RESEARCH COMPETENCIES OF THE FACULTY IN SOUTHERN LEYTE STATE UNIVERSITY (SLSU)

RATIONALE

Academic research has been considered as one of the major sources of providing direction and guidance to managers and practitioners (Khojatest & Herring, 2002).

RATIONALE

Aquino (2003) strengthened these ideas by saying “One much needed area of concern in education is the promotion and encouragement of research on teaching effectiveness. Before the teachers can conduct research studies they should have the adequate training for upgrading their research skills and competencies.”

RATIONALE

The campus administrators always emphasize the importance of faculty researches in determining how much budget will be given to state universities and colleges and that the findings and the recommendations of the AACCUP team in the preliminary survey conducted in February 2010 at San Juan Campus on the Bachelor of Science in Information Technology and Bachelor of Secondary Education programs revealed the rating of 2 in the scaling of 1 to 5 in research area.

RATIONALE

Furthermore, another preliminary survey conducted in September 2011 of the Bachelor of Science in Office Administration and Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology programs, similar ratings were also revealed. These ratings indicated that the faculty lack the competencies to undertake research, or they are not motivated to work on research projects.

METHODOLOGY

Qualitative - quantitative research designs were used in this study. This was conducted in the five campuses of Southern Leyte State University namely; Sogod main campus, Tommas Oppus, San Juan, Bontoc, and Hinunangan.

The standardized questionnaire adopted from Pearson Education (1995 – 2009) and Educational Management, 7th edition by Jack R. Fraenkel and Norman E. Wallen were used to determine the level of faculty’s research competencies based on the five domains of Gray (2007). This questionnaire was the basis of the researcher in coming up with test items that covered the five (5) domains of research competencies.

METHODOLOGY

For the Practical Skills, there were twelve (12) questions. The second category which is Problem-solving, Thinking and Communication Skills is composed of nine (9) items. The third category is Personal and Professional Ethics which contains eight (8) questions. There were five (5) questions identified in the fourth category which is Dissemination of Research Findings. The last category is Roles and Functions of A Researcher which contains six (6) questions.

METHODOLOGY

For the research competency level, the following scaling was used: Incompetent – 1, Fairly Competent – 2, Competent – 3, Highly Competent – 4. Interview was also conducted to inquire on the hindering factors affecting the faculty from not engaging into research projects; as well as to identify the motivating factors that led some of the faculty to undertake research. Five (5) and four (4) questions for motivating and hindering factors respectively were created.

METHODOLOGY

In this study, simple random sampling was used for campuses with big population such as campus A, B, and C. This was done using a computer programming function called Randomized. For campuses D and E, purposive sampling was used, meaning the entire faculty populations with permanent and temporary positions were included as respondents of the study.

METHODOLOGY

A letter of request addressed to the president of the university was submitted asking permission to administer the test to the faculty of the five campuses and to conduct an interview to gather the motivating and hindering factors that affect the faculty in the conduct of research. Upon approval, the interview and the administration of the test to each of the campuses were done. After which, data were collated, categorized, and tabulated for interpretation. The statistical tests that were used in this study were: percentage, weighted mean, One-way Analysis of Variance, and Multiple Regression.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The main objective of this study was to assess the level of research competencies of the faculty in Southern Leyte State University in relation to educational qualification, research experience, field of specialization, and academic rank.

1. What is the profile of the SLSU faculty in terms of:

Educational Qualification, Research Experience, Field of Specialization, and Academic Rank?

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:

As to the profile of the SLSU faculty on Educational Qualification, large number of faculty are not qualified to teach in college because they are bachelor’s degree and non full-fledged master’s degree holders.

FINDINGS

With regards to Research Experience, their experience in research is either as adviser or teacher rather than as individual or group researchers.

For the Field of Specialization, the largest numbers of the faculty belong to the Others category, this category is composed of various programs offered by the five campuses. This group breakdown is as follows: educational management, drafting, hotel and restaurant management, legal laws, research and evaluation, and MAPE specializations.

As to Academic Rank, three-fourth of the faculty is still occupying the instructor positions (Instructor 1 – 3). The remaining one-fourth is distributed to assistant professors, associate professors and only three faculty are occupying the professorial rank out of one-hundred thirty-three respondents.

Problem 2. What is the level of research competencies of the faculty in SLSU as to: practical skills; problem solving, thinking, and communication skills; personal and professional skills; dissemination skills; and roles and function as a researcher?

In terms of Practical Skills, the overall descriptive rating of the faculty is fairly competent. It can be deduced that, the faculty has the fair skills of finding and using resources effectively such as when and how to use primary and secondary resources, use the library and information technology effectively, observe and record behavior of research respondents and environments.

FINDINGS NO. 2.a

The level of the faculty in Problem Solving, Communication and Thinking Skills is incompetent. This competency is the weakest of all competencies meaning the faculty lacks the basic skills to recognize subjective from objective information, also run short of the skill to determine the appropriate subject topic, assess the audience, paraphrase and summarize source material.

FINDINGS NO. 2.b

In the Personal and Professional Ethics competency, the faculty demonstrates a fair awareness of ethical principles in relation to research activities as proved by a fairly competent descriptive rating.

FINDINGS NO. 2.c

The competency level of the faculty in the Dissemination of Research Findings category is fairly competent which is a justification that the faculty have fair knowledge and skills in required for the publication of research reports, organizing research congress, constructing and delivering research presentations to different audiences.

FINDINGS NO. 2.d

FINDINGS NO. 2.e

Lastly, in the Roles and Functions as a Researcher competency the knowledge and skills of the faculty is fairly competent.

The overall level of the faculty among the five research competencies was fairly competent.

Problem No. 3

Is there a significant difference of the faculty competencies in research when classified to educational qualification, research experience, fields of specialization, and academic rank?

The four research competencies are not a factor in the advancement of the research competencies of a faculty as classified on Educational Qualification for it did not show any significant difference except the problem-solving, thinking, and communication skills which revealed significance which means only in this competency that the educational qualification of a faculty is a contributory factor in the increase in the level of the research competency of the faculty.

Findings No. 3.a

In the Research Experience specifically in the dissemination of research findings competency showed a significant difference. The meaning for this is that research experience of the faculty whether as adviser, teacher, evaluator, individual or group researcher plays a role in the advancement of this research category. This skill is focused on understanding barriers, constraints, and enablers that can result in the successful implementation of research; and facilitate if changes arise from research findings.

Findings No. 3.b

For the Field of Specialization of the faculty, it did not create any significance in the advancement of the five research competencies of the faculty which means that whatever the fields of specialization the faculty had taken, this did not correlates research competencies of the faculty.

Findings No. 3.c

In the Academic Rank of the faculty also did not create an indication for significant difference in the advancement of the research competency.

Findings No. 3.d

Problem No. 4

Are the independent variables (educational qualification, research experience, field of specialization, and academic rank) predictors of the faculty competencies in research?

Findings No. 4

Of the four independent variables (educational qualification, research experience, field of specialization, and academic rank), none of them revealed a significant difference in the research competencies of the faculty. Therefore, any faculty who had attained the highest educational qualification, had research experience, whatever field of specialization is undertaken, and whether acquired the highest academic rank or not, this study proved no relationships to research competencies of the faculty.

Problem No. 5

What are the motivating and hindering factors for the faculty in conducting research?

Findings No. 5.a

There are five motivating factors that encourage the faculty to engage into research projects, they are: sustainable training on proposal writing and statistical tools and tests, financial support from the external funding agencies for bigger amount researches, NBC 461 credit, advance and complete references, equipment and facilities in the research center.

Findings No. 5

The hindering factors are: not given the opportunity to be a member of the research team, NBC unit credit not so attractive per research, difficulty in identifying potential topics for research, difficulty in writing acceptable proposals to external funding agencies, insufficient time to balance instruction and research.

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that the faculty profile such as educational qualification, research experience, field of specialization, and academic rank are not determinants in the advancement of the research competencies of the faculty.

Research competencies could be attributed to other variables which were not used in this study.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The administrators in every SLSU campus should establish a strong research culture.

2. The faculty should be encouraged by the administrators to avail of the faculty development program in order for them to finish their master’s degree.

3. The faculty should be given equal opportunity to be with the research team and practice their research capabilities to real life research projects.

4.The research centers should be equipped with necessary references, equipment, and facilities.

5. Every SLSU campus should hold a regular research congress to ensure research dissemination.

RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION

7. Research office should forge a strong linkage with local, regional, national, and international funding agencies.

6. A periodic research capability building program be conducted.