PASIONA, Betty B. University of Nueva Caceres, Naga City
Keywords: Institutional thrust and performance
This study attempted to determine the relationship between the institutional thrust and teacher education performance in selected state universities and colleges in Region V, A/Y 2001-2002. The specific problems were: 1) what are the institutional thrust in these schools? 2) What is the performance of these schools along instruction, research, extension, and production? 3) Is there a relationship between institutional thrusts and teacher performance? 4) Are there institutional factors associated with teacher performance? 5) are there significant differences among the three types of SUCs in terms of institutional thrusts?
The descriptive-correlational and documentary method were used in this study with 7 deans, 167 faculty members and 695 students as respondents. The descriptive method was used to assess the institutional thrusts and performance of the teacher training institutions while the correlational technique was used to determine the relationship between the institutional thrusts and performance and the association of institutional factors with performance.
Major findings of this study were: 1) In the three types of SUCs, agricultural (A), comprehensive (B), and technology (C), instruction was top priority; production was last priority in A and C; while research was last priority in B. Along instruction, instructional methodology ranked first in A,B, and C; the lowest curriculum and program of study. Along research, the highest was priorities and relevance in A and C, funding/ resources in B, least perceived were incentives/ staff development in A and B, funding/ resources in C. Along extension, ranked first were priorities and relevance in A and C, incentives /staff development in B; lowest were funding/ resources in A and c, priorities and relevance in B. Along production, ranked first was incentives/staff development in A and C, funding/resources in B; ranked last was funding/ resources in A and C, priorities and relevance in B; 2) The average graduation rates in A, B, and C were 83.60%, 89.44%, and 89.67%, respectively and the average L.E.T. passing rates were 42.47%, 56.47, and 65.90%, respectively. 3) There was a significant relationship between institutional thrust and performance kin instruction, research and extension. 4) Managerial skills of the Dean was significantly associated with performance in instruction in terms of teachers' performance and L.E.T. passing rate and with extension; while instructional resources was not significantly differences in the institutional thrusts in the three types of SUCs as shown by F-value of 60.75 for the variance among SUCs and the F-value of 34.41 for the variance among the thrusts.
Major conclusions were: 1) Instruction was the most prioritized in the three types of SUCs, A,B, and C, least prioritized was curriculum; production was least prioritized in schools A and C and funding as the least provided; research, least prioritized in school B and incentives/ staff development as the least provided. 2) Teachers' performance, very satisfactory in schools A, B, C; graduation rates in A, B and C were lower than the national rate; however, L.E.T. passing rates were higher than the national passing rate; research performance was good in school C, poor in B, very poor in A whereas in school B extension was best, followed by schools a and by C. 3) Institutional thrusts determined the performance in instruction in terms of teachers' performance and L.E.T. passing rate, and in research and extension. 4) The following institutional factors had positive effects on performance: Dean's managerial skills in instruction and L.E.T. passing rate and in extension; while an instructional resource was found to have no bearing on performance. 5) In terms of the thrusts on instruction, research, extension, and production, the three types of SUCs, differed significantly. The thrust on instruction differed significantly from the thrust on research, extension and production; while the thrusts on the last three functions research, extension and production did not.