Thesis (Ed. D.)--Teachers College, Columbia University, 1986. / Typescript; issued also on microfilm. Sponsor: Jeannette E. Fleischner. Dissertation Committee: Frank L. Smith. Bibliography: leaves 76-79.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1980. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 268-278).

Thesis (MEd)--University of South Australia, 1994

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Teachers College, Columbia University, 1974. / Typescript; issued also on microfilm. Sponsor: Margaret Lindsey. Dissertation Committee: A. Harry Passow. Includes tables. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 146-156).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2004. / Supervisor: William Moore, Jr. Vita. Includes bibliographical references. Also available from UMI.

Includes bibliography. / Utilising an individual-difference model of student learning, this study set out to explore the manifestations of qualitative differences in study behaviour at the individual level, amongst a group of educationally disadvantaged students enrolled in the Academic Support Programme in Engineering at Cape Town (ASPECT). The first aim of the study was to describe and conceptually categorise, within the concept of the study orchestration, the manifestation of these individual differences in study engagement, by means of a retrospective analysis of students' school-based study of Science. This process was undertaken when the students first arrived at the university. The quantitative process of classification, done independently of the author, was augmented by each student being individually interviewed by the author about his (retrospective) study behaviour. The second aim was to investigate the study orchestrations of these students in the transition between school and university. Stability over time, in the absence of explicit intervention, of (in particular) students whose study orchestrations had been classified as "at risk" on entry to the university, confirmed the findings from previous studies (some of which had been conducted with groups of educationally disadvantaged students). In previous studies, it had been shown that students in this conceptual category were likely to fail or achieve poorly in conventional university examinations. An ongoing programme of intervention was then designed with the specific aim of enabling "at risk" students to 'reorchestrate' aspects of their study behaviour in qualitatively 'deeper' ways. Modelled in part on previous, more narrowly focused, intervention strategies, the intervention in this study set out to improve "at risk" students' qualitative levels of perceptions of their learning contexts, but it also focused more broadly on the whole ASPECT group without losing sight of the manifestations of qualitative differences in learning conceptions, student epistemologies, and so on, amongst this group. This was achieved by engaging all students in ongoing discourse about crucial learning processes, such as the development of metacognitive awareness and the .need to assume personal responsibility for learning. The study confirmed the findings of other studies: that it is possible to alter "at risk" students' contextualised perceptions in qualitatively 'deeper' ways. In addition, the study suggested lines for individual and subgroup intervention that (1) is possible within the context of everyday learning and teaching; (2) can be carried out by the average academic practitioner, and (3) is transferable to other contexts of academic support.

No description available.

Call number: LD2668 .P7 1973 M45

The problem of this study was to compare the written language development of two groups of disadvantaged children at the end of their fourth year of school.

The problem of this study was to determine the difference in academic achievement between disadvantaged pupils who attended a Head Start program and those who did not when that difference was measured by a selected instrument. The groups used for the comparison were (1) Head Start, disadvantaged; (2) non-Head Start, disadvantaged without kindergarten experiences; (3) non-Head Start, advantaged with kindergarten experiences; and (4) non-Head Start, advantaged without kindergarten experiences.