Santiago City, Philippines — Faculty Development Programs (FDPs) play an important role in strengthening teachers’ professional competencies and improving educational quality. However, a recent study found that although the content and conceptual quality of faculty development programs in selected public elementary schools were considered relevant and effective, significant implementation gaps remain, particularly in teacher involvement in planning, training continuity, funding, workload, and institutional support. The study was conducted by Joysie M. Giducos and Celso C. Dumalig of Northeastern College, Inc. Graduate School, Santiago City, Philippines.
The study, entitled “Status and Challenges of Faculty Development Programs in Selected Public Elementary Schools: A Descriptive Analysis of Implementation Gaps,” aimed to assess the status of FDPs, identify challenges encountered by teachers, and examine implementation gaps affecting program effectiveness. The researchers employed a descriptive-quantitative research design involving 44 licensed teachers and school heads as respondents. Data were collected through a researcher-made questionnaire using stratified random sampling.
Professional development has become increasingly important because educational quality is closely associated with teachers’ ability to continuously improve their pedagogical knowledge, technical skills, and professional competence. Effective faculty development should go beyond one-time seminars and become a continuous process that promotes active learning, collaboration, and practical classroom application.
Nevertheless, the study found that FDP implementation continues to face several obstacles. Heavy teaching workloads, limited time, insufficient financial resources, inadequate instructional materials, and weak technological infrastructure hinder teachers’ participation in professional development and their ability to apply newly acquired knowledge in classroom settings. These conditions can create a gap between what teachers learn during training and what they actually implement in their classrooms.
The respondent profile showed that the 31–40 age group represented the largest segment, with 15 respondents or 34.09 percent. This was followed by the 41–50 age group at 27.27 percent and the 21–30 age group at 22.73 percent. Overall, 61.36 percent of the respondents were between 31 and 50 years old, indicating a predominantly mid-career teaching workforce.
In terms of sex, the majority of respondents were female, accounting for 34 respondents or 77.27 percent. Male respondents represented 18.18 percent, while 4.55 percent preferred not to disclose their sex. The results therefore indicate that the teaching personnel in the selected schools were predominantly female.
Regarding educational attainment, 40.91 percent of respondents held a Bachelor’s Degree with Master’s units, while 27.27 percent had completed a Master’s Degree. Another 13.64 percent held a Bachelor’s Degree, while the same percentage had a Master’s Degree with Doctorate units. Only 4.55 percent had completed a Doctorate Degree. Overall, 86.36 percent had pursued postgraduate education to some extent.
In terms of position, the majority of respondents were Teacher I–III, accounting for 72.73 percent. Master Teacher I–IV represented 18.18 percent, school heads or principals accounted for 6.82 percent, and other positions represented 2.27 percent.
With regard to teaching experience, the largest group had 6–10 years of teaching experience, representing 31.82 percent. This was followed by those with 11–15 years of experience at 25 percent, 0–5 years at 18.18 percent, 16–20 years at 15.91 percent, and 21 years or more at 9.09 percent. Overall, 56.82 percent of respondents had between 6 and 15 years of teaching experience.
The assessment of FDP status revealed a clear difference between program quality and implementation. Under program planning and goal setting, alignment between program goals and school improvement plans received a weighted mean of 3.25. The objectives were also considered specific and measurable, with a score of 3.09. However, teacher consultation during the planning phase received only 2.23, which was interpreted as “Disagree” or less effective.
In contrast, the content relevance and pedagogical quality of the programs received favorable evaluations. Topics were considered relevant to current classroom needs and curriculum changes, receiving the highest weighted mean of 3.34. Trainer expertise received 3.27, while the practicality and applicability of training strategies received 3.00. All indicators were classified as effective.
The most significant weaknesses appeared in the frequency and consistency of training sessions. Regular development sessions received a weighted mean of 2.41, while logical progression between training sessions received only 2.20. Both indicators were categorized as less effective. These findings suggest that professional development activities tend to occur as separate events rather than as a continuous learning pathway.
Regarding administrative and logistical support, respondents agreed that administrators actively encouraged and monitored participation, with a weighted mean of 3.14. The availability of training venues and materials was also considered effective, although it received a relatively lower score of 2.59.
The study also identified several major challenges experienced by teachers. Using personal funds for registration or travel expenses emerged as the most serious challenge, receiving a weighted mean of 3.57 and being classified as a severe challenge. Conflicts between training schedules and classroom hours received 3.45, while heavy teaching workloads received 3.39.
Technological limitations also presented significant barriers. Poor internet connectivity received a weighted mean of 3.32, while limited access to computers or digital tools in schools received 3.09. The lack of instructional materials was another moderate challenge, with a score of 3.18.
Overall, the research reveals a systemic gap between the conceptual quality of faculty development programs and their actual implementation. The programs provide relevant content and competent trainers, but their implementation remains largely top-down and fragmented, while financial constraints, scheduling conflicts, infrastructure limitations, and insufficient resources continue to affect their effectiveness.
The researchers recommend establishing a collaborative, bottom-up FDP planning committee involving grade-level coordinators and Master Teachers. Schools should also conduct routine needs assessments to ensure that future training objectives and designs reflect teachers’ actual classroom needs and professional concerns.
The study further recommends shifting from isolated seminars toward a modular and progressive year-long professional development framework. Training sessions should follow a logical sequence so that each session builds upon skills and knowledge acquired during previous sessions, creating a continuous and traceable learning pathway.
In terms of funding, schools are encouraged to establish dedicated professional development funds so teachers no longer have to rely on personal money to cover registration and travel costs. This should be supported by appropriate scheduling arrangements and substitute-teacher systems so professional development activities do not disrupt classroom continuity.
Overall, the study emphasizes that the success of faculty development programs depends not only on how well training content is designed, but also on whether teachers are involved in planning, training is implemented continuously, sufficient institutional funding is available, and appropriate time and infrastructure are provided. Without improvements in these areas, professional development programs may remain largely administrative activities rather than becoming sustainable mechanisms for improving classroom practice.
Authors
Article Source
Title: Status and Challenges of Faculty Development Programs in Selected Public Elementary Schools: A Descriptive Analysis of Implementation Gaps
Journal: International Journal of Scientific Multidisciplinary Research (IJSMR), Vol. 4, No. 8, 2026, pp. 1943–1958.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55927/ijsmr.v4i8.115
Journal Link: International Journal of Scientific Multidisciplinary Research (IJSMR)
0 Komentar