Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

Situation Analysis Some of humanitys greatest achievements were made possible by the bold imaginations of engineers. If not for the creativity and intellectual daring of engineers, there would be no feats such as the pyramids in Egypt, the Brooklyn Bridge or piloted spaceflight (Stark, 2009). Increasingly, engineering prowess is seen as a key to the progress of civilization. Engineering has never mattered more. The explosion of new information technologies, robotics, biotechnology, the increased blending of invention with scientific discovery: these are powerfully affecting every area of life, often in unexpected ways. Information technologies are not only speeding communication, but also creating upheavals in how work is carried out and how business is organized worldwide. Environmental and societal issues require local and global solutions. Engineers, at work at the center of all these developments, are also essential to efforts to grapple with the ramifying consequences of such rapid innovation. What engineers know and can do are critical resources for the world. The intensified, global chase after greater economic value has placed a premium on technological innovation. Engineering prowess is ever more tightly connected to economic vitality through technological

innovation. With such a vortex of change in the world of engineering, it is not surprising that leaders in government and industry- the primary employers of engineers- have undertaken serious efforts to understand what is happening to engineering practice and the knowledge on which it draws (Sheppard, et al., 2009). Universities and colleges have always played a pivotal role in training engineers since engineering is such a challenging and

demanding field of study. It is a process that applies mathematics and science to create, design, test, improve and develop a product, service or technology for the benefit of society. It involves areas of expertise that continue to evolve independently yet are required to perform together as part of the engineering process. In addition to providing the

environments and opportunities necessary for learning, engineering schools continually and collaborate engineering with professional boards engineering to develop

organizations

accreditation

engineering programs that are up to date and compatible with the everchanging needs of modern society (Schiavone, 2002). However, in a study conducted, the researchers found out that in the midst of a profound, worldwide transformation in the engineering profession, undergraduate engineering education in the United States is holding on to an approach to problem solving and knowledge acquisition that is consistent with practice that the profession has left behind. Specifically, the researchers found out that undergraduate engineering

education in the United States emphasizes primarily the acquisition of technical knowledge, distantly followed by preparation for professional practice. Furthermore, the researchers found out that the dominant curricular model does not reflect what the body of research on learning suggests about how students learn and develop and how experts are formed (Sheppard, et al., 2009). In the Philippines, engineering was the fourth most popular program in the undergraduate level during the school year 2004 2005, attracting 14% of the total number of students. The other popular programs were Business Administration (22%), Medical Sciences (17%), Education (16%) and Mathematics and Computer Science (9%). In fact, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) considers Engineering as one of the priority disciplines. Like the other branches of engineering, civil engineers are trained in institutions of higher education. According to CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 29, series of 2007, Policies and Standards for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, civil engineers are concerned with flood controls, landslide, air and water pollution, and the design of facilities to withstand earthquakes and other natural hazards. They apply the basic principles of Science in conjunction with mathematical and computational tools to solve problems associated with developing and sustaining civilized life on our planet. Some of the most common examples of civil engineering works include bridges, buildings, dams,

airports, ports and harbors, highways, tunnels, towers and water distribution systems (www.ched.gov.ph). However, according to Dr. Romeo Estaero (2009), executive director of the Association of Civil Engineering Educators of the Philippines (ACEEP), While some schools strive to impart to their students the skills, and develop the tools, that they need in their practice of the chosen profession, it is sad to note that some merely train their students to pass the licensure examinations. Being a measure of the basic knowledge in civil engineering that one gets mostly from the educational training, passing the licensure examinations only gives the civil engineering graduate the legal right to practice the profession. Knowing the tools and developing the skills in using these tools ought to be given primary importance, passing the licensure examinations is only secondary. In fact, according to CMO No. 29, series of 2007, a graduate of the Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering (BSCE) program must attain: a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, physical sciences, engineering sciences to the practice of civil engineering; b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data; c. An ability to design, build, improve, and install systems or processes which meet desired needs within realistic constraints; d. An ability to work effectively in multi-disciplinary and multicultural teams; e. An ability to recognize, formulate, and solve civil engineering problems;

f. An understanding of the effects and impact of civil engineering projects on nature and society, and of the civil engineers social and ethical responsibilities; g. Specialized engineering knowledge in each applicable field, and the ability to apply such knowledge to provide solutions to actual problems; h. An ability to effectively communicate orally and in writing using the English language; i. An ability to engage in life-long learning and an acceptance of the need to keep current of the development in the specific field of specialization; j. An ability to use the appropriate techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for the practice of civil engineering; and k. A knowledge of contemporary issues. Estaero (2009) emphasized that the success in the practice of the civil engineering (CE) profession depends firstly and fundamentally on the extent and quality of the civil engineering training that one gets from the academic institutions offering civil engineering programs. Saint Louis College (SLC) of San Fernando City, La Union is one of the higher education institutions in Northern Luzon that offers BSCE. In fact, it is the only higher education institution in La Union that offers BSCE.

Though it has no competitors in the province, the Civil Engineering Department (CE Department) of SLC strives hard to meet national standards. As a proof, its BSCE Program passed the Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities (PAASCU) Accreditation last December 2008 and was re-accredited Level II for five years, until May 2014. As a Level II Program, the BSCE Program of SLC is at par with the other institutions in the National Capital Region that offer BSCE. Another national standards-measuring instrument wherein the CE Department of SLC has proven its prowess is the Licensure Examination for Civil Engineers. Since the first batch of BSCE graduates of SLC took the Licensure Examination for Civil Engineers on October 1983, SLCs passing rate has been generally higher than the national passing rate, except for four exam periods, May 2003, May 2006, May 2009 and May 2010. Remarkably, the first batch of examinees from SLC garnered a 100% passing rate. SLC has also produced ten board placers, one of whom was a First Placer. In May 2001, SLC was the 3rd Top Performing School Nationwide. In November 2003, it was the 11th Top Performing School Nationwide and the 1st Top Performing School for Cordillera Administrative Region and Region I. An analysis of the passing rate of SLC in the licensure examination for civil engineers for the past three years reveals that SLC has continued its tradition of excellence, as shown by the table below.

Table 1. Saint Louis College Passing Rate and National Passing Rate in the Licensure Examination for Civil Engineers Examination Date November May 2011 November May 2010 November May 2009 November May 2008 2011 2010 2009 2008 Saint Louis College Passing Rate (%) 60.00 62.50 55.56 26.67 66.67 38.89 42.55 45.83 National Passing Rate (%) 34.28 38.34 40.60 36.28 40.91 43.71 34.62 36.66

The table above reveals that SLC performed satisfactorily in the Licensure Examination for the past three years since its passing rate was generally higher than the national passing rate, except for May 2009 and May 2010. Remarkably, in November 2009, November 2010, May 2011 and November 2011, SLC scored above the fifty percent mark. Another vital indicator for the success of a program is the employability of its graduates. And the feat of the CE Department of SLC is again commendable. In a study conducted by Bangud, et al. (2006), the researchers found out that majority of the CE graduates of SLC, Batch 2004 and 2005, were employed in jobs related to their profession. They further revealed that all the employed graduates were absorbed into the industry within one year after graduation. Likewise, Betis, et al. (2006) disclosed that seventy-five percent of the CE graduates of SLC, Batch 2002 and 2003, were employed and majority of them were applying their knowledge and skills in planning, design, estimate, construction and installation.

Furthermore, Ibay, et al. (2007) found out that a great majority of the engineering and architecture graduates of SLC, Batch 2001 to Batch 2004, were presently employed and majority of them had occupations related to their courses. It is worthwhile to note that majority of their respondents were CE graduates. Just like any other institution of higher education, the success of the CE students of SLC depends firstly and fundamentally on the extent and quality of the training they have obtained. And the quality of education depends largely on the qualifications and competencies of the faculty (www.ched.gov.ph). Though the CE Program of SLC has produced competitive graduates, as substantiated by the results of the Licensure Examinations and by the researches on their employability, and though the standards of the aforementioned program are at par with national standards, there are still many things to improve on its instructional component, particularly on the instructional performance of the faculty. On May 31, 2011, the researcher, through Facebook chat, asked some CE students of SLC to comment on the quality of instruction of their CE instructors in general (see Appendix A). Based from their responses, it can be deduced that some of the instructors are commendable in their teaching performance, thus, they have won the admiration and respect of their students. However, the methods and

techniques of teaching and evaluation of some instructors are contrary to the accepted principles and theories. Indeed, there are problems regarding the instructional performance of the CE instructors of SLC. This is not unusual since the instructors are graduates of a technical course, BSCE, and not education. Thus, they are trained to design structures and not to teach. Since some had taken a considerable number of education units, and they have been in the academe for a substantial number of years already, their teaching prowess have improved considerably already. Thus, they are now able to win the admiration of their students. For the majority, they are previously connected with a civil engineering firm and have decided to become private practitioners and have entered the teaching field for additional income and for professional growth as well. Before, they used to face engineering softwares such as the AutoCad, the STAAD and the Microsoft Excel, which are programmed to perform specific engineering functions; the calculator, which can yield a precise answer in a split of a second; and the construction site, which is composed of skilled workers who can perform their jobs at minimal supervision. Now, they are facing college students and teenagers with different learning needs and styles, different family backgrounds, different aspirations in life and different personalities.

10

Conceptual Framework The quality of education depends largely on the qualifications and competencies of instructors. Low teacher qualification inevitably leads to low standards of learning achievement among students

(www.ched.gov.ph). According to Dougherty, as cited by Torcedo (2008), teacher quality is the most critical factor in academic achievement. Moreover, according to Hammond-Darling, as cited by Torcedo (2008), teacher expertise is the most important factor in student achievement. In fact, a review that looked at 40 years of educational innovations in the United States, did not find a single innovation that increased student achievement. It, instead, found out that the only factor that can create student achievement is a knowledgeable and skillful teacher. The review also showed that teachers preparation is one of the strongest predictors of student achievement and that teacher expertise is the single most important factor in determining student achievement (Wong, Harry and Rosemary, as cited by Torcedo, 2008). According Shulman and Hutchings, as cited by McCarthy (2008), all faculty have an obligation to teach well. Engineering instructors are not exempted from the principles mentioned earlier. According to Sheppard, et al. (2009), the engineering faculty are the primary architects of a revitalized approach to preparing the next generations of engineers. It is the energy, creativity and initiative of the faculty that will determine how the programs might be made more

11

integrated and cohesive. It is the job of the engineering faculty to fan the creative fire, feed technological curiosity and foster the social

responsibility of the next generation of men and women engineers. Engineering instructors are not trained to teach. They are trained to create, design, test, improve and develop products and services (Schiavone, 2002). Instructional training is therefore vital for engineering instructors. Training develops employees, improves their performance and raises their morale. In turn, the effectiveness of the organization and the productivity of the business are increased (Chapman, 2010). Training, according to Mendoza (2009), is a planned and systematic effort to modify or develop knowledge, skills, and attitudes to achieve effective performance in an activity or range of activities. Its purpose, in the work situation, is to enable an individual to acquire abilities or competencies in order that he or she can perform adequately a given task or job. The first step in any training program is to determine whether training is needed and, if needed, specify what training should be accomplished. An analysis of the existing needs for training within an organization will identify the performance areas or programs where training should be applied. A needs analysis gathers information about present practices and compares these practices to the desired way of doing business. The difference between where you are now and where

12

you want to be defines where a training program should concentrate its effort (Mitchell, 1993). This is true for educators. According to the Graduand Teacher Competencies Framework (GTCF), to develop competence, teachers need to progress from awareness to capacity building. The GTCF can help teachers identify the competencies they need and continue to build on them throughout their teaching career, through practice and professional development. Some practical ways of bringing up awareness-level competencies to capacity building would be through induction and mentoring within the school, professional development courses, or learning with more experienced teachers through professional learning communities (Goh, 2009). But what are the competencies educators need? According to Low, et al. (2009), 21st century educators should possess the following core competencies: professional practice, leadership and management, and personal effectiveness. A teacher who has Professional Practice seizes every opportunity to encourage learning, believing that all students can learn. And learning is not limited to the classroom. To this end, the teacher takes every opportunity to improve on his or her own professional practice in order to provide quality learning. A teacher who possesses Leadership and Management is a leader who wins the hearts and minds of the students. Such a teacher sees the value in developing and working with others, including parents and colleagues, and actively

13

seeks out opportunities for professional collaboration within and beyond the school. A teacher who has Personal Effectiveness understands the importance of developing oneself before he or she is able to provide support for others. A teacher maintains high standards of personal and professional integrity when carrying out all duties and responsibilities. Moreover, according to Santopoalo (2008), there are 10 Core Competencies that constitute the body of knowledge adjunct faculty need to function effectively as educators in higher education settings. These core competencies are designed to address the general population of adjunct faculty regardless of the discipline they teach; the level of their students; or the setting where learning occurs. These core competencies are: 1. Maintain current knowledge needed to teach ones subject matter; 2. Construct course content aligning objectives, methodology, and evaluation that supports the learning objectives of the higher education setting; 3. Manage the learning environment with a student-centered focus; 4. Employ appropriate teaching strategies that actively engage

students and achieve desired outcomes; 5. Adapt teaching style to accommodate different student learning styles; 6. Interact effectively with a diverse student population;

14

7. Incorporate instructional technology to support the learning process; 8. Provide student feedback in a manner that supports learning; 9. Select and implement appropriate assessment methods to evaluate student learning; and 10. Apply assessment results to improve teaching effectiveness. The competencies needed by educators should be developed. The Faculty Development Program is a critical factor towards building the strong foundation of an educational system to ensure quality education (www.ched.gov.ph). Recent researches on professional development opportunities reveal the importance of quality professional development. Teachers should work together to design and implement professional development based on shared concerns and strengths. Promising professional development programs are evaluated ultimately on the basis of their impact on teacher effectiveness and student learning, and this assessment (www.ed.gov). Therefore, to ensure quality education among the CE students of SLC, their faculty should be competent instructors. And to become competent, the instructors should be aware of the competencies they need and should develop these competencies. To develop the needed competencies, they should undergo trainings. Before these trainings would be carried out, needs-analysis should first be accomplished. guides subsequent professional development efforts

15

Trainings will not only be beneficial to the instructors but for SLC as well because the performance of the instructors will be enhanced and more students will be enrolling in the program, thus, the productivity of the institution is increased. A schematic presentation of this study is illustrated in an inputprocess-output model. The input consisted of the instructors profile; level of instructional performance as perceived by students and instructors themselves; and extent of organizational capability of the CE department of SLC. Analysis of the inputs became the basis for determining the capabilities and needs of the instructors along instruction. Based on the instructional needs, a training design was formulated. This training program was validated in terms of face and content. Finally, the output, which was anchored on the input and process, is a validated training design which addresses the instructional needs of CE instructors of SLC. The paradigm of the study is shown in Figure 1.

16
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

1.

2.

3.

Instructors' Profile a. highest educational attainment b. licensure examination c. number of years in the industry d. number of education units earned e. number of years in teaching CE-related subjects f. number of teaching units g. number of teaching preparations h. number of workrelated trainings and seminars attended for the past five years Instructors Level of Instructional Performance as perceived by students and instructors themselves along: a. Personal Characteristics b. Teaching Efficiency b.1. Teaching Procedure b.2. Substantiality of Teaching b.3. Evaluation c. Punctuality and Use of Class Time Extent of Organizational Capability of the CE Department of SLC in terms of: a. Licensure Examination b. Facilities and Equipment c. Linkages

1.

2. 3.

Analysis along instructors a. Profile b. Level of Instructional Performance c. Capabilities and Needs along instruction Documentary Analysis Formulation and Validation of Instructional Training Design

Validated instructional training design which addresses the instructional needs of civil engineering instructors of SLC

F E E D B A C K Figure 1. Research Paradigm

17

Statement of the Problem This study determined the instructional competencies of the CE instructors of SLC as a basis for an instructional training design. Specifically, it answered the following questions: 1. What is the profile of the CE instructors in terms of: a. highest educational attainment b. licensure examination c. number of years in the industry d. number of education units earned e. number of years in teaching CE-related subjects f. number of teaching units g. number of teaching preparations h. number of work-related trainings and seminars attended for the past five years h.1. international h.2. national h.3. regional h.4. local 2. What is the level of instructional performance of the CE as perceived by the students and instructors

instructors

themselves along: a. personal characteristics b. teaching efficiency

18

b.1. teaching procedure b.2. substantiality of teaching b.3. evaluation c. punctuality and use of class time? 3. What is the extent of organizational capability of the CE

Department of SLC in terms of: a. Licensure Examination b. Facilities and Equipment c. Linkages 4. What are the capabilities and needs of the CE instructors

along instruction? 5. What validated instructional training design can be

formulated for the CE instructors of SLC?

Hypothesis 1. The profile of the CE instructors are as follows: a. Fifty percent of the CE instructors are masters degree holders. b. Fifty percent of the CE instructors are board examination passers. c. Fifty percent of the CE instructors have been in the industry for more than five years. d. Fifty percent of the CE instructors have earned at least eighteen education units.

19

e. Fifty percent of the CE instructors have been teaching civil engineering-related subjects for more than five years. f. Fifty percent of the CE instructors have more than twenty four teaching units. g. Fifty percent of the CE instructors have more than three teaching preparations. h. Fifty percent of the CE instructors have attended at least one work-related training and/or seminar for the past five years. 2. The CE instructors level of instructional performance as perceived by the students and instructors themselves along: a. personal characteristics is moderate. b. teaching efficiency is moderate. c. punctuality and use of class time is moderate. 3. The extent of organizational capability of the CE Department of SLC are as follows: a. The CE Department of SLC performed satisfactorily in the Licensure Examination for the past three years. b. The CE Department of SLC has adequate facilities and equipment. c. The CE Department of SLC has adequate linkages. 4. The capabilities of the CE instructors lie in mastery of subject matter inclusive of recent developments, relating the subject matter to other fields and practices, conduct and return of

20

evaluation materials, and punctuality and use of class time. The needs of the CE instructors lie in teachers personal

characteristics, methods and techniques in teaching, motivation for learning and critical reflection, relationship with students, general atmosphere in class, stress on essentials, appraisal questions, and assignment/enrichment activities. 5. A training design with high validity which addresses the

instructional needs of CE instructors can be proposed.

Importance of the Study This study is expected to benefit the CE academic community and other stakeholders in the following manner. To CHED, especially the technical panel for engineering, the findings of this study will guide the Commission in formulating programs, policies and memos that will improve the implementation of engineering education among higher education institutions. To planners of the CE curriculum, the results of the study will help them design a better curriculum for the benefit of both the students and the instructors. To school administrators, the findings of this study will enable them to design programs and activities aimed at enhancing the capabilities and minimizing the weaknesses of the CE faculty. It will also guide them in their decision making on matters that concern the CE

21

faculty and students such as hiring of new faculty members, loading of instructors, approving trainings and seminars for instructors and procuring textbooks and other instructional materials. To CE instructors, the proposed training design will help them improve their performance along instruction. It will provide them a sense of direction and positive outlook towards college teaching. It will motivate them to upgrade and update their teaching competencies. Furthermore, it will make them fully aware of their adequacy, or inadequacy, as a college teacher; thus, it will motivate them to become responsible in improving themselves continuously so that they can render maximum service, which in turn, will ultimately redound to their own personal satisfaction. They will not only experience professional growth but will also receive tangible benefits commensurate to their performance like promotions. To CE students, the proposed training design will help them in their holistic development as a professional since they will be under the tutelage of the CE faculty whose expertise in instruction will be enhanced. It will pave the way for a more wholesome learning experience since their instructors teaching methods and procedures will be improved. Moreover, they will be more prepared to face the challenges and needs of their chosen profession once they are employed since learning will be more effective.

22

To

SLC,

the

proposed

training

design,

once

adopted

and

implemented by the institution, will improve the CE instruction in the institution. This, in turn, will lead to an increase in enrollment in the BSCE program, increase in the percentage passing of the institution in the CE licensure examination and better performance of the CE alumni in the industry. To the researcher, the training design will provide a venue for performance improvement along the area of instruction. Furthermore, this study will serve as a challenge to him as he endeavors to enhance his own performance as a CE instructor. Lastly, to the future researchers, this study will guide them to conduct studies that will further improve instruction, not only in CE, but also in other fields of engineering.

Definition of Terms The different terms used in this study are operationally defined to promote clarity and understanding. Capabilities. These are the identified strengths of the instructors along instruction and refers to the teaching competencies in the questionnaire which were rated 90 and above by the respondents. Civil Engineering (CE) Instructors. These are the full-time college faculty members who are civil engineers and are teaching CE subjects.

23

Full-time faculty members, as defined in this study, are those who have more than seventeen teaching units. Civil Engineering (CE) Department. This is one of the academic units of Saint Louis College which is responsible for the execution of the BSCE Program. Instruction. This is the process of imparting content knowledge, developing skills and values of learners through activities and exposures provided by the instructors. Instructional Performance. This refers to the quality of teaching execution as perceived by the respondents. Its evaluation is divided into three dimensions, namely: personal characteristics, teaching efficiency and punctuality and use of class time. Personal characteristics refers to personal attributes of the faculty which are believed to have an influence in their teaching processes. Teaching efficiency refers to the body of instructional skills possessed by the faculty in carrying out their teaching functions. It is divided into three dimensions, namely: teaching procedure, substantiality of teaching and evaluation. Teaching procedure refers to how the instructors execute their lessons. Substantiality of teaching refers to the contents of the lessons prepared by the instructors. Evaluation refers to the methods by which the instructors test how much their students have learned. Punctuality and use of class time refers to the practice of instructors in relation to time management.

24

Needs. This refers to the identified weaknesses of the instructors along instruction. These are the teaching competencies in the

questionnaire which are rated 89 and below by the respondents. Organizational Capability. This refers to the capacity of the CE Department relative to its internal and external resources. It has three indicators, namely, licensure examination, facilities and equipment, and linkages. Licensure Examination refers to a national examination administered by the Board of CE of the Professional Regulation Commission. Passing it is one of the requirements before a CE graduate will be issued a professional license which in turn will give the bearer the legal right to practice his/her profession. Facilities and Equipment refers to the materials and tools needed in the study of the civil engineering discipline. Linkages refers to companies, organizations and institutions that the CE Department of SLC has connections with. Profile. This refers to the professional-related variables. It includes the following: Highest Educational Attainment refers to the highest degree earned by the instructors; Licensure Examination refers to the national examination administered by the Board of Civil Engineering of the Professional Regulation Commission; Number of Years in the Industry refers to the length of time spent by the instructor offering professional services such as design, consultations, construction

administration and observation, structural remediation or rehabilitation, environmental assessments, etc; Number of Education Units Earned

25

refers to the number of units taken by the instructor relative to college teaching such as Methodology of College Teaching, Assessment,

Counseling, etc; Number of Years in Teaching Civil EngineeringRelated Subjects refers to the length of time spent by the instructor teaching technical subjects of the BSCE Program; Number of Teaching Units refers to the number of teaching hours rendered by the civil engineering instructors per week (One lecture hour per week is equal to one teaching unit whereas three laboratory hours per week is equal to 2.25 teaching units); Number of Teaching Preparations refers to the number of subjects taught by the instructors for a particular semester (The course content of one subject should be different from the other subjects handled during the semester by the instructor to be considered as one preparation. For example, if three subjects have similar course contents, then the three subjects are considered as one preparation only); and Number of Work-Related Trainings and Seminars Attended for the Past Five Years refers to the number of trainings and seminars attended by the civil engineering instructors which are related to either the civil engineering profession or to teaching or both since the civil engineering instructors are both civil engineers and teachers. Saint Louis College (SLC). This refers to the higher education institution in the City of San Fernando, La Union, run by the CICM (Congregatio Immaculati Cordis Mariae) Fathers. It is one of the very few

26

institutions offering Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering in the Ilocos Region. Training Design. This refers to the process of providing the CE instructors with information and developing their skills through a designed program, which includes activities aimed at enhancing their capabilities and minimizing their weaknesses along instruction. Validation. This is the process of establishing the accuracy of the proposed training design. It has two components, namely: face validity and content validity. Face validity refers to the degree of orderliness of the proposed training program. Content validity refers to the

functionality, acceptability, appropriateness, timeliness, implementability and sustainability of the training program.