Big Fish written by. John August based on the novel by Daniel Wallace. FINAL PRODUCTION DRAFT includes post-production dialogue and omitted scenes. In his prime, Edward Bloom was an extraordinary man. He could outrun anybody. He never missed a day of school. He saved lives and tamed giants. Animals. LIBRETTO -. Big Fish. Book by JOHN AUGUST. Music and Lyrics by ANDREW LIPPA. Based on the novel by Daniel Wallace and the Columbia Motion Picture.

Big Fish Pdf

Language:English, Japanese, Hindi
Published (Last):26.09.2016
ePub File Size:22.50 MB
PDF File Size:15.54 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Registration needed]
Uploaded by: EDYTH

the experience of attending the theater and seeing BIG FISH with your .. http:// Read and Download Ebook [PDF)] Catching The Big Fish: Meditation, Consciousness, And Creativity PDF [PDF)] Catching the Big Fish: Meditation. VOCAL&SCORE (REV.&9/19/13). 1. 2. 2A. 2B.& 2C. 3.& 3A.& 3B.& 3C. 4. 4A.& 5. 5A. 5B. 6.& 7.& 7A.& 8. 8A. 8B.& 8C.& 9.& 10A.& & Prologue.

No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Although a few studies have been done with regard to this effect, inconsistence exists in the effect size with little success in finding moderators. Here, we present a meta-analysis to synthesize related literatures to reach a summary conclusion on the BFLPE.


Furthermore, student age, comparison target, academic self-concept domain, student location, sample size, and publication year were examined as potential moderators. Moreover, moderator analyses revealed that the Big-Fish-Little-Pond effect is an age-based process and an intercultural phenomenon, which is stronger among high school students, in Asia and when verbal self-concept is considered.

This meta-analysis is the first quantitative systematic overview of BFLPE, whose results are valuable to the understanding of BFLPE and reveal the necessity for educators from all countries to learn about operative means to help students avoid the potential negative effect. Future research expectations are offered subsequently. Keywords: big-fish-little-pond effect, student, academic self-concept, age, meta-analysis Introduction In educational psychology, Academic Self-Concept ASC refers to students' self-perception in specific disciplines e.

Earlier empirical researches and a meta-analysis manifested that academic achievement and ASC are reciprocally related Guay et al. Positive ASC is an important means of facilitating student academic accomplishments and has been regarded as one of the key objectives of education Seaton et al. The Big Fish Little Pond Effect BFLPE is one of the most influential theories about student ASC forming process, which was proposed by Marsh to describe the phenomenon that students in selective schools always have lower ASC compared to those with comparable ability but attend regular schools, which means that being a big fish in a small pond does good to one's ASC.

It has been demonstrated that student's ASC is shaped not only by his or her performance but also by social comparisons Marsh, ; Marsh et al. Students compare their own achievement with that of their class- or schoolmates, which leads them to feel more negative about their own competencies in high-achieving atmosphere than in low-achieving atmosphere.

Besides, the BFLPE was also observed for students who were at the end of high school or even graduated 2 years or 4 years later Marsh et al. Researches by Sung et al. The size of this negative effect ranges from extremely weak Thijs et al.

These inconsistencies in the reported findings make it difficult to draw a general conclusion concerning the BFLPE and provide useful suggestions for educational practice.

As it usually makes more sense to summary existing researches than doing further research Card, , it is of great importance to carry out a systematic review of the BFLPE. While Marsh et al. In the typical application of multilevel modeling, outcome variables are related to several predictor variables at the individual level e.

In this literature, models that include the same variable at both the individual level and the aggregated group level are called contextual analysis models Boyd and Iverson ; Firebaugh ; Raudenbush and Bryk The central question in such contextual studies is whether the aggregated group characteristic has an effect on the outcome variables after controlling for variables at the individual level. In contextual studies the critical question is the relative sizes of effects of individual and group-average constructs in predicting relevant outcome measures when both individual and group-average variables are included in the analysis.

Interestingly, in this general contextual study paradigm, there is no assumption that individuals actually compare themselves to others in their group, although such social comparison processes are a central feature of SCT studies that have also had an important influence on BFLPE research.

As emphasized in contextual effect research more generally Boyd and Iverson , the BFLPE is inherently a multilevel phenomenon that incorporates both the individual level e. As in other contextual effect studies, the critical issue is whether the group level effect school-average ability has a significant effect after controlling for the corresponding and appropriate individual effects individual ability.

Hence, the minimal conditions to test the BFLPE are: a multilevel design with many schools and a substantial representative or total sample of students from each school; an objective measure of achievement for each individual student that is directly comparable over different schools and an appropriate measure of ASC; and tests of the effects of school-average achievement on ASC after controlling for the effects of individual student achievement.

The studies included in the review should only be studies that explicitly address that research question. Establishing the research question, aims, and selection criteria of the studies a priori can reduce bias in the review process Torgerson Given that the BFLPE is a hypothesized relation between academic self-concept, individual ability or achievement , and school average ability or achievement , any research study included in a review of the BFLPE should minimally contain analyses of these three variables.

For example, Butzer and Kuiper considered neither achievement nor ASC; Cheng and Lam neither controlled for prior ability nor examined class-average ability; and Stapel and Koomen did not consider achievement.

Additionally, Huguet et al. Confusing these two research questions by not making this distinction clear undermines the potential value of findings based on each question considered separately. Whereas these assumptions are central issues in SCT, BFLPE research makes no assumptions that the school- or class-average ability is the only basis of comparison, nor does it assume that students do not use other, more varied comparison criteria like those considered in SCT.

In response to Dai and Rinn it is important to emphasize that although the theoretical models underlying the BFLPE and SCT share many historical influences and their juxtaposition has much to offer, the theoretical basis for the BFLPE is much broader than and distinct from SCT, and is based on a well-established body of research see earlier discussion that in some cases predates Festinger and in some cases does not assume that students actively compare their ability levels with others.

Although the formation of a frame of reference that is central to the BFLPE might involve an active process of comparison with other students, it could also be based on information such as a distribution of grades or test scores provided by a teacher that would not necessarily involve any interaction with other students. From this perspective it is relevant to juxtapose these two theoretical approaches and research findings based on each—with particular emphasis on recent research that has attempted to integrate the two approaches.

Role of a generalized other According to the BFLPE, students use the average level of academic accomplishments of other students within their school to form a frame of reference against which to evaluate their own academic accomplishments.

In this sense, the comparison is imposed, implicit, in relation to a generalized other, and reflects a classic contextual or frame-of-reference effect. In marked contrast, much social psychology research is based on a very different paradigm stemming from SCT—what Dai and Rinn refer to as a self-engendered comparison.

In this traditional SCT choice paradigm hereafter we refer to this as the SCT paradigm although we recognize that this is not the only research strategy used by SCT researchers and that there are variations in how this paradigm has been applied , participants are asked to select a target person as a basis of comparison. In this sense the selection of the comparison person is explicit and resulting social comparison effects are evaluated in relation to a specific target person.

Although it might be possible to characterize this SCT research as a contextual effect or frame-of-reference study in which the context is based on a single student, contextual or frame-of-reference effects and multilevel modeling perspectives that have been so important in BFLPE studies have been largely ignored in SCT see Seaton et al.

Surprisingly, this historically important construct of generalized other has had little emphasis in recent SCT research that has focused more on variations of the traditional SCT choice paradigm: the choice of specific target individuals as a basis of comparison, the juxtaposition of upward and downward comparison strategies, and how these strategies satisfy competing needs.

We interpret this to mean that when there is a relatively objective normative basis of comparison i.

Big FishPDF File

In addition to selecting individuals for comparison purposes, Festinger also emphasized that comparisons could be made with groups Hypothesis VII and that situations could arise in which comparisons could be forced on the individual. Our interpretation of these proposals by Festinger is that when students are given accurate normative information about their performance in a particular class, social comparison information based on the performance of a specific target person should be less useful and, thus, have less influence on self-evaluations.

In particular, experimental manipulations, student characteristics, or group characteristics that influence the selection of the target comparisons that students choose in SCT, or the effects of this choice process, might or might not moderate the effect of school-average ability in BFLPE studies. This should be an empirical question.

Diener and Fujita , p. The reason for this, they surmised, was that the frame of reference, based on classmates within the same school, is more clearly defined in BFLPE research than in most other research settings.

The importance of the school setting is that the relevance of the social comparisons in school settings is much more ecologically valid than manipulations in typical social psychology experiments involving introductory psychology students in contrived settings.

Indeed, they argue also see Marsh and Craven that except for opting out altogether, it is difficult for students to avoid the relevance of achievement as a reference point within a school setting or the social comparisons provided by the academic accomplishments of their classmates. In BFLPE research, the implicit comparison target is posited to be a generalized other and there is a very consistent pattern of contrast effects—the negative effect of school- or class-average achievement on ASC.

Even when there is evidence for assimilation effects e. Furthermore, support for any assimilation effect at all—even one that is overshadowed by a counter-balancing contrast effect as in Marsh et al.

However, unlike BFLPE research in which there is consistent support for a contrast effect, the theoretical predictions and empirical results are not so clear in SCT studies. In particular, when participants are able to choose a target person with whom to compare, upward comparisons sometimes result in assimilation rather than contrast, leading Major et al. An important focus of much of this SCT research has been the strategies that individuals use to select comparison targets e.

Thus, upward evaluations might provide a basis of identification with more accomplished target persons even though such target persons are likely to provide a more demanding basis of comparison for self-evaluations leading to feelings of inferiority than would downward comparisons. Nevertheless, when asked to choose target persons with whom to compare themselves, SCT research shows that participants typically choose targets who are similar or slightly better than themselves i.

Whereas the emphasis on generalized others in BFLPE studies may be a reasonable assumption within an imposed social comparison paradigm in educational settings Diener and Fujita , more research is needed to test the generalizability over different sources of social comparison information such as that provided by target comparison persons chosen by students in free-choice situations that has been the basis of SCT research.

Furthermore, the uses of generalized and specific comparison targets are not mutually exclusive.

You might also like: BIG BOB GIBSONS BBQ BOOK

Individuals might simultaneously evaluate their performances in relation to both the performances of specific target individuals selected in ways that have been considered in SCT research and in relation to some generalized performance based on a group-average performance, as posited in BFLPE research.

In their review, Dai and Rinn put particular emphasis on two SCT studies and research leading to these studies that were conducted in educational settings Blanton et al. This is particularly relevant as these two studies have also been instrumental in our recent research in which we have begun to integrate the SCT and BFLPE paradigms.

Suls, personal communication, September 11, In particular, they noted that two studies Blanton et al. Marsh was asked to reconcile the results of these studies with findings from his BFLPE research program. This challenge is closely related to concerns expressed by Dai and Rinn , in relation to these same studies. In response to this challenge, Marsh personal communication, November 12, noted that the Blanton et al.

Thus, neither study provided a test of the BFLPE nor how it related to social comparison processes that were evaluated in these two studies. Noting that class-average differences in school grades had been scaled away by standardizing grades or centering the effects separately within each class, Marsh suggested that a BFLPE might be evident for self-evaluations which were the closest approximation to ASC that was available in these studies if a suitable measure of class-average achievement were available, and proposed tests of the BFLPE in reanalyses of these two studies if these conditions could be established.

Importantly, Marsh emphasized that these were not criticisms of the original studies in that they were not intended to test the BFLPE, but that it was also not appropriate to argue that the findings contradicted other BFLPE findings—in contrast to apparent interpretations by Dai and Rinn Independently, each research team contacted Marsh and suggested ways in which his proposed reanalyses might be undertaken.

Huguet et al. Based on a model of collaborative synergy involving all 11 of the players in this scenario, we reanalyzed the data from both these studies in relation to predictions from the BFLPE proposed by Marsh in his original response to Wheeler and Suls.

After several years of effort and large doses of good-will by all those involved, this collaborative effort eventually resulted in a publication Seaton et al. Although neither of the original studies had used multilevel modeling, all the authors agreed that this was the most appropriate statistical technique to use in the reanalysis of these two studies. Further analysis of the data of Blanton et al. Participants in the Blanton et al. Because no standardized achievement measure was available, performance was determined on the basis of school grades assessed at three points during the academic year for further detail see Blanton et al.

Comparison-level choice was measured at Time 2 by asking students to nominate the classmate with whom they preferred to compare their grades, separately for each of seven academic subjects. The main dependent measure was a self-evaluation measure in which students rated their performance compared to their classmates in the seven academic subjects.

In the Dutch schools, as is typically the case elsewhere Marsh , teachers tend to grade-on-a-curve such that there is not much variation between classes in terms of the average grade assigned.

Big Fish Derby

However, for purposes of evaluating the BFLPE, it was critical that there was a class-average measure of achievement that reflected the differing ability levels of the classes. Fortunately, each of the classes had been streamed on the basis of prior ability, and this information allowed us to scale the classes in terms of class-average ability see Seaton et al.

The Seaton et al. For all seven school subjects, the effect of T1 grade individual achievement on self-evaluation was positive and statistically significant, varying from 0. Hence the BFLPE was not moderated by the choice of target student that is the focus of SCT research and there was no effect of comparison student choice on self-evaluations after controlling for the class-average ability.

Further analysis of the data of Huguet et al. Including additional students not considered in the original study of Huguet et al. Materials were similar to Blanton et al. Grades based on a point scale were obtained from school reports, and were used to determine performance and comparison direction. Importantly, school grades in the French system are specifically designed to be comparable across school subjects, classes and schools i.

For this reason and because there was no other basis of scaling the class-average achievement values for the different classes e. However, relative to class-average differences on standardized achievement tests typically used in BFLPE studies, these class-average grades may be conservative in terms of testing the BFLPE because of a potential grading-on-a-curve effect and thus underestimate the size of the BFLPE.

As with the Dutch study Blanton et al. The effect of individual achievement was significantly positive in all three school subjects standardized path coefficients of 0. There were several other ways in which the Dutch and French results differed. In the analysis of the French data, the size of the BFLPE was moderated by individual ability for mathematics, but the size of this effect was small and this interaction was not significant for the other two subjects.

A Novel of Mythic Proportions

Students who chose more able comparison students had higher self-perceptions of their academic ability. However, again, the comparison choice-by-class-average interaction was not statistically significant for any of the school subjects. They hypothesized that both sources of social comparison information high class-average achievement and upward comparisons would have negative effects on mathematical self-beliefs.

However, they noted that the basis of prediction for the BFLPE was much stronger than those based on the chosen target persons. Preliminary results provided clear support for the typical BFLPE—a substantial positive effect of individual student achievement and a substantial negative effect of class-average achievement.

The authors then tested the same model with the upward comparison variable choosing an individual target of comparison who is more able instead of class-average achievement.

Results based on this alternative source of social comparison information gave a similar pattern of results. In particular, the effect of individual student achievement was positive, whereas the effect of selecting a more able student as the target of comparison upward comparison was negative.

Finally, the authors evaluated the combined effects of both sources of social comparison information—school-average achievement generalized other and upward comparisons specific other.

Although the negative effects of each of these sources of social comparison information was diminished somewhat—compared to models in which each was considered separately—the negative effects of both class-average achievement and upward social comparison were significant from a statistical perspective and substantively meaningful. In summary, this set of models was consistent with a priori predictions in that the BFLPE was replicated for both class-average achievement the typical basis of social comparison information based on a generalized other in BFLPE studies and upward comparison a typical basis of social comparison information based on comparison with a selected target person in SCT studies.

Furthermore, when both of these sources of social comparison information were considered simultaneously in a single model, each made substantial, unique contributions.

It is important to note that each of these sources of social comparison information—the generalized other and the direction of comparison with an individual target person—provides a unique, independent effect that cannot be explained by the other. Importantly, the uses of generalized and specific others are not mutually exclusive alternatives.

Individuals might simultaneously evaluate their performances in relation to both the performances of specific target individuals selected in ways that have been considered in SCT research and in relation to some generalized other performance based on an average performance, as posited in BFLPE research. In relation to both operationalizations there seems to be an important role for mixed-methods research in which the largely quantitative approach used in this research is supplemented with qualitative research to more fully explicate these alternative social comparison processes.

Thus, for example, it would be useful to ask students to discuss the role of social comparison in the way they form their self-concepts, upward and downward comparison strategies that they use to protect their self-concepts, the juxtaposition between normative bases of comparison based on a whole class or school and comparisons based on specifically selected individual classmates, and their perceptions of ability levels of students they chose as comparison targets.

Summary: Alternative sources of social comparison information Although based on very different methodologies, each of the three studies provided clear support for the BFLPE. Furthermore, the studies were consistent in showing that the BFLPE was not moderated by the direction of comparison when students were asked to choose a target person.

There was, however, an important difference between the studies. In the Blanton et al. In the study of Huguet et al. However, for the Marsh et al.

Although the many differences between the studies make interpretations about the basis of these differences highly speculative, there is one important difference that warrants further consideration. However, given the typical optimistic bias in self-perceptions, it is likely that students overestimate their own ability relative to that of other target comparison students also see Seaton et al.In it, the two companies express 'concern' about the health of Macquarie Harbour, that Tassal have showed complete disregard for environmental and fish health warning signs.

No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. This is predicted to result in Y having a below-average ASC. It shows: Tassal pays WWF almost a quarter of a million dollars every year - for three years - plus bonus performance payments - to be able to use the panda logo.

Surprisingly, this historically important construct of generalized other has had little emphasis in recent SCT research that has focused more on variations of the traditional SCT choice paradigm: the choice of specific target individuals as a basis of comparison, the juxtaposition of upward and downward comparison strategies, and how these strategies satisfy competing needs.

Please check your email for instructions on resetting your password. Although the many differences between the studies make interpretations about the basis of these differences highly speculative, there is one important difference that warrants further consideration. Creating massive areas of waste on the sea floor. Historically, self-concept researchers emphasized a global, relatively undifferentiated measure of self-concept, also referred to as self-esteem.

We've also discovered, Tassal forks out another quarter of a millions dollars every year …to cover the costs of its ASC accreditation.