Faculty Readiness and Professional Development Needs in a Philippine Local Higher Education Institution

Abstract

This convergent mixed-methods needs assessment examined self-perceived faculty readiness and professional development needs in an anonymized Philippine local higher education institution. One integrated instrument, content-validated by three validators, combined faculty profile, readiness, development-priority, and open-ended components. Analyses covered 74 profile records, 59 consenting readiness responses (79.7% analytic coverage relative to the roster), and 61 consenting priority and qualitative responses (82.4% analytic coverage). Quantitative analysis used descriptive statistics, 95% confidence intervals, Cronbach’s alpha, sensitivity checks, and an exploratory Pearson correlation for 55 matched participants; open-ended responses underwent hybrid thematic content analysis and joint-display integration. Faculty were generally Ready (M = 4.01, SD = 0.58, 95% CI [3.86, 4.16]); the lowest domains were SDG, innovation, and impact documentation (M = 3.77), research capability and utilization (M = 3.81), and community extension (M = 3.88). All six development domains were High Priority (M = 2.92, SD = 0.75, 95% CI [2.73, 3.11]), led by faculty well-being (M = 3.08), career and leadership development (M = 3.07), community extension and industry linkage (both M = 3.03), syllabus development (M = 3.02), and quality-assurance evidence (M = 3.00). The readiness-priority association was negligible, r(53) = −.08, p = .58, 95% CI [−.34, .19], indicating that perceived present capability and continuing development priority are distinct judgments. Qualitative findings converged on pedagogy, diverse learners, workload, resources, mentoring, research, responsible technology use, and community innovation. The evidence supports a continuous, coached, seven-pillar faculty development system evaluated through changes in practice and institutional outputs rather than seminar attendance alone.