IDENTIFYING UNIVERSITY TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL NEEDS FOR EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

Authors

  • Dr. Jam Muhammad Zafar, Dr. Zarina Akhtar

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63878/cjssr.v3i2.848

Keywords:

Teacher professional development, pedagogical needs, higher education, mixed-methods research, institutional alignment, faculty development.

Abstract

Effective professional development (PD) for university teachers enhances their motivation and commitment to teaching while aligning individual needs with institutional goals. This study identifies the pedagogical needs of university teachers to establish an effective PD mechanism. Adopting a mixed-methods (QUAN-QUAL) explanatory sequential design, the research surveyed deans, chairpersons, and faculty members from public sector universities. The study population included deans, chairpersons, professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and lecturers, with a stratified random sample of 142 respondents from Khwaja Fareed University of Engineering and Information Technology (KFUEIT), Rahim Yar Khan. The sample comprised eight (08) deans, twenty-four (24) heads of departments (HoDs)/program in-charges, and one hundred ten (110) assistant professors/lecturers. Data collection utilized structured questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, revealing key PD needs across disciplines, including innovative teaching strategies, digital literacy, curriculum design, student assessment, and academic leadership. Findings highlight the necessity for tailored PD programs that address discipline-specific challenges while supporting institutional goals. The study advocates for a dynamic PD model that incorporates continuous feedback, experiential learning, and technological integration to enhance teaching efficacy in higher education.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2025-06-15

How to Cite

IDENTIFYING UNIVERSITY TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL NEEDS FOR EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM. (2025). Contemporary Journal of Social Science Review, 3(2), 2267-2273. https://doi.org/10.63878/cjssr.v3i2.848