Evaluation of Faculty Development Program Based on PPST

Priority Needs

Abstract - The study aimed to evaluate faculty development program based on PPST priority
needs for teachers and to develop PPST-based faculty development program, specifically it
determine the characteristics of the teachers and school heads in public senior schools in in the
district in terms of age, gender, civil status, educational attainment, length of service, and
position/designation, describe the faculty development program of public senior high schools in
the district in terms of content knowledge and pedagogy, learning environment, diversity of
learners, curriculum and planning, assessment and reporting, community linkages and
professional engagement, personal growth and professional development. Likewise, it will find
out the significant difference in the assessment of competence of two sets of respondents when
group according to profile and ascertain the issues and challenges in faculty development
program. Finally, a PPST-based faculty development program will be prepared for public senior
high schools in the [Link] respondents of the study were 64 teachers and schools’ heads.
Descriptive-Quantitative method of research was utilized, and the research instrument used in
this study is a pre-designed questionnaire which was based on PPST. The questionnaire was
used by the researcher to collect data, in determining the assessment of teachers and school
heads on the implemented faculty development program in public Senior High School in the
District. It was formulated with various questions based on seven domains of PPST priority
needs. Frequency, percentage, weighted mean, T-test of correlated or paired samples
compared the means between two related groups obtained from the same sample and ANOVA
were the statistical tools used in this study. These were utilized in testing the hypothesis that
there is no significant difference in the assessment of competence of two sets of respondents
when group according to profile. The rejection or acceptances of the null hypotheses was based
on some level of difference as a criterion, the 5% margin of error and 95% confidence level.
Based on the results, most of the teachers in SHS-in the district are female and married with
master’s degree and serving the school for 6-10 years and most of them are teacher II. The
assessment of the respondents on the faculty development program as whether implemented
based on PPST priority needs is often. The educational attainment established significant
difference on content knowledge and pedagogy and community linkages and profession
development similarly on length of service based on content knowledge and pedagogy. For
highly proficient teachers, gender revealed significant difference on content knowledge and
pedagogy, curriculum and planning and community linkages and profession development. The
issues and challenges met by the respondents in the assessment of faculty development
program is in moderate extent. The proposed competency-based faculty development program
can guide the school in supporting teachers continues growth and development and eventually
to provide better learning for students. Lastly, it is recommended that school administration may
focus on the seven domains of PPST priority needs to assist and guide the teachers. Highly
proficient teachers must strengthen its guidance and assistance to proficient teachers in terms
of content knowledge and pedagogy

Keywords: Faculty Development Program, PPST-Priority Needs

INTRODUCTION

Teachers play essential roles in structuring the future by enabling the most significant
learning among the students. It is their duty to ensure that knowledge, understanding and skills
must be developed by all the students to be at par with swift changing environment and embody
the idea of 21st Century Learning. Over the years, Department of Education (DepEd) make
fundamental modifications of all the programs which is focusing on teacher’s improvement to
meet the requirements of the 21st century which can commonly seen in Faculty Develop
Programs in all school institutions.
Faculty Development Program (FDP) is a critical factor towards building the strong
foundation of an educational system to ensure quality education. In previous and current
studies, faculty development has always surfaced as a priority concern. Our nation cannot
compete with its neighboring countries that are now moving towards offering cutting-edge
programs and technologies unless we invest in creating a pool of experts in our academic
institutions (CHED, 2015). Professional development is vital to education. It provides an
opportunity for continued growth and learning for educators throughout their career. While
teachers earn credentials and certification through a university, professional development is
intended to hone skills and help teachers evolve in an ever-changing landscape. The changing
landscape may involve technology, generational needs, or broader societal interests (Coats and
Regina, 2019). However, according to Asgar and Satyanarayana (2021), Faculty development
and regular upgradation of teaching skills are very crucial aspects of any educational institution,
irrespective of its mode of operations, whether it is faceto-face or through distance learning. The
quality of teaching–learning processes, learning materials and overall organizational growth
depend heavily on the quality of teachers engaged in educational transactions.
Mourlam (2015) in his study titled “The ongoing faculty development system: A case
study exploring content methods teacher education faculty technological, pedagogical, content
knowledge development” calls for further inquiry into how faculty development can be
conducted in ways that are sustainable. This study traversed the entire instructional design
process, which resulted in the discovery of the ongoing faculty development system.
Continual improvement is a key quality of faculty development because the goal is
enhanced instruction. One - time experiences cannot be expected to meet the rapidly changing
demands of course curriculum and instruction. Therefore, a faculty development process needs
to be in place that can support the need for ongoing change, which is what a systems approach
to ongoing faculty development would likely support.
Consequently, the current research focuses on the assessment of the existing programs
of school’s institution to make further improvement on the faculty programs which are parallel
into the identified needs and areas of progress. The fact that teachers are being empowered
through various seminars and trainings to deliver excellent job and become more expert in the
field, schools must design a faculty training program which will build and capacitate teachers in
all areas concerning teaching and learning process. Nevertheless, it must be systematically
planned and accurate implementation and should be based on the priority needs of the faculty.
Pursuant to DepEd Order (DO) No. 001, s 2020 titled Guidelines for NEAP Recognition of
Professional Development Programs and Courses for Teachers and School Leaders, the
Department of Education (DepEd), through National Educators Academy of the Philippines,
issues the DepEd Professional Development (PD) Priorities for Teachers and School Leaders
for SY 2020- 2023.
In Senior High School, District, school leaders are doing the ways to support the overall
school operation from curriculum, instructions, programs, partnerships, and resources. In this, it
cannot be denied that teachers can be considered as the backbone of school institution who
needed the utmost support to capacitate them in developing and molding the youth into
someone who is an asset of the community. To realize and maximize the full potential of
teachers, assistance must be given constantly like trainings, seminar, or conferences which the
school in the District is doing. Nevertheless, due to the enthusiasm and determination to give
the best to the teachers, it is neglected the real needs of the teachers based on the PPST
(Philippines, Professional Standard for Teachers) priority needs. There are needs which are
being addressed but there are also needs being neglected from the domains of PPST like on
content and pedagogy and community relations.
In view of this, an evaluation of different trainings or faculty development programs of
various schools whether private or public must be undertaken to ascertain the program's
alignment to the PPST- based Priority Needs of Teachers and therefore its effectiveness.
Hence, this study aims to assess all Senior High Schools in District in connection of its faculty
development program, specifically to determine the demographic characteristics of the teachers
and school heads in Public Senior High Schools in District and to describe the programs in
terms of all the training focus based on PPST Priority Needs of Teachers. Likewise, to find if
there is a substantial difference on the assessment of the competence of FDP of two sets of
respondents when group according to profile. Lastly, to ascertain the issues and challenges in
the implementation of schools’ FDP and to prepare competency-based Faculty Development
Program for Senior High Schools in the District.
Finally, this study contributes to improving the planning, crafting, designing, and
implementing exceptional development programs for teachers. It also addresses the teacher’s
hesitancy on attending programs or trainings which they find not equally relevant into their
routine and practice as a classroom teacher. Furthermore, it is finest approach for the school
heads and administrators to determine whether the objectives of the programs have been
achieved and certifying the quality of Faculty Development Programs (FDP). II.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This study aims to evaluate the Faculty Development Program in Public Senior High
Schools in the District. Specifically, it intends to determine the characteristics of the teachers
and school heads in public senior schools in the district in terms of age, gender, civil status,
educational attainment, length of service, and position/designation; describe the faculty
development program of public senior high schools in district in terms of content knowledge and
pedagogy, learning environment, diversity of learners, curriculum and planning, assessment and
reporting, community linkages and professional engagement, personal growth and professional
development. furthermore, it will find out the significant difference in the assessment of
competence of two sets of respondents when group according to profile and ascertain the
issues and challenges in faculty development program. Finally, a competency-based faculty
development program will be prepared for public senior high schools in the district.

METHODOLOGY

This quantitative study employed a survey research design. To evaluate the

implemented faculty development program at senior high schools in the survey research design
was utilized wherein the researchers is finding significant difference of the assessment of
competence/domain of two sets of respondents when group according to profile based on the
evaluation of faculty development program and its alignment to PPST-based priority needs for
teachers.
The survey instrument used for this study was a survey questionnaire which was
formulated based on the different domains of PPST-based priority needs for teachers such as
content knowledge and pedagogy, learning environment, diversity of learners, curriculum and
planning, assessment and reporting, community linkages and professional engagement and
personal growth and professional development. Similarly, the questionnaire includes the
demographic characteristics of the respondents such as age; civil status; educational
attainment; length of service and position/designation.
Probability Sampling specifically the stratified random sampling was employed in this
investigation using Raosoft InterForm. The population under study in the current research are
personnel who are directly responsible for designing the development program, faculty
developers who are involved in delivering the training, and program evaluators. It also includes
teachers who are the prime recipients of the development program. The two participating senior
high schools from the District are consist of 76 personnel comprising of school heads, head
teachers, master teachers and teacher I to III which in the result 64 of that whole population
were chosen as the respondents of the study.
Data collection was a multi-step process, following approval of the Public Schools
District Supervisor (PSDS) of the District and the School Heads of participating schools. A
questionnaire was developed and evaluated to ensure its validity and congruency to the
objective of the current study. The participants in the study were emailed with attached google
forms containing the letter and survey questionnaire and asked to complete the survey. The use
of google form allowed the researcher to gather data effectively and efficiently from the 64
participants from senor high schools in the district. Prior to completing the electronic survey,
participants were instructed to read introductory description of the study and the informed
consent. The informed consent form provided information about the intent of the study.
Additionally, the consent form included information pertaining to their voluntary nature,
confidentiality, and the right to withdraw provisions of participating in the study.
Both descriptive statistics and inferential statistics were used to conduct the analyses of
data. Descriptive Statistics was used to determine trends in a data distribution. In the present
study, descriptive statistics (frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation) were used to
analyze data relevant to Research Questions 1, 2, and 4. However, Inferential Statistics were
utilized for research question 3 which asked to find the significant difference between the
assessment of two groups of respondents when grouped according to profile. Particularly, the
study used t-test and Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
RESULTS AND DSICUSSION
Table 1
Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Age
Age Frequenc Percentage
y %
21-25 4 6.15
26-30 11 16.92
31-35 16 24.62
36-40 13 20
41-45 9 13.85
46-50 6 9.23
51-55 2 3.08
56-60 2 3.08
60 and 1 1.54
above
TOTAL 64 100

Table 1 shows the distribution of the respondents in terms of their Age. Most of the
respondents are ages 31- 35 years old with the frequency of 16 or 24.62 percent of the total
number of the respondents which is 64. It is followed by 36-40 years and 26-30 years old with
20 percent or with the frequency of 13 and 16.92 percent or with the frequency of 11
respectively. Other ages of the respondents have almost got the same percentage as seen in
the table however it is noticeable that the respondent aging under 60 years old and above got
the lowest frequency which 1 or 1.5 percent. This implies that as the teacher reaches 60 years
old, they often choose to have early retirement and leave the educational institutions into the
young teachers.

The results were supported by the study conducted by Alufohai and Ibhafidon (2015)
about theinfluence of teachers’ age on academic achievement of students.

Table 2
Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Gender

Gender Frequenc Percentage

y %
Male 20 30.77
Female 44 67.69
TOTAL 64 100

As seen in Table 2, male teachers were overshadowed by female teachers at Senior

High School at the District. It is based on the computed data wherein male respondents got
30.77 percent while female respondents are 67.69 percent of the total number of samples.

It is supported by the data from National Center for Education Statistics or NCES last
May 2021 that About 76 percent of public-school teachers were female and 24 percent were
male in 2017–18, with a lower percentage of male teachers at the elementary school level (11
percent) than at the secondary school level (36 percent).
Table 3
Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Civil Status
Civil Status Frequency Percentage %
Single 24 36.9
2
Married 38 58.4
6
Widow 2 3.08
Separated 0 0
TOTA 64 100
L

Table 3 shows the distribution of the respondents based on their civil status as single,
married, widow and separated in which married teachers topped the results with the frequency
of 38 or 58.46 percent and followed by unmarried teachers which prevailed with 36.92 percent.
However, it can be glimpsed from the table that widow got 3.08 percent while separated got 0
percent which suggest that Senior High Schools in the District have the greatest number of
teachers who positively influence the students.
This observation is true to the study Alufohai and Ibhafidon (2015) about the
Influence ofAge, Marital Status and Gender on Students’ Academic Achievement.
Table 4
Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Educational Attainment

Educational Frequenc Percentage

Attainment y %
Bachelor’s degree 18 27.69
Master’s degree 18 27.69
Units in master’s 18 27.69
degree
Units in Doctoral 8 12.31
degree
Doctoral Degree 2 3.08
TOTAL 64 100
In terms of Educational Attainment, table 4 revealed that most of the respondents are
bachelor’s degree Holder with master’s degree units and master’s degree Holder with 27.69
percent or frequency of
18. Table further shows that only few of the total respondents are having doctoral units/degree.
Corresponding to the study of Francisco (2020), Academic Qualifications of teachers
along with other demographic profile such as Age, Length of Service, Academic rank, and
Performance rating significantly affects the students’ academic performance likewise in this
study it was found that students taught by teachers with higher qualifications performed better.
Table 5
Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Length of Service

Length of Service Frequenc Percentage

y %
0 – 5 yrs. 23 35.38
6 – 10 21 32.31
11 – 15 10 15.38
16 – 20 3 4.62
21 – 25 4 6.15
26 – 30 1 1.54
Above 2 3.08
30
TOTAL 64 100
 Table 5 shows the Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Length of Service which
reveal that most of the respondents are rendering service for months to 5 years with frequency
of 23 or 35.38 percent followed by 32. 31 percent’s which isa 6-10 years length bracket of
service

Table 6
Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Position/Designation

Position/ Frequenc Percentage

Designation y %
Head Teacher 4 3.08
Principal 46 3.08
Teacher I 7 6.15
Teacher II 3 70.77
Teacher III 2 10.77
Master Teacher 2 4.62
TOTAL 64 100

As seen in the table, most of the respondents are more than half of the entire number of
respondents in which Teacher II ranked as one (1) with 70.77 percent and only few teachers III
and Teacher I with 10.77 percent and 6.15 percent respectively. However, Principal, Head
teacher and Master Teachers got the least rank in the distribution of respondents in terms of
position or designation.

According to PPST through DepEd Order 42 s 2017, Teacher I to Teacher III are
proficient teachers with 3 or more years of experiences while Master Teachers, Head Teachers
and Principal are considered Highly Proficient Teachers who are cconsistently display a high
level of performance in their teaching practice. They manifest an in-depth and sophisticated
understanding of the teaching and learning process.

Table 7
Summary on Assessment of Faculty Development Program

Indicator Weighted Verbal Ran

s Mean Interpretation k
Content Knowledge and Pedagogy 4.42 Often 7
Learning Environment 4.51 Always 1
Diversity of Learners 4.45 Often 4.5
Curriculum and Planning 4.45 Often 4.5
Assessment and Reporting 4.44 Often 6
Community Linkages and
Professional Engagement 4.49 Often 3
 Personal Growth and
Professional 4.50 Always 2
Development
Composite Mean 4.47 Often
Legend: 4.50 – 5.00 = Always ; 3.50 – 4.49 = Often; 2.50 – 3.49 = Rarely; 1.50 – 2.49 =
Sometimes 1.00 – 1.49 = Never

Summary on the Assessment of Faculty Development Program (FD) based on seven

domains from Philippines Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST) is presented in table14.
From among the seven domains, the first field which is “Learning and Environment ranked first
with 4.51 weighted mean with verbal interpretation of “Always”. Based on the results, it shows
that the development program capacitates teachers in providing learning environments where
students can be safe, secured and feel motivated to learn and have a positive attitude toward
school. It implies that parallelism of student’s achievement and the learning environment.
Following “Learning and Environment”, it can be seen from the table that the Department
of Education – District is also prioritizing personal growth and professional development as
assessed by the teachers. It has weighted mean of 4.50 and was interpreted as “Always”. It
disclosed that growth and development of teacher have given high regards to effectively
maintain their excellence in the field and to maintain the integrity and dignity of the profession.
On the other hand, other domains got almost the same results as per weighted mean is concern
yet all were interpreted as “often”.
FDP also driven teachers to make strong bond and partnership with the community
including other stakeholders to further improve the learning of the students. This school and
community engagement, creates an opportunity for more real learning applications,
experiences, and lifelong learning. It also teaches teacher to be more liable to the learning
process of the students in terms of broader contexts. Apart from this, diversity of learners and
curriculum planning domains were given highlights into faculty development wherein teachers
are encouraged to be more inclusive and open in catering all types of learners with different
needs and learning styles. Furthermore, Assessment and Reporting are one of the vital
functions of the teachers in which students progress and performance are being track and
monitored. The table shows that the respondents also appreciate the content of the FDP
concerning assessment and reporting wherein different assessment tools and strategies in
making evaluation and feedback to the students were given. Lastly, the results show that the
faculty development program implementers recognize the significance of making teachers
master the content of specific subject areas wherein it follows the implemented curriculum with
target learning competencies. It also revealed that teaching personnel are channeled to create
meaningful applications of learning since they really understand the lesson point from point
Generally, the results show the importance of faculty development in terms of the seven
domains as support to enhance teachers’ performance delivery of lesson to the students. It can
be seen on the table that the composite mean is 4.47 which was verbally interpreted as “often”.
According to DO No. 42,
s. 2017, the PPST “shall be used as a basis for all learning and development programs for
teachers to ensure that teachers are properly equipped to effectively implement the K to 12
Program.” Teacher performance appraisals shall also be aligned to the PPST. Further, the
PPST can also be used for the selection and promotion of teachers.

Table 8
Difference Responses Between the Assessment of Faculty Development Program of Two Groups of
Respondents When Grouped According to Demographic Profile
Proficient Highly Proficient
Age F-value p-value Interpretation F-value p-value Interpretation
Content Knowledge and Pedagogy 0.500 0.808 Not Significant 0.510 0.744 Not Significant
Learning Environment 0.720 0.638 Not Significant 0.760 0.638 Not Significant
Diversity of Learners 1.400 0.235 Not Significant 0.360 0.826 Not Significant
Curriculum and Planning 0.570 0.752 Not Significant 0.720 0.652 Not Significant
Assessment and Reporting 0.720 0.638 Not Significant 0.850 0.602 Not Significant
Community Linkages and Professional
Engagement 0.530 0.786 Not Significant 0.410 0.798 Not Significant
Personal Growth and Professional
Development 0.460 0.832 Not Significant 0.310 0.853 Not Significant
Gender
Content Knowledge and Pedagogy 1.250 0.268 Not Significant 26.990 0.003 Significant
Learning Environment 0.780 0.382 Not Significant 2.060 0.211 Not Significant
Diversity of Learners 0.080 0.776 Not Significant 6.430 0.052 Not Significant
Curriculum and Planning 0.330 0.570 Not Significant 10.620 0.022 Significant
Assessment and Reporting 0.720 0.399 Not Significant 0.600 0.473 Not Significant
Community Linkages and Professional
Engagement 1.240 0.270 Not Significant 26.790 0.004 Significant
Personal Growth and Professional
Development 0.870 0.354 Not Significant 5.710 0.062 Not Significant
Civil Status
Content Knowledge and Pedagogy 0.270 0.764 Not Significant 0.630 0.578 Not Significant
Learning Environment 0.950 0.394 Not Significant 0.670 0.562 Not Significant
Diversity of Learners 0.440 0.647 Not Significant 0.860 0.490 Not Significant
Curriculum and Planning 0.340 0.714 Not Significant 0.530 0.626 Not Significant
Assessment and Reporting 0.370 0.691 Not Significant 0.960 0.457 Not Significant
Community Linkages and Professional
Engagement 0.770 0.467 Not Significant 0.450 0.667 Not Significant
Personal Growth and Professional
Development 0.790 0.461 Not Significant 0.480 0.652 Not Significant
Educational Attainment
Content Knowledge and Pedagogy 3.500 0.022 Significant 0.750 0.589 Not Significant
Learning Environment 1.310 0.279 Not Significant 0.890 0.538 Not Significant
Diversity of Learners 1.790 0.161 Not Significant 0.470 0.725 Not Significant
Curriculum and Planning 2.700 0.055 Not Significant 0.680 0.619 Not Significant
Assessment and Reporting 1.150 0.336 Not Significant 0.870 0.543 Not Significant
Community Linkages and Professional
Engagement 3.270 0.028 Significant 0.800 0.572 Not Significant
Personal Growth and Professional
Development 1.550 0.213 Not Significant 0.370 0.782 Not Significant
Length of Service
Content Knowledge and Pedagogy 2.490 0.035 Significant 0.590 0.662 Not Significant
Learning Environment 1.770 0.125 Not Significant 0.850 0.551 Not Significant
Diversity of Learners 2.220 0.056 Not Significant 0.470 0.725 Not Significant
Curriculum and Planning 2.060 0.075 Not Significant 0.590 0.664 Not Significant
Assessment and Reporting 1.250 0.296 Not Significant 0.700 0.610 Not Significant
Community Linkages and Professional
Engagement 2.040 0.077 Not Significant 0.800 0.572 Not Significant
Personal Growth and Professional
Development 1.000 0.435 Not Significant 0.370 0.782 Not Significant
Position/Designation
Content Knowledge and Pedagogy 1.340 0.271 Not Significant 0.030 0.974 Not Significant
Learning Environment 2.630 0.081 Not Significant 0.120 0.893 Not Significant
Diversity of Learners 1.100 0.342 Not Significant 0.060 0.945 Not Significant
Curriculum and Planning 2.410 0.099 Not Significant 0.080 0.928 Not Significant
Assessment and Reporting 1.020 0.369 Not Significant 0.010 0.995 Not Significant
Community Linkages and Professional
 Engagement 1.910 0.158 Not Significant 0.080 0.924 Not Significant
Personal Growth and Professional
Development 2.540 0.088 Not Significant 0.010 0.987 Not Significant
Legend: Significant at p-value < 0.05
As seen on table 8, difference responses between the assessment on Faculty
Development Program when grouped according to demographic profile is being presented. It
contains data from the two groups of respondents which are the proficient and highly proficient
teachers. Data were statistical treated based on profile such as Age, Gender, Civil Status,
Educational Attainment, Length of Service and Position or Designation, likewise, based on
seven (7) domains or competencies concerning the faculty development program specifically
Content, Knowledge and Pedagogy, Learning Environment, Diversity of Learners, Curriculum
and Planning, Assessment and Reporting, Community Linkages and Professional Engagement,
Personal Growth and Professional Development.

In the first group of the respondents which are proficient teachers, it was observed that
there was a significant difference on content knowledge and pedagogy and community linkages
and professional engagement when grouped according to the educational attainment since the
obtained p-value 0.022 and
0.028 was less than the alpha level of 0.05. Teachers who got bachelor’s degree have greater
assessment on content knowledge and pedagogy and professional engagement. Also, it was
observed that there was a significant difference on content knowledge and pedagogy when
grouped according to the length of service since the obtained p-value 0.035 was less than the
alpha level of 0.05. Teachers who worked for 16 – 20 and 21 – 25 have greater assessment on
content knowledge and pedagogy. These results revealed that that educational background or
attainment influence the teacher’s assessment of faculty development in terms of Content
Knowledge and Pedagogy as well as community linkages and professional engagement.

It conforms to Brunsberg (2013) idea in a study entitled “A Study About the Level Of A
Teacher’s Content Knowledge, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Instructional Practices, And
Demographics And Their Effects On Students’ Literacy Achievement” stated that Teachers who
held additional reading licenses and trainings appeared to have a better understanding of
pedagogical content knowledge. The study of Poulson et al., (2001) as cited in BrunsBerg
(2013) study suggests that contextual factors also play a role in shaping teachers’ beliefs.

The result of the current study is also true to Edler (2020) which indicated that
Professional development, also referred to as continuing education, is important to the
organization and to society; and therefore, each should attempt to foster continued learning.
Professional development provides satisfying, relevant, and actionable guidance to K-12
educators, so they can keep up with the evolving K- 12 world.
 Richard and Solits (2009) as cited in the study of Elder (2020) Teachers may have years
of teaching experience; however, this does not mean that they do not need PD. It is critical that
teachers understand educational theory and practice by making observations, connecting to
current instructional strategies, and receiving support both during and after the professional
development session. Administrators must also acknowledge the career cycle of teachers so
that Professional Development is implemented in the classroom.
Table 9
Issues and Challenges met in the implementation of Faculty Development Program

Indicators Weighted Verbal Rank

Mean Interpretation
1. Unestablished Faculty Development model including its Moderate
phases like planning, designing, implementation and evaluation. 2.74 Extent 2
2. Inaccurate Implementation of the entire Faculty Development Moderate
Program according to the timetable and schedule. 2.64 Extent 4
3. Irrelevance of topic to Teachers Priority Needs Moderate
2.53 Extent 8
4. Limited participation of teachers into FDP Activity. Moderate
2.50 Extent 9
5. Insufficient assistance of the school management to the FDP Moderate
implementers 2.55 Extent 7
6. Unsatisfactory of the Quality of training and fulfillment of Moderate
participants expectations. 2.56 Extent 5.5
7. Limited Budget and resources for the development program Moderate
2.77 Extent 1
8. Inadequacy of trainings of the Faculty Development Program Moderate
Designers and Implementers. 2.66 Extent 3
9. Lack of competence of the resource persons for trainings,
seminars, and other relevant activities under FDP 2.45 Slight Extent 10.5
10. Unsupervised application and utilization of teachers’
learning from FDP. 2.45 Slight Extent 10.5
11. Absence of training’s objectives focusing on teachers’
personal growth. 2.44 Slight Extent 12
12. Unavailability of technical assistance for community – Moderate
teachers’ partnership and engagement. 2.56 Extent 5.5
Composite Mean Moderate
2.56 Extent
Legend: 3.50 – 4.00 = Great Extent ; 2.50 – 3.49 = Moderate Extent; 1.50 – 2.49 = Slight Extent; 1.00 – 1.49 = Least Extent

Table 9 presents the Issues and Challenges met in the implementation of Faculty
Development Program in Senior High Schools in the District. It revealed that demanding issues
concerning faculty development is limited budget and resources for the development program
which gained 2.77 weighted mean and was verbally interpreted as “moderate extent.
Consequently, these issues and challenges are commonly encountered by various
school institutions starting from planning, execution until evaluation. Based on the results, it is
also suggested that FDP developers and implementers must undergo training and upskilling
activities concerning FDP as the data suggested. It is true with the studies of Asgar and
Satyanara (2021) and Robinson (2011) which focus on the effectiveness of the implementation
of Faculty Development Program. Robsinson focused also on the training of teachers wherein it
must be paralleled on the teacher’s interest, teaching, and learning. Summon (2015) was
focused only on the training and professional development of school leaders as well as self-
improvement to meet the demands of tomorrow while the current one is concern on the issue
and challenges on faculty development program for teachers’ development.
Proposed Faculty Development Program

The Faculty Development Plan is designed to serve as a resource and guide for faculty
concerning career progression and even the evaluation of annual performance in the context of
DepEd (Department of Education) mission and vison. It contains detail concerning the different
domains for teachers or priority needs of teachers to further improve educative process.
Furthermore, information concerning resource support is provided to assist with faculty
development. Various activities are also presented which will fit the needs of teachers with
regards to growth and development for both personal and professional. This will be presented to
the District in Learning and Development Department with the presence of Public-School District
Supervisor. The presentation includes the results of the study which was framed from the
identified priority needs of the teacher based on the PPST (Philippine Professional Standard for
Teachers). Similarly, enhancing activities based on each domain namely, content, knowledge,
and pedagogy, learning environment, diversity of learners, curriculum and planning, assessment
and reporting, community linkages and professional engagement, personal growth, and
professional development. An evaluation of teacher’s performance is also included.

This Faculty Development Program (FDP) will be participated by the district personnel,
school heads/principals, department heads and focal person, master teachers and most
importantly proficient teachers who are needing support and guidance from the FDP
Implementers or from highly proficient teachers. It will be done in district wide implementation or
school-based execution for better management of the group, yet it must conform to one idea of
FDP. To ensure, continuous development and learning of both proficient and highly proficient
teachers this program will for the whole school year. Its cost will be charge against school
MOOE or Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses since trainings and seminar expenses
were illuminated in DepEd guidelines in liquidation and utilization.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results and findings of the study, the following conclusions were made.
Most of the teachers in SHS-in the district are female and married with master’s degree and
serving the school for 6-10 years and most of them are teacher II. The assessment of the
respondents on the faculty development program as whether implemented based on PPST
priority needs is often. The educational attainment established significant difference on content
knowledge and pedagogy and community linkages and profession development similarly on
length of service based on content knowledge and pedagogy. For highly proficient teachers,
gender revealed significant difference on content knowledge and pedagogy, curriculum and
planning and community linkages and profession development. The issues and challenges met
by the respondents in the assessment of faculty development program is in moderate extent.
The proposed competency-based faculty development program can guide the school in
supporting teachers continues growth and development and eventually to provide better
learning for students.

Based on the findings and conclusions of the study, the researcher offered the following
recommendations. The school administration may focus on the seven domains of PPST priority
needs to assist and guide the teachers. Highly proficient teachers must strengthen its guidance
and assistance to proficient teachers in terms of content knowledge and pedagogy. The results
of this study may be used as reference in filling the gaps of other research and it may serve as
the basis to avoid or prevent such issues in faculty development. Other researchers may focus
on the relationship on the capacity of program implementers to implement development
program, and the performance of the teachers or those considered as proficient teachers. A
propose designed faculty development program may be adapted to address teachers needs ad
make ease on their parts as a teacher. 6. A similar study may be conducted using wider scope
or with another settings or institution.
REFERENCES

Al-Bashir, M., Kabir, R., & Rahman, I. (2016). The Value and Effectiveness of Feedback in Improving
Students’ Learning and Professionalizing Teaching in Higher Education. Journal of Education
and Practice, ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online). Vol.7, No.16, 2016.
[Link]
Asgar, A. and Satyanarayana, R. (2021), An evaluation of faculty development programme on the design
and development of self-learning materials for open distance learning, Asian Association of
Open Universities Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 98-115. [Link]
0094
Benet, C. (2017). Professional Learning Community Impact on Student Achievement. [Doctoral
Dissertation, Carson Newman University].
[Link]
sertations2017/Courtney_Bennett.pdf
Berg, E. (2010). A case study of Pedagogical Content Knowledge and faculty development in the
Philippines. ISBN 9789490336028. [Link]
Brunsberg, S. (2013). A Study About the Level of a Teacher’s Content Knowledge, Pedagogical Content
Knowledge, Instructional Practices, And Demographics and Their Effects On Students’ Literacy
Achievement. [Doctoral Dissertation, North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied
Science]. [Link]
Characteristics of Public School Teachers. (2021). National Center of Education Statistics.
[Link]
Coats, A & Regina, A. (2019). Transforming Professional Development for Today’s Educational
Environment [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Missouri-St. Louis]. University of Missouri-St.
Louis Institutional Repository Library. [Link]
Commission on Higher Education. (2015). Faculty Development Program (FacDev).
[Link]
Datinguinoo, M. (2019). The School-Community Relations in Batangas State University. International
Journal of Innovation and Research in Educational Sciences Volume 6, Issue 2, ISSN
(Online):2349–5219.
[Link]
23_FINAL.pdf
Department of Education. (2020). DepEd Order No. 001, s 2020. Guidelines for NEAP Recognition of
Professional Development Programs and Courses for Teachers and School Leaders.
[Link]

Department of Education. (2020). DepEd Memorandum NO. 050 s 2020. DepEd Professional
Development Priorities for Teachers and School Leaders for School Year 2020-2023.
[Link]

Department of Education. (2017). DO 42, S. 2017 – National Adoption And Implementation Of The
Philippine Professional Standards For Teachers. Https://[Link]/2017/08/11/Do-
42-S-2017-National-Adoption-And-Implementation-Of-The-Philippine-Professional-Standards-
For-Teachers/
Dulin, C. (2018). Exploring the Relationship Between Professional Learning Communities and the Growth
in Teaching Quality and Student Achievement. [ Doctoral Dissertation, Texas Tech University].
[Link] [Link]?
sequence=1
Dyussenbayev, A. (2017). The Main Periods of Human Life. Global Journal of HUMAN-SOCIAL SCIENCE: A
Arts & Humanities – Psychology. Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal
Publisher: Global Journals Inc. (USA) Online ISSN: 2249-460x & Print ISSN: 0975-587X Volume
17 Issue 7 Version 1.0 Year 2017. [Link]
[Link]
Edler, J. (2020). A Mixed-Method Study Analyzing the Impact of Continuing Education on K-12 Educators.
[Doctoral Dissertation-Lindenwood University by the School of Education]. ProQuest LLC.
[Link]
origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Eimar, S., Jaguimit, G., Lazado, G., Lustado, A., Salagantin, J., Toyco, U., & Silawan, P. A. F. . (2019). The
Effects of the Learning Environment on the Academic Performance of Grade 12 Students: An
Emerging Guide. Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of
Multidisciplinary Research, 1(1).
[Link]
Francisco, A. (2020). Teachers’ Personal and Professional Demographic Characteristics as Predictors of
Students’ Academic Performance in English. International Journal of Management,
Technology, and Social Sciences (IJMTS), 5(2), 80-91. DOI:
[Link]
Geurkink-Coats, A., and Regina, R., (2019), Transforming Professional Development for Today's
Educational Environment. [Doctoral Dissertations, University of Missouri-St. Louis 876].
[Link]
Gumbi, E. (2017). Sustaining A Safe and Secure Learning Environment: A Case Study of A Selected School
In Newcastle. [Doctoral Dissertation, University of The Free State Bloemfontein].
[Link]
=y
Hailaya, W. (2014). Teachers’ Assessment Literacy and Students Outcomes in the Province of Tawi-Tawi
Philippines. [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Adelaide].
[Link]

Islahi, F. & Nasrin,. (2013). Who Make Effective Teachers, Men or Women? An Indian Perspective.
Universal Journal of Educational Research. 1. 285-293. 10.13189/ujer.2013.010402.
[Link]
or_Women_An_Indian_Perspective
Kenyon, B. (2019). Teachers' Formative Assessment Use to Check for Understanding and to Adjust
Instruction. [Doctoral Dissertation, Walden
University].[Link]
ertations
Kwak, J. (2020). Models for Effective Faculty Development for Adaptive Learning.
[Link]
while-implementing-adaptive-learning/
Lehman, C. (2016). Multicultural Competence for Teaching Diverse Students as Experienced by Preservice
Teachers. Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies. 2160.
[Link]
Luciano, J., (2017). The Influence of Curriculum Quality on Student Achievement on the New Jersey
Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJ ASK) Language Arts and Mathematics for Fifth-Grade
Students in the Lowest Socioeconomic School Districts. [Doctoral Dissertation, Seton Hall
University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs)]. [Link]
Lumpkin, A., Claxton, H. and Wilson, A. (2014) "Key Characteristics Of Teacher Leaders In Schools.
Administrative Issues Journal: Vol. 4 : Iss. 2 , Article 8. [Link]
McQuiggan, C. (2012). Faculty Development for Online Teaching as a Catalyst for Change. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, v16 n2 p27-61 Mar 2012. [Link]
Mourlam, D. (2015). The ongoing faculty development system: A case study exploring content methods
teacher education faculty technological, pedagogical, content knowledge development
[Doctoral Dissertation, University of Northern Iowa]. [Link]
Nisar, M., Khan, I.A., & Khan, F. (2019). Relationship between classroom management and students’
academic achievement. Pakistan Journal of Distance and Online Learning, 5(1), 209-220.
[Link]
Nogueira, F. (2020). Planning and curriculum: Importance and Contribution in the Educational
Process. Revista Científica Multidisciplinar Núcleo do Conhecimento. Year 05, Ed. 11, Vol. 20,
pp. 108-116. November 2020. ISSN: 2448-0959,
[Link]
Person, M. (2020). The Connection Between Professional Development and Teacher Growth. [Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Northern Colorado].
[Link]
Possi, M. (2017). Learner Diversity in Inclusive Classrooms: The Interplay of Language of Instruction,
Gender, and Disability. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences 2017 (Volume5 - Issue
3). [Link]
Santos, K. (2021). System Theory Management/System Theory Approach/System Theory: Definitions,
Contribution and Limitations.
[Link]://[Link]/2021/07/systems-theory-management-
[Link]
Senate of the Philippines. (2020). Gatchalian expresses dismay over lack of instructional clarity in PH
education. [Link]
Sithole,N. (2017) Promoting a positive learning environment : school setting investigation. [Doctoral
Dissertation, University of South Africa, Pretoria]. [Link]
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). The Professional Development
Teachers. [Link]
Villaluz, G., Malonjao, M., Trinidad, C. and Bojos, M., (2018). Community engagement in teaching-
learning: A pathway to quality education. ASEAN Journal of Community Engagement, 2(2).
[Link]
Wahsheh, R. & Alhawamdeh, H. (2015). The Role of Female Teachers in Activating Effective Teaching
Skills and Methods among High School Students from the Teachers’ Perspective – Najran, KSA.
Journal of Education and Practice, ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.6,
No.36, 2015. [Link]
Wenzel, M. (2017). Middle School Teacher Beliefs about Classroom Diversity and their Influence on
Differentiated Instructional Practices. [Doctoral Dissertation, Portland State University Paper
3612]. [Link]
Whipps-Johnson, J. (2016). Teachers' Awareness of Cultural Diversity and Academic Achievement in
Ninth Grade Academies and Senior High Schools. [Doctoral Dissertations, University of
Southern Mississippi]. 265. [Link]