1. Introduction
Teachers constitute one of the most influential components of any educational system. The quality of educational outcomes is closely associated with the quality of teaching practices, classroom interactions, assessment processes, and teachers’ capacity to respond effectively to students’ diverse learning needs. Consequently, improving teacher performance is not simply an individual professional concern but a central requirement for improving school effectiveness and educational quality.
Teacher performance is a multidimensional construct that encompasses the knowledge, skills, attitudes, behaviors, and instructional practices through which teachers facilitate student learning. Effective teaching requires more than mastery of subject matter. Teachers must be able to translate disciplinary knowledge into meaningful learning experiences, organize classroom activities, provide appropriate feedback, engage students actively, and adapt instruction to different learner characteristics. Kennedy (2006) argues that teaching involves the simultaneous management of multiple classroom demands and therefore requires teachers to integrate knowledge, judgment, planning, and practical decision-making.
The importance of teacher quality has been emphasized extensively in the international literature. Darling-Hammond (2013) argues that teacher evaluation should be connected to professional learning and improvement rather than being reduced to a simple accountability mechanism. From this perspective, evaluating teacher performance should identify strengths and areas requiring professional development and should ultimately contribute to better teaching and learning.
Teacher experience and professional learning may also contribute to instructional effectiveness. Harris and Sass (2011), examining teacher training, teacher quality, and student achievement, found that teacher productivity generally increases with experience, particularly during the early years of teaching, although the effects of formal professional development are not necessarily uniform across contexts. These findings suggest that professional development should be closely connected to actual instructional practices rather than being limited to participation in formal training programs.
The literature also indicates that organizational conditions may influence teacher performance. Du Toit et al. (2022) found that perceived organizational support is associated with teachers’ performance and emphasized the importance of organizational environments that facilitate effective work practices. Thus, teacher performance should be understood within the broader context of school organization, leadership, professional learning, and available instructional resources.
Effective professional development is particularly important because teachers increasingly face demands for active learning, differentiated instruction, collaborative learning, critical thinking, technology integration, and evidence-based assessment. A review of 35 methodologically rigorous studies by Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) identified several characteristics of effective professional development, including content focus, active learning, collaboration, modeling of effective practice, coaching and expert support, feedback and reflection, and sustained duration.
Within this broader framework, instructional performance in elementary schools deserves particular attention. Elementary education provides the foundation for students’ subsequent academic, social, and cognitive development. At this level, teachers must simultaneously address academic content, classroom management, students’ social development, motivation, individual differences, and the development of learning habits.
The present study focuses on the instructional performance of public elementary school teachers in Parsabad County, Iran, as evaluated by school administrators. The study is particularly concerned with observable instructional behaviors, including teachers’ mastery of curriculum content, continuous learning, classroom management, student motivation, respect for learners, formative assessment, attention to individual differences, student participation, use of instructional media, development of social skills, and support for students’ academic problems.
Accordingly, the main research question is:
To what extent do school administrators evaluate the instructional performance of public elementary school teachers in Parsabad County as being above the expected average level?
The study also examines which specific dimensions of instructional performance represent relative strengths and weaknesses.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Teacher Instructional Performance
Instructional performance refers to the set of professional activities through which teachers organize and facilitate learning. It includes lesson planning, presentation of subject matter, classroom management, student engagement, assessment, feedback, and adaptation of instruction to students’ needs.
Teacher performance should not be reduced to students’ test scores alone. Darling-Hammond (2013) emphasizes the importance of examining multiple sources of evidence when evaluating teaching. Teaching quality is multidimensional, and valid evaluation should consider teachers’ instructional practices and professional learning needs.
In elementary education, effective instructional performance requires teachers to establish a supportive classroom climate, encourage participation, provide opportunities for questioning, connect learning to real-life experiences, and employ appropriate instructional materials. These practices can create conditions in which students become active participants rather than passive recipients of information.
2.2. Teacher Knowledge and Instructional Decision-Making
Subject-matter knowledge is a necessary but insufficient condition for effective teaching. Teachers must transform knowledge into pedagogical decisions that are appropriate to particular students and classroom contexts. Kennedy (2006) emphasizes that teaching involves complex decisions and that teachers rely on integrated knowledge, practical judgment, and planning to manage classroom situations.
Therefore, indicators such as mastery of curriculum content, continuous professional learning, the use of appropriate teaching methods, and the ability to respond constructively to students’ ideas can be considered important elements of instructional performance.
2.3. Professional Development and Teacher Performance
Professional development can contribute to instructional improvement when it is sustained, practice-oriented, collaborative, and connected to teachers’ actual classroom challenges. Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) identified seven characteristics of effective professional development: a focus on content, active learning, collaboration, modeling of effective practices, coaching and expert support, feedback and reflection, and sustained duration.
However, the relationship between formal training and teacher productivity is not always straightforward. Harris and Sass (2011) found that teacher experience can contribute to productivity, while the effects of formal professional development vary according to the context and type of training. Thus, professional development programs should emphasize practical application and continuous improvement rather than simply increasing the number of training courses attended.
3. Method
3.1. Research Design
The study employed an applied, quantitative, descriptive-survey design. The purpose was to evaluate the instructional performance of public elementary school teachers based on the perceptions of school administrators. The design was appropriate because the study sought to describe existing instructional practices without manipulating the study variables.
3.2. Population and Sample
The statistical population consisted of administrators and deputy administrators of public elementary schools in Parsabad County, Iran. The manuscript reports that the sample size was determined using the Krejcie and Morgan approach. However, an important inconsistency exists in the reported sample information: the text states that 158 responses were collected through an online questionnaire, whereas the inferential analysis reports n = 72 and df = 71. Because the reported standard error (SE = .071) is also consistent with a sample of approximately 72 participants, the final analytic sample should be verified against the original dataset before publication.
Accordingly, the numerical results of the inferential analysis are reported exactly as presented in the manuscript rather than introducing an unsupported correction.
3.3. Instrument
Instructional performance was measured using the questionnaire attributed to Zandi (2013). The instrument contains 25 indicators reflecting different aspects of teachers’ instructional performance. Responses were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = poor to 5 = excellent.
The indicators addressed areas such as:
- mastery of curriculum content;
- continuous study and professional learning;
- use of appropriate teaching methods;
- teacher motivation and dynamism;
- openness to criticism;
- tolerance of students’ new ideas;
- acceptance of personal mistakes;
- creation of a pleasant classroom environment;
- respectful teacher–student relationships;
- appropriate reinforcement and discipline;
- connection of curriculum content with real-life experiences;
- formative assessment;
- student motivation and participation;
- attention to individual differences;
- classroom planning and time management;
- opportunities for questioning;
- use of instructional media;
- development of students’ social skills;
- support for academic and behavioral problems; and
- assignment and supervision of appropriate learning activities.
3.4. Validity and Reliability
Face validity was used to assess the appropriateness and comprehensibility of the questionnaire items. According to the original study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the instructional performance questionnaire was .824, exceeding the commonly accepted threshold of .70 and indicating acceptable internal consistency.
Nevertheless, for publication in an international journal, it would be preferable to report the reliability coefficient calculated from the actual sample of the present study rather than relying exclusively on the reliability coefficient reported for the original instrument.
3.5. Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using SPSS version 26. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, and mean scores, were used to summarize the respondents’ characteristics and instructional performance indicators. A one-sample t-test was employed to determine whether the overall instructional performance score differed significantly from the theoretical midpoint of 3.00.
The significance level was set at α = .05.
4. Results
4.1. Demographic Characteristics
According to the reported demographic information, 64% of respondents were male and 36% were female. Regarding educational attainment, 54% held a bachelor’s degree, 31% held a master’s degree, and 10% held a doctoral degree or were doctoral students; 5% did not report their educational level.
Regarding age, 6% of respondents were under 30 years of age, 26% were between 31 and 40 years, 35% were between 41 and 50 years, and 33% were over 50 years.
Because the frequency values in the original demographic table do not correspond consistently with the reported sample size of 158, percentages rather than frequencies are retained in this revised version. The original dataset should be checked before publication.
4.2. Descriptive Results of Instructional Performance
The theoretical midpoint of the five-point scale was 3.00. The results indicate that most instructional performance indicators had mean scores above 3.00, suggesting that school administrators generally evaluated teachers’ instructional performance as acceptable or better.
The strongest indicator was encouraging students to read supplementary books related to their lessons (M = 3.158), while the weakest indicator was encouraging students to construct instructional aids (M = 2.86).
Other relatively favorable indicators included attention to individual differences, opportunities for student questioning, student motivation, continuous assessment, and teachers’ acceptance of their own mistakes.
The comparatively lower score for encouraging students to construct instructional aids may indicate a need for greater emphasis on hands-on learning, project-based activities, creativity, and student-generated learning resources.
Table 1: Selected Indicators of Teachers’ Instructional Performance
| Instructional performance indicator | Mean |
| Mastery of textbook content | 3.06 |
| Continuous study and knowledge development | 3.05 |
| Use of appropriate methods and techniques | 3.09 |
| Motivation, dynamism, and patience | 3.30 |
| Openness to criticism | 3.15 |
| Tolerance of students’ new ideas | 3.22 |
| Acceptance of personal mistakes | 3.37 |
| Creating a pleasant classroom environment | 3.22 |
| Friendly and respectful relationships with students | 3.15 |
| Appropriate reinforcement and discipline | 3.12 |
| Connecting lessons with students’ real-life experiences | 3.15 |
| Continuous assessment of student learning | 3.33 |
| Motivating students through active participation | 3.47 |
| Attention to individual differences | 3.55 |
| Classroom planning and time management | 3.27 |
| Providing opportunities for student questions | 3.47 |
| Facilitating participation of all students | 3.04 |
| Encouraging students to construct instructional aids | 2.86 |
| Appropriate use of instructional media and resources | 3.02 |
| Development of positive student behavior | 3.08 |
| Development of students’ social skills | 3.29 |
| Assistance with students’ academic and behavioral problems | 3.34 |
| Encouraging supplementary reading | 3.158 |
| Appropriate assignments and research activities | 3.13 |
Note. Means are reproduced from the original manuscript. The original table should be checked for transcription and decimal-formatting errors before final submission.
4.3. Inferential Analysis
The main hypothesis was formulated as follows:
H1: School administrators evaluate the instructional performance of public elementary school teachers as significantly higher than the theoretical midpoint of the measurement scale.
A one-sample t-test was conducted against the reference value of 3.00.
Table 2: One-Sample t-Test for Overall Instructional Performance
| Variable | N | M | SD | SE | t | df | p |
| Instructional performance | 72* | 3.23 | 0.61 | 0.071 | 3.21 | 71 | .002 |
*Note. The manuscript reports 158 collected responses elsewhere, but the inferential table reports N = 72 and df = 71. This discrepancy must be resolved using the original dataset before publication.
The results indicate that the mean instructional performance score (M = 3.23) was significantly higher than the theoretical midpoint of 3.00, t(71) = 3.21, p = .002. The difference was approximately 0.23 points. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no difference from the theoretical midpoint was rejected.
However, statistical significance should not be interpreted as evidence of a high level of performance. The mean of 3.23 is only modestly above the midpoint of the five-point scale. Thus, the results suggest an acceptable but improvable level of instructional performance, rather than an excellent level of performance.
5. Discussion
The findings indicate that school administrators generally perceive the instructional performance of public elementary school teachers in Parsabad County as being above the theoretical midpoint. This finding suggests that teachers demonstrate a relatively acceptable level of competence in several important areas of classroom practice.
One of the most favorable findings concerned teachers’ attention to individual differences among students (M = 3.55). This is important because effective teaching requires sensitivity to differences in students’ prior knowledge, learning pace, interests, abilities, and educational needs. Differentiated attention can increase opportunities for participation and reduce the risk that some students become marginalized within the classroom.
Similarly, student participation and opportunities for questioning received relatively favorable evaluations. Active participation is consistent with contemporary perspectives on effective teaching, which increasingly emphasize student engagement and learning through active processes rather than passive reception of information. Professional development that models active learning and provides teachers with opportunities to practice new approaches can contribute to changes in instructional practice (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017).
The relatively favorable score for continuous assessment is also noteworthy. Formative assessment enables teachers to obtain information about students’ learning during instruction and use that information to adjust teaching. From an evaluation perspective, teacher performance should therefore be examined not only through final student outcomes but also through the processes by which teachers monitor and support learning (Darling-Hammond, 2013).
Another important finding concerns the relatively high score for teachers’ acceptance of their own mistakes. Such openness can contribute to a classroom environment in which students are more willing to ask questions, express alternative ideas, and participate without excessive fear of failure. Kennedy (2006) emphasizes the complexity of teaching and the need for teachers to make ongoing judgments in dynamic classroom contexts. Accordingly, reflective and adaptive professional behavior is an important aspect of effective teaching.
Despite these strengths, the overall mean of 3.23 indicates that the teachers’ instructional performance remains closer to the acceptable level than the excellent level. This finding is particularly important for educational policymakers and school leaders because evaluation should not end with the identification of an acceptable performance level. Rather, evaluation should provide evidence for continuous professional learning and improvement.
The lowest-rated indicator was encouraging students to construct instructional aids (M = 2.86). This finding may indicate relatively limited use of hands-on, creative, and student-generated instructional activities. Such activities can be particularly valuable in elementary education because they connect abstract content with concrete experiences and can strengthen students’ creativity, problem-solving abilities, and ownership of learning.
The finding is also consistent with the broader argument that professional development should be closely connected to instructional practice. Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) emphasize that effective professional development should include active learning, modeling, coaching, feedback, collaboration, and sufficient duration. Therefore, improving teachers’ use of innovative instructional resources is unlikely to be achieved through short, isolated training sessions alone.
The findings can also be interpreted in light of research on organizational support. Although organizational support was not directly measured in the present study, previous research suggests that teachers’ perceptions of support can be associated with their work performance (du Toit et al., 2022). Consequently, school administrators should consider teacher performance as a product not only of individual competence but also of the professional environment in which teachers work.
The present findings also reinforce the importance of continuous teacher learning. Harris and Sass (2011) demonstrated that teaching productivity can increase through accumulated experience, particularly during the early years of a teaching career. At the same time, the effects of formal professional development are context-dependent. Therefore, professional development in Parsabad schools should be evidence-based, practice-oriented, and responsive to specific weaknesses identified through teacher evaluation.
6. Conclusion
This study evaluated the instructional performance of public elementary school teachers in Parsabad County from the perspective of school administrators. The results showed that the overall mean instructional performance score was significantly above the theoretical midpoint of the scale. Therefore, the general evaluation of teachers’ instructional performance can be characterized as acceptable and relatively positive.
However, the results do not justify describing the teachers’ performance as excellent. The overall mean of 3.23 indicates considerable room for improvement. In particular, the relatively low score for encouraging students to construct instructional aids highlights the need for greater emphasis on active, creative, practical, and student-centered teaching practices.
The findings suggest that professional development programs should prioritize differentiated instruction, formative assessment, active student participation, instructional technology, classroom management, project-based activities, development of learning resources, and strategies for connecting classroom content with students’ real-life experiences.
More broadly, teacher evaluation should be used as an improvement mechanism rather than merely an administrative control mechanism. Research-based evaluation systems can help identify specific professional learning needs and establish a continuous cycle of evaluation, feedback, professional learning, implementation, and reassessment (Darling-Hammond, 2013).
7. Practical Recommendations
Based on the findings, the following recommendations are proposed:
- Develop practice-oriented professional development programs focusing on active learning, differentiated instruction, formative assessment, and student engagement.
- Strengthen teachers’ use of instructional technology and multimedia resources, particularly where such resources can enhance students’ active participation.
- Promote hands-on and project-based learning, particularly because encouraging students to construct instructional aids received the lowest mean score.
- Establish professional learning communities in elementary schools so that teachers can exchange instructional experiences, observe effective practices, and collaboratively solve classroom problems.
- Strengthen formative assessment practices and encourage teachers to use assessment information to modify their instructional strategies.
- Encourage reflective teaching, including peer observation, feedback, self-evaluation, and discussion of classroom experiences.
- Develop differentiated instructional practices that respond to individual differences among students.
- Connect professional development with actual classroom needs rather than relying primarily on short-term and general training programs.
8. Limitations
Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the study relied on administrators’ perceptions of teacher instructional performance. Future studies should combine administrator evaluations with teacher self-assessment, classroom observations, student feedback, and objective indicators of learning.
Second, the study used a cross-sectional survey design; therefore, causal conclusions cannot be drawn.
Third, there is an important inconsistency in the reported sample size. The manuscript states that 158 responses were collected, whereas the inferential results report N = 72 and df = 71. This issue must be resolved by checking the original dataset and analysis output before submission to a journal.
Finally, although the original manuscript mentions self-efficacy, organizational support, and professional development in its title, these constructs were not measured in the reported study. Future research could develop a structural equation model incorporating these variables, but such a model should only be reported after collecting appropriate data and validating the relevant measurement instruments.