Improving Students’ Story Problem Solving Abilities

In this action research study of my classroom of 8th grade mathematics students, I investigated if learning different problem solving strategies helped students successfully solve problems. I also investigated if students’ knowledge of the topics involved in story problems had an impact on students’ success rates. I discovered that students were more successful after learning different problem solving strategies and when given problems with which they have experience. I also discovered that students put forth a greater effort when they approach the story problem like a game, instead of just being another math problem that they have to solve. An unexpected result was that the students’ degree of effort had a major impact on their success rate. As a result of this research, I plan to continue to focus on problem solving strategies in my classes. I also plan to improve my methods on getting students’ full effort in class.

Revision of Hawaiian, Australasian, Oriental, and Japanese Parandrinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae)

A comprehensive revision of the Subfamily Parandrinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) from the Hawaiian, Australasian, Oriental, and Japanese regions is presented. Seven (7) new genera are described: Komiyandra, Melanesiandra, Papuandra, Storeyandra, Hawaiiandra, Caledonandra, and Malukandra. All known, indigenous species from these regions are assigned to new genera resulting in the following new combinations: Komiyandra janus (Bates, 1875), K. shibatai (Hayashi, 1963), K. formosana (Miwa and Mitono, 1939), K. lanyuana (Hayashi, 1981), Melanesiandra striatifrons (Fairmaire, 1879), M. solomonensis (Arigony, 1983), Caledonandra austrocaledonica (Montrouzier, 1861), C. passandroides (Thomson, 1867), Hawaiiandra puncticeps (Sharp, 1878), Malukandra heterostyla (Lameere, 1902), Storeyandra frenchi (Blackburn, 1895), and Papuandra araucariae (Gressitt, 1959). Thirty-one (31) new species are described: Komiyandra javana, K. nayani, K. ohbayashii, K. luzonica, K. philippinensis, K. mindanao, K. mehli, K. vivesi, K. lombokia, K. sulawesiana, K. irianjayana, K. menieri, K. sangihe, K. mindoro, K. niisatoi, K. drumonti, K. cabigasi, K. koni, K. johkii, K. poggii, K. uenoi, Melanesiandra bougainvillensis, M. birai, Papuandra gressitti, P. weigeli, P. queenslandensis, P. norfolkensis, P. rothschildi, P. oberthueri, Malukandra jayawijayana and M. hornabrooki. A lectotype is designated for Parandra janus Bates, 1875. Komiyandra janus (Bates, 1875) is excluded from nearly all previously reported locations, even one location given in the original description, and is now only known from Sulawesi. A paralectotype of Parandra janus Bates, 1875, is designated as a paratype for Komiyandra menieri, new species. Komiyandra formosana is excluded from the Japanese (Ryukyu Is.) fauna. Parandra vitiensis Nonfried, 1894, is again placed in synonymy with P. striatifrons Fairmaire (now Melanesiandra striatifrons). A neotype is designated for Parandra austrocaledonica Montrouzier, 1861. A lectotype is designated for Parandra janus Bates, 1875. The lectotype of Parandra gabonica Thomson, 1858, designated by Quentin and Villiers (1975) is considered invalid. Papuandra araucariae (Gressitt, 1959) is excluded from the fauna of Norfolk Island. The African species Stenandra kolbei (Lameere, 1903) is reported for the first time from Asia (N. Vietnam). Keys are presented to separate worldwide genera of Parandrini and all species within the study regions. Illustrations are provided for all species including many special characters to differentiate genera and species.

Examining the use of terms "Conservation" "Restoration" and "Preservation" between Natural Resource Professionals and Literature Reviews

ABSTRACT This thesis will determine if there is a discrepancy between how literature defines conservation, preservation, and restoration, and how natural resource professionals define these terms. Interviews were conducted with six professionals from six different agencies that deal with natural resources. These agencies consisted of both government and non-government groups. In addition to interviewing these professionals regarding how they define the terms, they were asked where their work fits into the context of these terms. The interviewees’ responses were then compared with the literature to determine inconsistencies with the use of these terms in the literature and real world settings. The literature and the interviewees have agreed on the term conservation. There are some different points of view about preservation, some see it as ‘no management’ and some others see it as keeping things the same or ‘static.’ Restoration was the term where both the literature and professionals thought of moving an ecosystem from one point of succession or community, to another point on a continuum. The only thing in which they disagree on is the final goal of a restoration project. The literature would suggest restoring the ecosystem to a past historic condition, where the interviewees said to restore it to the best of their abilities and to a functioning ecosystem.