
Menu


Pedagogy Review: An International Journal of Educational Theories, Approaches and Strategies
Volume 6 | Issue 1 | 2025 | 37 – 56
Doctor of Philosophy in Education, St. Paul University Manila, Pedro Gil Street, Malate, Manila, Philippines
Article History:
Initial submission: 29 July 2025
First decision: 03 August 2025
Revision received: 15 September 2025
Accepted for publication: 18 September 2025
Online release: 22 September 2025
Ready to submit? Click the button below.
Need more help before you submit?
This study evaluated the effectiveness of Siena College of San Jose, Inc.’s Faculty Development Program (FDP) to identify areas for improvement. Using document analysis, faculty feedback, stakeholder input, and evaluation surveys, the assessment applied the integrated rubric for FDP Design and Quality Standards. A 4-point Likert scale was used to measure faculty efficacy. Based on the results, FDP was rated very effective in rationale, participant profiling, content, methodology, assessment tools, workplace application, and resource expertise. However, it was rated effective in areas such as PPST alignment, learning objectives, session outputs, time allocation, learning resources, GESI integration, monitoring and evaluation, budgeting, and program management. Findings underscore the need for alignment with institutional standards, the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST), and the Performance Management System (PMS) of the OP-Siena School System. The study contributes a theorem-based framework for enhancing faculty development tailored to institutional and contextual needs.
Keywords: assessment, effectiveness, faculty development, program, PPST, PMS, Institutional requirements, theorem of improvement
APA (7th edition)
Garcia, R. J. M. (2025). An assessment of the effectiveness of faculty development program at Siena College of San Jose, Inc.: Inputs for improvement. Pedagogy Review, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.62718/vmca.pr-ijetas.6.1.SC-0725-016
– (Not applicable).
This research received no external funding.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This study involved human respondents; however, formal ethical approval was not sought from the authors’ institution. The authors affirm that participation was voluntary, informed consent was obtained, and confidentiality of responses was strictly maintained. No procedures were undertaken that posed risk or harm to the participants.
All data supporting the findings of this study are included within the manuscript and its supplementary materials.
AI-assisted language editing was performed; authors reviewed and approved all content.
– (Not available).
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. The publisher disclaims any responsibility for errors or omissions.