Journal of Management and Educational Studies 51 2025 3 1 Roya Latifi Department of Management, University of Applied Science and Technology, Ardabil Province, House of Worker Applied Science Center, Parsabad, Iran Purpose: The present study aimed to conduct a structural analysis of educational performance indicators among primary school teachers, as perceived by principals and vice-principals of public schools in Parsabad County, Iran. Methodology: This research is applied in purpose and descriptive-survey in design. The statistical population comprised all principals and vice-principals of public primary schools in Parsabad County during the 2022–2023 academic year (N = 180). Based on Morgan’s table, a sample of 123 participants was estimated; however, to account for potential attrition, 158 questionnaires were distributed via simple random sampling. Ultimately, 128 complete and analyzable questionnaires were returned (response rate = 81%). Data were collected using the standard Educational Performance Questionnaire developed by Zandi (2013). After confirming face and content validity (CVR ≥ 0.80), reliability was established through Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α = 0.852) in a pilot study. Data were analyzed using one-sample t-tests, independent t-tests, and one-way ANOVA via SPSS version 26. Findings: The overall mean score of educational performance was 3.23 out of 5, which was significantly higher than the moderate threshold of 3 (t = 3.21, p = 0.002). However, most indicators fell within the "acceptable" range. The highest mean belonged to "Encouraging students to read non-curricular books related to the subject" (M = 3.15), while the lowest was "Encouraging students to construct learning aids" (M = 2.86). No significant differences were observed in performance ratings based on respondents' gender, educational level, or age (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Although principals and vice-principals express relative satisfaction with teachers’ educational performance, the overall level remains below the desired standard. The relatively low scores in areas such as using educational media and attending to individual differences underscore the urgent need for targeted in-service training programs focusing on modern teaching methods, educational technology integration, and differentiated instruction. IntroductionOne of the foremost concerns of educational policymakers worldwide is the continuous improvement of human resource performance, particularly that of teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2013). In Iran, educational authorities have consistently emphasized the enhancement of teaching quality as a central pillar for achieving the objectives of the Fundamental Reform Document of Education (Mossadegh & Khoshghamat, 2019). Educational performance is defined as the set of professional behaviors exhibited by teachers, designed and implemented with the aim of facilitating learning and fostering the holistic development of students (Seif, 2001; Shabani, 2003). This performance is shaped by multiple interrelated factors, including subject-matter expertise, instructional methodology, classroom management skills, effective communication with students, and the appropriate use of assessment tools (Karimi & Mozaffari, 2018).Despite the widely acknowledged centrality of the teacher’s role, relatively few studies have undertaken a multidimensional, structural analysis of educational performance indicators within the specific context of primary education. In less-developed regions, in particular, a precise diagnosis of teacher strengths and weaknesses constitutes an essential first step in designing effective professional development interventions (Hamzeian et al., 2019). Moreover, evaluations conducted by principals and vice-principals—who serve as proximal observers of the teaching-learning process—can offer a realistic and grounded picture of current performance levels (Harris & Sass, 2011). Against this backdrop, the present study seeks to structurally analyze the indicators of educational performance among primary school teachers, as perceived by principals and vice-principals of public schools in Parsabad County. In doing so, it aims to identify key areas of strength and weakness and to propose actionable recommendations for performance enhancement.2. Methodology2.1. Research Design and PopulationThis study is applied in purpose and employs a descriptive-survey design for data collection. The statistical population consisted of all principals and vice-principals of public primary schools in Parsabad County during the 2022–2023 academic year, totalling 180 individuals.2.2. Sampling and Sample SizeBased on Morgan’s table, a minimum sample size of 123 was estimated. To compensate for potential non-responses, 158 questionnaires were distributed using simple random sampling. A total of 128 fully completed and analysable questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 81%.2.3. InstrumentationTo measure educational performance, the standardized Educational Performance Questionnaire developed by Zandi (2013) was employed. This instrument comprises 25 items rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 5 ("excellent") to 1 ("inadequate"). Given that the target population of the present study differs from that of the original instrument (i.e., primary teachers versus secondary teachers), content validity was re-established through expert judgment: five specialists in educational sciences reviewed the items, and all items achieved a Content Validity Ratio (CVR) ≥ 0.80. Reliability was examined through a pilot study conducted with 30 respondents, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.852, which indicates satisfactory internal consistency.2.4. Data AnalysisData were analysed at both descriptive (mean, standard deviation, frequency distribution) and inferential levels. To test the main hypothesis, a one-sample t-test was performed with a test value of 3 (the theoretical midpoint). Additionally, independent t-tests and one-way ANOVA were used to compare mean scores across demographic subgroups. All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 26.3. Findings3.1. Descriptive FindingsTable 1. Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Demographic CharacteristicsVariableCategoryFrequencyPercentageGenderMale7256.3 Female5643.7Education LevelBachelor’s degree6953.9 Master’s degree4031.3 PhD / Doctoral candidate1310.2 No response64.7AgeUnder 30 years86.3 31–40 years3325.8 41–50 years4535.2 Above 50 years4232.8  3.2. Status of Educational Performance IndicatorsTable 2. Mean and Rank of Educational Performance Indicators (25 Items)RankIndicatorMeanSD1Encouraging students to read non-curricular books related to the subject3.150.622Attending to students’ individual differences during instruction3.550.713Motivating students by actively engaging them in class3.470.68    24Encouraging students to construct learning aids2.860.7925Using educational media, laboratory, and workshop equipment3.020.74OverallEducational Performance (Total)3.230.61    Note: Scores range from 1 to 5, with 3 as the theoretical midpoint. Means above 3 indicate relatively favourable conditions, while means below 3 suggest areas requiring improvement. 3.3. Inferential FindingsMain Hypothesis: Principals and vice-principals are satisfied with teachers’ educational performance.Table 3. One-Sample t-Test Results for Educational Performance SatisfactionVariableNMeanSDTest Valuetdfp-valueEducational Performance1283.230.6133.211270.002 Given t = 3.21 and p = 0.002 (p < 0.05), the null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, the mean score of educational performance is significantly higher than the moderate level of 3. In other words, principals and vice-principals do express satisfaction with teachers’ educational performance; however, this satisfaction falls within the "acceptable" range and has not yet reached the "desirable" threshold.3.4. Comparative Analysis by Demographic VariablesIndependent t-test results indicated no significant difference in educational performance scores based on respondents’ gender (p = 0.34). Similarly, one-way ANOVA results showed no significant differences based on educational level (p = 0.41) or age (p = 0.29). These findings suggest that principals’ and vice-principals’ perceptions of teacher performance are largely independent of their personal demographic characteristics.4. Discussion and ConclusionThe present study aimed to structurally analyse the indicators of educational performance among primary school teachers, as perceived by principals and vice-principals in Parsabad County. The findings revealed that although evaluators expressed relative satisfaction with teacher performance (overall mean = 3.23), there remains a considerable gap between the current state and the desired level of performance (scores above 4). This result aligns with prior research by Mossadegh and Khoshghamat (2019) and Kord and Mahmoudi (2019), both of whom highlighted the necessity of targeted interventions to elevate educational performance.A detailed item-level analysis uncovered two notable patterns:    Relative Strengths: Indicators such as "Attending to individual differences" (M = 3.55) and "Motivating students through active engagement" (M = 3.47) received the highest scores. This suggests that teachers possess a foundational awareness of learning psychology principles and make efforts to accommodate students’ diverse needs—a finding consistent with Seif’s (2001) theoretical emphasis on individual differences in learning.    Critical Weaknesses: The lowest scores pertained to "Encouraging students to construct learning aids" (M = 2.86) and "Using educational media and laboratory equipment" (M = 3.02). This deficiency may be attributed to a lack of adequate workshop and laboratory facilities in public primary schools, as well as teachers’ limited familiarity with constructivist teaching approaches. Karimi and Mozaffari (2018) similarly observed that supervisory practices rarely focus on teachers’ practical and hands-on instructional skills.Moreover, the absence of statistically significant differences across gender, age, and educational-level subgroups indicates a broad consensus among principals and vice-principals regarding the current performance status, which enhances the credibility of the findings.5. RecommendationsPractical Recommendations:    Enhance Competence in Educational Technology and Media Use: Organise practical workshops on using low-cost, simple learning aids (including teacher- and student-made materials) and introduce age-appropriate educational software for primary levels.     Establish an Incentive System for Teaching Innovation: Create annual awards or festivals for the best innovative teaching plans that emphasize hands-on, participatory student activities.    Strengthen Clinical Supervision: Replace purely evaluative classroom visits with a clinical supervision approach that emphasizes constructive feedback, collaborative reflection, and professional growth, particularly in the domain of active teaching methods.    Promote Qualitative Assessment Skills: Offer in-service training programmes to familiarise teachers with alternative assessment methods, such as descriptive evaluation and project-based tasks, as complements to traditional written exams.Suggestions for Future Research:    Conduct qualitative studies (e.g., grounded theory) to explore the contextual barriers preventing primary teachers in underprivileged areas from implementing innovative teaching methods.    Investigate the longitudinal relationship between teachers’ educational performance and students’ academic achievement.    Design and validate an indigenous model of educational performance evaluation tailored to the cultural context and available resources of Iranian primary schools. 6. ReferencesAlvani, S. M. (2006). Organizational behavior. Morvarid Publications. (in Persian)Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness and improvement. Teachers College Press.Hamzeian, A., Heydari, H. R., Bagheri Gharehbolagh, H., & Fahimrad, R. (2019). The role of Islamic work ethics on organizational citizenship behavior of traffic police staff with emphasis on the mediating role of job engagement. Ethics in Science and Technology Quarterly, 14(1), 122–130. (in Persian)Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7), 798–812.Jafari, S., Damghanian, H., & Abdsharifi, F. (2017). The structural relationship between the role of educational groups and the quality of teacher performance. Journal of Education and Learning Studies (Shiraz University), 9(2), 37–58. (in Persian)Karimi, M. N., & Mozaffari, M. (2018). A mixed-methods investigation of three techniques for monitoring language teachers’ instructional performance: Field notes, audio recording, and video recording. Journal of Humanities (University of Sistan and Baluchestan), 25(4), 18–40. (in Persian)Kennedy, M. M. (2006). Knowledge and vision in teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 205–211.Kord, B., & Ahmadi, F. (2008). The relationship between dominant needs and teachers’ educational performance. Research in Educational Systems, 2(5), 121–135. (in Persian)Kord, B., & Mahmoudi, H. (2019). Modeling the structural relationships of teachers’ educational performance based on organizational citizenship behavior and the mediating role of job engagement. School Management, 7(4), 82–99. (in Persian)Maleki, H., & Habibipoor, M. (2007). The fundamental purpose of education: Strengthening of critical thinking. Quarterly Journal of Educational Innovations, 19, 93–108.Mossadegh, H., & Khoshghamat, A. (2019). The relationship between spirituality at work and responsibility with educational performance of primary school teachers in Qom. Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, 5(8), 111–126. (in Persian)Nosrati, F., Khoshnazar, A., & Sadeghpour Azari, A. (2015). Investigating the relationship between critical thinking, teaching style, and educational performance among primary school teachers in Shabestar County. International Conference on New Research in Management, Economics, and Accounting. (in Persian)Padid, M. (2017). Teacher performance evaluation: From theory to practice. International Congress on Improving Management and Educational System in Iran, Tehran. (in Persian)Searson, R., & Dunn, R. (2011). The learning style teaching model. Science and Children, 38, 1–22.Seif, A. A. (2001). Educational psychology: Learning and instruction psychology. Agah Publications. (in Persian)Shabani, H. (2003). Educational skills (Teaching methods and techniques). SAMT Publications. (in Persian)Zandi, A. R. (2013). Investigating the relationship between teachers’ entrepreneurial capabilities and their educational performance in secondary schools of Varamin County [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Islamic Azad University, Garmsar Branch. (in Persian) Educational performance teaching methods school principals primary teachers performance evaluation. https://mesj.ir/journal/article.php?id=51