International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE)

Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025, pp. 3935~3945

ISSN: 2252-8822, DOI: 10.11591/ijere.v14i5.33744  3935

Exploring non-education faculty’s lived teaching experiences in

a Philippine higher education institution

Julanie M. Limen, Ramil B. Arante

Faculty of Teacher Education, College of Industrial Technology and Teacher Education, Caraga State University Cabadbaran Campus,
Cabadbaran City, Philippines

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: This qualitative, phenomenological study investigates the impact of lacking
formal pedagogical training on non-education faculty in the context of
Received Nov 22, 2024 Caraga State University Cabadbaran Campus (CSUCC). The research
Revised May 6, 2025 explores their lived experiences to understand the specific challenges and
Accepted Jun 12, 2025 coping mechanisms they employ in their teaching roles. Data was collected
through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with a purposive
sample of ten non-education faculty members representing various
Keywords: disciplines at CSUCC. The sample size of 10 participants was determined by
the principle of data saturation, ensuring the collection of rich and recurring
Exploring teaching experiences data to identify significant themes. Several key themes emerged through
Higher education institutions thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews and focus group discussions.
Lived teaching experiences These included self-perceived teaching efficacy, difficulties encountered in
Non-education faculty test construction and syllabus design, challenges related to student
University teaching challenges engagement, and the utilization of available resources and support systems.
The findings of this study provide valuable practical implications for higher
education institutions (HEIs). They suggest the necessity of implementing
targeted training programs, offering relevant professional development
opportunities, and establishing dedicated resources to support non-education
faculty better. Ultimately, these interventions aim to enhance teaching
quality, improve faculty satisfaction, and foster a more supportive teaching
and learning environment.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Julanie M. Limen
Faculty of Teacher Education, College of Industrial Technology and Teacher Education
Caraga State University Cabadbaran Campus
T. Curato Street, Cabadbaran City, Agusan del Norte, Philippines
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Entering the field of education with unrealistic expectations about teaching can lead to negative
experiences for new educators. Faculty members play a significant role in determining the success of
students’ learning outcomes [1]. One existing issue, especially in higher education, is “out-of-field” teaching,
where faculty members teach subjects outside their major field of specialization, potentially affecting
instructional quality and learner engagement. Producing quality faculty members requires improving the
quality of teaching they can deliver [2]. Educators, at all levels, are vital in shaping learners’ academic and
personal growth by promoting knowledge, instilling positive attitudes, and revealing their unique potential.
The widespread of non-education faculty in educational settings has rapidly increased, bringing
diverse skills, and expertise. However, a major issue in the teaching and learning process is the need for more
pedagogical training for these faculty. Several studies indicated that there are a number of faculty teaching

Journal homepage: http://ijere.iaescore.com

3936  ISSN: 2252-8822

outside their field of specialization, even though they hold the essential qualifications [3]. This situation is
particularly prevalent in the Philippines, especially in higher education institutions (HEIs). There are also
instances where faculty teach in their major field but without formal pedagogical training, and some are new
to the teaching profession. Given the significant role of faculty members in students’ academic journeys, it is
vital that newly recruited faculty apply the appropriate teaching practices to meet learners’ needs [4].
Non-education faculty often encounter a crucial transition from their original profession to teaching.
This transition provides challenges, highlighting the need for appropriate support programs. Gaining
pedagogical knowledge and skills is critical for these educators. Previous studies underscore the value of
professional development programs in improving teaching abilities among those with non-traditional
educational backgrounds [5]. Effective teaching methods depend on the faculty’s discretion in setting
objectives, developing lessons, selecting materials, and implementing assessment strategies.
Previous study by Avendaño et al. [6] reported the positive effect of pedagogical training on other
professionals transitioning to teaching, improving their teaching competencies through specialized training
focused on pedagogical knowledge, practice, and the improvement of pedagogical skills. Faculty without
formal education backgrounds often experience more significant challenges in their teaching careers than
those with education degrees [7]. While they are bringing important job-related skills like interpersonal
abilities and communication, they may lack pedagogical skills and instructional leadership. It is essential to
create a supportive learning environment where these faculty members can demonstrate their impact to
motivate learners.
An educator’s main responsibility is to establish meaningful learning environments that encourage
learners to achieve their full potential [8], empowering them to become self-motivated, lifelong learners [9].
However, non-education faculty experience different challenges, from lesson planning and managing
classrooms to assessing learner progress [10]. These challenges underscore the demand to balance content
knowledge with pedagogical skills, particularly in higher education, where effective teaching directly affects
learner success. The fast advancement of technology and the shift toward flexible learning environments
further require adaptability and innovation from faculty members.
The widespread presence of non-education faculty in HEIs is a prevalent phenomenon in the
Philippines. Many faculty members specialized in fields outside education with limited formal training in
teaching are presently employed in various colleges and universities. While existing literature underscores
the significance of pedagogical training and support, there is a lack of study specifically investigating the
lived experiences of non-education faculty in the Philippines.
This study fills this critical gap by exploring the social meanings, challenges, and adaptive strategies
utilized by non-education faculty teaching in HEIs through the lens of Caraga State University Cabadbaran
Campus (CSUCC). The novelty of this study lies in its extensive exploration of the lived teaching
experiences of non-education faculty in Philippine HEIs, particularly at CSUCC. Unlike past studies that
generally look into faculty development or pedagogical challenges in wider contexts, this study offers a more
focused phenomenological inquiry into how non-education faculty handles the complexities of teaching
without formal pedagogical training. By recognizing critical themes such as self-perceived teaching efficacy,
test construction and syllabus design difficulties, learner engagement challenges, and resource allocation
limitations, the study provides a refined understanding of the adaptive strategies used by these faculty
members. A very important contribution of this study is its application of situated learning theory to describe
how non-education faculty improved teaching competencies through actual practice, peer mentorship and
collaboration, and institutional support instead of traditional pedagogical training.
In addition, it underscores the unusual struggles faced in discipline-specific teaching, strengthening
the need for specific professional development programs. The study’s findings have significant implications
for HEIs, highlighting the need for structured mentorship programs, support systems, and resource allocation
to address pedagogical problems. This study, therefore, fills a critical gap in the previous studies by giving
empirical evidence on the challenges and coping mechanisms of non-education faculty, offering realistic
recommendations to enhance teaching quality and faculty development programs in similar institutional
settings.

2. COMPREHENSIVE THEORETICAL BASIS

This study is tied with the theory developed by Lave and Wenger [11], situated learning theory. The
concept of situated learning theory explains that unintentional learning construction happens within the
framework of genuine practices, specific environments, and cultural norms. In addition, Lave and Wenger [11]
claimed that learning is embedded within an authentic activity, context, and cultural background, often
happening incidentally. Furthermore, beginner learners, also known as novices, should engage in authentic

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3935-3945
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3937

settings of daily practices, applying knowledge, and utilizing artefacts in productive yet low-risk manners [12].
This theory further explains the importance of delivering learning experiences realistically and authentically.
In addition, situated learning theory discusses that learning occurs best when it takes place in the
context in which it is applied. An individual should act in an apprentice capacity within communities of
practice where learning opportunities arise situationally. Situated learning theory posits that engagement with
individuals from varied opportunity profiles leads to one’s opportunities and fosters personal, professional,
and intellectual development. Moreover, when teachers are novices, they can benefit from the expertise of
experienced professionals within the practical environment in the working space. Therefore, experienced
teachers can be a great source of strength for sharing beneficial and constructive suggestions that help
develop self-efficacy and self-confidence among novice teachers in their teaching practices [13].
Furthermore, it is explained that beginning professionals do not only accumulate professional skills
by collecting facts. However, it is facilitated through community social interaction through collaborative
activities with professionals. Social interaction and collaboration within a community are crucial for learning.
Working with and learning from experienced professionals is critical to growth.
The situated learning theory in Figure 1 emphasizes the importance of social interaction and context
in the learning process. The illustration shows how learning occurs through interaction. Novices on the
periphery of the community of practice learn by observing and interacting with experts in the center. As
novices become more proficient, they move closer to the community’s center and eventually become experts.
Lave and Wenger [11] asserted that learning is not simply acquiring knowledge but rather a process of
becoming a part of a community of practice. Through constant involvement in activities, the use of artefacts,
the development of identities, and the formation of relationships within a community of practice, beginners
learn the knowledge, skills, and values necessary to become experts. Moreover, Lave and Wenger [11]
explained that the community of practice model is important in understanding how learning happens in the
real world. It can be applied to different settings, such as workplaces, schools, and online communities.

Figure 1. Lave and Wenger [11] situated the learning theory model

3. METHOD
3.1. Research design
This study used a qualitative, phenomenological approach, which gathers data through interviews
and focus group discussions. This research approach focuses on understanding non-education faculty lived
experiences and the intrinsic nature of these experiences. The phenomenological approach explores how
individuals perceive and understand their world [14]. Unlike other approaches aiming to uncover objective
truths, phenomenology appreciates the subjective, personal meaning an individual attaches to experiences,
underscoring the essential part or core nature of a shared phenomenon, such as grief, learning, or experiences.

Exploring non-education faculty’s lived teaching experiences in a Philippine higher … (Julanie M. Limen)
3938  ISSN: 2252-8822

3.2. Data collection and analysis

For data collection, the researchers utilized in-depth interviews and focus group discussions
employing a semi-structured interview questionnaire with open-ended questions. This would allow the
participants to describe their teaching experiences in their own words. The questionnaire was validated by
research experts before the actual data gathering. Observations and assessments of teaching performance
were also used to gather rich qualitative and descriptive data. Researchers coded and categorized responses to
identify central themes for data analysis. They employed thematic analysis and hermeneutic interpretation
techniques to reveal more profound insights into a systematic organization of patterns within faculty
experiences and a deeper, contextually grounded interpretation of their meanings.
The thematic analysis identifies and structure’s key themes, while hermeneutic interpretation
ensures that these themes are understood in their full depth, considering personal, institutional, and cultural
factors. This dual approach strengthens the research’s validity and contributes to a richer understanding of
non-education faculty’s teaching experiences, ultimately offering meaningful recommendations for
professional development and institutional support. A critical part of these approaches is the researcher’s role
in bracketing or setting aside personal biases, a process known as epoché, to genuinely engage with
participants’ perspectives [15]. The researchers interpreted experiences faithfully by prioritizing participants’
unique insights while uncovering universal elements across individual accounts.

3.3. Research participants

The 65 identified non-education graduate faculty are currently employed at CSUCC. Out of the total
number of 65, the researchers identified 10 as sample participants for the conduct of interviews and focus
discussions. While there are no hard and fast rules around how many people should be involved in qualitative
research, some researchers estimate that between 10 and 50 participants will be sufficient depending on the
type of research and research question [16]. These 10 sample participants were identified using the principle
of data saturation, ensuring the collection of rich and recurring data to identify significant themes. Purposive
sampling was also applied, which uses particular criteria that participants must meet during selection. In most
cases, purposive sampling is recommended since focus group discussions and interviews depend on
participants’ ability and capacity to provide relevant information [17]. These 10 participants came from the
four colleges and one department of this campus, namely the College of Industrial Technology and Teacher
Education (CITTE), with two participants, the College of Tourism and Hospitality Management (CTHM)
with two participants, College of Engineering and Information Technology (CEIT) with two participants,
College of Business and Accountancy (CBA) also with two participants, and another two participants from
the General Education Department (GenEd).

3.4. Limitations
This study is not without its limitations due to its sole focus on the CSUCC. Such a narrow sample
size and institution context limit the scope of generalizability. Besides, self-selection and social desirability
biases might creep in due to participant responses. Other limitations of the study include its snapshot in time
and methodological restrictions that result from data collection mechanisms and sample size. To minimize
these limitations, the researchers considered triangulation, rigorous sampling, reflexivity, a strong theoretical
framework, and contextualization in their analysis and interpretation of the results. Triangulation was done
by gathering data from in-depth interviews and focus group discussions, classroom observations, and
teaching performance evaluation results from the college deans.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Throughout the interview process, several critical themes appeared. These are self-perceived
teaching efficacy, test construction and syllabus preparation issues, student engagement difficulties, and
availability of resources and support systems to address teaching challenges. Some of these critical themes
contain diverse sub-themes that add depth to the understanding of teachers’ experiences. These sub-themes
were explored in detail and compared with findings from existing literature and related studies to highlight
areas of agreement or contrast. This is to provide a comprehensive perspective of the complexities faced by
non-education faculty in teaching. Practical implications are also provided and explained for future action to
ensure a fair and high-quality education for all.

4.1. Self-perceived teaching efficacy

During the interviews and focus group discussions, a number of critical themes emerged related to
self-perceived teaching efficacy among faculty without formal training in education. A notable theme was the

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3935-3945
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3939

need for formal educational training, as many non-education faculties expressed difficulties in performing an
important teaching practice, like lesson planning. One participant said:

“He has not gone through formal education training, so he does not have enough knowledge
about lesson planning.”

This issue suggests that faculty without formal training may lack the structured approach offered by
pedagogical content knowledge, which aids educators in delivering course content systematically and caters
to diverse learning styles [18]. As a result, learners with diverse learning needs may not receive enough
support, potentially affecting their learning experience.
Interestingly, while formally trained faculty often adhere to established instructional methodology,
faculty without such training likely rely on personal instinct and versatility. One participant shared, “while he
was teaching, he did not follow a formal method,” revealing a versatile yet potentially inconsistent strategy.
Although this versatility allows faculty members to respond to classroom dynamics instantaneously, it may
limit the consistency and structure some learners need to optimize learning outcomes. This finding highlights
the balance between theoretical knowledge and practical experience in terms of teaching effectiveness. Many
participants in this study preferred hands-on application over theory, often relying on their industrial
experience to fill in the formal training gaps, as indicated by the response of one participant who said, “her
background is in company work, so she is more exposed to practical applications.” While this industry
experience may help in developing real-world skills, it may also lead to spontaneous “on-the-spot” teaching,
which could compromise the need for a strong theoretical foundation which is critical for a comprehensive
learning environment [19].
Moreover, selecting appropriate learning resources emerged as a critical challenge. Some faculty
members need formal training to align instructional materials with curriculum objectives. One participant
mentioned that she gets confused about which specific reference to use because there are so many, depending
on the subject, emphasizing confusion due to insufficient knowledge about instructional guides. This problem
is further amplified by limited access to updated instructional materials, specifically by the non-education
faculty. The inability to identify or create appropriate teaching resources may lead to a decrease in
instructional quality, creating disparities in learners’ educational experiences [20]. The findings entail the
need for additional support and structured mentorship to help non-education faculty address these issues and
ensure a more coherent and inclusive learning environment.
The findings’ implications are critical for educational institutions, educators without proper training,
and learners. For educational institutions, this requires targeted professional development, mentorship
activities, enhanced resource accessibility, and re-assessment of recruitment practices to reduce the potential
negative effect on student learning outcomes. For untrained educators, the lack of pedagogical content
knowledge hinders effective lesson planning and delivery, leading to reliance on intuition, which creates
inconsistency. They also struggle with resource selection and require structured support to bridge these gaps,
as practical experience alone cannot replace theoretical grounding. Lastly, learners face the potential risk of
erratic learning experiences and unfulfilled learning needs due to variations in faculty preparedness,
emphasizing the significance of institutional action to ensure fair and high-quality education for all.

4.2. Test construction and syllabus-making challenges

Another crucial theme that emerged during interviews was the non-education faculty’s difficulties in
making syllabi, tables of specification (TOS), and questionnaires for examination. Critical concerns include
the lack of training and guidance, with participants revealing they needed to be trained in syllabus
development and how to align assessment. For example, one participant stated that he was never taught how
to do it emphasizing the need for professional training. Non-education faculty often rely on revising existing
syllabi and TOS without proper guidance rather than creating their own content, as evidenced by another
participant who shared that she borrowed an old syllabus, and then read all the contents and modified what
she thought was necessary to revise. This practice highlighted its dependence on pre-existing frameworks and
revealed a need for more work to innovate effectively, hindering the potential for a more customized
instructional and assessment design.
These challenges reveal a tension between compliance and instructional flexibility, with educators
sometimes prioritizing effective teaching over strict adherence to standardized syllabi. While institutional
requirements demand consistency, educators desire flexibility as they balance syllabus requirements with
practical teaching methods. This finding contradicts Chen [21] who assert that syllabus content must be
extremely similar to institutional requirements to consistently align with program standards. The
consequences are that more adaptable and consistent syllabus templates are required that provide a
foundation but may not accommodate varying teaching methods.

Exploring non-education faculty’s lived teaching experiences in a Philippine higher … (Julanie M. Limen)
3940  ISSN: 2252-8822

The sub-theme related to content delivery and pedagogy reflects a shift towards prioritizing
understanding and application over simple memorization. Teachers are increasingly engaging students
through the application of higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). This shift acknowledges the need to foster
critical thinking and problem-solving skills in order to prepare students to adapt to a constantly changing
global environment. According to previous studies [22], [23], modern education standards highlight the
importance of competencies in terms of college and career readiness, reflecting that teaching methods and
assessment strategies must evolve to meet these new demands. This further implies that faculty development
programs should focus on methodologies that can trigger deeper learning, thus preparing students more
effectively for complex, real-world problems.
The value of a TOS together with the syllabi further highlights the need for consistency in the
methods of assessment. Practical realities like class disruption and time constraints, however, prevent the
consistent use of TOS frameworks, that tend to require adjustments like make-up classes to allow for
effective curriculum delivery. This aspect highlights the need for institutional support and flexible timetables
to enable good and high-quality assessment practices.
Finally, faculty members without pedagogical training have unique difficulties in assessing the
understanding of students. For example, one participant stated:

“Ang ako gyud, kay dili man gyud ko educ. Dili kayo nako ma-determine if understanding ba
siya, application ba siya, evaluation ba siya.”
“Since I do not have an education background. I cannot always determine if it is understanding,
application, or evaluation.” (Translation)

Thus, it highlighting the challenge in differentiating the levels of cognitive assessment. This is a strong
indication that faculty members lacking pedagogical education might not be able to accurately measure the
understanding and application competencies of students, thus hindering themselves from effectively gauging
learning accomplishments.
The results have serious implications for the development of faculty training programs, where
experiential education is highlighted as being necessary in the mentioned areas. Specifically, the training
programs need to focus on syllabus design, assessment alignment, and application of new pedagogical
strategies to increase instructional quality and student performance. Addressing these weaknesses will enable
faculty members to effectively guide learning experiences and adapt to the ever-evolving nature of modern
education.

4.3. Student engagement challenges

A major topic in this study was student involvement issues, which underlined the need for
non-educational faculty members to use different approaches to improve student involvement, particularly those
who cannot directly relate to the topic. Improving teaching strategies to foster a more inclusive, efficient
learning environment depends on these engagement techniques [24], [25]. Non-education faculty were seen in
the classroom employing interactive and cooperative techniques to promote active learning and peer interaction.
Emphasizing the importance of group discussion in knowledge development, one participant said:

“We have collective discussions to explore different ideas.”

This strategy fits with studies trying to connect positive results like enhanced knowledge retention and cognitive
development to classroom-based engagement.
Another equally important factor is the faculty’s expertise. Participants revealed that industry
experience brings significance to the classroom. It can connect lessons to real-world applications and future
career opportunities. One participant confidently shared,

“Wala kayo koy problem kay ang akoang expertise… dali ra nila ma-adapt.”
“I do not have much of a problem since my expertise makes it easy for students to adapt.”
(Translation)

This finding emphasizes the motivational effect of real-world insights. However, existing studies report that
teaching skills may be more significant than industry experience alone, as some faculty with wide content
knowledge may still lack the ability to effectively foster engagement [26]. This suggests that while industry
experience is critical, the ability to develop a supportive, engaging learning condition is essential.
Strategies for assessment and feedback are also extremely important. Regular comments and various
assessment techniques show the non-education faculty’s dedication to closing learning gaps and improving

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3935-3945
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3941

teaching practices. One participant said, “I want comments from my students to enhance my teaching
strategies,” stressing the need for student feedback for self-improvement is a reflection of a willingness to
improve depending on student experience. Another participant said, “I welcome negative feedback and let
students express themselves.” This strategy allows non-education faculty to handle particular areas requiring
change, improves the teaching process, and promotes ongoing development. These results highlight the need
for faculty development initiatives that equip educators with assessment techniques, instructional flexibility,
and student involvement. These are also very critical for non-education faculty members to maximize their
impact and create a good learning environment [27].

4.4. Resources and support systems to overcome teaching challenges

During interviews and focus group discussions, a number of key support systems that non-education
faculty find extremely helpful in overcoming higher education teaching issues were identified. These are
laboratory facilities, institutional support, professional development, peer advice, adaptation to technology,
discipline-specific instruments, individual drive, and mentoring. Each area of support fulfils a different need
and, in total, contributes to the effectiveness of teaching among non-education faculty.

4.4.1. Laboratory resources

Non-education faculty highlighted the necessity for well-equipped laboratories, particularly in
scientific and technical fields. Laboratory resources facilitate experiential, hands-on learning in accordance
with commission on higher education (CHED) standards, facilitating knowledge application by the faculty
with practical skills. The study highlights that well-equipped laboratories increase student engagement and
understanding through an immersing learning environment [28].

4.4.2. Institutional support

Assets like library resources and institutional funding are important in addressing teaching needs.
The provision of complete and updated teaching materials to non-education faculty helps to ensure successful
teaching and efficient content delivery [29]. Institutional support helps to fill pedagogical knowledge gaps
and equip faculty with materials to achieve instructional objectives.

4.4.3. Professional development

Seminars and training provide non-education faculty with useful knowledge of the latest teaching
methods and pedagogical practices, which is particularly important for those who do not have formal
educational backgrounds. This ongoing professional development has resulted in enhanced instructional
quality and pedagogy. In addition, this training has increased faculty confidence in being able to meet the
variety of learning needs of their students [30].

4.4.4. Peer support

Support from colleagues and mentorship provide non-formal guidance, preventing isolation and
facilitating instructional skill enhancement. Peer partnerships result in the presence of others, which has been
reported as particularly helpful when promoting faculty development to enhance the teaching and learning
process [31]. It allows people to share excellent teaching practices that can effectively support professional
enhancement.

4.4.5. Adaptation to technology

Non-education faculty use technology like Google Classroom and PowerPoint to effectively
organize and present the content of a particular subject. These technologies not only make the students more
engaged but also simplify teaching and learning tasks. As a result, educators are able to effectively deliver
lessons despite limited formal pedagogical training [32], [33].

4.4.6. Difficulties with discipline-specific tools

For certain disciplines, writing-oriented and application-based methods are more appropriate than
conventional lecture styles. Non-education faculty needs to change their modes of instruction, which in many
cases could be impossible without proper training. Studies underscore the advantages of discipline-specific
teaching methods, noting the need for synchronizing the teaching approaches with subject demands [34].

4.4.7. Individual initiative

In times of limited resources, non-educational faculty often take the initiative to develop their own
teaching materials. Such a proactive approach reflects the resourcefulness and adaptability of these teachers.
Ultimately, this resourcefulness helps them meet instructional needs even under adverse limitations [35].

Exploring non-education faculty’s lived teaching experiences in a Philippine higher … (Julanie M. Limen)
3942  ISSN: 2252-8822

4.4.8. Mentorship and legacy

Mentorship by experienced peers is vital in helping novice teachers, especially those who do not
have teaching degrees. With mentorship, non-education faculty are given guidance in addressing teaching
difficulties, acquiring best practices, and strengthening classroom management skills. Such support greatly
enhances both instructional quality and job satisfaction [36].
Figure 2 employs a puzzle piece analogy to illustrate the interconnected components essential for
empowering non-education faculty in teaching. A graduation cap in the middle represents successful learning
and teaching, with pieces around it representing key support factors: mentorship, lab facilities, institutional
support (policies, funding, and administration), professional development, peer support, technology
accommodation, discipline-specific tools, and individual initiative. The figure highlights that empowering
these faculty needs a comprehensive strategy combining institutional support, professional development,
teamwork, sufficient resources, technological competency, and individual motivation to successfully merge
subject matter expertise with good pedagogy and ultimately enhance student learning [37].

Figure 2. Teaching support for non-education faculty

5. CONCLUSION
This research opens the door to the intricate balance between content area knowledge and
instructional practice for faculty from non-education backgrounds stepping into teaching assignments.
Although they contribute significant world experience and trade knowledge to their classrooms, not having
received explicit pedagogical training creates dilemmas in the areas of planning lessons, course syllabi
creation, and grading alignment. These challenges tend to result in the use of intuition and experience over
formal educational frameworks, which may result in inconsistencies in student learning experiences. The
study, however, points out the high commitment of these faculty members to teaching as they actively pursue
and apply available resources, such as peer support, institutional programs, digital tools, and self-developed
instructional materials to fill pedagogical gaps.
From the perspective of situated learning theory, these results emphasize the social and contextual
nature of learning. Non-education faculty build teaching effectiveness through active involvement in real
teaching contexts, casual mentorship, peer support, and professional development activities. Their stepwise
engagement in academic communities of practice enables them to perfect pedagogical techniques and
synchronize instructional approaches with educational best practices. The research illustrates that institutional
support through facilities like laboratories, training seminars, and responsive digital resources is important to
enable this situated learning process by offering chances for faculty to participate in effective practice-based
learning experiences.
Further, discipline-specific challenges emphasize the importance of support systems that recognize
the distinctive demands of different fields. Lecture-based models might not necessarily fit industry-oriented
disciplines, so faculty’s requirement to learn within their own teaching environments through practice and

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3935-3945
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3943

collaboration becomes more important. Finally, the research results emphasize the importance of organized
professional development, mentorship, and available resources to enable non-education faculty to combine
their practical expertise with effective pedagogy, resulting in improved student learning outcomes. Future
research may explore the long-term impact of situated learning-based training programs on teaching efficacy
and identify ways institutions can optimize support structures to harness the strengths of non-education
faculty across diverse academic settings.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance extended by the Caraga State University
Research, Innovation, and Extension Office (RIEO) particularly on the use of various software to check the
similarity index and grammar.

FUNDING INFORMATION
No funding received during the conduct of the study.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS STATEMENT

This journal uses the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) to recognize individual author
contributions, reduce authorship disputes, and facilitate collaboration.

Name of Author C M So Va Fo I R D O E Vi Su P Fu
Julanie M. Limen ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Ramil B. Arante ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

C : Conceptualization I : Investigation Vi : Visualization

M : Methodology R : Resources Su : Supervision
So : Software D : Data Curation P : Project administration
Va : Validation O : Writing - Original Draft Fu : Funding acquisition
Fo : Formal analysis E : Writing - Review & Editing

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

There is no conflict of interest for this study.

INFORMED CONSENT
The authors obtained informed consent from all participants in this study.

ETHICAL APPROVAL
The University currently does not have an institutional ethics board, but it has a Research,
Innovation, and Extension Office, which serves as an equivalent committee for research approval. Research
related to human use has been complied with all the relevant national regulations, including the data privacy
law of the Philippines and institutional policies in accordance with the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration and
has been approved by the Office of Research, Innovation, and Extension (ORIE). The scholarly work for this
research has undergone a rigorous review and evaluation by the experts from ORIE and has been approved
by the University President through the recommendation of the Vice President for Research, Innovation, and
Extension. The mechanism for approval ultimately aligns with journal guidelines for ethical oversight.

DATA AVAILABILITY
The data supporting this study’s findings are available on request from the corresponding author
[JML]. The data, which contain information that could compromise the privacy of research participants, are
not publicly available due to certain restrictions from the data privacy law of the Philippines.

Exploring non-education faculty’s lived teaching experiences in a Philippine higher … (Julanie M. Limen)
3944  ISSN: 2252-8822

REFERENCES
[1] T. Q. Lap, T. D. Ngoc, and L. T. Thao, “Novice Teachers’ Professional Identity Reconstruction,” International Journal of
Educational Methodology, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 449–464, 2022, doi: 10.12973/IJEM.8.3.449.
[2] I. S. Somosot and C. L. C. Relox, “Student to Teacher: Experiences of Non-Education Graduates Teaching in Higher Education
Institutions,” Asian Journal of University Education, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 759–767, 2023, doi: 10.24191/ajue.v19i4.24837.
[3] I. E. Arendain and M. Y. Limpot, “Phenomenological Approach of Out-of-Field Teaching: Challenges and Opportunities,” EPRA
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (IJMR), vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 165–170, 2022, doi: 10.36713/epra9379.
[4] I. S. Somosot, “Instructional Practices of Beginning TLE teachers and Student Satisfaction among Secondary School of Sto.
Tomas Del Norte,” Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 2651–6691, 2018.
[5] C. R. T. Malgapo and C. M. D. Ancheta, “Pedagogical Approaches and Techniques of Non-Education Graduates Teaching
General Mathematics in the Senior High School,” International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science,
vol. 6, no. 11, pp. 468–475, 2020, doi: 10.22161/ijaems.611.2.
[6] W. R. Avendaño, G. Rueda, and A. E. Parada-Trujillo, “Pedagogical Transformations in Non-Graduate Professionals: The
Experience in Pedagogy Courses for Teaching Practice,” Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 488–498,
2022.
[7] D. Marx and U. Pecina, “Community: The Missing Piece in Preparing Teacher Candidates for Future Urban Classrooms,” Action
in Teacher Education, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 344–357, 2016, doi: 10.1080/01626620.2016.1226207.
[8] R. A. Ortega, A. G. Vasquez, and W. S. Gilongos, “An Analysis of the Performance Level of Non-education Teacher Graduates
in the K-12 Program,” International Journal of Research in Engineering and Science (IJRES), vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 86–91, 2022,
[Online]. Available: https://www.ijres.org/papers/Volume-10/Issue-3/Ser-4/N10038691.pdf.
[9] A. Vicente, R. Lee, and R. L. A. O. Salendab, “The Instructional Experiences on SKSU-Kalamansig Campus: The Case of Non-
Teacher Education Graduates,” Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2022,
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7030970.
[10] R. P. Alalid et al., “Teaching Beyond Degrees of Non-Teacher Education DOST Scholars: A Phenomenology,” Salud, Ciencia y
Tecnología - Serie de Conferencias, vol. 4, p. 1510, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.56294/sctconf20251510.
[11] J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991,
doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815355.
[12] H. S. N. P. H. Besar, “Situated learning theory: The key to effective classroom teaching?” International Journal for Educational,
Social, Political & Cultural Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 49–60, 2018.
[13] B. C. O’Brien and A. Battista, “Situated learning theory in health professions education research: a scoping review,” Advances in
Health Sciences Education, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 483–509, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10459-019-09900-w.
[14] T. K. Ngang, C. S. Hong, and A. Chanya, “Collective Work of Novice Teachers in Changing Teaching Practices,” Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 116, pp. 536–540, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.254.
[15] L. de Bruin, “Epoché and Objectivity in Phenomenological Meaning: Making in educational research,” in Phenomenological
Inquiry in Education: Theories, Practices, Provocations and Directions, 1st ed., E. Creely, J. Southcott, K. Carabott, and
D. Lyons, Eds., New York: Routledge, 2020, pp. 21–35, doi: 10.4324/9780429285646-2.
[16] C.-P. Hu and Y.-Y. Chang, “John W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches,”
Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 205–207, 2017, doi: 10.1453/jsas.v4i2.1313.
[17] C. H. Lin, Y. Zhang, and B. Zheng, “The roles of learning strategies and motivation in online language learning: A structural
equation modeling analysis,” Computers and Education, vol. 113, pp. 75–85, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.014.
[18] K. E. P. Barcelona et al., “Challenges and Opportunities of TLE Teachers in Philippine Public Schools: An Inquiry,” British
Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 44–60, 2023, doi: 10.37745/bjmas.2022.0247.
[19] S. Mariah and A. S. Sari, “Revitalizing the role of teachers in practice learning to increase vocational students readiness,” Journal
of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1273, no. 1, p. 012039, 2019, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1273/1/012039.
[20] H. Chen and Z. He, “Blended Learning Design and Praxis for the Coordinated Development of Theory and Practice - Take
Vocational Education as an Example,” in Proceedings - 2020 International Conference on Modern Education and Information
Management, ICMEIM 2020, pp. 671–675, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ICMEIM51375.2020.00151.
[21] P.-J. Chen, “The Syllabus Design of a Blended EFL University Writing Course,” US-China Foreign Language, vol. 15, no. 7,
pp. 437–451, 2017, doi: 10.17265/1539-8080/2017.07.004.
[22] E. van Laar, “What are E-ssential skills? A multimethod approach to 21st-century digital skills within the creative industries,”
M.S. thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands, 2019, doi: 10.3990/1.9789036548670.
[23] M. A. Islam, S. B. H. M. Said, J. H. Umarlebbe, F. A. Sobhani, and S. Afrin, “Conceptualization of head-heart-hands model for
developing an effective 21st century teacher,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 13, p. 968723, 2022,
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.968723.
[24] M. Tichenor and J. Tichenor, “The Many Sides of Teacher Collaboration,” Kappa Delta Pi Record, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 139–142,
Jul. 2018, doi: 10.1080/00228958.2018.1481663.
[25] M. Bélisle, V. Jean, and N. Fernandez, “The educational development of university teachers: mapping the landscape,” Frontiers
in Education, vol. 9, p. 1376658, 2024, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1376658.
[26] A. Debrah et al., “Online instructional experiences in an unchartered field - The challenges of student-teachers of a Ghanaian
College of Education,” Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 99–110, 2021,
doi: 10.1080/21532974.2021.1892553.
[27] N. S. Fujiya, I. R. Andansari, E. Widayati, and B. W. Pratolo, “The Students’ Instructional Feedback; A Tool to Improve
Lecturer’s Teaching Performance,” Universal Journal of Educational Research, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 2335–2343, 2020,
doi: 10.13189/ujer.2020.080617.
[28] J. L. H. Bowden, L. Tickle, and K. Naumann, “The four pillars of tertiary student engagement and success: a holistic
measurement approach,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 1207–1224, 2021,
doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1672647.
[29] Q. Li, P. Duffy, and Z. Zhang, “A Novel Multi-Dimensional Analysis Approach to Teaching and Learning Analytics in Higher
Education,” Systems, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 96, 2022, doi: 10.3390/systems10040096.
[30] L. D. Hammond, M. E. Hyler, and M. Gardner, Effective Teacher Professional Development in the evolution of human and non-
human animals. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
[31] A. Khatun, V. Singh, and A. Joshi, “Perception of employees towards learning in hybrid workplace: a study of university faculty,”
The Learning Organization, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 834–862, 2024, doi: 10.1108/TLO-12-2022-0163.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3935-3945
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3945

[32] A. S. Al-Adwan, A. Al-Madadha, and Z. Zvirzdinaite, “Modeling students’ readiness to adopt mobile learning in higher
education: An empirical study,” International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 221–241,
2018, doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.3256.
[33] M. V. Arhueremu and M. N. M. Naeleen, “Adequacy and Functionality of Information and Communication Technology
Resources in Business Education Programme of Colleges of Education in Delta State,” International Scholar Journal of Arts and
Social Science Research, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 32–39, 2020, doi: 10.2705/isjassr.v2i4.47.
[34] J. Hordern, J. Muller, and Z. Deng, “Towards powerful educational knowledge? Addressing the challenges facing educational
foundations, curriculum theory and Didaktik,” Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 143–152, 2021,
doi: 10.1080/00220272.2021.1891575.
[35] A. Quigley, “Practical strategies for closing the reading gap,” Closing the Reading Gap, pp. 154–181, 2020,
doi: 10.4324/9780429297328-7.
[36] N. Mihaela, “Mentorship and Teaching Career Training,” Journal Plus Education, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 78–91, 2023,
doi: 10.24250/jpe/vol.321/2023/nmg.
[37] A. Hightower, P. Wiens, and S. Guzman, “Formal mentorship and instructional practices: a Teaching and Learning International
Survey (TALIS) study of US teachers,” International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, vol. 10, no. 1,
pp. 118–132, 2021, doi: 10.1108/IJMCE-06-2020-0030.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Julanie M. Limen is committed to positively impacting education and

community development. She is currently an instructor at the College of Industrial Technology
and Teacher Education at Caraga State University Cabadbaran Campus (CSUCC) in
Cabadbaran City, Philippines. She graduated with a bachelor in technical teacher education
(BTTE). She is currently pursuing a master of arts in education, majoring in educational
management (MAED). Julanie’s research interests revolve around developmental,
experimental, and social research and food and product innovation for industrial technology
research development. She continually pursues knowledge and innovation in her field. Julanie
is committed to research and development because she constantly seeks new knowledge and
finds ways to improve. She can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Ramil B. Arante is a passionate leader in education, currently serving as the dean

of the College of Industrial Technology and Teacher Education at Caraga State University
Cabadbaran Campus (CSUCC), Cabadbaran City, Philippines. He brings a wealth of
experience to his role, earning his Ph.D. in Technology Management from Cebu Technological
University (CTU). His research interests lie at the intersection of industrial technology and
education, focusing on areas like innovation, technical-vocational education, and the effective
use of technology in learning. He has also published works on current trends and issues
impacting education. His expertise extends beyond research. He possesses a solid technical
background in digital electronics, microcontrollers, and renewable energy. This blend of
academic knowledge and practical skills significantly allows him to contribute to the field. He
can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Exploring non-education faculty’s lived teaching experiences in a Philippine higher … (Julanie M. Limen)