CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
Education plays a central role in national life and in all sectors of the economy. It produces the teachers at all levels, the bureaucrats of all positions, the professional in various services and the executives and technical workers in industry. Definitely, the quality of education depends on the performance of the teachers, teaching materials, educational planning, and committed educational administrators to produce quality graduates.
Generally, educational institution is composed of school, teachers, curriculum, and the students. Each aspect is working side by side to support the other aspects accurately. School plays a significant role in the educative process. It is considered as an instrument to reshape community and build a good society and to produce quality people by means of shaping the learner’s attitude and behavior. It is the school that fulfills the social responsibility of preparing the individual for the future by (a) fitting him in the society that he lives in (adjective function) and (b) enabling him to use his knowledge and creative powers to improve this society (constructive function). Curriculum represents a set of desired goals or values that is activated through a development process and culminates in successful learning experiences for students (Wiles & Bondi, 2007). The curriculum also defines the specific knowledge, behavior, and attitudes needed to create a healthy and educational environment for the student, who is considered a fundamental factor to build the future. The role of the students in the educative process is to acquire knowledge and skills which he can use to influence other people in the community and transform the society into building a better nation.
In the educative process, productivity of the teachers is important in the desired transformation of the students. Expertise in the subject matter or specialization is a fundamental requirement in higher education and it is the cornerstone of the professional intervention. This can be acquired through attending seminar, extensive reading and pursue a masteral/doctoral degree or being certified to teach in a specific field. However, a problem coupled with this issue is the compensation given to the teachers. After obtaining such degrees and other related skills, do they get paid properly? (Shawn, 2007), Feldman (2003) points out that the three top choices to consider for effective teaching are (a) knowledge of the subject; b) enthusiasm for teaching or for the subject, and; c) sensitivity to, and concern with, class level and progress. In contrast, there are several factors affecting the productivity of the teachers in the academe. Most of the frequent sources of difficulty are class size, faculty workload, number of different course preparations within a semester and within the academic year, and disparities in compensation among faculty members in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).
Prior to the issuance of PD No. 985, State Universities and Colleges (SUCs), which were exempted from the coverage of the National Position Classification and Compensation Plans, adopted individual staff credentials and qualifications, position classification and pay plans. The disparities in pay and compensation among similar comparable positions brought about by the different schemes adopted by the various SUCs gave rise to demoralization and dissension among the rank of faculty members and further complicated the process of compensation administration in SUCs. As early as 1982, the Philippine Association of State Universities and Colleges (PASUC), together with the DBM, started deliberating on a scheme of upgrading/promoting qualified and deserving faculty members through a process of objective evaluation. This paved the way to the development and adoption of Common Criteria for Evaluation (CCE) across programs and disciplines which aims to rationalize academic ranks and salaries. Furthermore, the Position Classification and Compensation Scheme for Faculty Positions (PCCSFP) covers all teaching positions involved in instruction, research, and extension activities in all SUCs, CHED-Supervised HEIs and TESDA Supervised TEIs. In general, these strategic directions of the institutions influence the level of concentration on each task to be given by faculty members. It is undeniable that faculty discretion is exercised within the three functions, but the questions of compliance and productivity become the heart and soul in understanding the academic profession in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).
It is the goal of the Rizal Technological University to strengthen its academic performance. Achieving this goal requires allocation of sufficient faculty time and effort to prepare for effective teaching to engage in scholarly productivity. While colleges and universities have policies concerning teaching loads, in the vast majority of cases, these teaching loads for the regular full-time faculty members (30 hours of work load a week) are 18 units a week. Faculty members with quasi-administrative functions (40 hours of work load a week) carry the allowable teaching load for their specific designation or position (15 hours or less a week). Considered as part-time loads are subjects taught beyond the allowable regular teaching loads. The maximum allowable part-time load is 12 units per semester. The deloading system is also used in these schools where faculty engaged in research, extension services, or production functions may be deloaded by as many units as allowed by the school of regular teaching load in one semester. All these are being implemented by the Rizal Technological University (Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 2003, RTU).
While it is desirable to establish a common loading system for State Universities and Colleges in the Philippines, it is recognized that schools vary in their programmatic needs and in their capacity to adjust their teaching loads with no net enrolment decline and budgetary constraints. It is imperative that in a school, the department chairs, in consultation with their respective deans, retain flexibility to establish teaching loads appropriate to their respective departments, and to individual faculty. The department chairs are expected to make teaching assignments taking into account various factors that must be balanced in order to meet departmental needs, such as the number of students in the course, the level of the course, the number of different preparations a faculty members has, the faculty qualifications, the availability of budget, and so on. With flexibility, however, comes responsibility to administer the loading policy fairly. For example, teaching assignments should not result in practices that would jeopardize better academic performance. In other words, a college or university policy on teaching loads should neither be a straightjacket constraining a department nor an opportunity to make unfair and inappropriate teaching assignments (Carnegie University, 2006). Establishing a good policy on teaching loads will require department to evaluate the range of policies and programs they have in place currently, the quality of these programs, and the level of enrolment appropriate to those programs and to the department’s mission in particular and the university mission in general.
It is from the foregoing concepts that this study is anchored. The study purported to look into the problems encountered in the loading assignments of the faculty at the Rizal Technological University and relate these with their work performance.
Background of the study
Rizal Technological University is used as the locale of the study. This University was established on July 11, 1969 upon the approval by the Secretary of Education in response to the utmost request of the Provincial Board of Rizal, headed by Governor Isidro S. Rodriguez, to put up a higher education institution in the Province of Rizal. It was first known as the College of Rizal. On March 20, 1975, the College of Rizal in Pasig and Rizal Technical High School in Mandaluyong, both situated in the Province of Rizal, were emerged and converted into the Rizal Technological Colleges by the virtue of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 674. The decree authorized the expansion of curricular programs and promotion of researchers in the development and conservation of natural resources in the Province of Rizal. The promulgation of P.D. No. 751 on July 25, 1975 amended certain provisions of P.D. No. 674 and made the operation and maintenance of the Rizal Technological Colleges a joint project and undertaking of the Provincial Government of Rizal and the MERALCO Foundation, Incorporated. This decree broadened the support and strengthened the organization of the College. After 19 years, the College was converted into the Rizal Technological University on October 11, 1997 by virtue of Republic Act No. 8365. The University is tasked to: provide highly professional, scientific, technological, and special instructions in the field of engineering and technology, education, business and entrepreneurial technology, and the programs; and promote research, extension and advance studies in its areas of specialization. Through its Cooperative Education Program, it shall continue to lead in the provision of work-integrated learning through partnership with industry and involvement of students in civic activities. RTU is the first state university in Mandaluyong City and Pasig City, Metro Manila and in the province of Rizal. Due to the commitment and dedication of the administration, faculty, and the whole school community, the University has established excellence in education as it continuously produces quality and topnotch students in several fields. The University has the distinction of being the first educational institution in the Philippines to utilize Cooperative Education as a curriculum plan which is recognized by various industries, businesses and agencies all over the country. Aside from being the pioneer of several innovative academic programs in the Philippines, such as Computer Engineering, Instrumentation and Control Engineering, Bachelor of Science in Astronomy, Master of Science in Astronomy, Master of Science in Engineering Education, and Doctor of Technology Education, the University has also established itself as the National Instrumentation and Control Center and National Welding and Research Training Center. The University has been the pilot school of Technology Resource Center under the Ministry of Human Settlements and now a member of the school network implementing the Engineering and Science Education Program (ESEP) of the Philippines. Furthermore, the University is not confined to instruction alone as it shifted to full gear towards the enhancement of its research and development programs and continued to pursue the policy of sharing its expertise and resources with the community through to its comprehensive non-formal education programs and extension services (RTU Strategic Plan, 2010-2014).
Theoretical Framework
Many faculty members in some stages of their academic careers require help and guidance in order to remain productive and enthusiastic members of the university which is necessary if they are to continue serving the institution to their full potential. But few universities provide such help and guidance and, as a result, the quality of education they provide, the quality of their academic administrative systems, and the quality of their research and extension programs often suffer. In considering the problems and needs of the faculty, it is important to realize that these problems and needs are dependent upon academic discipline, upon gender, upon educational qualification and preparation, upon experience in the service, and upon the personality of the faculty member (Aosthuizen, 2005).
In assigning workloads, the over-arching principle is that each individual faculty member should do what he/she does best. For example, a senior faculty member who is no longer active in research and scholarship should have the opportunity to teach more than highly active scholars whose research productivity is largely dependent on the amount of time he/she has to carry out his/her investigations. In other words, properly conceived and administered, and intelligent workload policy can create situations in which everyone wins. The assignment of faculty workloads should be organized on the principle that each department meets its overall responsibilities in teaching, research, and extension service in a fully satisfactory fashion within approved budgets by employing a variable workload program that provides each faculty member with the ability to do what she/he does best (http://drexal.educ/provost/policies/faculty-workload, 2014).
Mancing (2006) model for defining a faculty workload policy, which is applicable in departments throughout academia. Its basic assumptions include the following: 1. The department's goals and priorities (and mission statement, if any) are related to the institution's mission. A department might, by mutual agreement of the faculty members and the administrators involved, define its mission somewhat differently from that of the institution as a whole; but usually the two will have a common mission and set of values. At any rate, no department should have the unchallenged right to reject its major responsibilities either in teaching or in research. 2. All full-time faculty members, from instructor to full professor, should have comparable workloads. There is no reason to expect less than a full effort from any individual. No matter how a particular person's workload is divided among teaching, research, and service, the total amount of work produced by that person should equal the amount produced by those with workloads divided differently. 3. The department understands that not every professor will excel equally at teaching, research, and service. The administration should be as flexible as possible in determining the workload distribution for each member of the department. Therefore, an individual's workload distribution may legitimately vary considerably from the norm, but the overall departmental effort should adhere to priorities. No individual need conform to the department's teaching, research, and service ratio, but department members on average should do precisely that. 4. There is no automatic reduction in teaching (or any other type of responsibility) based on seniority. It has been traditional in many institutions of higher education to assign fewer classes to senior faculty members as a privilege of rank. Departments cannot afford this luxury at a time when, at many institutions, over half the faculty members hold the rank of full professor. If a full effort is expected of every faculty member, there can be no favored group. 5. Each three-credit class taught equals 10% of an individual's effort for the year. This assumption is crucial, as it allows us to begin to quantify faculty activities and thus to bring meaning to the percentages we have been using to express workload distributions. The 10% estimate is not as arbitrary as it might seem. It has long been a commonplace that the average college or university class meets about three hours a week and requires about two hours of outside preparation for each class hour. Thus, eight to nine hours (and remember: class hours are usually 50-minute hours) is a traditional standard for each class taught. Since eight hours equals 20% of a 40-hour work week, a one-semester class equals about 10% of an academic year's workload. Admittedly, many faculty members work 50- or 60-hour weeks, as do physicians, engineers, artists, business owners, and others who find their jobs challenging and have some choice in setting their work hours (Bowen and Schuster 74); nevertheless, for comparative purposes, it is legitimate and convenient to assume a standard 40-hour week. Besides, as Yucker states, though many professors claim that they work an average of 55 hours a week, it is much more likely that the average is around 45 hours, although the number tends to be higher at research-oriented institutions (v). Furthermore, many institutions calculate salaries for summer teaching appointments at the rate of 10% of base salary for each course, thus institutionalizing the idea that one class equals 10%. 6. Research and service are more difficult to quantify than teaching. The amount of time needed to write proposals, gather data, read critical and theoretical studies, write and revise manuscripts, or carry out any other research activity cannot be calculated by any convenient formula. Nor can the myriad of service activities. Once the percentage of time devoted to teaching is determined according to the principle described above, each professor can divide the remaining workload effort into research and service components during negotiations with the department chair. 7. Quality of performance is not a factor in assigning workloads. Some professors work longer, harder, better, or more efficiently than others, but there is no way to take such matters into account when designing a workload policy. These and other qualitative matters should be considered formally during the process of evaluating faculty performance.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual model shows that the independent variable of the study refers to the problems encountered by the faculty in their teaching load assignments. Their problems include: 1) Room assignment; 2) Availability of faculty members; 3) Faculty qualification and preparation; 4) Double-loading of subjects to two faculty members. And 5) Prioritizing part-timer rather than full-time faculty members. These problems are correlated with the work performance (dependent variable) of the faculty as measured by the Instrument for Instruction/Teaching Effectiveness (QCE of NBC 461). The components include commitment, knowledge of subject, teaching for independent learning, and management learning. The demographic profile

Independent Variable

Problems
Encountered
In teaching
Load Assignment
Independent Variable

Problems
Encountered
In teaching
Load Assignment
Dependent Variable
Faculty
Work
Performance

Dependent Variable
Faculty
Work
Performance

Moderating Variable
Demographic
Profile
Moderating Variable
Demographic
Profile

Figure 1. Conceptual Model

(moderating variable) that covers gender, age group, civil status, field of specialization, years in the government service, and educational attainment is correlated with teachers’ work performance. The researchers posit the view that “the problems encountered in faculty loading assignments have significant impact on the work performance of faculty members at the Rizal Technological University.”
Statement of the Problem It was the purpose of this study to determine the impact of problems encountered in faculty loading assignments on the work performance of faculty members at the Rizal Technological University, School Year 2013-2014.
Specifically, the study attempted to answer the following research questions; 1. What is the profile of the faculty respondents in terms of: 2.1. Gender 2.2. Age group 2.3. Civil status 2.4. Field of specialization 2.5. Years in the government service and 2.6. Educational attainment. 2. What are the problems encountered by the faculty in their teaching load assignments? 3. What are the differences in the problems encountered by the faculty in their teaching load assignments when compared to the above demographic profile? 4. What is the work performance of the faculty during the First Semester of SY 2013-2014? 5. What are the differences in the work performance of the faculty when compared to the above demographic profile? 6. What are the relationships between the problems encountered in teaching load assignments and work performance of the faculty?
Hypotheses of the Study 1. There are significant differences in the problems encountered by the faculty in their teaching load assignments when compared accordingly to the following variables: 2.1. Sex 2.2. Age group 2.3. Civil status 2.4. Field of specialization 2.5. Years in the government service 2.6. Educational attainment 2. There are significant differences in work performance of the faculty when compared according to the above personal characteristics. 3. There are significant relationships between problems encountered in teaching load assignment and work performance of the faculty.
Scope and Delimitations of the Study
This study focused on determining the impact of the problems encountered in teaching load assignments on the work performance of the RTU faculty members during the first semester of school year 2013-2014. Only the regular faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences (61 or 96.83), College of Business and Entrepreneurial Technology (40 or 95.24%), College of Education (37 or 95.87%), College of Engineering and Industrial Technology (86 or 97.73%), and Institute of Physical Education, Recreation and Sports (27 or 96.43%) participated in the study A research-made questionnaire was used to elicit information about personal characteristics of the faculty respondents and the problems encountered in the teaching load assignments. Results of the study shall apply directly to the subjects of the investigation but others school with similar problems may also benefit from the study.
Significance of the Study
The following groups are expected to benefit from the results of the study:
Administrators. More recently, workload planning has become more sophisticated, and when properly conceived and implemented can enhance rather than diminish faculty productivity. The results of this provide information on the problems encountered in teaching load assignments and how these affect faculty work performance. Knowledge of these can help the administrators prepare a workload plan that recognizes scholarship/creative activity and service as well as issue of determining what contributions constitute a fulltime workload applies to full-time faculty and part-time faculty.
Department chairmen. The results will show why each academic department must have in place a framework for workload assignments. The results will also show the importance of reviewing the unit’s instructional research, and extension service responsibilities as they affect directly the workload of the regular faculty it is necessary that assignments be made in a manner which maximizes unit productivity and which enables faculty to fulfill their various instructional, research, and extension service functions.
Faculty. The study will provide information on how regular faculty and part-time faculty can handle their workloads effectively. Teaching consists of far more than what takes place during the hours a week that instructors or professors and students actually spend in their classrooms; many other tasks, such as class design, preparation, grading and meeting with students, make teaching a more complex process. Individual instruction requires particular patience, devotion, time, and skill. Like other professionals, instructors or professors should devote a considerable amount of their time to maintaining their skills. This will help explain how important it is to intelligently plan a faculty work schedule.
Faculty Workload Committee. The results of this study may help define the need to strengthen the Faculty Workload Committee of the school as it plays a very significant role in maintaining effective and efficient workload programs. This Committee has a two-fold mandate: 1) to review the overall parameters governing what constitutes full-time teaching load and part-time teaching load; 2) to consider whether a new or modified process for review of each faculty member’s contributions would be desirable. The results will also orient those concerned on how teaching load assignments will affect the performance of the faculty.
Definition of Terms
The following terms were defined within the context of their use or uses in the study
Area chairman is directly responsible to the Dean for carrying out the Academic policies and the programs in his/her area. He/She is directly responsible of students, faculty, and staff within his/her area (RTU University Code, 2002).
Area of Specialization is the specific trade or major field of specialization the techno-vocational teachers earned through a degree program or field training.
Class size depends on the method of instruction adopted. Unless otherwise authorized by the VPAA and in accordance with University rules and regulations the Average class size shall be as follows: Lecture, 10-50; laboratory, 10-40; tutorial 1-9 (University Code, 2002).
Hours of work refers to the members of hours the faculty or employee renders every week. Regular members of the faculty render a minimum of 30 hours a week while administrative employees or employees holding faculty appointments and are assigned to various offices to perform administrative work render 40 hours of work a week (RTU University Code, 2002).
Knowledge of the subject matter involves a deep understanding of the value and purposes for a specific subject and the ability to research, analyze and use evidence to support claims, and dispute or build on the claims of others, and an appreciation of where disciplines – subjects – entwine and where they separate; teachers know both the up-close and the big picture of what they teach.
Management of learning is to create opportunities for intensive and or extensive sharing and exchange of healthy learning conditions. It is to structure and re-structure learning and teaching-learning context to enhance attainment of collective learning objectives.
Part-time load is any teaching load assigned in excess of the regular teaching loads shall be compensated in accordance with schedules provided by law. The maximum number of part-time load shall be determine in accordance with University policies.
Productivity This refers to significant outputs, contributions and applications and/or use of research results in commercial or industrial projects in relevant fields of applied and natural sciences and includes the Scientific articles in publications of international circulation, and other works of similar nature; Discoveries, inventions and other significant original contributions; Books, monograms, compendiums and major bodies of published work.
Teaching for independent learning is demonstrated by allowing students to think independently, with objectives and realistically defined student-professor rules and make them accountable for their performance.
Teaching load the number of subject units assigned to a faculty to teach in every semester (RTU University Code, 2002).