CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
Teaching Perfromance of Graduate School Faculty as Input to
Professional Development
Dr. David Cababaro Bueno
==============================================
Abstract- The present study determines the training needs of graduate faculty based on the
Expected Performance Standards (EPS) set by one of the Private Higher Education
Institutions (PHEIs) in the Philippines and to propose a professional development (PD)
program. The descriptive statistical analysis was used to show the training needs of the faculty.
The teaching outcomes were based on the average performance assessments conducted by the
Dean among the graduate school faculty. The results showed that graduate school faculty
members were outstanding in achieving the objectives of the graduate program by showing
mastery of subject matter, relating current issues and community needs and participating to
the activities of professional organizations. However, they were just satisfactory in
demonstrating mastery of research skills relative to their own research output, assisting
graduate students in developing research competencies, and showing professional growth
through research activities and publications. It is undeniably essential to include in the PD
the need to continually upgrade their research preparation, dissemination and utilization.
Keywords: Education, teaching outcomes, graduate school faculty, professional
development, descriptive design
Introduction
Professional development cannot succeed without strong content. The
content of the professional development that is associated with highperforming schools is always focused and serves a well-planned long-term
strategy. To be effective, professional development should be based on
curricular and instructional strategies that have a high probability of affecting
student learning—and, just as important, students’ ability to learn. In addition,
professional development should (1) deepen teachers’ knowledge of the
subjects being taught; (2) sharpen teaching skills in the classroom; (3) keep up
with developments in the individual fields, and in education generally; (4)
generate and contribute new knowledge to the profession; and (5) increase the
ability to monitor students’ work, in order to provide constructive feedback to
students and curricular and instructional strategies that have appropriately
redirect teaching (Harwell, 2003).
Higher education has undergone a great deal of change in the last
century, especially during the last 50 years. Although there has been
1
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
tremendous growth and pedagogical advances, the last decade has witnessed
serious attacks on the academy, as well as on the faculty and students within
higher education (Heppner & Johnson, 1994). It seems that new challenges
face the academy and widespread changes affect virtually all aspects of higher
education today. According to Millis (1994), complex changes that universities
respond to includes expectations about the quality of education, changing
technology and its impacts on teaching and learning, nature and value of
assessment, the academy’s continuing ability to meet the changing and
developing needs of the society effectively, diverse compositions of students
populations, changing paradigms in teaching and learning, colleges and
universities, for whatever reasons, have been neither sufficiently alert to the
ever-changing circumstances of their instructional staffs nor adequately
resourceful in meeting their changing needs for professional development. It is
indeed striking how much has been written about faculty growth and renewal
and how few campuses have seen fit to develop comprehensive, systematic
programs (Schuster, 1990).
In order to achieve an effective educational reform, faculty development
emerged is an important factor. In general, faculty development facilitates the
professional, personal, organizational and instructional growth of faculty and
faculty members. It promotes improvement in the academy in large part
through helping individuals to evolve, unfold, mature, grow, cultivate, produce,
and otherwise develop themselves as individuals and as contributors to the
academy’s mission (Watson & Grossman, 1994).
The primary goals of higher education institutions in the Philippines are
enhancing and maintaining academic excellence. Faculty members are the most
important factor for achieving these goals since they are responsible for
implementing the tasks that are directly associated with the goals. Therefore,
graduate school needs effective faculty members to enhance necessary skills
and enable them to work more effectively (Prachyapruit, 2001). Faculty
development can play a significant role in increasing the quality of a faculty
environment, particularly by emphasizing academicians’ roles as instructors.
Faculty development has been an integral part of higher education for
many years. In the decades proceeding the 1970s faculty development
programs in universities and colleges in the Philippines were similar to inservice programs in K to 12 schools based on scope and direction. In the mid
1970s, however, faculty development went through a major metamorphosis
from context and process based programs to programs designed to develop
2
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
faculty members as teachers and facilitators of learning (Chun, 1999; Millis,
1994).
In Philippines, the quality of higher education institutions has been an
important issue for several years. Following the emergence of new private
universities in the last few years, a challenge among private and public
educational institutes has begun in attracting students to themselves. It seems
that all of the public and private universities are facing increasingly new
demands to improve the quality in their educational missions.
In spite of having brilliant history of quality of education among HEIs in
the Philippines, the College did not institutionalize a clear campus-wide
program for training faculty members or other activities based on a faculty
development program until the year 2013. Since then some unlimited activities,
such as seminars for faculty and trainings for those researchers who came
temporarily from other universities have been done. Thus, there were few
professional preparatory programs are offered to graduate students to provide
them with necessary teaching skills or techniques.
In general, knowing the content of the subject does not guarantee an
effective teaching, similar to other colleges and universities, suffers from welldesigned faculty development programs.
Today, teachers are expected to develop complex skills, such as
research skills, in their students while implementing new views on learning and
teaching and using authentic assessment strategies. About these new
assessment strategies there is much debate and teachers are vulnerable in using
them. Researchers (Stokking, van der Schaaf, Jaspers, & Erkens, 2004) have
studied upper secondary education natural and social science teachers' practices
using two surveys and two rounds of expert panel judgment on teachersubmitted assessment-related material and information. They emphasized a
common concern on research skills regarding the clarity of teachers'
assessment criteria, the consistency between teachers' goals, assignments, and
criteria, and the validity and acceptability of teachers' assessment practices.
Moreover, the Professional and Organizational Development Network in
Higher Education (POD, 2003) emphasized that faculty development generally
focused on the individual faculty member. It should provide consultation on
teaching, including class organization, evaluation of students, in-class
presentation skills, questioning and all aspects of design and presentation. They
also advised faculty on other aspects of teacher/student interaction, such as
advising, tutoring, discipline policies and administration. Another focus of such
program is the faculty member as a scholar and professional. It should offer
assistance in career planning, professional development in scholarly skills such
3
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
as grant writing, publishing, committee work, administrative work, supervisory
skills, and a wide range of other activities expected of faculty. Thus,
professional development should be designed around research-documented
practices that enable educators to develop the skills necessary to implement
what they are learning.
Thus, there is a need for college administrators to initialize faculty
development activities solely for graduate school faculty. Thus, this research
was designed to bridge the gap previously presented in conducting training
needs analysis and its practical delivery in Continuing Professional Education
activities and programs intended for graduate faculty in a private college
focused on other dimensions such as professional performance, instructional
procedures and techniques, and evaluation and grading.
Components of Faculty Development in Higher Education Institutions
There is a need for faculty across all disciplines to understand best
instructional practices and the strategies that develop effective teaching
behaviors and skills. While faculty members at the university level are
considered experts in their field of study, many may not have been trained in
practices of effective teaching, how to share their expertise, or how to improve
their teaching. The induction and mentoring of faculty members is often
overlooked in higher education, but many faculty members report they struggle
with the teaching aspects of their responsibilities. Creation and evaluation of a
faculty development program can aid in the formation of best instructional
practices and increase the competency of faculty in meeting the challenges of
educating students. Brookes (2010) suggests that a blend of online and face-toface meetings could be used to provide programs to support faculty. Helping
faculty to understand who they are as teachers and instilling a belief that they
can be successful teachers are integral aspects of faculty development. By
designing and evaluating a new faculty development program, we hope to gain
a better understanding of the impact of development programs on faculty
competencies and student outcomes (Rowbotham, 2015).
The functions of the faculty can be defined in four overlapping tasks as
follows (Bowen & Schuster, 1986):
(1) Instruction. The main function of faculties is instruction, that is, direct
teaching of students. Instruction involves formal teaching of groups of
students in classrooms, laboratories, studios, gymnasia, and field settings. It
also involves conferences, tutorials, and laboratory apprenticeships for students
individually. Instruction also entails advising students on matters pertaining to
4
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
their current educational programs, plans for advanced study, choice of career,
and sometime more personal matters.
(2) Research. Faculties contribute to the quality and productivity of
society not only through their influence on students but also directly through
the ramified endeavors called as research. This term is used as shorthand for all
the activities of faculties that advance knowledge and the arts. The activities
may be classed as research if they involve the discovery of new knowledge or
the creation of original art and if they result in dissemination usually by means
of some form of durable publication.
(3) Public service. Public services can be performed by faculties in
connection with their teaching and research. The most notable is teaching
delivered by faculty in university. Faculties are also engaged in activities
designed specifically to serve the public, usually in an educational and
consulting capacity. Perhaps the most important public service function of
faculties is that they serve as a large pool of diversified and specialized talent
available on call for consultation and technical services to meet an infinite
variety of needs and problems.
(4) Institutional governance and operation. Faculties, individually and
collectively, usually occupy a prominent role in the policies, decisions, and
ongoing activities falling within the wide-ranging realm of institutional
governance and operation. Faculty members contribute enormously to
institutional success through their efforts to create and sustain a rich cultural,
intellectual, and recreational environment in the campus.
Moreover, as it can be seen the work of faculty members is extraordinarily
important to the economic and cultural development of the nation. If the
quality of the system and its people deteriorate, it will be less able to provide
the teaching, research, and public service activities.
According to Chism, Lees and Evenbeck (2002), the basic model of
teaching changed from teaching as transmission of content to teaching as the
facilitation of learning.
Thus, Wilkerson and Irby (1998) stated that TNA is a tool for improving
the educational vitality of academic institutions through attention to the
competencies needed by individual teachers, and to the institutional policies
required to promote academic excellence.
Training Needs Assessment
Training Needs Analysis (TNA) is the key to reshaping the future of
Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Program in the educational
5
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
system. It is the major component of training programs. It is a crucial
component of learning for ascertaining both the needs of the learners and the
organization and as such it provides a fundamental link with relevant and
effective teaching and learning process. Harris (1980) defined training in the
field of education as a planned program which consists of learning
opportunities offered to faculty members in the educational institution in order
to improve their performance in their specific work. Thus, it as a regulator and
as a planned voltage to provide manpower in the organization of certain
knowledge, improving and developing their skills and capabilities, and changing
its behavior and trends positively, while Al-Sakarneh (2011) defined it as a
planned activity designed to bring about changes in the individual and in the
community in terms of information and experiences, skills, levels of
performance, ways of working, and behavior and trends. Thus, this makes
individual or group to be effective in doing their jobs in high production
efficiency.
To meet the educational needs of the new global organization, lecturers
need continuing professional development in order to maintain and upgrade
their skills. They also need to exemplify a willingness to explore and discover
new technological capabilities that would enhance and expand learning
experiences. Several studies have been conducted relative to professional
development focusing on ICT skills (Akinnagbe, 2011), pedagogical
competencies, management and assessment competencies and research
competencies among teachers and lecturers (Fakhra & Mahar, 2014). For
Akinnagbe, it is absolutely essential that lecturers should improve their ICT
skills properly. They need a wide variety of educational opportunities to
improve these ICT skills. Fakhra & Mahar diagnosed descriptively the impact
of training on teachers competencies on three categories of competencies:
pedagogical, assessment & management and research competencies. Trained
teachers showed a significant difference in pedagogical competencies,
management and assessment competencies and research competencies. It
depicts that in all the categories trained teachers were more competent than
teachers having no training.
These previous studies focused generally on
the competencies of teachers and lecturers in the basic education level. The
competencies required for teaching in the K to 12 program might be at a
varying degree when compared to those faculty teaching in the graduate school
programs.
6
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
Faculty Development
Faculty development is a process of enhancing and promoting any form of
academic scholarship in individual faculty members. It refers to programs and
strategies that aim both to maintain and to improve the professional
competence of faculty members in fulfilling their tasks in the higher education
institutes. It includes programs or activities that lead to expand the interests,
improve the competence, and facilitate the professional and personal growth of
faculty members in order to improve the quality of faculty instruction, research
and student advisement. There exist several definitions for the faculty
development and its dimensions. Besides the similarities between faculty
development definitions, there is an overlap among its defined dimensions.
According to Scott (1990), in 1979 the American Association for Higher
Education proposed a definition for faculty development, which went beyond
the then dominant emphasis on teaching. Based on this definition, faculty
development is the theory and practice of facilitating improved faculty
performance in a variety of domains, including the intellectual, the institutional,
the personal, the social, and the pedagogical.
Faculty development can also be defined as any planned activity designed
to improve an individual's knowledge and skills in areas considered essential to
the performance of a faculty member. The aim is to improve faculty members’
competence as teachers and scholars.
Hence, colleges and universities try to renew and maintain vitality of their
staff. Prachyapruit (2001) defined faculty development programs as activities
that are designed to help faculty members improve their competence as
teachers and scholars. In general, faculty development is addressed to faculty in
all disciplines and to administrators who wish to help shaping an environment
in which student learning can flourish.
According to Daigle and Jarmon (1997) faculty development is an
important component of building and maintaining human capital, which in
turn is part of the total capital assets of the university. Much like the
supporting physical and technology infrastructures, intellectual capital should
be planned and managed around broad institutional goals for the future.
Hitchcock and Stritter (1992), suggest that the concept of faculty development
is evolving and expanding. Faculty development, originally defined as the
improvement of teaching skills, has expanded to include all areas of a faculty
member’s responsibility.
Higher education cannot simply rely on current methods of faculty
preparation because these methods may leave instructors unprepared for the
7
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
challenges of the twenty-first century (Miller, 1997). Cohen, Manion and
Morrison, (1996), believe that even being able to update with the developments
due to exponential increase in knowledge and information and use of new
technologies, has become a major challenge for faculties. It is unavoidable that
the extended use of information technology will bring a revolution in teaching
and learning, just as it has brought a revolution in knowledge and its
acquisition.
Part of becoming a scholar is to live with the fact that complete mastery of
a particular subject is not possible. Also, the rate at which technology is
developing compounds the lack-of-mastery feeling of professors. In some
instances, technology is growing at a rate that exceeds professors’ ability to
assimilate and use new information before the knowledge is already obsolete.
Faculty development represents an investment in human capital.
Educational institutions receive a return on this investment in the form of an
improved institution over time. Disciplines also receive a return through
improved research and better training or the next generation of the profession
provided by the graduates of faculty development programs. The return to
individual faculty members comes in the form of improved vitality and growth
that can help sustain them in their academic careers. Faculty development has
high payoff potential; thus it is important to design and implement effective
programs (Hitchcock & Stritter, 1992).
Faculty development can play a significant role in fostering an
environment conducive to valuing a broad definition of scholarship, especially
with respect to what constitutes the scholarship of teaching (Watson,
Grossman, 1994). It is required in higher education institutes since it develops
and reinforces the abilities of faculty members. It leads faculty members to
operate with increasing autonomy while having an extensive view of new
educational reforms. They are prepared to work more effectively as individuals
and also as members of a society through faculty development programs. They
should understand themselves and their functions very well in order to
improve their teaching as a part of developing the education system.
Steinert (2000) highlighted that academic vitality is dependent upon faculty
members’ interest and expertise. In addition, faculty development has a critical
role to play in promoting academic excellence and innovation. Faculty
members, by better understanding of themselves and their social environment,
can promote such developments. In general, faculty development programs,
whatever their nature, are essential if universities are to respond to changes in
(a) expectations about the quality of undergraduate education, (b) views
regarding the nature and value of assessment, (c) societal needs, (d) technology
8
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
and its impact on education, (e) the diverse composition of student
populations, and (f) paradigms in teaching and learning (Millis, 1994). A good
faculty development program is a process designed to create a climate where
recognition, institutional support and professional development are addressed
(Pendleton, 2002).
In summary, the purposes for faculty development programs are:
improving teaching, improving faculty scholarship, personal development,
curriculum development, and institutional development.
While the purpose remains constant, the emphasis given to any of these
components varies in different institutions.
Thus, professional development should be designed around researchdocumented practices that enable educators to develop the skills necessary to
implement what they are learning. Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) have
identified nine research- documented practices that improve student
performance. Those practices should also be applied to the improvement of
teacher effectiveness via professional development ((Harwell, 2003).
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
This study for graduate faculty professional development (PD) program
was designed to answer the following specific questions.
1. What are the training needs of graduate faculty members based from
the expected performance standards?
2. What graduate faculty professional development (PD) program can be
proposed?
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The descriptive-cross-sectional design of research was used in the study to
obtain information concerning the analysis of the training needs of the
graduate faculty members.
Participants
The respondents of the study were the faculty members of the graduate
school with at least three teaching loads during the thIrd trimester. There were
16 faculty member subjected to the trimestral evaluation conducted by the
Office of the Graduate School. All of them finished doctorate degrees in
various specializations such as educational administration, business
9
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
management, and public administration. Majority of them have been in the
graduate school teaching for more than 10 years now.
Instrument
An instrument on the performance standards was patterned and tailored
from the survey-questionnaire of the Philippine Association of Colleges and
Universities-Commission on Accreditation (PACUCOA) used during the
preliminary visit to the various graduate programs of the College. The specific
requirements on professional performance, instructional procedures and
techniques, and evaluation and grading were used as the criteria. The same
instrument was used for the purposes of determining the training needs of the
faculty.
To assess the performance standards for graduate faculty, there are 10
items under professional performance (endeavors to achieve the objectives of
the graduate school and of the program); 10 items related to instructional
procedures and techniques (provides a functional and well-planned syllabus
which specifies the target competencies, research and class activities required
for course); and seven items for evaluation and grading (uses valid techniques
to evaluate student performance).
The instrument used the 5 point Likert scale with the corresponding
descriptive ratings and analysis for the possible areas for CPD: (1) Descriptive
Rating (DR). (5) 5.00-4.20= Outstanding Competence (OC); (4) 4.19-3.40= Very
Satisfactory Competence (VSC); (3) 3.39-2.60= Satisfactory Competence (SC); (2) 2.591.80= Fair Competence (FC); (1) 1.79-1.00= No Competence (NC); (2) Analysis: (5)
5.00-4.20= Not Needed (NN); (4) 4.19-3.40= Sometimes Needed (SN); (3) 3.392.60= Needed (N); (2) 2.59-1.80= Much Needed (MN); (1) 1.79-1.00= Very Much
Needed (VMN).
These criteria were subjected to face and construct validity by the previous
administrators of the graduate school after taking into consideration the
expected performance standards for graduate faculty by an external accrediting
agency.
Procedure
Data were gathered towards the end of the third trimester for the
Academic Year 2015-2016 among the graduate faculty. The Dean conducted
face-to-face and personal assessment using the instrument. Each faculty was
formally introduced to the purposes of the study and assured of the strict
confidentiality of the data gathered.
10
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
The level of competence of the faculty relative to the specific indicators of
the performance standards could be the basis for the analysis towards
professional development activities. Thus, it determines the gap between what
is expected as to the level of competence and the trainings needed to improve
such professional performance.
RESULTS
1. Competencies and Analysis for Professional Development Program
in Relation to Professional Performance
Table 1 depicts the competencies of faculty members in relation to
professional performance.
The following specific indicators such as “endeavors to achieve the
objectives of the graduate school and of the program, prepares well for his/her
class, shows mastery of subject matter, relates current issues and community
needs with the subject matter, and participates in the activities of professional
organizations” are rated as “Outstanding Competence”. One indicator which is
“manifests awareness of modern educational trends” is rated as “Very
Satisfactory Competence”.
Table 1
Performance and Analysis for Professional Development Program in
Relation to Professional Performance
Performance Standards (PS) and Indicators
PS 1: Professional Performance
1) endeavors to achieve the objectives of the graduate school
and of the program.
2) manifests awareness of modern educational trends.
3) prepares well for his/her class.
4) shows mastery of subject matter.
5) demonstrates mastery of research skills as evidenced by
his/her own research output.
6) relates current issues and community needs with the subject
matter.
7) assists graduate students in developing research
competencies.
8) shows professional growth through further studies, research
activities and publications.
9) participates in the activities of professional organizations.
10) shares their knowledge or expertise with other institutions,
agencies and the community.
M
DR
Analysis
4.79
4.19
4.28
OC
VSC
OC
Not Needed
Sometimes Needed
Not Needed
4.56
OC
Not Needed
3.17
SC
Needed
4.58
OC
Not Needed
3.16
SC
Needed
3.10
SC
Needed
4.53
OC
Not Needed
3.21
SC
Needed
Note. DR= Descriptive Rating
11
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
The rests of the indicators to include “demonstrates mastery of research
skills as evidenced by his/her own research output, assists graduate students in
developing research competencies, shows professional growth through further
studies, research activities and publications, and shares their knowledge or
expertise with other institutions, agencies and the community” are rated
“Satisfactory Competence”. Thus, based on the analysis, the specific indicators
of professional standards such as “demonstrates mastery of research skills as
evidenced by his/her own research output, assists graduate students in
developing research competencies, shows professional growth through further
studies, research activities and publications, and shares their knowledge or
expertise with other institutions, agencies and the community” are the
identified areas for professional development program among graduate school
faculty.
2. Performance and Analysis for Professional Development Program in
Relation to Instructional Procedures and Techniques
Table 2 reveals the competencies of faculty members in relation to
instructional procedures and techniques.
Table 2
Performance and Analysis for Professional Development Program in
Relation to Instructional Procedures and Techniques
Performance Standards(PS) and Indicators
PS 2: Instructional Procedures and Techniques
1) provides a functional and well-planned syllabus which
specifies the target competencies, research and class
activities required for course.
2) provides opportunities for independent study.
3) includes research requirement for each subject.
4) utilizes instructional materials with depth and breadth
expected for the graduate level.
5) requires students to make extensive use of print and nonprint reference materials.
6) demonstrates research techniques aimed at fulfilling the
requirements of the course/s.
7) uses varied methods and innovative approaches (seminars,
fora, field observations, problem-based discussion).
8) uses instructional procedures and techniques to encourage
active students’ interaction.
9) uses interdisciplinary and/or multidisciplinary approaches
whenever possible.
10) enforces definite rules and policies for effective classroom
management.
M
DR
Analysis
4.19
Sometimes Needed
4.63
3.22
VS
C
OC
SC
4.61
OC
Not Needed
4.52
OC
Not Needed
3.17
SC
Needed
4.12
Sometimes Needed
4.25
VS
C
OC
4.63
OC
Not Needed
4.32
OC
Not Needed
Not Needed
Needed
Not Needed
12
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
As revealed, the faculty members showed “Outstanding Competence”
relative to the following indicators: “provides opportunities for independent
study, utilizes instructional materials with depth and breadth expected for the
graduate level, requires students to make extensive use of print and non-print
reference materials, uses instructional procedures and techniques to encourage
active students’ interaction, uses interdisciplinary and/or multidisciplinary
approaches whenever possible, and enforces definite rules and policies for
effective classroom management. They are rated “Very Satisfactory
Competence” on the indicators such as “provides a functional and wellplanned syllabus which specifies the target competencies, research and class
activities required for course”, and “uses varied methods and innovative
approaches (seminars, fora, field observations, problem-based discussion”.
Moreover, they are rated “Very Satisfactory Competence” on the indicators
such as “provides a functional and well-planned syllabus which specifies the
target competencies, research and class activities required for course”, and
“uses varied methods and innovative approaches (seminars, fora, field
observations, problem-based discussion”.
However, they showed “Satisfactory Competence” on the areas such as
“includes research requirement for each subject, and demonstrates research
techniques aimed at fulfilling the requirements of the course/s.” Thus, based
on analysis, continuous professional development for upgrading of skills and
knowledge on the preparation of well-planned syllabus which specifies the
target competencies, research and class activities required for course”, and use
of varied methods and innovative approaches such as seminars, fora, field
observations, problem-based discussion must be explored and implemented.
3. Performance and Analysis for Professional Development Program in
Relation to Evaluation and Grading
Table 3 shows the level of competencies of the faculty members in terms
of evaluation and grading of students’ outcomes. As revealed, the faculty
members are “Outstanding” in the explaining the grading policy to students,
using researches, term papers, projects and other requirements as indicators of
the scholarly level of student achievement in every course, and in giving final
examination to measure the breadth and depth of student’s competencies;
ability to apply current findings and principles on one’s field of specialization;
command of written communication; and the ability to analyze and synthesize
ideas.
13
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
Table 3
Performance and Analysis for Professional Development Program in
Relation to Evaluation and Grading
Performance Standards (PS) and Indicators
PS 3: Evaluation and Grading
1) uses valid techniques to evaluate student performance.
2) explains the grading policy to students.
3) uses researches, term papers, projects and other
requirements as indicators of the scholarly level of student
achievement in every course.
4) gives final examination to measure:
4.1 the breadth and depth of student’s competencies;
M
DR
Analysis
4.19
4.21
VSC
OC
Sometimes Needed
Not Needed
4.57
OC
Not Needed
4.46
OC
Not Needed
4.2 ability to apply current findings and principles on one’s
field of specialization;
4.32
OC
Not Needed
4.3 command of written communication;
4.54
OC
Not Needed
4.5 the ability to analyze and synthesize ideas.
4.33
OC
Not Needed
However, they are “Very Satisfactory” on the use of valid techniques to
evaluate student performance. Thus, the only indicator relative to evaluation
and grading of students’ outcomes for possible faculty development activity is
on the use of valid techniques to evaluate student performance.
DISCUSSION
Relative to professional performance standards, the findings show that the
graduate faculty members were outstanding in achieving the objectives of the
graduate school and of the program, preparing for his/her class, shows mastery
of subject matter, relating current issues and community needs with the subject
matter; and in participating to the activities of professional organizations.
However, they were just satisfactory in demonstrating mastery of research
skills as evidenced by their own research output, assisting graduate students in
developing research competencies, showing professional growth through
further studies, research activities and publications, and sharing their
knowledge or expertise with other institutions, agencies and the community.
In terms of instructional procedures and techniques as standards, the
faculty members were outstanding in providing opportunities for independent
study, utilizing instructional materials with depth and breadth expected for the
graduate level, requiring students to make extensive use of print and non-print
reference materials, using instructional procedures and techniques to encourage
active students’ interaction; using interdisciplinary and/or multidisciplinary
14
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
approaches whenever possible; and enforcing definite rules and policies for
effective classroom management.
However, they were very satisfactory in providing a functional and wellplanned syllabus which specifies the target competencies, research and class
activities required for course, and in using varied methods and innovative
approaches (seminars, fora, field observations, problem-based discussion. They
only showed satisfactory in research requirement for each subject, and
demonstrate research techniques aimed at fulfilling the requirements of the
course/s.
As to evaluation and grading as performance indicator, the faculty were
outstanding in the explaining the grading policy to students, using researches,
term papers, projects and other requirements as indicators of the scholarly level
of student achievement in every course, and in giving final examination to
measure the breadth and depth of student’s competencies, ability to apply
current findings and principles on one’s field of specialization, command of
written communication, and the ability to analyze and synthesize ideas, and
they were very satisfactory on the use of valid techniques to evaluate student
performance.
The findings imply that the training needs of graduate faculty members are
relative to the development research skills so that they could produce research
output of their own. These skills in doing research are much needed to assist
students in the conceptualization and implementation of their own research.
Professional growth and development through further studies, research
activities and publications, and sharing of knowledge or expertise with other
institutions, agencies and the community can be initiated among faculty
members. Attendance to in-service training programs relative trends and issues
in education can also be implemented for the faculty to manifest awareness of
modern educational trends.
Changes to the role of the faculty member in higher education require
alteration in faculty preparation. There has been a decrease in higher education
budgets, which have often led to cuts in faculty development funding,
decreased support for students, and increased pressure to acquire outside
funding (Mitchell & Leachman, 2015). Despite these cuts to faculty
development, faculty accountability for student learning has increased. The
multiple roles faculty play requires skills in research, teaching, and service. This
requires faculty members to: understand students, learn new technologies, deal
with societal demands for accountability, balance the tripartite workload of
faculty, and understand the changing job market. Ortlieb, Biddix, and Doepker
(2010) have argued that support for faculty should include developing faculty
15
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
communities that (1) foster positive relationships with other faculty members,
(2) encourage partnerships for research, (3) provide a network of support, (4)
encourage critical reflection, and (5) offer monthly support groups to help
faculty members develop into their roles.
The graduate faculty research efficacy needs to be developed for them to
engage in research productivity. In order for them to develop research selfefficacy, the faculty needs to (1) conduct research related to productivity
among students (Kahn, 2001), (2) attend research training and willing to
conduct research (Love et al. 2007), (3) develop information seeking skills and
research methodology skills (Meehra et al. (2011), (4) pursue research beyond
graduate study (Forester et al. 2004), (5) involve in the design of action
research-enriched teacher education program (Mahlos & Whitfield, 2009) and
assertion of research skills development in pre-service teacher education
(Tamir, 2012), (6) develop professional curiosity and insight (Rudduck, 2015),
(7) attend self-support evening programs (Butt & Shams, 2013), (8) involve in
research during pre-service training (Siemens, Punnen, Wong & Kanji, 2010),
(9) perform research related tasks and activities (Mullikin et al., 2007), (10)
write research articles for publication (Forester et al. 2004), (11) connected to
both future research involvement and higher research productivity (Lei, 2008;
Bieschke, 2006; Hollingsworth and Fassinger, 2002; Khan, 2001; Bard et al.
2000; Bieschke et al. 1996), (12) develop advisee–adviser relationships
(Schlosser and Gelso (2001), (13) active participation in a course of a semester
(Unrau & Beck (2005), (14) gain enough amount of research experience
(Bieschke et al. 1996), and (15) maintain a contusive academic research
training environment (Hollingsworth & Fassinger, 2002; Kahn, 2001).
The findings revealed that research capability building programs and
activities among graduate faculty members is the first priority in the faculty
development program. This activities will surely hone their competencies and
efficacies in research skills as evidenced by his/her own research output;
assisting their students in developing research competencies; and eventually
showing professional growth through further studies, research activities and
publications; and sharing their knowledge or expertise with other institutions,
agencies and the community. Regular attendance to in-service training
programs relative trends and issues in education can also be implemented for
the faculty to manifest awareness of modern educational trends. It is
undeniably essential to consider administrative support and include in the
Professional Development (PD) the need to continually upgrade the graduate
school faculty research preparation, publication, dissemination and utilization.
16
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
REFERENCES
Alalfy, H. R. (2015). Some modern trends in educational leadership and its role in
developing the performance of the Egyptian secondary school managers.
American Journal of Educational Research, 3(6), 689-696
Al-Sakarneh, B. (2011). New trends in training. Amman: Nigeria: Dar Al-Maseerah.
Akinnagbe O. M. (2011). Training needs analysis of lecturers for information and
communication technology (ICT) skills enhancement in Faculty of Agriculture,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka. African Journal of Agricultural Reseearch, 6(32), 6635–
6646.
Bard, C. C., Bieschke, K. J., Herbert, J. T., & Eberz, A. B. (2000). Predicting research
interest among rehabilitation counseling students and faculty. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin, 44(1), 48-55.
Bieschke, K. J. (2006). Research self-efficacy beliefs and research outcome
expectations: implications for developing scientifically minded psychologists.
Journal of Career Assessment, 14(1), 77-91.
Bieschke, K. J., Bishop, R. M., & Garcia, V. L. (1996). The utility of the research selfefficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4(1), 59-75.
Bowen, H. R., & Schuster, J.H. (1986). American Professors: A National Resource Imperiled.
N Y: Oxford University Press.
Brooks, C. F. (2010). Toward ‘hybridised’ faculty development for the twenty-first
century: Blending online communities of practice and face-to-face meetings in
instructional and professional support programmes. Innovation in Education and
Teaching International, 47(3), 261-270.
Butt, I. H., & Shams, J. A. (2013). Student Attitudes towards Research: A comparison
between two public sector universities in Punjab, South Asian Studies. American
Journal of Educational Research, 4(6), 484-487.
Chism, N. V. N., Lees, Douglas, N., & Evenbeck, S. (2002). Faculty development for
teaching. Liberal Education, 88(3), 34-41.
Chun, J. (1999). A National Study of Faculty Development Need in Korean Junior
Colleges. Retrieved from http://www.learntechlib.org/noaccess/21528
Clemeña, R. M., & Acosta, S. A. (2006). Developing research culture in Philippine
Higher Education Institutions: Perspectives of University Faculty. Retrieved from
http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/files/54062/11870006385Rose_Marie_Cl
emena.pdf/Rose_Marie_Clemena.pdf
Daigle, S. L., & Jarmon, C. G. (1997). Building the campus infrastructure that really
counts. Educom Review, 97(32), 35.
Fakhra, A., & Mahar, M. S. (2014). Impact of Training on Teachers Competencies.
Journal of Arts, Science & Commerce, 5(1), 121–128.
17
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
Fakhra, A. (2012). Impact of faculty professional development program of HEC on
teachers competencies and motivation at higher education level in Pakistan.
International Refereed Research Journal, 5(1), 121-128.
Forester, M (2004). Factor structures of three measures of research self-efficacy. Journal
of Management, 34(3), 47
Gelso, C. J., & Lent, R. W. (2000). Scientific training and scholarly productivity: The
person, the training environment, and their interaction. In S. D. Brown & R. W.
Lent (Eds.), Handbook of Counseling Psychology (pp 109-139). NY: John Wiley.
Green, K. E., & Kvidahl, R. P. (1989). Teachers as researchers: Training, attitudes and
performance. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED307248.pdf
Griffin, B. W. (n.d.). Graduate student self-efficacy and anxiety toward the dissertation
process.
Retrieved
from
http://coe.georgiasouthern.edu/foundations/bwgriffin/edur9131/EDUR_9131_
sample_research_study__disser tation_process.pdf
Harris, B. (1980). Improving staff performance through in-service education. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, Inc.
Harwell, S. (2003). Teacher professional development: It’s not an event, it’sa process. Waco, TX:
CORD.
Heppner, P., Paul, [initial], & Johnson, J. A. (1994). New horizons in counseling:
Faculty development. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72(5), 1-160.
Hitchcock, M. A. & Stritter, F. T. (1992). Faculty development in the health profession:
Conclusions and recommendations. Medical Teacher, 14(4), 295-309.
Hollingsworth, M. A., & Fassinger, R. E. (2002). The role of faculty mentors in the
research training of counseling psychology doctoral students. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 49(3), 324-330
Hussain, S., Sarwar, M., Khan, N., .& Khan, I. (2010). Faculty development program
for university teachers: Trainee’s perception of success. European Journal of Scientific
Research, 44(2), 253-257.
International Management in Higher Education (IMHE) (2015). Learning our lesson:
Review of quality teaching in higher education. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/44058352.pdf
Kahn, J. H. (2001). Measuring global perceptions of the research training environment
using a short form of the RTES-R. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 33(2), 103-119.
Khan, M. N., & Sarwar, M. (2011). Needs assessment of university teachers for
professional enhancement. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(2), 208–
212.
Kahn, J. H., & Scott, N. A. (2001). Predictors of research productivity and science
related career goals among counseling psychology graduate students. The Counseling
Psychologist, 1(3), 193-203
Kala, D., & Chaubey, D. S. (2015). Attitude of Faculty Members towards Faculty
Development Programs and their Perceived Outcomes. Retrieved form
http://pbr.co.in/August2015/2.pdf
18
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
Lei, S. A. (2008). Factors changing attitudes of graduate school students toward an
introductory research methodology course. Education, 128(4), 667-685
Love, K. M., Bahner, A. D., Jones, L. N., & Nilson, J. E. (2007). An investigation of
early research experience and research self-efficacy. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 38(3), 314-320
Meerah, T., (2011). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Miller, A. A. (1997). ERIC review—back to the future: Preparing community college
faculty for the millennium. Community College Review, 25(1), 83.
Millis, B. (1994). Faculty development in the 1990s: What it is and why we can't wait.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 72(5), 454.
Mitchell, M., & Leachman, M. (2015). Years of cuts threaten to put college out of reach
for more students. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from
http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/5- 13-sfp.pdf
Mullikin, E. A., Bakken, L. L., & Betz, N. E. (2007). Assessing research self-efficacy in
Physician-Scientists: The clinical research appraisal inventory. Journal of Career
Assessment, 15(3), 367-387.
Nathan, Peter E. (1994). Who should do faculty development and what should it be?
Journal of Counseling & Development, 72(5), 508–509.
Ortlieb, E. T., Biddix, J. P., & Doepker, G. M. (2010). A collaborative approach to
higher education induction. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(2), 109-118.
Pendleton, E. P. (2002). Re-Assessing Faculty Development. Retrieved from
https://www.questia.com/magazine/1P3-242021631/re-assessing-facultydevelopment
POD (Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education).
(2003). Retrieved June 27, 2003 from http://www.podnetwork.org/
developments/ definitions.htm
Prachyapruit, Apipa (2001). Socialization of New Faculty at a Public University in
Thailand. Michigan State University, Department of Educational Administration.
Retrieved
from
http://library1.nida.ac.th/ejourndf/tjpa/tjpa-v03n03/tjpav03n03_c04.pdf
Rowbotham, M. A. (2015). The impact of faculty development on teacher, International
Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship , 7(1), 1-28.
Rudduck, J. (2015). Teacher research and research-based teacher education. Retrieved
from
https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2524-transformative-teacherresearch.pdf
Schlosser, L. Z., & Gelso, C. J. (2001). Measuring the working alliance in advisor
advisee
relationships
in
graduate
school.
Retrieved
from
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1069072714523086
Schuster, J. H., Wheeler, D. W., & Associates. (1990). Enhancing faculty careers: Strategies
for development and renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
Scott, J. H. (1990). Role of community college department chairs in faculty
development.
Retrieved
from
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009155219001800304
Selvi, K. (2010) Teachers’ Competencies Culturas. Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/2648770/Teachers_Competencies
Shaikh, F. M., Goopang, N. A., & Junejo M.A. (2008). Impact of training and
development on the performance of university teachers, a case study in Pakistan.
Retrieved
from
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/policy/strategi
c-framework/doc/teacher-development_en.pdf
Shkedi, A. (1998). Teachers' attitudes towards research: A challenge for qualitative
researchers, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(4), 559-577
Siddiqui,A. Aslam,H. Farhan,H. Luqman, A., & Lodhi, M. (2011). Minimizing potential
issues in higher education by professionally developing university teachers.
Retrieved
from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260791102_Minimizing_Potential_Iss
ues_in_Higher_Education_by_Professionally_Developing_University_Teachers
Siemens, D. R., Punnen, S., Wong, J., & Kanji, N. (2010). A survey on the attitudes
towards
research
in
medical
school.
Retrieved
from
http://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6920-10-4
Simpson, E. L. (1990). Faculty renewal in higher education. Retrieved from
http://isbn-title.ru/Faculty-renewal-in-higher-education--or--cby-Edwin-LSimpson/5/chaahd
Stanford University (2015). On the Future of Engagement: Tomorrow's Academy.
Retrieved from https://tomprof.stanford.edu/posting/931
Steinert, Y. (2000). Faculty development in the new millenium: Key challenges and
future
directions.
Retrieved
from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01421590078814
Stokking, K., van der Schaaf, M., Jaspers, J., & Erkens, G. (2004). Teachers’ assessment
of students’ research skills. British Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 93–116.
Tamir, P. (2012). Incorporating research into preservice teacher education. South pacific
journal of teacher education, 3(4), 287-298.
Trower, C. A., & Gallagher, A. (2010). Trekking toward tenure: What pre-tenure
faculty want on the journey. Metropolitan Universities, 21(2), 16-33.
Unrau, Y. A., & Grinnell Jr, R. M. (2005). The impact of social work research courses
on research self-efficacy for social work students. Social Work Education, 3(1), 4.
Unrau, Y. A., & Beck, A. R. (2005). Increasing research self-efficacy among students in
professional academic programs. Innovative Higher Education, 10(2), 42–56.
Retrieved
from
http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/13414/2/Quinney_and_Parker_6.7.09edited.p
df
20
CC The Journal Vol. 13 Oct. 2017
Watson, G.. & Grossman, L. H. (1994). Pursuing a comprehensive faculty
development program: Making fragmentation work. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 72(5), 465-473
Wedman, J. M., Mahlos, M. C., & Whitfield, J. (1989). Perceptual differences regarding
the implementation of an inquiry-oriented student teaching curriculum. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 22(4), 29-35.
Wilkerson L., & Irby DM. (1998). Strategies for improving teaching practices: A
comprehensive approach to faculty development. Academic Medicine, 73(4), 387396.
Williams, E. G. (2004). Academic, Research, and Social Self-Efficacy among African
American Pre-McNair Scholar Participants and African American Post-McNair
Scholar Participants. Retrieved from goo.gl/wrsxwc
21