Impact of behavioral factors on GPA for gifted and talented students.

Deviney, David ; Mills, LaVelle H. ; Gerlich, R. Nicholas 等

INTRODUCTION

An upper-level residential school for accelerated learners faces many of the same concerns as employers. The school administration wants to attract and retain students who have both the behavioral, social and academic skills needed to be successful in the residential school environment (Brody & Benbow, 1986; Caplan, Henderson, Henderson & Fleming, 2002; Lupkowski, Whitmore & Ramsey, 1992; Muratori, Colangelo & Assouline, 2003; and Noble & Drummond, 1992). As in industry, when the fit between student behavioral, social and academic skills is strong, the students potentially have a greater likelihood of persisting and being more successful while the cost to the school in lost funding opportunities for other potentially successful students decreases.

The purpose of this study is to identify and prioritize behavioral factors that would contribute to student success. Success in this study was measured as the outgoing grade point average (endGPA) of the student.

Identification of the behavioral factors leading to success could assist the school administration in screening students for admission and providing an early warning of students most likely to be at-risk for dropping out. Retention is a significant component of state funding. Furthermore, it would reduce the emotional stress of both students and parents created by the student's dropping out of school before graduating. As reflected in the following section, the identification, selection and effective placement of gifted and talented students has been a topic of research interest for a number of years.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Identifying and selecting gifted and talented students has been researched for over 40 years (Johns Hopkins University, 1999). Joseph S. Renzulli, Director, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut, has indicated that highly productive people have three interlocking clusters of ability that can be applied to gifted and talented students: above average ability, task commitment, and creativity (Renzulli, 1986). Sternberg and Wagner (1982) have described giftedness as a kind of mental self management with three characteristics: adapting to environments, selecting new environments, and shaping environments. They also describe three skills typically used: separating relevant from irrelevant information, combining isolated pieces of information into a unified whole, and relating newly acquired information to information acquired in the past. Each of these studies found that gifted and talented students tended to be different in predictable ways.

When gifted and talented students were compared with students of the same age group, personality and behavioral differences were found (Mills, 1993). In this case the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator dimensions were used as a basis for comparison. The gifted and talented students showed greater preferences for introversion, intuition, and thinking. They were also likely to value objectivity and to be impersonal in drawing conclusions. They were more likely to want solutions to make sense in terms of the facts, models, and/or principles under consideration.

The Myers and Briggs Foundation, from the perspective of the student or employee completing the Type Indicator, partially defines introversion as:

I like getting my energy from dealing with the ideas, pictures, memories, and reactions that are inside my head, in my inner world. I often prefer doing things alone or with one or two people I feel comfortable with. I take time to reflect so that I have a clear idea of what I'll be doing when I decide to act. Ideas are almost solid things for me. Sometimes I like the idea of something better than the real thing. (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, 1997d).

Students who score higher on introversion as defined by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator are likely to use self descriptors such as the following (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, 1997d):

* I am seen as "reflective" or "reserved."

* I feel comfortable being alone and like things I can do on my own.

* I prefer to know just a few people well.

* I sometimes spend too much time reflecting and don't move into action quickly enough.

* I sometimes forget to check with the outside world to see if my ideas really fit the experience.

In solving problems, introverted individuals tend to take time to think and clarify ideas before voicing an answer (Huitt, 1992). They may have fewer friends but those friendships are likely to be close and strong.

Gifted and talented students are also likely to play with ideas and be more intuitive (John Hopkins University, 1998). The Myers and Briggs Foundation partially defines intuition as:

Paying the most attention to impressions or the meaning and patterns of the information I get. I would rather learn by thinking a problem through than by hands-on experience. (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, 1997a).

Students who score highly on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator scale for Intuition typically see statements such as the following generally applying to themselves.

* I remember events as snapshots of what actually happened.

* I solve problems by working through facts until I understand the problem.

* I am pragmatic and look to the "bottom line."

* I start with facts and then form a big picture.

* I trust experience first and trust words and symbols less.

* Sometimes I pay so much attention to facts, either present or past, that I miss new possibilities. (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, 1997a).

Intuition-oriented people outnumber sensing-oriented (i.e., focusing on information that comes through your five senses) people in academic institutions. This is especially true for postgraduate education (Geyer, 2009).

Gifted and talented students are also likely to score highly on the thinking scale of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The Myers and Briggs Foundation partially defines thinking as:

When I make a decision, I like to find the basic truth or principle to be applied, regardless of the specific situation involved. I like to analyze pros and cons, and then be consistent and logical in deciding. I try to be impersonal, so I won't let my personal wishes--or other people's wishes-influence me. (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, 1997b)

Students who score highly on the Myers-Briggs scale for thinking typically see statements such as the following generally applying to themselves:

* I enjoy technical and scientific fields where logic is important.

* I notice inconsistencies.

* I look for logical explanations or solutions to most everything.

* I make decisions with my head and want to be fair.

* I believe telling the truth is more important than being tactful.

* Sometimes I miss or don't value the "people" part of a situation.

* I can be seen as too task-oriented, uncaring, or indifferent.(The Myers & Briggs Foundation, 1997b)

Huitt argues that individuals with a thinking preference will use logic and analysis more than values and feelings during problem solving. (Huitt, 1992). These students gave emphasis to thinking over feeling. They tended to score higher on achievement drive and lower on interpersonal and social concerns.

Additionally, the academically talented students expressed a preference for a perceptive style. The Myers & Briggs Foundations defines perceiving as:

To others, I seem to prefer a flexible and spontaneous way of life, and I like to understand and adapt to the world rather than organize it. Others see me staying open to new experiences and information. (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, 1997c)

Students who score highly on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator scale for perceiving typically see statements such as the following generally applying to themselves:

* I like to stay open to respond to whatever happens.

* I appear to be loose and casual. I like to keep plans to a minimum.

* I like to approach work as play or mix work and play.

* I work in bursts of energy.

* I am stimulated by an approaching deadline.

* Sometimes I stay open to new information so long I miss making decisions when they are needed. (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, 1997c)

In type language perceiving is reflecting a preference for a way to take in information. The gifted and talented students gave emphasis to perceiving over judgment (i.e., a stronger preference for a less structured and more flexible lifestyle and less preference for a more structured and decided lifestyle).

Other researchers have also identified characteristics typical among gifted and talented students. One such researcher is Susan Johnsen (2003) who completed a comprehensive review of research related to describing characteristics of gifted students. A number of the characteristics identified in Johnsen's work show similarities to constructs described by The Myers and Briggs Foundation, including the following:

* Attracted toward cognitive complexity, enjoys solving complex problems

* Analyzes problems and considers alternatives

* Understands abstract ideas and concepts

* Solves problems intuitively using insight

* Organizes data and experiments to discover patterns or relationships

* Likes independent study and research in areas of interest

* Is observant and pays attention to detail

* Is persistent and task committed in area of interest

* Is well-organized

* Maintains on-task focus

* Has a cooperative attitude; works well in groups

* Participates in most social activities, enjoys being around other people

* Influences the behavior of others; recognized as a leader by peers

* Problem-centeredness or persistence in problem solving

* A large storehouse of information

* Logical approaches to solutions

Renzulli & Park (2007) have suggested that schools must identify and pay attention to signs of frustration and discontent in gifted students. They also suggested that schools should change school culture to provide challenging curriculums to accommodate the student's learning needs and interests. Earlier Silverman (2004) recommended that schools should provide learning communities by factoring into the classroom various kinds of students. Renzulli and Park (2007) cautioned schools to "find ways to affirm students who don't fit the 'good student' mold." (p. 40).

The literature related to student effectiveness shows both similarities and differences. Four behavior style-based factors frequently identified as being closely related to effective work skills are D or Dominance, I or Influencing, S or Steadiness or Supportiveness, and C or Compliance or Conscientiousness (Bonnstetter & Suiter, 2007; Straw, 2002; Wittmann, 2008; Zigarmi, Blanchard, O'Conner & Edeburn, 2004). Four other somewhat similar style-based factors related to effective communication and relationships use terminology such as Driver or Director, Expressive or Socializer, Amiable or Relater and Analytical or Cautious (Alessandra, O'Connor & Alessandra, 1990; Bolton & Bolton, 1996; Merrill & Reid, 1981).

Style Insights--DISC is produced by Target Training International (TTI)--Performance Systems, Ltd. TTI uses the term 'style' as originally suggested by Fritz Perls to relate more to the specifics of how someone does something (Watson & Klassen, 2004, p. 4). The Style Insights DISC (Dominance, Influencing, Steadiness, Compliance) behavioral instrument produced by TTI has made changes to newer versions of their instrument as a means of keeping pace with current terms and descriptors being used (Watson & Klassen, 2004). The DISC theory was originally developed by Marston (1928) and published in The Emotions of Normal People. Using DISC terminology Marston described people as behaving along two axes, passive or active, depending on the individual's perception of the environment as either antagonistic or favorable (Bonnstetter & Suiter, 2007). These can be grouped into four quadrants as follows:

* Dominance (D) generates activity in an antagonistic environment;

* Inducement (I), later changed to Influencing, generates activity in a favorable environment;

* Steadiness (S) generates passivity in a favorable environment; or

* Compliance (C) generates passivity in an antagonistic environment (Bonnstetter & Suiter, 2007).

Vrba (2008) defines each of the DISC factors as follows:

* Dominance. Dominance style of behavior is direct and decisive. This individual feels that it is important to achieve goals, they do not need to be told what to do, and they set high standards. When projects take too long they grow impatient: they enjoy competition and want to win. They are sometimes blunt and come to the point directly. "D" individuals tend to be direct, controlling, risk-taking, pessimistic, judging, extroverted, change-oriented, and fight-oriented.

* Influencing. The Influencing behavior style reflects outgoing, optimistic individuals who love to communicate, and are people persons. These individuals tend to participate in team and group activities; they like the limelight though may not want to lead. "I" individuals prefer to be direct, accepting, risk-taking, optimistic, perceiving, extroverted, change-oriented and flight-oriented.

* Steadiness. The Steadiness behavior style shows sympathetic, cooperative behavior. Helping others and fitting in are important to these individuals though they are hesitant to implement change and do not like to be in the limelight. "S" individuals tend to be indirect, accepting, risk-assessing, optimistic, perceiving, introverted, continuity-oriented, and flight-oriented.

* Compliance. Compliance behavior style tends to be reliable and trustworthy. These individuals will plan out a strategy considering all the facts and possible malfunctions, and they prefer to work alone. "C" individuals prefer to be indirect, controlling, risk-assessing, pessimistic, judging, introverted, continuity-oriented, and fight-oriented.

Marston did not develop the DISC instrument, but his work did lay the foundation for the current DISC behavioral instrument (Bonnstetter & Suiter, 2007). Walter Clarke developed the first DISC related instrument entitled Activity Vector Analysis (Personality Insights, 1940). The Style Insights--DISC instrument used in this study was developed and validated by Bonnstetter (2006) and Target Training International, Ltd. Over 20 years of research and validation studies have been completed. The most recent validation study was conducted by Klassen (2006).

Use of the DISC model provides a behavioral framework to help people understand their behavior preferences, learn to identify behavior preferences of others, and learn to identify specific behaviors best suited for various organizational environments (Warburton, 1983). This behavioral instrument also measures behavior preferences for natural (i.e., least like me) and adaptive (i.e., most like me) (Watson & Klassen, 2004).

According to Warburton (1983, p. 2), "this is the information which they require for maximum productivity and to build multiform, harmonious relations with others." Working with a model such as that provided by the DISC approach helps overcome the belief that only people who are like me are the best choice for work positions or team members for a school project (Hymowitz, 2004; May & Gueldenzoph, 2003). Of particular interest for this study is the measure of behavioral hierarchy factors. These factors have been shown to relate to the ability to call upon many or fewer behavioral skills (Bonnstetter, 2006).

BEHAVIORAL FACTORS

The Style Insights--DISC identifies behavioral factors in which a person will naturally be most effective. Additionally, the Style Insights--DISC classifies the relative strength of the eight behavioral factors. These factors are each scored on a 0-10 scale.

METHODOLOGY & HYPOTHESES

A two-year, accelerated public residential state high school for students in their junior and senior years was utilized in this study. The school is located in the south-central US; studies at the institution focus primarily on mathematics, science, computer science and humanities. It is part of that state's flagship university system. Admission to the school is competitive and selective; previous GPA at the student's home high school is used as a criterion, along with ACT or SAT scores.

Despite the best efforts of the institution, students in the program sometimes drop out. Other than academic criteria, there are no additional predictors of success. There is significant investment of time and money in selecting high school juniors and seniors to attend an accelerated residency school for gifted and talented students. Furthermore, students who drop out cannot be replaced, which can impact school funding.

This research explores various predictors of success at an accelerated residential gifted and talented upper-level high school for math and science. Students in their junior and senior years were given the DISC (Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, Conscientiousness) behavioral instrument and tracked over a two year period to identify predictor attributes of success. Data were collected from 211 students, including academic and personal demographic information along with DISC scores. All data collection was completed in a computer lab with online testing; results were provided to the students approximately two months following their participation.

Student cumulative GPAs were rank-ordered from highest to lowest. The sample was then split into three groups of equal size: High GPA, Medium GPA and Low GPA. A categorical value of 1 (High), 2 (Medium) and 3 (Low) was assigned to each student depending on their GPA level. This categorical value was used to compare mean scores for the eight behavioral traits by means of ANOVA.

Based on the literature reviewed above, the following hypothesized significant differences (or lack thereof) and directionality were tested:

Table 2: Hypotheses Matrix of Mean Score Differences

                                       Hypothesized   Directionality
Behavioral Trait                        Difference         (*)

H1. Analysis of Data                       Yes              +
H2. Competitiveness                        Yes              +
H3. Customer-Oriented                       No             n/a
H4. Frequent Change                        Yes              -
H5. Frequent Interaction with Others       Yes              -
H6: Organized Work Place                   Yes              +
H7. Urgency                                Yes              +
H8. Versatility                             No             n/a

(*) + indicates higher value for high GPA group;--indicates lower
value for high GPA group; n/a indicates directionality not considered
for no-difference hypotheses.

We thus hypothesized that the highest GPA students would be superior in analytical skills, competitiveness, desire for an organized workplace, and sense of urgency; conversely, we hypothesized the highest GPA earners would desire less frequent change and less interaction with others. Finally, we hypothesized no significant differences between the groups on customer orientation and versatility.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Mean scores for each of the eight behavioral dimensions were calculated for the three GPA groups, and appear in Table 3 below. The individual scores for these eight dimensions were then entered into an ANOVA to test for significant differences in the means among the three GPA groups. These results appear in table 4 below.

Of the eight items, there were significant differences reported (at p <= 0.05) on Items 1 (Analysis of Data), 4 (Frequent Change) and 6 (Organized Work Place), and in the direction hypothesized. Traits #3 and #8 were hypothesized to have no significant difference between the means of the three groups, and the findings supported these hypotheses. We thus retain H1, H3, H4, H6 and H8, while rejecting the remainder.

Given the nature of the program at this particular institution, the results are not surprising. The heavy curricular emphasis on math and science is one that demands the ability to work with and understand data analysis and abstract concepts. Furthermore, a stable (seldom changing) and organized work environment is conducive to this type of scholarly pursuit and will likely reinforce the student's tendencies toward being a data analyst.

That Competitiveness did not produce a significant difference between the three GPA groups is perplexing in that the academic environment in which these students live and function is quite competitive. We would have thus expected these students to be more competitive at higher GPA levels. Ironically, the highest GPA group demonstrated the lowest level of Competitiveness (contrary to the hypothesized direction).

The Customer-Oriented behavior was also not significantly different between the group means, as hypothesized. Mean scores across all three groups for this variable were the highest of the eight, indicating a strong effort exists among the students in general to find win-win outcomes.

Frequent Interaction With Others was a more recognized trait as GPA level dropped, but there was no significant difference in the mean scores between the groups. The directionality, though, was the same as hypothesized, suggesting that those with the highest GPAs are more likely to want to spend more time alone, presumably studying.

Urgency was hypothesized to be significantly greater for the higher GPA students, but the results did not show this to exist. This outcome is possibly explained in that the sample is already an academically elite group, and may all thus demonstrate what could be considered at least moderate levels of urgency.

Versatility was hypothesized to not be significantly different across the groups, and the results showed this to be true for this sample. The student body of this institution may very well be characterized as being high achievers, which the "can do" orientation of this variable captures.

This study is limited in that it was conducted at only one institution at one point in time, and thus should be replicated across time and across institutions. Furthermore, it was conducted only with individuals who are already in a very elite group of academically advanced teenagers. Thus, the ability to predict outcomes across ages and academic levels of success may be limited.

Still, the identification of these three traits is helpful in understanding the drivers of success (as measured by GPA) in this type of environment. Furthermore, this information can be very helpful for institutions of this sort in maintaining high retention rates as well as identifying those students who might be at elevated risk of not being successful (or withdrawing).

Finally, the application of the DISC in an academic setting such as this is novel in that it has heretofore been used primarily in the workplace. Being able to identify traits related to success can thus be useful in a wide variety of ages, and may help identify students most likely to not only succeed in academics, but also in the workplace.

REFERENCES

Alessandra, T. & O'Connor, M. with Alessandra, J. (1990). People smart: Powerful techniques for turning every encounter into a mutual win. LaJolla, CA: Keynote Publishing Company.

Benbow, C. P. & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How "equity" can lead to inequity for high-potential students. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22, 249- 292.

Bonnstetter, B. (2006a). Groundbreaking research: What's inside of top sales performers in the United States and Europe. Phoenix, AZ: Target Training International, Ltd. Downloaded November 28, 2008 from http://ttied.com/images/b/b0/TTIMAG_GroundbreakingResearch.pdf

Bonnstetter, B. (2006b). If the job could talk. Phoenix, AZ: Target Training International, Ltd. Downloaded November 28, 2008 from http://ttied.com/images/3/33/TTIMAG_IfTheJobCouldTalk.pdf

Bonnstetter, B. & Suiter, J. (2007) The Universal Language DISC: A Reference Manual. Phoenix, AZ: Target Training International, Ltd.

Brody, L. & Benbow, C. (1986). Social and emotional adjustment of adolescents extremely talented in verbal or mathematical reasoning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15(1). 1-18.

Caplan, S. M., Henderson, C. E., Henderson, J., & Fleming, D. L. (2002). Socioemotional factors contributing to adjustment among early-entrance college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 124-134.

Geyer, P. (2009). Understanding the MBTI and Personality Type. Retrieved February 12, 2010 from http://www.personalitypathways.com/MBTI_geyer.html

Huitt, W.G. (1992). Problem Solving and Decision Making: Consideration of individual differences using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Psychological Type, 24, 33-44.

Hymowitz, C. (2004). Managers err if they limit their hiring to people like them. The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal--Eastern Edition, 10/12/2007, 244(72), B-1.

John Hopkins University: Center for Talented Youth (1999). Personality and cognitive learning styles for academically talented students: Topical research series #2. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://cty.jhu.edu/research/topical2.html

John Hopkins University: Center for Talented Youth (1998). What we know about academically talented students: A sample of our findings. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://cty.jhu.edu/research/whatweknow.html#social_1

Johnsen, S.K. (2003). Prufrock Press Inc., Definitions, models, and characteristics of gifted students. Retrieved February 12, 2010 from http://www.prufrock.com/client/client_pages/Definitions_and_Characteristics/ Definitions_and_Characteristics_of_Gifted_Students.cfm

Klassen, P. (2006). Style Insights--DISC, English version 2006g, Target Training International, Ltd. Downloaded February 15, 2010 from http://ttied.com/images/4/41/DISC_Validity_Study.pdf

Lupkowski, A. E., Whitmore, M., & Ramsay, A. (1992). The impact of early entrance to college on self-esteem: A preliminary study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 87-90.

Marston, W. M. (1928) Emotions of Normal People. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

May, G. & Gueldenzoph, L. (2003). The impact of social style on student peer evaluation ratings in group projects. Proceedings of the 2003 Association for Business Communication Annual Convention.

Merrill, D. & Reid, R. (1981). Personal styles and effective performance. Radner, PA: Chilton Book Company.

Mills, C. J. (1993). Personality, learning style and cognitive style profiles of mathematically talented students. European Journal for High Ability, 4, 70-85.

Muratori, M., Colangelo, N., & Assouline, S. (2003). Early-entrance students: Impressions of their first semester of college. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 219-238.

Noble, K. D., & Drummond, J. E. (1992). But what about the Prom? Students' perceptions of early college entrance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 106-111.

Personality Insights. General insights. Downloaded November 13, 2008 from http://www.personalityinsights.com/q-a-gral.html

Renzulli, Joseph S (1986). A practical system for identifying gifted and talented students. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/semart04.html

Renzulli, J. S., & Park, S. (2007). Dropouts. Gifted Child Today, Fall 2007, 30(4).

Shepherd, W. (2005). Increasing profits by assessing employee work styles. Employment Relations Today, 32(1). 19-23.

Silverman, D. (2004). Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Ltd., Thousand Oaks, CA.

Sternberg, R., & Wagner, R. (1982). A revolutionary look at intelligence. Gifted Children Newsletter, 3, 11.

Straw, J. with Cerier, A. (2002). The 4-dimensional manager: DiSC strategies for managing different people in the best ways. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

The Myers & Briggs Foundation. (CAPT 1997a). Sensing or intuition. Retrieved February 12, 2010 from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/sensing-or- intuition.asp

The Myers & Briggs Foundation, (CAPT 1997b). Thinking or feeling. Retrieved February 12, 2010 from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/thinking-or- feeling.asp

The Myers & Briggs Foundation, (CAPT 1997c). Judging or perceiving. Retrieved February 12, 2010 from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/judging-or- perceiving.asp

The Myers & Briggs Foundation. (CAPT 1997d). Extraversion or introversion. Adapted from Looking at Type: The Fundamentals by Charles R. Martin. Retrieved February 12, 2010 from http://www.myersbriggs.org/mymbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/extraversion- or-introversion.asp

Vrba A. M. (2008) Relationship between follower behavior style and perception of effective leadership characteristics of adult learners. Ph.D. dissertation, Pro Quest 2008 NO. AAT 3320830

Warburton, D. (1983). The importance of finding the real person at work. Retrieved November 28, 2008 from http://www.profilingpro.com/warburton.pdf

Watson, R. & Klassen, P. (2004). Style Insights--DISC: Instrument validation manual. Phoenix, AZ: Target Training International--Performance Systems, Ltd., Success Insights Inc. Retrieved November 28, 2008 from http://www.oacinc.com/MFS/ValidityManual.pdf

Wittmann, R. (2008). persolog[R]: Develop organizations through people! Research Report on persolog[R] Personality Factor Model. Persolog GmbH, D-75196 Remchingen. Retrieved November 28, 2008 from http://www.persolog.net/fileadmin/imagesBUH/Experten-Login_englisch/ US-IO157_Study_2008_g4.pdf

Zigarmi, D., Blanchard, K., O'Connor, M. & Edeburn, C. (2004). The leader within: Learning enough about yourself to lead others. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

David Deviney, Tarleton State University

LaVelle H. Mills, West Texas A&M University

R. Nicholas Gerlich, West Texas A&M University

Carlos Santander, West Texas A&M University

Table 1: Behavioral Factors and Definitions

Item
Number   Behavioral Factor      Definition

Item 1   Analysis of Data       Analyzing and challenging details,
                                data and facts prior to decision
                                making and is viewed as an important
                                part of decision making. Information
                                is maintained accurately for repeated
                                examination as required.

Item 2   Competitiveness        Tenacity, boldness, assertiveness and
                                a "will to win" in all situations.

Item 3   Customer-Oriented      Maintaining a positive and
                                constructive view of working with
                                others. Spending a high percentage of
                                time listening to, understanding and
                                successfully working with a wide range
                                of people from diverse backgrounds to
                                achieve "win-win" outcomes.

Item 4   Frequent Change        "Juggling many balls in the air at the
                                same time." Moving easily from task to
                                task or being asked to leave several
                                tasks unfinished and easily move on to
                                the new task with little or no notice.

Item 5   Frequent Interaction   A strong people orientation, versus a
         with Others            task orientation. Dealing with
                                multiple interruptions on a continual
                                basis, always maintaining a friendly
                                interface with others.

Item 6   Organized Work Place   Systems and procedures followed for
                                success. Careful organization of
                                activities, tasks and projects that
                                require accuracy. Record keeping and
                                planning for success.

Item 7   Urgency                Decisiveness, quick responses and fast
                                action. Critical situations demanding
                                on-the-spot decisions made in good
                                judgment. Important deadlines met.

Item 8   Versatility            Carrying a high level of optimism and
                                a "can do" orientation. Bringing
                                together a multitude of talents and a
                                willingness to adapt the talents to
                                changing assignments as required.

Source: Target Training International, Anne Klink
(personal communication, November 24, 2009)

Table 3: Mean Scores of 8 Behavior Traits by GPA Group

         High GPA Mean    Medium GPA Mean    Low GPA Mean

ITEM1        6.147             5.878             5.684
ITEM2        5.787             5.959             6.132
ITEM3        6.408             6.574             6.529
ITEM4        5.201             5.362             5.582
ITEM5        5.445             5.649             5.824
ITEM6        5.789             5.432             5.338
ITEM7        5.024             4.993             5.338
ITEM8        5.026             5.041             5.390

Table 4: ANOVA (Mean Scores of 8 Behavior Traits by GPA Group)

                          Sum of            Mean
                          Squares    df    Square      F     Sig.

ITEM1   Between Groups    58.153      2    29.077    3.665   .027
        Within Groups    1650.292    208    7.934
        Total            1708.445    210

ITEM2   Between Groups    29.411      2    14.706    2.007   .137
        Within Groups    1523.992    208    7.327
        Total            1553.403    210

ITEM3   Between Groups     9.231      2     4.615    1.461   .234
        Within Groups     657.217    208    3.160
        Total             666.448    210

ITEM4   Between Groups    32.595      2    16.297    3.203   .043
        Within Groups    1058.465    208    5.089
        Total            1091.060    210

ITEM5   Between Groups    36.825      2    18.413    2.117   .123
        Within Groups    1809.298    208    8.699
        Total            1846.123    210

ITEM6   Between Groups    70.410      2    35.205    3.525   .031
        Within Groups    2077.455    208    9.988
        Total            2147.865    210

ITEM7   Between Groups    12.103      2     6.051    .903    .407
        Within Groups    1394.279    208    6.703
        Total            1406.382    210

ITEM8   Between Groups    18.653      2     9.327    1.627   .199
        Within Groups    1192.453    208    5.733
        Total            1211.107    210