Abstract

 The current investigation is a struggle to find the University’s environment’s contributions to the teachers’ performance in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The overall population under this study was 4000 teachers and 79000 students enrolled in 19 universities of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Different sampling techniques were used at different levels (Multistage). At the first stage out of 19 public sectors HEC recognized general universities, only six universities were selected through simple random sample technique. At second stage a stratified random sample of 270 students of six universities was taken for this study. Two questionnaire one for performance of teachers and second for internal environment was used. The ANOVA, t-statistic and Regression were used. The result shows the significant contributions of environment in the teachers’ performance

Key Words

Impact, Environment of University, Performance of Teachers,Higher Level

Introduction

The Internal environment of an institution affects the performance of the employees. The contribution of the environment is considered a key indicator of high performance and vice versa (Chandrasekar, 2011). The infrastructure of universities, including developed facilities internally can increase productivity. Lack of physical facilities inside the institutions can inversely affect productivity, including the performance of teachers. The satisfaction of the employees with the inside environment motivates them towards better performance. If internal environment is not attractive then productivity may fall and the overall results are not satisfactory (Carnevale, 1992, Clements- Croome, 1997).




Objectives of the Study 

1. To  measure the differences in demographics (Gender, faculties, localities, age) of two variables (internal environment, teacher’s performance) 

2. Determine the contributions of the environment in the teachers’ performance




Null Hypotheses 

It was hypothesized that:

H01: The different qualification teachers judged the environment in the same way

H02: The different faculty teachers judged the environment in the same way

H03: The different gender teachers judged the environment in the same way

H04:The different age teachers judged the environment in the same way

H05: Teacher performances of the universities are not different as perceived by teachers of different faculties 

H06: Teacher performances of the universities are not different as perceived by teachers of different gender

H07: Teacher performances of the universities are not different as perceived by teachers of different localities

Ho8: There is no significant contribution of the environment to the performance 

Literature Review

According to Akande (1995), the learning outcome is the result of well-established facilities including equipped libraries, best teaching-learning materials, and educational technologies. Apart from the size of the building, airy and well-ventilated classrooms; there are certain other things which also affect the output, including the Audio-visual aids, physical facilities, well-equipped laboratories, Chairs and tables, and the latest technologies. Helping materials, chalk and blackboards help in boosting the learning outcome (Farrant, 1991 & Farombi, 1998).

There is a great influence of Higher Education in educating our students and supporting them in the understanding of research performance. It increases the well being and growth of our societies (Razavi, 2007). 

It is the age of globalization. Nations are moving towards high-quality education and national development through education. The latest indicators for the evaluation of universities should be followed to make the development of the nation possible. Modern indicators of university’s evaluation are goal-oriented, which make the development of the nation’s in-line with global requirements (Ghurchian et al., 2010)

The greatest changes are taking place in the current years in the overall environment and the environment of the universities. These innovations and changes are affecting the working conditions, attitude and learning, and student simulation. Therefore, these changes are considered as the major factors and drivers in the current scenario and have great impact on the performance of the institutions (Genç, 2014). There may be two types of environments, one type is the external environment which consists of the factors out of the university and therefore not included in the present study. The second type is the internal environment which is the main focus of the study and comprises factors like the teaching of the teachers, discipline, infrastructure, finance, government support and many other factors that are directly affecting the universities. These factors are affecting a lot in educational institutions  (Tiwari & Saxena, 2012).

The environment of the universities which is the focus of the study is a comprehensive term and  comprised of all the policies, resources, purpose and missions of the universities and all types of aids and resources are also included in the scope of the environment and these have also a great impact on the learning as discussed in many studies (Genç, 2014). 

The resources which are very much compulsory for achieving the aims and goals of the organization are included in the environment, they also include the man and material resources and therefore these are the variables that may be controlled (Ahsan, 2013).

According to (Sanfi & Ereeqi, 2006), the environment of the institution may also comprise of the factors like the  culture that exists in the premises and the management, all workers within the institutions, material and man resources and overall administration

The performance of the teachers is measured by a lot of factors, one is better relations with the stakeholders and interprofessional relations. The Personality of the teacher and teaching methodology has a pivotal influence on teacher performance. The motivational skills of the teachers increase their performance. Planning and demonstration of lessons are important factors in enhancing the teacher’s performance. The constant struggle for self-improvement has been a great tool to uplift the performance (MacDonald et al. , 2010) 

There are seven major aspects to measure teacher performance. Good relations with students is key to good performance of the teachers.  As, long as the rapport is established the teacher and the student know each other, come close to each other and learning is strengthened. Also, Inter-institutional relations and relations with parents and society are very important factors for best performance. The school success can not be achieved without the better relation of the school with the surroundings. The school is one of the elements of the society and therefore the school works with society for getting the best results. Broad thinking and good vision are great tools to measure the best performance (Ferris, 1998). Teaching skills and the use of technology in education greatly affect today's learning (Siddiqui, 2004).

Research Methodology

Population

There are 19 universities that are in the public sector. The 4000 teachers and 79000 students enrolled in these universities is the population under investigation.




Sample 

Different techniques were used for the selection of samples (Multistage). At first stage six out of Nineteen universities were selected. Faculties of Science and Arts were present in all selected universities, therefore 5 Male and 5 Female faculty members were selected through simple random sampling from these faculties, whereas the faculty of agriculture was present in only one university of these selected universities, therefore 10 male and 10 female faculty members were selected from faculty of Agriculture through random sampling technique.

Similarly 10 Male and 10 Female students from Arts and Science faculties and 15 from each stratum selected from faculty of Agriculture, in this way the total sample was 270 students from six universities. 




Research Instrument

The tools were two questionnaires (one for the environment and second for performance). The first was answered by the teachers, whereas the second was opted by the students. The questionnaire’s reliability was sought through the SPSS (version 23.0). The environment questionnaire holds the reliability of 0.86, and that of 0.92 was possessed by a performance questionnaire.

Analysis and Results

Table1. ANOVA Table Showing Qualification Wise Differences in Internal Environment



The analysis described the Mean difference of the internal environment across Qualification. The table indicates no important difference in the perceptions of teachers with different qualifications about the internal environment of the universities. (F=1.321, p=0.270 > 0.05).

Table 2.  ANOVA Table Showing Faculty Wise Differences in Internal Environment

Groups	N	Mean	SD	Df	F	P-Value
MA/MSc	11	4.0818	.60317
M.Phill	82	3.9388	.66050	139	1.321	.270
Ph.D	47	3.7926	.55939

Groups	N	Mean	SD	Df	F	P-Value
Arts	60	4.0358	.65888
Science	60	3.9588	.56954	139	11.784	.000
Agriculture	20	3.3225	.29579

 HSD Tuky Test



The analysis illustrated that F=11.784, p=0.000 < 0.05, which is evidence that teachers belonging to different faculties have different views about the environment. The navigated resulting difference was that of the Arts and agriculture faculties (p=0.000), and also that of agriculture and science (p=0.000), however, arts and science are not different (p=0.542).

Table 3. Gender wise Differences on Internal Environment

(I) Faculty	(J) Faculty	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Arts	Science	.07700	.10627	.749	-.1748	.3288
	Agriculture	.71333*	.15029	.000	.3572	1.0694
Science	Arts	-.07700	.10627	.749	-.3288	.1748
	Agriculture	.63633*	.15029	.000	.2802	.9924
Agriculture	Arts	-.71333*	.15029	.000	-1.0694	-.3572
	Science	-.63633*	.15029	.000	-.9924	-.2802

Gender		N	Mean	SD	T	P
	Male	69	3.7059	.58462	3.808	0.000
	Female	71	4.0904	.60927

The male and female assessments were not in line and a pronounced difference was observed,  t=3.808, p=0.000 < 0.05.

Table 4. Environment Differences across Groups through ANOVA

	Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	P
Between Groups	3.344	2	1.672	4.487	0.013
Within Groups	51.054	137	.373
Total	54.399	139

HSD Tuky Test

(I) Age	(J) Age	Mean Difference (I-J)	Error	P	95%
					LB	UB
1-40	41-50	.31489*	.11297	.017	.0472	.5826
	51 and above	.38062	.25730	.304	-.2290	.9903
41-50	1-40	-.31489*	.11297	.017	-.5826	-.0472
	51 and above	.06574	.26604	.967	-.5646	.6961
51 and above	1-40	-.38062	.25730	.304	-.9903	.2290
	41-50	-.06574	.26604	.967	-.6961	.5646

The investigation depicted, F=4.487, p=0.013 < 0.05, which is evidence that internal environment of the universities is different as perceived by different age teachers. This difference was found between the age group of 1-40 and 41-50 (p=0.017), and no significant difference was found between the age group of 1-40 and 50 and above (p=0.304).



Analysis of Teacher’s Performance Questionnaire

Table 5. ANOVA table Showing the Faculty Differences on Performance of Teachers

ANOVA
Score
		Sum of Squares		Df	Mean Square			F		P
Between Groups		1.921		2	.961			3.435		0.034
Within Groups		74.686		267	.280
Total		76.608		269
Multiple Comparisons
Score Tukey HSD
(I) Faculty	(J) Faculty		Mean Difference (I-J)			Error	P		95%
									LB		UB
Arts	Science		.06608			.06828	.598		-.0948		.2270
	Agriculture		.28250*			.10796	.025		.0281		.5369
Science	Arts		-.06608			.06828	.598		-.2270		.0948
	Agriculture		.21642			.10796	.113		-.0380		.4709
Agriculture	Arts		-.28250*			.10796	.025		-.5369		-.0281
	Science		-.21642			.10796	.113		-.4709		.0380

The results illustrated,  F=3.435, p=0.034 < 0.05, this portrayed a rich difference among faculties regarding the performance of teachers. This difference was found between the arts and agriculture (p=0.025), but no change was observed between the agriculture and science faculties (p=0.113) and no difference was found between the arts and science faculties (p=0.598).



Table 6. Male and Female Perception Differences Regarding Performance Using T-Test

Group Statistics
	Gender	N	Mean	T	P
Score	Male	135	3.9644	1.294	0.197
	Female	135	3.8804

The investigation illustrated that the teacher’s performance was not as such different as perceived by the male and female students, t=1.294, p=0.197 > 0.05.

Table 7. T-Test showing the Locality Differences on Performance of Teachers

Group Statistics
	Locality	N	Mean	T	P
Score	Rural	113	4.0053	2.181	0.030
	Urban	157	3.8627

The results illustrated, t=2.181, p=0.030 < 0.05, showing difference which is significant at 0.05 level in the views of students belonging to different localities

Table 8. Regression results of how Environment Contribute to the Performance

Independent Variable	R	R2	Adjusted R2	Beta Estimate	P-value
Internal Environment	.600	.360	.356	.796	.000

Dependent Variable: Teachers’ Performance

The above table shows the regression output of contributions of the environment for the performance in the different universities across the public sector. The table depicts that environment largely contributes to increasing the teachers’ performance (P=.000<.05). The independent variable (Internal Environment) explained 36% variance in Teachers’ Performance. The value of Beta estimate indicates that if one unit increases in the independent variable, then 0.796 unit increase in the dependent variable.



Findings

1. The analysis described the Mean difference of the internal environment across Qualification. The table indicates no important difference in the discernments of the teachers have a lot of differences in their qualification about the environment which prevails in the universities of the public sector (F=1.321, p=0.270 > 0.05). 

2. The analysis illustrated that F=11.784, p=0.000 < 0.05, which is evidence that teachers belonging to different faculties have different views about the environment. The navigated resulting difference was that of arts and agriculture faculties (p=0.000), and also that of agriculture and science (p=0.000), but no alteration was observed in the views of Art faculty and that of science faculty (p=0.542).

3. The male and female assessments were not in line and a pronounced difference was observed,  t=3.808, p=0.000 < 0.05.

4. The investigation depicted, F=4.487, p=0.013 < 0.05, which is evidence that the internal environment of the universities is different as perceived by different age teachers. This difference was found between the age group of 1-40 and 41-50 (p=0.017), and no significant difference was found between the age group of 1-40 and 50 and above (p=0.304).

5. The results illustrated,  F=3.435, p=0.034 < 0.05, which is evidence that there is a view difference of faculties regarding performance of teachers. This difference was found between the agriculture and arts faculties (p=0.025), but few faculties were alike like the agriculture and science faculties (p=0.113) and no difference was found between the arts and science faculties (p=0.598).




6. The investigation illustrated that the teacher’s performance was not as such different as perceived by the male and female students, t=1.294, p=0.197 > 0.05. 

7. The results illustrated, t=2.181, p=0.030 < 0.05, showing the difference which is significant at 0.05 level in the views of students belonging to different localities regarding the performance of the faculty members 

8. The above table shows the regression output of the contributions of the environment for the performance of the faculty members in the institution. The table depicts that the environment of the institutions has contributed a lot to the performance of the faculty members (P=.000<.05). The independent variable (Internal Environment) explained 36% variance in Teachers’ Performance. The value of Beta estimate indicates that if one unit increases in the independent variable, then 0.796 unit increase in the dependent variable. 

Conclusions

The result indicates that universities' internal environment has statistically significant contributions in making the better performance of the teachers in the institutions. Thus, it is concluded that a good internal environment of universities contributes greatly to the better performance of teachers. A positive environment which prevails in the universities is a source of high level of teachers’ performance and vice versa. 

The internal environment was perceived differently by different qualification teachers and teachers of different faculties of the universities. This difference was found among the faculty of arts and faculty of Agriculture, similarly difference was also found between the agriculture and science faculties, but no difference was found between the arts and science faculties. The male and female also perceived the environment differently. Similarly, different Age groups possess the unlike views on the environment of the universities. 

Similarly, the teachers’ performance was perceived differently by the students of different faculties in the public sector. This difference was found between the faculties of agriculture and arts, but no difference was found between Agriculture and that of science, also no difference was found between the faculty of science and faculty of Arts. The result also indicates that the views of male and female learners are also alike regarding the performance of teachers, whereas a significant dissimilarity was found between the observations of Rural and Urban students about the performance of the faculty members in the institutions of higher level.

Discussion

The existing investigation was steered to look into the environments which prevail in the universities and their

contributions towards the performance of their faculty members. The population of the study was teachers and students of the higher education institutions in the province of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. A sample of 80 teachers and 170 students were selected through multistage sampling techniques. The participants were chosen from the various faculties. The tools which were utilized were the questionnaires and the perceptions of the participants were sought, the teachers and students participated in the gathering of data and they illustrated their views on the structured questionnaires. These questionnaires were developed by going through the literature on the main themes of the study. The data collected from the students and teachers were put in data matrix on SPSS sheet. The various statistical techniques were utilized for the data gathered through the tools of the investigator. The t-test is used when the mean difference between two means is to be measured, so this statistic was used. The ANOVA for the difference between three or more than three means, so it was also utilized. The impact is measured by using the regression analysis. After, utilizing all the relevant statistical analysis the results were achieved,  which were presented in the results section and here these results have been discussed. Many, other studies have backed the result of this investigation. The Alshura and Assuli (2017) supported the results which were achieved by the current investigation, according to that study Environment explained 35% variance in quality of Teaching Practice.

Recommendations

Universities internal environment plays a significant role to boost up the performance of teachers, therefore the internal environment should be focused to enhance the academic performance of the students and to raise the ranking of the universities not only in the public sector but also the private sector. The current investigation suggests that the studies may be steered in this area because the higher education studies have been neglected in the developed countries. The investigation should focus on some other factors which are responsible for the performance of teachers. The teacher’s performance, in other words, is the overall achievement of the institutions, because the best teachers boost the performance of their students up to the maximum possible levels. 

References

• Akande, O.M. (1995). Hints on teaching practice and general principles of education. Lagos, OSKO Associates.
• Al Sanfi, A., & Al Ereeqi, M. ( 2006). Management. 1st Ed., Al Amal Publishing, Sana', Yemen.
• Alshura, A. (2017). Impact of Internal Environment on Performance Excellence in Jordanian Public Universities from Faculty Points of View. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 1(8), 45-57
• Bin Ahsan, Sallahdin ( 2013). The strategic role for internal environment variables analysis in promoting competitive advantage: A field study on some Algerian manufacturing companies. Jordanian Journal of Business Management, 9(4), 705-724
• Carnevale, D.G. (1992). Physical Settings of Work. Public productivity and management Review
• Chandrasekar K. (2011). Workplace Environment and its Impact on Organizational Performance in Public Sector Organizations, International Journal Of Enterprise Computing and Business Systems, 1(1).
• Clements-Croome, D.J., (1997). Specifying Indoor Climate in book Naturally Ventilated Buildings. Spon.
• Farombi, J.G. (1998). Resource concentration, utilization and management as correlates of students' learning outcomes: a study in School Quality in Oyo State. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ibadan.