| INTRODUCTION | | | | *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 |
| Teaching is always a dynamic activity. It unfolds a | | | | Table 13 shows that x2 value in both cases was |
| world of knowledge and information, experience and | | | | found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. |
| erudition (Chakrabarti, 1998). Effective teaching requires | | | | Hence the statement “ the teachers get the |
| more than straightforward teaching methods. | | | | participation of the students in the class ” is |
| Teachers need to know their students well and be | | | | accepted. |
| able to adapt their teaching styles to a particular | | | | Table 14: The teachers maintain class discipline. |
| classroom and to individual students. (Elliott et al, 2000). | | | | Schools Yes No Total c2 |
| Effective teachers are those who achieve the goals | | | | The city school 48 2 50 42.32* |
| they set for themselves or have set for them by | | | | Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00* |
| others. An effective teacher must possess the | | | | *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 |
| knowledge and skills needed to attain the goals and | | | | Table 14 clarifies that c2 value in both cases was |
| must be able to use that knowledge and those skills | | | | found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. |
| appropriately if the goals are to be achieved. | | | | Hence the statement “ the teachers maintain class |
| (Anderson, 1991). | | | | discipline ” is accepted. |
| Presently, effective teaching and student learning has | | | | Table 15: The teachers handle misbehaviour students in |
| been a central of current reform movements. The | | | | the class calmlywithout disturbing the lesson or class. |
| present view on effective teaching is defined by those | | | | Schools Yes No Total c2 |
| behaviour patterns that promote desired student | | | | The City School 30 20 50 1.00* |
| outcomes such as good grades, better attitudes and | | | | Beacon House School 45 5 50 32.00**not *Significant |
| improved skills (Borich, 1996). | | | | df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 |
| There are many researches being conducted on | | | | **Significant |
| effective teaching abroad but in Pakistan there are | | | | Table 15 indicates that in case of The City School c2 |
| few meaningful studies on effective teaching from the | | | | value was found less than the table value at 0.05 level. |
| model given by Borich. The training of the teachers is | | | | Hence the statement “the teachers handle |
| traditional and latest techniques to improve | | | | misbehaviour students in the class calmly without |
| teacher’s performance are rarely. Majority of the | | | | disturbing the lesson or class ” is rejected. |
| teachers do not know the key behaviors and helping | | | | In case of Beaconhouse School c2 value was found |
| behaviors that influence student learning nor can they | | | | greater than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the |
| use those behaviors in the class room instruction to | | | | statement “the teachers handle misbehaviour |
| improve the performance of the students. If teachers | | | | students in the class calmly without disturbing the |
| are expected to teach the students according to | | | | lesson or class” is accepted. |
| these behaviours. Initially, their teaching practices must | | | | Table 16: The teachers teach strictly according to the |
| be studied from the latest perspective of effective | | | | syallabus. |
| teaching to identify the areas needing improvement. | | | | Schools Yes No Total c2 |
| REVIEW OF LITERATURE | | | | The city school 33 17 50 5.12* |
| No system of education can rise above the teachers | | | | Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00* |
| who serve it, its quality ultimately depends upon the | | | | *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 |
| quality and efforts of teachers. Teacher is a key stone | | | | Table 16 shows that c2 value in both cases was |
| of the arch of national education, is the efficient hard | | | | found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. |
| working, honest teacher who is fully conscious of the | | | | Hence the statement “ the teachers teach strictly |
| fact that he is the trust of his nations suitability, | | | | according to the syallabus ”? is accepted. |
| progress and reputation for training and up bringing of | | | | Table 17: The teachers teach by telling. |
| the nations youth are placed in his hands. Teachers | | | | Schools Yes No Total c2 |
| are the backbone of the nation. No nation can think of | | | | The city school 47 3 50 38.72* |
| progress without the efforts of its teachers. The | | | | Beacon house school 33 17 50 5.12* |
| teacher is the planner, messenger, supervisor, | | | | *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 |
| evaluator, motivated, guide and human architect. There | | | | Table 17 shows that c2 value in both cases was |
| is no replacement of the teacher in education system. | | | | found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. |
| Here the teachers have the eye contact with students | | | | Hence the statement “ the teachers teach by telling |
| and clarification of any points is immediate. There are | | | | ” is accepted. |
| little progress without education poverty. Illiteracy | | | | Table 18: The teachers teach by asking. |
| breads poverty and poverty breads revolution and | | | | Schools Yes No Total c2 |
| crime. | | | | The City School 34 16 50 6.48** |
| Teacher is a Prophet, teacher is an artist, teacher is a | | | | Beacon House School 24 26 50 0.08* |
| friend, teacher is a citizen, teacher is an interpreter, | | | | **Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 |
| teacher is a builder and teacher is a believer. | | | | *notSignificant |
| In minds of the students, | | | | Table 18 indicates that in case of The City School c2 |
| 1. Teacher must be an ideal person. | | | | value was found greater than the table value at 0.05 |
| 2. Teacher is a personification of the reality. | | | | level. Hence the statement “ the teachers teach by |
| 3. He is co-worker God in perfecting man. | | | | asking ” is accepted. |
| 4. He is the priest of man spiritual heritage. | | | | In case of Beaconhouse School c2 value was found |
| 5. He is perfactor of mind. | | | | less than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the |
| 6. He is the maker of democracies. | | | | statement “ the teachers teach by asking” is |
| 7. He is the apostle of peace and progress. | | | | rejected. |
| 8. He is the philosopher, friend and guide. | | | | Table 19: The teachers give weekly and monthly tests |
| 9. He is the compendium of all virtue. | | | | regularly. |
| 10. He is the spiritual symbol of right conduct. | | | | Schools Yes No Total c2 |
| 11. He possesses the best spiritual qualities of mankind | | | | The city school 44 6 50 28.88* |
| (Safiullah, 2001). | | | | Beacon house school 49 1 50 46.08* |
| Teacher is like an artist who blends colour and texture | | | | *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 |
| into a painting to produce a coherent impression. The | | | | Table 19 shows that c2 value in both cases was |
| effective teacher blends key behaviours to different | | | | found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. |
| degrees to promote student achievement. This | | | | Hence the statement “ the teachers give weekly |
| requires orchestration and integration of the key and | | | | and monthly tests regularly ” is accepted. |
| helping behaviours into meaningful patterns and | | | | Table 20: The teachers provide practice immediately |
| rhythms that can achieve the goals of instruction within | | | | after teaching. |
| your classroom (Borich,1996). | | | | Schools Yes No Total c2 |
| A good teacher is kind, listens to you, encourages you, | | | | The city school 39 11 50 15.68* |
| has faith in you, keeps confidences, likes teaching | | | | Beacon house school 48 2 50 42.32* |
| children, likes teaching their subject, takes time to | | | | *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 |
| explain things, helps you when you are stuck, tells you | | | | Table 20 shows that c2 value in both cases was |
| how you are doing, allows you to have your say, does | | | | found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. |
| not give on you, cares for your opinion, makes you feel | | | | Hence the statement “ the teachers provide |
| clever, treats people equally, stands up for you, makes | | | | practice immediately after teaching ” is accepted. |
| allowances, tells the truth, is for giving (Mcber, 2000). | | | | Table 21: The teachers correct the wrong answers of |
| Effective teachers respond to pupils and others as | | | | the students in a non- threatening way. |
| individuals with unique gifts and talents. Having tuned in | | | | Schools Yes No Total c2 |
| pupils, teachers can sensitively frame approaches and | | | | The City School 31 19 50 2.88* |
| tailor materials to take account of others strengths, | | | | Beacon House School 39 11 50 15.68**not *Significant |
| and the things that may have an adverse impact on | | | | df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 |
| learning. They may also identify enthusiasms or | | | | **Significant |
| interests that can be used as a spring board for | | | | Table 21 indicates that in case of the City School c2 |
| further learning. Effective teachers show that team | | | | value was found less than the table value at 0.05 level. |
| working matters because co-operative effort is | | | | Hence the statement “ the teachers correct the |
| important in learning and later life. This sort of modelling | | | | wrong answers of the students in a non-threatening |
| conveys the importance and value of belonging to a | | | | way ”is rejected. |
| community and being involved with others (McBer, | | | | In case of Beaconhouse School c2 value was found |
| 2000). | | | | greater than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the |
| Good teachers are not only effective role models; | | | | statement “ the teachers correct the wrong |
| they also constantly keep in mind that their behaviour | | | | answers of the students in a non-threatening way” |
| both intentional and unintentional can profoundly effect | | | | is accepted. |
| what students learn above all, good teachers know | | | | Table 22: The teachers use group or individual learning |
| how to motivate students to learn, A teacher’s | | | | when needed. |
| responsibility goes beyond presenting lessons; the | | | | Schools Yes No Total c2 |
| teacher is a model for students and has a profound | | | | The city school 41 9 50 20.48* |
| effect on students attitude, beliefs and behavior.(Crowl | | | | Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00* |
| et all, 1997). | | | | *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 |
| Past Research On Teacher Personality | | | | Table 22 shows that c2 value in both cases was |
| Characteristics | | | | found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. |
| Researchers have been trying to identify the | | | | Hence the statement “ the teachers use group or |
| personality characteristics associated with the superior | | | | individual learning when needed ” is accepted. |
| teachers, e.g. those who have won many distinguished | | | | Table 23: The teachers encourage the students for |
| awards etc. Following characteristics among superior | | | | their good performancein the class? |
| teachers were found: | | | | Schools Yes No Total c2 |
| · They frequently mention liking for teaching. | | | | The city school 45 5 50 32.00* |
| · They express admiration of such qualities as | | | | Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00* |
| friendliness, permissiveness, definiteness and fairness in | | | | *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 |
| teachers. | | | | Table 23 shows that c2 value in both cases was |
| · They dislike in teachers such qualities as arrogance, | | | | found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. |
| intolerance, sarcasm, and partiality. | | | | Hence the statement “ the teachers encourage the |
| · They typically appear to be accepting and | | | | students for their good performance in the class ” |
| generous in their appraisals of other persons and to | | | | is accepted. |
| see the good points of a person rather than the bad. | | | | Table 24: The teachers circulate and move around in |
| · They express satisfaction with teaching and intend | | | | the class while thestudents are busy in seat work. |
| to continue teaching indefinitely. | | | | Schools Yes No Total c2 |
| · They frequently engaged in teaching activity as a | | | | The city school 47 3 50 38.72* |
| child (for example, they taking charge of the class in | | | | Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00* |
| the absence of the teacher). | | | | *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 |
| · They frequently made their decision to become | | | | Table 24 shows that c2 value in both cases was |
| teachers even before enrolling in college. | | | | found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. |
| · They enjoyed school when they were students. | | | | Hence the statement “ the teachers circulate and |
| · They showed superior accomplishment in school. | | | | move around in the class while the students are busy |
| · They report large number of teachers among the | | | | in seatwork ” is accepted. |
| parents and relatives. | | | | Table 25: The teachers teach the lesson with the |
| · They report participation in religious activities. | | | | previous knowledge ofthe students. |
| · They enjoy activities with friends but prefer small | | | | Schools Yes No Total c2 |
| groups. | | | | The city school 37 13 50 11.52* |
| · They frequently are members and officers of clubs. | | | | Beaconhouse school 49 1 50 46.08* |
| · They are married (85% of group). | | | | *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 |
| · They are interested and active in literacy affairs, | | | | Table 25 shows that c2 value in both cases was |
| such as writing poetry or books. | | | | found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. |
| · They are more emotionally stable than the average | | | | Hence the statement “ the teachers teach the |
| adult. | | | | lesson with the previous knowledge of the students |
| · They are more friendly than the average adult. | | | | ” is accepted. |
| · They are more cooperative and agreeable than the | | | | Table 26: Do the teachers correct your wrong |
| average adult. | | | | responses immediately? |
| · They are more restrained than the average adult. | | | | Schools Yes No Total c2 |
| · They are more objective than the average adult. | | | | The city school 35 15 50 8.00* |
| · They are more tolerant than the average adult. | | | | Beacon house school 11 39 50 15.68* |
| · They are more inclined to “try to give a good | | | | *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 |
| impression” than the average adult. | | | | Table 26 shows that c2 value in both cases was |
| · They are more interested in social service than the | | | | found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. |
| average adult. | | | | Hence the statement “ the teachers correct your |
| · They are less interested than the average adult | | | | wrong responses immediately ” is accepted. |
| (Mohan, 1992). | | | | Table 27: The teachers teach the lesson in small steps. |
| The past research has focused on measuring various | | | | Schools Yes No Total c2 |
| attitudes and personality traits of teachers, with some | | | | The city school 42 8 50 23.12* |
| attempts to relate these to supervisor’s estimates | | | | Beacon house school 46 4 50 35.28* |
| of classroom success. Often, the studies simply | | | | *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 |
| intercorrelate various tests of teacher attitudes, | | | | Table 27 shows that c2 value in both cases was |
| interests, intelligence, and so forth (Averch et all,1972). | | | | found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. |
| 2.5 Research on teaching effectiveness | | | | Hence the statement “ the teachers teach the |
| Despite seventy-five years of research on the topic | | | | lesson in small steps ” is accepted. |
| relatively little is known about effective teaching. | | | | Table 28: The teachers move from one topic of the |
| Advances in methodology and conceptualization have | | | | lesson to the next topicby telling you about it. |
| begun to make a difference in the last fifteen years or | | | | Schools Yes No Total c2 |
| so, but the research is still in its infancy. | | | | The city school 32 18 50 3.92* |
| (Sadker and Sadker, 1997). | | | | Beacon house school 46 4 50 35.28* |
| On the basis of a study of several case histories of | | | | *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 |
| teachers, good teachers exemplified several | | | | Table 28 shows that c2 value in both cases was |
| characteristics, e.g., are alert about their surroundings | | | | found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. |
| they have deep convictions about the worth of their | | | | Hence the statement “ the teachers move from |
| profession they are unaware of restrictions, limitations, | | | | one topic of the lesson to the next topic by telling you |
| indignities and innuendoes in their profession which | | | | about it ” is accepted. |
| often irk their follow teachers and lastly they are very | | | | Table 29: The teachers tell the correct answers. |
| fond of their pupils (Mohan, 1992). | | | | Schools Yes No Total c2 |
| RESEARCH METHODOLOGY | | | | The city school 32 18 50 3.92* |
| .The main purpose of the study was to compare | | | | Beacon house school 30 20 50 50.00* |
| teaching effectiveness of two schools at primary level. | | | | *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 |
| 3.1 POPULATION | | | | Table 29 shows that c2 value in both cases was |
| Population of the study comprised of 5th class | | | | found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. |
| students including girls and boys studying in Beacon | | | | Hence the statement “ the teachers tell the correct |
| house School and The City School located in | | | | answers ” is accepted. |
| Islamabad city. | | | | Table 30: The teachers ask questions to get the right |
| 3.2 SAMPLE | | | | answers. |
| The sample of the study consisted of 100 students | | | | Schools Yes No Total c2 |
| from the above population. The sample students were | | | | The City School 34 16 50 6.49** |
| selected randomly. Sample of this study included 50 | | | | Beaconhouse School 20 30 50 2.00* |
| boys and 50 girls from each school. Sample of the | | | | **Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 |
| study was chosen from Beacon house School and | | | | *notSignificant |
| The City School through random sampling. | | | | Table 30 indicates that in case of The City School c2 |
| 3.3 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS | | | | value was found greater than the table value at 0.05 |
| Research instrument to measure teacher | | | | level. Hence the statement “ the teachers ask |
| effectiveness was prepared. The questionnaire | | | | questions to get the right answers ” is acceptable. |
| consisted of 30 items related mainly to five key | | | | In case of Beaconhouse School c2 value was found |
| behaviours and five helping behaviours in the light of | | | | less than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the |
| ‘Formative Observation of Effective Teaching | | | | statement “ the teachers ask questions to get the |
| Practices Instrument’ by Borich (1996). In this way | | | | right answers” is rejected. |
| the students get their opinion about the teacher | | | | Comparison of the teaching effectiveness of The City |
| effectiveness of both the schools. In addition, previous | | | | School and Beaconhouse School Islamabad. |
| three years results of the sample school were also | | | | Ho: There is no significant of difference between the |
| obtained in the study in order to relate the results to | | | | mean scores of The City School and Beaconhouse |
| teaching effectiveness. | | | | School on annual results of 2002. |
| 3.4 DATA COLLECTION | | | | Table 31: Significance of difference between the mean |
| The following procedure was adopted in order to | | | | scores of The City |
| collect data: | | | | School and Beaconhouse School on the results of |
| 1 Firstly The City School was visited and had a | | | | 2002. |
| meeting with the principal. The questionnaire was | | | | Schools N df Mean SD SED t-value |
| delivered to the students. The students were told | | | | The City School 26 25 79.58 7.69 21.931 0.25* |
| about the purpose of the study and the questionnaire | | | | Beaconhouse School 23 22 74.09 6.29 |
| was administered individually to each student. All the | | | | *notSignificant df =47 c2 value at 0.05 level=2.02 |
| students responded to the questionnaire delightfully and | | | | Table 31 shows that t-value was found to be 0.25 |
| attentively. The questionnaire was collected after one | | | | which less than the table value. Hence the null |
| week. | | | | hypothesis, “there is no significant difference |
| 2 After few days Beaconhouse School was visited. | | | | between the mean scores of the City School and |
| The researcher had to visit this school again and again | | | | Beaconhouse School on annual results of 2002” is |
| for data collection. It took three weeks for the | | | | rejected. Thus both the schools could be treated as |
| collection of data. | | | | equel. |
| 3 In addition, previous three years results of both the | | | | Ho: There is no significant of difference between the |
| schools were also obtained to relate the results to | | | | mean scores of The City School and Beaconhouse |
| teaching effectiveness. | | | | School on annual results of 2003. |
| 3.5 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION | | | | Table 32: Significance of difference between the |
| The data collected by the researcher through | | | | mean scores of The City |
| research instrument were tabulated, analyzed and | | | | School and Beaconhouse School on the results of |
| interpreted in the light of the objectives of the research | | | | 2003. |
| study and then percentages and statistical technique | | | | Schools N df Mean SD SED t-value |
| (chi square) was used on each item of the | | | | The City School 25 24 77.80 7.69 21.570 0.05* |
| questionaire to draw inferences about whole | | | | Beaconhouse School 26 25 76.69 8.23 |
| population. To summarize the scores obtained from | | | | *notSignificant df =49 c2 value at 0.05 level=2.01 |
| student response on each item, the mean and | | | | Table 32 shows that t-value was found to be 0.05 |
| standard deviation of the scores were calculated. | | | | which less than the table value. Hence the null |
| The formula for calculating chi square value is stated | | | | hypothesis, “there is no significant difference |
| as follows:x2 = Σ( fo-fe)2 (Gravette ,2000)fe | | | | between the mean scores of The City School and |
| Where fo = Frequency observed | | | | Beaconhouse School on annual results of 2003” is |
| Fe = Frequency expected | | | | rejected. Thus both the schools could be treated as |
| The level of significance selected was 0.05. | | | | equel. |
| The previous three years results of the schools were | | | | There is no significant of difference between the |
| used to relate the results to teaching effectiveness. | | | | mean scores of The City School and Beaconhouse |
| These results were compared to check the teaching | | | | School on annual results of 2004. |
| effectiveness. For this purpose mean and standard | | | | Table 33: Significance of difference between the |
| deviation was calculated. For comparison t-test was | | | | mean scores of The City |
| applied. | | | | School and Beaconhouse School on the results of |
| Formula for t-test is stated as follows:t = (M1-M2)-0 | | | | 2004. |
| SED | | | | Schools N df Mean SD SED t-value |
| Chapter 4 | | | | The City School 21 20 78.47 9.07 21.551 0.47* |
| RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | | | | Beaconhouse School 25 24 68.24 8.81 |
| The study aimed at measuring the teaching | | | | *notSignificant df =44 c2 value at 0.05 level=2.02 |
| effectiveness of The City School and Beaconhouse | | | | Table 33 shows that t-value was found to be 0.47 |
| School in Islamabad. The data collected through | | | | which less than the table value. Hence the null |
| research instrument and schools record was tabulated, | | | | hypothesis, “there is no significant difference |
| analyzed and interpreted in the light of the objective of | | | | between the mean scores of The City School and |
| the study. The same is being presented in the following | | | | Beaconhouse School on annual results of 2004” is |
| pages. | | | | rejected Thus both the schools could be treated as |
| Table 1: The teachers inform the students about what | | | | equel. |
| they expect from themat the end of the each lesson. | | | | SUMMARY |
| Schools Yes No Total c2 | | | | The main purpose of the conducting study was to |
| The city school 38 12 50 13.52* | | | | identify teaching behaviors that are ineffective in |
| Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00* | | | | teaching learning process. |
| *Significant df=1 c2 value at 0.05 level =3.841 | | | | A sample of 100 students (50 from each schools) |
| Table 1 shows that c2 value in both cases was found | | | | including girls and boys from the population were |
| to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence | | | | selected. In order to measure teaching effectiveness a |
| the statement “The teachers inform the students | | | | questionnaire consisting of 30 items were prepared, |
| about what they expect from them at the end of the | | | | which related mainly to five key behaviors and five |
| each lesson” is accepted. | | | | helping behaviors in the light of ‘Formative |
| Table 2: The teachers inform the students about the | | | | Observation of Effective Teaching Practices |
| importance of thetopic. | | | | Instrument’ by Borich (1996). Each school was |
| Schools Yes No Total c2 | | | | visited personally. The data was collected, analyzed |
| The city school 48 2 50 42.32* | | | | and interpreted in the light of objectives of the study. |
| Beacon house school 49 1 50 46.08* | | | | The analysis of data are presented in the percentages |
| *Significant df=1 c2 value at 0.05 level =3.841 | | | | and Chi square. The level of significance selected for |
| Table 2 shows that c2 value in both cases was found | | | | the study was 0.05 level. In addition, previous three |
| to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence | | | | years results of the sample schools was also obtained |
| the statement “do teachers inform the students | | | | from school record in order to relate the results to |
| about the importance of the topic ” is accepted. | | | | teaching effectiveness. |
| Table 3: While introducing the lesson, the teachers tell | | | | CONCLUSIONS |
| the students whatbe will teach? | | | | In the light of the findings of the study the following |
| Schools Yes No Total c2 | | | | conclusions were drawn. |
| The city school 49 1 50 46.08* | | | | 1 The responses of the primary level students of |
| Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00* | | | | Beaconhouse School was foundbetter than that of |
| *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 | | | | The City School students towards effective teaching. |
| Table 3 shows that c2 value in both cases was found | | | | 2. For the teaching effectiveness the teachers of The |
| to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence | | | | City School need to give the summary at the end of |
| the statement “While introducing the lesson, the | | | | the lesson properly. |
| teachers tell the students what be will teach? ” is | | | | 3. For the teaching effectiveness the teachers of The |
| accepted. | | | | City School need to handle the misbehaviors of |
| Table 4: The teachers test previous knowledge at the | | | | students in the class calmly without disturbing the |
| beginning of thelesson? | | | | lesson or class. |
| Schools Yes No Total c2 | | | | 4. Teachers of Beaconhouse School needs to teach |
| The city school 34 16 50 6.48* | | | | by asking from the students. |
| Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00* | | | | 5. For the teaching effectiveness the teachers of The |
| *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 | | | | City School needs to correct the wrong answers of |
| Table 4 shows that c2 value in both cases was found | | | | the students in a non- threatening way. |
| to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence | | | | 6. Teachers of Beaconhouse School needs to ask |
| the statement “ the teachers test previous | | | | questions to get the right answers and also provide |
| knowledge at the beginning of the lesson ” is | | | | prompts to the students. |
| accepted. | | | | 7. The previous three years results of these two |
| Table 5: During teaching, the teachers give the | | | | schools indicated that there was no significant |
| students clear, step-by-step information. | | | | difference in teaching effectiveness. The over all |
| Schools Yes No Total c2 | | | | performance of the teachers was found almost equal. |
| The city school 48 2 50 42.32* | | | | Recommendations |
| Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00* | | | | Keeping in view the findings and conclusions of the |
| *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 | | | | study the following recommendations are made. |
| Table 5 shows that c2 value in both cases was found | | | | (1) The present study on teaching effectiveness |
| to be more than the table value at .05 level. Hence the | | | | conducted on Beaconhouse School and The City |
| statement “during teaching, the teachers give the | | | | School was satisfactory. Both the schools must |
| students clear, step-by-step information ” is | | | | improve the performance of their teachers. |
| accepted. | | | | (2) Both the schools understudy were uncooperative in |
| Table 6: The teachers teaching is according to the | | | | providing relevant data. Such schools belonging to |
| students level. | | | | private sector must be cooperative and helpful to the |
| Schools Yes No Total c2 | | | | researchers. |
| The city school 48 2 50 42.32* | | | | (3) Similar research on effective teaching must be |
| Beacon house school 35 15 50 32.00* | | | | done in private as well as public sector. |
| *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 | | | | (4) The present study was conducted at primary level. |
| Table 6 indicates that c2 value in both cases was | | | | Similar research must be conductive at higher levels. |
| found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. | | | | (5) Mjority of the teachers were not familiar with this |
| Hence the statement “the teachers teaching is | | | | latest approach of effective teaching which includes |
| according to the students level” is accepted. | | | | helping and key behaviours. Teacher training |
| Table 7: The teachers reteach the previous lesson | | | | programmes should be based on latest methods of |
| when necessary? | | | | teaching. |
| Schools Yes No Total c2 | | | | (6) The head of the institutions must be familiar the |
| The city school 49 1 50 46.08* | | | | latest teaching methods so that they can guide their |
| Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00* | | | | teachers properly. |
| *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 | | | | (7) The responses from the students must be taken |
| Table 7 clarifies that c2 value in both cases was found | | | | directly at primary and higher level. |
| to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence | | | | (8) Further studies on effective teaching must be |
| the statement “ the teachers reteach the previous | | | | encouraged in Pakistan. |
| lesson when necessary ” is accepted. | | | | LITERATURE CITED |
| Table 8: The teachers give the summary at the end of | | | | Averch, H. A. et al, 1972. How Effective is Schooling? |
| the lesson. | | | | A Critical Review and Synthesis of Research Findings. |
| Schools Yes No Total c2 | | | | The Rand Corportion California. Pp 52-60. |
| The city school 27 23 50 0.32* | | | | Arends, L. R. 1998. Learning to Teach (4th ed). The |
| Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00**not *Significant | | | | McGraw-Hill Companies. Pp 11-20. |
| df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 | | | | Fenstermacher, D. G. and F. J. Soltis. 1986. Approaches |
| **Significant | | | | to Teaching 1986. Teachers College Press |
| Table 8 indicates that in case of The City School c2 | | | | Amsterdam Aavenue, New York. P. 17. |
| value was found less than the table value at 0.05 level. | | | | Hay M., 2000. Research into Teacher Effectiveness. A |
| Hence the statement “ the teachers give the | | | | Model of Teacher Effectiveness. The Department for |
| summary at the end of the lesson ” is rejected. | | | | Education and Employment. |
| In case of Beaconhouse School c2 value was found | | | | Thomas, K. C. 1997. Educational Psychology. Windows |
| greater than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the | | | | on Teaching. Brown and Benchmark Publishers. The |
| statement “ the teachers give the summary at the | | | | United States of America by Times Mirror Higher |
| end of the lesson” is accepted. | | | | Education Group. P. 375. |
| Table 9: The teachers get your attention before the | | | | Sadker, M. P. and D. M. Sadker 1997. Teachers, |
| lesson. | | | | Schools and Society (4th ed). The McGraw-Hill |
| Schools Yes No Total c2 | | | | Companies. P. 41. |
| The city school 48 2 50 42.32* | | | | Maer F., 1966. A History of Educational Thought (2nd |
| Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00* | | | | ed). Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. A Bell and Howell |
| *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 | | | | Company Columbus, Ohio. P. 403. |
| Table 9 clarifies that c2 value in both cases was found | | | | Hafiz S., 2001. A Study of Students’ Performance |
| to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence | | | | and Teachers Qualifications in the Subject of Physics |
| the statement “ the teachers get your attention | | | | at Secondary Level in District Jehlum. University |
| before the lesson ” is accepted. | | | | Institute of Education and Research. University of Arid |
| Table10: The teachers teach with enthusiasm and | | | | Agriculture Rawalpindi. |
| animation throughchange in eye contact, voice and | | | | Mohan J., 1992. Study of Educational Psycholgy. |
| gestures. | | | | Department of Psychology Punjab University |
| Schools Yes No Total c2 | | | | Chandigrh India. Pp . 257-265. |
| The city school 41 9 50 20.48* | | | | Eggen, P and D. Kauchak 1997. Educational |
| Beacon house school 48 2 50 42.32* | | | | Psychology. Windows on Classroom (3rd ed). Merrill an |
| *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 | | | | Imprint of Prentice Hall New Jersey Columbus, Ohio. P. |
| Table 10 indicates that c2 value in both cases was | | | | 481 |
| found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. | | | | Crowl, T. K, S. Kaminisy and D. M. Podell. 1997. |
| Hence the statement “ the teachers teach with | | | | Educational Psycholgy. Windows on Teaching. Brown |
| enthusiasm and animation through change in eye | | | | Benchmark. Publishers, Madison. P. 365. |
| contact, voice and gestures ” is accepted. | | | | Mirza, M. S, A. S. Kazmi, M. Saleem and M. M. Hussain. |
| Table 11: During the lesson, the teachers use various | | | | 1986. Determine Competencies of Teachers at |
| activities such asquestioning, discussion and practice. | | | | Elementary Level. Azeem Printing Corporation, Lahore. |
| Schools Yes No Total c2 | | | | P. 9. |
| The city school 44 6 50 28.88* | | | | Ali Z., and M. N. Awan. 1993. Aik Misali Ustad Key |
| Beacon house school 49 1 50 46.08* | | | | Shaksiat Key Baray Main Asaitza Ki Raey |
| *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 | | | | (Unpublished Master Thesis). Institute of Education and |
| Table 11 clarifies that x2 value in both cases was | | | | Research, University of the Punjab, Lahore. Pakistan. P. |
| found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. | | | | 57. |
| Hence the statement “during the lesson the | | | | Borich, D.G.1996. Effective Teaching Methods (3rd ed). |
| teachers use various activities such as questioning, | | | | Merrill and imprint of prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, |
| discussion and practice” is accepted. | | | | New Jersey Columbus, Ohio. PP. 2-40. |
| Table 12: The teachers reward and praise the | | | | Anderson, L.W. Paris 1991. Increasing Teacher |
| students on their good | | | | Effectiveness. International Institute For Educational |
| Performance. | | | | Planning UNESCO, Paris. pp.16-17. |
| Schools Yes No Total c2 | | | | Mohit C., 1998. Teacher Education Modern Trends. |
| The city school 40 10 50 18.00* | | | | Madan Sachdeva and Kanishka Publishers distributors |
| Beacon house school 49 1 50 46.08* | | | | New Dehli. P.15. |
| *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841 | | | | Kochhar, S.K. 1992. Methods and Techniques of |
| Table 12 indicates that c2 value in both cases was | | | | Teaching. Sterling Publishers Pvt. New Dehli. PP.41-42. |
| found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. | | | | Richard, I. A, N. E. Winitzky and M. D. T annenbaum. |
| Hence the statement “ the teachers reward and | | | | 2001. Exploring teaching. An Introduction to Education |
| praise the students on their good performance ” is | | | | (2nd ed). The McGraw-Hill Companies. |
| accepted. | | | | Elliott, Kratochwill, L. Cook and Travers. 2000. |
| Table 13: The teachers get the participation of the | | | | Educational Psychology Effective Teaching, Effective |
| students in the class. | | | | Learning. The McGraw-Hill Companies. |
| Schools Yes No Total c2 | | | | Garrette, H. E. 1997. and R. S. WoodWorth. Statistics in |
| The city school 49 1 50 46.08* | | | | Psychology and Education. (6th ed ). Combine Printers |
| Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00* | | | | (Pvt) Ltd. Lahore. |