., extracting profits in the marketplace). Although both value creation and value appropriation are required for achieving sustained competitive advantage, a firm has significant latitude in deciding the extent to which it emphasizes one process over the other. There is a strategic trade-off represented by the strategic emphasis: the relative emphasis a firm places on value appropriation relative to value creation. However, few researches have explored the financial impact of this trade-off. What impact does strategic emphasis shift (i.e., emphasis on value creation versus value appropriation) have on firm‟s financial performance in the Brazilian context? A strategic emphasis metric based on the R&D spending (value creation) and on marketing spending (value appropriation) was tested and validated in the Brazilian context. Then, the financial impact of this trade-off was analyzed by five performance metrics (Stock Return, Asset Turnover, Net Margin, Tobin‟s Q and Sales Growth) by multiple regressions. In addition, the trade-off was investigated according three factors: technological environment, previous profitability and past strategy. The strategic emphasis was validated as a metric that measures the trade-off among value creation (exploration) and value appropriation (exploitation) in the Brazilian context. When the firm emphasizes more in value appropriation than the value creation, the Asset Turnover and the Sales Growth are higher. These results may occur because of the myopic marketing management, in other words, an overemphasis on the current term financial performance and the use of marketing tools to inflate current profitability measures. This doesn‟t understate the relevance of the value creation process, but rather highlight the importance of the isolating mechanisms in the appropriation of the part of the value created. Two firm‟s characteristics moderate the relation of strategic emphasis and financial performance: the past strategy and the previous profitability. The past strategy affects the strategic emphasis by the diminishing marginal returns. Firms that change their strategic emphasis (value creation or value appropriation), tend to present superior return (higher Net Margin, Asset Turnover, Sales Growth and Tobin‟s Q). Also the previous profitability influences the current firm‟s strategy. If the firm was profitable, the value appropriation is maintained to guarantee higher Net Margin and Tobin‟s Q. On the other hand, the firms with negative profitability turn to value creation to promote new opportunities of gains. Finally, research limitations and future research agenda is presented.