Abstract

Monitoring is such an organized way of data collection and analysis regarding any program that executes during the phase of implementation. This study aimed at studying the process of monitoring and exploring its correlation with the performance of primary school teachers. The objectives of the study involved exploring different aspects of the monitoring process and its relationship with the performance of primary school teachers. A quantitative research design was employed. The study was descriptive in nature. The sample consisted of 400 teachers, including 200 male teachers and 200 female teachers, using a convenient sampling technique. A research instrument was developed by the researchers and validated through a pilot study. Data were analyzed and interpreted by using (SPSS 21.0). The study concluded that the monitoring process in schools improves the performance of teachers and the academic results of students. It was recommended that policymakers should focus on enhancing the professional skills of the monitoring team.

Key Words

Monitoring, Performance, Quantitative, Primary Schools, Academic Results

Introduction

The role of education in the national development of a country is well recognized. The teachers in an education system are of key importance as they perform the duty of transmitting knowledge to students. Their role can neither be minimized nor be made insignificant (Iqbal, 2000). For the better performance of teachers, the role of their capacity building cannot be denied. In this regard, monitoring and evaluation of teachers are very important. This may help the teachers to follow the modern styles of teaching and to achieve the latest developments in their profession (Gray and Gray, 1985).

The activity in which some relevant professionals continuously and systematically observe a project or a program to check whether it is running smoothly and is expected to achieve the predetermined objectives is known as monitoring. It helps for the determination and analysis of the teaching staff about their achievement of aims and objectives for a certain program or a project (Kovalenko, 2012). 

The process of monitoring guides us about the expected outcomes of a program and hypothesizing a project. This provides the necessary changes for different activities in order to maximize the output of a project or an educational activity. Information is collected at different phases by stakeholders in a good monitoring system. This information is provided to senior management to facilitate the process of decision making (Shahid, 2002). The monitoring process helps to learn from the experiences of other professionals and to ensure accountability for the final outputs of a program. It also provides solid data for future planning and maximizes the output of a project, and hence improve the overall teaching-learning process (Kovalenko, 2012).

Furthermore, monitoring provides basic information about the progress of a project and helps to produce such documents which are both transparent and reliable. The teachers get more information to improve their teaching practices. It shows the path of better learning and improvement to the learners. It provides important information to the organizations to improve their strategies for better outcomes and for future initiatives. This enhances the overall performance and capability of the learners and the participants. Finally, the process of monitoring helps the policymakers to find out flaws well in time and to introduce remedial strategies for better results (Marriott & Goyder, 2009). 

In this study, the researchers have explored important aspects of the process of monitoring in public sector schools in district Attock working under the control of the Government of Punjab. This study has also investigated the basic reasons for shortcomings in the process of monitoring. In this way, this study may help the authorities to take essential steps in order to improve the process of monitoring process in public sector educational institutions. This may also be helpful to teachers, heads, and other education professional to understand the ongoing monitoring practices and the ways to improve for the betterment of the whole teaching-learning process.




Statement of the Research Problem

The process of monitoring has a key role in the teaching-learning process of students. This improves the performance of teachers and helps policymakers to achieve predetermined goals. This study focused on studying the process of monitoring and its relation with the performance of primary school teachers working in the public sector in district Attock under the Government of Punjab.

Review of Related Literature

Monitoring

Monitoring is such a continuous process that is deployed to collect data in accordance with some predetermined objectives. This data is supplied to the senior administration of a project to tell them about the progress of the project (UNESCO, 2015). This process involves the collection of data, assessment of quality, results and feedback regarding various aspects of a project (Kovalenko, 2012). Monitoring is a systematic way of collection and analysis of data regarding any program during the phase of implementation. It focuses upon the efficiency and competency of planned activities. Monitoring tells us about the adequacy and utilization of available resources in a running teacher professional development program. It helps the managers to look into the real situation of a program and to explore deficiencies or drawbacks (Vocational Education and Training Reform Program, Serbia, 2008). The monitoring process involves three steps. Deciding about a certain activity and its quality indicators are included in the first step. The method of data collection is decided in the second step. Whereas the results of the monitoring process are compiled in the third step (Glasgow Education Services, 2010).

Monitoring is a process of collecting data continuously about certain dimensions of the teaching-learning process. This data is provided to higher administration and other stakeholders involved in a certain project. It identifies the direction of improvement of the activity in accordance with possible outcomes of the project and better utilization of allocated resources. It provides an opportunity for the administration to see the deficiencies in a running program and the way to make necessary changes in order to attain desired results. The monitoring process provides initial data regarding the process of evaluation (Marriott & Goyder, 2009). This is such a process that tells about the progress of a certain program. It clarifies whether or not a project is working in the right direction. Reports on activities and outputs are generated. Proper utilization of human, financial and material resources is also highlighted (Govt. of Punjab, 2007). 

Monitoring is such a systematic process that tells us about the essential information related to the implementation of a certain project. All organizations adopt a particular mechanism to monitor the projects. Sometimes the monitoring process is carried out on an internal basis. Here the organization depute some officer of the organization in order to make judgments and to monitor the progress of a project. The external monitoring process is also adopted in some organizations. In this, independent monitoring is done by a third party. This increases the transparency and reliability of the monitoring process (Ziarab et al., 2012). Monitoring is a continuous process that initially focuses on providing information related to improvement in a certain activity. It also tells about those deficiencies which may create hurdle in achieving certain predefined objectives of a project or program. It helps organizations to make suitable changes in their projects and to save resources related to financing, material and human. So this process is very useful for organizations in time management, decision making and effective implementation of a program(World Bank, 2007). 

It is important to mention here that the monitoring process is not the ending of a system. This is such a tool that provides help in order to raise management standards and to improve management techniques. This process is also helpful for better accountability. It has key importance for developing countries in order to improve their education system and to provide good education to the future generation (Kayani et al., 2011). 




Important Features of Monitoring Process

The following are considered to be the important features of the monitoring process.

i. Establishing indicators of competence and efficacy

ii. Organizing data collection

iii. Managing data recording

iv. Performing data analysis

v. Developing a mechanism to timely share the data with senior management

vi. Developing a scheme to collect data related to these indicators (Shapiro, 2007).




Purpose of Monitoring Process

The major purpose of the monitoring process is to find out the progress of a certain project in the right direction. In detail, the monitoring process has the following purposes (Public Service Commission, South Africa, 2008).

Making decisions regarding the implementation of a certain project is being facilitated by the process of monitoring. This process supports and complements the role of management. However, the provision of accurate data is a prerequisite in the process of monitoring.

The monitoring process helps the employees of an organization to learn more about their job. It enhances their skills and helps them to identify their shortcomings. It involves data collection and creating certain repots. Such reports highlight the strengths and weaknesses of employees as well as the organization. In this way, the monitoring process increases the overall performance of the organization. Moreover, this process helps to create new knowledge about a program or project. 

The monitoring process helps the management in the process of accountability. It indicates the proper utilization of all human, financial and material resources involved in a project. In this way, the performance and contribution of every individual towards a project can be calculated. So, the process of accountability may be initiated on the basis of data collected through the process of monitoring.




Types of Monitoring Process

The monitoring process may be divided into the following types (Willms, 2003).




Compliance Monitoring

In the process of compliance monitoring, the basic focus remains upon the financial resources of the school and the competence of teachers. It stresses facilitating the teachers and the head of the school. This process involves important features of the whole teaching-learning process. These aspects include moderate class size, provision of adequate instructional materials, the appointment of supporting staff in order to facilitate teachers etc. Such type of monitoring builds confidence among the teachers and enhances their performance. 




Diagnostic Monitoring

This is an important type of monitoring and evaluates the outputs of a school. Basically, it focuses on the academic results of an educational institution. It checks about learning of students about the concepts and finds out weaknesses and learning difficulties of the students. Sometimes certain classroom tests of students are also conducted in order to identify weak areas. In this way, this type of monitoring helps the teachers to improve their teaching strategies and to enhance their performance. The institutions are also helped to improve the academic results due to the process of diagnostic monitoring. 




Performance Monitoring

This type of monitoring measures the input and output activities of schools. Here the overall performance of

 different schools at local, district and divisional levels is compared. This creates healthy competition among schools and motivates the teachers and the heads to improve their performance. In this way, this type of monitoring helps in providing quality education to the students.




Progress Monitoring

This type of monitoring regularly and consistently evaluates the academic performance and emotional growth of the students. It involves finding out the level of learning of the students and the efficiency of instructions. It indicates the present level of progress of students and also helps them to improve their academic performance in future. This type of monitoring impacts both the individual learner and the whole class positively (Kayani et al., 2011).




Monitoring in Primary Schools of Punjab

In the year 2004, the Government of Punjab started a program for monitoring purpose in Punjab. Four districts of Attock, Chakwal, Jhelum and Rawalpindi were included in the program. Due to a lack of resources, this program could not impact the performance of teachers. Then in 2006, another program of monitoring was launched. This contained a comprehensive system of monitoring. The performance of teachers was monitored and reported to authorities in the Education Department, Government of Punjab. Monitoring staff was connected to schools through a direct link in order to monitor the performance of teachers on a regular basis. Monitoring and Evaluation Assistants (MEAs) were appointed, and they were responsible for collecting data regarding the performance of teachers and reporting it to the authorities of the Ministry of Education, Government of Punjab. MEAs were having no concern with the accountability of teachers. The authorities in the Ministry of Education were responsible for checking the performance and proceeding with the process of accountability (Govt. of Punjab, 2007).

Meanwhile, another program for the purpose of monitoring was initiated by the Government of Punjab. This program was named as Program Monitoring and Implementation Unit (PMIU). As the Education Department was kept answerable to District Government, due to decentralization of powers, therefore monitoring system was renewed accordingly. In each district, a mechanism of monitoring was established, and a District Monitoring Officer (DMO) was appointed. DMO was responsible for the whole monitoring system at the district level (Ziarab et al., 2012).

The present monitoring system in Punjab is a component of the Punjab Education Sector Reform Program (PESPR) which was initiated with the collaboration of the World Bank in 2003. Monitoring offices were established at the district level. These offices were fully computerized and were under the administrative control of the districts government. On the other hand, District Teacher Educators (DTEs) were also appointed. They were assigned to perform the tasks related to training of staff, monitoring and coordination among different stakeholders (Govt. of Punjab, 2007).




Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study were as follows:

1 To find out different aspects of the monitoring process which affect the performance of primary school teachers of the public sector in district Attock.

2 To explore the relationship between the monitoring process and the performance of primary school teachers of the public sector in district Attock.

3. To determine the deficiencies in the process of monitoring that affects the performance of the primary school teachers of the public sector in district Attock.




Research Questions 

The following research questions were posed in this study:

1. What are different aspects of the monitoring process that affect the performance of primary school teachers of the public sector in district Attock?

2. What is the relationship between the monitoring process and the performance of primary school teachers of the public sector in district Attock?

3. What are the deficiencies in the process of monitoring, which affects the performance of the primary school teachers of the public sector in district Attock?

Methodology

Research Design

Following a positivist paradigm, this study adopted a quantitative research design for the purpose of data collection and analysis. This design is helpful in data collection using a questionnaire from a selected sample of a target population. Moreover, this study provided basic information related to the prevailing situation of the monitoring process, so it was descriptive by nature. The study involved focusing on exploring different aspects of the monitoring process. The relationship between the performance of primary school teachers and the monitoring process was also investigated. The population of the study consisted of all primary school teachers working in the public sector in six tehsils of district Attock. Their total number was 2485, including 1315 male and 1170 female teachers.

 

Sampling

The target population of the study was 2485 subjects which consisted of all primary school teachers working in the public sector in six tehsils of district Attock. A convenient sampling technique was deployed to select the sample, and it consisted of 400 primary school teachers and included 200 male 200 female teachers. This sampling technique helped the researchers to meet the constraints of time and resources. Table 1 shows the total population and selected sample of the study.

 

Table 1. Population and Selected Sample of the study

District	Total Population		Selected Sample
	Male	Female	Male	Female
Attock	1315	1170	200	200

 

Instrument

A research questionnaire was used as an instrument in this study. A 4-point Likert scale research instrument was developed by the researchers and used for the purpose of data collection. Due guidance was obtained by the experts of the field and relevant literature to develop the questionnaire. It was developed in such a way that the participants may not feel any sort of difficulty while responding to questions. Moreover, every effort was made to keep it simple, interesting and comprehensive so that a true picture of the responses of the sample may be obtained.  The research instrument was validated through a pilot study, and its reliability scores were also obtained using Chronbach alpha values. The research questionnaire consisted of four parts. Part A was designed to obtain basic information related to primary school teachers. It included questions related to age, gender, experience, and subject of teaching. In part B, questions were asked regarding different aspects of the monitoring process. Part C contained items related to the relationship between the monitoring process and the performance of primary school teachers. Part D was designed to explore deficiencies in the current monitoring process. The 4-point Likert scale questionnaire held the options of strongly agree (1), agree (2), disagree (3) and strongly disagree (4).

 

Data Collection Procedure

For the purpose of data collection, the research questionnaires were used. The data collected in this form is considered as the basic source of the study. The research questionnaire was sent to the public sector primary school teachers working in district Attock through registered mail along with a self stamped returned envelope. The researchers made every possible to achieve a healthy response of the respondents. For this purpose, repeated requests were made through registered mail. Telephonic contact was also made wherever possible. In this way, 380 questionnaires were returned out of a total of. This was equal to 95% of the total sample. In the following table 2, the total number of respondents and the number of questionnaires returned have been shown.

 

Table 2. Respondents of the Study and Total Questionnaires Distributed ? Returned

District	Selected Sample		Total Questionnaires Distributed		Total Questionnaires Returned
	Male	Female
			Male	Female	Male	Female
Attock	200	200	200	200	185	195

 

Data Analysis Process

The Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences version 21.0 (SPSS) was used by the researchers in order to determine descriptive and inferential statistics.  Percentages and frequencies of the responses were obtained through descriptive statistics, whereas inferential statistics helped to investigate the possible correlation between the monitoring process and the performance of primary school teachers. For this purpose, the Pearson Correlation r was used.

 

Descriptive Statistics

Research Question 1

What are different aspects of the monitoring process that impact the performance of primary school teachers of the public sector in district Attock?

 

Table 3. The Relevance of the Monitoring Process with Teaching/Learning Practices

Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Total
60	215	55	50	380

 

Table 3 shows that 60 participants strongly agreed with the relevance of the monitoring process with teaching/learning practices, whereas 215 agreed, 55 disagreed, and 50 strongly disagreed. The graphical presentation of the above data is shown in figure1.

Figure 1

Relevance of the Monitoring Process with Teaching/Learning Practices



Table 4. Impact of Monitoring Process upon Absenteeism

Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Total
59	71	184	66	380

 

Table 4 shows that 59 participants strongly agreed with the impact of the monitoring process upon absenteeism, whereas 71 agreed, 184 disagreed, and 66 strongly disagreed. The graphical presentation of the above data is shown in figure 2.

Figure 2

Impact of Monitoring Process upon Absenteeism



Table 5. Regularity in MEAs school visits



Table 5 shows that 49 participants strongly agreed with Regularity in MEAs school visits, whereas 221 agreed, 68 disagreed, and 42 strongly disagreed. The graphical presentation of the above data is shown in figure 3.

Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Total
49	221	68	42	380

Figure 3

Regularity in MEAs School Visits



Table 6. The Attitude of MEAs During School Visits

Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Total
85	188	67	40	380

 

Table 6 shows that 85 participants strongly agreed with the Attitude of MEAs during school visits, whereas 188 agreed, 67 disagreed, and 40 strongly disagreed. The graphical presentation of the above data is shown in figure 4.

Figure 4

Attitude of MEAs during School Visit



Table 7. Repetition in visits by the same MEAs



Table 7 shows that 68 participants strongly agreed with Repetition in visits by the same MEAs, whereas 30 agreed, 204 disagreed, and 78 strongly disagreed. The graphical presentation of the above data is shown in figure 5.

Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Total
68	30	204	78	380

Figure 5

Repetition in Visits by the Same MEAs



Table 8. Physical Checking of Teachers/Students by MEAs

Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Total
150	175	25	30	380

 

Table 8 shows that 150 participants strongly agreed with Physical checking of teachers/students by MEAs, whereas 175 agreed, 25 disagreed, and 30 strongly disagreed. The graphical presentation of the above data is shown in figure 6.

Figure 6

Physical Checking of Teachers/Students by MEAs



Research Question 2

What is the relationship between the monitoring process and the performance of primary school teachers of the public sector in district Attock?

 

Table 9. Facilitation of the Monitoring Process for Better Performance

Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Total
84	176	81	39	380

 

Table 9 shows that 84 participants strongly agreed with the Facilitation of the monitoring process for better performance, whereas 176 agreed, 81 disagreed, and 39 strongly disagreed. The graphical presentation of the above data is shown in figure 7.

Figure 7

Facilitation of the Monitoring Process for Better Performance



Table 10. MEAs and evaluation of performance



Table 10 shows that 102 participants strongly agreed with MEAs and evaluation of performance, whereas 188 agreed, 66 disagreed, and 24 strongly disagreed. The graphical presentation of the above data is shown in figure 8.

Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Total
102	188	66	24	380

Figure 8

MEAs and evaluation of performance



Table 11. Improvement in Academic Results of Students and Teacher's Evaluation Process

Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Total
137	183	36	24	380

 

Table 11 shows that 137 participants strongly agreed with improvement in academic results of students and teacher's evaluation process, whereas 183 agreed, 36 disagreed, and 24 strongly disagreed. The graphical presentation of the above data is shown in figure 9.

Figure 9

Improvement in Academic Results of Students and Teacher's Evaluation Process



Table 12. Improvement in Performance of a Teacher

Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Total
166	160	14	40	380

 

Table 12 shows that 166 participants strongly agreed with improvement in the performance of a teacher, whereas 160 agreed, 14 disagreed, and 40 strongly disagreed. The graphical presentation of the above data is shown in figure 10.

Figure 10

Improvement in performance of a teacher



Research Question 3

What are the deficiencies in the process of monitoring which affects the performance of the primary school teachers of the public sector in district Attock?

 

Table 13. Monitoring Process and Capabilities of MEAs

Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Total
30	40	188	122	380

 

Table 13 shows that 30 participants strongly agreed with the Monitoring process and qualities of MEAs, whereas 40 agreed, 188 disagreed, and 122 strongly disagreed. The graphical presentation of the above data is shown in figure 11.

Figure 11

Monitoring Process and Capabilities of MEAs



Table 14. Less Attendance of Teachers after the Visit of MEAs



Table 14 shows that 98 participants strongly agreed with the attendance of teachers after the visit of MEAs, whereas 182 agreed, 57 disagreed, and 43 strongly disagreed. The graphical presentation of the above data is shown in figure 12.

Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Total
98	182	57	43	380

Figure 12

Less Attendance of Teachers after the Visit of MEAs



Inferential Statistics

Table 15. The Correlation between Monitoring and Improvement in Academic Results

Variable	Monitoring
Improvement in Academic Results	R	P
	.648	.002

r = Pearson Correlation, p = Significance*, significant 2 tailed p < .05

 

This can be seen in Table 15 shows that there is a positive correlation between the monitoring process and improvement in academic results.  Here r= .648 and p= .002.

 

Table 16. The Correlation between Monitoring and Evaluation of Teacher

Variable	Monitoring
Evaluation of Teacher	R	P
	.249	.007

r = Pearson Correlation, p = Significance*, significant 2 tailed p < .05

 

 This can be seen in Table 16 shows that the monitoring process and evaluation of teacher are positively correlated.  Here r= .249 and p= .007.

Table 17. The Correlation between Monitoring and Performance of Teacher

Variable	Monitoring
Performance of Teacher	R	P
	.765	.005

r = Pearson Correlation       

p = Significance*

significant 2 tailed p < .05

 

This can be seen in Table 17 shows that there is a positive correlation between the monitoring process and the performance of the teacher. Here r= .765 and p= .005.

Summary

The following paragraphs present a summary of the procedure of data analysis.

1. 60 participants strongly agreed, and 215 agreed with the relevance of the monitoring process with teaching/learning practices. This means that 72.37 % of the respondents agreed with the relevance of the monitoring process with teaching/ learning practices. This yields that the monitoring process was relevant to the teaching/ learning practices. 

2. 184 participants disagreed, and 66 strongly disagreed with the impact of the monitoring process upon absenteeism. This means that 65.79% of the respondents disagreed with the impact of the monitoring process upon absenteeism. This yields that the monitoring process had no impact on absenteeism.

3. 49 participants strongly agreed, and 221 agreed with Regularity in MEAs school visits. This means that 71.05 % of the respondents agreed with Regularity in MEAs school visits. This yields that MEAs visited the schools regularly.

4. 85 participants strongly agreed, and188 agreed with the Attitude of MEAs during school visits. This means that 71.84 % of the respondents agreed with the Attitude of MEAs during school visits. This implies that the Attitude of MEAs was good during school visits.

5. 204 disagreed, and 78 strongly disagreed with Repetition in visits by the same MEAs. This means that 74.21 % of the respondents agreed with Repetition in visits by the same MEAs. This indicates that the same MEA did not visit the school again and again.

6. 150 participants strongly agreed, and 175 agreed with Physical checking of teachers/students by MEAs. This means that 85.53% of the respondents agreed with the Physical checking of teachers/students by MEAs. This yields that presence of teachers and students were physically verified by MEAs.

7. 84 participants strongly agreed, and 176 agreed with the Facilitation of the monitoring process for better performance.  This means that 68.42% agreed with the Facilitation of the monitoring process for better performance. This indicates that the monitoring process remained helpful for teachers to improve their performance.

8. 102 participants strongly agreed, and 188 agreed with MEAs and evaluation of performance. This means that76.32% agreed with MEAs and evaluation of performance. This yields that MEAs participated in the process of evaluation of the performance of teachers.

9. 137 participants strongly agreed, and 183 agreed with improvement in academic results of students and teacher's evaluation process. This means that 84.21% agreed with improvement in academic results of students and teacher's evaluation process. This yields that the monitoring process helped in improving the academic results of students and the process of evaluation of teachers.

10. 166 participants strongly agreed, and160 agreed with improvement in the performance of a teacher. This means that 85.79% agreed with the improvement in the performance of a teacher. This indicates that the monitoring process caused to improve the performance of teachers.

11. 122 strongly disagreed, and 188 disagreed with the monitoring process and capabilities of MEAs.  This means that 81.58% disagreed with the monitoring process and qualities of MEAs. This yields that the teachers are not fully satisfied with the present system of monitoring and capabilities of MEAs.

12. 98 participants strongly agreed, and 182 agreed with less attendance of teachers after the visit of MEAs. This means that 73.68% of teachers agreed with less attendance of teachers after the visit of MEAs. This yields that the teachers remained regular before the visit of MEAs but started availing leaves afterwards.

13. There is a positive correlation between the monitoring process and improvement in academic results.

14. There is a positive correlation between the monitoring process and the evaluation of a teacher.

15. There is a positive correlation between the monitoring process and the performance of the teacher. 

Discussion

This study was descriptive in nature. The major purpose of the study was to explore a relationship between the monitoring process and the performance of public sector primary school teachers. Deficiencies in the present monitoring system were also to be investigated. The total population of the study comprised 2485 public sector primary school teachers working in district Attock. There were 1315 male and 1170 female teachers in this population. A sample of 400 teachers was selected, including 200 male teachers and 200 female teachers, by using a convenient sampling technique. A research instrument was developed by the researchers and validated through a pilot study. Its reliability scores were also obtained using Chronbach alpha values. Data were analyzed and interpreted by using Statistical Program for Social Scientists (SPSS 21.0) and was interpreted in the form of tables and figures. On the basis of data analysis, the following are brief findings of this study:

1. The present monitoring process was found relevant to teaching/ learning practices. Monitoring Evaluation Assistants MEAs regularly and randomly visited the schools with a positive attitude. They physically verified the attendance of students and teachers. They were involved in the process of evaluation of the performance of teachers.

2. The monitoring process helped to improve the academic results of students and the evaluation of the performance of teachers. There was a positive correlation between the monitoring process, improvement in academic results and performance of teachers.

3. The teachers were not found fully with the present monitoring system. The academic qualification and irrelevant experience of MEAs were the major reasons for the dissatisfaction of the teachers. Furthermore, the teachers ensure their attendance on the particular days of visits to MEAs but became irregular after the said visit.

Conclusion

This study concludes that the monitoring process in educational institutions is focused on the teaching-learning process and helps to improve the performance of teachers. Furthermore, it improves the quality of education and hence yields better academic results for the students. However, the monitoring team should consist of academic professionals to obtain better results from the process of monitoring. 

Recommendations

Following recommendations were made based on the findings of this study:

1. Monitoring and Evaluation Assistants (MEAs) must be university graduates and should possess professional training to monitor the schools effectively. Two different MEAs should visit a school once a month on different dates to overcome the absenteeism among teachers in schools.

2. Performance Evaluation Performa (PEP) may be developed and used in order to check and improve the performance of MEAs.

3. Future researchers may work to explore the same phenomenon at secondary and higher secondary levels in public as well as private sector schools. The results of studies may be compared to find a meaningful difference between these.

4. Policymakers should focus on enhancing the professional skills of the monitoring team.

References

• Aslam, H. D. (2013). Analysis of professional Development Practices for School Teachers in Pakistan, A comparative case study of public and private schools of Punjab, Pakistan. International Journal of Human Resource Studies,vol.3.
• Beatrice, et al. (2015). Influence of Monitoring and Evaluation by Principals on Effective Teaching and Learning. Journal of Education and Practice, Kenya, vol. 6
• Carter, M., & Francis, R. (2001). Mentoring and Beginning Teachers, Workplace Learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, p-49-62
• Govt. of Punjab, (2007). Continuous Professional Development for Quality Learning, Directorate of Staff Development, Lahore, Punjab
• Govt. of Punjab, (2012). In-service Training for Professional Development. Directorate of Staff Development, Lahore, Punjab
• Kovalenk, I. (2012). Pedagogical monitoring as a means of managing the quality of education. International Journal of Environment and Science Education, State University Karaganda, Kazakhstan, vol.2
• Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. Sage Publication, London. P-45-47.
• OECD. (2009). Teacher Evaluation. A conceptual Framework and Examples of Practices, Mexico
• Shapiro, J. (2007). Monitoring and Evaluation. http://civicus.org
• UNESCO. (2015). Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation. International Institute for Educational Planning, Paris.
• UNESCO. (2016). Designing effective monitoring and evaluation systems for 2030 (A Draft), p-7-10
• Zareen, R., et al. (2013). Evaluation of District Training Educators' Performance in Term of Teachers Training in Punjab. International Journal of English and Education, Pakistan, vol.2