A Critical Analysis of Pedagogical Emphases in Guru-Dakshta Faculty Induction Programmes for Higher Education Faculty

Abstract

Abstract

DOI: https://doi.org/10.82471/x733m-x0h52

Pedagogy is the core of the teaching and learning process. In higher education, faculty members are required to be knowledgeable about pedagogical practices, as these affect learning outcomes. Pedagogical development for faculty members is also important, as it allows them to integrate their subject knowledge with pedagogical knowledge and improve the quality of learning. One of the significant initiatives by the University Grants Commission to support newly recruited faculty in developing pedagogical skills and competencies is the Malaviya Mission Teacher Training Programme, under which a Faculty Development Program (FDP) called Guru-Dakshta is offered. While existing literature evaluates beliefs, challenges, and participation statistics, fewer studies critically examine the pedagogical emphases in Guru-Dakshta FIP. The paper addresses this gap through a qualitative document analysis of the Guru-Dakshta programme framework and programme reports. The finding shows that Guru-Dakshta FIPs place less emphasis on pedagogical components. The sessions focused on pedagogy rely more on lecture-based teaching and emphasize oral and written assessments. The findings reveal a fundamental misalignment between the stated objectives and the actual outcomes of the Guru-Dakshta FIP in developing pedagogical skills among newly recruited faculty. The paper concludes with recommendations to redesign the Guru- DakshtaFIP to incorporate additional pedagogical components to benefit newly recruited faculty.

References

1. Benarroch, A., Briceño-Martínez, J.J., & Bernal-Ballen, A. (2024). Analysis of conceptions and beliefs, argumentative teaching practices, and reflection of university teachers: A case study on teachers' professional development. SAGE Open, 14(3), 1-17.


2. Chai, C. S. (2019). Teacher professional development for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education: A review from the perspectives of technological pedagogical content (TPACK). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28 (1), 5–13.


3. Kala, D., & Chaubey, D. S. (2015). Attitude of faculty members towards faculty development programs and their perceived outcomes. Pacific Business Review International, 8(2), 21–30.


4. Mandal, S. (2018a). Critical perspectives of teaching-learning in Indian higher education. In N. V. Varghese, A. Pachauri & S. Mandal (Eds.), India Higher Education Report 2017: Teaching, Learning and Quality in Higher Education (pp.162–191). Sage Publications.


5. Mandal, S. (2018b). Teaching in Indian Higher Education: Six Principles for Improvement. International Higher Education, 95, 28–29.


6. Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf


7. Mishra, L., Bhunia, S. &Puii, L. (2025). The experience of higher education teachers in India towards professional development. Discover Education 4, 442.


8. Mishra, L., Gupta, T., & Shree, A. (2022). Faculty induction program for newly recruited teachers of higher education: A case study. Teacher Development, 26(1), 135–149.


9. Panda, S. (2018). Professional development of teachers in higher education. In N. V. Varghese, A. Pachauri & S. Mandal (Eds.), India Higher Education Report 2017: Teaching, Learning and Quality in Higher Education (pp. 132–164). Sage Publications.


10. Raheesh, R. (2018). Evaluation of the UGC-HRDC orientation programme regarding utility for the newly appointed teachers. IRE Journals, 2(6), 133–137.


11. Sapkota, T. (2025). Teachers’, principals’ and university-based teacher educators’ multiple conceptions of teachers’ professional development.Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1554740.


12. Singh, S. K., & Kumar, P. R. V. (2023). Need for Pedagogical Training of Teachers in Higher Education Institutions: A Systematic Review. University News, 61(37), 3-14


13. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.


14. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.


15. Subitha G. V. (2018). Re-conceptualizing teachers' continuous professional development within a new paradigm of change in the Indian context: an analysis of literature and policy documents. Professional Development in Education, 44(1), 76–91.


16. University Grants Commission. (2023). Guru-Dakshta: Faculty Induction Programme curriculum framework. https://ugc.gov.in/ebook/GURU%20DAKSHTA%20English/mobile/index.html


17. University Grants Commission. (2023). Malaviya Mission Teacher Training Programme (MMTTP) guidelines. https://mmc.ugc.ac.in


18. University Grants Commission. (2024). UGC annual report 2023–24. https://ugc.gov.in


19. University of Minnesota. (2025). Pedagogy - diversifying your teaching methods, learning activities, and assignments. https://cei.umn.edu/teaching-resources/inclusive-teachingpredominantly-white-institution/pedagogy-diversifying-your-teaching-methods-learningactivities-and-assignments