In the present study, performance on a range of mathematical reasoning and number processing tasks was assessed across two syndrome groups for which numerical ability is under-researched: Fragile X syndrome and Down syndrome. Given the paucity of current research, it was unknown whether all aspects of arithmetic and number processing would be globally affected across groups or whether there would be syndrome specific proficiencies and deficiencies. Statistical analysis revealed that males with fragile X syndrome performed significantly worse on all tasks even when performance was compared to typically developing children of a similar developmental level. However, when performance was compared to children with Down syndrome differing profiles emerged, with greater weaknesses by the fragile X syndrome males on specific tasks requiring mental arithmetic and basic numeracy skills. The importance of using syndrome specific information in the assessment of math disabilities and the design of early educational interventions are discussed.

The purpose of this research was to determine if teacher written evaluations in arithmetic and the frequency of administering them would produce a significant difference in arithmetic achievement. The following null hypotheses were set up to guide the statistical analysis:1. There will be no significant difference between the achievement of students receiving no teacher written evaluation and those receiving teacher written evaluation every day.2. There will be no significant difference between the achievement of students receiving teacher written evaluation once every two weeks than those who receive no teacher written evaluation.3. There will be no significant difference between the achievement of students receiving teacher written evaluation every day than those having no evaluation and those evaluated once every two weeks.Three groups of sixth grade children in Anthony Elementary School in Muncie, Indiana were used in this study. Each group contained fourteen boys and eight girls. The mean intelligence quotients determined by the Otis Lennon Dental Ability Test of the three groups were approximately the same (110). Each group had a different teacher. Arithmetic was taught at the same time for fifty minutes each day for eighteen weeks. The researcher met each week with the teachers to determine pace and material to cover the next week.Group I did not use tests of any type during the study. Group II was given teacher written evaluations once every two weeks. Group III was evaluated every day by teacher written tests.The Standard Achievement Test, Modern Mathematics Concepts Tests, Form X was given at the beginning of the study. The analysis of variance and the "F" test was applied to the raw scores resulting in the value of "F" as 1.286. A difference at the .C3 level of confidence would necessitate an "F" value of 3.14. We therefore concluded that there was no significant difference in the achievement of the three groups at the beginning of the study.Form W of the Stanford Achievement Test, Modern Mathematics Concepts Tests, was given at the conclusion of the study. Again using the analysis of variance and the 'F" test the value of "F" was 1.284. A difference at the .05 level of confidence would necessitate en "F" value of 3.14. We therefore concluded that there was no significant difference in the achievement of the three groups at the conclusion of the study.The analysis of variance and the "F" tests was used to compare the group because of the involvement of more than two groups. This means of comparison eliminates the necessity of comparing subsamples one by one which is nearly impossible because of the calculation involved.Null hypothesis number one which stated, "There will be no significant difference between the achievement of students receiving no teacher written evaluation and. those receiving teacher written evaluation every day," can not be rejected at the .05 level of confidence and must be accepted with the limits of this study as valid end reasonable.Null hypothesis number two which stated, "There will be no significant difference between the achievement of students receiving teacher written evaluation once every two weeks than those who receive no teacher written evaluation," can not be rejected at the .05 level of confidence and must be accepted within the limits of this study as valid and reasonable.Null hypothesis number three which stated, "here will be no significant difference between the achievement of students receiving teacher written evaluation every day than those having no evaluation and those evaluated every two weeks," can not be rejected at the .05 level of confidence and must be accepted within the limits of this study as valid and reasonable.

The purpose of this study was to establish and describe the validity and reliability of an instrument based on a model of teaching behaviors conceived as magnetic lines of force.Content validity was established by reviewing the literature and identifying possible teaching behaviors which researchers felt contributed to increased pupil learning. These behaviors were presented to a panel of judges from faculty in the Teachers College, Ball State University, to ascertain behaviors which they felt increase the likelihood pupils would increase comprehension in reading. After the panel had made their suggestions, the list of behaviors was revised and used with two middle school classes at the Burris Laboratory School. Pupils were asked to identify the behaviors which they felt were associated with their increased learning. A final list of twenty items became the revised instrument for use in the study.A group of practicing teachers critiqued the list of twenty behaviors. This group was directed to identify how strongly they agreed with the placement of each of the behaviors under one of the four scales postulated. Construct validity was established by discussing the research supporting each of the scales, subscales and behaviors listed in the instrument.Each of the twenty items was judged as valid by a minimum of 70 percent of the selected panel members and two classes of selected middle school pupils. Each of the twenty items included was recognized as a valid example of the constructs identified with the exception of those items assumed to reflect firmness.I t was possible to relate each of the twenty items in the instrument to research studies accepted by editors and authors in the field despite inherent weaknesses in definitions, experimental designs, and theoretical orientation. In this sense, the instrument has acceptable construct validity.The instrument was then used to gather data on a group of teacher trainees assigned to a laboratory school at Ball State University. After each teacher trainee had taught a short unit, the pupils taught filled out the instrument which had been devised. Reliability measures consisted of computing coefficient alpha for various major scales and subscales of the instrument. Computations were run by the Ball State University Center using the reliability program from the SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences DEC system -10.The coefficient alpha reliability indexes of .90 for the total scale, .86 for the cognitive scale, and .78 for the affective scale were judged acceptable for use in additional research studies in the field. The coefficient alpha reliability index of .82 for the clarity subscale, .81 for the flexibility subscale, and .78 for the warmth subscale were also judged acceptable for use in additional research studies in the area. The coefficient alpha reliability index of .68 for the firmness subscale suggests questionable reliability for all but the most general research purposes.Recommendations were formulated to encourage further development of the model and refinement of the instrument (particularly the "firmness" subscale).

<p>This research provided insights into the mathematical achievement of a cohort of tertiary mathematics students. The context for the study was an entry level mathematics course, set in an engineering programme at a tertiary institution, the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT). This study investigated the possibilities of providing a bridge between the assessment of students by means of tests scores and a taxonomy of mathematical objectives, on the one hand, and the critical analysis of student produced texts, on the other hand. This research revealed that even in cases of wrong solutions, participant members' responses were reasonable, meaningful, clear and logical.</p>

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Toronto, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 123-124).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--George Mason University, 2008. / Vita: p. 75. Thesis director: Ellen Rowe. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology. Title from PDF t.p. (viewed Aug. 28, 2008). Includes bibliographical references (p. 68-74). Also issued in print.

Research paper (M.A.) -- Cardinal Stritch College -- Milwaukee, 1981. / A research paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Education (Professional Development). Includes bibliographical references (p.43-44).

Thesis (Ed. D.)--West Virginia University, 1998. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains viii, 95 p. Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 55-60).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 1998. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [66]-76).

Thesis (Ph. D. in Psychology)--Vanderbilt University, Aug. 2009. / Title from title screen. Includes bibliographical references.