accounting

The accounting essay below has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies.

The Need And Importance Of Education In Islam Accounting Essay

At the country level, education means strong economic growth due to productive and skilled labor force. The emerging global scenario offers immense opportunities and challenges, and only those nations can benefit from it which has acquired knowledge base skills.

A university is an institution of higher education and research which grants academic degrees in a variety of subjects and provides both undergraduate education and postgraduate education. The word "university" is derived from the Latin universitas magistrorumetc. scholarium, which roughly means "community of teachers and scholars."Faculty members of a particular profession regarded as a body; a group of persons entrusted with the government and tuition in a college or university (Encyclopedia, 2006)

Emphasizing the importance of education and learning in Islam it is enough to note that the first revelation of the prophet (PBUH) was “Read”. Allah has clearly impressed upon men that He bestowed on men the gift of Knowledge. The Holy Quran at a number of places stresses on the observation of the universe and nature. At another place at Surah-i-Taha, Allah enjoins the Prophet (PBUH) to say “Pray for the advancement of Knowledge(Al-Quran, Surah Taha 20).

According to Katozai (2010, p-3), “The scholars and the students are the best of human beings. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) has said “Learned are the heirs of prophets”.

Government of Pakistan introduced National Pay Scale (NPS), a similar pattern pay structure for Government Servant including teacher cadre, on 1st March 1972. Later on, it was renamed as Basic Pay Scales (BPS) in 1983. This is a non-performance based salary system which is being exercised almost all public sector universities of Pakistan. Basic Pay Scales structure has twenty two grades and fourteen to thirty annual increment stages. Teachers are being appointed under this pay structure according to their academic qualifications or the requirements of the job, as the case may be, and Government has fixed a certain amount for each grade as basic pay along with perquisite emoluments in the shape of allowances which gradually increased from grade one to grade twenty two. Moreover, post retirement benefits are also attached with this salary structure like gratuity and pension etc.

Tenure Track System (TTS) was introduced by the Higher Education Commission Pakistan in public sector universities with an aim of attracting qualified people and improving performance of academic faculty of higher education institution. (W.B &UNESCO, 2000). The World Bank and UNESCO made various suggestions for improving higher education sector of Pakistan and recommended that faculty compensations should be revised and permanent appointment of the faculty members should be strictly based on TTS as used in the universities of United State. The reforms recommended in the report faced a lot of opposition from various stake holders including teachers and administration of universities. Major resistance came from public sector universities.

Public Sector Universities in Pakistan are also confronted with challenges of adopting Tenure Track System as a new performance based system for faculty of higher education institution.

Tenure was first introduced in academia in 1915. Its purpose at that time was to protect teacher’s whimsical firing and also to ensure that they should have continued service with an institution. Linda (2000, p-22) asserted that, “after the expiration of probation period teachers or investigator should have permanent or continuous tenure and their services should be terminated only for adequate cause, except in case of retirement for age”.

Tenure Track System was introduced to bring the overall quality of higher education at par with advanced world. The system is expected to enhance efficiency of the faculty member and ensure a healthy competition within faculty members.

This study was conducted to compare the performance of the faculty performing duties on old Basis Pay Scales Structure and Tenure Track System in the public sector universities in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa at Peshawar. The main purpose of the study is to solicit the opinion of the faculty who were working in BPS and TTS regarding TTS practicability besides the opinion of the Heads of department about the performance differences in both systems and compile their judgments to reach a conclusion.

A lot of opposition was being faced to implement this new performance based salary structure from the public sector particularly from the existing faculty who are performing duties in BPS. To ascertain the on ground realities that gauge the success of this new initiative, it is essential to compare the performance of both categories in the universities in the context of teaching and job satisfaction/retention etc.

Statement of the Problem

The study is designed to compare the performance of Tenure Track faculty with the faculty working on Basic Pay Scales in the Public Sector Universities of Peshawar.

1.1 Objectives

The study is being conducted to achieve following objectives:

To solicit the opinion of the faculty who are working on TTS and in BPS about the level of satisfaction.

To elicit the opinion of heads of department regarding the performance of the faculty working on TTS.

To seek the opinion of heads of department regarding the performance of the faculty working in BPS.

To compare the performance of the faculty in public sector universities working on TTS and in BPS system.

Significantof the Study

The significant of research study is assessing and compiling the performance of TTS and BPS teachers’ in higher education institutions of Pakistan using Public Sector Universities at Peshawar in terms of its actual and perceived constraints and evaluation of various possibilities of both systems. Based on an in-depth analysis of the both prevailing systems, the study attempted to provide feedback about TTS and surfaced the on grounds realities.

The outcome of the study will be beneficial for the followings:

The HEC officials and experts of higher education planning.

The universities teachers who are performing duties on Tenure Track System and existing faculty who are working in old BPS system.

The universities administrations and authorities who are directly involved in the implementations of TTS in their respective institutes.

Hypothesis

H0; There is no significant difference between the performance of the faculty working on TTS and in BPS

H1; There is significant difference between the performance of the faculty working on TTS and in BPS

1.4 Delimitation of Study

The study was delimited to the Assistant Professors who are working on TTS and BPS in the following public sector universities of Peshawar.

1. University of Peshawar

2. University of Engineering& Technology Peshawar

3. AgricultureUniversityPeshawar

4. Khyber Medical University Peshawar

1.5 Research Methodology

The study was based on survey. Survey method was used to collect data from the respondents.

1.5.1 Population

The research population comprised of the following:

All 51 Assistant Professors working on TTS in the public sector universities of Peshawar.

All 211 Assistant Professors working in BPS in the public sector universities of Peshawar.

1.5.2 Sample

The sample of the study comprised the Assistant Professors working on TTS and in BPS in the public sector universities of Peshawar.

1.5.3 Sampling Frame

The sample of Assistant Professors working on TTS is 83% and the sample of Assistant Professors working in BPS is 54% as shown in the table 1.1. The sample size is derived as per recommendations of R.V. Krejcie and D.W Morgan, determining sample size for research activities, (L.R Gay p-125 table (4.1) fifth edition).

TABLE 1.1

Category

University of Peshawar

University of Engineering & Technology

Agriculture University

Peshawar

Khyber Medical

University

Peshawar

Total

Sample size

BPS

Assistant Professor

90

52

44

25

211

113

TTS

Assistant Professor

4

21

18

8

51

45

1.6 Tool of Data Collection

Development of the instruments was based on literature review as well as on the basis of the observations of the researcher. Two types of questionnaires were prepared as under:

Faculty Opinion Questionnaire: It was developed to solicit the opinion of the faculty about the TTS effectiveness, suitability and reliability as well as disparity.

Heads of Department’ Opinion Questionnaire: It was developed to seek the opinion of heads of department regarding the proficiency, competency and teaching skills of faculty working on TTS and in BPS.

These instruments were developed in consultation with the supervisor. Instruments were discussed with experts in the area of education and changes were made in the light of suggestions made by experts. In order to collect data the following instruments were constructed:

One questionnaire was constructed in English for teachers working on TTS and in BPS for four public sector universities of Peshawar.

One questionnaire was constructed in English for heads of department to seek the opinion regarding performance of faculty working on TTS and in BPS in four public sector universities of Peshawar.

1.6.1 Pilot Testing

After all instruments were improved with the help of experts, they were pilot tested on members of population not included in the sample.

The questionnaire for teachers were tested on three teachers other than those included in the sample. Questionnaire for heads of department were tested on two heads of department. This testing was conducive to refine the vague statements and was revised in light of feedback received through respondents.

1.7 Data Collection

A survey was conducted to gather opinions of the teachers’ and heads of department. Two types of questionnaires were used for this purpose.

The researcher contacted the teachers and heads of department. Subsequently, questionnaires were administered during office working hours and were collected accordingly.

1.8 Data Analysis

Collected data from both faculty and heads of department were arranged and placed in the tabular form and analyzed. Results were shown with the help of tables. T-test was applied for the analysis of data and the out come of t value compare with tabulated value of t at p=.05 level of significance. Recommendations were drawn on the basis of collected data.

CHAPTER NO 2

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Concept of Education

The word “Education” has been derived from the Latin words Educare, Education or Educere. Education and Educare “mean to train, to bring up and to nourish” while educere means“ to lead out” the inner potentialities of an individual (Sanaullah, 2011).

Imam Ghazali defines education as, “a process which enables an individual to distinguish between the true and the false, the good and the bad, the right conduct and the evil doing”(Sanaullah, 2011).

Ibne-Khaldum defines education in these words, “Education consists of the intellectual and moral training of the mankind through which their hidden potentialities are developed, traits of character are built and the knowledge and culture of the people is conveyed to the coming generation” (Sanaullah, 2011).

The Need and importance of Education in Islam

Emphasizing the importance of education and learning in Islam it is enough to note that the first revelation of the prophet (PBUH) was “Read”. Allah has clearly impressed upon men that He bestowed on men the gift of Knowledge. The Holy Quran at a number of places stresses on the observation of the universe and nature. At another place at Surah-i-Taha, Allah enjoins the Prophet (PBUH) to say “ Pray for the advancement of Knowledge”. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) has said “Learned are the heirs of prophets”. .He stresses upon the acquisition of knowledge and the importance of traveling in enriching one’s experience and advises all Muslim men and women to acquire knowledge even if it is available in far off places.

Islam has a system of education which aims at developing an integrated personality in a harmonious way. It concerns itself with body, mind and soul. It gives a spark of divine light that gives meaning to life and urges man to play his part to achieve his destiny. It urges man to strive for the constant development of his faculties at every stage of life,

2.3 Education System in Pakistan

In 1947-48 Pakistan’s entire educational infrastructure was estimated to comprise around 10,000 primary and middle schools (1,700 for girls), about 408 secondary schools (64 for girls), 40 arts and science colleges (5 for women) and two universities. An analysis of the progress that has taken place in the field of education since the freedom exposes a few facts. Among them, the most critical is the question of ideology. The reports on educational problems and the speeches delivered by men in authority in the past have all been profuse in paying lip service to ideology of Islam but a look at the educational system prevalent during the last 30 years reveals that the no significant measures have been taken to inculcate this ideology in the minds of the younger generations.(Gop 1998, p-30)

Education in Pakistan is divided into six main levels: pre-primary (preparatory classes); primary (grades one through five); middle (grades six through eight); high (grades nine and ten, leading to the Secondary School Certificate); intermediate (grades eleven and twelve, leading to a Higher Secondary School Certificate); and university programmes leading to graduate and postgraduate degrees (ESoP, 2009).

Pakistan inherited a very weak base of university education. There was only one well-established university i.e. university of Punjab at Lahore (established in 1882) at the time of independence in 1947. It looked after the entire area of Pakistan excluding Sindh, which was affiliated with Bombay University.

2.4 Higher Education Commission

The Higher Education Commission (HEC), formerly the University Grant Commission, was the primarily regulator authority of higher education in Pakistan. In Pakistan, up till 2002, Universities were recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) which draws its powers from The University Grants Commission Act, 1974 (HEC Ordinance, 2002).

The Act was repealed in 2002 by the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 and since then, Higher Education Commission of Pakistan(HEC) is responsible for higher education policy, quality assurance, and degree recognition, development of new institutions and uplift of existing institutions in Pakistan. It also facilitated the development of higher educational system in Pakistan. Its main purpose was to upgrade universities in Pakistan to be centers of education, research and development.

HEC is playing a leading role towards building a knowledge based economy in Pakistan by giving out hundreds of doctoral scholarships for education abroad every year. Primary focus of HEC is higher education development. However, recently HEC has begun information technology reforms (called e-reforms) while it claims to improve situation of social sector primary reduction in poverty and challenges of economic stability.

2.5 University Education System in Pakistan

A university is an institution of higher education and research which grants academic degrees in a variety of subjects and provides both undergraduate education and postgraduate education. The word "university" is derived from the Latin universitas magistrorumet scholarium, which roughly means "community of teachers and scholars(Encyclopedia, 2006)

At the time of independence Pakistan had only one university, the University of the Punjab. As of September 2011[update] it has 136 universities, of which 74 are public universities and 62 are private universities (EIoP, 2011).

Michael Katz(1987, p.179) stated that “the ideal university should be a community of persons united by collective understandings, by common and communal goals, by bonds of reciprocal obligation, and by a flow of sentiment which makes the preservation of the community an object of desire, not merely a matter of prudence or a command of duty. Community implies a form of social obligation governed by principles different from those operative in market place and the state.

2.6 Role of University Teachers

The quality of education especially at the university level has been a matter of great concern for many years. It is widely and perhaps justifiably believed that, besides others inputs, the teacher’s specialization and his interaction with learners are the most important factors in teaching learning processes (Erant, 1994).

Education is the primary source of all technological advances, innovations and human comfort. Hence, the existence of a national education system is a necessary precondition for all such societies, which aspire to achieve higher standards of living advancements in technology and success in international economic race. Teacher is the main architect in the reconstruction and progress of education. The improvement of the teacher is essential for the improvement of the instruction. Recent trends in education emphasize the importance of curriculum, method, guidance, audio-visual aids or facilities, but teacher’s role still remains crucial in determining the extent and quality of learning that takes place in classroom situations. However, the success of a teacher is largely dependent upon his preparation and the ability to perform (Hill, 1995).

It must be useful to consider teacher functions under four different heads:

Teaching (Lecturers, laboratory demonstrations, tutorials)

Research

Personal study, including preparation for class-teaching: and

Contact with students, including personal guidance and supervision of extra-curriculum activities

All educationist, statement and politicians are beginning to realize more and more clearly that the teacher has a great role to play in education, social and even political reconstruction of Pakistan. The teacher is essentially a nation builder. Teacher is the torch bearer of the race. On him depends the future of the educational institution, the college and university and in fact the future of the mankind?

Spacious buildings, costly equipment’s and sound syllabus will not serve any useful purpose unless there are teacher who are fully alive to the profession and its accompanying responsibility. Teacher plays an important part in shaping and molding the habits, taste, manners and above all the character of the students.

2.7 Compensation for Teachers

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) says, “Those who are employed by us should get enough to enable them to have a house, get married, get transportation and a servant”

(Mamaduke 1981, p-271). The prophet (PBUH) also says, “ I will be the enemy of three people in the hereafter, someone who benefited from name, then transgressed; someone who dealt in slave trade, and someone who hired somebody and refused to give him wage”(Sanaullah, 2011).

People usually consider jobs on the salary basis. People in underdeveloped countries usually correlate pay with satisfaction and in turn with happiness. It was concluded that job satisfaction and pay satisfaction were significantly related (Kim & Loadman, 1994).

Teacher's salary levels are found to positively influence student outcomes by (Hanushek et al. 1999). Many studies fail to find significant improvements in student outcomes and teachers' pay is because the outside option, including alternative labour market opportunities and local quality of life indicators(Loeb & Page, 1999)

The large literature on teacher effectiveness looks at the effect of teacher characteristics on student performance, in other words what the teacher brings to teaching, rather than what motivates teachers or how they teach. Teacher salary levels may influence student outcomes either through recruitment and retention of more able teachers and/or because higher wages induce greater effort (Simon et al. July 2001).

2.8 Compensation Experiments in Education

The grade-based compensation model was created in the late 1800s. Similar to the factory production model preoccupying most sectors of the American economy, the grade-based compensation model paid teachers for the level of skill needed to educate

a child at their specified point of educational attainment. Because it was believed that elementary age students were easier to educate, and less formal training was required to teach at that level, teachers who instructed children in their early years earned less than secondary level teachers (Guthrie, Springer, Rolle, & Houck, 2007).

In the beginning of the 20th century, the single salary schedule, initially known as “position automatic schedule salary” surfaced in this chaotic period of manufacturing associations. The system is based on uniform pay for teachers with the same years of experience and qualifications obtain the same salary.

Since the commencement of the uniform salary schedule, 96% of public educational institutions had adopted this system up to 1950 to pay off teachers. However, this system had attracted criticism that the schedule homogenizes compensation, depriving the authorities of school management to adjust an individual teacher’s pay on the basis of actual performance and labor market competition. As alternative, several teacher compensations models were proposed, like performance-related pay. Among these, merit-based pay and knowledge and skill based pay were two most well-known types of improved programs (Podgursky, 2007).

Albeit, merit based pay referred back to Great Britain in the early 1700s, and a similar ideas produced in late 1960s. A considerable number of public school in the United States adopted merit-based pay as an alternative to the single salary schedule (Podgursky& Springer, 2007).

According to Hassel (2002), merit based pay rewards individual teachers, groups of teachers, or educational institution on any number of factors, including student performance, classroom observations, and teacher portfolios. Merit-based pay is a reward system that hinges on student outcomes attributed to a particular teacher or group of teachers rather than on “inputs” such as skills or knowledge.

Since the 1990s, knowledge and skill-based pay has garnered significant attention as an alternative strategy for compensating teachers. This new innovative idea embodied a policy compromise between proponents and opponents of performance-related compensation in education. Knowledge and skill based pay programs, at the University of Wisconsin, reward teachers for acquisition of new skills and knowledge presumably related to better instruction. Salary increases are tied to external evaluators and assessments that gauge the degree to which an individual teacher has reached specified levels of “competency”(Odden & Kelly, 1996).

Although the strategically focused rewards can broaden and deepen teachers’ content knowledge of core teaching areas and facilitate attainment of classroom management and curriculum development skills (Odden & Kelley, 1996). The awareness and skills being rewarded in these “input-based” pay systems may have a negligible impact on student outcomes (Ballou&Podgursky, 2001, Hanushek&Rivkin, 2004).

The pivot criticism against merit based pay programs relates to the monitoring of teacher performance. Past programs were also unsuccessful due to irrelevant financial incentives for successors. The teacher unions who were opposed to substitute compensation systems and lack of an evaluation procedure that could appraise outcomes and recalibrate programmatic components to carry the program to level

(Ballou, 2001).

Similarly, merit-based pay programs apprehension team production. Teachers perform duties as members of a team. Launching the performance related rewards at the individual level might minimize incentives for teachers to collaborate and as a result, decrease rather than increase educational institution performance. Some study argues that the team dynamic can be damaged between teachers as far as between teachers and administrators, particularly if authorities are put in a position of rewarding individual teacher performance (Podgursky& Springer, 2007).

A similar argument was developed concerning a performance-related pay scheme that was introduced in England and Wales during the 2000–2001 educational institution years(Vyrastekova, Onderstal, &Koning,2006).

Incentive schemes that tie teacher pay to achievement gains by students—whether at the individual teacher or team level—may create more opportunities for cheating or other opportunistic behavior in the long run. For example, studies of high-stakes accountability systems have documented teachers focusing excessively on a single test and educators altering test scores and/or assisting students with test questions (Jacob &Levitt, 2003).

2.9 Basic Pay Scales in Public Sector Universities of Pakistan

Government of Pakistan introduced National Pay Scale (NPS), a similar pattern of pay structure for Government Servant including teacher cadre, on 1st March 1972. Later on, it was renamed as Basic Pay Scales (BPS) in 1983. This is a non-performance based salary system which is being exercised almost all public sector universities of Pakistan. Basic Pay Scales structure has twenty two grades and fifteen to thirty annual increment stages. Teachers are being appointed under this pay structure according to their academic qualifications or the requirements of the job, as the case may be, and Government has fixed a certain amount for each grade as basic pay along with perquisite emoluments in the shape of allowances which gradually increased from grade one to grade twenty two. Moreover, post retirement benefits are also attached with this salary structure like gratuity and pension etc. The details of pay structure since its inception, is given below:

2.9.1 Basic Pay chart since 1972 to 1991

Grade

01-03-1972

01-07-1977

01-07-1983

01-07-1987

01-07-1991

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

1

100

140

250

280

440

640

600

860

920

1310

2

110

160

260

302

460

700

625

945

945

1425

3

120

150

270

325

480

760

650

1030

975

1530

4

130

170

280

352

500

820

675

1115

1005

1650

5

150

180

290

350

520

880

700

1200

1035

1770

6

165

205

315

399

540

940

725

1285

1065

1875

7

180

230

335

447

560

1020

750

1370

1095

1995

8

200

260

370

514

590

1110

790

1470

1140

2115

9

225

300

390

590

620

1200

830

1590

1185

2265

10

250

340

410

520

660

1300

830

1590

1230

2415

11

275

375

430

550

700

1400

910

1830

1275

2565

12

300

400

460

600

750

1550

970

2010

1355

2795

13

325

450

490

790

800

1700

1035

2195

1440

3045

14

350

475

520

730

850

1850

1100

2380

1530

3315

15

375

500

550

900

900

2000

1165

2585

1620

3585

16

400

750

625

825

1050

2050

1350

2925

1875

4065

17

500

1000

900

1150

1600

3040

2065

3925

2870

5450

18

1000

1750

1350

1650

2100

3600

2710

4660

3765

6475

19

1800

2200

2250

3050

2250

3050

4130

5770

5740

8590

20

2300

2600

2600

3600

3800

5240

4900

6780

6810

10060

21

2750

3000

4200

4200

6000

5420

7740

7535

11585

22

3000

3250

4850

4500

6500

5800

8400

8075

12575

2.9.2 Basic Pay chart since 2001 TO 2011

Grade

01-12-2001

01-07-2005

01-07-2007

01-07-2008

01-07-2011

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

1

1870

3520

2150

4100

2475

4725

2970

5670

4800

9300

2

1915

3885

2200

4450

2530

5080

3035

6035

4900

10000

3

1980

4230

2275

4825

2615

5615

3140

6746

5050

11050

4

2040

4590

2345

5345

2700

6150

3240

7440

5200

12100

5

2100

5100

2415

5865

2780

3830

3340

8140

5400

13200

6

2160

5460

2485

6235

2860

7210

3430

8680

5600

14300

7

2220

5820

2555

6755

2940

7740

3530

9230

5800

15400

8

2310

6210

2655

7155

3055

8305

3665

9965

6000

16500

9

2410

6760

2770

7720

3185

8885

3820

10720

6200

17600

10

2490

7290

2865

8415

3295

9745

3955

11755

6400

19000

11

2590

7840

2980

8980

3430

10330

4120

12370

6600

20400

12

2745

8595

3155

9055

3630

11430

4355

13655

7000

22000

13

2925

9375

3365

10715

3870

12420

4645

14845

7500

24000

14

3100

10300

3565

11815

4100

13550

49220

16320

8000

26300

15

3285

11235

3780

12930

4350

14850

5220

17820

8500

29500

16

3805

12155

4375

14575

5050

16750

6060

20160

10000

340000

17

6210

15510

7140

17840

8210

20510

9850

24650

16000

40000

18

8135

19835

9355

22855

10760

26260

12910

31510

20000

50000

19

12400

24700

14260

28360

16400

32600

19680

39080

31000

63000

20

14710

28010

16915

32245

19455

37095

23345

44485

36000

68900

21

16305

31285

18750

35970

21565

41375

25880

49680

40000

76400

22

17440

34940

20055

40215

23065

46235

27680

55470

43000

85700

The abovementioned charts shows the chronological order of the basic pay scale since 1st March 1972 till 2011, this non performance pay structure presented increase in the salaries of the government servants including the teaching cadre of the universities from time to time as per economic and political condition of the Pakistan. This system does not narrate any relationship between the performance, knowledge and teaching skill as well as outcome in shape of students results, any innovative idea in teaching/learning activates or research / publications etc.

2.10 Meaning of Tenure

Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically, freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security; hence tenure, are indispensible to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society (Tierney, 1997)

If we agree that a democratic community revolves around the participation of all parties and if we concur that individual and group assessment needs to take place, then surely we need to question a system tenure that many view as arbitrary (Tierny, 1993).

Historical back ground of the Tenure as Structure

Edward A. Ross, an economics professor hired by President Jordan at Stanford University in 1893, found himself out of a job seven years later. Initially, the young Ross had the respect and admiration of the president, faculty, and students. President Jordan said of him, "I do not know a man in this department in whose future I have more confidence. I think, of all the younger men in the country in this line of work,

Dr. Ross is the most prominent. He shows himself entirely free from either political prejudices or the prejudices of books. By 1900, Ross had embraced several controversial subjects: the free coinage of silver, the municipal ownership of public utilities, and the railway union strike of 1898. He had spoken at a public forum about "ruthless capitalists." (Tierney, 1997)

The institution, financed by the sole trustee, Mrs. Leland Stanford, could not withstand such attacks from one of its own. By November 12, 1900, Mrs. Stanford demanded and received President Jordan's concurrence that Ross must be fired. Jordan dismissed him; Ross had no recourse but to leave the institution. Many students of higher education look on this case as the seed that planted the idea for the creation of a formalized system-tenure-that would protect academic freedom. In the ensuing years, additional cases became causes and added to the impetus for a structure that protected faculty in their research and in the classroom. Richard Ely at the University of Wisconsin, Scott Nearing at the University of Pennsylvania, and John Macklin at Lafayette College are three additional examples of individuals who expressed controversial ideas in writing or in the classroom and faced sanction and dismissal (Tierney, 1997).

Thus rights and responsibilities of the faculty teaching in the universities became area of interest for debates and dialogue. Therefore, academic freedom received central point in academic life of a teacher. Broadly speaking, academic freedom refers to the competency and ability of an individual to study and teach without any threat or sanctioned from the administration or authorities etc. Faculty should feel free to teach the society what they desired because such freedom ultimately helps society.

2.12 Tenure as Academic Freedom and Economic Security

Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher' or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition. Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It carries with it duties correlative with rights.

2.13 Tenure Track System in the Universities of Pakistan

Tenure Track System (TTS) was introduced by Higher Education Commission Pakistan in public sector universities with an aim of attracting qualified people and improving performance of academic faculty of higher education institution.

One of major objective of TTS was to curb the trend of brain drain phenomenon besides encourage research and make faculty members more productive. In order to achieve these objective hefty salaries packages have been introduced to attract the Ph.ds to serve in the universities at the position of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors. This newly performance based system offered promotion track to the faculties after serving a specific period and fulfill requisite criteria including research publication in national and international HEC recognized journals.

Higher Education Commission introduced Tenure Track Statutes as model for the guidance of the universities to implement this new performance based salary system after getting approval from their respective Governance bodies / executive councils etc. Since the introduction of TTS in the public sector universities of Pakistan, these statutes have been revised time to time to address the emerging requirements.

HEC offered extra grants to the universities who faculties are adopting TTS in place of old BPS. However, a comprehensive periodical evaluation is being conducted yearly and at the end of probationary tenure period to assess the worth of the faculty to offer permanent tenure or promotion track for next higher rank. Internal as well as external evaluators involved in the evaluation process and external evaluators are chosen in advanced technological countries to gauge the performance of the faculty and its research publication as per international standard. In order to achieve this specific objective, Department Technical Review Committee are required to constitute which comprising Dean, Chairman and senior faculty as members of the concerned institute. At the same time, Dean of the concerned institute recommended a panel for the constitution of Technical Review Panel comprising experts from the technological advanced countries to evaluate the performance of the under reference faculty (TTS Statutes 2008).

2.14 Tenure Track Process

Under the tenure track process a PhD degree holder appointed as Assistant Professor initially for a period of three years followed by a second term contract appointment for an additional period of three years. An Assistant Professor appointed under TTS has to serve at least for a period of six years. At the end of first and second term appointment a comprehensive evaluation has been conducted to assess his performance and accord verdict to hire or fire his services. Similarly, a PhD degree holder along with certain period of experience and publications as prescribed in TTS Statues may be appointed at a senior rank (Associate and Full Professor) for initially a period of four years i.e probationary period. Their services may be terminated only for adequate cause, except at the normal retirement age. (TTS Statutes, 2008)

2.15 Tenure Track Appointment Eligibility Criteria

2.15.1 Professor

Similarly, for the post of Professor an individual is required to have a Ph.D./Relevant terminal qualification from a recognized and reputable Institution plus eleven years experience after obtaining Ph.D./Relevant terminal degree, or minimum of seven years of experience after obtaining Ph.d degree in addition to twelve years of experience prior to the PhD. The claimed experience of the individual may be counted of teaching/research in national or international reputed organizations. Moreover, fifteen research papers (five papers in the last five years) in Internationally Abstracted Journals as prescribed by the Higher Education Commission (TTS Statutes 2008).

2.15.2 Associate Professor

Tenure track offered the post of Associate Professor to an individual who have Ph.D./Relevant terminal qualification from a recognized institutions with six years post Ph.D. experience or minimum of four years post-Ph.D. experience plus 6 years pre- PhD as well. The claimed experience of the individual may be counted of teaching/research in national or international reputed organizations. Moreover, ten research papers (four papers in the last five years) in Internationally Abstracted Journals as prescribed by the Higher Education Commission (TTS Statutes 2008).

2.15.3 Assistant Professor

Tenure track system offered the job of assistant professor to a Ph.D/Relevant terminal qualification degree holder from a recognized institution. Moreover, the incumbent must has excellent written communication and presentation skills. He attained good command in the area of courses being taught and should have a firm commitment to teaching, however, it does not mean that the individual be expected an extensive reputation in the relevant field. During his stay as the Assistant Professor he should continues effort to increase knowledge and improve teaching skills. His professional competency should be recognized through papers to professional national and international organizations, through publications, or through other innovative work (TTS Statutes 2008)

2.16 Transferring of Existing Faculty to Tenure Track System

Tenure track statutes also catered for the existing faculty members who are fulfill the requisite criterion for the appointment under Tenure Track and enjoy hefty salary besides a track for rapid promotion. His appointment case shall be dealt according to the prescribed procedure and he has to appear before the university selection board to prove himself as eligible candidate for TTS. Previously, TTS statutes allowed maintaining lien with their BPS job subject to make contribution from their existing salary package, however, this provision has been with drawn by the HEC(TTS Statutes)

2.17 Appointment and Responsibility under Tenure Track

Assistant Professors working under TTS must commit to manifold responsibilities. It may incorporate individual roles and the university’s priorities and values, nevertheless, the key roles assigned to newly appointed faculty members are mainlyassociated with the teaching/learning services and research activities. The disbursement of one’s efforts pertains to these various responsibilities will depend on the university culture (Toews & Yazedjian, 2007).

A number of universities demand research and prefer writing than teaching and service, while the others demand teachingthan research. Conventionally, the quantity of service expected from a new incumbent will be nominal, though expectations of service may change over time (Clark et al. 2010).

As faculty members gained experience they are anticipated to offer extra service. The service incorporating manifold contexts: involvement in the composition of university committee for various purposes, communityin-service activities, and nation leadership roles in discipline specific associations. In majority cases, the newly appointed faculty member will be overscheduled, overworked, and under acknowledged (Knowles and Cole 1994).

Some faculty members state that the number and type of responsibilities enhance rather than reduce next the route of becoming tenured (Neuman, 2009).

According to McCormick and Barnes (2008, p. 16), to manage these multiple responsibilities, ‘‘Research your passions, teach your knowledge, and serve your multiple communities’’

2.18 Pay Structure of Tenure Track Faculty

The preliminary salary package (all inclusive) for a newly appointed faculty members are fixed, however, the appointing authority that is usually syndicate or executive council have the authority to approve maximum of 4 advance increments subject to extra qualification like post doc or number of publications or qualification obtained in foreign countries .The standard salary packages for the different positions under the Tenure Track System was approved by the Finance Division, Government of Pakistan and notified by the HEC (TTS Statutes 2008).

Annual increment under tenure track system is entitled to the faculty on 1st January of each calendar year subject to serve more than six months. However, these annual increments are allowed on performance based duly vetted by the Department Technical review Committee and approved by the University syndicate etc. Further more, one extra salary is also entitled to the faculty on completion of one year service subject to evaluation which based on performance and assessed by the prescribed procedure consisting teaching/learning, research, innovation project completed other than university sources and personal traits and service achievements (TTS Statutes, 2008).

Faculty Member

Minimum

Increment

Maximum

stages

Professor

234000

11440

405600

15

Associate Professor

156000

9100

292500

15

Assistant Professor

104000

7150

211250

15

(TTS Statutes 2008)

This study was conducted to compare the performance of the faculty performing duties on old Basis Pay Scales Structure and Tenure Track System in the public sector universities in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa at Peshawar. The main purpose of the study is to solicit the opinion of the faculty who are working in BPS and TTS regarding TTS practicability besides the opinion of the Heads of department about the performance differences in both systems and compile their judgments to reach a conclusion.

A lot of opposition is being faced to implement this new performance based salary structure from the public sector particularly from the existing faculty who are performing duties in BPS. To ascertain the on ground realities that gauge the success of this new initiative, it is essential to compare the performance of both categories in the universities in the context of teaching and job satisfaction/retention etc.

CHAPTER NO 3

3. METHOD AND PROCEDURE

This chapter deals with the methodology and procedure of the study. The study is descriptive in nature and survey method was used for collection of data. Data was collected through questionnaires (Appendix. A &B). The t test was applied for analyzing and interpretation of data. SPSS software was used for the said purpose.

3.1. Population

The population of the study comprised as following:

All 51 Assistant Professors working on TTS in the public sector universities of Peshawar.

All 211 Assistant Professors working in BPS in the public sector universities at Peshawar

Heads of Department o supervised Assistant Professors under TTS and in BPS in four public sector universities at Peshawar.

Sampling

Following procedure was adopted in the process of sampling.

The population of study was heterogeneous, therefore, stratified random sampling technique was chosen to select sample.

No. of Assistant Professors working in BPS and on TTS in the public sector universities of Peshawar were selected for their opinion about given questionnaire. Sample of the study is given as under

Category

University of Peshawar

University of Engineering & Technology

Agriculture University

Peshawar

Khyber Medical

University

Peshawar

Total

Sample size

BPS

Assistant Professor

90

52

44

25

211

113

TTS

Assistant Professor

4

21

18

8

51

45

Research Tools

The following tools were used for the collection of required data for sample

A questionnaire was developed for the Heads of department for the universities at Peshawar

A questionnaire was developed for the Asstt. Professors working in BPS and on TTS in the public sector universities of Peshawar.

Thirty questions were formulated to ascertain the performance of the faculty working in public sector universities of Peshawar. The questionnaire was based on following aspects.

The environment of the university is conducive for teaching/learning.

The work load of r job is equated.

Freedom about job performance.

Adequate knowledge of subject matter.

Instructional methods to meet students' varying needs.

Use modern audio-visual aids.

Manage student behavior and reshape it.

Participation in co-curricular activities

You Participate in staff meetings and maintain good relationship with colleagues

Annual assessment is fair and recognized contribution

Satisfied with Salary and fringe benefits.

Job is secure and stable in the university

Promotion opportunities are available in your service structure

Prefer to switch over Tenure Track System

TTS primary benefits is to increase faculty earning

TTS provide adequate support for faculty development

Research and publication have been source of stress during job

Research and publications improved knowledge

The questionnaires were sent to the respondent for the collection of responses.

3.2.3. Pilot-testing of Tools

The questionnaires developed for two categories were tested through a pilot study. Two head of departments, three Assistant Professors working in BPS and three Assistant Professors working on TTS were taken as the sample of the pilot study. The main reason of this pilot study was to ascertain the shortcoming and limitation of the questionnaires to minimize the possibilities of vagueness and misconceptions. Improvements were made on the basis of feedback.

3.3 Procedure of Data Collection

The researcher approached to Registrar Offices/ Heads of Department of the public sector universities of Peshawar

The following information were collected

List of Assistant Professors working in BPS with names and departments/institutions.

List of Assistant Professors working on TTS with names and departments/institutions.

Name and contact numbers of heads of department/institution.

The questionnaires were delivered to 30 heads of departments out of which 20 have given response. Similarly, 120 questionnaires were given to Asstt. Professors who were working duties in BPS and 40 questionnaires were distributed among the Assistant Professors who were working in TTS in four public sector universities in Peshawar.

3.4 Analysis and Interpretation of Data

The opinions of heads of departments i.e. Associate Professors/Professors and Assistant Professors working in BPS and TTS were collected through questionnaire about different activities in institutions. The obtained data was tabulated, interpreted and analyzed by applying SPSS for calculating T score

Following scale was used to calculate the mean score.

SA : Strongly Agreed 5

A : Agreed 4

UN : Uncertain 3

DA : Disagreed 2

SDA : Strongly Disagreed 1

SPSS was used to calculate the t value. The level of significant used in this study was 0.05.

CHAPTER 4

4. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

The analysis of data and its interpretation was given into 2 parts i.e. part A analysis of opinions from Assistant Professors working in BPS and Assistant Professor working on TTS. Part B analysis of responses from heads of department. On the basis of the main findings the conclusion were drawn and recommendations were made and presented in chapter 5.

4.1 Part A:The Analysis of opinions of Assistant Professors Working in BPS and on TTS

Table 4.1.1:t-test for environment of the university

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

The environment of the university is conducive for teaching

BPS

38

4.29

58

.362

2.000

TTS

22

4.23

p=0.05

Application of t test yielded the value of .362 which is less than table value at 0.05 level. It means that null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty while environment of the university is conducive for teaching/learning is accepted.

Table 4.1.2 :t-test for joining service by choice

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

You have joined the university teaching service by choice

BPS

38

4.25

58

.047

2.000

TTS

22

4.25

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is .047 which is less than table value so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty while they joined university by choice is accepted.

Table 4.1.3 :t-test for teaching of students

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Teaching is an opportunity of service for students

BPS

38

4.18

58

-.886

2.000

TTS

22

4.32

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is -.886 which is less than table value so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty while teaching is an opportunity for service for students is accepted.

Table 4.1.4 :t-test for status

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your status in the university is adequate to your qualification.

BPS

38

3.84

58

-1.750

2.000

TTS

22

4.32

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is -1.750 which is less than table value,so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty while status in the university service is adequate to their qualification is accepted.

Table 4.1.5 :t-test for work load

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

The work load of your job is equated with your appointment

BPS

38

4.18

58

-1.755

2.000

TTS

22

4.25

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is -1.755 which less than table value . It means thatthere is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty while work load is adequate with their appointment is accepted, therefore, null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.1.6 :t-test for freedom of job performance

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

There is freedom about your job performance

BPS

38

3.89

58

1.084

2.000

TTS

22

4.14

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is 1.084 which less than table value, so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for freedom about their job performance is accepted.

Table 4.1.7 :t-test for adequate knowledge

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

You have adequate knowledge of subject matter being taught by you.

BPS

38

6.50

58

1.027

2.000

TTS

22

4.50

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is 1.027 which less than table value, so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for adequate knowledge of subject matter being taught by them is accepted.

Table 4.1.8 :t-test for instructional methods

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

You select different instructional methods to meet students' varying needs

BPS

38

4.62

58

1.592

2.000

TTS

22

4.21

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is 1.592 which less than table value, so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for selection of different instructional methods to meet students’ varying needs is accepted.

Table 4.1.9 :t-test for audio-visual aids for teaching

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

You use modern audio-visual aids to teach your subjects

BPS

38

4.29

58

-.909

2.000

TTS

22

4.50

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is -.909 which less than table value, so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for using modern audio visual aids for teaching is accepted.

Table 4.1.10 :t-test for manage student behavior

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

You manage student behavior and reshape it in the classroom

BPS

38

4.18

58

-1.552

2.000

TTS

22

4.36

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is -.1.552 which less than table value, so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for managing students behavior in class-room and reshape it is accepted.

Table 4.1.11 : t-test for developing self confidence in students

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

You try to satisfy and develop self confidence in your students

BPS

38

4.26

58

-.449

2.000

TTS

22

4.32

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is -.449 which less than table value so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for developing self confidence in students is accepted.

Table 4.1.12 :t-test for guidance to the students

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

You provide guidance to the students in spare time

BPS

38

4.50

58

1.450

2.000

TTS

22

4.27

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is 1.450 which less than table value so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for guidance to the students in spare time is accepted.

Table 4.1.13 :t-test for opening and closing classes

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Prompt at opening and closing of classes according to schedule

BPS

38

4.27

58

.948

2.000

TTS

22

5.82

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is .948 which less than table value so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for opening and closing class as per schedule is accepted.

Table 4.1.14 : t-test for evaluation of students’ performance

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

You observe and evaluate students’ performance and redesign it.

BPS

38

5.42

58

.745

2.000

TTS

22

4.29

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is .745 which less than table value so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for evaluation of students performance and redesign it is accepted.

Table 4.1.15 : t-test for participation in co-curriculum activities

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

You participate in co-curricular activities

BPS

38

.924

58

-1.084

2.000

TTS

22

.640

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is -1.084 which less than table value so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for participation in co-curriculum activities is accepted.

Table 4.1.16 :t-test for participation in staff meeting

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

You Participate in staff meetings and share your ideas and concerns

BPS

38

4.32

58

1.261

2.000

TTS

22

4.05

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is 1.261 which less than table value so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for participation in staff meeting and share ideas and concerns is accepted.

Table 4.1.17 :t-test for good relationship

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

You maintain good relationship with your colleagues

BPS

38

4.25

58

.780

2.000

TTS

22

4.32

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is .780 which less than table value so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for maintaining good relationship with their colleagues is accepted.

Table 4.1.18 :t-test for professional development

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

You are engaged in professional development activities such as trainings, workshops.

BPS

38

4.24

58

-1.713

2.000

TTS

22

7.95

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is -1.713 which less than table value so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for professional development and training activities is accepted.

Table 4.1.19 : t-test for annual assessment

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your annual assessment is fair and appreciate you endeavors for teaching/learning

BPS

38

3.97

58

.801

2.000

TTS

22

3.77

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is .801 which less than table value so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty while their annual assessment is fair and appreciate endeavors for teaching/learning is accepted.

Table 4.1.20 :t-test for recognizing contribution

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your university recognized your contribution towards the achievements of its’ goals

BPS

38

3.32

58

1.292

2.000

TTS

22

2.95

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is 1.292 which less than table value so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty while recognizing their contribution towards achievements of the university goal is accepted.

Table 4.1.21 :t-test for award of outstanding teaching

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

You have received award for out standing teaching.

BPS

38

2.87

58

3.085

2.000

TTS

22

1.91

p=0.05

Application of t test yielded the value of 3.085 which is higher than table value at 0.05 level. It means that thereis significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for receiving award for outstanding teaching. Hence null hypothesis is not accepted.

Table 4.1.22 :t-test for satisfaction with salary

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

You are satisfied with Salary and fringe benefits.

BPS

38

5.00

58

.813

2.000

TTS

22

3.77

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is .813 which less than table value so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for satisfaction with salary and fringe benefits is accepted.

Table 4.1.23 :t-test for job security and stability

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Job is secure and stable in the university

BPS

38

4.24

58

2.582

2.000

TTS

22

1.68

p=0.05

Application of t test yielded the value of 2.582 which is higher than table value at 0.05 level. It means that there is significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for job security and stability. Thus null hypothesis is not accepted.

Table 4.1.24 : t-test for promotion opportunities in service

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Promotion opportunities are available in your service structure

BPS

38

2.92

58

.929

2.000

TTS

22

2.64

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is .929 which less than table value so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for promotion opportunities available in service structure is accepted.

Table 4.1.25 : t-test for switching over to TTS

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

You Prefer to switch over Tenure Track System

BPS

38

2.63

58

-4.867

2.000

TTS

22

4.09

p=0.05

Application of t test yielded the value of -4.867 which is higher than table value at 0.05 level. It means that there is significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for switching over to TTS. Hence null hypothesis is not accepted.

Table 4.1.26 :t-test for TTS benefit is to increase earning

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

TTS primary benefits is to increase faculty earning

BPS

38

3.53

58

1.618

2.000

TTS

22

3.00

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is 1.618 which less than table value. It means that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty while TTS primary benefit is to increase earning so null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.1.27 :t-test for TTS provides faculty development

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

TTS provide adequate support for faculty development

BPS

38

3.24

58

2.292

2.000

TTS

22

2.59

p=0.05

Application of t test yielded the value of 2.292 which is higher than table value at 0.05 level. It means that there is significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty while TTS provides adequate support for faculty development. Hence null hypothesis is notaccepted.

Table 4.1.28 :t-test for research and publication stress during job

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

The demand of research and publication have been source of stress during job

BPS

38

3.66

58

3.580

2.000

TTS

22

4.25

p=0.05

Application of t test yielded the value of 3.580 which is higher than table value at 0.05 level. It means thatthere is significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty while demand of research and publication has been source of stress during job. Hence null hypothesis is not accepted.

Table 4.1.29 :t-test for research and publication improved knowledge

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Research and publications have improved knowledge of your relevant subject

BPS

38

4.03

58

2.207

2.000

TTS

22

4.25

p=0.05

Application of t test yielded the value of 2.207 which is higher than table value at 0.05 level. It means thatthere is significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty research and publication improved the knowledge of subject. Hence null hypothesis is not accepted.

Table 4.1.30 :t-test for attending events, lectures, symposia, workshop

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

There are opportunities for you to attend events lectures, symposia, workshops

BPS

38

3.76

58

.621

2.000

TTS

22

3.59

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.000 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is .621 which less than table value so null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS faculty for opportunities for attending events, lectures, symposium and workshop is accepted.

4.2 Part B: The Analysis of opinions of Heads of the Department

Table 4.2.1 :t-test for the opinion of HoD regarding university environment

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

The environment of the university is conducive for teaching/learning

BPS

15

3.67

18

-1.536

2.101

TTS

5

4.20

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is -1.536 which less than table valueso there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s regarding the environment of the university is conducive for teaching/learning. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.2 :t-test for joining service by choice

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Asstt Professors have joined the university teaching service by choice.

BPS

15

4.40

18

-.933

2.101

TTS

5

4.80

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is -.933 which less than table value so there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s regardingjoined university by choice. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.3 :t-test for teaching is an opportunity of service of students

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Teaching is an opportunity of service for students.

BPS

15

4.53

18

1.830

2.101

TTS

5

4.00

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is 1.830 which less than table value so there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s regarding teaching is an opportunity for service for students.Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.4 :t-test for status in the university

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Asstt Professors status in the university is adequate to their qualification.

BPS

15

4.13

18

-.609

2.101

TTS

5

4.40

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is -.609 which less than table value so there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s regarding status in the university service is adequate to their qualification. Hence null hypothesis is accepted

Table 4.2.5 :t-test for work load

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Their work load of job is equated with their appointment.

BPS

15

4.00

18

.000

2.101

TTS

5

4.000

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is .000 which less than table value so there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s regarding work load is adequate with their appointment. Hence null hypothesis is accepted

Table 4.2.6 :t-test for freedom of job performance

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

There is freedom about their job performance

BPS

15

3.87

18

-.296

2.101

TTS

5

4.000

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is -.296 which less than table value so there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s about freedom of job performance. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.7 :t-test for adequate knowledge

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Asstt Professors’ have adequate knowledge of subject matter being taught by them

BPS

15

4.27

18

.283

2.101

TTS

5

4.20

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is .283 which less than table value so there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s about adequate knowledge of subject matter being taught. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.8 : t-test for instructional methods

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Asstt Professors’ select different instructional methods to meet students' varying needs

BPS

15

4.13

18

1.857

2.101

TTS

5

4.20

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is 1.857 which less than table value so there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s about selection of different instructional methods to meet students’ varying needs. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.9 : t-test for using modern audio-visual aids

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Asstt Professors’ use modern audio-visual aids to teach their subjects

BPS

15

3.93

18

-.640

2.101

TTS

5

4.20

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is 1.857 which less than table value so there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s about using modern audio visual aids for teaching. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.10 :t-test for manage student behavior

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Asstt Professors’ manage student behavior and reshape it in the classroom

BPS

15

3.47

18

-.718

2.101

TTS

5

3.80

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is -.718 which less than table value so there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s aboutmanaging students behavior in class-room and reshape it. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.11 :t-test for developing self confidence in students

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Asstt Professors’ try to satisfy and develop self confidence in their students

BPS

15

3.73

18

-.176

2.101

TTS

5

3.80

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is -.176 which less than table value so there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s aboutdeveloping self confidence in students. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.12 :t-test for guidance to the students

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Asstt Professors’ provide guidance to the students in spare time

BPS

15

3.07

18

-.826

2.101

TTS

5

3.60

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is -.826 which less than table value so there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s aboutguidance to the students in spare time. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.13 : t-test for opening and closing classes

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Asstt Professors’ prompt at opening and closing of classes according to schedule

BPS

15

5.80

18

.664

2.101

TTS

5

3.60

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is .664 which less than table value.Its means that there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s aboutfor opening and closing class as per schedule. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.14 :t-test for evaluation of students’ performance

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Asstt Professors’ observe and evaluate students’ performance and redesign it.

BPS

15

3.60

18

.694

2.101

TTS

5

3.20

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is .694 which less than table value.Its means that there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’saboutevaluation of student’s performance and redesign it. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.15 :t-test for participation in co-curriculum activities

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Asstt Professors’ participate in co-curricular activities

BPS

15

3.87

18

.135

2.101

TTS

5

3.80

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is .694 which less than table value.Its means that there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s aboutfor participation in co-curriculum activities.Hence null hypothesis is accepted

Table 4.2.16 :t-test for participation in staff meeting

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Asstt Professors Participate in staff meetings and share their ideas and concerns

BPS

15

4.00

18

-.630

2.101

TTS

5

4.20

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is -.630 which less than table value.Its means that there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s aboutparticipation in staff meeting and share ideas and concerns. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.17 : t-test for relationship with colleagues

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Asstt Professors’ maintain good relationship with their colleagues

BPS

15

3.93

18

.394

2.101

TTS

5

3.80

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is -.630 which less than table value.Its means that there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s aboutmaintaining good relationship with their colleagues. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.18 :t-test for professional development

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Asstt Professors’ are engagedin professional development activities such as trainings, workshops.

BPS

15

4.13

18

.938

2.101

TTS

5

3.80

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is .938 which less than table value.Its means that there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s aboutprofessional development and training activities. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.19 :t-test for annual assessment

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Annual assessment is fair and appreciate their endeavors for teaching/learning

BPS

15

4.000

18

.982

2.101

TTS

5

3.80

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is .938 which less than table value.Its means that there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s aboutannual assessment is fair and appreciate endeavors for teaching/learning. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.20 :t-test for recognizing contribution

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

University recognized their contribution towards the achievements of its’ goals

BPS

15

3.47

18

.142

2.101

TTS

5

3.40

p=0.05

Table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. Calculated value is .142 which less than table value.Its means that there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s aboutrecognizing their contribution towards achievements of the university goal. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.21 :t-test for award of outstanding teaching

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Asstt Professors’ have received award for out standing teaching.

BPS

15

2.47

18

1.035

2.101

TTS

5

2.00

p=0.05

The calculated value of t is 1.035 and table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. It is less that table value.Its means that there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s aboutreceiving award for outstanding teaching. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.22 :t-test for satisfaction with salary

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Asstt Professors’ are satisfied with salary and fringe benefits.

BPS

15

4.00

18

.000

2.101

TTS

5

4.00

p=0.05

The calculated value of t is .000while table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level. It is less that table value.Its means that there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’s aboutsatisfaction with salary and fringe benefits. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2.23 : t-test for job security and stability

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Asstt Professors’ job is secure and stable in the university

BPS

15

3.33

18

-.442

2.101

TTS

5

3.60

p=0.05

The calculated value of t is -.442 while table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level . It is less that table value.Its means null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’sjob security and stabilityis accepted.

Table 4.2.24 :t-test for promotion opportunities in service

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Promotion opportunities are available in their service structure

BPS

15

3.20

18

-1.389

2.101

TTS

5

4.00

p=0.05

The calculated value of t is -1.389 while table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level . It is less that table value.Its means null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’spromotion opportunities available in service structure is accepted.

Table 4.2.25 : t-test for switching over to TTS

Statement

Status of service

N

Mean

df

Calculated value

Table Value

Your Asstt Professors prefer to switch over Tenure Track System

BPS

15

2.20

18

-.832

2.101

TTS

5

2.60

p=0.05

The calculated value of t is -.832 while table value of t is 2.101 at 0.05 level . It is less that table value.Its means null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the opinions of HoD’sfor switching over to TTSis accepted.

i


Request Removal

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal:

Request the removal of this essay


More from UK Essays