• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Thesis presentation
 

Thesis presentation

on

  • 443 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
443
Views on SlideShare
443
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Thesis presentation Thesis presentation Presentation Transcript

    • THESIS PRESENTATION BY RESEARCH SCHOLAR Smt. Suman DhakaUniversity of Jain Vishva Bharati, Ladnun In the Faculty of Education
    • THESIS PRESENTATIONACCOUNTABILITY OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS IN RELATION TOSEX , LOCALITY, EXPERIENCE AND AFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING.
    • INTRODUCTION1. MAIN OBJECTIVES2. Sub Objectives3. Accountability of Secondary School Teachers4. Review of Accountability of Secondary School Teachers5. Latest review references6. Design of Research7. Master sheet of samples8. Sex wise classification and Locality wise break up of the samples9. Classification based on effectiveness of teaching and teaching experience of teachers10. Selection of questions in the TSRQ.11. The logical validity of TSRQ12. Dimension-Sense of Responsibility for Students and Guardians13. Dimension-Sense of Responsibility for School and Society14. Basics of considerations for Effectiveness of teachers knowledge15. Procedure CR-TEST adopted for statistical calculations for comparing the significance difference between the two means.16. Representation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data Hypotheses17. Representation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data Sub Hypotheses18. Summary of Research
    • ACCOUNTABILITY OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS IN RELATION TO SEX , LOCALITY,EXPERIENCE AND AFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING. MAIN OBJECTIVES 1. To find out the impact of sex on accountability among secondary school teachers. 2. To find out the impact of locality on accountability among secondary school teachers. 3. To find out the impact of teaching effectiveness on accountability in secondary school teachers. 4. To find out the impact of teaching experience on accountability of secondary school teachers.
    • ACCOUNTABILITY OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS IN RELATION TO SEX , LOCALITY, EXPERIENCE AND AFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING. Sub Objectives 1. To find out the accountability of secondary school teachers in relation to students. 2. To find out the accountability of secondary school teachers in relation to guardians. 3. To find out the accountability of secondary school teachers in relation to school. 4. To find out the accountability of secondary school teachers in relation to society
    • ACCOUNTABILITY OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS IN RELATION TO SEX , LOCALITY, EXPERIENCE AND AFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING. 1. The notion of teacher’s accountability is entirely new and it gained momentum only after the publication of new education policy 1986. 2. Teacher’s accountability is a complex and essential aspect of our educational experience. 3. Teachers are accountable on many levels -- to students, parents, school and the community. 4. teacher accountability refers to the idea that the teacher, not the student is ultimately responsible for what and how much student learns. 5. Accountability is a state of being responsible or answerable before god, society, and other men and even to self.
    • REVIEW OF ACCOUNTABILITY OF SECONDARY SCHOOLTEACHERS IN RELATION TO SEX , LOCALITY, EXPERIENCE AND AFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING.1. The term review means to organize the knowledge of the specific area of research, to evolve and edifice of knowledge, so that his study would be an addition to this field.2. All teaching methods are effective in certain situations and not so effective in others situation.3. Teacher’s accountability to pupils parents, community and their own profession.4. Impact of High-Stakes Accountability Policies on Native American Learners. National Commission on Excellence in Education warned that the nation itself is at risk due to mediocre and unequal education, the gap between children with and without access to high-quality education is growing.5. Impartiality by the teacher leads to spirit of equality.6. A primary goal of measuring high school teacher effectiveness is to improve the knowledge and skills of teachers so that they improve student achievement.
    • REVIEW RELATED LITERATURE• 1 Studies related to teaching• 2 Studies related to teachers accountability• 3 Studies related to effectiveness of teaching• 4 Co-relational Studies• 5 Tools construction studies• 6 Encyclopedia/ Journals/ Reports/ Researches/ Policies/ Periodicals/ References:
    • DESIGN OF RESEARCH ACCOUNTABILITY OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS IN RELATION TO SEX , LOCALITY, EXPERIENCE AND AFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING.1. Ex-post Facto method adopted to collect data relevant to secondary school teachers.2. Theoretically a population reflexes set of units or elements or scores that are focus of the study.3. The population for the purpose of this study was defined as the entire teacher teaching in recognized secondary schools of Jodhpur and Barmer districts.4. A part or small portion selected from the population is called the sample and the process of such selection is called sampling.5. It is well clear that teachers belong to different locality are of both sexes having high and low experiences, working in Govt. and private recognized institutions also belonged to rural and urban areas, number of male and female having high and low teaching experiences selected in the samples.
    • Master sheet of 350 samples Sex Locality Experience EffectivenessMale Female Urban Rural High Low Effective Ineffective273 77 194 156 75 275 141 209Total 350 Total 350 Total 350 Total 350
    • Sex wise classification of the sample and Locality wise break up of the sample Total No. ofNo. of Total Schools Schools Male Female Total Male Female Total Rural Rural UrbanUrban 13 18 273 77 350 13 18 273 77 350 Total No. of Rural Sample Urban Sample school Total Rural Urban Male Female Male Female 13 18 130 26 143 51 350
    • Classification based on effectiveness of teaching and teaching experience of teachers Total No. ofEffective Teachers Ineffective Teachers Total Schools Male Female Total Male Rural Female Urban Male Female 13 18 273 77 350 111 27 162 50 350 High Experience Law Experience Teachers Teachers TotalUrban Rural Urban Rural 45 30 149 126 350
    • Selection of ultimately 40 questions in the TSRQ. The four dimensions of TSRQ has 10-10 questions each as follows.Sense of account- Sense of account- Sense of account- Sense of account-ability for students ability for ability for school ability for society (A) guardians (B) (C) (D) 2 4 1 3 6 8 5 7 10 12 9 11 14 16 13 15 18 20 17 19 22 24 21 23 26 28 25 27 30 32 29 31 34 36 33 35 38 40 37 39
    • Validity of TSRQ:The logical validity of TSRQ is self proved because each question is correlated on significant level from the total.Dimension A 0.52Dimension B 0.45Dimension C 0.50Dimension D 0.56
    • Dimension-Sense of Responsibility for Student 2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38High V L l c v c c c l l (P)Avera L V Scoring of TSRQ: l v v l v l c c ge The sum of all the dimension will beZero C Cthe ctotal accountability. l c l v v v v (x) Dimension-Sense of Responsibility for Guardians 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40High C v c c v l v l v l (P)Avera V l v v l v l c l v geZero L c l c c c v v c c (x)
    • Dimension-Sense of Responsibility for School 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37High C c c l l v l l v l(P)Avera L l Scoring of c l v c TSRQ: c c l cgeZero The sumv of all the dimension will bev V v c v l v v c(x) the total accountability. Dimension-Sense of Responsibility for Society 3 7 11 15 19 23 27 31 35 39High V l l c v c v l l c(P)Avera C c v l c l c c c lgeZero L v c v l v l v v v(x)
    • EEFECTIVENESS OF TEACHERS KNOWLEDGE ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING FACTORS 1. Information skill 2. Motivator• 3. Disciplinarian• 4. Advisor and guide• 5. Relationship with pupils• 6. Fellow teachers, principals and parents• 7. Teaching skill• 8. Co-curricular activities• 9. General appearance and habits in relation to class-room• 10. Class-room management.
    • CR-TEST adopted for statistical calculations for comparing the significance difference between the two means.• Formula For - CR Test/ t-value test M1 M 2 CR 2 2 ( N1 1) 1 ( N 2 1) 2 1 1 N1 N 2 2 N N• Where, 1 2• CR - Critical Ratio• M1 – Mean of first sample• M2 – Mean of Second sample• 2 - Square of Standard Deviation of first sample 1•• 2• 2 -Square of Standard Deviation of Second sample• N1 - Number of scorers of first sample• N2 - Number of scorers of Second sample
    • Representation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data1. Analysis of mean scores data2. T-critical value test3. Hypotheses4. Table mean scores hypotheses-15. Graphical presentation hypotheses-16. Analysis hypotheses-17. Interpretation hypotheses-18. Table mean scores hypotheses-29. Graphical presentation hypotheses-310. Analysis hypotheses-211. Interpretation hypotheses-212. Table mean scores hypotheses-313. Graphical presentation hypotheses-314. Analysis hypotheses-315. Interpretation hypotheses-316. Table mean scores hypotheses-417. Graphical presentation hypotheses-418. Analysis hypotheses-419. Interpretation hypotheses-4
    • Analysis of Data• 1 Analysis of scores of male & female teachers• 2 Analysis of scores of rural & urban teachers• 3 Analysis of scores of effective & ineffective teachers• 4 Analysis of scores of high teachers experience & low teaching experience.• 5 Analysis of scores of teacher’s accountability in relation to students.• 6 Analysis of scores of teacher’s accountability in relation to guardian• 7 Analysis of scores of teacher’s accountability in relation to school.• 8 Analysis of scores of teacher’s accountability in relation to society
    • t-critical value test used for rejection of the null hypothesisThere’s the t-critical value test used for rejection of the null hypothesis found for (N1+N2-2)degrees of freedom, using the t- distribution table to see the main and interactive effects of sex (male & female), (rural & urban), experience (High experience & low experience) and effectiveness of teaching (Effective & ineffective) upon their teacher accountability.
    • HYPOTHESES TOTAL 23 HYPOTHESES COMPARISIONS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, ALL HYPOTHESES ACCEPTED AS PER ANALYSISRepresentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data Of Red marked Four hypotheses iare shown in slides 23- 381. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of male & female secondary school teachers.2. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of rural and urban secondary school teachers.3. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of effective and ineffective secondary school teachers.4. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high teaching experience and low teaching experience of secondary school teachers.5. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural male secondary school teachers.6. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural female secondary school teachers7. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience male and female secondary school teachers.8. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of low experience male & female secondary school teachers.9. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high teaching experience and low teaching experience secondary school teachers.10. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high teaching experience and low teaching experience of female secondary school teachers.11. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience urban male and rural female secondary school teachers.12. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of low experience urban male and rural male secondary school teachers.13. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience urban male and rural male secondary school teachers.14. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience urban male & female secondary school teachers.15. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience rural male & female secondary school teachers.16. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience urban male and rural female secondary school teachers.17. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience rural male and urban female secondary school teachers.18. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of low experience urban male and rural female secondary school teachers.19. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of low experience rural male and urban female secondary school teachers.20. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of Effective/ineffective male and female secondary school teachers.21. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of Effective/ineffective urban and rural secondary school teachers.22. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of Effective/ineffective male and female secondary school teachers.23. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of Effective/ineffective urban and rural secondary school teachers
    • Hypotheses – 1 THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE ACCOUNTABILITY MEAN SCORES OF MALE AND FEMALE SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.1.1 CR-VALUE OF TEACHER ACCOUNTABILITY SCORES OF MALE AND FEMALE TEACHERS Source of Df N Mean σ σ² CR-Value Level of Variation (Degrees (scores/ (Standard (Square significanc Deviation) e Of sample) Standard Deviation) Freedom) Male 273 83.31 4.55 20.715 Group 1: 348 0.238 0.05 Female 77 83.37 4.82 23.264 Group
    • Hypotheses – 1Bar Diagram of Accountability of Male and Female teachers 100 90 83.31 83.37 80 70 60Accountability 50 40 Mean SD 30 20 10 4.55 4.82 0 Male Female Teacher Teacher
    • Analysis hypotheses-11.1.1 Analysis: Table 1.1 includes the CR- value of maineffects of male and female teachers of secondaryschools which is 0.238 at the degree of freedom(1: 348). In the statistical table the CR- value for(1:348) df is 1.96 at 0.05 level of significance.Since the CR- value of 0.238 for sex do notexceed the CR- value of 1.96 at 0.05 level ofsignificance at df (1:348). So the differencebetween male and female secondary schoolteachers is not significant.
    • Interpretation hypotheses-1 1.1.2. Interpretation of Main Effects:• The analysis Table 1.1 shows the accountability scores were not significant at the value 0.05 level of significance for sex.• Hence the null hypothesis "There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of male & female secondary school teachers" is accepted.
    • Hypotheses – 2 THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE ACCOUNTABILITY MEAN SCORES OF THE RURAL & URBAN SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.2.2 CR-VALUE OF TEACHER ACCOUNTABILITY SCORES OF URBAN AND RURAL TEACHERS Source of Df N Mean σ σ² CR-Value Level of Variation (Degrees (scores/ (Standard (Square significanc Deviation) e Of sample) Standard Deviation) Freedom) Urban 273 83.31 4.95 24.570 Group 1: 348 0.060 0.05 Rural 77 83.33 4.14 17.165 Group
    • Hypotheses – 2 Bar Diagram of Accountability of Urban and Rural teachers 100 90 83.31 83.33 80 70Accountability 60 50 40 Mean SD 30 20 10 4.95 4.14 0 Urban Rural Teacher Teacher
    • Analysis hypotheses-2• 2.2.1 Analysis:• Table 4.2 includes the CR-value of main effects or rural and urban secondary school teachers which is 0.060 at the degree of freedom (1.348). In the statistical table the CR-value for (1.348) df is 1.96 at 0.05 level of significance. Since the CR-value of 0.060 for locality do not exceed the t-value of 1.96 at 0.05 level of Significance at df (1.348). So the difference between rural and urban secondary school teachers is not significant. The graphical representation is shown on the following page.
    • Interpretation hypotheses-2• 2.2.2 Interpretation of main effects:• The analysis Table 2.2 shows the accountability scores were not significant at the value 0.05 level of significance for locality.• Hence the null hypothesis "There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of rural and urban secondary school teachers" is accepted.
    • Hypotheses – 3 THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE ACCOUNTABILITY MEAN SCORES OF EFFECTIVE & INEFFECTIVE SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS. 3.3 CR-VALUE OF TEACHER ACCOUNTABILITY SCORE OF EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE TEACHER. Source of Df N Mean σ σ² CR-Value Level of Variation (Degrees (scores/ (Standard (Square significance Deviation) Of sample) Standard Deviation) Freedom)Effective 141 83.51 4.86 23.694 Group 1: 348 1.334 0.05Ineffective 209 83.20 4.42 19.603 Group
    • Hypotheses – 3Bar Diagram of Accountability of Effective and Ineffective teachers 100 90 83.51 83.20 80 70 Accountability 60 50 Mean SD 40 30 20 10 4.86 4.42 0 Effective Ineffective Teacher Teacher
    • Analysis hypotheses-3• 3.3.1 Analysis:• Table 3.3 includes the CR-value of main effects of Effective and Ineffective secondary school teachers which is 1.334 at the degree of freedom (1.348). In the statistical table the Cr- Value for (1.348) df is 1.96 at 0.05 level of significance. Since the Cr-Value of 1.334 for effectiveness of teaching do not exceed the Cr- Value of 1.96 at 0.05 level of significance at df (1.348). so the difference between effective and ineffective secondary school teachers are not significant.
    • Interpretation hypotheses-3• 3.3.2. Interpretation on Main Effects:• The analysis of Table 3.3 shows the accountability scores were not significant at 0.05 level of significance for effectiveness.• Hence the null hypothesis "There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of effective and ineffective secondary school teachers" is accepted.
    • Hypotheses – 4 THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE ACCOUNTABILITY MEAN SCORES OF HIGH TEACHING EXPERIENCE & LOW TEACHING EXPERIENCE SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS. 4.4 CR-VALUE OF TEACHER ACCOUNTABILITY SCORE OF HIGH TEACHING EXPERIENCE AND LOW TEACHING EXPERIENCE TEACHERSSource of Df N Mean σ σ² CR-Value Level of Variation (Degrees (scores/ (Standard (Square significance Deviation) Of sample) Standard Deviation) Freedom)High Exp. 75 21.516 83.58 4.63 Group 1.197 0.05 1: 348Low Exp. 275 21.183 83.25 4.60 Group
    • Hypotheses-4 Bar Diagram of Accountability of High Teahing Experience and Low Teaching Experience 100 90 83.58 83.25 80 70Accountability 60 50 Mean SD 40 30 20 10 4.63 4.60 0 High Experience Low Experience Teacher Teacher
    • Analysis hypotheses-4• 4.1.1 Analysis:• Table 4.4 include the CR-value of main effects of high teaching experience and low teaching experience secondary school teacher which is 1.197 at the degree of freedom (1:348). In the statistical table the CR-value for (1:348) df is 1.96 at 0.05 level of significance. Since the CR-value 1.197 for experience does not exceed the CR-value of 1.96 at 0.05 level of significance at df (1:348). so the difference between high teaching experience and low teaching experience secondary school teachers are not significant.
    • Interpretation hypotheses-4• 4.4.2. Interpretation on Main Effects:• The analysis of Table 4.4 shows the accountability scores were not significant at the value 0.05 level of significance for teaching experience.• Hence the null hypothesis "There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high teaching experience and low teaching experience of secondary school teachers" is accepted.
    • SUB HYPOTHESESTOTAL 32 SUB-HYPOTHESES COMPARISIONS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, ALL SUB-HYPOTHESES ACCEPTED AS PER ANALYSIS1. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of male & female secondary school teachers in relation to students.2. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of male & female secondary school teachers in relation to Guardians.3. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of male & female secondary school teachers in relation to schools.4. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of male & female secondary school teachers in relation to societies.5. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of rural and urban secondary school teachers in relation to students..6. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of rural and urban secondary school teachers in relation to Guardians.7. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of rural and urban secondary school teachers in relation to schools.8. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of rural and urban secondary school teachers in relation to societies.9. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of effective and ineffective secondary school teachers in relation to students.10. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of effective and ineffective secondary school teachers in relation to Guardians11. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of effective and ineffective secondary school teachers in relation to schools.12. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of effective and ineffective secondary school teachers in relation to societies.13. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high teaching experience and low teaching experience of secondary school teachers in relation to students.14. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high teaching experience and low teaching experience of secondary school teachers in relation to Guardians.15. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high teaching experience and low teaching experience of secondary school teachers in relation to schools16. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high teaching experience and low teaching experience of secondary school teachers in relation to societies.17. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural male secondary school teachers in relation to students.18. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural male secondary school teachers in relation to Guardians.19. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural male secondary school teachers in relation to schools.20. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural male secondary school teachers in relation to societies..21. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural female secondary school teachers in relation to students22. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural female secondary school teachers in relation to Guardians23. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural female secondary school teachers in relation to schools24. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural female secondary school teachers in relation to societies25. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience male and female secondary school teachers in relation to students26. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience male and female secondary school teachers in relation to Guardians27. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience male and female secondary school teachers in relation to schools.28. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience male and female secondary school teachers in relation to societies.29. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of low experience male & female secondary school teachers in relation to students30. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of low experience male & female secondary school teachers in relation to Guardians31. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of low experience male & female secondary school teachers in relation to schools32. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of low experience male & female secondary school teachers in relation to societies
    • FINDINGS OF THE STUDY1. Sex had no impact on teacher’s accountability. Because accountability is free from boundary of sex. Accountability is an internal matter of human beings.2. After the discussion we reached on that the locality had no impact on accountability of teachers. Because the concept of accountability is very brood. Now it is clear that accountability is an internal expression.3. Effectiveness also had no impact on teacher’s accountability. Because accountability is an internal matter of human beings. Accountability has no relation.4. After the discussion we reached on that the teaching experience had no impact on teacher on teacher accountability. Because accountability is an internal matter of human beings, so it is free from any boundary including teaching experience. Thus there is relationship between teacher accountability and teaching experience.5. Male and Female teachers are equally accountable towards students, guardian, school and society.6. Urban and Rural teachers are equally accountable towards students, guardian, school and society.7. Effective and Ineffective teachers are equally accountable towards students, guardian, school and society.8. High Experience and low Experience teachers are equally accountable towards students, guardian, school and society.
    • IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS• The teacher accountability is a social emotional element and the teacher is to realize a sense of duty in himself that he owes much to society and educating children of society at different level of educational set up. For arousing such a moral sense the teacher ought to be given a status in the society. He was Guru in the future and he is Guru in the present and he will be a Guru in the future also.• The accountability of teachers can be roused by making them conscious of their rights and their duties through equalization of opportunities meaning provisions of all, opportunities to all teachers who have the required ability to profit from their educational skills and which can contribute to social good in return.
    • LIMITATION OF THE FINDINGS1. The findings are based only on secondary school teachers.2. The findings will applicable to practical aspect rather than the theoretical part of the content because accountability is highly specific and goal oriented.3. The findings are based only on questionnaire. Therefore, the study is qualitative rather than quantitative.4. The present study is a survey type research. By its nature it is limited because a survey type research "builds a body of facts that is usually only of logical significance and may contribute to the solution of immediate problems. It is therefore, not likely produce direct evidence of any casual relationship.5. All the popular secondary schools of Jodhpur and Barmer District of Rajasthan, are selected for the study. This is done because it is not possible for investigator to include other districts of Rajasthan due to limited resources and potentialities.6. Only 31 Secondary Schools of Barmer and Jodhpur district has been included.7. The study is conducted on 350 teachers of secondary schools.8. Male and female, rural and urban both are selected in this study.
    • SUGGESTION FOR THE FURTHER POSSIBILITIES1. It may worthwhile to sense of accountability among teachers in relation to sex, locality and training.2. A comparative research can be designed to study sense of accountability among teachers in relation to social system.3. Accountability of teachers can be studied in relation to their values and cognitive process.4. Studies can be under taken for the degree college/university teachers on same variables.5. Accountability of the teachers can be studied in relation to their academic achievement, creativity and job satisfaction.6. Accountability of teachers can be studied in relation to their socio-economic status and achievement motivation.7. Accountability of teachers can be studied in relation to their personality traits.8. Neuroticism, intelligence and cognitive process can be compared for male & female teachers in relation to their accountability.9. A follow up programme may be designed to ascertain sense of accountability among secondary school teachers.
    • CONCLUSIONS• Child education in India is in a mess...• Lack of Resources• Poor Accountability• Other Factors• Too many children; too few teachers. Even fewer “good” teachers.• Poor Infrastructure. Half the schools don’t even have provision for drinking water.• Myth: Parents don’t want to send their kids to school.• Reality: There are no good schools at all!• Even there are no frequent teacher training sessions facilities available.• “Good” Education is accessible to a minority of the Indian populace.• Even where kids want to learn, they can’t do so.• Poverty: Education is free on paper, not in practice.• Social Stigma: More girls dropping out of schools than boys.• Skewed Govt. policies: Part of public education funding goes towards subsidizing private schools.• These problems are the most “approachable” of them all; let’s try and solve these first!
    • A BLISSFUL HEARTIEST THANKSTo,. Dr. O.P. Sharma for making available his ripe experience in this research.. Dr. B. L. Jain, HOD Dept. of education, Jain Vishwa Bharati Ladnun ,. Dr. B.R. Dugar Director Research Dept.. Librarian and other members of the Department and college for their whole hearted co-operation and encouragement.. My husband Mr. BS Dhaka, my parents, brothers. my beloved son and daughter for constant encouragement and assistance rendered.. Authors and publishers whose work have been consulted and quoted in this study.
    • LIFE IS JUST LIKE ONE MAN ARMY. GAME OVER. NEVER GIVE YOUR BEST TO WIN THE GOAL ALWAYS HAVE A BIT FOR LAST MOMENT TO WIN. AS YOU KNOW. TOTAL ENERGY OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE REMAINS SAME SAVE SOME ENERGY TO UTILISE FOR……..THE DAYS…………... TEACHING IS A KIND OF ART. IT GIVES US ENERGY, SATISFACTION SIMULTANEOUSLY MAKE US ABLE TO UNDERSTAND ART OF LIVING. Nahar Singh Ruhela One of the most creative Idiot
    • SPECIAL THANKS ALL PERSONS OWE TO SEE THIS PRESENTATION
    • CONCLUSIONS