Performance standards and indicators of professorial lecturers in a
graduate school towards training and development
David Cababaro Bueno, Ed.D.
Dean, Graduate School, Columban College, Inc., Olongapo City
ARTICLE INFORMATION
ABSTRACT
Article History:
This study is undertaken to analyze the needs for
training and development among graduate school
professors in a Private Higher Educational Institution
(PHEI) based on the performance standards and
indicators during the Academic Year 2016-2017. The
researcher utilized descriptive cross-sectional design of
research and statistical tools for the analysis of data.
The findings revealed that the professors are
outstanding in meeting the objectives of the graduate
school program. They provide opportunities for
independent study, utilize instructional materials with
depth and breadth expected for the graduate level,
require students to make extensive use of print and nonprint reference materials, use instructional procedures
and techniques to encourage active students’
interaction;
use
interdisciplinary
and/or
multidisciplinary approaches, whenever possible; and
enforce definite rules and policies for effective
classroom management. Moreover, they are also
outstanding in the implementation of evaluation of
students’ performance 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 competency. However, they are
just satisfactory in demonstrating mastery of research
skills as shown by their limited number of research
output, research-related activities and publications.
Thus, professional growth and development through
further studies, research engagement and publications,
and sharing of knowledge or expertise with other
institutions, agencies and the community can be
initiated among faculty members.
Received 26 July 2017
Received in revised form_______
Accepted ________________
Article ID _________________
Keywords
Graduate education, professorial lecturers,
performance standards, training and
development, descriptive cross-sectional
design.
*Corresponding author:
docdave3090@gmail.com
© The Authors and Asia Pacific Higher Education
Research Journal
Introduction
Higher education has undergone a great deal of change in the last century, especially during
the last 50 years. Although there has been 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 are respond to can be considered as: 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 as a key
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). It can be mentioned that the primary goals of higher education institutions 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, Columban College needs effective faculty members. Faculty development programs
enhance necessary skills of faculty members 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. The aim is to enhance
the coherence of the general education core.
In fact, faculty development has been an integral part of higher education for many years. In
the decades preceding the 1970s faculty development programs in universities and colleges were
similar to in-service programs in K-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 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.
This study is designed to be a guide for the inevitable application of faculty development
programs in the graduate school. By studying the perceptions of the faculty and the top level of
administrators of the graduate school, it can identify the level of knowledge about faculty development
and the faculty development needs. In addition, this study tried to identify the problems and
restraining factor against faculty development and to introduce possible recommendations for
implementation and further research.
It seems that 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
well-designed faculty development programs. Lately, the need for faculty development has been
discussed in different platforms. There is also a felt need in administrators to initialize faculty
development activities among graduate school faculty. Thus, this research was designed to bridge the
gap between the theoretical aspects of conducting training needs analysis and its practical delivery in
Continuing Professional Education activities and programs. Training Needs Analysis (TNA) is the key
to reshaping the future of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Program in the educational
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. Thus, the essence of TNA is to find out
the general areas of work/ educational where an improvement is needed that would require CPD. It
focuses on identifying needs of the target audience, developing a rationale for a training program,
identifying needed inputs, determining program content and setting program goals.
To make Continuing Professional Education programs more effective, TNA should be done
before designing and conducting any training or workshops and to look into the needs of the
organization, job performance and the staff. The study is significant in that it is the only one analytically
searches for the relationships among a set of variables that are related to faculty development
activities. This means that at the end, the administration and faculty members could gain more insights
for faculty development issues, and the relationships will also tell them when and under which
condition they can develop a program that helps individual instructional practices, personal and
professional developments for each group. Specifically, the study is very significant tool in
investigating the perceptions of faculty members about their training needs relative to instructional,
personal and professional development activities and to explore if there is a need for a faculty
development program; considering faculty members as main distinct group, the administration can be
able to propose a model that explains the possible sources of factors that might be influential on
faculty’s perceived competencies about the skills that are necessary for instructional practices,
personal, professional and organizational developments. In other words, this study tries to guide the
conceptualization of graduate faculty development programs identified from the strong and weak
points in the performance standards and indicators of teaching performance. Reminding that faculty
members are the core of any institution of higher education, it is worth studying on faculty
development and relationships between factors affecting these activities. This study may provide basic
information and insights to initiate, plan and implement faculty development programs that can be
organized to meet the requirements of academicians and match higher institutional goals.
Framework of the Study
The word faculty refers to a department of instruction in an educational institution (MerriamWebster). It can also be considered as a department teaching a specified subject in a university or
college. Functions of the faculty may 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 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. 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. (3) 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. The
growing diversity of the student population, societal needs, changes in expectations about the quality
and assessment of education, rapid changes in information and technology and their impacts on
teaching and learning, nature and value of assessment, and paradigms about teaching and learning
have made many instructors to reconsider not only the importance of the content they are teaching,
but also the effectiveness of their teaching methods based on students’ learning. 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. Wilkerson & Irby (1998) stated that it 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. 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 & 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 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. According to Simpson (1990), during an earlier period of academic
history, a professor might have expected mastery of the knowledge in a given area of expertise as a
realistic goal. Rate of knowledge development today, however, makes this no longer feasible.
Therefore, 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 reinforce 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) highlights 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 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).
As mentioned previously, 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 Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education
(POD, 2003), faculty development generally refers to those programs, which focus on the individual
faculty member. The most common focus for programs of this type is the faculty member as a teacher.
Faculty development specialists provide consultation on teaching, including class organization,
evaluation of students, in-class presentation skills, questioning and all aspects of design and
presentation. They also advise faculty on other aspects of teacher/student interaction, such as
advising, tutoring, discipline policies and administration. A second frequent focus of such program is
the faculty member as a scholar and professional. These programs offer assistance in career planning,
professional development in scholarly skills such as grant writing, publishing, committee work,
administrative work, supervisory skills, and a wide range of other activities expected of faculty. A third
area on which faculty development programs focuses is the faculty member as a person. This includes
wellness management, interpersonal skills, stress and time management, assertiveness development
and a host of other programs which address the individual’s well-being (POD, 2003).
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.
Statement of the Problem
This training needs analysis study for graduate faculty continuing professional development
(CPD) program is designed to answer the following specific questions. (1) What are the training needs
of graduate faculty members based from the data generated in the survey based on the expected
performance standards and indicators?; (2) What implications may be drawn towards graduate faculty
continuing professional development (CPD)?
Methodology
The descriptive cross-sectional design of research was used in the study to obtain information
concerning the training needs of faculty members. The descriptive research method describes the
nature of a condition as it takes place during the time of the study and to explore the cause or causes
of a particular condition.
The respondents of the study were the faculty members of the graduate school with at least
three teaching loads during the third trimester, AY 2016-2017. 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
management, and public administration. Majority of them have been in the graduate school teaching
for more than 12 years now.
In order to define the needs and goals of the faculty development activities a surveyquestionnaire was developed and distributed among all of the faculty members. It covered the various
performance standards and indicators used to evaluate the teaching performance of the graduate
school professors in one Private Higher Educational Institutions (PHEIs). The instrument 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. There
were 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 aim was to identify whether there is a need for a faculty
development program and to investigate the faculty’s perceived self-proficiency and importance
attributed to performance standards in the graduate school. 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.
Data were gathered towards the end of the third trimester for the Academic Year 2016-2017
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. 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.
The data gathered were analyzed using the following statistical measures: Percentage and
Mean. The following were to use for the analysis of data: (1) Descriptive Rating (DR): 5.00-4.20=
Outstanding Competence (OC); 4.19-3.40= Very Satisfactory Competence (VSC); 3.39-2.60= Satisfactory
Competence (SC); 2.59-1.80= Fair Competence (FC); 1.79-1.00= No Competence (NC); and (2) Analysis:
5.00-4.20= Not Needed (NN); 4.19-3.40= Sometimes Needed (SN); 3.39-2.60= Needed (N); 2.59-1.80=
Much Needed (MN); 1.79-1.00= Very Much Needed (VMN).
Results and Discussion
Professional Performance Standard and Indicators. Table 1 depicts the competencies of
faculty members in relation to professional performance. 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. 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 by the faculty as “Outstanding Competence”. One indicator which is “manifests
awareness of modern educational trends” is rated as “Very Satisfactory Competence”. 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. This implies 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.
Table 1
Professional Performance Standard and Indicators of Professorial Lecturers
PERFORMANCE STANDARD (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.
5.
6.
shows mastery of subject matter.
demonstrates mastery of research skills as evidenced by his/her own
research output.
relates current issues and community needs with the subject matter.
7.
assists graduate students in developing research competencies.
X
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
shows professional growth through further studies, research activities and
publications.
3.10
SC
Needed
9. participates in the activities of professional organizations.
4.53
OC
Not Needed
10. shares their knowledge or expertise with other institutions, agencies and
the community.
3.21
SC
Needed
Legend: Descriptive Rating (DR): 5.00-4.20= Outstanding Competence (OC); 4.19-3.40= Very Satisfactory Competence (VSC); 3.392.60= Satisfactory Competence (SC); 2.59-1.80= Fair Competence (FC); 1.79-1.00= No Competence (NC); and (2) Analysis: 5.004.20= Not Needed (NN); 4.19-3.40= Sometimes Needed (SN); 3.39-2.60= Needed (N); 2.59-1.80= Much Needed (MN); 1.79-1.00= Very
Much Needed (VMN).
8.
Instructional Procedures and Techniques Standard and Indicators. Table 2 reveals the
competencies of faculty members in relation to instructional procedures and techniques. 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 skills
in instructional procedures and techniques. 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.
Moreover, they 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, and 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. More aggressively, areas of
professional development related to research requirement for each subject, and demonstration of
research techniques aimed at fulfilling the requirements of the course/s must also be conducted.
Table 2
Instructional Procedures and Techniques Standard and Indicators of Professorial Lecturers
PERFORMANCE STANDARD (PS) and INDICATORS
X
DR
Analysis
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.
4.19
VSC
Sometimes Needed
2) provides opportunities for independent study.
4.63
OC
Not Needed
3) includes research requirement for each subject.
3.22
SC
Needed
4) utilizes instructional materials with depth and breadth expected for the
graduate level.
4.61
OC
Not Needed
5) requires students to make extensive use of print and non-print reference
materials.
4.52
OC
Not Needed
6) demonstrates research techniques aimed at fulfilling the requirements of
the course/s.
3.17
SC
Needed
7) uses varied methods and innovative approaches (seminars, fora, field
observations, problem-based discussion).
4.12
VSC
Sometimes Needed
8) uses instructional procedures and techniques to encourage active
4.25
OC
Not Needed
students’ interaction.
9) uses interdisciplinary and/or multidisciplinary approaches whenever
4.63
OC
Not Needed
possible.
10) enforces definite rules and policies for effective classroom management.
4.32
OC
Not Needed
Legend: Descriptive Rating (DR): 5.00-4.20= Outstanding Competence (OC); 4.19-3.40= Very Satisfactory Competence (VSC); 3.392.60= Satisfactory Competence (SC); 2.59-1.80= Fair Competence (FC); 1.79-1.00= No Competence (NC); and (2) Analysis: 5.004.20= Not Needed (NN); 4.19-3.40= Sometimes Needed (SN); 3.39-2.60= Needed (N); 2.59-1.80= Much Needed (MN); 1.79-1.00= Very
Much Needed (VMN).
Evaluation and Grading Standard and Indicators. Table 3 shows the level of competencies
of the faculty members in terms of evaluation and grading of students’ outcomes. 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 skills
in evaluating and grading student’s learning outcomes.
Table 3
Evaluation and Grading Standard and Indicators of Professorial Lecturers
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;
X
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
4.4 the ability to analyze and synthesize ideas.
4.33
OC
Not Needed
Legend: Descriptive Rating (DR): 5.00-4.20= Outstanding Competence (OC); 4.19-3.40= Very Satisfactory Competence (VSC); 3.392.60= Satisfactory Competence (SC); 2.59-1.80= Fair Competence (FC); 1.79-1.00= No Competence (NC); and (2) Analysis: 5.004.20= Not Needed (NN); 4.19-3.40= Sometimes Needed (SN); 3.39-2.60= Needed (N); 2.59-1.80= Much Needed (MN); 1.79-1.00= Very
Much Needed (VMN).
As revealed by the faculty, they 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.
However, they rated themselves “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.
Implications towards CPD
The findings of the study revealed that research capability building programs and activities
among faculty members is the first priority in the faculty development program. This activities will
surely hone their competencies to demonstrate mastery of research skills as evidenced by his/her own
research output; assist their students in developing research competencies; and eventually show
professional growth through further studies, research activities and publications; and share their
knowledge or expertise with other institutions, agencies and the community. Regular attendance to inservice training programs relative trends and issues in education can also be implemented for the
faculty to manifest awareness of modern educational trends. Furthermore, a continuous professional
development towards upgrading of skills and knowledge on the preparation of well-planned syllabus
to specify the target competencies, research and class activities required for course; and the use of
varied methods and innovative approaches such as seminars, fora, field observations, problem-based
discussion should be explored and implemented. More insistently, areas related to research
requirement for each subject, and demonstration of research techniques aimed at fulfilling the
requirements of the course/s must also be conducted. Lastly, another possible faculty development
activity was identified on the use of valid techniques to evaluate student performance.
The graduate faculty research efficacy needs to be developed for them to engage in research
productivity. In order for them to develop research self-efficacy, 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 inservice 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.
Conclusion
The 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. The faculty members 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. 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 approaches whenever possible; and enforcing definite rules and policies for effective
classroom management. The faculty members were very satisfactory in providing a functional and
well-planned 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 including research requirement for each
subject, and demonstrates research techniques aimed at fulfilling the requirements of the course/s.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. They were very satisfactory
on the use of valid techniques to evaluate student performance.
Recommendations
The administration should put priority in the faculty development program research activities
to hone faculty competencies to demonstrate mastery of research skills. The faculty members should
actively engage in research activities to increase the number of their own research outputs. The faculty
members should assist their students in developing research competencies. The faculty members
should show professional growth through further studies, research activities and publications; and
should share their knowledge or expertise with other institutions, agencies and the community.
Regular attendance to in-service training programs among faculty members relative trends and issues
in education should be implemented for the faculty to manifest awareness of modern educational
trends. A continuous professional development towards upgrading of skills and knowledge of faculty
members on the preparation of syllabus to specify the target competencies, research and class
activities required for course; and the use of varied methods and innovative approaches such as
seminars, fora, field observations, problem-based discussion, as well as the use of valid techniques to
evaluate student performance should be explored and implemented. Areas related to research
requirement for each subject, and demonstration of research techniques aimed at fulfilling the
requirements of the course/s must also be conducted.
References
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 self-efficacy scale.
Journal of Career Assessment, 4(1), 59-75.
Bowen, H. R. & Schuster, J.H. (1986). American Professors: A National Resource Imperiled. New York:
Oxford University Press
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
Daigle, S. L., & Jarmon, C. G. (1997). Building the campus infrastructure that really counts. Educom
Review, 97(32), 35.
Forester, M (2004). Factor structures of three measures of research self-efficacy. Journal of
Management, 34(3), 47
Heppner, P., Paul, & 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
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), 103119.
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
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), 314320
Meerah, T., (2011). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Merriam-Webster. (1974).Dictionary, Pocket Books, New York
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.
Mullikin, E. A., Bakken, L. L., & Betz, N. E. (2007). Assessing research self-efficacy in PhysicianScientists: The clinical research appraisal inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(3), 367387.
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-faculty-development
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/tjpa-v03n03_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-teacher-research.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.
Scott, J. H. (1990). Role of community college department chairs in faculty development. Retrieved
from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009155219001800304
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/10.1186/14726920-10-4
Simpson, E. L. (1990). Faculty renewal in higher education. Retrieved from http://isbntitle.ru/Faculty-renewal-in-higher-education--or--cby-Edwin-L-Simpson/5/chaahd
Simpson, Edwin L. (1990) Faculty renewal in higher education. Robert E. Krieger publishing company,
Malabar, Florida.
Steinert, Y. (2000). Faculty development in the new millennium: Key challenges and future
directions. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01421590078814
Tamir, P. (2012). Incorporating research into preservice teacher education. South pacific journal of
teacher education, 3(4), 287-298.
Unrau, Y. A., & Grinnell Jr, R. M. (2005). The impact of social work research courses on research selfefficacy 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.pdf
Watson, G.. & Grossman, L. H. (1994). Pursuing a comprehensive faculty development program:
Making fragmentation work. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72(5), 465-473
Wilkerson L., & Irby DM. (1998). Strategies for improving teaching practices: A comprehensive
approach to faculty development. Academic Medicine, 73(4), 387-396.