The purposes of this study were to determine if there were significant differences among entrant groups on measures of: (1) academic achievement in grades one, two, and three, (2) differences in academic achievement from the first to the second grade and also from the second grade to thethird grade, (3) personal adjustment at the third grade level, and (4) social adjustment at the third grade level. The null hypotheses were: Major Null Hypothesis I. There will be no significant difference among entrant groups on measures of academic achievement. Sub-hypothesis I-A. There will be no significant difference among entrant groups on measures of academic achievement in grade one. Sub-hypothesis I-B. There will be no significant difference among entrant groups on measures of academic achievement in grade two. Sub-hypothesis I-C. There will be no significant difference among entrant groups on measures of academic achievement in grade three. Sub-hypothesis I-D. There will be no significant difference among entrant groups on measures of academic achievement from first to second grade. Sub-hypothesis I-E There will be no significant difference among entrant groups on measures of academic achievement from second to third grade. Major Null Hypothesis II There will be no significant difference among entrant groups on measures of personal adjustment at the third grade level. Major Null Hypothesis IIIThere will be no significant difference among entrant groups on measures of social adjustment at the third grade level. The population for this study consisted of 387 third grade students who had attended school in the corporation from kindergarten through the third grade. The students were grouped according to their chronological entrance age. Group I consisted of all students between the ages of 4 years 8 months and 4 years 11 months. Group II consisted of all students between the ages of 5 years 0 months and 5 years 2 months. Group III was made up of all students between the ages of 5 years 3 months and 5 years 5 months and Group IV all students 5 years 6 months and older. The tests used for this study were a part of the system-wide testing program, except the California Test of Personality. The other tests were the Stanford Achievement Tests and the Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Tests.The analysis of covariance was used to statistically analyze the five sub-hypotheses of major null hypothesis I. Level of confidence for rejection was .05 based on F ratio. If the sub-hypothesis was rejected, Duncan's Multiple Range Test was used to determine whether the difference between any two ranked means was significant. Analysis of variance was used to statistically analyze major null hypotheses II and III. Level of confidence for rejection was .05 based on F ratio. If these hypotheses were rejected, Duncan's Multiple Range Test was used to determine whether the difference between any two ranked means was significant.The conclusions of this study were that older school entrants were significantly superior to younger school entrants in academic achievement at grades one, two, and three. It should be noted that a comparison of the academic achievement of the younger entrants, as they progressed from first to second grade and from second to 4 third grade indicated that it was not significantly different from the older entrants. The younger entrants were significantly superior to the older entrants in personal and social development at the third grade level.This study points to the conclusion that chronological age is not so important in the academic, personal, and social development of the child as some educators believed. The younger entrants may do well in school. This data indicated that they can be successful, not only academically, but also personally and socially. The fact that children of the same chronological age differ in academic, personal, and social development, indicates that each child must be considered as an individual.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between achievement motivation and academic achievement with externalizing (i.e., aggressive, acting-out) and Internalizing (i.e., Immature withdrawal) emotionally and behaviorally handicapped children. Furthermore, the mean difference in academic achievement of externalizers and Internalizers was examined. Analysis of variance, regression analysis, and t-test procedures were employed to analyze the data.Eighty-two subjects, in grades two through six, currently enrolled In special education programs for emotionally and behaviorally handicapped children, participated in this study. The Child Behavior Checklist-Teacher's Report Form (TRF), and the resultant Child Behavior Profile (CBP) were used to differentiate between externalizing and internalizing emotionally and behaviorally handicapped children. Furthermore, the TRF yielded information on school performance and adaptive functioning. The Thematic Apperception Test of Need for Achievement (TAT), and the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R) were administered by the researcher to gather data on achievement motivation and academic achievement, respectively.In general, the children in this study showed little or no motivation for achievement. An analysis of variance, comparing externalizers and internalizers in achievement motivation was not significant. A regression analysis, controlling for Intelligence, showed no difference in achievement motivation between externalizers and internalizers. Knowledge of group membership (i.e., externalizing or internalizing) added little to the explained variance of academic achievement. After controlling for intelligence and achievement motivation, externalizers and internalizers showed no difference in mean academic achievement.On the basis of teacher ratings of adaptive functioning skills considered necessary for success In the classroom, more than 75% of emotionally and behaviorally handicapped children were rated in the clinical range. More than two-thirds of the children were rated below average in school performance. T-tests revealed no difference between externalizers and internalizers in adaptive functioning skills or school performance.ConclusionsBased on the results of this study, the following conclusions were drawn:Emotionally and behaviorally handicapped children are generally lacking in motivation for achievement.Externalizing emotionally and behaviorally handicapped children, and Internalizing emotionally and behaviorally handicapped children do not differ in motivation for achievement.Achievement motivation and academic achievement are not significantly related with emotionally and behaviorally handicapped children.Externalizing emotionally and behaviorally handicapped children, and internalizing emotionally and behaviorally handicapped children show no difference in mean academic achievement.5. Emotionally and behaviorally handicapped children are generally deficient in the adaptive functioning skills judged necessary for school success. / Department of Educational Psychology

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of a course in Intrapersonal Relationships on the academic self-concept of a group of high risk, first quarter matriculates. Self-concept theorists assert that the perceptions people hold of themselves (their self-concept) impose functional limits on what individuals will attempt and achieve. If students with marginal academic potential, as measured by the traditional criteria, SAT scores and class rank, are to persist in college, remedial assistance along with self-concept enhancement work, would seem to be imperative.A review of the related literature revealed a plethora of studies examining the influence of some treatment variable on global self-concept and/or achievement; however, few studies investigated the effect of that treatment variable on academic self-concept.The sample used in this study consisted of 158 students, enrolled in Ball State University, who were under the auspices of the Academic Opportunity Program (AOP). This is a program designed to provide academic assistance to students who score between 310 to 340 on the SATverbal section and rank below the 50th percentile exclusive of the lowest 10th percentile of the high school graduating class.Because of administrative policy set forth by the AOP director, random assignment to group was not employed.Those students who scored within the zero through 10th percentile on the SAT sub-tests (composite scores on reading, vocabulary, and Test of Standard Written English) were required by the director of the AOP to take Intrapersonal Relationships, CPSY 130. These students comprised the experimental group.A control group was comprised of students enrolled in Career and Life Planning, CPSY 110 or Interpersonal Relationships, CPSY 230. All classes were taught by doctoral fellows in the Department of Counseling Psychology and Guidance Services.All students completed the Academic Self-Concept Scale (ASCS) in their respective classes during the first week of fall quarter, 1982. This instrument served as the pretest and posttest. The posttest was administered during the last week of classes fall quarter, 1982 -- 10 weeks later.Statistical analyses were computed through the use of analysis of covariance. The covariates were: pretest scores, SAT verbal scores, SAT math scores, and class rank measured in percentiles. One hypothesis was tested: there will be no significant differences between students participating in treatment and control groups on the posttest measure of academic self-concept as measured by the ASCS. This hypothesis failed to be rejected at the .05 level of significance. Experimental subjects did not demonstrate a significantly higher academic self-concept than control subjects after completing a 10 week course designed to help students recognize and free themselves from self-limiting patterns of behavior.

It was hypothesized that girls would feel more negatively than boys about inequality of achievement within friendships. Using a questionnaire, 123 boys and 138 girls, aged 13 to 17, imagined that two close friends had performed better or worse than them in five domains. They then rated how much they would care, feel and think about the unequal outcomes, that were of equal value to both genders. They were also asked to rate how they felt the friends would feel towards them. Overall, girls' reactions to the inequality were more negative than boys'. The difficulty females face in integrating friendship and personal achievement is explored.

Thesis (Ed.D.) -- University of South Australia, 1998.

Thesis (B.A. Hons. 1980) from the Department of Psychology, University of Adelaide.

Thesis (M.Ed.) -- University of Adelaide, Department of Education, 1981.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--Duquesne University, 2005. / Title from document title page. Abstract included in electronic submission form. Includes bibliographical references (p. 98-101) and index.

Report (M.S. Ed.)--Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1994. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 37-42). Also available via the Internet.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--George Mason University, 2008. / Vita: p. 168. Thesis director: Elyse B. Lehman. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology. Title from PDF t.p. (viewed Jan. 11, 2009). Includes bibliographical references (p. 158-167). Also issued in print.