000 06112nam a2201225Ia 4500
000 04143ntm a2200217 i 4500
001 69023
003 0
005 20250921113141.0
008 171105n 000 0 eng d
010 _z
_z
_o
_a
_b
015 _22
_a
016 _2
_2
_a
_z
020 _e
_e
_a
_b
_z
_c
_q
_x
022 _y
_y
_l
_a2
024 _2
_2
_d
_c
_a
_q
028 _a
_a
_b
029 _a
_a
_b
032 _a
_a
_b
035 _a
_a
_b
_z
_c
_q
037 _n
_n
_c
_a
_b
040 _e
_erda
_a
_d
_b
_c
041 _e
_e
_a
_b
_g
_h
_r
043 _a
_a
_b
045 _b
_b
_a
050 _a
_a
_d
_b2
_c0
051 _c
_c
_a
_b
055 _a
_a
_b
060 _a
_a
_b
070 _a
_a
_b
072 _2
_2
_d
_a
_x
082 _a
_a
_d
_b2
_c
084 _2
_2
_a
086 _2
_2
_a
090 _a
_a
_m
_b
_q
092 _f
_f
_a
_b
096 _a
_a
_b
097 _a
_a
_b
100 _e
_e
_aLagunzad-Suarez, Elineth Elizabeth.
_d
_b4
_u
_c0
_q16
110 _e
_e
_a
_d
_b
_n
_c
_k
111 _a
_a
_d
_b
_n
_c
130 _s
_s
_a
_p
_f
_l
_k
210 _a
_a
_b
222 _a
_a
_b
240 _s
_s
_a
_m
_g
_n
_f
_l
_o
_p
_k
245 0 _a
_aA meta-evaluation of the faculty evaluation system of chartered colleges and universities in the national capital region /
_d
_b
_n
_cElineth Elizabeth Lagunzad-Suarez.
_h6
_p
246 _a
_a
_b
_n
_i
_f6
_p
249 _i
_i
_a
250 _6
_6
_a
_b
260 _e
_e
_a
_b
_f
_c
_g
264 _3
_3
_a
_d
_b
_c46
300 _e
_e
_c28 cm.
_axvi, 319 pages
_b
310 _a
_a
_b
321 _a
_a
_b
336 _b
_atext
_2rdacontent
337 _3
_30
_b
_aunmediated
_2rdamedia
338 _3
_30
_b
_avolume
_2rdacarrier
340 _2
_20
_g
_n
344 _2
_2
_a0
_b
347 _2
_2
_a0
362 _a
_a
_b
385 _m
_m
_a2
410 _t
_t
_b
_a
_v
440 _p
_p
_a
_x
_v
490 _a
_a
_x
_v
500 _a
_aThesis (Ph.D.) -- Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, 2006.;A dissertation presented to the faculty of Graduate School of Arts, Sciences and Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Education major in Educational Administration.
_d
_b
_c56
504 _a
_a
_x
505 _a
_a
_b
_t
_g
_r
506 _a
_a5
510 _a
_a
_x
520 _b
_b
_c
_aABSTRACT: Considering the context that PASUC would like to respond to the significant features and implementing policies of the NBC 461 by addressing the issues and concerns along the faculty evaluation, the writer of this paper conducted a study that aimed to contribute to providing input for future amendments of its implementation. Ambitious as it may seem, this study was conducted to empirically look into some areas that may be explore to promote information dissemination and awareness on the issues and concerns in the implementation of National Budget Circular (NBC) 461. The NBC 461 guidelines have set forth a system of evaluating faculty that have evolved after several revisions through the past decade. In structuring and designing the scheme, it is hoped that highly qualified and competent faculty from the State Universities and Colleges (SUC) will be promoted by upgrading the position item held by the incumbent faculty, instead of looking for scarce vacant position (Pada, 2005). The expressed dissatisfactions over the existing system, comments and observations-good and bad-coming from the students, faculty and administrators about this system motivated this researcher to conduct this study. Hence, the first aim of this paper is to identify, if ever there is, a gap between the existing and desired practices in faculty evaluation using a meta-evaluation instrument and to give recommendations in order to address such gap. The researcher used the Program Evaluations Meta-evaluation instrument organized according to the Joint Committee Program Evaluation Standards (1994) with four standard criteria: utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. The other existing faculty evaluation procedure/practice to evaluate teaching effectiveness was assessed using an adapted version of the Faculty Perspectives of Teaching Performance Appraisal System (FPTPAS) Instrument developed and validated by De Guzman (1992). Considering the classification of meta-evaluation according to the four basic typologies, this study on Meta-Evaluation of the Faculty Evaluation Program of Selected Chartered Universities in NCR is both a formative and summative evaluation. This is an ex-post-facto (retro-valuation, as it is carried out during the evaluation process or when it is already done), an external (evaluation is done by someone not involved in the assessed evaluation process, being an external control, and both a design and process meta-evaluation. The respondents' perceptions of the existing (What is) faculty evaluation program were assessed and the mean ratings were analyzed to identify whether a significant difference is present among their perspectives. Furthermore, the respondents' desired (What Should be) system/practice was also analysed. Based on the findings of this study, some recommendations for modifications or amendments to the system of faculty evaluation program were proposed.
_u
521 _a
_a
_b
533 _e
_e
_a
_d
_b
_n
_c
540 _c
_c
_a5
542 _g
_g
_f
546 _a
_a
_b
583 _5
_5
_k
_c
_a
_b
590 _a
_a
_b
600 _b
_b
_v
_t
_c2
_q
_a
_x0
_z
_d
_y
610 _b
_b
_v
_t2
_x
_a
_k0
_p
_z
_d6
_y
611 _a
_a
_d
_n2
_c0
_v
630 _x
_x
_a
_d
_p20
_v
648 _2
_2
_a
650 _x
_x
_a
_d
_b
_z
_y20
_v
651 _x
_x
_a
_y20
_v
_z
655 _0
_0
_a
_y2
_z
700 _i
_i
_t
_c
_b
_s1
_q
_f
_k40
_p
_d
_e
_a
_l
_n6
710 _b
_b
_t
_c
_e
_f
_k40
_p
_d5
_l
_n6
_a
711 _a
_a
_d
_b
_n
_t
_c
730 _s
_s
_a
_d
_n
_p
_f
_l
_k
740 _e
_e
_a
_d
_b
_n
_c6
753 _c
_c
_a
767 _t
_t
_w
770 _t
_t
_w
_x
773 _a
_a
_d
_g
_m
_t
_b
_v
_i
_p
775 _t
_t
_w
_x
776 _s
_s
_a
_d
_b
_z
_i
_t
_x
_h
_c
_w
780 _x
_x
_a
_g
_t
_w
785 _t
_t
_w
_a
_x
787 _x
_x
_d
_g
_i
_t
_w
800 _a
_a
_d
_l
_f
_t0
_q
_v
810 _a
_a
_b
_f
_t
_q
_v
830 _x
_x
_a
_p
_n
_l0
_v
942 _a
_alcc
_cBK
999 _c35263
_d35263