Abstract

The purpose of conducting this research was to study the impact of motivation on teachers and student’s efficiency and school effectiveness. It was a descriptive study which had a sample of 60 government high schools situated in urban and rural area of District Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan. Self-administrative questionnaires comprising 30 statements were used to collect data from 240 randomly selected teachers and students. The results of the analysis recognized that students and teachers have strong impact on their own efficiency and school effectiveness whereas parental choice is also affected by this. By keeping in mind the conclusions the research recommended; seminars and awareness campaign on psychological strength and social values may be conducted, Missing facilities possibly be identified, proper allocation of budget from government and easy access to available facilities may be made sure by school administration.

Key Words

Motivation, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Physical Factors, Academic   Factors, Social Factors,            Psychological Factors

Introduction

Government schools glorify the majority of young people in Pakistan. These faculties’ bear witnessed a turn of their services, yet they are more and more accessed by the poor yet the marginalized. Across Pakistan, a handful of committed parents hold conducted efforts in conformity with improve government schools, into the faith up to expectation those could show or induce a passive exchange within the system. (McMillan, 2000)

Motivation has a strong relation with individual efficiency which enables strong organizational team effort and enhances performance towards completion of a task or goal accomplishment. It works as a catalyzer for each individual. Motivation is also defined as a force which uplifts, guides and sustains behavior. It includes aims and requires doings. Goals offer the push and the track of feat, whereas act involves struggle: at the same time it also provide determination to endure an activity over a period of time. Motivation lies inside all and it is assumed that it is to drive a behavior towards preferable initiative (Rabby, 2001; Aguinis, Joo, & Gottfredson, 2013). 

According  to  Armstrong, (2007)  one  of  the  most  fundamental  concerns  when  an educational institute desires  to achieve  trademark performance is  to appreciate  how to motivate its stakeholders. So, it is imperative to realize the causes or factors that motivate/de-motivate people and how such issues and causes are to be dealt with. It is vital  to know how  different “theories” which are in  line in explaining the degree to  which  institutes require  to “think of  their human resource”  accountable  in generating  the  results  desired  by  association  to  meet  their  objectives.

Out of the various challenges for an institute, one is to please its employees in order to accomplish success, manage growing environment and stay in competition with outside world. In order to increase efficiency, effectiveness, and job assurance of employees, the concerns must convince the desires of its employees by providing good working conditions (Sell & Bryan, 2011).

There are efforts in conformity with enhance the advice concerning curricular areas certain so language, mathematics or science; as much nicely as attempts in accordance with introduce new ones certain as computer then vocational education. Some efforts hold focused over the position of textbooks, computer systems between the classroom, others on mobilizing communities and energizing teachers. (Unisef, 2014)

The narratives are real and reflective, and assemble a various photo on how many innovations are nurtured, applied or spread. The present day analysis about the government schools in Pakistan cries, “There is a fundamental trouble concerning lost trust among government school in Pakistan!” it is a reality to that amount government schools within Pakistan are beneath stress because main scrutiny beyond the masses concerning the quality of learning and teaching practice or teachers’ presence. This is what the matter needs to get some thoughtful attention and serious approaches in order to recapture the trust (Bana, 2014).

School presidentship wishes to acquire strength-based management approaches; they may extend teacher’s physical presence, mental engagement; morale and inspiration after improving the practices of teaching and learning in classrooms (Baber , 2013)

Irrespective of the process with which teachers are recruited and keeping aside their current abilities, they have emerged as portion of the personnel in government schools that is needed to remain accepted. It is achieved that the educational directors, stakeholders, particularly mother and father are totally exhausted and now all types of teachers though strong or committed teachers are treated with the identical authoritative approach (UNESCO, 2006).  

The school choice policies took part in increasing work in improving education from corner to corner. A powerful aspect of personality may be represented by the nature and strength of one’s interest in learning. (Barron, 2006). The involvement of parents is impressively influenced by the very degree as school and teachers stretch out to parents having definite, subjective invitations to be involved in school plus their children’s education (Ross, 2014). The physical appearance of a school is also seen as wide-ranging need for children play and physical growth (Alsauidi, 2016). The internal administration system and student teacher inter relations are given the word of spine by some stakeholders. If students feel that they have no freedom at school because of the policies of school and expectations of teachers, the students may become disobedient. Students who hold the view that attending school is a loss, they will mostly remain absent. But those who believe that attending school is a gain, they will be more punctual and regular. (Powel, 2012)

The culture of school and the relation of home and school, an ordered and safe environment, high level expectations, educational leadership, regular monitoring, a vivid mission and policies, chances to learn more, task and time relates with the choice of school. (Hsu, 2013). 

School effectiveness implies that schools are more effective if they are completing the set targets and objectives in regard with the abilities of the students, their output and behavior. The effectiveness of school can never be separated from educational paradigm of a country. The study of Blackstone and Hargreaves (1980), told us that economic status and family ethnicity build the predominant determinants of a student‘s achievements. Reynold (2007) found that effective schools are required to accept overt methodology that affirms the school’s activeness and keep the performance of students gradually upgrading. This is possibly done with the help of trying different thing in class like introducing new educational set ups, different educational and learning environment, and implementating new ideas in studies. The school review in order to check its effectiveness should be made possible in terms of: conduct factors, multiple dimensions of school, attitudinal factors, social factors and psychological factors. 

Efficiency through motivation entails focus on academic, physical, social and psychological factors. Instead of giving all the priority to concrete resources and sources, intangible factors such as motivation schemes are of same value, as it affects human resource behavior, performance and progress of the organization.   It  is  imperative  to  know  that  obligation,  elasticity  and  excellence  of  work  has called for attention for employees’ motivation.

These all are the definitions of school effectiveness composed by the early researchers.  These definitions draw a paradigm of the school effectiveness in which standardized test results count, mainly of reading and math subject (Murphy, Hollinger & Mesa 1985).    Reynolds (1996) is of the view that people and the available resources are the bases on which the school effectiveness depends.  Reynolds and Packer (1992) describe in the review of their study that student outcomes depends on the independent effect of school but only 8-15 percent. However it is said (Stoll and Fink, 1996) that what the educators thought as chief product of schooling might not resemble with the outlook of parents, pupils and the neighboring in addition with media. Ninan (2006) has a different view regarding school effectiveness; she says that SE is more dependent upon the ‘processes’ that are gauged by its ‘outcomes’ than the ‘intake’. However, the view point is different from the afterward study that discrepancy effects of schools for diverse students’ set or groups  who have different SE  or have dissimilar ex-levels  of  achievement  plays  a  function  in  SE (Reynolds & Teddlie, 2000). So it would not be wrong arguing that the SE depends on the processes of school and is seen by its results, intake has a vital role not mere a trivial role. Cuttance (1985) has given a similar definition and says that the factors, the effects of school are; which express the influence of school on individual student achievement. To be real time practical, the concept of school effectiveness is a very broad concept. 

There are two distinct things i.e. teacher effectiveness and school effectiveness. The impact of classroom factors as classroom organization, teachers’ expectations and usage of class resources on the performance of student contribute to teachers’ effectiveness. While the school effectiveness encompasses school climate, leadership, and school policies. 

The School Effectiveness is basically the outputs within school premises or outside the school such as skills attained, changes in attitude, leaning behavior etc. The Organizational Effectiveness, as by Scheerens, et al. (2003), is the degree up to that an institution control and manages organizational affairs and sets the environmental conditions for the purpose of providing required outputs. Another definition of school-effectiveness is that the achievement of student’s academics is not only the significant goal of education. However, some strong arguments were found for emphasizing academic goals because of the high stakes nature of United Kingdom examination system that determines student‘s future i.e. employment. For the alike condition we have an example country named China where the exam is taken to enter the college and this thing makes the system of education an examination driven (Sammons, 1999).  

In theory, there are some other variables that can be measured easily by spending money: constructing new buildings, purchasing more books for library, change in reading series, decreasing class size, raising teacher salaries, Weber (1971) tells five points regarding school effectiveness: high expectations from students, orderly environment conducive to learning, strong administrative leadership, frequent monitoring of students and emphasis on basic skills (Purkey, 1983).

There were four master concepts - outcomes of a capital theory leverage, social capital and intellectual capital. The result or outcome of a school is the range of its overt goals that were achieved during academic session and some unexpected consequences of the process that is involved. Mainly there were two major types of outcomes: Cognitive and moral. Leverage is the relation of teacher input and educational output, it can be defined as the quantity and quality of effected change on students intellectual and moral state (as a function) of the level of teacher’s invested energy. Intellectual capital basically means organized knowledge usable for the production of wealth; in an organization, everybody knows that s/he has to put his/her contribution. Intellectual capital is increased by two processes: a) creation of knowledge b) capacity to deliver this knowledge to others. Social capital is defined in its structural and cultural component. The cultural component means the amount of trust among members of society, their shared norms and collaboration. Structural aspect means a network in which people were set in by strong ties. High level of social capital proportionally builds up with strength in accordance with intellectual capital (Hargreaves, 2001).




Objectives of Study 

The present study had the purposes as (a) to study the impact of motivation on teachers and students efficiency and school effectiveness; (b) to compare the impact of physical, social, academic and psychological factors among rural and urban schools of District Bahawalpur (c) to identify the factors affecting motivation of teachers and students regarding their efficiency and school effectiveness.

Research Methodology

This is a descriptive study as the problem is linked to the present situation. The study follows the survey method as its most frequently used for collection of data. In Survey method, questionnaire was used to gather information from students and teachers.  Students and teachers from rural and urban localities of district Bahawalpur was set up as population of the study. For the selection of sample, the simple random technique was used. In this technique, each member is equally involved and was given an independent chance for selection. The technique was also used because of the reason that the population of this study is too large and the need was to control data in limited time frame. The researchers prepared a list of twelve different types of schools in five tehsils namely Ahmedpur, Bahawalpur, Hasilpur, Khairpur and Yazman of district Bahawalpur separately. Then one school from each list and four parents of students from each school were randomly selected. Thus the total number of schools taken for the present study was 60 from above 05 tehsil of District Bahawalpur and total number of parents of students was 240 from above 05 tehsil of District Bahawalpur. The tool to collect data for the present study was questionnaire. The researcher studied relevant material from different books, dissertations, journals and unpublished sources and consulted educational experts also. The questionnaire was hypothetically categorized into four main parts of motivational factors which may have an impact on students’ and teachers’ efficiency and school effectiveness. 

a) Physical factors

b) Academic factors

c) Social factors 

d) Psychological factors

Statements were prepared to find out the factors affecting efficiency and school effectiveness through students and teachers motivation. The questionnaire contains twenty eight statements and two open ended question are relevant to above four factors. For standardization, the questionnaire was then given to connoisseurs, who were selected on the criteria of teaching and administrative experience and were working as principals of schools or were lecturers in the teachers training colleges. For face validity, professors working in different universities were consulted. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each statement.  Statements found significantly correlated with above four aspects of factors were kept for the final inclusion in the questionnaire. The rest of them were discarded. Final questionnaire was kept in English and translated into Urdu for better understanding of the selected sample. The questionnaire was personally administered on the selected sample. The instructions for the questionnaire were purposely not provided with the questionnaire so that the researcher could personally explain and instruct them how to tick each item in the questionnaires. They were requested to give their frank opinion on each item.

Data Analysis and Results

Table1. T-ratio of Govt. Urban and Rural Area Schools

Group	Factors	Mean	SD	SEm	M1-M2	t-value	df	Sig
Urban	Physical Factors	32.7000 13.1000	.97872 1.80351	.21885 .40328	19.60000	42.717	29.298	.000
Rural
Urban	Academic Factors	27.1500 22.2000	2.58080 2.91277	.57708 .65131	4.95000	5.688	37.457	.000
Rural
Urban	Social Factors	27.1000 23.7500	1.41049 2.40340	.31539 .53742	3.35000	5.376	30.700	.000
Rural
Urban	Psychological Factors	26.5500 21.4500	2.30503 4.19868	.51542 .93885	5.10000	4.762	29.499	.000
Rural

The table above shows the t-ratio for the of government urban and rural area schools against 04 categories of factors, namely, “Physical Factors, Academic Factors, Social Factors and Psychological Factors”  is found to be 42.717, 5.688, 5.376 and 4.762 respectively which are highly significant of the difference of Means.  This shows that attractive building, convenient location, suitable classroom, sports facilities, comfortable furniture, school library, school labs, high expectations and standards, professionally qualified teachers, extra coaching classes, academic reputation, student’s rewards, subject choice, fair dealing, small school size, relationships among all stakeholders, reputable Principal, discipline ,safe and secure environment, co-curricular activities, teacher-Student ratio, student centre approach and individual differences have an impact on students’ and teachers’ efficiency and effectiveness of urban area schools as compared to rural area schools of district Bahawalpur.

Table 2. T-ratio of Students and Teachers of Govt. Schools

Group	Factors	Mean	SD	SEm	M1-M2	t-value	df	Sig
Teachers	Physical Factors	14.9500 13.1000	2.18789 1.80351	.48923 .40328	1.85000	2.918	36.665	.006
Students
Teachers	Academic Factors	27.1500 23.0000	2.58080 2.84697	.57708 .63660	4.15000	4.830	37.640	.000
Students
Teachers	Social Factors	26.5500 23.7500	1.79106 2.40340	.40049 .53742	2.80000	4.178	35.129	.000
Students
Teachers	Psychological Factors	25.3000 21.4500	2.31926 4.19868	.51860 .93885	3.85000	3.590	29.607	.001
Students

Above mentioned table shows that the t-ratio of students and teachers of Govt. Schools against 04 Categories of factors, namely, “Physical Factors, Academic Factors, Social Factors and Psychological Factors” is found to be 2.918, 4.830, 4.178 and 3.590 respectively which are highly significant of the difference of Means.  This shows that attractive building, convenient location, suitable classroom, sports facilities, comfortable furniture, school library, school labs, high expectations and standards, professionally qualified teachers, extra coaching classes, academic reputation, student’s rewards, subject choice, fair dealing, small school size, relationships among all stakeholders, reputable Principal, discipline ,safe and secure environment, co-curricular activities, teacher-Student ratio, student centre approach and individual differences have comparatively more impact on teachers than students efficiency and school effectiveness.

Table 3. Impact Ranking of Factors Affecting Students’ and Teachers’ Motivation for School Efficiency and Effectiveness

Categories of Factors	Rank	Mean	Standard Deviation
Academic Factors	1	20.38	3.124
Physical Factors	2	20.02	2.859
Social Factors	3	19.51	3.398
Psychological Factors	4	18.98	3.828

The table given above shows that Mean and Standard Deviation was used to categorize the motivational factors. It helped to analyze Impact ranking of factors affecting students’ and teachers’ motivation for school efficiency and effectiveness. The factors most frequently mentioned, by respondents, was Academic Factors with Mean score 20.38 and Standard Deviation 3.124. The second most frequently mentioned factor was Physical Factors with mean score 20.02 and Standard Deviation 2.859. Social factor was also considered to be an important factor with mean score 19.51 and Standard Deviation 3.398. Psychological Factors was mentioned fourth with mean score 18.98 and Standard Deviation 3.828. 

Conclusions

The factor most frequently mentioned, by respondents, was Academic Factor with Mean score 20.38 and Standard Deviation 3.124 that had impact on the motivation of students and teachers regarding school efficiency and effectiveness. Mean score of Physical Factors, Academic Factors, Social Factors and Psychological Factors is found to be 2.918, 4.830, 4.178 and 3.590 respectively which are highly significant of the difference of Means, which shows that these factors have comparatively more impact on teachers’ than students’ efficiency and school effectiveness than students. Whereas Physical Factors, Academic Factors, Social Factors and Psychological Factors are found to have t-value of 42.717, 5.688, 5.376 and 4.762 respectively which are highly significant of the difference of Means which shows that they have more impact on students and teachers efficiency and effectiveness of urban area schools as compared to rural area schools of district Bahawalpur

Recommendations

The following recommendations and guidelines are made for further investigation:

1. Missing facilities may be identified. 

2. Proper budgeting may be allocated to the govt. schools. 

3. Seminars may be conducted on psychological strengths and social issues. 

4. Continuous professional development of teachers may be prioritized. 

5. Easy access of students to the available facilities may be made sure by school administration.

6. Educational policies and plans may be reviewed. 

7. Concepts of efficiency and effectiveness of schools may be highlighted. 

8. Overall personality development of students should be prioritized instead of result; result of students in exams should not be the foremost concern. 

References

• Alsuiadi, F. A. (2015). Study of factors affecting parental choice of private and public school in Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia (Doctoral dissertation, University of Hull).
• Alsuiadi, F. A. (2016). Reasons influencing selection decision making of parental choice of school. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2(1), 201-211.
• Andrabi, T., Bau, N., Das, J., &Khwaja, A. I. (2010). Are bad public schools public
• Bana, Z. (2014). Navigating with trust: A proposal for transforming public sector schools towards learning organizations in Pakistan. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education, 8(1), 17.
• Barber, M. (2013). The good news from Pakistan. Reform Research Trust, 33.
• Barr, J., & Saltmarsh, S. (2014).
• Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human development, 49(4), 193-224.
• Beckett, L. S. (2015). An investigation into the factors that influence parental choice of early education and care (Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham).
• Buckingham, J. (2000). The truth about private schools in Australia. Centre for Independent Studies.
• Buckley, J., & Schneider, M. (2004). Charter schools as a tool to reform local schools by transforming governance. Metropolitan governance, 183-211.
• Buckley, J., & Schneider, M. (2006). Are charter school parents more satisfied with schools? Evidence from Washington, DC. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(1), 57-78.
• Delaney, P. P. (2008). What do parents want? Factors affecting parental decisions in charter school enrollment (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech).
• Dev, M. (2016). Factors Affecting the Academic Achievement: A Study of Elementary School Students of NCR Delhi, India. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(4), 70-74.
• Dilshad, R. M. (2010). Assessing Quality of Teacher Education: A Student Perspective. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS), 30(1).
• Goldring, E. B., &Hausman, C. S. (1999). Reasons for parental choice of urban schools. Journal of Education Policy, 14(5), 469-490.
• Gross, B., & DeArmond, M. (2010). How do charter schools compete for teachers? A local perspective. Journal of School Choice, 4(3), 254-277.
• Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., Rivkin, S. G., & Branch, G. F. (2007). Charter school quality and parental decision making with school choice. Journal of public economics, 91(5-6), 823-848.
• Hargreaves, D. H. (2001). A capital theory of school effectiveness and improvement [1]. British educational research journal, 27(4), 487-503.
• HartsellSr, J. H. (2011). Factors affecting private school choice.
• Hasnat, M. A. (2016). Parents' perception of their involvement in schooling activities: a case study from rural secondary schools in Bangladesh. Studiapaedagogica, 21(4), 137-149.
• Holcombe, W. L., Lee, W. N., Inchauste, V., & Schexnayder, D. Parent Satisfaction with School Quality: Evidence from One Texas District Toni Falbo Robert W. Glover S. Lynne Stokes
• Holmes, G. M., DeSimone, J., & Rupp, N. G. (2006). Does school choice increase school quality? Evidence from North Carolina charter schools. In Improving School Accountability (pp. 131-155). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Holyoke, T. T. (2008). Dimensions of charter school choice. Journal of School Choice, 2(3), 302-317.
• Hsu, Y., & Yuan-fang, C. (2013). An analysis of factors affecting parents' choice of a junior high school. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 3(2), 39-49.
• Jackson, C., & Bisset, M. (2005). Gender and school choice: Factors influencing parents when choosing single‐ sex or co‐educational independent schools for their children. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(2), 195- 211.
• Lopez, A., Wells, A. S., & Holme, J. J. (2002). Identity building, diversity, and selectivity. Where charter school policy fails: The problems of accountability and equity, 12, 129.
• Loveless, T. (2002). Charter School Achievement and Accountability
• Lubienski, C., &Lubienski, S. T. (2006). Charter schools, academic achievement and NCLB. Journal of School Choice, 1(3), 55-62.
• McMillan, R. (2000, January). Competition, parental involvement and public school performance. In Proceedings. Annual Conference on Taxation and Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the National Tax Association (Vol. 93, pp. 150-155). National Tax Association
• Palardy, J., Nesbit, T. M., &Adzima, K. A. (2015). Charter versus traditional public schools: a panel study of the technical efficiency in Ohio. Education Economics, 23(3), 278-295.
• Powell, A. L. (2012). Parents' perceptions of factors influencing student's attendance.
• Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The elementary school journal, 83(4), 427-452.
• Rich, A., & Rich, A. (2000). Beyond the classroom: How parents influence their children's education. Centre for Independent Studies
• Rose, B. A., & Stein, M. L. (2014). Mechanisms for teacher outreach to parents in charter and traditional public schools. Journal of School Choice, 8(4), 589-617.
• Sammons, P. (1999). School effectiveness. CRC Press.
• Sarason, S. B. (1998). Charter Schools: Another Flawed Educational Reform? The Series on School Reform. Teachers College Press, 1234 Amsterdam Ave., New York, NY 10027..
• Scheerens, J., Glas, C. A., Thomas, S. M., & Thomas, S. (2003). Educational evaluation, assessment, and monitoring: A systemic approach (Vol. 13). Taylor & Francis.
• Shin, H. J., Fuller, B., &Dauter, L. (2017). Heterogeneous Effects of Charter Schools: Unpacking Family Selection and Achievement Growth in Los Angeles. Journal of School Choice, 11(1), 60-94.
• Toutkoushian, R. K., & Curtis, T. (2005). Effects of socioeconomic factors on public high school outcomes and rankings. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(5), 259-271.
• Weber, G. (1971). Inner-city children can be taught to read: Four successful schools. Council for Basic Education.
• Weiler, S. C., & Vogel, L. R. (2015). Charter School Barriers: Do Enrollment Requirements Limit Student Access to Charter Schools?. Equity & Excellence in Education, 48(1), 36-48.
• Wright, T. (2009). Parent and teacher perceptions of effective parental involvement.
• Yaacob, N. A., Osman, M. M., &Bachok, S. (2014). Factors influencing parents' decision in choosing private schools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 153, 242-253.
• Yaacob, N. A., Osman, M. M., & Bachok, S. (2015). An assessment of factors influencing parents' decision making when choosing a private school for their children: a case study of Selangor, Malaysia: for sustainable human capital. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 28, 406-417.
• Zimmer, R., & Buddin, R. (2006). Charter school performance in two large urban districts. Journal of Urban Economics, 60(2), 307-326.