Exploring the Higher Education Faculty’s Performance Evaluation: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Establishing standards in evaluating Higher Education Faculty ensures fairness, consistency, and effectiveness in Lourdes College’s academic and human resource processes. This study empirically validated the evaluation instrument used for assessing faculty performance. The instrument originally had six standards with 43 indicators and was tested on 130 faculty members across programs. To address the limited sample size, 5000 bootstrapping resamples were employed to improve stability and reliability. Confirmatory Factor Analysis results showed an acceptable model fit based on CFI, RMSEA, PClose, Cmin/df, and SRMR. After analysis, 26 indicators remained. Findings confirm that the standards demonstrating core values of faith, excellence, and service; communicating the school’s philosophy, vision, mission, goals, and objectives; applying the RVM Pedagogy; demonstrating effective communication; creating and maintaining productive learning environments; and assessing and adapting instruction are valid measures for evaluating higher education faculty performance.

Education

1. Chavez, Judith and Napiere, Miguela. (2018). Developing a scale to measure implementation of a pedagogy. ASEAN Journal of Education (July-December 2018), 4(2): 15-21. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Guillano, Rufina. (2014). The RVM Pedagogy. Lourdes College Administrative Manual, 2016 edition. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Hattie, John (2023). Visible learning: The sequel: A synthesis of over 2, 100 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003380542. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Hu, L. and Bentler, P. (1999), Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Lickona, Thomas. (1991). Educating for character: How schools can teach respect and responsibility. Available at: eric.ed.gov/?id=ED337451. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Polancos, D., Cinches, MF and Ortiz, R. (2013). The reliability and validity of student assessment of teacher performance (SATP) scale: A confirmatory factor analysis. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283385403. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2000). The impact of teacher immediacy and clarity on student learning: A synthesis of research. In J. C. McCroskey & V. P. Richmond (Eds.), The handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 209–224). Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Senge, Peter (1990). The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization. Currency Doubleday. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Shellard, E., & Protheroe, N. (2000). Effective teaching: How do we know it when we see it? The Informed Educator Series. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (Expanded 2nd ed.). ASCD [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study