THE FACULTY of Arts and Letters (AB) was rated “satisfactory” overall in the student survey conducted in the previous academic year, but missed its target on the number of educators with “very satisfactory” ratings in a separate assessment that focused on teaching staff competence.
AB achieved an average rating of 3.29 out of 4, a score that fell within the “satisfactory” mark, data from the Office of Planning and Quality Management on the e-Student Satisfaction Survey showed.
Meanwhile, in the faculty competence evaluation, about 75% or 216 out of 288 academic staff members got “very satisfactory” ratings, lower than the 240 target set by the Artlets administration.
AB Dean Prof. Melanie Turingan said the transition to the 2:1 ratio in onsite and online asynchronous classes last academic year may have affected the faculty members’ performance.
“That’s why [we’re working] on measures to mitigate that, like the implementation of the CBA (collective bargaining agreement) provisions and limiting the college [where educators] teach so that they are not burdened faculty members-wise because I think that these could also affect and tire [them],” Turingan told The Flame.
The dean said AB is trying to maximize the mastery of its academic staff by assigning additional courses that are related to their expertise.
The academic staff were evaluated based on several indicators, including classroom management, teaching, decorum and display of Catholic values, AB faculty secretary Asst. Prof. Louie Benedict Ignacio said.
According to Ignacio, AB annually conducts staff development activities that are usually based on their training needs assessments.
Nearly 95% or 3,640 out of 3,847 students participated in last academic year’s student satisfaction survey. F – Veancy Palad
Editor’s note: The Flame edited its news story, “AB attains ‘satisfactory’ overall rating, misses target on faculty staff competence,” (previously titled “AB faculty attains ‘satisfactory’ overall rating, misses evaluation target”), following some points raised by the administration.
The editors acknowledge the oversight in the story about the year-end reports presented during the faculty assembly, which resulted in the failure to distinguish the e-Student Satisfaction Survey and the faculty competence evaluation. The highest point in the scale was also corrected.
These details have been corrected and contextualized to allow our readers to understand the story better.
Save for the lumping of two assessments and the error in the highest point in the scale that have been rectified, all the facts presented in the story are accurate.
