Search

There are many problems common to faculty evaluation, in particular its subjective and unsystematic form. There are solutions to some of those problems. The first task is to delineate exactly what responsibilities faculty will be expected to perform. Too often so many tasks are expected of faculty that no one can complete them all well. Consequently, a mutually agreed upon set of tasks and ranking of their prominence may serve to moderate faculty workload and begin to clarify the evaluation procedure. Each of the specific areas where faculty are expected to perform (teaching, publication, student supervision, academic advising, graduate student supervision, committee work, community service), has its own challenges with regard to just evaluation. However, in all areas, the evaluation method and the weight to be given each type of work should be mutually agreed upon by faculty and administration together. Finally, Richard I. Miller has developed a system of overall faculty evaluation and a set of instruments for that purpose. Three examples of Miller's faculty overall performance ratings are attached in Appendix A. (Seven references) (JB)

A dense linear system solver package recently developed at the University of Texas at Austin for distributed memory machine (e.g. Intel Paragon) has been reviewed and analyzed. The package contains about 45 software routines, some written in FORTRAN, and some in C-language, and forms the basis for parallel/distributed solutions of systems of linear equations encountered in many problems of scientific and engineering nature. The package, being studied by the Computer Applications Branch of the Analysis and Computation Division, may provide a significant computational resource for NASA scientists and engineers in parallel/distributed computing. Since the package is new and not well tested or documented, many of its underlying concepts and implementations were unclear; our task was to review, analyze, and critique the package as a step in the process that will enable scientists and engineers to apply it to the solution of their problems. All routines in the package were reviewed and analyzed. Underlying theory or concepts which exist in the form of published papers or technical reports, or memos, were either obtained from the author, or from the scientific literature; and general algorithms, explanations, examples, and critiques have been provided to explain the workings of these programs. Wherever the things were still unclear, communications were made with the developer (author), either by telephone or by electronic mail, to understand the workings of the routines. Whenever possible, tests were made to verify the concepts and logic employed in their implementations. A detailed report is being separately documented to explain the workings of these routines.

The major purpose of this study was to determine the employment status of education graduates from the 1985 class at the University of Regina (Saskatchewan, Canada). Responses were received from 124 graudates. Information is reported on the following questions: (1) What was the employment success rate of education graduates? (2) To what locales did the graduates make their applications and what was the average number of applications made? (3) In what locales were teaching positions accepted? (4) In what division(s) of the school program did the graduates have their major teaching responsibility: (5) What subjects were graduates teaching in which they had eight or less than eight credit hours as part of their training? (6) What types of jobs, other than teaching, did the graduates accept and why? and (7) Were the unemployed graduates pursuing further study and if so, for what degrees or qualifications? (JD)

This study sought to determine what courses of study related to multicultural education were being offered by Canadian universities and what teacher competencies related to multicultural skills were considered important by professionals in Canada. Two questionnaires were responded to by 25 persons involved or interested in multicultural education. The first questionnaire resulted in a list of courses available at 14 universities: the five major topics discussed in these courses were: (1) minority groups, racism, prejudice, and discrimination; (2) study of cultures; (3) language and culture; (4) cross-cultural communication; and (5) curriculum development. In the second questionnaire, respondents ranked the importance of 18 multiculturally related areas of teacher competence. The five areas perceived as most important were: (1) developing cultural sensitivity; (2) integrating multiculturalism in various subject areas; (3) knowledge of the Canadian multicultural society; (4) dealing with racial differences in the classroom; and (5) recognizing bias in assessment instruments. (CB)