000			03619ntm a2200217 i 4500
001			10979
003			0000000000
005			20240308015816.0
008			131212n 000 0 eng d
035			_a(0000000000)43650
040			_erda
245	1	0	_aFaculty Preparedness VIS-A-VIS Qualitative Contribution Evaluation (QCE) in Functional Areas of the Instruction : _bBasis For Sustainable Faculty Development Program / _cEnrique-Sanchez Charity G.
264		4	_aBataan Peninsula State University : _bEnrique-Sanchez Charity G., _cMarch 2013
300			_a161 p. ; _c27 cm.
336			_atext _2rdacontent
337			_aunmediated _2rdamedia
338			_avolume _2rdacarrier
490	1		_aFACULTY PREPAREDNESS VIS-À-VIS QUALITATIVE CONTRIBUTION EVALUATION (QCE) IN FUNCTIONAL AREAS OF THE INSTITUTION: BASIS FOR SUSTAINABLE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
500			_aInclude bibliographical references.
520			_aThis study aimed to determine how faculty and university-related factors affect faculty preparedness in QCE functional areas of selected SUC in Region III during Academic Year 2011-2012. The respondents were one hundred fifty six (156) permanent faculty members taken from the College of Education, Engineering and Industrial Technology of BPSU, BulSU and DHVTSU. The stratified random sampling was used. The descriptive method of study was employed. The level of preparedness in instruction was determined through documentary analysis. The data on college faculty profile, university-related factors and level of preparedness on research, extension and production were taken from validated researcher-made questionnaires. All the gathered were subjected to statistical analysis using frequencies, mean, Pearson's moment of correlation, Spearman rank correlation, T-test, ANOVA and stepwise multiple regression. The data were processed through SPSS version 1.8. The findings of the study revealed that faculty profile such as age, length of services and faculty rank are not significantly correlated with the overall level of faculty preparedness. On the other hand, teaching loads and educational attainment are correlated. Among the variables affecting the level of preparedness of faculty in the QCE functional areas, training on research was found as the best predictor when singly taken; but when taken in combination, the best predictors arranged in rank order were training in research, teaching load and training in extension. The lone null hypothesis that faculty profiles and university-related factors do not significantly affect the level of faculty prepared in instruction research, extension and production was partially upheld. Based on the findings, these recommendations were advanced; faculty members should be motivated to upgrade their educational attainment through financial support and assistance to avail themselves of the opportunity to get scholarship, fellows and the like. Moreover, rationalization of load distribution should be observed, the administration must continuously support and give due recognition to faculty members doing exemplary work along areas of their mandates. It was also recommended that conduct of training for faculty members in research, and other services should be spearheaded by VP for Research and directors of various services namely in research, extension and production in coordination with the deans of different colleges. On the part of the faculty, they should have the initiative and commitment to enhance their research skills, upgrade themselves to be effective extensionists and comply with their production mandates.
999			_c26429 _d26429