Attempting to improve standardized test results using Study Islands' web-based mastery program

State standardized testing has always been a tool to measure a school’s performance and to help evaluate school curriculum. However, with the school of choice legislation in 1992, the MEAP test became a measuring stick to grade schools by and a major tool in attracting school of choice students. Now, declining enrollment and a state budget struggling to stay out of the red have made school of choice students more important than ever before. MEAP scores have become the deciding factor in some cases. For the past five years, the Hancock Middle School staff has been working hard to improve their students’ MEAP scores in accordance with President Bush's “No Child Left Behind” legislation. In 2005, the school was awarded a grant that enabled staff to work for two years on writing and working towards school goals that were based on the improvement of MEAP scores in writing and math. As part of this effort, the school purchased an internet-based program geared at giving students practice on state content standards. This study examined the results of efforts by Hancock Middle School to help improve student scores in mathematics on the MEAP test through the use of an online program called “Study Island.” In the past, the program was used to remediate students, and as a review with an incentive at the end of the year for students completing a certain number of objectives. It had also been used as a review before upcoming MEAP testing in the fall. All of these methods may have helped a few students perform at an increased level on their standardized test, but the question remained of whether a sustained use of the program in a classroom setting would increase an understanding of concepts and performance on the MEAP for the masses. This study addressed this question. Student MEAP scores and Study Island data from experimental and comparison groups of students were compared to understand how a sustained use of Study Island in the classroom would impact student test scores on the MEAP. In addition, these data were analyzed to determine whether Study Island results provide a good indicator of students’ MEAP performance. The results of the study suggest that there were limited benefits related to sustained use of Study Island and gave some indications about the effectiveness of the mathematics curriculum at Hancock Middle School. These results and implications for instruction are discussed.

Comparative study of anchorage strengths of epoxy coated hooked bars

Hooked reinforcing bars (rebar) are used frequently to carry the tension forces developed in beams and transferred to columns. Research into epoxy coated hooked bars has only been minimally performed and no research has been carried out incorporating the coating process found in ASTM A934. This research program compares hooked rebar that are uncoated, coated by ASTM A775, and coated by ASTM A934. In total, forty-two full size beam-column specimens were created, instrumented and tested to failure. The program was carried out in three phases. The first phase was used to refine the test setup and procedures. Phase two explored the spacing of column ties within the joint region. Phase three explored the three coating types found above. Each specimen included two hooked rebar which were loaded and measured independently for relative rebar slip. The load and displacement of the hooked rebar were analyzed, focusing on behavior at the levels of 30 ksi, 42 ksi and 60 ksi of rebar stress. Statistical and general comparisons were made using the coating types, tie spacing, and rebar stress level. Many of the parameters composing the rebar and concrete were also tested to characterize the components and specimens. All rebar tested met ASTM standards for tensile strength, but the newer ASTM A934 method seemed to produce slightly lower yield strengths. The A934 method also produced coating thicknesses that were very inconsistent and were higher than ASTM maximum limits in many locations. Continuity of coating surfaces was found to be less than 100% for both A775 and A934 rebar, but for different reasons. The many comparisons made did not always produce clear conclusions. The data suggests that the ACI Code (318-05) parameter of 1.2 for including epoxy coating on hooked rebar may need to be raised, possibly to 2.5, but more testing needs to be performed before such a large value change is set forth. This is particularly important as variables were identified which may have a larger influence on rebar capacity than the Development Length, of which the current 1.2 factor modifies. Many suggestions for future work are included throughout the thesis to help guide other researchers in carrying out successful and productive programs which will further the highly understudied topic of hooked rebar.

Decentralized or centralized production : impacts to the environment, industry, and the economy

Since product take-back is mandated in Europe, and has effects for producers worldwide including the U.S., designing efficient forward and reverse supply chain networks is becoming essential for business viability. Centralizing production facilities may reduce costs but perhaps not environmental impacts. Decentralizing a supply chain may reduce transportation environmental impacts but increase capital costs. Facility location strategies of centralization or decentralization are tested for companies with supply chains that both take back and manufacture products. Decentralized and centralized production systems have different effects on the environment, industry and the economy. Decentralized production systems cluster suppliers within the geographical market region that the system serves. Centralized production systems have many suppliers spread out that meet all market demand. The point of this research is to help further the understanding of company decision-makers about impacts to the environment and costs when choosing a decentralized or centralized supply chain organizational strategy. This research explores; what degree of centralization for a supply chain makes the most financial and environmental sense for siting facilities; and which factories are in the best location to handle the financial and environmental impacts of particular processing steps needed for product manufacture. This research considered two examples of facility location for supply chains when products are taken back; the theoretical case involved shoe resoling and a real world case study considered the location of operations for a company that reclaims multiple products for use as material inputs. For the theoretical example a centralized strategy to facility location was optimal: whereas for the case study a decentralized strategy to facility location was best. In conclusion, it is not possible to say that a centralized or decentralized strategy to facility location is in general best for a company that takes back products. Each company’s specific concerns, needs, and supply chain details will determine which degree of centralization creates the optimal strategy for siting their facilities.