By Prof Jayashree MaheshAs artificial intelligence, shifting labour markets and National Education Policy (NEP 2020) mandates reshape the future of work, one question should dominate HEIs strategy: will Indian HEIs lead or lag in upskilling faculty for the next generation workspaces? As an academician and researcher focusing on innovative pedagogy and faculty excellence, I believe the outcome is least determined by technology budgets but whether faculty development is treated as strategic infrastructure or as another perfunctory tick box. Recent exploratory research from Indian HEIs makes a clear urgent point – pedagogical training is not merely technical upskilling—it is an institutional signal that reshapes faculty attitudes, engagement and long-term professional growth. The study confirms that reliable, pre-validated instruments exist to measure what matters—teacher engagement, perceived self-efficacy and confidence, perceived organisational support and the core characteristics of effective professional development—giving leaders the tools to move from intuition to evidence.These dimensions are tightly interwoven. When teachers feel supported and confident, they engage more fully and are likelier to translate learning into classroom practice. Conversely, the research shows many current faculty-development offerings remain episodic and content-focused, leaving faculty expectations unmet. Training does more than transfer techniques; it signals whether the institution values and invests in teaching. Short, episodic workshops that focus only on content risk disappointing participants and failing to change practice. Conversely, well-designed, practice-oriented programs that are sequenced, collaborative and sustained can shift faculty mindset and classroom behaviour, signalling institutional commitment to pedagogy as a core mission.What the research recommends and what academic leaders must act on is straightforward but strategic. First, redesign faculty development around practice by replacing standalone workshops with sequenced programs that emphasize collective participation, clear content focus, coherence across offerings, active learning and adequate duration. Use validated measurements and toolkits to baseline needs and monitor progress so training redesigns are evidence-driven rather than intuitive.Second, pair training with visible organizational supports and incentives. Make completion meaningful by linking it to reduced teaching loads for course redesign, seed funding for pedagogical innovation, formal recognition and clear promotion criteria. When institutions attach tangible rewards to development, training becomes a visible, motivating signal of priority, not a perfunctory exercise.Third, centre self-efficacy and engagement through practice. Structure pedagogical training around microteaching, peer observation, coaching and classroom-based projects (including assessment redesign) so faculty convert workshop learning into habitual classroom practice. These practice labs build confidence, deepen engagement, and create a loop of improvement that benefits students and communities alike.Fourth, integrate community engagement as living practice labs. Adopting Service-learning partnerships and collaborations with local communities give faculty hands-on opportunities to prototype pedagogy tied to local needs and employability. Such community-rooted work not only strengthens student transferable skills but also helps faculty refine teaching for real-world contexts and enhance their leadership competencies. Fifth, invest in longitudinal research, scaling and dissemination. Fund multi-year, mixed-methods studies across diverse HEI contexts, use validated instruments for comparability, and publish results in indexed journals and top tier conferences to guide NEP implementation and inform policy. Evidence gathered over time will clarify which program designs yield sustained professional development and advance graduate career outcomes producing agile talent.Finally, operationalise a practical roadmap: measure rigorously; redesign programs around practice; make institutional support explicit; center self-efficacy and engagement in program design; deploy community-based practice labs; and commit to long-term evaluation and scaling. Short-term indicators should highlight visible adoption of pedagogical techniques and should fuel deliberate curriculum shifts and policy adjustments that embed pedagogy into institutional DNA.Policymakers implementing NEP 2020 should embed these lessons into accountability frameworks and make measurable, longitudinal faculty development central to accreditation and funding, standardise evaluation tools across institutions, and incentivise evidence-based pedagogical reform. Without these systemic levers, policy risks remaining aspirational while technology investments under deliver.The takeaway is distinct: technology budgets alone will not decide which HEIs thrive in the AI era. Institutions that reimagine pedagogical training as a measured, sustained, institutionally signalled ecosystem that is backed by practice-centred programs, visible supports, community engagement and long-term evidence will equip faculty and graduates to navigate rapid change. The rest risk watching NEP ambitions and tech investments fall short thereby losing out on a generational opportunity. The author is an Associate Professor in the Department of Management of Birla Institute of Technology & Science – (BITS)- Pilani, Pilani. DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are solely of the author and ETEDUCATION does not necessarily subscribe to it. ETEDUCATION will not be responsible for any damage caused to any person or organisation directly or indirectly.
Published On Feb 13, 2026 at 04:04 PM IST
Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals.
Subscribe to Newsletter to get latest insights & analysis in your inbox.
All about ETEducation industry right on your smartphone!
