Dr david cababaro bueno performance standards and indicators of professorial lecturers in a graduate

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.