• Journal of vocational education research
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.23-49
• /
• 2011

Faculty performance evaluation system has been settled down as an uncomfortable but unavoidable system, and it is one of the most important factors to grow the college competitiveness up. In this study, we selected and surveyed faculty evaluation models of several universities and colleges in Korea, and analyzed by comparing each evaluation areas of educational achievement, college-industry collaboration, research, and service. We also identified the properties of the current faculty evaluation models of the junior colleges, and derived several problems from these models such as an imitation of four-year university model, a disorders of job evaluation with respect to the attributes of classified jobs, a large variation of individual item weights, and an insufficient reflection of major characteristics. Based on these surveys and analysis, an improved faculty evaluation model for the junior college is proposed in this study. This model proposed four basic areas-educational achievement, college-industry collaboration, research, and service by considering the importance of the college-industry collaboration in the junior college-as well as the team evaluation area. Weights of the SCI-class paper was selected as a criterion for the arrangement of objective comparison of each evaluation items. We showed the integration method of several different evaluation model with respect to the attributes of classified jobs of each faculties, and evaluation plan of variational characteristics according to the majors of individuals in this model. Finally, we introduced an area fail and rating system to operate efficiently the proposed faculty evaluation model.

• Korean journal of food and cookery science
• /
• v.23 no.5
• /
• pp.589-600
• /
• 2007

Recently, with the rapid expansion of the franchise restaurants, ensuring food safety has become essential for restaurant growth. Consequently, the need for food safety training and related material is in increasing demand. In this study, we identified potentially hazardous risk factors for ensuring food safety in restaurants through a food safety monitoring tool, and developed training materials for restaurant employees based on the results. The surveyed restaurants, consisting of 6 Korean restaurants and 1 Japanese restaurant were located in Seoul. Their average check was 15,500 won, ranging from 9,000 to 23,000 won. The range of their total space was 297.5 to $1322.4m^2$, and the amount of kitchen space per total area ranged from 4.4 to 30 percent. The mean score for food safety management performance was 57 out of 100 points, with a range of 51 to 73 points. For risk factor analysis, the most frequently cited sanitary violations involved the handwashing methods/handwashing facilities supplies (7.5%), receiving activities (7.5%), checking and recording of frozen/refrigerated foods temperature (0%), holding foods off the floor (0%), washing of fruits and vegetables (42%), planning and supervising facility cleaning and maintaining programs of facilities (50%), pest control (13%), and toilet equipped/cleaned (13%). Base on these results, the main points that were addressed in the hygiene training of restaurant employees included 4 principles and 8 concepts. The four principles consisted of personal hygiene, prevention of food contamination, time/temperature control, and refrigerator storage. The eight concepts included: (1) personal hygiene and cleanliness with proper handwashing, (2) approved food source and receiving management (3) refrigerator and freezer control, (4) storage management, (5) labeling, (6) prevention of food contamination, (7) cooking and reheating control, and (8) cleaning, sanitation, and plumbing control. Finally, a hygiene training manual and poster leaflets were developed as a food safety training materials for restaurants employees.

• Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.117-134
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study was to identify the stage of concern, the level of use, and the innovation configuration of Home Economics teachers regarding creativity and personality education in Home Economics(HE) classes. The survey questionnaires were sent through mails and e-mails to middle-school HE teachers in the whole country selected by systematic sampling and convenience sampling. Questionnaires of the stages of concern and the levels of use developed by Hall(1987) were used in this study. 187 data were used for the final analysis by using SPSS/window(12.0) program. The results of the study were as following: First, for the stage of concerns of HE teachers on creativity and personality education, the information stage of concerns(85.51) was the one with the highest response rate and the next high in the following order: the management stage of concerns(81.88), the awareness stage of concerns(82.15), the refocusing stage of concerns(68.80), the collaboration stage of concerns(61.97), and the consequence stage of concerns(59.76). Second, the levels of use of HE teachers on creativity and personality education was highest with the mechanical levels(level 3; 21.4%) and the next high in the following order: the orientation levels of use(level 1; 20.9%), the refinement levels(level 5; 17.1%), the non-use levels(level 0; 15.0%), the preparation levels(level 2; 10.2%), the integration levels(level 6; 5.9%), the renewal levels(level 7; 4.8%), the routine levels(level 4; 4.8%). Third, for the innovation configuration of HE teachers on creativity and personality education, more than half of the HE teachers(56.1%) mainly focused on personality education in their HE classes; 31.0% of the HE teachers performed both creativity and personality education; a small number of teachers(6.4%) focused on creativity education; the same number of teachers(6.4%) responded that they do not focus on neither of the two. Examining the level and type of performance HE teachers applied, the average score on the performance of creativity and personality education was 3.76 out of 5.00 and the mean of creativity component was 3.59 and of personality component was 3.94, higher than standard. For the creativity education, openness/sensitivity(3.97) education was performed most and the next most in the following order: problem-solving skill(3.79), curiosity/interest(3.73), critical thinking(3.63), problem-finding skill(3.61), originality(3.57), analogy(3.47), fluency/adaptability(3.46), precision(3.46), imagination(3.37), and focus/sympathy(3.37). For the personality education, the following components were performed in order from most to least: power of execution(4.07), cooperation/consideration/just(4.06), self-management skill(4.04), civic consciousness(4.04), career development ability(4.03), environment adaptability(3.95), responsibility/ownership(3.94), decision making(3.89), trust/honesty/promise(3.88), autonomy(3.86), and global competency(3.55). Regarding what makes performing creativity and personality education difficult, most HE teachers(64.71%) chose the lack of instructional materials and 40.11% of participants chose the lack of seminar and workshop opportunity. 38.5% chose the difficulty of developing an evaluation criteria or an evaluation tool while 25.67% responded that they do not know any means of performing creativity and personality education. Regarding the better way to support for creativity and personality education, the HE teachers chose in order from most to least: 'expansion of hands-on activities for students related to education on creativity and personality'(4.34), 'development of HE classroom culture putting emphasis on creativity and personality'(4.29), 'a proper curriculum on creativity and personality education that goes along with students' developmental stages'(4.27), 'securing enough human resource and number of professors who will conduct creativity and personality education'(4.21), 'establishment of the concept and value of the education on creativity and personality'(4.09), and 'educational promotion on creativity and personality education supported by local communities and companies'(3.94).