Comparison of the efficiency of the elite teachers
with common teachers from the perspective of
Tabriz high schools students
Hamid Esmaili, Firooz Mahmoodi1, Khalil Esamailpour2
Department of Humanities and Educational Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch, Tabriz, Departments of 1Education and 2Psychology, Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
Introducion
The success of any organization in achieving of the goals depends on the efficiency and efficacy of the teachers. Therefore, most of the educational scholars believe that the teachers play an important and effective role in education.[1] The educational system employs different solutions and strategies for scientific achievement and promotion of the teachers’ belief. One of these ways is selection and acknowledgment of the elite teachers that leads to more efforts of the teachers in achieving the mentioned measures.[2] Cultural Revolution Council announced Teacher’ day martyr of professor Motahari day. The Ministry of Education of Iran founded the office of the memorial of the teachers in 1984 and introduced some elite teachers, according to the different criteria in 1985.[3] According to Bard, an elite teacher pays more
attention to the students’ personal differences, and he or she is skilled in asking the question and has knowledge on the subject that teaches and knows the correct way of testing quoted by.[4]
In Korthagen[5] opinion, the policy makers have tried to determine the measures for an elite teacher while they are in doubt in this regard. The results of the research by Fallahi[6] and Ravanshad[7] show that the selection of the elite teachers depends on the relationship between principal and teacher and stability and specialty of the principals. The teachers do not consider the current measures sufficient and in their opinion, the teacher’s skills in teaching and management of the classes and meritocracy are less considered and the role and
ABSTRACT
Aim: This research aimed to compare the eficiency of elite teachers with common teachers in
high schools of Tabriz. Methods: This research was a causal and comparative study and the data
were collected by questionnaire. The research sample consisted of 140 high schools teachers in ive
areas of Tabriz. Seventy elite teachers and 70 common teachers were selected. For analysis of the research questions Mann–Whitney U‑test was used because the data distribution was not normal. Result: results showed that there is no signiicant difference in achievement of the students of the
elite teachers and achievement of the students of the common teachers. Furthermore, there is no
signiicant difference between teaching eficiency of the elite teachers and teaching eficiency of the common teachers. However, there is a signiicant difference between the eficiency of assessment
of the elite teachers and the common teachers. Conclusions: The eficiency of assessment of the
elite teachers is better than the common teachers. The success of any organization in achieving of
the goals depends on the eficiency and eficacy of the teachers.
Key words: Achievement, assessment, eficiency, elite teacher, interaction, teaching
Address for Correspondence: Mr. Hamid Esmaili, East Kosar Street in Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran. E‑mail: [email protected]
Original Article
Access this article online
Quick Response Code:
Website:
www.ijeprjournal.org
DOI:
10.4103/2395-2296.163934
How to cite this article: Esmaili H, Mahmoodi F, Esamailpour K. Comparison of the eficiency of the elite teachers with common teachers from the perspective of Tabriz high schools students. Int J Educ Psychol Res 2015;1:253-7.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
participation of the students in choosing elite teacher are paid more attention incorrect selection of the elite teachers’ causes to disappointment and correct assessment enhances their tendency.
Fallahi[6] in addition to criticizing of the selecting of the elite teachers refers to some of the strong points of this plan. It can be referred to the glorification of the teachers, appropriates of the time of the anniversary, the motivation of the teachers, offering objective direction and holding the ceremony in Tehran and meet with the leader and president.[6] Some of the characteristics of the teachers were investigated in the research. Ravanshad[7] and Abdullahzadeh[8] concluded that the selected teachers are interested in their jobs and pay more attention to the students’ personal differences; they are aware of the latest theories of teaching and learning psychology and methods. The scholars[9] reported that the elite teachers are skilled in asking questions and are knowledgeable in the subject that teach and they are able to use new methods and interact kindly with their students.[8] On the other hand, intimate relations are other characteristics of the elite teachers and they have an intimate relationship with students.
Misagiyan[10] research and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)[11] concluded that the elite teachers have a good relationship with their students. UNESCO[11] published a book by the title of “Characteristics of a good teacher” where more than 500 students from 50 countries have announced their opinions about characteristics of a good teacher. Most of the students have expressed followings: A good teacher should be patient, kind and flexible and efficient and talk proportionate with students and respect their personality and perceive what happens in the world of the students. A good teacher should be interested in his or her job and students and should be friend with students and attracts their attention.[12] According to Mysagiyan, happiness and humor, appearance and clothes have less importance relative to other features. Ten important traits were mentioned for elite teachers. The results of this research show that this group believed that an elite teacher should encourage the students to working, thinking and research and respect their ideas and opinions.
The results of research conducted on the elite teachers characteristics show that these teachers have characteristics including authority, humor, situation control, and brevity.[12] Also, the research conducted by Friedman, Onwuegbuzie, Korngold, Kubovi, Hativa and Lowman depicts that the outstanding characteristics of the elite teachers from the students are human traits like relations and interactions, perception and patience, protection,
warmth and considering students while, in a longitude study on 300 teachers in 100 schools in seven areas in Norway showed that there is less time for communication of each student’s needs. While, the policy makers emphasize that the teachers have a close relationship with students.[13] Also he elite teachers have a good relationship with a student they have other characteristics. Quoted by Arnon[14] Goldberge, Miron, Schulman and Tamir concluded that the elite teachers are different than common teachers from knowledge and skills perspectives. In a qualitative research in one of the educational area in Australia Duarte[15] concluded that the elite teachers have teaching skills and they are disciplined and organize the students, assess learning, have meaningful feedback and let the students to challenge on the subjects, respond to the students’ needs, supervise the students and interact actively.[15]
Different research has been conducted on the character tics of the elite teachers. It is better to refer to the students’ viewpoints since they are the main resources on evaluating on the teacher achievement in fulfilling the goals. Using the opinions of the students of a teacher for judgment is more feasible method, since in contrary to the observation by the principals or other persons that influence the natural trend of teaching in this method no side effect is seen. The students’ opinion is a good method for interaction between the students and the teacher and as a result by this way it can be improved the teacher’s educational trend.[16] Accordingly, one of the ways to identify the characteristics of the teachers is a comparison of the teachers’ efficiencies with common teachers. The following questions were investigated: (1) Is there any difference in academic achievement of the students of the elite teachers with the students of common teachers? (2) Is there any difference in teaching efficiency of the elite teachers with the students of common teachers? (3) Is there any difference in academic assessment of the elite teachers with the students of common teachers? (4) Is there any difference in efficiency of the interaction with students of the elite teachers with the students of common teachers? (5) Is there any difference in efficiency of the elite teachers in terms of gender?
Methods
areas of Tabriz. The tool for measuring is author made questionnaire on the of teachers’ efficiency assessment criteria.[17,18] Items 1–10 are about teaching efficiency, 11–20 assessment efficiency and 21–30 interaction with students’ efficiency. The reliability of the questioner was 0.93 measured by Cronbach Alpha. The opinions of the supervisor and advisor were employed for used of the validity of the questions. By offering introducing letters to the principals of the high schools, three top students were asked to answer the questions. After explanation, they answered the questions, and the scores of the student academic achievement were registered by using report card. Since the data were not normal, the research questions were measured by the nonparametric test of Mann–Whitney U.
Results
Due to abnormal distribution of the data, the Mann– Whitney U‑test was used for analysis of the questions 1–5 that the results are summarized in below Tables.
1. Is there any difference in academic achievement of the students of the elite teachers with the students of common teachers?
For this question Mann–Whitney U‑test was used, since one variable is tested in two independent groups. The results of Table 1 depict that significance level is more than P > 0.05. So, it is concluded that there is
no difference in academic achievement of the students of the elite teachers with the students of common teachers.
2. Is there any difference in teaching efficiency of the elite teachers with the students of common teachers? For this question Mann–Whitney U‑test was used, since one variable is tested in two independent groups. The results of Table 1 depict that the significance level is more than P > 0.05. So, it is concluded that there is
no difference in teaching efficiency of the elite teachers with the students of common teachers.
3. Is there any difference in academic assessment of the elite teachers with the students of common teachers? For this question Mann–Whitney U‑test was used, since one variable is tested in two independent groups.
The results of Table 1 depict that the significance level is P < 0.05. So, it is concluded that there is a
difference in academic assessment of the students in the classroom of common teachers. The median of the academic assessment of the elite teachers is 32 and it is 31 for common teachers. It means that the efficiency of the elite teachers is higher than common teachers. 4. Is there any difference in efficiency of the interaction
with students of the elite teachers with the students of common teachers?
For this question Mann–Whitney U‑test was used, since one variable is tested in two independent groups. The results of Table 1 depict that the significance level is
P < 0.05. So, it is concluded that there is a difference
in efficiency of the interaction with students of the elite teachers with the students of common teachers. The median of the efficiency of the interaction with students of the elite teachers is 35 and it is 34 for common teachers. It means that the elite teachers are better than common teachers in interaction with students. 5. Is there any difference in efficiency of the male teachers
with the efficiency of the female teachers?
For this question Mann–Whitney U‑test was used, since one variable is tested in two independent groups. The results of Table 2 depict that the significance level is
P < 0.05. So, it is concluded that there is a difference
in efficiency of the male teachers with the efficiency of the female teachers. In the student achievement, the median of the male teachers is 18 and it is 19 in female teachers. In efficiency of teaching, the mean of male teachers is 28 and for a female it is 29. In the academic achievement, the median of the male teachers is 30 and it is 32 in female teachers. For investigation on the interaction viable, Mann–Whitney U‑test was used, since one variable is tested in two independent groups. The results of Table 2 depict that the significance level is bigger than P < 0.05. Hence, it is concluded that there
is no difference in both groups in interaction viable.
Discussion
1. Is there any difference in academic achievement of the students of the elite teachers with the students
Table 1: The results of comparison the elite teachers with common teachers
Variables Group Number Sum of ranks Mean of rank Mann-Whitney U Z Signiicant
Academic achievement Elite 177 31,271 176.67 14,926 −0.319 0.75 Common 172 29,804 173.28
Teaching efficiency Elite 183 34,492 188.48 1.583 −0.902 0.367 Common 183 32,669 178.52
Assessment efficiency Elite 183 35,805.5 195.66 1.452 −2.202 0.028 Common 183 31,355.5 171.34
of common teachers? Mann–Whitney U‑test results showed that there is no difference in academic achievement of the students of the elite teachers with the students of common teachers and this finding is consistent to the findings of[3,6,7,12‑15,19] that they did not report any relationship.
The results of academic achievement assessment are good for judging on the teaching. So, the teachers should benefit from a review of their styles.[16] In the modern educational models, the learners’ academic achievements reflect the educational goals. So, the fulfillment of the goals based on the quality and quantity of the achievement can be investigated.[20]
The importance and necessity of the assessment are that it depicts the efficiency of teaching and tools used in measuring of the student academic achievement.[21] It is necessary to employ teachers’ efficiency beside academic achievement.[4]
Is there any difference in teaching efficiency of the elite teachers with the students of common teachers? Mann– Whitney U‑test results showed that there is no difference in teaching efficiency of the elite teachers with the students of common teachers.
This finding is consistent with the results of Duarte and Glover and Burning, UNESCO,[11,15,22] that depicts the elite teachers have teaching skills and they have information about students and enjoy by working them and they are interested in teaching.
This finding is inconsistent to the finding of Fallahi.[6] In the teachers and responsible in the teachers skill in the teaching and class management the selection of the teachers is not paid attention and there is no difference between teachers. While, teaching efficiency is one of the variables of efficient teacher.[17]
Is there any difference in academic assessment of the elite teachers with the students of common teachers? Mann–
Whitney U‑test results showed that there is a difference in difference in academic assessment of the elite teachers with the students of common teachers. The median of the academic assessment of the elite teachers depicts that the efficiency of the elite teachers is higher than common teachers. According to Fontana, learning and assessment is one of the characteristics of an efficient teacher that depicts the students’ academic achievement and efficiency of teaching quoted by Aslani.[23] This finding is consistent to the findings of Morris and Reynolds that depicts the efficient teachers force the students to less responding. When a student answers correct to a questions the teacher has short feedback.
Is there any difference in efficiency of the interaction with students of the elite teachers with the students of common teachers? Mann–Whitney U‑test depicts that there is a difference in efficiency of the interaction with students of the elite teachers with the students of common teachers. The median of the efficiency of the interaction with students of the elite teachers is higher. It means that the elite teachers are better than common teachers in interaction with students.
This finding is consistent to the finding of UNESCO, Salehi and Shabani[11,12,21] that depicts the elite teachers interact differently with the students. There is a significant correlation between some behaviors of the teachers and the students’ academic achievement quoted by Aslani.[23]
Is there any difference in efficiency of the male teachers with efficiency of the female teachers? Mann–Whitney U‑test depicts that there is a difference in efficiency in achievement, teaching efficiency and assessment. The male teachers mean score is less than female in academic achievement and the female elite teachers are better than male elite the elite teachers and their academic efficiency and interaction is better than common teachers.
The results of this research showed that there is no significant difference between mean of the students’ academic achievement of the elite teachers and common
Table 2: The results of Mann‑Whitney U‑test of eiciency of the male and female teachers
Variables Group Number Sum of ranks Mean of rank Mann-Whitney U Z Signiicant
Academic achievement Elite 72 5381.5 74/74 18 −3.133 0.002 Common 105 10,371.5 98/78 19
Teaching efficiency Elite 72 6137.5 81/83 28 −2.169 0.03 Common 105 10,698.5 99/06 29
Assessment efficiency Elite 72 6089 81/19 30 −2.306 0.021 Common 105 10,747 99/51 32
teachers but there is a significant difference in the assessment and interaction between the elite teachers and common teachers. The elite teachers have elite interaction with the students. Of four variables among elite teachers and common teachers they have difference in two variables that this fact depicts the organization of the choosing elite teachers requires investigation and change of some measures.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conlicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Marzban F. Organizational atmosphere and its effect on the success and failure of administrative amendment. J Manage 2001;43:61‑8.
2. Mikaueli Monih F. Review existing Teacher Appreciation Styles and developing proper model for Appreciation of elicit teachers. 3. Zolfagari T. Investigation on effect of the selection of the elite
teachers and principals. Semnan Research Center; 1997. 4. Husseini S. Investigation on the Factors Related to Educational
Function of the Guidance School Teachers in Mahabad, MA thesis of Islamic Azad University of Tabriz; 2012.
5. Korthagen FA. In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teach Educ 2004;20:77‑97.
6. Fallahi K. The programs of the teacher week from the perspective of the elite teachers and offering solutions for the teacher week meeting. Human Resource Research Center; 2012.
7. Ravanshad A. Assessment of the Choosing Elite teachers in Sistan and Baluchestan Province and its Effect in Educational Year of 1992‑1993; 1993.
8. Abdullahzadeh A. Investigation of the Ethical Characteristics and Awareness of the Elite Teachers Teaching Methods, MA Thesis
of Educational Planning, Central Payam Nour University; 2009. 9. Daemi M. Survey on the Awareness of the Teachers in
Gonaabad Province from Learning Theories Perspectives and Level of Application in the Teaching and Learning Process, Curriculum Studies MA Thesis, Payame Nur University, Tehran; 2006.
10. Falahati Nejad AA.The Study of efficient Teachers based on students and parents view point in Damegan. MA Thesis, Tehran, Payame Noor University 2010.
11. UNESCO. What Makes a Elite Teacher? Paris: UNESCO; 1996. 12. Salehi A. The study of relationship among personality
factors (introversion, extroversion) of students and their effects to selecting. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2010;2:4016‑20.
13. Mausethagen S. A research review of the impact of accountability policies on teachers’ workplace relations. Educ Res Rev 2013;9:16‑33.
14. Arnon S. Closed and open‑ended question tools in a telephone survey. J Mix Methods Res 2009;3:172‑96.
15. Duarte FP. Conceptions of good teaching by good teachers: Case Studies from an Australian University. J Univ Teach Learn Pract 2013;10:5.
16. Seyef A. Measuring and Educational Assessment. Tehran: Doran Publication; 2003.
17. Anderson L. Increaseing Teacher Effectivenss. Paris: UNESCO, International institute for Educational Planning; 1991.
18. Bazargan A. Educational Assessment. Tehran: Samt Publication; 2011.
19. Marzban F. Teachers and Principals Satisfaction in the Markazi Province and Selection of Elite Teacher Criteria in Educational Year of 2000‑2001; 2002.
20. Badri Gargari R. Comparison of the Academic Achievement and Communicative Skills of the Tabriz Schools, Secretariat of the Research Council, Office of Education, East Azerbaijan; 2011. 21. Shabani H. Educational skills. Tehran: Samt Publication; 2006. 22. Glover J, Burning R. Educational psychology: Principles and
Applications. Scott Foresman and Co: Harper Collins Publishers; 1990.
