Interrelationships among students' study activities,self-concept of academic ability,and achievement as a function of characteristics of high-school biology courses

This investigation focused on the interrelationships among students' study activities, students' self-concept of academic ability ratings, students' academic achievement, and instructional practices in 12 high school biology courses. Using a framework derived from a previous investigation, course features were classified into those that appear to (a) place demands on, (b) support, or (c) compensate for student engagement in particular study activities. Students' study activities, self-concept of academic ability ratings, and achievement were measured with experimenter-developed instruments. Results are reported for (a) characteristics of instruments and course features, (b) relationships between central factors of the investigation, and (c) multi-level relationships between course features and student variables. Results at the student level indicated that self-concept of academic ability and, to a lesser extent, students' study activities were positively associated with student achievement. Students' self-concept of academic ability ratings were also linked to students' engagement in generative, proactive study activities. At the course level the supportive practices of providing challenging homework assignments and extensive feedback on student coursework were associated with student engagement in effortful, generative, proactive study activities. The provision of extensive feedback was also associated with high student achievement. Multi-level relationships were analysed using hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) analyses. These analyses revealed, for example, that in courses in which little or no feedback is given on homework assignments, the relationship between achievement and student engagement in diligent effort management activities was enhanced. Other HLM analyses were conducted to examine the mediating role of course features on the relationship between students' self-concept of academic ability and their study activities and achievement. For example, the presence of challenging course demands was associated with an enhancement of the relationship between self-concept of academic ability and achievement whereas the presence of instructor provisions (supports and compensations) designed to reduce course demands was associated with a reduction in this relationship.     

The crane's foot: The rise of the pedigree in human genetics

The standard pedigree used by geneticists is intimately connected to the history of genetics. Pedigrees drawn today are based on standards established in the early decades of the twentieth century. Those standards were established by geneticists who pursued an active interest in eugenics. The slightly different standards followed in America vs. England to some extent followed the stronger support of Mendelism by the Americans, as well as the individual preferences of the leading human geneticists in those countries.     

Nonsuicidal physically self-damaging acts in adolescents

To determine the frequency and correlates of nonsuicidal physically self-damaging acts in 12–14 year olds, a two stage epidemiologic survey with a self-administered questionnaire (N=3283) followed by a psychiatric interview of a subsample of the adolescents and their parents (N=444) was used. Prevalence estimates of interview validated nonsuicidal physically self-damaging acts were 2.46% in males and 2.79% in females. Significant relationships were found between nonsuicidal physically self-damaging acts and suicidal ideation, major depression and undesirable life events. Data suggest that physically self-damaging acts occur at substantial rates during early adolescence. The strong correlation between nonsuicidal self-destructive acts and both suicidal ideation and major depression clarifies prior conflicting reports in the literature and suggests that a history of self-damaging acts should be taken into consideration when evaluating for possible depression and suicide risk.     

Drawing the boundary between subject and object: Comments on the mind-brain problem

Physics says that it cannot deal with the mind-brain problem, because it does not deal in subjectivities, and mind is subjective. However, biologists (among others) still claim to seek a material basis for subjective mental processes, which would thereby render them objective. Something is clearly wrong here. I claim that what is wrong is the adoption of too narrow a view of what constitutes ‘objectivity’, especially in identifying it with what a ‘machine’ can do. I approach the problem in the light of two cognate circumstances: (a) the ‘measurement problem’ in quantum physics, and (b) the objectivity of standard mathematics, even though most of it is beyond the reach of ‘machines’. I argue that the only resolution to such problems is in the recognition that closed loops of causation are ‘objective’; i.e. legitimate objects of scientific scrutiny. These are explicitly forbidden in any machine or mechanism. A material system which contains such loops is called ‘complex’. Such complex systems thus must possess nonsimulable models; i.e. models which contain impredicativities or ‘self-references’ which cannot be removed, or faithfully mapped into a single coherent syntactic time-frame. I consider a few of the consequences of the above, in the context of thus redrawing the boundary between subject and object.     

The semantics ofR4

The LogicR4 is obtained by adding the axiom (A vB(AvB) to the modal relevant logicNR. We produce a model theory for this logic and show completeness. We also show that there is a natural embedding of a Kripke model forS4 in eachR4 model structure.We are indebted to several people for discussions relating to the topic of this paper, in particular, Kit Fine, John Slaney, J. M. Dunn, Jacques Riche, M. A. McRobbie, and Jill LeBlanc. We would also like to thank the Automated Reasoning Project for material assistance. Mares would like to thank The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for fellowships 456-89-0128 and 457-90-0081, which supported him while writing this paper.