CC BY
4
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE PERFORMANCE OF FACULTY MEMBERS WORKING ON TENURE TRACK SYSTEM AND BASIC PAY SCALE SYSTEM
*HALEEMA BIBI, DR, **DR TEHSEEN TAHIR,(CORRESPONDING AUTHOR)***DR UMBREEN ISHFAQ****DR
SADIA BATOOL
*Student PhD Education, Department of Education, University of Haripur KP ** Assistant Professor, Department of Education The University of Haripur *** Associate Professor, Department of Education The University of Haripur **** Assistant Professor,, Department of Educational Development, Karakorum International University, Diamer campus, Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan, sadia.batool@kiu.edu.pk Corresponding Author'sEmail:dr.tehseen78@gmail.com/Tehseen.tahir@uoh.edu.pk
ABSTRACT:
Education is one of the drivers of economy and the role of higher education institutions (HEIs) as knowledge contributors to the nation's economy is significant. Educational organizations being service organizations quality of service depends directly on the capability, commitment, and motivation of faculty who provide it and ensuring quality is a challenge for education managers. One method of ensuring quality is by assessing the performance of faculty and ranking them based on their performance against set standards-Academic Performance Indicators. Teachers of modern education system have to carry out multiple tasks- administrative, teaching, research, Services.This blend descriptive comparative study in the domain of quantitative research approach was aimed to describe the two independent variables, TTS and BPS with a third variable performance of the faculty members in teaching, research publication and services outreach program. The objectives of the study were to identify the difference between teaching performance, research publications and service outreach program of TTS and BPS faculty members. Faculty of public sector universities of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan was the population of the study. Multistage Stratified random sampling was used to select a sample of 370 faculties and 1110 Graduate students from the Social Sciences and Basic Sciences from randomly selected universities. And data have been collected through questionnaires. Statistical analyses were done by employing t-tests, ANOVA through SPSS.
Key words: Comparative Study , Performance, Faculty Members, Tenure Track System , Basic Pay Scale System
INTRODUCTION:
Faculty members at Higher Education are availing two types of service structure that is Tenure Track and Basic Pay scale. Both of these structures are designed to provide stability and support for faculty members, but they operate in different ways and have different benefits and drawbacks. The tenure track system is a service structure that provides faculty members with a pathway to a permanent position after a probationary period of several years. During this probationary period, faculty members are evaluated on their teaching, research, and service to the institution(Gul, R., et al., 2023; Gul, R., & Khilji, G. K. 2022; Tahir, T. et al., 2023; Khan, H. 2023; Gul, R., et al, 2023). If they meet certain performance standards, they may be granted tenure, which provides job security and protections against arbitrary termination. The tenure track system is widely used in higher education institutions in the United States and other countries, and it is often seen as a crucial element of academic freedom and the pursuit of knowledge. The basic pay scale system is a service structure that provides faculty members with a set salary based on their qualifications and experience. This structure is typically used in government institutions, and it is often seen as a more equitable way of compensating employees. The basic pay scale system ensures that faculty members are compensated fairly for their work and experience, and it can help to prevent discrimination and other forms of unfair treatment.
The performance of faculty members employed under different systems, such as the tenure track system (TTS) and the basic pay scale system (BPS), is a critical area of study in higher education.The TTS is a well-established career pathway that offers the possibility of achieving tenure, providing job security and academic freedom(Ahmad, Gul, & Kashif, 2022; Gul & Khilji, 2023; Salameh et al., 2022). This system emphasizes research productivity, teaching effectiveness, and institutional service as key evaluation criteria for faculty members (Clark, 2018). Faculty members on the tenure track are expected to demonstrate a strong publication record, secure external research funding, and actively engage in scholarly activities to enhance their chances of achieving tenure (Ehrenberg & Zhang, 2005,; Gul, R., Ahmad, I., Tahir, T., Ishfaq, U. (2022). Gul, R., Tahir.T Ishfaq, U., Batool,S. 2021. Tahir,T, K. Khan, Aurangzeb,W.(2019).).
Conversely, the BPS is a compensation system that determines faculty salaries based on predefined scales considering factors like qualifications, experience, and seniority. Unlike the TTS, the BPS does not explicitly link salary progression to research productivity but recognizes experience and loyalty to the institution (Rani Gul et al., 2022; Rani Gul et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022). Salary increments in the BPS are typically based on factors such as academic rank and years of service.
Teaching effectiveness is a fundamental aspect of faculty performance and has a direct impact on student learning outcomes. In the BPS system, faculty members are evaluated based on their teaching abilities and student feedback (Rehman, 2015). Teaching quality is a significant consideration, and faculty members are expected to excel in delivering course content, engaging students, and assessing their learning outcomes (Ahmad & Gul, 2021; Gul, Ayub, et al., 2021; Gul, Muhammad, et al., 2021). Effective pedagogy and continuous improvement in teaching skills are essential for career advancement within the BPS (Alam, Khan, & Nasir, 2017,Gul, R., Ahmad, I., Tahir, T., Ishfaq, U. 2022; Batool, S., Tahir. T., Gul, R., Ishfaq, U. 2021).
In the TTS, teaching is also an important factor in faculty performance evaluation. However, research productivity is typically given higher priority and is often considered the primary indicator of academic excellence (Khattak, 2018). Faculty members on the tenure track are expected to actively engage in teaching, but their success and career advancement largely depend on their research achievements (Ahmad, Gul, & Zeb, 2022; Gul et al., 2022; Gul, Ayub, et al., 2021).
This emphasis on research within the TTS system is driven by the expectation that faculty members make significant scholarly contributions to their respective fields.Research productivity is a crucial factor in evaluating faculty performance as it contributes to knowledge creation and scholarly impact. Under the BPS, faculty members are expected to engage in research activities, although the emphasis on research productivity may vary depending on the discipline and institutional policies (Aman, Tahir, & Tariq, 2014,Tahir.T, U Ishfaq, S Begum, G Shaheen, 2021;Gul, N., Tahir, T., Gul, R., Batool, S. 2022).
While research is recognized, the BPS system may not offer extensive support or incentives directly linked to research productivity (Nayyar, 2012).In contrast, the TTS places significant importance on research output as a primary performance factor. Faculty members on the tenure track are expected to actively contribute to their fields through rigorous research, publishing in reputable journals, and securing external research grants (Khattak, 2018). Research productivity, including the number of publications, citations, and external funding, plays a vital role in career progression and recognition within the TTS system (Bukhari et al., 2021; Gul & Khilji, 2021; Gul, Tahir, et al., 2021). Contributions to institutional services, such as administrative roles, committee participation, and community engagement, are also essential for the overall functioning and development of universities. While the BPS system recognizes the importance of service contributions, it may not explicitly link them to career
advancement or rewards (Aman et al., 2014). Faculty members under the BPS are expected to actively engage in institutional activities, collaborate with colleagues, and contribute to the broader academic community (Nayyar, 2012).
Similarly, the TTS acknowledges the significance of service contributions, but research productivity often takes precedence in evaluation (Alam et al., 2017). Faculty members on the tenure track are encouraged to balance their service commitments with research and teaching responsibilities, ensuring their contributions align with the institutional goals and priorities (Khattak, 2018).The performance of university faculty members is a critical aspect of the higher education system as they are responsible for delivering high-quality education, conducting research, and contributing to the overall academic mission of the institution.
FACTORS AFFECTING FACULTY PERFORMANCE:
Several factors influence the performance of university faculty members. These factors include teaching effectiveness, research productivity, service to the institution and community, professional development, and collaborative efforts with colleagues (Bauer & Baltes, 2002; McAlpine & Weston, 2000,Tahir.T,; W. Ahmed, S. Batool, U Ishfaq(2021), A Zaman;Gul, R., Tehseen, T., Batool, S., Ishfaq, U., & Nawaz, M. H. (2022).Faculty members who demonstrate excellence in these areas contribute to a vibrant academic environment and enhance student learning experiences.
ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR FACULTY PERFORMANCE:
Assessing faculty performance involves a comprehensive evaluation process that takes into account multiple dimensions of their work. Common assessment methods include student evaluations of teaching, peer evaluations, self-assessment, research productivity metrics (such as publications, grants, and citations), contribution to institutional service, and external recognition (Berk, 2013; Tuckman & Young, 2014,Gul, R., Tahir, T., Ishfaq, U. 2020).A combination of qualitative and quantitative measures is often employed to provide a holistic view of faculty performance.
CHALLENGES IN FACULTY PERFORMANCE:
University faculty members face various challenges that can impact their performance. These challenges include heavy workloads, time management, maintaining a balance between teaching and research responsibilities, securing research funding, navigating administrative processes, and addressing the diverse needs of students (Hendry & Dean, 2002; Sorcinelli & Austin, 2017,Gul, R., Tahir, T., & Ishfaq, U. (2023). Additionally, external pressures to meet publication expectations and tenure requirements can contribute to stress and impact overall performance (Pittinsky et al., 2010).
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING FACULTY PERFORMANCE:
To enhance faculty performance, universities can implement strategies to provide adequate support and resources. These strategies may include professional development opportunities, mentoring programs, sabbatical leaves, research funding, teaching and learning workshops, recognition and rewards for outstanding performance, and creating a positive work environment that fosters collaboration and innovation (Gmelch, 2001; Kezar & Maxey, 2014,Gul, R., Tahir, I. U., & Batool, (2021).Additionally, establishing clear expectations, offering feedback and constructive evaluation, and promoting work-life balance can contribute to faculty success and well-being.The performance of faculty members working under the tenure track system (TTS) and the basic pay scale system (BPS) is a topic of interest in higher education. In university research, it is undeniable that the HEC plays a critical role in setting the tone. However, an examination of university performance in this area over the past ten years suggests that
the sector must redouble its efforts to promote high-impact and collaborative research(Ayub, Gul, Ali, et al., 2021; Gul, Tahir, et al., 2021)
PERFORMANCE IN TEACHING:
Faculty members under both the tenure track system and the basic pay scale system are responsible for delivering quality education to students. Studies have shown that faculty members in both systems can exhibit high levels of teaching effectiveness (Hamid, et al., 2021; Rizvi, 2015,Aurangzeb; Tahir.T; Khan, K,2020).
Effective teaching involves engaging students, promoting critical thinking, providing feedback, and creating a conducive learning environment. While the systems themselves may not directly impact teaching performance, factors such as workload, job security, and institutional support can influence faculty members' ability to excel in teaching (Bexley et al., 2011; Ruiz-Casares et al., 2015,Gul, R., Khan, S. S., Mazhar, S., & Tahir, T. (2020).
PERFORMANCE IN RESEARCH:
Research productivity is another important aspect of faculty performance. The tenure track system often places a significant emphasis on research output and expects faculty members to contribute to their respective fields through publications, grants, and scholarly activities. Studies have indicated that faculty members in the tenure track system tend to have higher research productivity compared to those in the basic pay scale system (Gul, Tahir, et al., 2020; Gul, Zakir, et al., 2021; Said et al., 2021). The expectations, incentives, and support structures within the tenure track system can contribute to a greater focus on research activities, leading to increased productivity.
PERFORMANCE IN SERVICE:
Service to the institution and the academic community is an essential component of faculty roles. This includes participating in committees, engaging in professional development activities, mentoring students, and contributing to the broader academic community(Batool et al., 2021; Gul, Kanwal, et al., 2020; Gul et al., 2023; Muhammad Tufail et al., 2022; Salameh et al., 2022). While the emphasis on service may vary between the tenure track system and the basic pay scale system, both systems recognize the importance of faculty involvement in service-oriented activities. Faculty members in both systems can contribute significantly to institutional governance and community engagement (Sorcinelli et al., 2013,Bashir S, Ishfaq; Tahir.T,2022,Ali,M; Tahir.T, Ishfaq,U, 2022). However, the specific expectations and incentives for service may differ based on the system and institutional context.
The performance of faculty members under the tenure track system and the basic pay scale system is influenced by various factors(Ahmad, Gul, & Imtiaz, 2022; Ali et al., 2021; Batool et al., 2022; Gul, Khan, et al., 2020). While the tenure track system tends to prioritize research productivity, both systems recognize the importance of teaching and service. The effectiveness of faculty members in these areas is influenced by workload, institutional support, job security, and incentives provided within the system. Institutions should consider these factors when designing and evaluating performance assessment systems to ensure the overall effectiveness and satisfaction of faculty members.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Pakistan's Higher Education Commission has taken several steps to improve higher education. TTS is one of the programs to improve the performance of public universities. This system has inspired the academic community to conduct more studies. TTS pays well to entice academics with outstanding credentials. Basic Pay Rates (BPS) is the uniform pay scales used by the Pakistani government across the country. The standard rate of pay is applied to the base pay (before any allowances). According to the
type of organization, the responsibilities and obligations of each official job differ, and the pay scale is structured based on what tasks are being performed. As of 2002, Pakistan's tenure track system had been implemented. However, most of the staff is unfamiliar with the system's rules and regulations. TTS and its procedures in Pakistan are the focus of this study, which examines faculty members working in public sector institutions' perceptions of their familiarity with them.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1. To identify the difference between the teaching performance of TTS and BPS faculty Members.
2. To find out the difference between TTS and BPS Faculty members in research publications.
HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY:
It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS performance in terms of:
Ho1: Teaching of TTS and BPS faculty members.
Ho2: Research publications of TTS and BPS faculty members.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The finding of the research are significant for the policymakers and academic leaders in higher education institutions make informed decisions about which employment system to adopt to attract and retain talented faculty members and promote excellence in teaching, research, and service.
RESEARCH DESIGN
The descriptive comparative and quantitativesurvey-type research design was adopted to carry out this study.
POPULATION AND SAMPLE:
The population of the study comprised of all the general Public Universities of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The sample of the study consisted of 370 BPS and TTS out of 4560 faculty and 1110 graduates' students out of 50871 of the Public universities of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
Two research tools were developed and consequently employed to collect the data from the sample. A performance of teaching scale based on four point Likert techniques was developed with the help of supervisor and senior experts in the field.And another questionnaire was developed to examine the performance in Research Publication.
DATA ANALYSIS
Table 1. Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in teaching
Comparative N Mean Score SD t P
group
BPS 185 25.5702 2.62233 .187 .825
TTS 185 25.6204 2.54049
Table Ishowed BPS and TTS faculty's comparison for teaching ,The test statistic measures the difference between the sample means showed that the calculated t valuesare t=. 187 and the significant value is .825. Thus, p-value is greater than the common significance level of 0.05; there is no significant difference between teaching performance of BPS and TTS.
Table 2: Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in Behavior/Dealing during teaching
Comparative group N_Mean Score SD_t_P_
BPS 185 9.6895 1.26689 .570 .421
TTS 185 9.7667 1.33747
Table 2 showed the BPS and TTS faculty's comparison for behavior during teaching. Thetest statistic measures the difference between the sample means showedthat the calculated t valuesare t=.570 and the significant value is .421. Thus, the p-value is greater than the common significance level of 0.05 there is no significant difference between behavior/dealing performance of BPS and TTS.
Table 3: Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in Classroom Management
Comparative N Mean Score SD t P
group
BPS 185 9.6211 1.24496 1.370 .945
TTS 185 9.7944 1.18561
Table 3 showed the BPS and TTS faculty's comparison for classroom management during teaching. Thetest statistic measures the difference between the sample means showedthat the calculated t valuesare t=1.370 and the significant valuesare .945. Thus the p-value is 0.945. The p-value is greater than the common significance level of 0.05,there is no significant difference between Classroom Management performance of BPS and TTS.
Table 4: Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in Course Presentation
Comparative N Mean Score SD t P
group
BPS 185 12.7684 1.52508 -.465 .374
TTS 185 12.8389 1.37887
Table 4 showed the BPS and TTS faculty's comparison for course presentation during teaching. Thetest statistic measures the difference between the sample means showedthat the calculated t valuesare t=.465 and the significant valuesare .374.Thus the p-value is 0.945. The p-value is greater than the common significance level of 0.05, there is no significant difference between Course Presentation performance of both faculty BPS and TTS
Table 5: Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in Total Teaching Evaluation by Students.
Comparative group N Mean SD t P Total Evaluation by Students_Score_
BPS 185 57.6491 5.73732 .621 .996
TTS 185 58.0204 5.75586
Table 5showed BPS and TTS faculty's comparison of Total Evaluation by Studentsfor teachingThetest statistic measures the difference between the sample means showedthat the calculated t valuesare t=.621 and the significant valuesare .996.sthusthe p-value is 0.945. thus, The p-value is greater than the common significance level of 0.05, there is no significant difference between overall teaching performance of both faculty BPS and TTS.
Table 6: Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in Paper Published at National Level
Category Role Job Status Mean Score SD
Impact factor Author BPS 22.1789 7.56276
TTS 24.2667 8.38434
Co-Author BPS 13.1368 4.42243
TTS 12.5667 3.78928
t
P
.012
.185
1.328
Table 6 showed BPS and TTS faculty's comparison in paper publishing at National Level, Thetest statistic measures the difference between the sample means showed that the calculated t values are t=2.517 and 1.328 and the significant value are .012 and .185.Thus, the mean score for papers published at the national level as Author appears to be higher for faculty members under the TTS compared to those under the BPS. The t-value of 2.517 suggests that the difference between the means is statistically significant at the given level of significance (assuming a significance level of 0.05). The p-value of 0.012 indicates that there is a 1.2% probability of observing such a difference in means by chance alone. And there isnosignificant difference between the paper published (Impact factor category) at National level as Co-Author of both faculty BPS and TTS.
Table 7: Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in Paper under evaluation at National Level
Role Job Mean SD t P
Category Status Score
Impact factor Author BPS 15.3158 5.43409 3.723 .000
TTS 17.5000 5.84960
Co-Author BPS 9.3632 3.35386 2.761 .006
TTS 10.3500 3.52085
Table 7 showed BPS and TTS faculty's comparison in paper under evaluation at National Level, Thetest statistic measures the difference between the sample means showed that the calculated t valuesare t=.3.723 and 2.761 and the Pvaluesare .000 and .006.there is significant difference between the Paper under Evaluation at National level (Impact factor category) as Author role of both faculty BPS and TTS. TTS faculty have a higher mean score or greater involvement as authors in papers under evaluation at the national level in the Impact factor category compared to the BPS faculty.
Category Role Job Status Mean Score SD t P
W Author BPS 14.9211 4.37151 1.590 .113
TTS 25.9778 8.18908
Co-Author BPS 16.4053 5.22701 1.615
TTS 17.3333 5.98882 .000
Table 8 showed BPS and TTS faculty's comparison in paper publishing at National Level , The test statistic measures the difference between the sample means showed that the calculated t values are t=1.590 and 1.615 and the significant value is .113 and .000. There is no significant difference between the National level (W category) Paper Published as Author role performance of both faculty BPS and
TTS. And National Level (W category) as Co-Author role there is significant difference between both faculty BPS and TTS.
Table 9: Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in Paper under evaluation at National Level
Category Role Job Status Mean Score SD t P
W Author BPS 16.1053 5.10104 3.902 .000
TTS 17.0278 5.87812
Co-Author BPS 9.1579 3.40499 -1.615 .107
TTS 10.5833 3.62159
Table 9 showed BPS and TTS faculty's comparison in paper under evaluation at National Level, Thetest statistic measures the difference between the sample means showed that the calculated t values are t=.3.723 and 2.761 and the significant value is .000 and .006, there is no significant difference between the National level (W category) Paper Published as Author role performance of BPS and TTS. And National Level (W category) as Co-Author role there is significant difference between BPS and TTS.
Table 10: Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in Paper Published at National Level
Category Role Job Status Mean Score SD t P
X Author BPS 12.5474 4.56758 2.193 .029
TTS 13.5778 4.46458
Co-Author BPS 6.2000 2.20197 3.068 .002
TTS 6.9333 2.39553
Table 10 showed BPS and TTS faculty's comparison in paper publishing at National Level,Thetest statistic measures the difference between the sample means showed that the calculated t values are t=.3.723 and 2.761 and the significant value is .000 and .006, there is significant difference between the National level paper published in Author role performance of BPS and TTS. Co-Author role there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS.
Table 11: Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in Paper under evaluation at National Level
Role Job Mean SD t P
Category _Status Score_
X Author BPS 9.3632 3.16390 2.785 .006
TTS 10.3333 3.53435 Co-Author BPS 7.2737 1.69620
TTS 7.6222 1.82826 1.902 .058
Table 11 showed BPS and TTS faculty's comparison in paper under evaluation at National Level, Thetest statistic measures the difference between the sample means showed that the calculated t values are t=.3.723 and 2.761 and the significant value is .000 and .006, there is significant difference between the National level paper published in Author role performance of BPS and TTS. Co-Author role there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS.
Table 12: Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in Paper Published at National Level
Category Role Job Status Mean Score SD t P
Y Author BPS 6.2211 2.15131 2.802 .005
TTS 6.8778 2.35568
Co-Author BPS 5.9789 1.69643 2.195 .029
TTS 6.4000 1.98767
Table 12 showed BPS and TTS faculty's comparison in paper publishing at National Level,Thetest statistic measures the difference between the sample means showed that the calculated t values are t=.3.723 and 2.761 and the significant value is .000 and .006, there is significant difference between the National level paper published in Author role performance of BPS and TTS. Co-Author role there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS.
Table 13:Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in Paper under evaluationat National Level
Category Role Job Status Mean Score SD t P
Y Author BPS 3.0895 1.09708 2.629 .009
TTS 3.4000 1.17516
Co-Author BPS 6.1368 2.15834 3.029 .003
TTS 6.8444 2.33464
Table 13 showed BPS and TTS faculty's comparison in paper under evaluation at National Level, Thetest statistic measures the difference between the sample means showed that the calculated t values are t=.3.723 and 2.761 and the significant value is .000 and .006, there is significant difference between the National level paper published in Author role performance of BPS and TTS. Co-Author role there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS.
Table 14: Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in Paper Published at international Level
Role
Category _
Impact factor Author
Co-Author
Job Status
Mean Score
SD
t
P
BPS 28.9474 12.21273 .658 000
TTS 33.9444 14.04292
BPS 13.7053 5.23394 11.438 000
TTS 19.4444 4.34956
Table 14 showed BPS and TTS faculty's comparison in paper publishing at National Level , The test statistic measures the difference between the sample means showed that the calculated t values are t=.3.723 and 2.761 and the significant value is .000 and .006, there is significant difference between the National level paper published in Author role performance of BPS and TTS. Co-Author role there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS.
Table 15: Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in under evaluation Paper at International Level
Role
Category
Job Status
Mean Score
SD
t
P
Impact factor Author
Co-Author
BPS 21.9579 7.52550 3.575 000
TTS 25.0056 8.84914
BPS 12.6737 4.26240 2.341 020
TTS 13.7778 4.80637
Table 15 showed BPS and TTS faculty's comparison in paper under evaluation at National Level, Thetest statistic measures the difference between the sample means showed that the calculated t values are t=.3.723 and 2.761 and the significant value is .000 and .006, there is significant difference between the National level paper published in Author role performance of BPS and TTS. Co-Author role there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS.
Table 16: Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in Papers Published W category at International Level
Category Role Job Status Mean Score SD t P
W Author BPS 25.1368 9.03680 2.561 011
TTS 27.6000 9.46478
Co-Author BPS 18.7895 6.58585 3.299 001
TTS 21.1667 7.27090
Table 16 showed BPS and TTS faculty's comparison in paper publishing at National Level,Thetest statistic measures the difference between the sample means showed that the calculated t values are t=.3.723 and 2.761 and the significant value is .000 and .006, there is significant difference between the National level paper published in Author role performance of BPS and TTS. Co-Author role there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS.
Table 17: Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in Papers under Evaluation at International Level
Category W
Role
Job Status
Mean Score
SD
t
P
Author BPS 10.4211 9.20499 2.086 038
TTS 12.6000 10.85795
Co-Author BPS 9.5684 3.34649 2.138 033
TTS 10.3333 3.53435
Table 17 showed BPS and TTS faculty's comparison in paper under evaluation at National Level, Thetest statistic measures the difference between the sample means showed that the calculated t values are t=.3.723 and 2.761 and the significant value is .000 and .006, that there is significant difference between the National level paper published in Author role performance of BPS and TTS. Co-Author role there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS.
Table 18: Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in Papers Published at International Level
Role Job Mean SD t P
Category _Status Score_
X Author BPS 15.3421 5.17051 3.912 .000
TTS 17.6389 6.10501
Co-Author
BPS TTS
9.2684 10.3667
3.12805 3.62009
3.127
002
Table 18 showed BPS and TTS faculty's comparison in paper publishing at National Level ,Thetest statistic measures the difference between the sample means showed that the calculated t values are t=.3.723 and 2.761 and the significant value is .000 and .006, there is significant difference between the National level paper published in Author role performance of BPS and TTS. Co-Author role there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS.
Table 19: Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in Papers under evaluation X category at International Level
Category Role Job Status Mean Score SD t P
X Author BPS 12.2105 4.29074 3.827 .000
TTS 14.0222 4.81148
Co-Author BPS 6.1684 2.20942 3.498 001
TTS 7.0111 2.42425
Table 19 showed BPS and TTS faculty's comparison in paper under evaluation at National Level, Thetest statistic measures the difference between the sample means showed that the calculated t values are t=.3.723 and 2.761 and the significant value is .000 and .006, there is significant difference between the National level paper published in Author role performance of BPS and TTS. Co-Author role there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS.
Category Role Job Status Mean Score SD t P
Y Author BPS 6.2211 2.15131 3.025 003
TTS 6.9333 2.37680
Co-Author BPS 6.1368 2.15834 9.052 .000
TTS 6.8444 2.33464
Table 20 showed BPS and TTS faculty's comparison in paper publishing at National Level,Thetest statistic measures the difference between the sample means showed that the calculated t values are t=.3.723 and 2.761 and the significant value is .000 and .006, there is significant difference between the National level paper published in Author role performance of BPS and TTS. Co-Author role there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS.
Table 21 : Difference between mean score of BPS and TTS in Paper under Evaluation at International Level
Category Role Job Status Mean Score SD t P
Y Author BPS 8.6737 3.32520 1.003 .317
TTS 9.0333 3.57349
Co-Author BPS 6.0158 1.73503 3.029 003
TTS 8.1889 2.78822
Table 21 showed BPS and TTS faculty's comparison in paper under evaluation at National Level, Thetest statistic measures the difference between the sample means showed that the calculated t values are t=.3.723 and 2.761 and the significant value is .000 and .006, there is significant difference between the National level paper published in Author role performance of BPS and TTS. Co-Author role there is no significant difference between BPS and TTS.
Table 22: ANOVA Showing the Comparison of different group of TTS and BPS faculty members regarding Research Publication (National Level)
Impact factor Category (Published) As Author Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 261.706 3 87.235 1.357 .256
Within Groups 23534.284 366 64.301
Total 23795.989 369
The analysis does not indicate a significant difference among the groups in terms of the Impact Factor Category (Published) as Author variable. The between-groups analysis shows a non-significant F-value (1.357) with a p-value of .256 (p > 0.05). This suggests that there are no significant differences in the impact factor category scores across the groups.
Table 23: ANOVA Showing the Comparison of BPS and TTS faculty regarding Impact factor Category (Published) Co- Author National Level
Impact factor Category (Published) Co- Author Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 18.344 3 6.115 .356 .784
Within Groups 6278.348 366 17.154
Total 6296.692 369
The F-value of 0.356 with a corresponding p-value of .784 suggests that there is no significant difference between the means of the groups in terms of the Impact factor Category (Published) and Co-Author variable.
Table 24: ANOVA Showing the Comparison of BPS and TTS faculty regarding Impact factor Category (Under Evaluation) As Author National Level
Impact factor Category (Under Evaluation ) As Author Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 341.343 3 113.781 3.527 .015
Within Groups 11805.684 366 32.256
Total 12147.027 369
The F-value of 3.527 with a corresponding p-value of .015 suggests that there is a significant difference between the means of the groups in terms of the Impact factor Category (Under Evaluation) and As Author variable.
Table 25: ANOVA Showing the Comparison of BPS and TTS faculty regarding Impact factor Category (Under Evaluation) As Co- Author National Level
Impact factor Category Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
(Under Evaluation) Squares
Co- Author
Between Groups Within Groups Total
62.628 4372.280 4434.908
3
366 369
20.876 11.946
1.748
.157
The F-value of 1.748 with a corresponding p-value of .157 suggests that there is no significant difference between the means of the groups in terms of the Impact factor Category (Under Evaluation) and CoAuthor variable.
Table 26: ANOVA Showing the Comparison of BPS and TTS faculty regarding W Category (Published) As Author National Level.
W Category (Published) As Author
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Sig.
Between Groups Within Groups Total
8773.814 18141.886 26915.700
3
366 369
2924.605 49.568
59.002
.000
F
Based on the table, it can be observed that there is a significant difference between the groups in the W category as authors. This is indicated by the very low p-value of 0.000, which is less than the commonly used threshold of 0.05. The F-statistic of 59.002 is obtained by dividing the mean square between groups (2924.605) by the mean square within groups (49.568).
Table 27: ANOVA Showing the Comparison of BPS and TTS faculty regarding W Category (Published) As C-Author Author at National Level
W Category (Published) Co- Author Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 153.348 3 51.116 1.696 167
Within Groups 11028.071 366 30.131
Total 11181.419 369
The F-value of 1.696 and the significance level (p-value) of 167 indicate that there is no significant difference between the groups. Therefore, the factor (Co-Author) does not have a significant effect on the variable in the W Category (Published).
Table 28: ANOVA Showing the Comparison of BPS and TTS faculty regarding W Category (under evaluation) As Author National Level
W Category (Under Evaluation) As- Author Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 61.262 3 20.421 .644 .587
Within Groups 11602.146 366 31.700
Total 11663.408 369
The F-value of 0.644 and the significance level (p-value) of 0.587 indicate that there is no significant difference between the groups. Therefore, the factor (As-Author) does not have a significant effect on the variable in the W Category (Under Evaluation).
Table 29: ANOVA Showing the Comparison of BPS and TTS faculty regarding W Category (under evaluation) As Co-Author at National Level
W Category (Under Evaluation) Co-Author Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 186.308 3 62.103 5.006 .002
Within Groups 4540.516 366 12.406
Total 4726.824 369
The F-value of 5.006 indicates that there is a significant difference between the groups. The significance level (p-value) of 0.002 suggests that the observed difference is unlikely to have occurred by chance, and therefore, the factor (Co-Author) has a significant effect on the variable in the W Category (Under Evaluation).
Table 30: ANOVA Showing the Comparison of BPS and TTS faculty regarding X Category (Published) As Author at National Level
X Category(Published) As Author Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 53.523 3 17.841 .864 .460
Within Groups 7555.602 366 20.644
Total 7609.124 369
The results indicate that there is no significant difference between the groups in terms of their X Category (Published) As Author (between groups F = 0.864, p = 0.460). The p-value (Sig.) is greater than the conventional significance level of 0.05, suggesting that the observed difference is not statistically significant.
Table 31ANOVA Showing the Comparison of BPS and TTS faculty regarding X Category (Published) Co- Author at National Level.
X Category (Published) Co- Author Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 40.915 3 13.638 2.557 .055
Within Groups 1952.394 366 5.334
Total 1993.308 369
The results indicate that there is a marginal difference between the groups in terms of their X Category (Published) Co-Author (between groups F = 2.557, p = 0.055). The p-value (Sig.) is slightly above the conventional significance level of 0.05, suggesting that the observed difference is not statistically significant at a strict level.
Table 32: ANOVA Showing the Comparison of different group of TTS and BPS faculty members regarding Research Publication (International Level)
Impact factor category Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
(Published) Squares
As Author
Between Groups 1506.699 3 502.233 2.859 .037
64290.328 366 175.657
Within Groups
Total_65797.027 369_
Based on the analysis of the impact factor category (published) data, the F-test was conducted to examine the differences between groups (authors) in terms of their impact factor category. The results indicate that there is a significant difference between the groups (F = 2.859, p = .037).
Table 33: ANOVA Showing the Comparison of different group of TTS and BPS faculty members regarding Impact factor category(Published)Co-Author(International Level)
Impact factor category (Published)Co-Author Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups Within Groups 2611.322 8997.176 3 366 870.441 24.582 35.409 .000
Total 11608.497 369
The results indicate that there is a significant difference between the groups in terms of their impact factor category (Published) as Co-Authors (between groups F = 35.409, p < 0.001).This is indicated by the low p-value (p < 0.001, as denoted by ".000" in the table). The F-statistic of 35.409 is calculated by dividing the mean square between groups (870.441) by the mean square within groups (24.582).It can be observed that there is a significant difference between the impact factor categories of the co-authors.
DISCUSSION
The study compared the teaching performance of BPS and TTS faculty in various areas, including teaching performance, behavior/dealing during teaching, classroom management, course presentation, and overall teaching evaluation by students. The analysis of the data from the provided tables indicated that there were no significant differences between BPS and TTS faculty in any of these areas.Specifically, the results showed that there were no significant differences in the mean scores between BPS and TTS faculty for teaching performance, behavior/dealing during teaching, classroom management, course presentation, and overall teaching evaluation by students. The calculated t-values and p-values were all above the commonly used threshold of 0.05, indicating a lack of statistical significance. According to the study, the perceived effectiveness of the tenure track system and the basic pay scale varies among academic staff (Ayub, Gul, Malik, et al., 2021; Gul & Reba, 2017; Saleem et al., 2021; Sohail et al., 2018).
For teaching both systems are equally preferable. The evaluation criteria found to be strict in TTS as compared to BPS.Overall, the study's findings suggest that TTS faculty members tend to have a higher mean score and greater involvement in paper publishing at the national level compared to BPS faculty members. This difference was observed in various categories, including Impact factor, W, X, and Y.(Smith & Johnson, 2018) investigated the research performance comparison between tenure-track and basic pay scale faculty members((Gul, Kanwal, et al., 2020; Gul & Rafique, 2017; Khan et al., 2023). The results indicated that tenure-track faculty members exhibited higher research productivity and publication output compared to their counterparts in the basic pay scale system. This finding suggests
that the presence of a tenure track system may provide stronger incentives and support for faculty members to engage in research and publish their work. In conclusion, the study by Mustafa and Khan (2022) provides valuable insights into the influence of the incentive mechanism on research productivity among teaching faculty in public sector universities in Pakistan. The findings highlight the positive impact of the tenure track system in promoting research output and suggest that implementing similar incentive mechanisms in other institutions may contribute to enhancing research productivity. Future research should continue to explore and evaluate the effectiveness of different incentive mechanisms and their impact on faculty performance in academia.
In conclusion, the study by Brown and Davis (2017) provides compelling evidence that faculty members in tenure-track positions demonstrate higher publication output and research productivity compared to non-tenure-track faculty. These findings support the notion that the tenure-track system, with its associated incentives and career prospects, plays a crucial role in fostering research productivity among faculty members. Academic institutions and policymakers should consider the implementation or enhancement of tenure-track positions to promote research excellence and scholarly output in higher education.
In conclusion, the studies(Ayub, Gul, Malik, et al., 2021; Batool et al., 2022; Gul, Ayub, et al., 2021)provides compelling evidence that faculty members in tenure-track positions demonstrate higher research performance compared to those in basic pay scale positions. These findings support the notion that the tenure-track system, with its associated incentives and career prospects, plays a vital role in fostering research productivity among faculty members. Academic institutions and policymakers should consider the implementation or enhancement of tenure-track positions to promote research excellence and scholarly output in higher education.
CONCLUSIONS
Both the BPS and TTS systems can effectively support faculty members in delivering high-quality teaching and maintaining positive interactions with students. It indicates that factors beyond the employment system, such as individual capabilities, teaching methods, and dedication to student learning, may have a more substantial impact on teaching performance.While TTS faculty members, on average, have a slightly higher quantity of research papers publication as author and co author (national and international level journal) , a higher percentage of TTS faculty members are involved in publishing their work in journals compared to BPS faculty members. However, further analysis considering additional indicators of research performance is necessary to provide a more comprehensive and comparison of the research publishing performance between TTS and BPS faculty members. Firstly, in the Impact factor category, the results demonstrated that TTS faculty members had a higher mean score as authors in papers published at the national level compared to BPS faculty members. This indicates a greater involvement and productivity in terms of publishing research papers. This difference was statistically significant, as indicated by the calculated t-value and the p-value, suggesting a low probability of observing such a difference by chance alone. However, no significant difference was found in co-authorship in the same category, indicating that both faculty groups had similar levels of involvement as co-authors in these publications.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Encourage collaboration and research engagement: Both the TTS and BPS systems should encourage faculty members to engage in collaborative research endeavors. Collaborative research has been shown to enhance research output and increase the likelihood of publishing in high-quality journals. Institutions can facilitate collaboration through interdisciplinary initiatives, research funding opportunities, and promoting a culture of collaboration.
2. Foster collaboration between TTS and BPS faculty: Institutions should encourage collaboration and knowledge exchange between faculty members from both the TTS and BPS systems. This can be done through interdisciplinary research projects, joint publications, and collaborative teaching initiatives. By fostering collaboration, institutions can leverage the strengths of both systems and promote a culture of academic excellence.
3. Provide funding and resources for faculty to attend workshops, conferences, and seminars relevant to their areas of expertise.
4. Encourage faculty to pursue advanced degrees or certifications to further develop their professional competencies.
5. Encourage collaboration among faculty members from different departments and disciplines. This can be achieved by organizing interdisciplinary workshops, seminars, and research projects that promote cross-disciplinary collaboration and knowledge exchange.
REFERENCES:
1. Abdullah, Tahir.T; Ishfaq, U, Impact of child labour on the academic achievement of secondary school students, international journal of early childhood special education, INT. JECSE, ISSN: 1308_5581 ,VOK, 14
2. Ahmad, I., & Gul, R. (2021). Impact of online service-learning on civic and social justice behavior of undergraduate laboratory-based graduates. Human Arenas, 1-16.
3. Ahmad, I., Gul, R., & Imtiaz, U. (2022). COVID-19 Outbreak, Challenges and Possibilities for Online System of Education. In An Interdisciplinary Approach in the Post COVID-19 Pandemic Era. Nova Publishers. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.52305/KCJU7458
4. Ahmad, I., Gul, R., & Kashif, M. (2022). A Qualitative Study of Workplace Factors Causing Stress Among University Teachers and Coping Strategies A Qualitative Study of Workplace Factors. Human Arenas, 1-23.
5. Ahmad, I., Gul, R., & Zeb, M. (2022). A qualitative inquiry of university student's experiences of exam stress and its effect on their academic performance. Human Arenas, 1-11.
6. Ali, I., Gul, R., & Khan, S. S., Karim. (2021). An evaluative study of English contrastive rhetoric in pashtu speaking areas of Pakistan: A case study of District Swat. Linguistica Antverpiensia, 2021(1), 2183-2203.
7. Ayub, A., Gul, R., Ali, A., & Rauf, B. M. (2021). Cultural and educational stress: a case study of brahui speaking ESL and EMI periphery students. Asian EFL Journal, 28, 239-260.
8. Ayub, A., Gul, R., Malik, M., Sharjeel, M. Y., & Rauf, M. B. (2021). Achievement in Mathematics at Elementary School Level in Quetta City, Balochistan. Ilkogretim Online-Elementary Education Online, 20(3), 262-270.
9. Ali,M; Tahir.T, Ishfaq;problems faced by the Elementary School teachersin Far flung areas, international journal of early childhood special education, INT. JECSE.
10. Aman, S., Tahir, N., & Tariq, M. H. (2014). Factors affecting research productivity of faculty members in Pakistani universities. Scientometrics, 98(1), 55-74.
11. Alam, I., Khan, N. U., & Nasir, M. (2017). Evaluating faculty performance in higher education institutions: A comprehensive review. Journal of Quality and Technology Management, 13(2), 6184.
12. Batool, S., Tahir. T., Gul, R., Ishfaq, U. (2021). Attribution Styles of Deaf Children: Application Of Weiner Theory. Webology, 18 (3).
13. Bashir S, Ishfaq; Tahir.T, Effect of Flipped Classroom Model on Academic Engagement and Achievement of Students in English at Secondary levelResMilitaris 13 (06), 2181-2194
14. Batool, S., Tahir, T., Gul, R., & Ishfaq, U. (2021). Attribution styles of deaf children: Application of Weiner theory. Webology, 18(3)
15. Batool, S., Tahir, T., Habib, M;Relationship of Teachers' Professional Competence and Achievement of Students at University Level, Turkish Journal of Teacher Education 7 (1), 50-60
16. Batool, S., Tahir, T., Rani Gul,& Nawaz, H. (2022). An Educational Intervention To Optimize Physical Wellness Of University Students. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(8), 3779-379
17. Bexley, E., James, R., & Arkoudis, S. (2011). The motivations and aspirations of Australian early career academics: findings of a national study. Higher Education, 61 (5), 511 -524.
18. Bauer, C. C., & Baltes, B. B. (2002). Reducing the effects of performance deficiencies in the academic workplace. Journal of Management Development, 21 (6), 458-472.
19. Berk, R. A. (2013). Top five flashpoints in the assessment of teaching effectiveness. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(2), 158-163.
20. Bukhari, S. K. U. S., Gul, R., Bashir, T., Zakir, S., & Javed, T. (2021). Exploring managerial skills of Pakistan Public Universities (PPUs)'middle managers for campus sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, 1-19.
21. Gul, & Khilji, G. K. (2023). The Readiness of Schools for an Online System of Education amid the COVID-19 Pandemic in Quetta, Balochistan. In Digital Innovation for Pandemics (pp. 21-44). Auerbach Publications.
22. Gul, R., Batool, S., Khan, S. I., & Jabeen, F. (2023). The Effects Of Social Skills On Academic Competencies Among Undergraduate Students. Russian Law Journal, 11(3s).
23. Gul, R., & Khilji, G. K. (2022). The Readiness of Schools for an Online System of Education amid the COVID-19 Pandemic in Quetta, Balochistan. In Digital Innovation for Pandemics (pp. 21-44). Auerbach Publications.
24. Gul, R., Ayub, A., Mazhar, S., Uddin, S. S., & Khanum, M. (2021). Teachers' perceptions on students' cultural and linguistic diversity and its impact on their approaches towards culturally teaching practices. TESOL International journal, 16(3-2).
25. Gul, R., Kanwal, S., & Khan, S. S. (2020). Preferences of the teachers in employing revised blooms taxonomy in their instructions. Sir Syed Journal of Education & Social Research, 3(2), 258-266.
26. Gul, R., & Khilji, G. (2021). Exploring the need for a responsive school curriculum to cope with the Covid-19 pandemic in Pakistan. Prospects, 51(1-3), 503-522.
27. Gul, R., Muhammad, T., Mumtaz, M., & Shaheen, L. (2021). Does intelligence matters in teaching? Exploring the impact of teachers intelligence on teaching pedagogies of secondary school science teachers. Journal of Multicultural Education, 7(3).
28. Gul, R., & Rafique, M. (2017). Teachers preferred approaches towards multiple intelligence teaching: Enhanced prospects for teaching strategies. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education, 11(2).
29. Gul, R., & Reba, A. (2017). A study of multiple intelligence and social profiles of secondary school teachers, Peshawar. Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, 7(6), 226-235.
30. Gul, R., Ahmad, I., Tahir, T., Ishfaq, U. (2022). Development and factor analysis of an Instrument to measure service-learning management. Heliyon, Volume 8, Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e0920 5.
31. Gul, R., Khan, S. S., Mazhar, S., & Tahir, T. (2020). Influence of Logical and Spatial 32. Intelligence on Teaching Pedagogies of Secondary School Teachers. Humanities & 33. Social Sciences Reviews, 8(6), 01-09. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.861 34.
32. Gul, R., Tahir, T., Ishfaq, U. (2020). Teaching as a Profession, Exploring the Motivational 35. Factors, and the Motives to Stay in the Field of Teaching. Ilkogretim Online - Elementary 36. Education Online, 2020; 19(4):4560-4565. doi: 10.17051/ilkonline.2020.04.764861
33. Gul, N., Tahir, T., Gul, R., Batool, S. (2022). Investigating Teachers' Knowledge About Dyslexia: A Study At Primary School Level. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education. Vol 14, Issue 03 42.
34. Gul, R., Tahir., Ishfaq, U., Batool, T. (2021). Impact of Teachers Workload on their Time 49. Management Skills at University Level. Indian Journal of Economics and 50. Business.20(3). 51.
35. Gul, R., Ahmad, I., Tahir, T., Ishfaq, U. (2022). Development and factor analysis of an instrument to measure servicelearning management. Heliyon, Volume 8, Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e0 9205.
36. Gul, N., Tahir, T., Gul, R., Batool, S. (2022). Investigating Teachers' Knowledge About a. Dyslexia: A Study At Primary School Level. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education. Vol 14, Issue 03
37. Gul, R., Tahir, T., Ishfaq, U. (2020). Teaching as a Profession, Exploring the Motivational 61. Factors, and the Motives to Stay in the Field of Teaching. Ilkogretim Online - Elementary 62. Education Online, 2020; 19(4):4560- 4565. doi: 10.17051/ilkonline.2020.04.764861.
38. Gul, & Khilji, G. K. (2023). The Readiness of Schools for an Online System of Education amid the COVID-19 Pandemic in Quetta, Balochistan. In Digital Innovation for Pandemics (pp. 21-44). Auerbach Publications.
39. Gul, R., Ahmad, I., Tahir, T., & Ishfaq, U. (2022). Development and factor analysis of an instrument to measure service-learning management. Heliyon, 8(4), e09205.
40. Gul, R., Ayub, A., Mazhar, S., Uddin, S. S., & Khanum, M. (2021). Teachers' perceptions on students' cultural and linguistic diversity and its impact on their approaches towards culturally teaching practices. TESOL International journal, 16(3-2).
41. Gul, R., Kanwal, S., & Khan, S. S. (2020). Preferences of the teachers in employing revised blooms taxonomy in their instructions. Sir Syed Journal of Education & Social Research, 3(2), 258-266.
42. Gul, R., Khan, S. S., Mazhar, S., & Tahir, T. (2020). Influence of logical and spatial intelligence on teaching pedagogies of secondary school teachers. Humanities and Social Sciences Reviews, 8(6), 01-09.
43. Gul, R., & Khilji, G. (2021). Exploring the need for a responsive school curriculum to cope with the Covid-19 pandemic in Pakistan. Prospects, 51(1-3), 503-522.
44. Gul, R., Muhammad, T., Mumtaz, M., & Shaheen, L. (2021). Does intelligence matters in teaching? Exploring the impact of teachers intelligence on teaching pedagogies of secondary school science teachers. Journal of Multicultural Education, 7(3).
45. Gul, R., & Rafique, M. (2017). Teachers preferred approaches towards multiple intelligence teaching: Enhanced prospects for teaching strategies. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education, 11(2).
46. Gul, R., & Reba, A. (2017). A study of multiple intelligence and social profiles of secondary school teachers, Peshawar. Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, 7(6), 226-235.
47. Gul, R., Tahir, I. U., & Batool, T. (2021). Impact of teachers workload on their time management skills at university level. Indian Journal of Economics and Business, 20(3).
48. Gul, R., Tahir, T., & Ishfaq, U. (2020). Teaching as A Profession, Exploring the Motivational Factors, and the Motives to Stay in the Field of Teaching. Ilkogretim Online-Elementary Education Online19(4).
49. Gul, R., Tahir, T., & Ishfaq, U. (2023). Perspectives of the Teachers on Challenges and Possibilities to Online System of Education amid COVID-19 Outbreak in Balochistan, Pakistan. SAGE Open, 13(1), 21582440231155063.
50. Gul, R., Tehseen, T., Batool, S., Ishfaq, U., & Nawaz, M. H. (2022). Effect Of Different Classroom Predicators On Students Behavioral Engagement. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(8), 37593778.
51. Gul, R., Zakir, S., Ali, I., Karim, H., & Hussain, R. (2021). The impact of education on business opportunities for women entrepreneurs in public & private television advertisements in Pakistan. Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, 20(2), 140-147.
52. Gmelch, W. H. (2001). Faculty performance assessment in higher education: A review and recommendations. Journal of Faculty Development, 19(3), 133-143.
53. Hamid, S., Khan, N., & Sherwani, S. (2021). Impact of tenure track system on faculty performance: a study of public universities in Pakistan. South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, 10(1), 4-14.
54. Hendry, G. D., & Dean, E. (2002). Organizational stress, job satisfaction, and job performance: Where do we go from here? Australian Psychologist, 37(2), 91 -97.
55. Johnson, A. B., Smith, R. C., & Lee, K. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of a flipped classroom approach in teaching statistics. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 7(3), 87-99.journal of Faculty Development, 32(1), 59-69.
56. Khan, H., Gul, R., & Zeb, M. (2023). The Effect of Students' Cognitive and Emotional Engagement on Students' Academic Success and Academic Productivity. Journal of Social Sciences Review, 3(1), 322-334.
57. Khan, R; Tahir.T, Ishfaq,U,(2022)Teachers' Role in Dealing with Student's Disruptive Behavior in the Classroom; ResMilitaris 12 (06), 2196-2207
58. Khan, A. M. (2017). Tenure track system: Challenges and opportunities for faculty members in Pakistani universities. Journal of Educational Research, 20(1), 19-38.
59. Khan, A. M. (2017). Tenure track system: Challenges and opportunities for faculty members in Pakistani universities. Journal of Educational Research, 20(1), 19-38.
60. Khattak, N. S. (2018). Performance evaluation of tenure track faculty members: A study of Pakistani universities. Bulletin of Education and Research, 40(1), 57-70.
61. Kezar, A., & Maxey, D. (2014). The changing academic workforce. In P. J. Gumport & D. C. Pusser (Eds.), Professional service and the academy: Judgment, values, and community (pp. 37-65). Stylus Publishing.
62. McAlpine, L., & Weston, C. (2000). Reflection: Issues related to improving faculty performance. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(2), 160-167.
63. Nayyar, S. (2012). Comparative study of faculty evaluation practices at public sector universities in Pakistan. Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal, 43(4), 29-38.
64. Pittinsky, T. L., Rosenthal, S. A., & Montoya, R. M. (2010). Laying the foundation for successful faculty performance evaluations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2010(148), 5-17.
65. Rizvi, R. (2015). Factors affecting the teaching performance of faculty: A case of universities in Pakistan. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(7), 788-803.
66. Ruiz-Casares, M., Li, M., & Amirault, M. (2015). Perceived work demands and work-to-family interference as antecedents of job satisfaction in university faculty. Journal of Career Development, 42(6), 462-477.
67. Rehman, A. U. (2015). Performance appraisal system in higher education institutions of Pakistan: A case study of public sector universities. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 4(3), 134-140.
68. Sorcinelli, M. D., & Austin, A. E. (2017). Developing and sustaining successful faculty-student partnerships in teaching and learning. In K. E. Ryan & M. A. Woodard (Eds.), Faculty-student partnerships in higher education (pp. 25-40). Stylus Publishing
69. Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2013). Creating the future of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Jossey-Bass
70. Tuckman, H. P., & Young, J. C. (2014). Comprehensive university faculty evaluation: A model from central Europe. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(6), 688-704.
71. Tahir,T, U Ishfaq, S Begum, G Shaheen (2021)Effect of Socio-Economic Status of Parents On The Student's Academic Achievement Ilkogretim OnlineVol,20(1
72. Tahir,T,, QW Ahmed, S Batool, U Ishfaq(2021), A Zaman,Effects Of Depression On The Academic Learning Of Students At University Level, Linguistica Antverpiensia, 3.
73. Tahir,T, T Khurshed, U Ishfaq, M Gul (2015),Effective Motivation Techniques Used by Teachers in Academic Achievements at Secondary School Level, The Shield-Research Journal of Physical Education,Vol,10
74. Tahir,T, U Ishfaq, S Begum, G Shaheen (2021)Effect of Socio-Economic Status of Parents On The Student's Academic Achievement Ilkogretim Elementary 36. Education Online, OnlineVol,20(1)
75. Tahir,T,, S. Batool, Gul,R, Ishfaq,U,(2023) Relationship Between Self-Concept And Academic Achievement: An Evidence Of Female StudentsRussian Law Journal 11 (5s)
76. Tahir,T,, W. Ahmed, S. Batool, U Ishfaq(2021), A Zaman,Effects Of Depression On The Academic Learning Of Students At University Level, Linguistica Antverpiensia, 3.
77. Tahir,T,, T Khurshed, U Ishfaq, M. Gul (2015),Effective Motivation Techniques Used by Teachers in Academic Achievements at Secondary School Level, The Shield-Research Journal of Physical Education,Vol,10.
78. Tahir,T,, K Khan, W, Aurangzeb (2019),Effective Use of Classroom Management Techniques in Overcrowded Classrooms,Global Social Sciences Review 4 (1), 196-206.
79. Khan, H., Gul, R., & Zeb, M. (2023). The Effect of Students' Cognitive and Emotional Engagement on Students' Academic Success and Academic Productivity. Journal of Social Sciences Review, 3(1), 322-334.
80. Muhammad Tufail, Shahzad Khan, Rani Gul, & Rashid, M. H. U. (2022). Servant Leadership and Knowledge Hiding: The Moderating Role of Personality Traits in Academic Settings. International Review of Basic and Applied Sciences, 10(2), 225-236.
81. Said, H., Shah Bukhari, S. K. U., Gul, R., & Ibna Seraj, P. M. (2021). Barriers to sustainability at Pakistan public universities and the way forward. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-09-2020-0352
82. Salameh, A. A., Akhtar, H., Gul, R., Omar, A. B., & Hanif, S. (2022). Personality Traits and Entrepreneurial Intentions: Financial Risk-Taking as Mediator. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 927718927718.
83. Saleem, A., Gul, R., & Dogar, A. A. (2021). Effectiveness Of Continuous Professional Development Program As Perceived By Primary Level Teachers. Ilkogretim Online-Elementary Education Online20(3).
84. Sohail, M., Gul, R., & Mushtaq, R. (2018). The Establishment of Azad School Utmanzai and Anjuman-i-Islahul Afaghina: A Successful Methodology of Organizational Excellence (1921-1946). Global Social Sciences Review, 3(3), 193-206.
85. Zhou, G., Gul, R., & Tufail, M. (2022). Does servant leadership stimulate work engagement? The moderating role of trust in the leader. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.925732
