A causal model of mathematics performance in early adolescence: the role of sex

Using path analysis, the present investigation was done to clarify possible causal linkages among general scholastic aptitude, academic achievement in mathematics, self-concept of ability, and performance on a mathematics examination. Subjects were 122 eighth-grade students who completed a mathematics examination as well as a measure of self-concept of ability. Aptitude and achievement measures were obtained from school records. Analysis showed sex differences in prediction of performance on the mathematics examination. For boys, this performance could be predicted from scholastic aptitude and previous achievement in mathematics. For girls, performance only could be predicted from previous achievement in mathematics. These results indicate that the direction, strength, and magnitude of relations among these variables differed for boys and girls, while mean levels of performance did not.

An empirical examination of the integration of causal attribution and social learning theories in achievement situations

Using path analysis, the present investigation sought to clarify possible operational linkages among constructs from social learning and attribution theories within the context of a self-esteem system. Subjects were 300 undergraduate university students who completed a measure of self-esteem and indicated expectancies for success and minimal goal levels for an experimental task. After completing the task and receiving feedback about their performance, subjects completed causal attribution and self-esteem questionnaires. Results revealed gender differences in the degree and strength of the proposed relations, but not in the mean levels of the variables studied. Results suggested that the integration of social learning and attribution theories within a single conceptual model provides a better understanding of students' behaviors and self-esteem in achievement situations.

Does Israel Follow the Law? A Critical Analysis of Israel's Application of the International Law of Belligerent Occupation in the Occupied Territories

Israel's occupation of territories it captured in 1967 has become one of the longest and most controversial occupations of the last fifty years. Eschewing the traditional political analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this paper aims to explore whether Israel has adequately applied international law in the occupied territories, in particular, the law of belligerent occupation. The two actors under assessment are the Israeli government, particularly its military which enforces and maintains the law in the territories, and the Supreme Court of Israel, which has the power of review over military actions in the territories. The particular issues of the occupation that are critically analyzed are the general legal framework that Israel established in the territories, Israel's civilian settlement policy in territories, and Israel's construction of a barrier in the West Bank. This paper concludes that Israel has incorrectly applied the legal framework of belligerent occupation by refusing to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention; it has wrongly concluded that the establishment of civilian settlements in the territories conform with international law; yet it has rightly concluded that the construction of the barrier in the West Bank is permissible under international law, in contrast to the conclusion of the much publicized International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion on the 'Wall.' Along with these general assessments, the author will also provide some historical and political insight into why the Israeli government and the Supreme Court may have applied the law in the way that they did.