Occupational Engagement Variation Across Social Status: How Relationship Skills Moderate

The purpose of this study was to better understand variables that influence students of low socioeconomic status in their career development. The study was conceptualized on the basis of Super's (1957) assertion that environmental and individual factors interact to influence the course of a person’s career development. Differential social status, derived from Lent, Brown, and Hackett’s (1994) Social Cognitive Career Theory, includes: economic resources – basic needs, economic resources – amenities, social power, and social prestige; and was operationalized as the environmental variable in this study. Self-differentiation, a central construct of Bowen’s Family Systems Theory, includes: emotional reactivity, emotional cutoff, fusion with others, and ability to take an I-position; and was operationalized as the individual variable in this study. Differential social status and self-differentiation served as independent variables in a step-wise multiple regression analysis to predict amount of career exploration, operationalized by career engagement, a central construct of Krieshok and colleagues (2009) Trilateral Model of Adaptive Career Decision-Making. It was hypothesized that differentiation of self would moderate the relationship between social status and occupational engagement in a student sample of 560 university students. Further, it was hypothesized that self-differentiation would correlate positively with occupational engagement for students of lower socioeconomic status, with no such correlation for higher income students. Finally, self-differentiation was hypothesized to correlate inversely with social status. Results included no significant relationship between self-differentiation and social status; differentiation of self and social status each individually explained a statistically significant, though modest, amount of variance in occupational engagement; however no significant moderating relationship existed in terms of how self-differentiation affected the relationship between social status and occupational engagement. Implications for theory and practice, limitations, and directions for future research are discussed

Post-training ethanol disrupts trace conditioned fear in rats: Effects of timing of ethanol, dose and trace interval duration

Ethanol has complex effects on memory performance, although hippocampus-dependent memory may be especially vulnerable to disruption by acute ethanol intoxication occurring during or shortly after a training episode. In the present experiments, the effects of post-training ethanol on delay and trace fear conditioning were examined in adolescent rats. In Experiment 1, 30-day-old Sprague-Dawley rats were given delay or trace conditioning trials in which a 10 s flashing light CS was paired with a 0.5 mA shock US. For trace groups, the trace interval was 10 s. On days 31-33, animals were administered ethanol once daily (0.0 or 2.5 g/kg via intragastric intubation), and on day 34 animals were tested for CS-elicited freezing. Results showed that post-training ethanol affected the expression of trace, but had no effect on delay conditioned fear. Experiment 2 revealed that this effect was dose-dependent; doses lower than 2.5 g/kg were without effect. Experiment 3 evaluated whether proximity of ethanol to the time of training or testing was critical. Results show that ethanol administration beginning 24 h after training was more detrimental to trace conditioned freezing than administration that was delayed by 48 h. Finally, in Experiment 4 animals were trained with one of three different trace intervals: 1, 3 or 10 s. Results indicate that post-training administration of 2.5 g/kg ethanol disrupted trace conditioned fear in subjects trained with a 10 s, but not with a I or 3 s, trace interval. Collectively the results suggest that ethanol administration impairs post-acquisition memory processing of hippocampus-dependent trace fear conditioning. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

A case study of teaching digital citizenship in fifth grade

ii ABSTRACT The purpose of this case study was to explore the teaching of digital citizenship concepts and standards by fifth grade teachers in the Sunshine School System in Alabama. Digital Citizenship is the understanding of human, cultural, and societal issues related to technology, and the practice of legal and ethical behavior. A case study was chosen in order to explore the teaching of digital citizenship concepts and standards in-depth and discover how the participating fifth grade teachers in this district are educating their students about digital citizenship. The theoretical framework used for this study is the C3 Framework developed by Davina Pruitt Mentle, Ph.D., education and technology expert. There are three dimensions to the model, Cyberethics, Cybersafety, and Cybersecurity that overlap, but also have differences that must be discussed separately. These differences include subject matter and psychological differences. Qualitative data were collected through face-to-face interviews in the teachers’ classrooms, follow-up interviews, classroom observations, and lesson plans. The researcher utilized a cycle of three types of data coding to analyze the data: Holistic Coding (Dey, 1993), InVivo Coding (Charmaz, 2006), and Values Coding (Gable & Wolf, 1993). Themes resulting from the data analysis included technology standards, iPad orientation, student collaboration, real life situations, home connection, teacher control, dependence on computer teacher, false sense of security, digital footprint, social media, AUP/iPad agreements, physical use, plagiarism, citations, and inappropriate behavior. The participants were found to be unaware of the importance of teaching digital citizenship to their students. Although some participants included a small portion of digital citizenship in their discussions with students, none of the participants iii honed in on digital citizenship as an ongoing process. It is important for teachers and administrators to stay abreast of emerging 21st century skills and technology, but not lose sight of the need for teaching students to be responsible digital citizens. (Published By University of Alabama Libraries

Faculty trust in the principal, faculty trust in colleagues, collegial principal leadership, and collective responsibility

This is a study of the predictors of collective responsibility. Research indicates strong links between collegial behavior, faculty trust in colleagues, and effectiveness (Tarter, Sabo, & Hoy, 1995). Trust as a construct related to collective responsibility is grounded in the logic that building trust between teachers leads to the development of school cultures that promote teacher collaboration (Whalan, 2012). This study examined surveys from 60 elementary schools in Northwest Alabama investigating faculty trust in the principal, collegial trust, and collegial principal leadership, to determine predictors of collective responsibility while controlling for SES. Faculty trust in the principal and faculty trust in colleagues were measured using the Omnibus Trust Scale, collegial principal leadership was measured using the Organizational Climate Index, and Collective Responsibility was measured using the Collective Responsibility Scale. The research results indicated a significant relationship between trust in colleagues and collective responsibility. A significant relationship was not indicated between trust in the principal and collective responsibility or collegial principal leadership and collective responsibility. Also, noteworthy was the finding that SES was not a significant predictor of collective responsibility. (Published By University of Alabama Libraries

Effects of delegated decision making and collective trust on organizational citizenship: an investigation of relationships

Research suggests organizational citizenship behaviors are related to trust in the principal (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Forsyth & Adams, 2010; Forsyth, Adams, & Hoy, 2011) and to trust in colleagues (Dipaola & Hoy 2005). This study identified a specific leader behavior, delegated decision making, and proposed a relationship between delegated decision making and OCB. This study argued delegated decision making, faculty trust in the principal, and faculty trust in colleagues would predict organizational citizenship The independent variables in the study are delegated decision making, faculty trust in the principal and faculty trust in colleagues. Delegated decision making is the entrusting of authority to others; the administrator assigns specific decisions to other members of the organizations (Hoy & Sousa, 1984). Propensity to delegate was operationalized using the 10 decision questions revised by Hoy and Sousa as adopted from the Aston approach developed by Pugh and Hickson (1976), and listed in their delegation study (Hoy & Sousa, 1984). Faculty trust in the principal means the faculty has confidence the principal will keep his or her word and act in the best interests of the teachers (Forsyth et al., 2011). Operationally, faculty trust in the principal was defined using the Omnibus Trust Scale. Faculty trust in colleagues is defined when the faculty believes teachers can depend on each other in difficult situations and rely on the integrity of their colleagues (Forsyth et al., 2011). Operationally, faculty trust in colleagues was defined using the Omnibus Trust Scale. The dependent variable in the study was organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are behaviors that are directed toward helping others or toward achieving organizational goals (DiPaola & Tchannen-Moran, 2001). Organizational citizenship behavior was operationalized using the OCB Scale (DiPaola & Hoy, 2004). The data, a convenience sample, were gathered during regularly scheduled faculty meetings at 60 elementary schools in Northwest Alabama. The control variable was socioeconomic status (SES). Free and reduced lunch percentages was the proxy for SES, using the formula FRL-1 = SES. The unit of analysis was the school. This study tested the relationship of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) to faculty trust in the principal and colleagues, and delegated decision making. Two research questions guided the study: 1. What is the relationship between OCB, trust in the principal, trust in colleagues, and delegated decision making? 2. Do delegated decision making, trust in the principal, and trust in colleagues individually and collectively explain OCB? The current study confirms prior research proposing a relationship between trust in the principal and colleagues, as well as a relationship between those two elements of trust and OCB. In the study, faculty trust in the principal was related to faculty trust in colleagues. Also, faculty trust in the principal and faculty trust in colleagues were both related to OCB. Delegated decision-making practices did not predict OCB in the current study; further, delegated decision making was not related to faculty trust in the principal or faculty trust in colleagues. The "tightly coupled" or bureaucratic structure commonly found in most elementary schools may present one explanation for the lack of relationship between delegated decision making and the other variables. The delegated decision-making instrument may have impacted the results. Some of the statements on the instrument appeared to be more common in secondary or higher education. These statements described decisions regarding the number of department heads in the school, whether a new course or subject will be introduced, creating a new department, and creating a new teaching or administrative position. Although the delegated decision-making instrument appeared appropriate for secondary or higher education, it might be prudent for another instrument to be developed with statements specifically designed for the elementary school organization. Understanding the relationship of the variables in this study may give school leaders a clearer vision of how their behaviors may influence the functioning of their schools. (Published By University of Alabama Libraries

School counselors, NDEA, and school desegregation in Alabama: the evolution of a profession

After the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, Congress funded the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (NDEA) which created school counselor training institutes throughout the country in order to identify highly talented students, especially in the sciences, mathematics, and foreign languages. The National Defense Counseling and Guidance Training Institutes greatly increased the number of school counselors, especially in the Southern states, and also coincided with the desegregation of Southern schools. Along with the involvement of the federal government in funding higher education preparation, was the rise of standardized testing employed in the selection and separation of students. This project investigates the relationship between the NDEA, school counselors and whether or not the NDEA helped shaped an institutional identity of school counseling that interfered with equal educational opportunity (EEO) for African American students in public schools in the South. It is a qualitative study relying on historical documents and interviews of counselors, and counselor educators. (Published By University of Alabama Libraries