INTRODUCTION

Teaching is always a dynamic activity. It unfolds a world of knowledge and information, experience and erudition (Chakrabarti, 1998). Effective teaching requires more than straightforward teaching methods. Teachers need to know their students well and be able to adapt their teaching styles to a particular classroom and to individual students. (Elliott et al, 2000).

Effective teachers are those who achieve the goals they set for themselves or have set for them by others. An effective teacher must possess the knowledge and skills needed to attain the goals and must be able to use that knowledge and those skills appropriately if the goals are to be achieved. (Anderson, 1991).

Presently, effective teaching and student learning has been a central of current reform movements. The present view on effective teaching is defined by those behaviour patterns that promote desired student outcomes such as good grades, better attitudes and improved skills (Borich, 1996).

There are many researches being conducted on effective teaching abroad but in Pakistan there are few meaningful studies on effective teaching from the model given by Borich. The training of the teachers is traditional and latest techniques to improve teacher’s performance are rarely. Majority of the teachers do not know the key behaviors and helping behaviors that influence student learning nor can they use those behaviors in the class room instruction to improve the performance of the students. If teachers are expected to teach the students according to these behaviours. Initially, their teaching practices must be studied from the latest perspective of effective teaching to identify the areas needing improvement.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

No system of education can rise above the teachers who serve it, its quality ultimately depends upon the quality and efforts of teachers. Teacher is a key stone of the arch of national education, is the efficient hard working, honest teacher who is fully conscious of the fact that he is the trust of his nations suitability, progress and reputation for training and up bringing of the nations youth are placed in his hands. Teachers are the backbone of the nation. No nation can think of progress without the efforts of its teachers. The teacher is the planner, messenger, supervisor, evaluator, motivated, guide and human architect. There is no replacement of the teacher in education system. Here the teachers have the eye contact with students and clarification of any points is immediate. There are little progress without education poverty. Illiteracy breads poverty and poverty breads revolution and crime.

Teacher is a Prophet, teacher is an artist, teacher is a friend, teacher is a citizen, teacher is an interpreter, teacher is a builder and teacher is a believer.

In minds of the students,

1. Teacher must be an ideal person.

2. Teacher is a personification of the reality.

3. He is co-worker God in perfecting man.

4. He is the priest of man spiritual heritage.

5. He is perfactor of mind.

6. He is the maker of democracies.

7. He is the apostle of peace and progress.

8. He is the philosopher, friend and guide.

9. He is the compendium of all virtue.

10. He is the spiritual symbol of right conduct.

11. He possesses the best spiritual qualities of mankind (Safiullah, 2001).

Teacher is like an artist who blends colour and texture into a painting to produce a coherent impression. The effective teacher blends key behaviours to different degrees to promote student achievement. This requires orchestration and integration of the key and helping behaviours into meaningful patterns and rhythms that can achieve the goals of instruction within your classroom (Borich,1996).

A good teacher is kind, listens to you, encourages you, has faith in you, keeps confidences, likes teaching children, likes teaching their subject, takes time to explain things, helps you when you are stuck, tells you how you are doing, allows you to have your say, does not give on you, cares for your opinion, makes you feel clever, treats people equally, stands up for you, makes allowances, tells the truth, is for giving (Mcber, 2000).

Effective teachers respond to pupils and others as individuals with unique gifts and talents. Having tuned in pupils, teachers can sensitively frame approaches and tailor materials to take account of others strengths, and the things that may have an adverse impact on learning. They may also identify enthusiasms or interests that can be used as a spring board for further learning. Effective teachers show that team working matters because co-operative effort is important in learning and later life. This sort of modelling conveys the importance and value of belonging to a community and being involved with others (McBer, 2000).

Good teachers are not only effective role models; they also constantly keep in mind that their behaviour both intentional and unintentional can profoundly effect what students learn above all, good teachers know how to motivate students to learn, A teacher’s responsibility goes beyond presenting lessons; the teacher is a model for students and has a profound effect on students attitude, beliefs and behavior.(Crowl et all, 1997).

Past Research On Teacher Personality Characteristics

Researchers have been trying to identify the personality characteristics associated with the superior teachers, e.g. those who have won many distinguished awards etc. Following characteristics among superior teachers were found:

· They frequently mention liking for teaching.

· They express admiration of such qualities as friendliness, permissiveness, definiteness and fairness in teachers.

· They dislike in teachers such qualities as arrogance, intolerance, sarcasm, and partiality.

· They typically appear to be accepting and generous in their appraisals of other persons and to see the good points of a person rather than the bad.

· They express satisfaction with teaching and intend to continue teaching indefinitely.

· They frequently engaged in teaching activity as a child (for example, they taking charge of the class in the absence of the teacher).

· They frequently made their decision to become teachers even before enrolling in college.

· They enjoyed school when they were students.

· They showed superior accomplishment in school.

· They report large number of teachers among the parents and relatives.

· They report participation in religious activities.

· They enjoy activities with friends but prefer small groups.

· They frequently are members and officers of clubs.

· They are married (85% of group).

· They are interested and active in literacy affairs, such as writing poetry or books.

· They are more emotionally stable than the average adult.

· They are more friendly than the average adult.

· They are more cooperative and agreeable than the average adult.

· They are more restrained than the average adult.

· They are more objective than the average adult.

· They are more tolerant than the average adult.

· They are more inclined to “try to give a good impression” than the average adult.

· They are more interested in social service than the average adult.

· They are less interested than the average adult (Mohan, 1992).

The past research has focused on measuring various attitudes and personality traits of teachers, with some attempts to relate these to supervisor’s estimates of classroom success. Often, the studies simply intercorrelate various tests of teacher attitudes, interests, intelligence, and so forth (Averch et all,1972).

2.5 Research on teaching effectiveness

Despite seventy-five years of research on the topic relatively little is known about effective teaching. Advances in methodology and conceptualization have begun to make a difference in the last fifteen years or so, but the research is still in its infancy.

(Sadker and Sadker, 1997).

On the basis of a study of several case histories of teachers, good teachers exemplified several characteristics, e.g., are alert about their surroundings they have deep convictions about the worth of their profession they are unaware of restrictions, limitations, indignities and innuendoes in their profession which often irk their follow teachers and lastly they are very fond of their pupils (Mohan, 1992).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

.The main purpose of the study was to compare teaching effectiveness of two schools at primary level.

3.1 POPULATION

Population of the study comprised of 5th class students including girls and boys studying in Beacon house School and The City School located in Islamabad city.

3.2 SAMPLE

The sample of the study consisted of 100 students from the above population. The sample students were selected randomly. Sample of this study included 50 boys and 50 girls from each school. Sample of the study was chosen from Beacon house School and The City School through random sampling.

3.3 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

Research instrument to measure teacher effectiveness was prepared. The questionnaire consisted of 30 items related mainly to five key behaviours and five helping behaviours in the light of ‘Formative Observation of Effective Teaching Practices Instrument’ by Borich (1996). In this way the students get their opinion about the teacher effectiveness of both the schools. In addition, previous three years results of the sample school were also obtained in the study in order to relate the results to teaching effectiveness.

3.4 DATA COLLECTION

The following procedure was adopted in order to collect data:

1 Firstly The City School was visited and had a meeting with the principal. The questionnaire was delivered to the students. The students were told about the purpose of the study and the questionnaire was administered individually to each student. All the students responded to the questionnaire delightfully and attentively. The questionnaire was collected after one week.

2 After few days Beaconhouse School was visited. The researcher had to visit this school again and again for data collection. It took three weeks for the collection of data.

3 In addition, previous three years results of both the schools were also obtained to relate the results to teaching effectiveness.

3.5 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

The data collected by the researcher through research instrument were tabulated, analyzed and interpreted in the light of the objectives of the research study and then percentages and statistical technique (chi square) was used on each item of the questionaire to draw inferences about whole population. To summarize the scores obtained from student response on each item, the mean and standard deviation of the scores were calculated.

The formula for calculating chi square value is stated as follows:

x2 = Σ( fo-fe)2 (Gravette ,2000)

fe

Where fo = Frequency observed

Fe = Frequency expected

The level of significance selected was 0.05.

The previous three years results of the schools were used to relate the results to teaching effectiveness. These results were compared to check the teaching effectiveness. For this purpose mean and standard deviation was calculated. For comparison t-test was applied.

Formula for t-test is stated as follows:

t = (M1-M2)-0

SED

Chapter 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The study aimed at measuring the teaching effectiveness of The City School and Beaconhouse School in Islamabad. The data collected through research instrument and schools record was tabulated, analyzed and interpreted in the light of the objective of the study. The same is being presented in the following pages.

Table 1: The teachers inform the students about what they expect from them

at the end of the each lesson.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 38 12 50 13.52*

Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00*

*Significant df=1 c2 value at 0.05 level =3.841

Table 1 shows that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “The teachers inform the students about what they expect from them at the end of the each lesson” is accepted.

Table 2: The teachers inform the students about the importance of the

topic.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 48 2 50 42.32*

Beacon house school 49 1 50 46.08*

*Significant df=1 c2 value at 0.05 level =3.841

Table 2 shows that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “do teachers inform the students about the importance of the topic ” is accepted.

Table 3: While introducing the lesson, the teachers tell the students what

be will teach?

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 49 1 50 46.08*

Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 3 shows that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “While introducing the lesson, the teachers tell the students what be will teach? ” is accepted.

Table 4: The teachers test previous knowledge at the beginning of the

lesson?

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 34 16 50 6.48*

Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 4 shows that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers test previous knowledge at the beginning of the lesson ” is accepted.

Table 5: During teaching, the teachers give the students clear, step-by-

step information.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 48 2 50 42.32*

Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 5 shows that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at .05 level. Hence the statement “during teaching, the teachers give the students clear, step-by-step information ” is accepted.

Table 6: The teachers teaching is according to the students level.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 48 2 50 42.32*

Beacon house school 35 15 50 32.00*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 6 indicates that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “the teachers teaching is according to the students level” is accepted.

Table 7: The teachers reteach the previous lesson when necessary?

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 49 1 50 46.08*

Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 7 clarifies that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers reteach the previous lesson when necessary ” is accepted.

Table 8: The teachers give the summary at the end of the lesson.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 27 23 50 0.32*

Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00**

not *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

**Significant

Table 8 indicates that in case of The City School c2 value was found less than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers give the summary at the end of the lesson ” is rejected.

In case of Beaconhouse School c2 value was found greater than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers give the summary at the end of the lesson” is accepted.

Table 9: The teachers get your attention before the lesson.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 48 2 50 42.32*

Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 9 clarifies that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers get your attention before the lesson ” is accepted.

Table10: The teachers teach with enthusiasm and animation through

change in eye contact, voice and gestures.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 41 9 50 20.48*

Beacon house school 48 2 50 42.32*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 10 indicates that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers teach with enthusiasm and animation through change in eye contact, voice and gestures ” is accepted.

Table 11: During the lesson, the teachers use various activities such as

questioning, discussion and practice.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 44 6 50 28.88*

Beacon house school 49 1 50 46.08*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 11 clarifies that x2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “during the lesson the teachers use various activities such as questioning, discussion and practice” is accepted.

Table 12: The teachers reward and praise the students on their good

Performance.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 40 10 50 18.00*

Beacon house school 49 1 50 46.08*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 12 indicates that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers reward and praise the students on their good performance ” is accepted.

Table 13: The teachers get the participation of the students in the class.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 49 1 50 46.08*

Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 13 shows that x2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers get the participation of the students in the class ” is accepted.

Table 14: The teachers maintain class discipline.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 48 2 50 42.32*

Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 14 clarifies that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers maintain class discipline ” is accepted.

Table 15: The teachers handle misbehaviour students in the class calmly

without disturbing the lesson or class.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The City School 30 20 50 1.00*

Beacon House School 45 5 50 32.00**

not *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

**Significant

Table 15 indicates that in case of The City School c2 value was found less than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “the teachers handle misbehaviour students in the class calmly without disturbing the lesson or class ” is rejected.

In case of Beaconhouse School c2 value was found greater than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “the teachers handle misbehaviour students in the class calmly without disturbing the lesson or class” is accepted.

Table 16: The teachers teach strictly according to the syallabus.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 33 17 50 5.12*

Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 16 shows that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers teach strictly according to the syallabus ”? is accepted.

Table 17: The teachers teach by telling.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 47 3 50 38.72*

Beacon house school 33 17 50 5.12*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 17 shows that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers teach by telling ” is accepted.

Table 18: The teachers teach by asking.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The City School 34 16 50 6.48**

Beacon House School 24 26 50 0.08*

**Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

*notSignificant

Table 18 indicates that in case of The City School c2 value was found greater than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers teach by asking ” is accepted.

In case of Beaconhouse School c2 value was found less than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers teach by asking” is rejected.

Table 19: The teachers give weekly and monthly tests regularly.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 44 6 50 28.88*

Beacon house school 49 1 50 46.08*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 19 shows that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers give weekly and monthly tests regularly ” is accepted.

Table 20: The teachers provide practice immediately after teaching.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 39 11 50 15.68*

Beacon house school 48 2 50 42.32*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 20 shows that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers provide practice immediately after teaching ” is accepted.

Table 21: The teachers correct the wrong answers of the students in a non- threatening way.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The City School 31 19 50 2.88*

Beacon House School 39 11 50 15.68**

not *Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

**Significant

Table 21 indicates that in case of the City School c2 value was found less than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers correct the wrong answers of the students in a non-threatening way ”is rejected.

In case of Beaconhouse School c2 value was found greater than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers correct the wrong answers of the students in a non-threatening way” is accepted.

Table 22: The teachers use group or individual learning when needed.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 41 9 50 20.48*

Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 22 shows that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers use group or individual learning when needed ” is accepted.

Table 23: The teachers encourage the students for their good performance

in the class?

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 45 5 50 32.00*

Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 23 shows that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers encourage the students for their good performance in the class ” is accepted.

Table 24: The teachers circulate and move around in the class while the

students are busy in seat work.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 47 3 50 38.72*

Beacon house school 50 0 50 50.00*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 24 shows that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers circulate and move around in the class while the students are busy in seatwork ” is accepted.

Table 25: The teachers teach the lesson with the previous knowledge of

the students.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 37 13 50 11.52*

Beaconhouse school 49 1 50 46.08*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 25 shows that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers teach the lesson with the previous knowledge of the students ” is accepted.

Table 26: Do the teachers correct your wrong responses immediately?

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 35 15 50 8.00*

Beacon house school 11 39 50 15.68*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 26 shows that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers correct your wrong responses immediately ” is accepted.

Table 27: The teachers teach the lesson in small steps.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 42 8 50 23.12*

Beacon house school 46 4 50 35.28*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 27 shows that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers teach the lesson in small steps ” is accepted.

Table 28: The teachers move from one topic of the lesson to the next topic

by telling you about it.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 32 18 50 3.92*

Beacon house school 46 4 50 35.28*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 28 shows that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers move from one topic of the lesson to the next topic by telling you about it ” is accepted.

Table 29: The teachers tell the correct answers.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The city school 32 18 50 3.92*

Beacon house school 30 20 50 50.00*

*Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

Table 29 shows that c2 value in both cases was found to be more than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers tell the correct answers ” is accepted.

Table 30: The teachers ask questions to get the right answers.

Schools Yes No Total c2

The City School 34 16 50 6.49**

Beaconhouse School 20 30 50 2.00*

**Significant df =1 c2 value at 0.05 level=3.841

*notSignificant

Table 30 indicates that in case of The City School c2 value was found greater than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers ask questions to get the right answers ” is acceptable.

In case of Beaconhouse School c2 value was found less than the table value at 0.05 level. Hence the statement “ the teachers ask questions to get the right answers” is rejected.

Comparison of the teaching effectiveness of The City School and Beaconhouse School Islamabad.

Ho: There is no significant of difference between the mean scores of The City School and Beaconhouse School on annual results of 2002.

Table 31: Significance of difference between the mean scores of The City

School and Beaconhouse School on the results of 2002.

Schools N df Mean SD SED t-value

The City School 26 25 79.58 7.69 21.931 0.25*

Beaconhouse School 23 22 74.09 6.29

*notSignificant df =47 c2 value at 0.05 level=2.02

Table 31 shows that t-value was found to be 0.25 which less than the table value. Hence the null hypothesis, “there is no significant difference between the mean scores of the City School and Beaconhouse School on annual results of 2002” is rejected. Thus both the schools could be treated as equel.

Ho: There is no significant of difference between the mean scores of The City School and Beaconhouse School on annual results of 2003.

Table 32: Significance of difference between the mean scores of The City

School and Beaconhouse School on the results of 2003.

Schools N df Mean SD SED t-value

The City School 25 24 77.80 7.69 21.570 0.05*

Beaconhouse School 26 25 76.69 8.23

*notSignificant df =49 c2 value at 0.05 level=2.01

Table 32 shows that t-value was found to be 0.05 which less than the table value. Hence the null hypothesis, “there is no significant difference between the mean scores of The City School and Beaconhouse School on annual results of 2003” is rejected. Thus both the schools could be treated as equel.

There is no significant of difference between the mean scores of The City School and Beaconhouse School on annual results of 2004.

Table 33: Significance of difference between the mean scores of The City

School and Beaconhouse School on the results of 2004.

Schools N df Mean SD SED t-value

The City School 21 20 78.47 9.07 21.551 0.47*

Beaconhouse School 25 24 68.24 8.81

*notSignificant df =44 c2 value at 0.05 level=2.02

Table 33 shows that t-value was found to be 0.47 which less than the table value. Hence the null hypothesis, “there is no significant difference between the mean scores of The City School and Beaconhouse School on annual results of 2004” is rejected Thus both the schools could be treated as equel.

SUMMARY

The main purpose of the conducting study was to identify teaching behaviors that are ineffective in teaching learning process.

A sample of 100 students (50 from each schools) including girls and boys from the population were selected. In order to measure teaching effectiveness a questionnaire consisting of 30 items were prepared, which related mainly to five key behaviors and five helping behaviors in the light of ‘Formative Observation of Effective Teaching Practices Instrument’ by Borich (1996). Each school was visited personally. The data was collected, analyzed and interpreted in the light of objectives of the study. The analysis of data are presented in the percentages and Chi square. The level of significance selected for the study was 0.05 level. In addition, previous three years results of the sample schools was also obtained from school record in order to relate the results to teaching effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

In the light of the findings of the study the following conclusions were drawn.

1 The responses of the primary level students of Beaconhouse School was found

better than that of The City School students towards effective teaching.

2. For the teaching effectiveness the teachers of The City School need to give the summary at the end of the lesson properly.

3. For the teaching effectiveness the teachers of The City School need to handle the misbehaviors of students in the class calmly without disturbing the lesson or class.

4. Teachers of Beaconhouse School needs to teach by asking from the students.

5. For the teaching effectiveness the teachers of The City School needs to correct the wrong answers of the students in a non- threatening way.

6. Teachers of Beaconhouse School needs to ask questions to get the right answers and also provide prompts to the students.

7. The previous three years results of these two schools indicated that there was no significant difference in teaching effectiveness. The over all performance of the teachers was found almost equal.

Recommendations

Keeping in view the findings and conclusions of the study the following recommendations are made.

(1) The present study on teaching effectiveness conducted on Beaconhouse School and The City School was satisfactory. Both the schools must improve the performance of their teachers.

(2) Both the schools understudy were uncooperative in providing relevant data. Such schools belonging to private sector must be cooperative and helpful to the researchers.

(3) Similar research on effective teaching must be done in private as well as public sector.

(4) The present study was conducted at primary level. Similar research must be conductive at higher levels.

(5) Mjority of the teachers were not familiar with this latest approach of effective teaching which includes helping and key behaviours. Teacher training programmes should be based on latest methods of teaching.

(6) The head of the institutions must be familiar the latest teaching methods so that they can guide their teachers properly.

(7) The responses from the students must be taken directly at primary and higher level.

(8) Further studies on effective teaching must be encouraged in Pakistan.

LITERATURE CITED

Averch, H. A. et al, 1972. How Effective is Schooling? A Critical Review and Synthesis of Research Findings. The Rand Corportion California. Pp 52-60.

Arends, L. R. 1998. Learning to Teach (4th ed). The McGraw-Hill Companies. Pp 11-20.

Fenstermacher, D. G. and F. J. Soltis. 1986. Approaches to Teaching 1986. Teachers College Press Amsterdam Aavenue, New York. P. 17.

Hay M., 2000. Research into Teacher Effectiveness. A Model of Teacher Effectiveness. The Department for Education and Employment.

Thomas, K. C. 1997. Educational Psychology. Windows on Teaching. Brown and Benchmark Publishers. The United States of America by Times Mirror Higher Education Group. P. 375.

Sadker, M. P. and D. M. Sadker 1997. Teachers, Schools and Society (4th ed). The McGraw-Hill Companies. P. 41.

Maer F., 1966. A History of Educational Thought (2nd ed). Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. A Bell and Howell Company Columbus, Ohio. P. 403.

Hafiz S., 2001. A Study of Students’ Performance and Teachers Qualifications in the Subject of Physics at Secondary Level in District Jehlum. University Institute of Education and Research. University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi.

Mohan J., 1992. Study of Educational Psycholgy. Department of Psychology Punjab University Chandigrh India. Pp . 257-265.

Eggen, P and D. Kauchak 1997. Educational Psychology. Windows on Classroom (3rd ed). Merrill an Imprint of Prentice Hall New Jersey Columbus, Ohio. P. 481

Crowl, T. K, S. Kaminisy and D. M. Podell. 1997. Educational Psycholgy. Windows on Teaching. Brown Benchmark. Publishers, Madison. P. 365.

Mirza, M. S, A. S. Kazmi, M. Saleem and M. M. Hussain. 1986. Determine Competencies of Teachers at Elementary Level. Azeem Printing Corporation, Lahore. P. 9.

Ali Z., and M. N. Awan. 1993. Aik Misali Ustad Key Shaksiat Key Baray Main Asaitza Ki Raey (Unpublished Master Thesis). Institute of Education and Research, University of the Punjab, Lahore. Pakistan. P. 57.

Borich, D.G.1996. Effective Teaching Methods (3rd ed). Merrill and imprint of prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey Columbus, Ohio. PP. 2-40.

Anderson, L.W. Paris 1991. Increasing Teacher Effectiveness. International Institute For Educational Planning UNESCO, Paris. pp.16-17.

Mohit C., 1998. Teacher Education Modern Trends. Madan Sachdeva and Kanishka Publishers distributors New Dehli. P.15.

Kochhar, S.K. 1992. Methods and Techniques of Teaching. Sterling Publishers Pvt. New Dehli. PP.41-42.

Richard, I. A, N. E. Winitzky and M. D. T annenbaum. 2001. Exploring teaching. An Introduction to Education (2nd ed). The McGraw-Hill Companies.

Elliott, Kratochwill, L. Cook and Travers. 2000. Educational Psychology Effective Teaching, Effective Learning. The McGraw-Hill Companies.

Garrette, H. E. 1997. and R. S. WoodWorth. Statistics in Psychology and Education. (6th ed ). Combine Printers (Pvt) Ltd. Lahore.