Faculty development practices in Filipino–Chinese schools
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aims to identify, describe, and compare faculty development practices in Filipino–Chinese schools and examines social contexts in which they are situated. Data were gathered from school heads, current teachers, and those who transferred schools through online interview to share their experiences, perspectives, and practices. Using case study design in multiple case study approach, three (3) school heads, six (6) current teachers, and three (3) teachers who transferred to other schools participated in the study. The interviews were done online through Google Meet or Zoom and the interview guide was validated by seven experts. Data analysis, research consultations, and selection of participants were conducted in Metro Manila, Philippines.
The findings from this study revealed that faculty development practices in the three Filipino-Chinese schools are: (1) gears toward institutional excellence, (2) synergizes the development of leaders, (3) advances community endeavor, and (4) bears the responsibility of individual teachers and school. This study concluded that institutional support could nourish or hinder the implementation of faculty development, school culture is an important factor in designing faculty development programs, and migration to online teaching now dictates the future direction of faculty development program.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
J. Li, Chinese University 3.0 in a global age: History, modernity and future. In P. C. I. Chou & J. Spangler (Eds.), Chinese education models in a global age: Transforming practice into theory, 2016, pp.15–35.
Y. Zhu, Y. Fang, Characterizing Reform and Change of Teacher Education in China in the New Era. Journal of Research, Policy & Practice of Teachers & Teacher Education, (2011) 30–44
S. Yang, Several Thoughts on Current Chinese Education in the Philippines. International Conference on Education Technology and Social Sciences. Jiangxi Normal University: China, 2014, pp. 196–200.
Q. N. Lee–Chua, Going for Gold in the International Math Olympiad. Philippine Journal of Science, (2016) 145 (4)
A. Bautista, R. Ortega–Ruiz, Teacher Professional Development: International Perspectives and Approaches. Psychology, Society and Education, 7(3), 2015, pp.240–251.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301225857.
K.Lee, Professional Learning to Nurture Adaptive Teachers. International Conference on Educational Technologies, 2013, pp.15–21. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED557169.pdf.
M. Wong, Fifty Ways to Develop Professionally: What Language Educators Need to Succeed. Language Education in Asia. 2011 , pp. 142–155. DOI:10.5746/LEiA/11/V2/I1/A12/Wong.
L. M. Desimone, M. S. Garet, Best Practices in Teachers’ Professional Development in the United States. Psychology, Society & Education, 7(3), 2015, pp. 252–263. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/31ff/d06b4df5bb399f782d3985f17311d2bc44ae.pdf.
L. Darling–Hammond, M. E. Hyler, M. Gardner, Effective Teacher Professional Development (research brief).
Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute, 2017. https://learningpolicyimstitute.org/product/teacher-prof-dev.
H. Mizell (2010). Why Professional DevelopmentMatters.www.learningforward.org/advancing/whypdmatters.cfm
X. Liang, H.Kidwai, M. Zhang, How Shanghai Does It.The World Bank. 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0790-9
C. De Rijt, A. Stes, , C. Van der Vleuten, F. Dochy, InfluencingVariables and Moderators of Transfer of Learning to the Workplace within the Area of Staff Development in Higher Education: Research Review. Educational Research Review, 2013,pp. 48–74
D. V. Opfer, D. G. Pedder, Z. Lavicza, The Role of Teachers’ Orientation to Learning in Professional Development and Change: A National Study in England. Teaching and Teacher Education XXX, 2010, pp. 1–11
J. D. Bissonnette, K. Caprino, A Call to Action Research:Action Research as an Effective Professional DevelopmentModel. Mid-Atlantic Education Review. 2 (1), 2014, pp. 12–22. http://maereview.org.
J. Gonzalez–Pati ´ no, M. Esteban–Guitart, Some of the Chal- ˜lenges and Experiences of Formal Education in a MobileCentric Society (MCS). Digital Education Review, 2014, pp.64–86. http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/der/article/view/11329.
M. Bali , A. Caines, A Call for Promoting Ownership, Equity,and Agency in Faculty development via Connected learning.International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 15(46) (2018) 1–24. https://doi.org/101186/s41239-018-0128-8.
M. O’Keeffe, Academic Twitter and Professional Learning: Myths and Realities. International Journal for Academic Development 24 (1) (2019) 35–46. DOI:10.1080/1360144X.2018.1520109.
S. L. Watulak, R. Woodard, A. Smith, L. Johnson, N. Phillips,K. Wargo , Connected Teaching and Learning in K-16+ contexts: An annotated bibliography. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 18(2), 2018, pp. 289–312.
M. H. Levine–Sauberman, A Case Study of Faculty Development in a Community College’s Teaching and Learning Center(Doctoral Dissertation). 2014. Northeastern University, Massachusetts.
E.A. Beloy, D. K. Villena, Best Management Practices in K12 Curriculum Implementation:The Case of Selected
Schools in Asian Countries. 2016. pnu-onlinecommons.org/omp/index.php/pnu-oc/catalog/book/178.
S. J. Roels, Mirrored Development: The Individual Professional and the School Community. Christian School Education (13) 2 2010, pp. 12–13.
J. L. Sullivan, The Influence of School Culture, School Goals, and Teacher Collaboration on Teachers’ Attitudes toward theirProfessional Development Plans. 2010.
L. Jao, Peer Coaching as a Model for Professional Development in the Elementary Mathematics Context: challenges,needs and rewards. Policy Futures in Education. 11(3), 2013.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304