Search

The introduction of new scholarships and awards in Canadian college athletics led to a panel discussion at the 1971 Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation on the issue of opposing or supporting such scholarships. The first participant supported them and felt it was wrong to assume Canadian sports would automatically imitate American mistakes of ignoring the athlete's academic life and allowing too much recruitment activity. The second participant felt athletes do not need special scholarships because in Canada financial aid is available to anyone who really wants a college education. Also, competitive recruiting would mean appealing to Americans to the disadvantage of Canadian boys, and the healthy, relaxed atmosphere surrounding Canadian sports in the past would be lost. A government spokesman supported third-party scholarships, particularly those in which the athlete gets the money from the government and decides for himself where to go to school. He did not see why sports should be singled out as a cultural activity not worth supporting. He also suggested that offering scholarships would keep promising athletic talent in Canada. The next participant warned that over-recruiting and commercialization in sports would follow, with physical education teachers having to engage in extensive recruiting and noncompetitive sports losing support. He said that the costs incurred in attracting larger audiences to big sports events cancel the profits. Reactors then gave additional views to which panelists replied. (CD)

Robert L. Thorndike was awarded the Educational Testing Service (ETS) Measurement Award at the 1972 ETS Invitational Conference. In "Heredity, Environment, and Class or Ethnic Differences," J. McV. Hunt addressed several fundamental questions pertaining to the hereditary and environmental influences of the observed social class and ethnic differences on intelligence and scholastic achievement tests. Eleanor E. Maccoby and Carol Nagy Jacklin, in "Sex Differences in Intellectual Functioning," summarized the current state of knowledge regarding sex differneces in verbal, mathematical, and spatial abilities. In his paper on "Implications of Group Differences for Test Interpretation," Lloyd G. Humphreys examined the concept of test fairness. Charles V. Willie discussed the previous papers in "A Theoretical Approach to Cultural and Biological Differences." In "Recycling the Problems in Testing," Henry S. Dyer observed that much of the misuse of tests arises from the diverse perceptions held by makers, givers, takers, and users of tests. The afternoon session focused on educational implementation: Irving E. Sigel spoke on "Where is Preschool Education Going: Or Are We En Route Without a Road Map?," and Benjamin F. Payton discussed "Black Colleges and Black Studies." (BW)

After five years existence of the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO), the training programs at the various centers and projects are beginning to create an impact on educational development in Southeast Asia. Graduates from the SEAMEO centers have made substantive contributions in various fields of specialization in their respective countries. However, no formal recognition of the degrees, diplomas, and certificates given by the various SEAMEO centers and projects has ever been jointly established by the SEAMEO countries, and thus certain difficulties have arisen which could jeopardize the professional advancement of SEAMEO graduates. It is SEAMEO's intention to work for certain forms of common criteria in the evaluation and recognition of the academic qualifications and awards given by the project centers. This report contains recommendations, background papers, country reports, and reports from project centers which may interest a wide public since the interrelationship between agencies such as Ministries of Education, Civil Service Commissions, and educational institutions is brought to the fore. The participating countries (Indonesia, Khmer Republic, Laos, Malaysia, Phillipines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam) sought to identify relevant problems and explore the possibilities of establishing certain criteria with regard to the evaluation of credentials and the recognition of academic accomplishments under the auspices of SEAMEO. (RC)

The purpose of the paper upon which this summary is based was threefold: First, to develop a general model integrating various formulations of expectancy theory as applied to work and motivation. Second, to review the overall findings of recent empirical research with reference to the major constructs of the integrative model. Third, to suggest some areas in need of further research in the theory. Expectancy Theory was first proposed as an explanation of work behavior by Vroom (1964). According to the theory, an individual chooses the work behaviors he engages in on the basis of the interaction between (1) the valences he perceives to be associated with the outcomes of the behavior under consideration; and (2) his subjective estimate of the probability that his behavior will indeed result in the outcomes. The original Vroom model has undergone several developments in the last few years: (1) the distinction between first level and second level outcomes; (2) identification of intrinsic sources of valences; (3) the distinction between expectancy I and expectancy II; and (4) the incorporation of additional variables in the model to elaborate in explaining specific job behavior, such as abilities to explain job performance, and the equity concept to explain job satisfaction, etc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]