Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine student performance on both criterion- and norm-referenced measures, linked with teacher and student communication orientations.

The study used a pre-post design. During the pre-study phase, teachers underwent three days of intensive training in the Process Education Model®. In total, 21 middle and high school teachers at an independent school were the subject group. Each teacher identified ten students, five of whom they classified as “easy to communicate with” and five others whom they classified as “difficult to communicate with.” Approximately, 200 students participated in the study. Teachers and students provided communication preferences via the Kahler Personality Pattern Inventory® (1996). Performance data were gleaned from student grade point averages (GPAs) and grade-appropriate versions of ACT instruments.

The PPI reveals, in part, perceptual preferences in an assessing matrix. Intrinsic and extrinsic orientations were one set of distinctions. Most (more than 85 percent) of the teachers had intrinsic orientations, compared with 63 percent of the “easy” students and 47 percent of the “difficult” students. Both GPA and ACT comparisons were significantly different (p<0.001) on both pre- and post-measures, with the easy students outstripping their difficult counterparts. No significant differences were observed on the ACT Aspire, taken by students in grades 6–9.

The study was conducted at one site.

Student performance appears to be linked with connecting with teachers’ preferred delivery and communication styles. The more like their teachers the students are, the better their performance. Reinforcing new knowledge and skills was recognized as an important component of training.

If connecting better with students is tied with performance, teachers who learn how to shift their delivery methods may foster better outcomes. Also, attention should be paid on how distress may impact teacher performance, especially as they interact with students whose communication preferences may differ from theirs.

This paper explores the historical roots of accounting for biodiversity and extinction accounting by analysing the 18th-century Naturalist's Journals of Gilbert White and interpreting them as biodiversity accounts produced by an interested party. The authors aim to contribute to the accounting history literature by extending the form of accounting studied to include nature diaries as well as by exploring historical ecological accounts, as well as contributing to the burgeoning literature on accounting for biodiversity and extinction accounting.

The authors’ method involves analysing the content of Gilbert White's Naturalist's Journals by producing an 18th-century biodiversity account of species of flora and fauna and then interpretively drawing out themes from the Journals. The authors then provide a Whitean extinction account by comparing current species' status with White's biodiversity account from 250 years ago.

This paper uses Gilbert White's Naturalist's Journals as a basis for comparing biodiversity and natural capital 250 years ago with current species' status according to extinction threat and conservation status. Further the paper shows how early nature diary recording represents early (and probably the only) forms of accounting for biodiversity and extinction. The authors also highlight themes within White's accounts including social emancipation, problematisation, aesthetic elements and an example of an early audit of biodiversity accounting.

There are limitations to analysing Gilbert White's Naturalist's Journals given that the only available source is an edited version. The authors therefore interpret their data as accounts which are indicative of biodiversity and species abundance rather than an exactly accurate account.

From the authors’ analysis and reflections, the authors suggest that contemporary biodiversity accounting needs to incorporate a combination of narrative, data accounting and pictorial/aesthetic representation if it is to provide a rich and accurate report of biodiversity and nature. The authors also suggest that extinction accounting should draw on historical data in order to demonstrate change in natural capital over time.

Social implications include the understanding gleaned from the authors’ analysis of the role of Gilbert White as a nature diarist in society and the contribution made over time by his Journals and other writings to the development of nature accounting and recording, as well as to one’s understanding and knowledge of species of flora and fauna.

To the authors’ knowledge this is the first attempt to analyse and interpret nature diaries as accounts of biodiversity and extinction.