Strenghts and Weaknesses of Academic Improvement Visitation in TIP-Manila: Towards a Better Delivery of Instruction by Ronan S. Estoque, DPA (June'08)

The objective of Academic Improvement Visitation (AIV) essentially is to uplift the quality of instruction for the institution. The intention of this endeavor is to support the practice and policy of AIV. In other educational institutions, a mechanism similar in objective and purpose is also being done though such goes by other name or nomenclature. Since the biggest room in the world is the room for improvement – the process of identifying areas for instructional improvement runs in consonance with the institutional mantra of kaizen or continuous improvement.

Descriptive method of research was the primary framework of this endeavor. Accordingly, descriptive research method refers to the identification of characteristics of the behavior or situations in which it occurs, so that behavior can be predicted or described (Heiman, 1995).

The advantages of the questionnaire method are as follows (Nocon et. al, 2000):

1. It is less expensive since questionnaires can be distributed personally or by mail.

2. It is less time consuming since it can be distributed over a wider geographical area in a shorter time.

3. It can give confidential responses since the respondents can answer the questionnaire privately.

4. The answers obtained are free from any influence from the interviewer.

The findings are summarized as follows:

1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:

Department
In the period of 1st Semester SY 2005-2006, there were a total of 184 faculty and that out of the 184 faculty, 171 were actually observed and covered by AIV. It must be noted that there seven departments that were able to obtain a score of 100% in terms of AIV coverage while there were six departments that were able to get a score less than 100% .

In SY 2005 – 2006, second semester, there were a total of 146 faculty and 139 were covered by the AIV for 96.30% average. There were 10 departments who obtained a 100% coverage while three other departments (were tallied at less than 100%, e.g. CE/SE – 89%, CBE – 78% and MarineE and T – 85%). In SY 2006 – 2007, first semester, there were a total of 143 faculty for the said duration and there were 130 actual faculty that were subjected to the AIV with a percentage of 91%.

In SY 2006 – 2007, second semester, there were a total of 116 faculty observed out of 121 for a percentage coverage of 96%. There were ten departments that were able to cover their faculty 100% (i.e. Arch./DT, CE/SE, CoE, EE, ECE, CITE, M & P, Mar. E &T, ME/IE, and PE).

2. What are the weaknesses of AIV?

Observed weaknesses for the First Semester, SY 2005 - 2006

1. Department Chairs must ensure that each faculty in the department must submit their WLAP every week following the schedule as stipulated in the form. This must be done with or without observation/visitation.

2. Implementation of the 5s inside the classroom should be strictly enforced by all departments. TIP is known to be a very clean school, so that cleanliness and tidiness is very important to ensure that 5s is observed.

3. There must be a close supervision and monitoring of faculty members to ensure 100% compliance with the preparation of WLAP, Class Record, Seat Plan and other teaching paraphernalia.

Table 10. Weaknesses for the First Semester, SY 2005 – 2006

Observed weaknesses for the Second Semester, SY 2005 - 2006

1. The institution must benchmark the performance the performance of its Department Chairs and Faculty Members regularly against best practices locally and globally.

2. Faculty development strategies must be undertaken regularly to provide the faculty with better opportunities to learn and improve their crafts.

3. Weaknesses in student performance must also be identified and be acted upon by each faculty member and should not be ignored and set aside.

4. Proper monitoring and guidance must be provided to students who cannot cope up with their academic work to support them in their studies and to assist them in overcoming their academic problems and studies.

Table 11. Weaknesses for the Second Semester, SY 2005 – 2006

Observed weaknesses for the First Semester, SY 2006 – 2007
1. Around 5% do not have their Syllabi and WLAP’s at the time of the observation.

2. Some department chairs failed to join the Academic Dean during the observation/visitation.

3. There are some teachers who do not observe the proper implementation of the 5s in the classroom. They try to ignore scattered pieces of papers that are inside the classrooms.

4. Some faculty members uses stereotyped WLAP’s and do not conform with the topics as stipulated in their syllabi.

Table 12. Weaknesses for the First Semester, SY 2006 – 2007

Observed weaknesses for the Second Semester, SY 2006 - 2007

1. College Deans and Department Chairs must strictly observe their own faculty members and undertake Academic Improvement Visitation at least twice every semester, as recommended by Mr. Peter Dombey during his last visit in TIP, Manila Campus.

2. Blackboards at the P. Casal Campus must be repainted.

3. Implementation of the 5s Program must be strictly followed by all concerned.

4. Faculty Development Programs must be continuously undertaken for faculty members, especially those who are newly hired.

Table 13. Weaknesses for the Second Semester, SY 2006 – 2007

3. What are the strengths of the AIV program?

Strengths of the Academic Improvement Visitation Program

1. The AIV serves as an avenue for continuous improvement, efficient classroom management and improved teaching competence for the faculty.

2. The AIV raises the bar of instruction in the institution.

3. Department Chairs who have monitored closely their faculty members show 100% compliance with the AIV requirement.

4. There is a tangible pedagogical competency improvement among the faculty.

5. Values Education was incorporated in the subject matter of faculty members under the Humanities and Social Sciences Department.

6. Knowledge of current situations and events were likewise incorporated in the teaching of Ethics, Logic and Philosophy.

7. Majority of the faculty members have taken effective action to address their weaknesses and have continued to build on their strengths to enhance their performance and efficiency in teaching.

8. The AIV is very effective in helping new faculty members in achieving their goals in providing their students with the best results in learning and education.

9. The AIV improved the implementation of the 5s program.

10. The AIV enhanced the teaching methodologies of the faculty members.

11. The AIV improved the ability of the faculty in lesson preparation.

12. The AIV improved the proficiency of faculty in English.

13. The Academic Improvement Visitation encourages the faculty members to be up to date in their class records (i.e. checking and recording of quizzes, seat works and other requirements).

14. The AIV improves self-confidence.

15. The AIV improves the delivery of instruction.

16. The AIV helps in mapping classroom activities.

17. The AIV serves as a platform for the faculty to display their mastery of the subject matter.

18. Improves the conformance of objectives (as stipulated in the WLAP’s).

19. The Academic Improvement Visitation improves punctuality and regular attendance of the faculty.

20. The AIV improves the compliance of teaching paraphernalia’s for the TIP faculty.

Table 14. Strengths of Academic Improvement Visitation

Conclusions:

1. The success of the Academic Improvement Visitation is dependent on the Department Chairs. Departments who obtained lesser scores usually had their Department Chair preoccupied with some other departmental concerns.

2. Teaching paraphernalia’s (e.g. Syllabus, Class Record, Weekly Lesson Activity Plan and Seat Plan’s) must always be emphasized as an imperative tool for teaching among the TIP Faculty. There must be a uniformed and a universal implementation of the 5’s system. TIP Faculty must have an ownership of the system.

3. The Academic Improvement Visitation (AIV) is an effective management tool for continuous betterment of the delivery of instruction for the institution. The AIV serves as a positive influence in guiding the faculty in the improvement of their craft. More often than not, TIP faculty displays a positive attitude towards AIV – they see the AIV as an opportunity to showcase their teaching competency to their respective Department Chair and Academic Dean. This perspective in turn improves the delivery of instruction for the TIP students.

From the endeavor, the following insights were established:

1. The success or the inefficiency of the Academic Improvement Visitation (AIV) is dependent on the Department Chairs. Department Chairs must believe and persevere that AIV works and that a lot are riding on their shoulders whenever the visitation is being conducted.

2. Whenever there is faculty who teaches without complete teaching paraphernalia’s, the failure is partly owned by the Department Chair. This is a failure of coaching on the part of the Department Chair. Department Chairs must always emphasized importance of teaching paraphernalia’s and must devise a system where no teaching is ever complete if one does not have a complete teaching paraphernalia.

3. The Academic Improvement Visitation (AIV) is a unique and effective tool for measuring the improvement of the delivery of instruction in the institution. This must be continued and there must be at least two AIV rounds per department.

4. The AIV visits must be done by the Mid-terms so as to have a true performance reflective evaluation for the respective faculty.

5. There must be clear standard when it comes to the institutional academic improvement visitation.

6. There must be an “action plan” when it comes to the identified weaknesses established by the academic improvement visitation.

7. There must be a reward/citation/commendation for departments that are accomplishing betterment in the delivery of instruction.

8. Credits/commendations must be given to the faculty instead of the respective department chair.

9. More training about instructional improvements must be conducted by the institution for a higher quality of instruction.

10. Academic improvement visitation must be continuous endeavor instead of a semestral metric.

11. Ideally, there must be no AIV during the summer term. Instead, institutional sponsored instructional trainings will have to be conducted in this duration.

12. As much as possible, faculty members should be visited in the time where they are teaching their forte.

13. Academic improvement visitation should be a platform for the faculty to showcase their mastery of the subject being delivered for the students.