The Role of Output Monitoring and Review on Teacher Job Performance in Secondary Schools: Evidence from Kasese District, Uganda

Asiati Mbabazi; Zulaiha Lawal Bagiwa; Tukur Muhammad; Lucy Aja

doi:10.12688/f1000research.166552.1

Home Browse The Role of Output Monitoring and Review on Teacher Job Performance...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

The Role of Output Monitoring and Review on Teacher Job Performance in Secondary Schools: Evidence from Kasese District, Uganda

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

Asiati Mbabazi¹, Zulaiha Lawal Bagiwa¹, Tukur Muhammad², Lucy Aja ²

PUBLISHED 04 Aug 2025

Author details Author details

¹ Département of Foundations, Faculty of Education, Kampala International University - Western Campus, Bushenyi, Western Region, Uganda
² Department of Science Education, Faculty of Education, Kampala International University - Western Campus, Bushenyi, Western Region, Uganda

Asiati Mbabazi
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Zulaiha Lawal Bagiwa
Roles: Supervision

Tukur Muhammad
Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Lucy Aja
Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Innovations in Research Assessment collection.

Abstract

Background

Teacher job performance is an important factor influencing the quality of education and student learning outcomes. Effective output monitoring and review ensure teachers adhere to instructional standards. This study examines the impact of output monitoring and review on teacher job performance in secondary schools in Kasese District.

Methods

A cross-sectional research design was used, integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches. The study targeted 675 participants, including head teachers, deputy head teachers, directors of studies, and teachers, with a final sample of 245 respondents selected through stratified random and purposive sampling. Data were collected using structured questionnaires and interview guides and analyzed using SPSS version 26, employing descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, multiple regression, and Bayesian inference to test the study hypotheses.

Findings

The results rejected the null hypotheses, confirming that both output monitoring (R² = 0.589, F = 14.071, p < 0.05) and output review (R² = 0.715, F = 16.648, p < 0.05) significantly influence teacher job performance. Teachers who received structured feedback and periodic performance evaluations demonstrated higher engagement, improved instructional quality, and increased motivation. The Bayesian factor inference confirmed the robustness of these findings. Pearson correlation analysis revealed a moderate positive correlation between output monitoring (r = 0.521) and teacher job performance and a weak to moderate correlation for output review (r = 0.321).

Conclusion

Schools should strengthen performance monitoring frameworks, establish objective and transparent evaluation criteria, and provide regular, structured feedback linked to professional development initiatives. Integrating digital performance tracking tools can enhance efficiency and transparency in teacher evaluation, ultimately improving educational outcomes.

Keywords

Teacher performance, Output monitoring, Output review, Performance evaluation, Secondary schools, Uganda

Corresponding author: Lucy Aja

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2025 Mbabazi A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Mbabazi A, Bagiwa ZL, Muhammad T and Aja L. The Role of Output Monitoring and Review on Teacher Job Performance in Secondary Schools: Evidence from Kasese District, Uganda [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2025, 14:764 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166552.1) First published: 04 Aug 2025, 14:764 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166552.1) Latest published: 04 Aug 2025, 14:764 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166552.1)

Key findings of the study

○ Output monitoring significantly enhances teacher accountability, instructional quality, and engagement, as indicated by a moderate positive contribution to teacher job performance (R² = 0.589, F = 14.071, p < 0.05).
○ Output review exerts a stronger influence on teacher job performance compared to output monitoring, accounting for a higher variance in teacher effectiveness (R² = 0.715, F = 16.648, p < 0.05).
○ Teachers who receive structured performance evaluations and regular feedback demonstrate higher levels of motivation, improved classroom management, and enhanced instructional effectiveness.
○ The hypothesis (H₀1) stating that output monitoring has no significant influence on teacher job performance was statistically rejected, confirming that structured monitoring contributes meaningfully to improving teacher effectiveness.
○ The hypothesis (H₀2) stating that output review has no significant influence on teacher job performance was also rejected, emphasizing the important role of structured performance evaluation in driving teacher productivity.
○ Bayesian inference analysis further validated that both output monitoring and review mechanisms serve as key predictors of teacher job output, reinforcing their importance in school management practices.
○ Schools that implement well-structured and transparent evaluation systems report significantly higher levels of teacher performance, leading to improved student learning outcomes.

Introduction

Teacher job performance plays a crucial role in the overall effectiveness of the education system, directly influencing student learning outcomes and institutional success.¹ Schools rely on structured performance management systems to ensure that teachers meet the required educational standards and continuously improve their instructional practices. Two critical components of teacher performance management are output monitoring and output review.² Output monitoring refers to the continuous assessment of teachers’ instructional activities, classroom engagement, and adherence to established teaching standards. While output review involves the systematic evaluation of teachers’ performance through structured feedback, appraisal reports, and performance discussions.³

Globally, performance monitoring and review have been widely recognized as essential strategies for enhancing teacher effectiveness.⁴ Countries with well-developed education systems, such as Finland, Singapore, and Canada, have established comprehensive teacher evaluation frameworks that emphasize ongoing monitoring and constructive feedback to drive professional growth.⁵ Research has shown that effective teacher monitoring enhances accountability, improves instructional quality, and fosters professional development. Similarly, output reviews have been associated with increased teacher motivation, better classroom management, and improved student performance.⁶

In Sub-Saharan Africa, many education systems face challenges in implementing robust performance appraisal mechanisms. The main reasons include limited resources, administrative inefficiencies, and lack of structured teacher evaluation policies.⁷ Studies indicate that many schools in the region lack effective performance-tracking systems, leading to inconsistencies in teacher supervision and evaluation. As a result, many teachers operate with minimal guidance, affecting their motivation and overall job effectiveness.⁸

Uganda’s education system has undergone significant expansion and reform over the past decades, including the introduction of Universal Secondary Education (USE) in 2007 to increase access to quality education.⁹ Despite these efforts, challenges such as high teacher attrition, inconsistent monitoring practices, and inadequate performance appraisal mechanisms persist, affecting the quality of teaching in secondary schools.^10,11 This has led many schools to rely on ad-hoc supervision methods, resulting in subjective assessments that lack meaningful feedback for professional growth. Additionally, teacher absenteeism, inadequate lesson preparation, and low motivation levels remain prevalent due to weak performance appraisal mechanisms. Existing research on teacher evaluation in Uganda has primarily focused on student academic performance and school leadership, with limited emphasis on the role of output monitoring and review in shaping teacher job performance.¹² Thus, there is a knowledge gap on how structured monitoring and review systems impact teacher effectiveness, classroom engagement, and instructional quality in secondary schools in Kasese District.

Kasese District, located in Western Uganda, exemplifies these challenges, as schools struggle with large class sizes, disparities in performance evaluations, and difficulties in maintaining teacher accountability.¹³ These challenges highlight the need for an effective system of output monitoring and review to enhance teacher job performance and improve educational outcomes. This study aims to investigate the impact of output monitoring and review on teacher job performance in secondary schools within Kasese District.

Methodology

Study design

This study employed a cross-sectional research design to investigate the impact of output monitoring and output review on teachers’ job performance in secondary schools in Kasese District. A cross-sectional design was selected because it allows for data collection at a single point, providing a snapshot of the current state of teacher job output regarding monitoring and review mechanisms.

Research approach

The study adopted a quantitative research approach. Integrating quantitative methodologies to help comprehensively understand the research problem.

Study area

The study was conducted in Kasese District, Uganda, an area characterized by diverse educational settings, including government-aided and private secondary schools situated in urban, semi-urban, and rural locations. The district’s educational landscape is marked by high teacher attrition, large class sizes, and disparities in performance evaluation practices, making it a suitable context for investigating the impact of output monitoring and review mechanisms.

Target population

The study targeted a population of 675 participants, comprising head teachers, deputy head teachers, directors of studies, and teachers in Kasese District. This population was selected based on their direct involvement in teaching and school administration, making them well-positioned to provide relevant information regarding the impact of output monitoring and review on teacher job performance. The distribution of the study population included 23 head teachers, 23 deputy head teachers, 23 directors of studies, and 606 teachers.

Sample size determination

The sample size was determined using Cochran’s (1977) formula, which is appropriate for large populations and ensures that the sample is representative. The final sample comprised 245 respondents, including all head teachers, deputy head teachers, and directors of studies, while teachers were selected using stratified random sampling to ensure adequate representation from different school types and locations.

Data collection tool

Data collection involved the use of a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire, designed for teachers, deputy head teachers, and directors of studies, included closed-ended questions measured on a 5-point Likert scale to capture respondents’ perceptions of output monitoring, review processes, and their impact on job performance. The structured questionnaire ensured uniformity in responses.

Validation of instrument

The research instruments underwent validity and reliability testing to ensure quality control, and several measures were taken, including content validity was established through expert review, where three education specialists evaluated the questionnaire’s relevance and clarity, with a content validity index (CVI) of ≥0.7 considered acceptable.

Reliability of instrument

A pilot study was conducted in three secondary schools that were not part of the main study to refine ambiguous questions and ensure clarity. Reliability testing was performed using Cronbach’s Alpha (≥0.7 threshold) to measure internal consistency, ensuring that the questionnaire would produce consistent results when administered to similar populations.

Hypothesis statement

This study examined the influence of structured output planning, monitoring, and review on teacher job performance in secondary schools in Kasese District. To statistically validate these relationships, the following hypotheses were tested at a 0.05 level of significance using Pearson correlation and multiple regression analysis:

○ H₀₁: Output monitoring has no significant effect on teachers’ job performance.
○ H₀₂: Output review does not significantly impact teachers’ job performance.

The hypotheses were assessed using SPSS version 26, with descriptive statistics used to summarize responses, correlation analysis to measure associations between variables, and regression analysis to determine the predictive strength of output monitoring and review on teacher job performance. Bayesian inference was further applied to reinforce the reliability of the statistical findings. Hypotheses were rejected or retained based on the significance values (p < 0.05) and model fit statistics.

Statistical analysis

Data were analysed using SPSS version 26, applying both descriptive and inferential statistical methods to assess the relationship between structured output planning, monitoring, and review with teacher job performance. The descriptive analysis utilised measures of central tendency, including means and standard deviations, to analyse the responses on structured output planning, monitoring, and review. Pearson correlation was employed to determine the strength and direction of relationships between the key study variables. Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to assess the predictive contribution of structured output planning, monitoring, and review to teacher job performance. Bayesian statistical techniques were used to provide additional validation for the regression models and confirm the robustness of the findings. All statistical tests were performed at a 0.05 level of significance, with assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity verified before conducting inferential analyses.

Results

The results in Table 1 indicate a very high level of agreement among teachers regarding the effectiveness of output monitoring in secondary schools in Kasese District, with a pooled mean of 4.225. The majority of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that school management employs acceptable monitoring procedures (M = 4.48) and that supervision techniques are generally comfortable (M = 3.93). Teachers expressed comfort with their supervisors’ appraisal style (M = 4.22), and most acknowledged that monitoring has improved their teaching activities (M = 4.08). Lesson supervision was identified as a commonly used method for monitoring (M = 4.14). Commitment to work was perceived as a motivating factor (M = 4.18), and objectivity in monitoring activities was well-rated (M = 4.44). Additionally, teachers expressed high satisfaction with the monitoring methods used by their supervisors (M = 4.33). Results show that structured output monitoring has a moderately positive effect on teachers’ job output (R² = 0.589, F = 14.071, p < 0.05). A majority of teachers (pooled mean = 4.225) agreed that regular monitoring through lesson supervision, attendance tracking, and performance appraisals improved their instructional effectiveness.

Table 1. Descriptive statistical analysis for output monitoring in teachers' job output in secondary schools in Kasese district.

#	Statement	SA (5)	A (4)	N (3)	D (2)	SD (1)	$Mean (\bar{x})$	$Standard deviation (s)$
OPM1	The management of my school utilizes acceptable monitoring procedures to carry out monitoring of me.	$N = 59$ $(24 %)$	$N = 169$ $(68.9 %)$	$N = 8$ $(3.3 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	4.48	0.585
OPM2	I am very much comfortable with the technique used in supervising me during …	$N = 93$ $(37.8 %)$	$N = 133$ $(54.4 %)$	$N = 17$ $(7.1 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	3.93	0.844
OPM3	I am comfortable with the style of my supervisor, as he appraises my job output.	$N = 101$ $(41.4 %)$	$N = 109$ $(44.4 %)$	$N = 36$ $(13.3 %)$	$N = 2$ $(3.7 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	4.22	0.719
OPM4	The process of monitoring my output has helped me improve my teaching activities.	$N = 136$ $(55.6 %)$	$N = 73$ $(29.9 %)$	$N = 34$ $(13.9 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	4.08	0.737
OPM5	Most time, my supervisor employs the lesson supervision method to monitor my job output.	$N = 97$ $(39.4 %)$	$N = 111$ $(45.2 %)$	$N = 36$ $(14.1 %)$	$N = 2$ $(0.8 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	4.14	0.804
OPM6	Using a commitment to work as a yardstick of output monitoring encourages me to do more.	$N = 97$ $(39.8 %)$	$N = 118$ $(48.1 %)$	$N = 27$ $(11.2 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	4.18	0.778
OPM7	All monitoring activities are done based on the principle of objectivity regarding the set targets and goals of the school.	$N = 125$ $(51.1 %)$	$N = 100$ $(40.7 %)$	$N = 18$ $(7.5 %)$	$N = 2$ $(0.8 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	4.44	0.598
OPM8	I am very pleased with the method of monitoring my supervisor …. materials.	$N = 142$ $(58.1 %)$	$N = 100$ $(40.7 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	4.33	0.561
	Pooled mean	$N = 106$ $(43.3 %)$	$N = 114$ $(46.6 %)$	$N = 22$ $(8.8 %)$	$N = 3$ $(1.3 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	4.225

The results of Table 2 show a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.521) between teachers’ job output and output planning. Pearson correlation analysis (r = 0.521) confirmed a moderate positive association between output monitoring and teachers’ job performance, highlighting that objective and structured monitoring enhances accountability and motivation.

Table 2. Bayes’ factor inference on pairwise correlations.

		Teachers job output	Output planning
Teachers Job Output	Pearson Correlation	1	0.521
	^aBayes Factor		0.00
	$N$	245	245
Output Planning	Pearson Correlation	0.521	1
	^aBayes Factor	0.00
	$N$	245	245

a Bayes factor: Inference on Pairwise Correlations.

The regression analysis for this study in Table 3 shows that output monitoring variables moderately contribute 58.9% (R² = 0.589) towards the success of the teacher’s job output. Where $R^{2} = 0.589$ , $F = 14.041$ and the standard error of the estimate $Se = 0.1649$ . The F-value (14.071) confirms the statistical significance of this relationship (F > 3.00)

Table 3. Summary of regression diagnostics.

Bayes factor	$R$	$R Square$	$Adjusted R Square$	Standard error of estimate	$F$
4.251E + 16	0.730	0.589	0.553	0.1649	14.071

The results in Table 4 show that the influence of output review on teachers’ job output in secondary schools in Kasese District was assessed, with results indicating a very high level of agreement (Mean = 4.23). A majority (92%) of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that output reviews provided constructive feedback, improvement opportunities, and alignment with performance standards. The highest-rated statements included constructive feedback from supervisors (Mean = 4.48) and agreement on action plans during reviews (Mean = 4.44).

Table 4. Descriptive statistical analysis on the influence of output review on teachers’ job output in secondary schools in Kasese district.

#	Statement	SA (5)	A (4)	N (3)	D (2)	SD (1)	$Mean (\bar{x})$	$Standard deviation (s)$
OPR1	I have received several opportunities from my superiors after reviewing my performance output.	$N = 80$ $(32.8 %)$	$N = 145$ $(59.3 %)$	$N = 17$ $(7.1 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	4.48	0.585
OPR2	My superiors always review my output in line with the set performance standards of the school.	$N = 100$ $(40.7 %)$	$N = 127$ $(51.9 %)$	$N = 17$ $(7.1 %)$	$N = 0$ $(0.0 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	3.93	0.844
OPR3	I always ensure strict compliance with the recommendations from previous output reviews.	$N = 140$ $(57.3 %)$	$N = 100$ $(40.7 %)$	$N = 2$ $(0.8 %)$	$N = 2$ $(0.8 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	4.22	0.719
OPR4	In terms of feedback, I receive constructive remarks from my supervisor about my task output.	$N = 161$ $(65.6 %)$	$N = 65$ $(26.6 %)$	$N = 16$ $(6.6 %)$	$N = 2$ $(0.8 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	4.08	0.737
OPR5	Regular opportunities to review my output are always given by my superiors.	$N = 89$ $(36.5 %)$	$N = 152$ $(62.2 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	4.14	0.804
OPR6	The report on my output review is used by me to improve in areas that need improvement.	$N = 97$ $(39.4 %)$	$N = 127$ $(51.9 %)$	$N = 16$ $(6.6 %)$	$N = 4$ $(1.6 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	4.18	0.778
OPR7	During meetings for output review, there is always an agreement between me and my supervisors on action plans affecting my output.	$N = 103$ $(41.9 %)$	$N = 115$ $(46.9 %)$	$N = 25$ $(10.4 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	4.44	0.598
OPR8	I feel much more comfortable with the output review process in my school.	$N = 140$ $(57.3 %)$	$N = 81$ $(33.2 %)$	$N = 2$ $(0.8 %)$	$N = 20$ $(8.3 %)$	$N = 1$ $(0.4 %)$	4.33	0.561
OPR9	I’m comfortable with the output review process in my school.	$N = 169$ $(169.9 %)$	$N = 38$ $(15.4 %)$	$N = 2$ $(0.8 %)$	$N = 3$ $(1.2 %)$	$N = 34$ $(13.7 %)$	4.33	0.561
	Average	$N = 120$ $(48.9 %)$	$N = 106$ $(43.1 %)$	$N = 11$ $(4.52 %)$	$N = 4$ $(1.6 %)$	$N = 5$ $(1.9 %)$	4.225

Table 5 revealed regression analysis for the study, where the influence output review variable contributes 71.5% to Teachers’ Job Output in Secondary Schools in Kasese District. This is shown by the results in Table 4.10, where $R^{2} = 0.715$ , $F = 16.648,$ and the standard error of the estimate $Se = 0.2524$ . The descriptive analysis, which yielded a pooled mean of $\bar{x} = 4.225,$ is as high as the legend for Table 4. Regression analysis revealed an R² $= 0.715$ , suggesting a strong positive relationship between the influence of output review on teachers’ job output. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected based on the value of regression $R^{2}$ $F value$ given as $F = 16.648$ in Table 6, since $F = 16.548 > F_{0.05,2, 242} = 3.00$ . This means that output reviewing has a significant influence on teachers’ job output in secondary schools in Kasese District, where $R^{2} = 0.715$ . A large portion of the changes in teacher output can be attributed to the process of reviewing their performance. The contradiction of the hypothesis, which was the stated hypothesis, “Output reviewing has no significant influence on teachers’ job output in secondary schools in Kasese District,” is rejected.

Table 5. Summary of regression diagnostics.

Bayes factor	$R$	$R Square$	$Adjusted R Square$	Standard error of estimate	$F$
2.569E + 42	0.846	0.715	0.685	0.2524	16.648

Table 6. Bayes’ factor inference on pairwise correlations.

		Teachers job output	Output reviewing
Teachers Job Output	Pearson Correlation	1	0.321
	^aBayes Factor		0.00
	$N$	245	245
Output Reviewing	Pearson Correlation	0.321	1
	^aBayes Factor	0.00
	$N$	245	245

a Bayes factor: Inference on Pairwise Correlations.

A Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.321 indicates a weak-to-moderate positive association between teacher job output and output review, as shown in Table 6. Using Bayesian inference, the Bayes factor shows weak to moderate evidence in favour of the alternative hypothesis ( $H_{01}$ : a exists relationship), even though the correlation is low.

Discussion

The study assessed the role of output monitoring and output review in influencing teachers’ job output in secondary schools in Kasese District. The findings indicate that both factors contribute significantly to teachers’ job performance, with output review exerting a greater impact than output monitoring. The findings on output monitoring revealed a very high level of agreement among teachers regarding the effectiveness of monitoring practices, with a pooled mean of 4.225 as depicted in Table 1. The majority of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that school management employs acceptable monitoring procedures (M = 4.48), that supervision techniques are comfortable (M = 3.93), and that monitoring has improved their teaching activities (M = 4.08). The objectivity of monitoring activities was highly rated (M = 4.44), and teachers expressed high satisfaction with the monitoring methods used by their supervisors (M = 4.33). The positive perception of monitoring procedures among teachers may be attributed to structured and transparent supervision practices that promote fairness, accountability, and professional growth.¹⁴ The high ratings suggest that school management employs objective and supportive monitoring methods, creating a conducive work environment where teachers feel valued and motivated. Additionally, clear expectations, regular feedback, and constructive evaluations likely contribute to improved teaching practices and job satisfaction.¹⁵ The result from this study supports other findings by,^16,17 who emphasized that transparent and structured supervision fosters teacher engagement and improves instructional quality.

Statistically, the study revealed a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.521) between output monitoring and teachers’ job output as presented in Table 2. The regression analysis in Table 3 further confirmed that output monitoring contributes 58.9% (R² = 0.589) to teachers’ job output, with a statistically significant F-value (F = 14.071). These results indicate that schools with structured and objective monitoring frameworks have better teacher productivity, supporting previous studies by,^3,4 which found that monitoring mechanisms enhance teachers’ accountability and instructional effectiveness. However, despite its positive impact, output monitoring alone does not fully explain variations in teacher performance, suggesting the need for additional interventions such as structured performance feedback and professional development opportunities.¹⁸ Besides, the findings on output review indicate a stronger impact on teachers’ job output compared to output monitoring. The descriptive analysis revealed a very high level of agreement (pooled mean = 4.23), as depicted in Table 4. 92% of teachers agree or strongly agree that output reviews provide constructive feedback, improvement opportunities, and alignment with performance standards. The highest-rated statements included constructive feedback from supervisors (M = 4.48) and agreement on action plans during reviews (M = 4.44), demonstrating that teachers highly value structured performance evaluations as a tool for continuous improvement. These findings align with research by,^19,20 which showed that teachers who receive regular, constructive performance reviews exhibit greater instructional effectiveness and student engagement. The stronger impact of output review on teacher job performance is likely due to its structured and constructive nature, which provides clear feedback, actionable improvement strategies, and alignment with performance standards.²¹ Teachers highly value supervisory feedback and collaborative action plans as they promote professional growth, accountability, and instructional effectiveness. Regular performance reviews enhance motivation, refine teaching methods, and improve student engagement, making them more effective than passive monitoring.²²

Moreover, regression analysis presented in Table 5 revealed that output review accounts for 71.5% (R² = 0.715) of the variance in teachers’ job output, with a statistically significant F-value (F = 16.648). The Pearson correlation analysis presented in Table 6 showed a moderate positive relationship (r = 0.321) between output review and teachers’ job output, suggesting that while the correlation is not very strong, output review plays a substantial role in explaining teacher performance.²³ These results reinforce previous research by,^19,24 which found that structured and data-driven performance evaluations significantly improve teaching quality and student outcomes among secondary school students. Furthermore, comparing the two factors, output review has a greater influence on teachers’ job output (R² = 0.715) compared to output monitoring (R² = 0.589). This suggests that while monitoring provides a framework for assessing teacher performance, structured performance reviews are more critical for driving improvements in teaching effectiveness.^25,26 The statistically significant F-values (F = 16.648 for output review and F = 14.071 for output monitoring) indicate that both factors play a vital role in shaping teacher productivity, but output review has a more substantial impact. These findings suggest that school administrators should prioritize structured performance reviews over mere monitoring activities.²⁷ While monitoring helps track teacher performance, the actual process of reviewing and providing feedback is what drives improvements in instructional practices. Schools should consider the following strategies:

○ Implement regular performance review meetings where teachers and supervisors collaboratively discuss performance outcomes and improvement plans, ensuring that feedback is specific, constructive, and actionable, allowing teachers to use it for continuous improvement.
○ Link performance reviews with personalized professional development programs, ensuring that identified gaps are addressed through targeted training initiatives.
○ Incorporate self-assessments and peer evaluations into the review process to enhance engagement and accountability.

These recommendations align with the best practices in teacher evaluation outlined by,^28–30 who emphasized that teachers who receive consistent, high-quality feedback demonstrate better instructional outcomes and student achievement. The null hypothesis (H₀: Output monitoring and review have no significant influence on teachers’ job output in secondary schools in Kasese District) was tested. The findings indicate that output monitoring has a moderate effect on job output (R² = 0.589, F = 14.071, p < 0.05), leading to a partial rejection of the null hypothesis. However, the output review exhibited a stronger influence (R² = 0.715, F = 16.648, p < 0.05), resulting in a full rejection of the null hypothesis. These results suggest that while monitoring is essential for tracking performance, structured output reviews provide a more robust mechanism for improving teacher effectiveness.

Conclusion

This study establishes that structured output monitoring and review play a significant role in enhancing teachers’ job performance in secondary schools in Kasese District. The findings confirm that while monitoring provides a framework for assessing performance, output review is more influential in driving improvements in teaching effectiveness. Given this, schools should integrate structured performance evaluations with clear feedback mechanisms to enhance teacher accountability and instructional quality. To improve teacher performance, education policymakers and school administrators should prioritize structured output reviews, linking them to professional development and targeted interventions. Additionally, adopting objective and transparent evaluation criteria can enhance teachers’ motivation and retention. Strengthening these mechanisms will ensure a sustainable and effective teacher evaluation system, ultimately improving student learning outcomes.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are proposed to enhance teacher job performance in secondary schools in Kasese District:

○ Schools should establish consistent and transparent monitoring frameworks to track teacher performance objectively. Regular performance reviews should be institutionalized, ensuring teachers receive constructive and actionable feedback for continuous improvement.
○ Performance evaluations should be linked to personalized training programs, allowing teachers to address specific areas of improvement. Schools should organize periodic capacity-building workshops focused on lesson planning, instructional strategies, and classroom management.
○ Supervisors should provide specific, data-driven, and timely feedback to help teachers improve their instructional practices. Peer reviews and self-assessment tools should be incorporated to encourage teacher engagement and self-improvement.
○ Schools should implement clear and objective evaluation criteria to prevent bias and subjectivity in teacher assessments. Mechanisms should be introduced to minimize the administrative burden on teachers during monitoring and review processes.
○ Policymakers should introduce incentives for teacher retention, such as financial rewards, career progression opportunities, and improved working conditions. Schools in rural areas should receive additional support in the form of housing incentives and professional development opportunities to address teacher shortages.
○ Schools should adopt digital tools for efficient and objective teacher performance tracking, enabling data-driven evaluations.

By implementing these recommendations, schools and policymakers can strengthen output monitoring and review systems, ultimately improving teacher performance and student learning outcomes in secondary schools in Kasese District.

Ethical considerations

The research team was given an introductory letter, and the collected data ensured the confidentiality of the information obtained. The data collected was used for the purpose for which it was collected. The researchers had to get the consent of the respondents and maintain their confidentiality. The names and personal identities of participants were not put on the instrument. The researchers received approval on 12/06/2024 with the approval no as KIU-2024-309, from the Research Ethical Review Committee of Kampala International University and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology, UNCST.

Informed consent to participate

All head teachers, deputy head teachers, directors of studies, and teachers in Kasese District who participated in this study provided their consent by signing a written informed consent form. We confirmed that all the participants signed the informed consent form. The study did not hurt the head teachers, deputy head teachers, directors of studies, teachers, or the schools.

Data availability declaration

The authors declared the availability of the data used in the research. The data was deposited in the OSF database with the link: https://osf.io/skcj6/. Also included in the data availability is the DOI, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SKCJ6 (Asiati, Bagiwa, Muhammad, & Aja, 2025).³¹

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

References

1. Podgursky MJ: Teacher Recruitment and Retention in Public and Private Schools Author (s): Dale Ballou and Michael Podgursky. Wiley on behalf of Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Stable; 2017 (June 1998); 6688. Reference Source
2. Okoth AA, Florah OM: Influence of Performance Appraisal on Motivation of Public Secondary School Teachers in Gem-Sub County, Kenya. Am. Int. J. Contemp. Res. 2019; 9(4): 39–49.
3. Mugizi W, Otaka R, Rwothumio J: Performance Management and Teacher Effectiveness in Primary Schools in Bulaago Coordinating Centre, Bulambuli District, Uganda. Int. J. Educ. 2023; 6(2): 122–140.
4. Atwebembeire J, Musaazi JCS, Sentamu PN, et al.: Performance monitoring and quality teaching and research in Private Universities in Uganda. Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res. 2018; 17(10): 70–85. Publisher Full Text
5. Taqa AR: Comparative Analysis of Education Systems: Lessons from Leading Nations Comparative Analysis of Education Systems. Lessons from Leading Nations. 2025; (February).
6. Hammond LD, Hyler ME, Gardner M: Effective Teacher Professional Development in the evolution of human and non-human animals. Learn Policy Inst. 2017; (June).
7. Zickafoose A, Ilesanmi O, Diaz-Manrique M, et al.: Barriers and Challenges Affecting Quality Education (Sustainable Development Goal #4) in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2030. Sustain. 2024; 16(7).
8. Malunda PN: Teacher support systems and quality of pedagogical practices in Uganda’s public secondary schools. African J. Gov. Dev. 2019; 8(2): 37–54. Reference Source
9. Huylebroeck L, Kristof T: Universal Secondary Education (USE) in Uganda: blessing or curse ? The impact of USE on educational attainment and performance. Article to be cited as: Huylebroeck, Lisa and Kristof Titeca ‘Universal Secondary Education (USE)’ in Uganda: blessing. Educ. employers. 2015; 2(1): 89–100.
10. Asiati M: Evaluation of Teachers’ Job Performance, Appraisal and Motivation in some selected Secondary Schools in Kampala, Uganda. IAA J. Educ. 2023; 9(1): 11–16. Reference Source
11. Glassow LN: Inequitable teacher turnover and performance-based appraisal: a global trend? J. Educ. Policy. 2024; 39(2): 276–302. Publisher Full Text
12. Julius A: Teachers’ Absenteeism And Students’ Academic Performance In Uganda. A Case Study Of Busiro-Sub County Wakiso District.2024; (November).
13. Masereka S, Ssendagi M, District K, et al.: 2024; 5(3): Page 1.
14. Altınok V: The Effect of Supervision in Education on Teacher Quality and Performance. Int. J. Psychol. Educ. Stud. 2024; 11(3): 230–246.
15. Mugyenyi E, Asiimwe S, Apiku C: Relationship between school working environment and teachers’ motivation in private secondary schools of Wakiso district. Uganda IJARIIE. 2023; 9(2).
16. Okedi CO, Ssendagi M: SJ Education Research Africa.2024; 1: 1.
17. Walid A, Sutiah S, Shodiq J: Effect of Effective Supervision on Improving the Quality of Education in the Era of Disruption. Int. J. Multidiscip. 2024; 1(2): 70–76. Publisher Full Text
18. Asiati BZL, Mulegi T, Rahim A, et al.: Enhancing Teachers’ Job Performance through Objective Performance Appraisal and Motivation: A Review. IAA J. Educ. 2024; 10(2): 47–54. Publisher Full Text
19. Sekiswa P, Matovu K: Teachers’ Appraisal System And Students’ Academic Performance In Secondary Schools Of Goma Sub County Mukono District.2024; (November).
20. Lydia Osarfo Achaa: Performance Appraisal System and Teacher Effectiveness in Public Basic Schools in Ghana. Int. J. Manag. Entrep. Res. 2023; 5(6): 386–404. Publisher Full Text
21. David SA: The Impact of School Leaders ‘Feedback in Enhancing Teachers’ Performance towards School Improvement: A Single Case Study among Teachers in a Private School in Dubai.2024; (January).
22. Rebecca N, Lukman AN: The influence of constructive feedback on teacher job satisfaction in Rwamwanja refugee settlement primary schools in Kamwenge District.2024; 3(1): 541–548.
23. Siddique A, Khanum B, Haleem B: Work Engagement and Job Performance of Teachers: A Correlational Study. Glob. Educ. Stud. Rev. 2022; VII(I): 502–516. Publisher Full Text
24. Bonney EA, Amoah DF, Micah SA, et al.: The Relationship between the Quality of Teachers and Pupils Academic Performance in the STMA Junior High Schools of the Western Region of Ghana. J. Educ. Pract. 2015; 6(24): 13.
25. Fauzi I, Johan AN: Reviewing Teacher Effectiveness in Improving Student Learning. EBONY J. English Lang. Teaching, Linguist. Lit. 2024; 4(1): 39–49. Publisher Full Text
26. Ado AB: Evaluation of Teacher Performance in Schools. Northwest J. Educ. Stud. 2017; 2(1): 103–113.
27. Murillo A: Formación de docentes en universidades latinoamericanas. Form docentes en universidades Latinoam. 2019;(October); 10–33.
28. Thapa A, Cohen J, Guffey S, et al.: Teacher Quality, Instructional Quality and Student Outcomes. Relationships Across Countries, Cohorts and Time (A Series of In-depth Analyses Based on Data of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)). Comp. Educ. 2016; 52: 427–448.
29. Looney J: Developing high-quality teachers: Teacher evaluation for improvement. Eur. J. Educ. 2011; 46(4): 440–455. Publisher Full Text
30. Ontario Ministry of Education: Teacher Performance Appraisal: Technical Requirements Manual. Appraisal. 2010. Reference Source
31. Asiati E, Bagiwa ZL, Muhammad T, et al.: The Role of Output Monitoring and Review on Teacher Job Performance in Secondary Schools: Evidence from Kasese District, Uganda. Data set. 2025, June 20. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 04 Aug 2025

Author details Author details

¹ Département of Foundations, Faculty of Education, Kampala International University - Western Campus, Bushenyi, Western Region, Uganda
² Department of Science Education, Faculty of Education, Kampala International University - Western Campus, Bushenyi, Western Region, Uganda

Asiati Mbabazi
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Zulaiha Lawal Bagiwa
Roles: Supervision

Tukur Muhammad
Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Lucy Aja
Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 04 Aug 2025, 14:764

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166552.1

Copyright

© 2025 Mbabazi A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Mbabazi A, Bagiwa ZL, Muhammad T and Aja L. The Role of Output Monitoring and Review on Teacher Job Performance in Secondary Schools: Evidence from Kasese District, Uganda [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2025, 14:764 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166552.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 04 Aug 2025

Views

4

Reviewer Report 05 Sep 2025

Muhammad Imran, Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science & Technology, Sindh, Pakistan

Nazir Ahmed, Teacher Education, Federal Urdu University of Arts Sciences and Technology, Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183555.r403086

Dear, editor overall quality of the article "The Role of Output Monitoring and Review on Teacher Job Performance in Secondary Schools: Evidence from Kasese District, Uganda" accepted for further process of indexing. Introduction, Literature, methodology and results dections are well ... Continue reading

Dear, editor overall quality of the article "The Role of Output Monitoring and Review on Teacher Job Performance in Secondary Schools: Evidence from Kasese District, Uganda" accepted for further process of indexing. Introduction, Literature, methodology and results dections are well explained. Need to improve Discussion part if 2nd reviewer also suggested improvement, otherwise accepted as it is.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Educational Leadership and Management

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

4

Reviewer Report 05 Sep 2025

Stefanus Christian Relmasira, Faculty of Education, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia

Yari Dwikurnaningsih, Faculty of Education, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183555.r403085

1. Summary of the Article
This article investigates the impact of output monitoring and output review on the job performance of secondary school teachers in Kasese District, Uganda. The study addresses a critical issue within the Sub-Saharan African educational ... Continue reading

1. Summary of the Article
This article investigates the impact of output monitoring and output review on the job performance of secondary school teachers in Kasese District, Uganda. The study addresses a critical issue within the Sub-Saharan African educational context, directly linking teacher performance management to the quality of student learning outcomes. Using a quantitative approach with a sample of 245 respondents, the study employs Pearson correlation, linear regression, and Bayesian inference to analyze the data. The findings reveal that both output monitoring and output review significantly and positively influence teacher job performance, with output review having a comparatively stronger impact. The paper concludes by offering several concrete recommendations for policymakers and school administrators, such as digitizing teacher evaluations and linking performance reviews to professional development.
2. Strengths of the Article
The manuscript has several notable strengths that contribute to the field of educational management:

High Relevance and Timeliness: The research addresses a topic of significant importance. The effectiveness of teacher performance management is a crucial determinant of educational quality, making this study highly relevant for educators, administrators, and policymakers, particularly in developing countries.
Methodological Analysis: The use of statistical approach, including linear regression, Pearson correlation, and Bayesian inference to test for robustness, strengthens the validity and reliability of the findings.
Validated Instrumentation: The credibility of the collected data is well-supported by the use of validated research instruments. The authors report a Content Validity Index (CVI) of ≥0.7 and a Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test (≥0.7) following a pilot study, ensuring the quality of the measurement tool.
Actionable and Practical Recommendations: The article proposes clear, concrete, and applicable recommendations. Suggestions such as digitizing teacher evaluations, providing review-based training, and offering incentives are directly relevant to policy and can be implemented to improve educational systems.

3. Areas for Improvement
While the study is fundamentally sound, several areas could be improved to enhance its clarity, scientific rigor, and impact. The following constructive suggestions are based on the provided draft review:
1. Inconsistency in Research Design Description

Issue: There is a significant discrepancy between the abstract and the methodology section. The abstract states that the study "integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches" and used "interview guides." However, the methodology section describes the research approach as solely "quantitative" and only details the use of a structured questionnaire. No qualitative data from interviews is presented or discussed in the results.
Suggestion: The authors must clarify this inconsistency. If a mixed-methods design was indeed used, the qualitative findings should be elaborated upon narratively (e.g., through specific case studies or thematic analysis of interview data) to provide a richer context. If the study was purely quantitative, all references to a qualitative approach and interview guides must be removed from the abstract to accurately reflect the study's design.

2. Lack of Detail in Instrumentation

Issue: The manuscript does not provide sufficient detail about the questionnaire itself. The specific aspects, indicators, and sample items used to measure the variables (output monitoring, output review, and teacher job performance) are not described.
Suggestion: To improve transparency and allow for replication by other researchers, the authors should include an appendix or a table that outlines the instrument's structure. This would give readers a clearer understanding of how the core concepts were operationalized.

3. Limited Sample Description and Generalizability

Issue: The paper does not provide a detailed breakdown of the final sample. While the total number of respondents (245) is mentioned, the specific number of head teachers, deputy head teachers, directors of studies, and teachers who participated is not specified.
Suggestion: The authors should include a table detailing the composition of the sample. Additionally, the authors should more explicitly acknowledge the limitations of generalizability in the discussion section, given that the study was conducted in a single district. This would provide a more nuanced understanding of the scope of the findings.

4. Conclusion
Overall, this is a valuable and well-executed study that contributes important insights into teacher performance management in Uganda. The strengths lie in its relevant topic, analysis, and practical recommendations. By addressing the points raised above—particularly the inconsistency in the stated research design and the lack of detail regarding the instrument and sample—the authors can significantly enhance the scientific quality and clarity of their manuscript.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: educational supervision, leadership, training in education, evaluation of educational program and policy

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

5

Reviewer Report 28 Aug 2025

Sehan Rifky, State Cyber Islamic University Syekh Nurjati Cirebon, Cirebon, West Java, Indonesia; Syekh-Yusuf Islamic University (Ringgold ID: 175493), Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183555.r403084

The article titled "The Role of Output Monitoring and Review on Teacher Job Performance in Secondary Schools: Evidence from Kasese District, Uganda" is clearly written and methodologically sound. The study employs a cross-sectional design, integrating appropriate quantitative analyses, including Pearson ... Continue reading

The article titled "The Role of Output Monitoring and Review on Teacher Job Performance in Secondary Schools: Evidence from Kasese District, Uganda" is clearly written and methodologically sound. The study employs a cross-sectional design, integrating appropriate quantitative analyses, including Pearson correlation, regression, and Bayesian inference.
The article presents a well-structured narrative, supported by recent and relevant literature. The methodology is detailed, including sample design, instrument validation, and ethical considerations. All source data are openly available, ensuring transparency and replicability.
Summary:
The study explores the influence of output monitoring and review on teacher performance in Kasese District, Uganda. Findings reveal that while both factors significantly impact performance, output review (R² = 0.715) exerts a greater influence than monitoring (R² = 0.589). Teachers who receive structured feedback show higher motivation, instructional quality, and engagement.
Constructive Feedback:
While most elements are solid, a few areas require clarification:

In the hypothesis section, “output planning” is mentioned but not analyzed in the results. Clarify its role or remove it for consistency.
Terms like “performance appraisal” and “output review” are used interchangeably; authors should define whether these are conceptually distinct or the same.
The explanation of Bayesian inference would benefit from a brief interpretation of the Bayes factor values reported.

These minor revisions would further strengthen the article's scientific rigor and clarity.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Educational Leadership and Policy | Teacher Performance Evaluation | Public Sector Management | Educational Administration | Research Assessment Methodologies

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 04 Aug 2025

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 1 04 Aug 25	read	read	read

Sehan Rifky, State Cyber Islamic University Syekh Nurjati Cirebon, Cirebon, Indonesia; Syekh-Yusuf Islamic University (Ringgold ID: 175493), Tangerang, Indonesia
Stefanus Christian Relmasira, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga, Indonesia

Yari Dwikurnaningsih, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga, Indonesia
Muhammad Imran, Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science & Technology, Sindh, Pakistan

Nazir Ahmed, Federal Urdu University of Arts Sciences and Technology, Karachi, Pakistan

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

4 Views

05 Sep 2025 | for Version 1

Muhammad Imran, Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science & Technology, Sindh, Pakistan

Nazir Ahmed, Teacher Education, Federal Urdu University of Arts Sciences and Technology, Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan

4 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Dear, editor overall quality of the article "The Role of Output Monitoring and Review on Teacher Job Performance in Secondary Schools: Evidence from Kasese District, Uganda" accepted for further process of indexing. Introduction, Literature, methodology and results dections are well explained. Need to improve Discussion part if 2nd reviewer also suggested improvement, otherwise accepted as it is.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Educational Leadership and Management

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

4 Views

05 Sep 2025 | for Version 1

Stefanus Christian Relmasira, Faculty of Education, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia

Yari Dwikurnaningsih, Faculty of Education, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia

4 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

1. Summary of the Article
This article investigates the impact of output monitoring and output review on the job performance of secondary school teachers in Kasese District, Uganda. The study addresses a critical issue within the Sub-Saharan African educational context, directly linking teacher performance management to the quality of student learning outcomes. Using a quantitative approach with a sample of 245 respondents, the study employs Pearson correlation, linear regression, and Bayesian inference to analyze the data. The findings reveal that both output monitoring and output review significantly and positively influence teacher job performance, with output review having a comparatively stronger impact. The paper concludes by offering several concrete recommendations for policymakers and school administrators, such as digitizing teacher evaluations and linking performance reviews to professional development.
2. Strengths of the Article
The manuscript has several notable strengths that contribute to the field of educational management:

High Relevance and Timeliness: The research addresses a topic of significant importance. The effectiveness of teacher performance management is a crucial determinant of educational quality, making this study highly relevant for educators, administrators, and policymakers, particularly in developing countries.
Methodological Analysis: The use of statistical approach, including linear regression, Pearson correlation, and Bayesian inference to test for robustness, strengthens the validity and reliability of the findings.
Validated Instrumentation: The credibility of the collected data is well-supported by the use of validated research instruments. The authors report a Content Validity Index (CVI) of ≥0.7 and a Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test (≥0.7) following a pilot study, ensuring the quality of the measurement tool.
Actionable and Practical Recommendations: The article proposes clear, concrete, and applicable recommendations. Suggestions such as digitizing teacher evaluations, providing review-based training, and offering incentives are directly relevant to policy and can be implemented to improve educational systems.

3. Areas for Improvement
While the study is fundamentally sound, several areas could be improved to enhance its clarity, scientific rigor, and impact. The following constructive suggestions are based on the provided draft review:
1. Inconsistency in Research Design Description

Issue: There is a significant discrepancy between the abstract and the methodology section. The abstract states that the study "integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches" and used "interview guides." However, the methodology section describes the research approach as solely "quantitative" and only details the use of a structured questionnaire. No qualitative data from interviews is presented or discussed in the results.
Suggestion: The authors must clarify this inconsistency. If a mixed-methods design was indeed used, the qualitative findings should be elaborated upon narratively (e.g., through specific case studies or thematic analysis of interview data) to provide a richer context. If the study was purely quantitative, all references to a qualitative approach and interview guides must be removed from the abstract to accurately reflect the study's design.

2. Lack of Detail in Instrumentation

Issue: The manuscript does not provide sufficient detail about the questionnaire itself. The specific aspects, indicators, and sample items used to measure the variables (output monitoring, output review, and teacher job performance) are not described.
Suggestion: To improve transparency and allow for replication by other researchers, the authors should include an appendix or a table that outlines the instrument's structure. This would give readers a clearer understanding of how the core concepts were operationalized.

3. Limited Sample Description and Generalizability

Issue: The paper does not provide a detailed breakdown of the final sample. While the total number of respondents (245) is mentioned, the specific number of head teachers, deputy head teachers, directors of studies, and teachers who participated is not specified.
Suggestion: The authors should include a table detailing the composition of the sample. Additionally, the authors should more explicitly acknowledge the limitations of generalizability in the discussion section, given that the study was conducted in a single district. This would provide a more nuanced understanding of the scope of the findings.

4. Conclusion
Overall, this is a valuable and well-executed study that contributes important insights into teacher performance management in Uganda. The strengths lie in its relevant topic, analysis, and practical recommendations. By addressing the points raised above—particularly the inconsistency in the stated research design and the lack of detail regarding the instrument and sample—the authors can significantly enhance the scientific quality and clarity of their manuscript.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

educational supervision, leadership, training in education, evaluation of educational program and policy

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

5 Views

28 Aug 2025 | for Version 1

Sehan Rifky, State Cyber Islamic University Syekh Nurjati Cirebon, Cirebon, West Java, Indonesia; Syekh-Yusuf Islamic University (Ringgold ID: 175493), Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia

5 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

The article titled "The Role of Output Monitoring and Review on Teacher Job Performance in Secondary Schools: Evidence from Kasese District, Uganda" is clearly written and methodologically sound. The study employs a cross-sectional design, integrating appropriate quantitative analyses, including Pearson correlation, regression, and Bayesian inference.
The article presents a well-structured narrative, supported by recent and relevant literature. The methodology is detailed, including sample design, instrument validation, and ethical considerations. All source data are openly available, ensuring transparency and replicability.
Summary:
The study explores the influence of output monitoring and review on teacher performance in Kasese District, Uganda. Findings reveal that while both factors significantly impact performance, output review (R² = 0.715) exerts a greater influence than monitoring (R² = 0.589). Teachers who receive structured feedback show higher motivation, instructional quality, and engagement.
Constructive Feedback:
While most elements are solid, a few areas require clarification:

In the hypothesis section, “output planning” is mentioned but not analyzed in the results. Clarify its role or remove it for consistency.
Terms like “performance appraisal” and “output review” are used interchangeably; authors should define whether these are conceptually distinct or the same.
The explanation of Bayesian inference would benefit from a brief interpretation of the Bayes factor values reported.

These minor revisions would further strengthen the article's scientific rigor and clarity.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Educational Leadership and Policy | Teacher Performance Evaluation | Public Sector Management | Educational Administration | Research Assessment Methodologies

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Podgursky MJ: Teacher Recruitment and Retention in Public and Private Schools Author (s): Dale Ballou and Michael Podgursky. Wiley on behalf of Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Stable; 2017 (June 1998); 6688. Reference Source

[2] 2. Okoth AA, Florah OM: Influence of Performance Appraisal on Motivation of Public Secondary School Teachers in Gem-Sub County, Kenya. Am. Int. J. Contemp. Res. 2019; 9(4): 39–49.

[3] 3. Mugizi W, Otaka R, Rwothumio J: Performance Management and Teacher Effectiveness in Primary Schools in Bulaago Coordinating Centre, Bulambuli District, Uganda. Int. J. Educ. 2023; 6(2): 122–140.

[4] 4. Atwebembeire J, Musaazi JCS, Sentamu PN, et al.: Performance monitoring and quality teaching and research in Private Universities in Uganda. Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res. 2018; 17(10): 70–85. Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Taqa AR: Comparative Analysis of Education Systems: Lessons from Leading Nations Comparative Analysis of Education Systems. Lessons from Leading Nations. 2025; (February).

[6] 6. Hammond LD, Hyler ME, Gardner M: Effective Teacher Professional Development in the evolution of human and non-human animals. Learn Policy Inst. 2017; (June).

[7] 7. Zickafoose A, Ilesanmi O, Diaz-Manrique M, et al.: Barriers and Challenges Affecting Quality Education (Sustainable Development Goal #4) in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2030. Sustain. 2024; 16(7).

[8] 8. Malunda PN: Teacher support systems and quality of pedagogical practices in Uganda’s public secondary schools. African J. Gov. Dev. 2019; 8(2): 37–54. Reference Source

[9] 9. Huylebroeck L, Kristof T: Universal Secondary Education (USE) in Uganda: blessing or curse ? The impact of USE on educational attainment and performance. Article to be cited as: Huylebroeck, Lisa and Kristof Titeca ‘Universal Secondary Education (USE)’ in Uganda: blessing. Educ. employers. 2015; 2(1): 89–100.

[10] 10. Asiati M: Evaluation of Teachers’ Job Performance, Appraisal and Motivation in some selected Secondary Schools in Kampala, Uganda. IAA J. Educ. 2023; 9(1): 11–16. Reference Source

[11] 11. Glassow LN: Inequitable teacher turnover and performance-based appraisal: a global trend? J. Educ. Policy. 2024; 39(2): 276–302. Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Julius A: Teachers’ Absenteeism And Students’ Academic Performance In Uganda. A Case Study Of Busiro-Sub County Wakiso District.2024; (November).

[13] 13. Masereka S, Ssendagi M, District K, et al.: 2024; 5(3): Page 1.

[14] 14. Altınok V: The Effect of Supervision in Education on Teacher Quality and Performance. Int. J. Psychol. Educ. Stud. 2024; 11(3): 230–246.

[15] 15. Mugyenyi E, Asiimwe S, Apiku C: Relationship between school working environment and teachers’ motivation in private secondary schools of Wakiso district. Uganda IJARIIE. 2023; 9(2).

[16] 16. Okedi CO, Ssendagi M: SJ Education Research Africa.2024; 1: 1.

[17] 17. Walid A, Sutiah S, Shodiq J: Effect of Effective Supervision on Improving the Quality of Education in the Era of Disruption. Int. J. Multidiscip. 2024; 1(2): 70–76. Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Asiati BZL, Mulegi T, Rahim A, et al.: Enhancing Teachers’ Job Performance through Objective Performance Appraisal and Motivation: A Review. IAA J. Educ. 2024; 10(2): 47–54. Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Sekiswa P, Matovu K: Teachers’ Appraisal System And Students’ Academic Performance In Secondary Schools Of Goma Sub County Mukono District.2024; (November).

[20] 20. Lydia Osarfo Achaa: Performance Appraisal System and Teacher Effectiveness in Public Basic Schools in Ghana. Int. J. Manag. Entrep. Res. 2023; 5(6): 386–404. Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. David SA: The Impact of School Leaders ‘Feedback in Enhancing Teachers’ Performance towards School Improvement: A Single Case Study among Teachers in a Private School in Dubai.2024; (January).

[22] 22. Rebecca N, Lukman AN: The influence of constructive feedback on teacher job satisfaction in Rwamwanja refugee settlement primary schools in Kamwenge District.2024; 3(1): 541–548.

[23] 23. Siddique A, Khanum B, Haleem B: Work Engagement and Job Performance of Teachers: A Correlational Study. Glob. Educ. Stud. Rev. 2022; VII(I): 502–516. Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Bonney EA, Amoah DF, Micah SA, et al.: The Relationship between the Quality of Teachers and Pupils Academic Performance in the STMA Junior High Schools of the Western Region of Ghana. J. Educ. Pract. 2015; 6(24): 13.

[25] 25. Fauzi I, Johan AN: Reviewing Teacher Effectiveness in Improving Student Learning. EBONY J. English Lang. Teaching, Linguist. Lit. 2024; 4(1): 39–49. Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Ado AB: Evaluation of Teacher Performance in Schools. Northwest J. Educ. Stud. 2017; 2(1): 103–113.

[27] 27. Murillo A: Formación de docentes en universidades latinoamericanas. Form docentes en universidades Latinoam. 2019;(October); 10–33.

[28] 28. Thapa A, Cohen J, Guffey S, et al.: Teacher Quality, Instructional Quality and Student Outcomes. Relationships Across Countries, Cohorts and Time (A Series of In-depth Analyses Based on Data of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)). Comp. Educ. 2016; 52: 427–448.

[29] 29. Looney J: Developing high-quality teachers: Teacher evaluation for improvement. Eur. J. Educ. 2011; 46(4): 440–455. Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Ontario Ministry of Education: Teacher Performance Appraisal: Technical Requirements Manual. Appraisal. 2010. Reference Source

[31] 31. Asiati E, Bagiwa ZL, Muhammad T, et al.: The Role of Output Monitoring and Review on Teacher Job Performance in Secondary Schools: Evidence from Kasese District, Uganda. Data set. 2025, June 20. Publisher Full Text

The Role of Output Monitoring and Review on Teacher Job Performance in Secondary Schools: Evidence from Kasese District, Uganda

Abstract

Background

Methods

Findings

Conclusion

Keywords

Key findings of the study

Introduction

Methodology

Study design

Research approach

Study area

Target population

Sample size determination

Data collection tool

Validation of instrument

Reliability of instrument

Hypothesis statement

Statistical analysis

Results

Table 1. Descriptive statistical analysis for output monitoring in teachers' job output in secondary schools in Kasese district.

Table 2. Bayes’ factor inference on pairwise correlations.

Table 3. Summary of regression diagnostics.

Table 4. Descriptive statistical analysis on the influence of output review on teachers’ job output in secondary schools in Kasese district.

Table 5. Summary of regression diagnostics.

Table 6. Bayes’ factor inference on pairwise correlations.

Discussion

Conclusion

Recommendations

Ethical considerations

Informed consent to participate

Data availability declaration

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated