First International Conference on Assessing Quality in Higher Education,2006

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF ACADEMICS

A needs assessment
Zarrin Seema Siddiqui

The Education Centre,

University of Western Australia, Australia
zarrin.siddiqui@.uwa.edu.au

Higher Education Commission, Pakistan

zsiddiqui@.hec.gov.pk

In January 2004, the Higher Education Commission introduced the First Certificate
Course in University Teaching for the faculty in public institutions of higher learning.
The aim was to equip the academics with the knowledge and skills necessary to
enhance the quality of curriculum, teaching, and evaluation. The instructional design
model used to develop the course required needs assessment to determine the
importance, current skill level, and priority of what needed to be learned to be an
effective educator.
The needs assessment was accomplished using two-tier approach. In the first part the
faculty member were requested to identify the areas where they require further
education and training. A list of the identified areas was then developed in the form of
a 20 item self reported questionnaire which was circulated among faculty members.
The sample comprises 736 faculty members in public universities Cronbach’s alpha
for internal consistency of the questionnaire was 0.90. Descriptive statistics and factor
analysis were used to summarize the responses. Five major areas were identified to be
included in the training program. Analyses of Variances were used to identify
significant differences on the basis of different variables, which include gender, age,
designation, qualification and year of experience. The results of the study will be
helpful for the training organizations and institutions of higher learning in laying
down effective educational activities to enhance the skills of their faculty members.

Needs assessment, Faculty development, Higher education, Professional development

Introduction
Higher education, worldwide is facing a number of challenges with increasing societal,
organisational and student demands. This has a direct effect on the academics who are
constantly striving to find ways to improve the effectiveness of their teaching [1]. Most of
the institutions have taken the responsibility to address the professional development needs
of their faculty so the quality of the student learning is not compromised [2]. In Pakistan,
Higher Education Commission was established in 2002 to restructure the higher education
system and faculty development was identified as a critical element in raising standards of
2 Professional Development of Academics

the university education[3]. In support of this statement, the Learning Innovation Division
was created in 2003 to encourage and support faculty and staff teams in developing a high
quality, relevant and efficient learning and teaching culture [4].
With the inception of Learning Innovation Division, intensive faculty development activities
were initiated for public institutions of higher learning. Later it was decided to introduce a
three-month certificate course in university teaching for the faculty members [5]. Based on
the different models of curriculum development the initial questions that needed to be
answered were the objectives of the program and preferred mode of delivery for that
program [6-9]. This required a comprehensive needs assessment which is the first step in the
development of any educational program. Witkins defined needs assessment as a systematic
approach to setting priorities for future action.[10]. Smith stated that sometimes assessment
not only provides allocation of time, money and personnel but also helps in establishing
priorities among possible content areas [11].
Since the need analyses help to answer the relevant questions and can serve as the primary
source of data for program planning a nationwide cross sectional study was undertaken to
develop the training program that is relevant and applicable to the university setting in
Pakistan.

Objectives of the study

1. To explore the needs of faculty and use the needs analyses for the development of
training program.
2. To identify if there are any differences in the training needs on the basis of gender,
highest qualification obtained, experience and age.
3. To determine preferred modes of the delivery of training program.

Method
A two - tier approach was used. From August 2003 – October 2003 the faculty members
attending various educational activities were requested to identify areas for further training
with reference to their teaching. The open- ended comments were used to develop a self-
reported survey questionnaire. The final questionnaire comprised three sections. Section
One requires demographic data, Section two referred to the information technology (IT)
skills while third section dealt with the needs of training with reference to teaching and
learning in higher education. The questionnaire was then distributed among 736-faculty
members who participated in various activities across the country organized by the Higher
Education Commission. The items used in Section three required participants to respond to
each item on a rating scale of 1-5 (1 being not important to 5 being most important). In this
paper the results about the teaching are being discussed... The results of the questionnaire
pertaining to use of IT are being analysed as a separate study.

The quantitative data was analysed using SPSS version 12.00 for Windows. Factor analysis
and descriptive statistics were computed followed by analyses of variances
Siddiqui, ZS 3

Results
736 respondents participated in the study however 702 forms were found to be complete and
hence used for analysis. The profile of the respondents is given in Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha for
internal consistency of the questionnaire was 0.90. Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) consider alpha
coefficients over 0.70 to be adequate for instruments used for general assessment [12].

The results are presented in three sections. In the first section the means of individual items are
calculated and prioritised. In the second section, seventeen content areas are factor analysed while
in the third section comparisons are made between different groups using analysis of
variance.Over all, the mean rating for skills was 3.65 (SD = 1.4) indicating that the respondents
ranked the skills between important to very important.

The Likert scale categories were analysed to identify areas for faculty development. Results were
interpreted as;

High Scoring item if mean score for that particular item was > = 3.0

Low scoring if a mean score was less than 3.0

All of the seventeen statements were identified as very important or important. Communication
skills, assessment and writing research proposal were the top three identified areas. The least
scored item was lecturing to large groups (Table 2).

Table 1: Profile of the Respondents

Number (%)
Respondents 702
Male 411 (58)
Female 291 (42)
Qualifications
Graduate 163 (23)
Masters 450 (64)
MPhil/PhD 89 (12)
Age on last birthday
35 yrs or less 294 (42)
36 – 45 yrs. 225 (32)
Above 45 yrs 183 (26)
Experience in teaching in higher
education
5 yrs or less 242 (35)
more than 5 yrs but less than 15 yrs 181 (26)
more than 15 yrs but less than 25 yrs 180 (26)
above 25 yrs. 99 (13)
Academic rank
Lecturer 429 (61)
Assistant / Associate Prof 217 (31)
Professor 56 (08)
4 Professional Development of Academics

Table 2: Ranking of the needs

Rank Areas Mean (SD) Priority

Male Female
1. Communication skills 4.10 (1.4) 1 1
2. Assessing effectively 4.00 (1.3) 2 3
3. Writing research proposals 3.96 (1.3) 3 5
4. Giving feedback 3.90 (1.3) 5 2
5. Study skill 3.88 (1.3) 4 4
6. Developing instructional resources 3.88 (1.4) 6 6
7. Developing personal scholarship 3.74 (1.4) 8 8
8. Identifying information resources 3.71 (1.5) 9 7
9. Small group teaching 3.65 (1.5) 10 10
10. Assessing small groups 3.62 1.5) 7 13
11. How to orientate students 3.57 (1.5) 12 9
12. Helping learners individually 3.53 (1.4) 14 6
13. using a statistical package 3.53 (1.4) 11 12
14. Handling questions by students 3.51 (1.4) 13 11
15. Managing stress 3.39 ( 1.5) 15 15
16. Asking questions rather than telling 3.15 (1.4) 16 16
17. Lecturing to large group 3.0 (1.5) 17 17

On factor analysis all items loaded above 0.40. A loading of 0.4 for an item to define a
factor is generally recommended. Five factors were identified (Table 3). These five factors
are interpreted as Teaching Large Group, Small group /One on One teaching, Assessment,
Personal skills and Research.
Table 3: Factor Analysis
1. Large group teaching
Lecturing to large group .85
Orientation of students .82
Handling questions by students .73
Developing instructional resources .65
Asking questions rather than telling .60
2. Small group/One on one teaching
Small group teaching .85
Communication skills .75
Giving feedback .64
Helping learner individually .69
3. Assessment
Assessing effectively .85
Assessing small groups .82
4. Personal skills
Managing stress .62
Study skills .60
Developing personal scholarship .47
5. Research
Writing Research proposals .74
Using statistical packages .70
Identifying information resources .65
Siddiqui, ZS 5

Table 4 gives the mean score (scale 1 – 5), standard deviation and Cronbach’s alpha of the five
factors. The mean score varied from 3.4 to 3.7. All five factors have reliable alpha coefficients.
The correlation between five factors varied from 0.64 to 0.70

Table 4: Mean Scores, standard deviation and coefficient alpha for each factor
Factor
Mean SD alpha
1. Large group teaching 3.41 1.0 0.73
2. Small group/One on one teaching 3.80 1.2 0.82
3. Assessment 3.81 1.2 0.65
4. Personal skills 3.66 1.1 0.73
5. Research 3.73 1.2 0.80

Simple main effects for the five factors across gender showed significant differences on two
factors i.e. large group teaching (p< .05) and small group/ one on one teaching (p <.005). Female
academics rated both of the factors highly than male colleagues (Fig: 1).

4
Large_Group
3.9 Small_Group
Personal Skills
3.8 Research
Assessment
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
Male Female

Figure 1: Mean ratings of factors on the basis of gender

To gain a better understanding of gender differences all individual items were analysed using
Kruskal Wallis Test. Seven items with significant differences were identified (Table.5).

Table 5: Significant differences in mean ranking of needs

Needs Male Female P value
1. Asking questions rather than telling 3.03 3.31 0.008
2. Handling questions by students 3.41 3.65 0.018
3. How to orientate students 3.45 3.75 0.011
4. Developing instructional resources 3.75 4.0 0.043
5. Communication skills 3.9 4.26 0.004
6. Giving Feedback 3.77 4.08 0.002
7. Helping learners individually 3.39 3.86 0.000

The ratings are also affected by the last qualification obtained in one-area i.e. personal skills (Fig).
There was a gradual decrease in rating as level of qualification increases, F = 3.575, p<0.05.
The other interesting differences are found on the basis of age. The academics belonging to older
age group i.e. above 45 years rated Research skills lower than the other groups of respondents
6 Professional Development of Academics

df=3, F = 3.529, p< 0.05. The same finding was observed when data was analysed using teaching
experience and designation as variables. Furthermore those with less teaching experience rated
teaching in small group/ one on one higher than those with more experience df=3, F=2.794,
p< 0.05.
The last objective of the study was to identify the preferred delivery mode for the course.
Respondents were asked to indicate the preferred delivery method from a list of four possible
methods. Majority of the respondents (83%) identified traditional face to face training activities as
compared to other modes (Fig. 2).

Figure 2: Preferred modes of delivery (%)

Advice by phone, E-mail, Yes

or through electronic 35 45 No
discussion lists

Open or flexible learning

supported wholly online
35 42

A blended model of
learning
51 29

Traditional Face to Face 83 17

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Discussion
Communication skills have been identified as the most important area for the professional
development. This reflects on the general status of the teaching of communication skills at
both undergraduate and postgraduate levels in Pakistan and the quality of graduates thus
produced. These graduates later assume the responsibility of teaching and apparently feel
that they are not equipped with the necessary communication skills. Research on
communication competency of the faculty has identified that learners can be motivated to
learn by competent communicators and has got a positive relationship with the students’
learning and teaching effectiveness [13-15]. At the same time if we look at the individual
items such as asking questions, handling questions by students and providing feedback, they
all somehow may fit into the domain of communication competency of the academics.
Similarly skills in providing feedback and assessment are already identified in the literature
as important areas for the faculty development [16].
Large group lecturing got the lowest ranking which may be because of the fact that most of
the teaching in Pakistan is still teacher centred carried out in a traditional way. Therefore it
can be safely assumed that all the respondents have been exposed to the large group
teaching and feel at much ease as compared to other areas in the questionnaire.
Although the ranking of items did not differ much for the gender the female tend to rate the
items slightly higher than male.
Siddiqui, ZS 7

It is also observed that different variables affect the rating of the identified factors however one
factor remains constant i.e. Assessment. The Faculty as a whole has identified assessment as
one of the important areas irrespective of gender, age, teaching experience, qualification and
designation. Assessment affects the students ‘lives and careers’ and it is the responsibility of
faculty to ensure a reliable and valid assessment of learning outcomes [17]. If academics are
more knowledgeable and use better assessment techniques they will be contributing towards a
better learning environment [18].
Similarly there are differences in needs based on age, experience and academic rank and it is
observed that even experienced academics have development needs and require new
knowledge and skills. Personal skills were ranked higher among the academics with a graduate
qualification. This can be explained that the intensive research, individual supervision and
study experience in higher research degrees may inculcate this set of skills among the
academics as compared to those at graduate level.
The preferred learning mode has been identified as face to face. Although at the moment
distance learning and flexible learning options are gaining popularity across the globe it might
not be the case with the academics and their comfort level is still high with traditional model,
which requires face-to-face contact with the trainers and the group. Finally a lot of changes
have been incorporated during last two years since this need analyses was conducted so there
may be a process of change in attitudes and preferences over the time and need to be re-
examined.

Conclusion
A comprehensive needs assessment does not ensure a successful course or training program but
it is one of the critical steps followed for the development of any training activity . This is the
first cross-disciplinary needs assessment in Pakistan undertaken for the development of
academics in institutions of higher learning. Results from the survey demonstrated the interest
of faculty in different areas including instructional skills during different levels of teaching,
assessment, research and personal skills. It is also evident form the analyses that no one
program will be comprehensive enough to address the needs of faculty at varied level of
experience and qualifications but it needs to be flexible enough to address the needs of the
group attending the program. The results assisted in successful planning and implementation of
the First Certificate in University Teaching Program, by the Higher Education Commission and
the author was finally able to establish the content of program spread over three month
duration. The weighting and proportion of the content slightly varied as far as the contact hours
were concerned. Similarly about twenty hours time in each course was kept aside to address the
needs and interest of the group in attendance.

Limitations
Most of the educational activities undertaken by the Learning Innovation are targeted towards
relatively new faculty members, young faculty with less experience in teaching was the largest
number of the respondents and this may have influenced the results. Second the respondents
are the participants of educational meetings and activities there may be an assumption that this
sample represents already motivated group for professional development.
8 Professional Development of Academics

Acknowledgment
The Learning Innovation Division through National Teachers Training Project Phase Two
provided the funding for the study. The author highly acknowledges the support provided by
Dr. Sohail H Naqvi, the Executive Director, HEC. Thanks are also due to Naveed Shah,
statistician at HEC for the data compilation and to all the respondents for their participation.

Biographical note
At the time of study, Dr. Zarrin S Siddiqui was working as the Director General, Learning
Innovation at Higher Education Commission, which is an autonomous body to restructure
Higher Education in Pakistan.
zarrin.siddiqui@uwa.edu.au
Siddiqui, ZS 9

References

1. Brancato, V.C., Professional Development in Higher Education. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 2003. 98: p. 59 - 65.
2. Gillepsi, K., L. Hilsen, and W. E, A Guide to Faculty Development: Practical Advice, Examples, and
Resources. 2002, Bolton, Mass: Anker.
3. Medium Term Development Framework 2005 - 2010. 2004, Higher Education Commission:
Islamabad.
4. Siddiqui, Z., Learning Innovation, in HEC Annual Report 2002 - 2003, S. Naqvi, Editor. 2004, Higher
Education Commission: Islamabad.
5. Siddiqui, Z.S., Learning Innovation 2003 - 2004. 2004, Learning Innovation Department, Higher
Education Commission: Islamabad.
6. Harden, R., Ten questions to ask when planning a course or curriculum. Medical Education, 1986. 20(4):
p. 356 - 365.
7. Posner, G., ed. Models of Curriculum Planning. The Curriculum, ed. L. Beyer and M. Apple. 1998,
Suny Press: Albany NY.
8. Tyler, R., Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. 1949, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9. Dick, W. and L. Carey, The systematic design of instruction. Third ed. 1990, Glenview, IL: Scott
Foresman.
10. Witkin, B., Assessing needs in educational and social programs. 1984, San Francisco: Jossey - Bass.
11. Smith, I.K., J.O. Smith, and G.R. Ross, Needs assessment: an overview for health educators. 1982.
12. Nunnally, J. and I. Bernstiein, Psychometric Theory. Third ed. 1994, New York: McGraw-Hill.
13. Blatt, S.J. and C. Benz, The Relationship of Communication Competency to Perceived Teacher
Effectiveness. 1993.
14. Haun, M.W., Communication Competency through Faculty Development. 1990.
15. Rubin, R.B. and J.D. Feezel, Elements of Teacher Communication Competence: An Examination of Skills,
Knowledge and Motivation to Communicate. 1984.
16. Ballantyne, R., J. Borthwick, and J. Packer, Beyond Student Evaluation of Teaching: identifying and
addressing academic staff development neeeds. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 2000.
25(3): p. 221 - 235.
17. Murray, H., et al., Ethical Principles in University Teaching. 1996, Society for Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, Centre for the Support of Teaching, York University, 4700 Keele St., North
York, Ontario M3J 1P3, Canada. p. 13.
18. Gullickson, A., Teacher Education and Teacher - Perceived Needs in Educational Measurement and
Evaluation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1986. 23(4): p. 347 - 354.

ICAQHE 2006