Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness in Higher Secondary Schools: A Study in Thoubal District, Manipur

Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness in Higher Secondary Schools: A Study in Thoubal District, Manipur

Dr. Mayanglangbam Prakash Singh., Sapam Chinttoo Devi., Ningthoujam Sofiliya Devi., Sapam Shinttoo Devi

Department of Education, Dhanamanjuri University, Kakching, Manipur, India

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0383

Received: 06 July 2025; Accepted: 10 July 2025; Published: 05 August 2025

ABSTRACT

“Teacher Effectiveness” is the ability of a teacher to positively impart self-growth, academic performance and skill development to the students. A study is performed in higher secondary schools in Thoubal District, Manipur, focusing on differences between government and private institutions and gender-based variations for the evaluation of teacher effectiveness. This study targets the need for professional development and policy interventions for the improvement of results obtained. Data of 60 teachers are collected through descriptive research design using a structured questionnaire. 5 key dimensions, i.e., preparation and planning, classroom management, subject matter expertise, teacher characteristics, and interpersonal relations are analysed. The result shows the presence of differences in preparation, planning, and classroom management between government and private school teachers, with private institutions performing better. Female teachers excel in preparation, planning, and interpersonal relations, while male teachers perform better in classroom management. But differences are absent in subject matter expertise or teacher characteristics across institutions or gender.

Keywords:

Teacher Effectiveness- In the present study, teacher effectiveness means being effective as a teacher, not only being proficient with teaching processes that lead to student achievements but also being a person who can facilitate positive change in people’s lives.

School Teacher- In the present study, it refers to those teachers who are working in government and private higher secondary schools affiliated to the Council of Higher Secondary Education Manipur.

Higher Secondary School- A two-year course of education (class XI and XII) between high school and graduate level.

INTRODUCTION

A teacher is an educational facilitator who implements pedagogical methodologies, lesson planning, and differentiated instructions to foster individuals’ cognitive growth, critical thinking, knowledge retention, behavioural conditioning, and academic achievement. Teachers sustain intellectual traditions and technical expertise, extending their responsibilities beyond the classroom, further influencing schools and communities.

“Teacher Effectiveness” is usually concerned with the outcomes undertaken to predict the teacher’s efficiency and stability. These include effective classroom management with higher student engagement, metacognitive development, and assessment techniques that improve understanding, critical thinking, and overall academic success.

Effective teachers show excellent professional expertise in teaching, balance intellectual and interpersonal learning, and controlling their own and others’ emotions and moods. They have influential dramatic behaviours that include controlling mood: telling a good story, catching people to laugh, being entertaining, and are concomitant with being perceived as an effective teacher, which gives positive student affect, behavioural commitment to the course content, and student cognitive learning.

Some characteristics of an effective teacher include monitoring the student progress by cooperation with educators, parents, and administrators, through the implementation of better evidence-based instructions and methods or lesson plans for better learning outcomes. They focus on self-efficiency, attendance, timely graduation, academic excellence, deploying creative, engaging, inclusive, discrimination-free, supportive classrooms and lessons for student growth.

In the education system of Higher Secondary Schools, teachers influence students’ academic growth, personal development, and future career choices. Understanding teacher effectiveness is essential to enhance the quality of education. It will elevate the standards of teaching by identifying and exploring content knowledge, instructional skills, classroom management, emotional support, etc., in Higher Secondary Schools of Thoubal District, Manipur.

Thoubal District has a diverse student population with unique socio-cultural dynamics, and its education system faces various challenges, including resource constraints, varying levels of teacher training, and regional disparities in educational infrastructure. Analysing teacher effectiveness in this context provides insights into areas for improvement and potential strategies to support teachers in delivering high-quality education.

Statement of the Problem:

For the present study, the researcher has thorough knowledge based on literature and personal experiences and is interested in investigating the teacher effectiveness of Higher Secondary School Teachers in Thoubal District of Manipur.

Objectives of the Study:

According to the statements of the problem and to fulfil the purpose of the present study, the following objectives are identified:

1. To investigate the level of teacher effectiveness of Higher Secondary School teachers in Thoubal District, Manipur.
2. To study the significant difference in teacher effectiveness in the dimension of preparation and planning between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
3. To study the significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of classroom management between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
4. To study the significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of subject matter between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
5. To study the significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of teacher characteristics between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
6. To study the significant difference in the teacher effectiveness dimension of interpersonal relation between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
7. To find out the significant differences in teacher effectiveness dimension of preparation and planning between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
8. To find out the significant differences in teacher effectiveness dimension of classroom management between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
9. To find out the significant differences in the teacher effectiveness dimension of subject matter between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
10. To find out the significant differences in teacher effectiveness dimension of teacher characteristics between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
11. To find out the significant differences in the teacher effectiveness dimension of interpersonal relations between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.

Hypothesis of the Study:

Based on the statement of problem and objective of the present study, the following hypotheses are selected:

• H_o1: It was hypothesized that there would not be a significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of preparation and planning between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
• H_o2: It was hypothesized that there would not be a significant difference in the teacher effectiveness dimension of classroom management between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
• H_o3: It was hypothesized that there would not be a significant difference in the teacher effectiveness dimension of subject matter between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
• H_o4: It was hypothesized that there would not be a significant difference in the teacher effectiveness dimension of the teacher characteristics between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
• H_o5: It was hypothesized that there would not be a significant difference in the teacher effectiveness dimension of interpersonal relation between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools  in Thoubal District, Manipur
• H_o6: It was hypothesized that there would not be a significant difference in the teacher effectiveness dimension of preparation and planning between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
• H_o7: It was hypothesized that there would not be a significant difference in the teacher effectiveness dimension of classroom management between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
• H_o8: It was hypothesized that there would not be a significant difference in the teacher effectiveness dimension of subject matter between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
• H_o9: It was hypothesized that there would not be a significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension teacher characteristics between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
• H_o10: It was hypothesized that there would not be a significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension interpersonal relations between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.

Study Design:

In the present study, the descriptive method was used to investigate the teacher effectiveness of Higher Secondary School teachers. To achieve the objectives of the present study, it was required to collect the primary data from a representative sample of Higher Secondary Schoolteachers and use the survey method with questionnaire tools for collecting data.

Population and Sample:

Sixty male and female Higher Secondary School Teachers were selected from a population of the teachers working in government and private Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur by using a simple random sampling technique.

Selection of the Subject: 60 (sixty) teachers, 30 each for government and private Higher Secondary Schools of Thoubal district, were the subjects of the study. The distribution of teachers from the different Higher Secondary Schools of Thoubal district is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Selection of Teachers from Different Higher Secondary Schools

Three government Higher Secondary Schools are selected for this study:

1. Heirok Higher Secondary School, Heirok;
2. Khangabok Higher Secondary School, Khangabok; and
3. Lamding Higher Secondary School, Wangjing.

Three private higher secondary school teachers were selected for this study:

1. M. Blooming Higher Secondary School,
2. Royal Academy, Wanging, and
3. New Era Higher Secondary School, Thoubal Okram Wangmataba.

Tools for Data Collection: The Teacher Effectiveness Scale, developed by Umme Kulsum (2000), is used to collect data for the study.

Method of Data Analysis: The obtained data on teacher effectiveness was analysed using statistical techniques, the mean, standard deviation, and t-test.

Descriptive Analysis:

The descriptive analysis of the data on the teacher effectiveness dimension of higher secondary school teachers is shown in Table 2, which shows the mean and standard deviation values.

Table 2: Descriptive Analysis of Teacher Effectiveness Dimensions

It is observed that the values of the respective mean and standard deviation of preparation and planning were 101.225.03; for classroom management was 123.2010.12; for the subject matter were 64.3512.24; for teacher characteristics were 152.5711.54; and for interpersonal relations were 100.126.83 respectively.

Teacher Effectiveness of Government and Private Schools Teachers:

The government and private school teachers were compared based on five dimensions of teacher effectiveness. The mean and SD of government and private school teachers, along with the t-value testing significance of mean difference, have been given in Table 3.

Table 3: Comparison of Government and Private schools teachers on Five Dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness

Analysis and Interpretation:

In the above table, the calculated t-value for preparation and planning of government and private higher secondary school teachers is 2.43 and is significant at 0.05 level of significance (p<0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis i.e., “there would not be significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of preparation and planning between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur” is rejected. Similarly, the calculated t-value for classroom management of government and private higher secondary school teachers is 2.53 and is significant at 0.05 level of significance (p<0.05). Thus, the null hypothesis that “there would not be significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of classroom management between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur” is rejected. So, it can be interpreted that there is a significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of preparation and planning as well as in classroom management between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.

In contrast, the calculated t-value for subject matter is 1.22, which is insignificant at 0.05 levels of significance (p>0.05). So, the null hypothesis, “there would not be significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of subject matter between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur,” is accepted. It is interpreted that there is no significant difference in the teacher effectiveness dimension of subject matter between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur

Likewise, the calculated t-value for teacher characteristics is 1.05, which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance (p>0.05) respectively. Therefore, the null hypothesis i.e., “there would not be significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of teacher characteristics between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur” is accepted. It is interpreted that there is no significant difference in the teacher effectiveness dimension of teacher characteristics between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur

The calculated t-value for Interpersonal Relations is 0.47, which is also not significant at 0.05 level of significance (p>0.05) respectively. Hence, the null hypothesis i.e., ‘there would not be significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of interpersonal relation between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur’ is accepted. It is therefore interpreted that there is no significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of Interpersonal Relations between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur

The graphical representation of the mean comparison between government and private schools’ teachers of five dimensions of teacher effectiveness is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Mean Comparison Between Government and Private Schools’ Teachers of Five Dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness

Teacher Effectiveness of Male and Female Schools Teachers:

Analysis and Interpretation:

The female and male school teachers were compared based on five dimensions of teacher effectiveness. The mean and SD of male and female school teachers, along with the t-value testing significance of mean difference, have been given in Table 4.

Table 4: Comparison of Male and Female School Teachers on Five Dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness

The above table reveals the calculated t-value of preparations and planning of male and female higher secondary school as 2.23, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance (p<0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis i.e., “there would not be significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of preparation and planning between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur” is rejected. It is interpreted as there is a significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of preparation and planning between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.

The calculated t-value for classroom management of male and female higher secondary school teachers is 2.61,this is significant at 0.05 level of significance (p<0.05). Hence, the null hypothesis of“there would not be significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of classroom management between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur” is rejected. Thus, it is further interpreted that there is a significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of classroom management between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.

The calculated t-value for subject matters of male and female higher secondary school teachers is 1.88, which is not significant at 0.05 levels of significance (p>0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis, i.e., “there would not be significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of subject matter between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur” is accepted. So, it is interpreted as there is no significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of subject matter between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.

A calculated t-value of 1.13 for teacher characteristics of male and female higher secondary school teachers is observed, which is not significant at a 0.05 level of significance (p>0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis, i.e., “there would not be significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of teacher characteristics between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur” is accepted. Thus, it is interpreted as there is no significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of teacher characteristics between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.

A calculated t-value of 2.63, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance (p<0.05) is observed for interpersonal relations of male and female higher secondary school teachers. So, the null hypothesis, i.e., “There would not be significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of interpersonal relations between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur’ is rejected. Thus, it is interpreted as there is a significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension interpersonal relations between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.

The graphical representation of the mean comparison between male and female school teachers of five dimensions of teacher effectiveness is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Mean Comparison Between Male and Female Higher Secondary Schools Teachers of Five Dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness

Finding: The following are the findings of the study:

1. There is a significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of preparation and planning between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
2. A significant difference in the teacher effectiveness dimension of classroom management between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur is observed.
3. There is no significant difference in the teacher effectiveness dimension subject matter between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
4. There is no significant difference in the teacher effectiveness dimension of teacher characteristics between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
5. There is no significant difference in the teacher effectiveness dimension of interpersonal relation between government and private school teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
6. There is a significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension of preparation and planning between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
7. There is a significant difference in the teacher effectiveness dimension of classroom management between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District.
8. There is no significant difference in the teacher effectiveness dimension of subject matter between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
9. There is no significant difference in teacher effectiveness dimension teacher characteristics between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.
10. There is a significant difference in the teacher effectiveness dimension interpersonal relations between male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools in Thoubal District, Manipur.

CONCLUSION

There are significant differences in teacher effectiveness, i.e., preparation and planning and classroom management, between the government and private higher secondary school teachers in Thoubal District, Manipur. Private schools have better preparation and planning and classroom management of teacher effectiveness dimension than government schools.

There are significant differences in teacher effectiveness in preparation and planning, classroom management, and interpersonal relations between male and female higher secondary school teachers in Thoubal District, Manipur.The female teachers perform better than the male teachers in dimensions of preparation and planning, as well as interpersonal relations. In the case of classroom management of teacher effectiveness, male teachers perform better than female teachers.

However, there are no significant differences in subject matter and teacher characteristics between the male and female higher secondary school teachers in Thoubal District, Manipur. The results also show that the qualities of subject matter and teacher characteristics of teacher effectiveness are not different between the male and female teachers of Higher Secondary Schools of Thoubal district.

REFERENCES

Books

1. Anderson, L. W. Krathwohl, D. R. Airasian, P. W. Cruikshank, K. A. Mayer, R. E., Pint rich, P. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman Group Company Limited, New York.
2. Andersen, J.F. (1979) Teacher Immediacy as a Predictor of Teaching Effectiveness. Communication Yearbook 3. International Communication Association, Sage Publication, 543-559.
3. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/ mfp/BanEncy. Htm
4. Barrera, R. and Jimenez, R. (2002). Bilingual teachers speak about their literacy instruction. In B. M. Taylor & P.D. Pearson, (Eds.), Teaching reading: Effective schools, accomplished teachers. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum (pp. 335-360).
5. Borich, D. G (1996). Effective Teaching Methods (third edition). Merrill and imprint of prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey Columbus, Ohio, 2-40.
6. Chayya, M.P. (2001). Effective teacher- Effective Strategies of Teaching. New Delhi: Alpha publications.
7. Combs, A.W. (1974). Humanistic Goals of Education, Educational accountability: A Humanistic Perspective, San Francisco; Shields Publication.
8. Cotton, K. (1995). Effective schooling practices: A research synthesis, Portland, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
9. Day, C. (2004). A Passion for Teaching. London: Routledge Falmer.
10. Dunhill, J. (1996). Classroom managemen London: London University Press.
11. Elliot, Kratochwill, L. Cook and Travers (2000). Educational Psychology, Effective Teaching, Effective Learning. New York (US), McGraw Hill Company.
12. Ganeswara, K. (1995). Effectiveness of Primary and Secondary level Teachers with different Potentials. Sixth Survey of Educational Research 1993 2000. National Council of Educational Research and Training, New Delhi.
13. Glass, Jason E. (2011). Education Writers Association (EWA) seminar entitled The Promise and Pitfalls of Improving the Teaching Profession. New York City. http://bit.ly/ekJp7k.
14. Gibbs, C. (2002). Effective Teaching: exercising self-efficacy and thought control of action. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Exeter, England.
15. Goldenberg, C. (2001). Making schools work for low-income families in the 21st century. In S. B. Neuman & Dickenson, D. K. (Eds.). Handbook of literacy Research (211-231).
16. Good, T.and Brophy, J. (1994). Looking In Classrooms, Sixth Edition, New York: Harper Lollins.
17. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). How to improve the supply of high quality teachers. In D. Ravich (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy 2004 (pp. 7- 25). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
18. Hanushek, E., Kain, J. F., O‘Brien, D. M., & Rivkin, S. G. (2005). The market for teacher quality (Working Paper 11154). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
19. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society. Buckinghum, UK: Open University Press.
20. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: teacher’s work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.
21. Indian Education Commission (1964). Philosophical and Sociological Basis of Education by J.S. Walia. Paul Publisher, Jalandhar.
22. Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). Four myths about America’s teacher quality problem. In Smylie, M. A., & Miretzky, D. (Eds.),Developing the teacher workforce (pp. 1-14). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23. Kulsum, Umme (2000). Teacher Effectiveness Scale (KTES), National Psychological Corporation, Agra.
24. Kyriakides, L. and Christoforou, Ch. (2011). A Synthesis of Studies Searching for Teacher Factors: Implications for Educational Effectiveness Theory. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, Louisiana.
25. Mani, R. S. (1988). The Role of Teacher. Perspectives in Education. 4(1), 19-25.
26. Medley, D.M. (1982). Teacher Effectiveness. In: H.E.Mitzel (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Educational Research (5th Ed.) New York: The Free Press.
27. Norton, R. W. and Nussbaum, J. (1980). Dramatic Behaviors of the Effective Teacher in Nimmo, D. (ed.) Communication Yearbook 4, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 565-579.
28. Parihar, R. (2011). Concept of Teacher Effectiveness. Nursing Education.2. New Delhi, Jaypee Brother Publications.
29. Rao, D.B. & Kumar, D.N. (2004). School teacher effectiveness. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House.
30. Reiman, A., and Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1998). Mentoring and Supervision for Teacher Development. New York; Longman Publishers.
31. Rist, C. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self -fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Challenging the myth: The schools, the Blacks, and the poor (Reprint Series No. 5). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.
32. Rosenshine, B. and Furst, N. (1971). Research on teacher performance criteria. In B. O. Smith (Ed.), Research in Teacher Education – A Symposium (pp. 37-72). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
33. Skillbeck, M. & Connell, C. (2004). Teachers for the future: The changing nature of society and related issues for teaching workforce. Report to the Teaching Quality and Educational Leadership Task Force, Ministerial Council for Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra, Australia.
34. Sodhi, T. S. and Suri, A. (2000). Management of School Education, Patiala: Bawa Publications.
35. Stronge (2002). The Teacher Quality Index: A protocol for teacher selection. Association for supervision and curriculum development (ASCD),Allyn and Baco Pvt. Limited.

Journals

1. Adegbile, J.A. and Adeyemi B.A. (2008) Enhancing Quality Assurance through Teacher’s Effectiveness. Educational Research and Review, 3 (2), 061 065.
2. Agarwal, S. (2012). Co-relational study of teacher effectiveness and job satisfaction of higher secondary school teachers. Edutracks, 12(2), 38-40.
3. Bella Joseph (2013). Teacher effectiveness and professional competency of higher secondary school teachers. Journal of Edutracks. A Monthly Scanner of Trends in Education. 6(3), 25-27.
4. Barr, A.S. (1952). The Measurement of Teacher Characteristics and Prediction of Teacher Efficiency. Review of Educational Research, 22, 169-174.
5. Brewer, T. M. (2006). Teacher preparation solutions: Rumbling for quality just won‘t do. Studies in Art Education, 47(3), 269-283.
6. Brodie, D. A. (1998). Do Students Report That Easy Professors Are Excellent Teachers. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 28(1), 1-20.
7. Carlo, Mango (2007). The Role of Teacher Efficacy and Characteristics on Teaching Effectiveness, Performance, and Use of Learner-centered practices. The Asia Pacific Education Researcher, 16,1.
8. Cheng, Y. C. & Tsui, K. T. (1996). Total teacher effectiveness: New conception and improvement. International Journal of Educational Management, 10(6), 7-17.
9. Chowdhury Susanta Roy (2015). Correlation study of teaching effectiveness and job satisfaction of secondary school teachers in Tinsukia District of Assam, India. The Clarion International Multidisciplinary Journal, 4(1), 76-83.
10. Cochran-Smith, M. (2006). Policy, practice, and politics in teacher education: Editorials from the Journal of Teacher Education. Corwin Press.
11. Dahiya, V. (2017). Improving Teaching and Learning Outcomes: An Outlook on Data Analytics in Education. Universal Research Reports, 4(7), 146-151.
12. Ferguson, R. (1991). Paying for Public Education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal of Legislation, 28, 465-498.
13. Gibson, S. and Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher Efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.
14. Goel Sunita. (2013). Teacher effectiveness of school teachers in relation to their job satisfaction, personality and mental health. A Journal of Education and Psychology. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/10603/10346.
15. Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
16. Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 6(2), 151-182.
17. Hedge, Ganesh (2009). Quality Enhancement in Teacher Education Institutions: Role of Teachers.Reacher’s Tandem, 01(01), 14.
18. Henson, R. K., Kogan, L. R. & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). A Reliability Generalization Study of The teacher Efficacy Scale and Related Instruments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(3), 404-420.
19. Jayanthi, N.L.N. & Padma Naban (2006). Environmental Education Teacher’s Role in Sustainable Development. Eductracks, 6,3.
20. Johal Satnam and Singh Supreetpal (2016) Teacher effectiveness of secondary school teachers in relation to their spiritual intelligence. IMPACT: International Journal of Research in Applied, Natural and Social Sciences, ISSN(e): 2321-8851; ISSN(p): 2347-4580, 4(2), 1-8.
21. Johnson, GB Jr. (1956-57). An Experimental Technique for the Prediction of Teacher Effectiveness. Journal of Educational Research, 50, 679-689.
22. Kher, N. Molstad, S. and Donahue, R. (1999). Using Humor in the College Classroom to Enhance Teaching Effectiveness. In Dread Courses Journal, 33 (3), 400-406.
23. Kumar (2012). Teaching efficiency of female student teachers in relation to their creativity. International Indexed and Referred Research Journal, 111(34), 72-73.
24. Kumari, A. & Padhi, S.K. (2014). A Study of Teacher Effectiveness of Secondary School Teachers with reference to certain demographic variables. International Journal of Advanced Research, 2 (12), 26-32.
25. Lipman, L.M. (1998). American Journal of Psychology, 106(4), 620 – 632.
26. McKeachie, W. J. (1997). Student Ratings: The Validity of Use. American Psychologist, 52 (11), 1218-1225.
27. Paris, S. G. and Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36, 89-102.
28. Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Allington, R., Block, C. C.,Morrow, Tracey,D., Baker, K., Brooks,G., Cronin, J., Nelson, E. and Woo, D. (2001). A study of effective grade-1 literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 35-58.
29. Quicke, J. (1998). Towards a new professionalism for new times: some problems and possibilities. teacher development: An International Journal of Teacher’ s Professional Development, 2(3), 323-349.
30. Reddy, K.and Sreenivasulu, B. (2012). Teacher effectiveness in relation to mental health, stress and emotional intelligence. Edutracks, 11(11) 29-35.
31. Remmers, H. H. (1952). Second Report of the Committee on Criteria of Teacher Effectiveness. Journal of Educational Research, 46, 641-658.
32. Richardson, A. G. & Arundell, A. (1989). Characteristics of the effective teacher as perceived by pupils and teachers: A Caribbean case study. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 311 013).
33. Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, Schools and Academic Achievement. Econometrica, 79, 418-458
34. Roul, S.K. (2007) Teacher Effectiveness of Autonomous and Non-Autonomous College Teachers. Journal of community guidance & research, 24, 3.
35. Ryan, T. A. (1969). Guide for Teaching Improvement. Improving College and University Teaching, 17(4), 270-276.
36. Satwinderpal (2008). Occupational Stress in Relation to Teacher effectiveness among Secondary School Teachers. Edutracks, 7, 10.
37. Sawhney, S. and Kaur, M. (2011). Teacher Effectiveness In Relation To Self-Concept of Elementary School Teachers. Indian Streams Research Journal, 1, III, 13-14.
38. Singh, U. (2006). Novelty and Meaning Contexts of Creativity. Psychological Studies, 51(1), 52-63.
39. Singh, Sanjay and Goel, S.P. (2005). Teacher Effectiveness and communication Skills. Psycho-lingua, 35(2); 130-134.
40. Tyagi, S. (2013). Teaching effectiveness of secondary school teachers in relation to their demographic characteristics. International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology, 3(1), 288- 295.
41. Taylor, R. (1999). Current, best instructional strategies for your gifted and highly capable students. Bellevue, WA: Bureau of Education and Research.
42. Thompson, Sherwood (2010). Theoretical Conceptual Framework for Defining Teacher Leaders, Journal of Educational Research Extension, 47(21), 81.
43. Toor, K.K. (2014). A study of teacher effectiveness, general intelligence andcreativity of secondary school teachers. MIER Journal of Educational Studies, Trends & Practices, 4(1), 51-65.
44. Wharton-McDonald, R., Pressley, M., &Hampston, J.M. (1998). Literacy instruction in nine first-grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement. Elementary School Journal, 99, 101-128.
45. Young, M. (1990). Characteristics of High Potential and At-Risk Teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 11(4), 35-39.