The development and analysis of a field project model curriculum and its impact on achievement and attitude toward science and the environment with at-risk eleventh and twelfth grade students

This study was an evaluation of a Field Project Model Curriculum and its impact on achievement, attitude toward science, attitude toward the environment, self-concept, and academic self-concept with at-risk eleventh and twelfth grade students. One hundred eight students were pretested and posttested on the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale, PHCSC (1985); the Self-Concept as a Learner Scale, SCAL (1978); the Marine Science Test, MST (1987); the Science Attitude Inventory, SAI (1970); and the Environmental Attitude Scale, EAS (1972). Using a stratified random design, three groups of students were randomly assigned according to sex and stanine level, to three treatment groups. Group one received the field project method, group two received the field study method, and group three received the field trip method. All three groups followed the marine biology course content as specified by Florida Student Performance Objectives and Frameworks. The intervention occurred for ten months with each group participating in outside-of-classroom activities on a trimonthly basis. Analysis of covariance procedures were used to determine treatment effects. F-ratios, p-levels and t-tests at p $<$.0062 (.05/8) indicated that a significant difference existed among the three treatment groups. Findings indicated that groups one and two were significantly different from group three with group one displaying significantly higher results than group two. There were no significant differences between males and females in performance on the five dependent variables. The tenets underlying environmental education are congruent with the recommendations toward the reform of science education. These include a value analysis approach, inquiry methods, and critical thinking strategies that are applied to environmental issues. ^

Using extreme value theory to value stock market returns

Extreme stock price movements are of great concern to both investors and the entire economy. For investors, a single negative return, or a combination of several smaller returns, can possible wipe out so much capital that the firm or portfolio becomes illiquid or insolvent. If enough investors experience this loss, it could shock the entire economy. An example of such a case is the stock market crash of 1987. Furthermore, there has been a lot of recent interest regarding the increasing volatility of stock prices. ^ This study presents an analysis of extreme stock price movements. The data utilized was the daily returns for the Standard and Poor's 500 index from January 3, 1978 to May 31, 2001. Research questions were analyzed using the statistical models provided by extreme value theory. One of the difficulties in examining stock price data is that there is no consensus regarding the correct shape of the distribution function generating the data. An advantage with extreme value theory is that no detailed knowledge of this distribution function is required to apply the asymptotic theory. We focus on the tail of the distribution. ^ Extreme value theory allows us to estimate a tail index, which we use to derive bounds on the returns for very low probabilities on an excess. Such information is useful in evaluating the volatility of stock prices. There are three possible limit laws for the maximum: Gumbel (thick-tailed), Fréchet (thin-tailed) or Weibull (no tail). Results indicated that extreme returns during the time period studied follow a Fréchet distribution. Thus, this study finds that extreme value analysis is a valuable tool for examining stock price movements and can be more efficient than the usual variance in measuring risk. ^

Menu Analysis: Review and Evaluation

In the article - Menu Analysis: Review and Evaluation - by Lendal H. Kotschevar, Distinguished Professor School of Hospitality Management, Florida International University, Kotschevar’s initial statement reads: “Various methods are used to evaluate menus. Some have quite different approaches and give different information. Even those using quite similar methods vary in the information they give. The author attempts to describe the most frequently used methods and to indicate their value. A correlation calculation is made to see how well certain of these methods agree in the information they give.” There is more than one way to look at the word menu. The culinary selections decided upon by the head chef or owner of a restaurant, which ultimately define the type of restaurant is one way. The physical outline of the food, which a patron actually holds in his or her hand, is another. These descriptions are most common to the word, menu. The author primarily concentrates on the latter description, and uses the act of counting the number of items sold on a menu to measure the popularity of any particular item. This, along with a formula, allows Kotschevar to arrive at a specific value per item. Menu analysis would appear a difficult subject to broach. How does a person approach a menu analysis, how do you qualify and quantify a menu; it seems such a subjective exercise. The author offers methods and outlines on approaching menu analysis from empirical perspectives. “Menus are often examined visually through the evaluation of various factors. It is a subjective method but has the advantage of allowing scrutiny of a wide range of factors which other methods do not,” says Distinguished Professor, Kotschevar. “The method is also highly flexible. Factors can be given a score value and scores summed to give a total for a menu. This allows comparison between menus. If the one making the evaluations knows menu values, it is a good method of judgment,” he further offers. The author wants you to know that assigning values is fundamental to a pragmatic menu analysis; it is how the reviewer keeps score, so to speak. Value merit provides reliable criteria from which to gauge a particular menu item. In the final analysis, menu evaluation provides the mechanism for either keeping or rejecting selected items on a menu. Kotschevar provides at least three different matrix evaluation methods; they are defined as the Miller method, the Smith and Kasavana method, and the Pavesic method. He offers illustrated examples of each via a table format. These are helpful tools since trying to explain the theories behind the tables would be difficult at best. Kotschevar also references examples of analysis methods which aren’t matrix based. The Hayes and Huffman - Goal Value Analysis - is one such method. The author sees no one method better than another, and suggests that combining two or more of the methods to be a benefit.