1.3.7 Performance Indicators.

This part provides the exact quantification of objectives, which shall serve
as the assessment tool that gauges whether performance is positive or negative (D.O. No. 2 s. 2015). In
the RPMS Tools, the performance indicators provide descriptions of quality and quantity given five
performance levels: 5-Outstanding, 4-Very Satisfactory, 3-Satisfactory, 2-Unsatisfactory, and 1-Poor. •
Outstanding performance means the Ratee has presented all the MOV listed under number 5. Figure
1.6. MOV (RPMS Tool for Teacher I-III) RTOT Version, April 2018 1 Major Final Outputs (MFOs) Key
Result Areas (KRAs) Objectives Means of Verification (MOV) Content Knowledge and Pedagogy 1.
Applied knowledge of content within and across curriculum teaching areas. 1. Classroom observation
tool (COT) rating sheet and/or inter-observer agreement form about knowledge of content within and
across curriculum teaching areas 2. Lesson plans/modified DLLs developed highlighting integration of
content knowledge within and across subject areas 3. Instructional materials highlighting mastery of
content and its integration in other subject areas 4. Performance tasks/test material(s) highlighting
integration of content knowledge within and across subject areas 5. Others (Please specify and provide
annotations) 2. Used a range of teaching strategies that enhance learner achievement in literacy and
numeracy skills. 1. Classroom observation tool (COT) rating sheet and/or inter-observer agreement form
about teaching strategies that enhance learner achievement in literacy and numeracy skills 2. Lesson
plans/modified DLLs used in teaching highlighting learner-centered strategies that promote literacy
and/or numeracy skills 3. Instructional materials highlighting learnercentered strategies that promote
literacy and/or numeracy skills 4. Performance tasks/test material(s) used in teaching 5. Results of
assessment used in teaching 6. Others (Please specify and provide annotations) 9 THE RPMS TOOLS FOR
TEACHERS The performance indicators of the RPMS Tools for Teachers operationalize the performance
measures, namely quality, efficiency and timeliness required by the D.O. No. 2, s. 2015. Figure 1.8 shows
the different categories of performance measures and their operational definition. • Very Satisfactory
performance means that the Ratee has presented the required MOV listed under number 4. •
Satisfactory performance means that the Ratee has presented the required MOV listed under number 3.
• Unsatisfactory performance means that the Ratee has presented any of the given MOV under number
2. • Poor performance means that the Ratee has not presented any of the acceptable MOV. Figure 1.7.
Performance Indicators of Teacher I-III RTOT Version, April 2018 1 Objectives Means of Verification
(MOV) Performance Indicators QET Outstanding (5) Very Satisfactory (4) Satisfactory (3) Unsatisfactory
(2) Poor (1) 1. Applied knowledge of content within and across curriculum teaching areas. 1. Classroom
observation tool (COT) rating sheet and/or inter-observer agreement form about knowledge of content
within and across curriculum teaching areas 2. Lesson plans/modified DLLs developed highlighting
integration of content knowledge within and across subject areas 3. Instructional materials highlighting
mastery of content and its integration in other subject areas 4. Performance tasks/test material(s)
highlighting integration of content knowledge within and across subject areas 5. Others (Please specify
and provide annotations) Quality Showed knowledge of content and its integration within and across
subject areas as shown in MOV 1 with a rating of 7 Showed knowledge of content and its integration
within and across subject areas as shown in MOV 1 with a rating of 6 Showed knowledge of content and
its integration within and across subject areas as shown in MOV 1 with a rating of 5 Showed knowledge
of content and its integration within and across subject areas as shown in MOV 1 with a rating of 4 No
acceptable evidence was shown Efficiency Submitted at least 4 lessons using MOV 1 and supported by
any 1 of the other given MOV Submitted 3 lessons using MOV 1 and supported by any 1 of the other
given MOV Submitted 2 lessons using MOV 1 and supported by any 1 of the other given MOV Submitted
any 1 of the given MOV No acceptable evidence was shown Timeliness Submitted MOV were distributed
across 4 quarters Submitted MOV were distributed across 3 quarters Submitted MOV were distributed
across 2 quarters Submitted MOV was completed in only 1 quarter No acceptable evidence was shown
2. Used a range of teaching strategies that 1. Classroom observation tool (COT) rating sheet and/or
inter-observer agreement Quality Facilitated using different teaching Facilitated using different teaching
Facilitated using different teaching Facilitated using different teaching No acceptable THE RPMS
MANUAL 10 CATEGORY DEFINITION Effectiveness/ Quality The extent to which actual performance
compares with targeted performance. The degree to which objectives are achieved and the extent to
which targeted problems are solved. In management, effectiveness relates to getting the right things
done. Efficiency The extent to which time or resources is used for the intended task or purpose.
Measures whether targets are accomplished with a minimum amount of quantity of waste, expense, or
unnecessary effort. In management, efficiency relates to doing the things right. Timeliness Measures
whether the deliverable was done on time based on the requirements of the rules and regulations,
and/or clients/stakeholders. Time-related performance indicators evaluate such things as project
completion deadlines, time management skills and other time-sensitive expectations. Figure 1.8.
Performance Measures (D.O. No. 2, s. 2015) The performance indicators need not have all three (3)
categories. Some performance may only be rated on quality and efficiency, some on quality and
timeliness and others on efficiency only. Figure 1.9 illustrates how the performance measures are
embedded in the performance indicators of the RPMS Tools. 11 THE RPMS TOOLS FOR TEACHERS Figure
1.9. Performance Indicators of RPMS Tool for Master Teacher I-IV with QET RTOT Version, April 2018 1
Objectives Means of Verification (MOV) Performance Indicators QET Outstanding (5) Very Satisfactory
(4) Satisfactory (3) Unsatisfactory (2) Poor (1) 1. Modeled effective applications of content knowledge
within and across curriculum teaching areas. 1. Classroom observation tool (COT) rating sheet and/or
interobserver agreement form about effective applications of content knowledge within and across
curriculum teaching areas 2. Lesson plans/modified DLLs used in demonstration teaching highlighting
integration of content knowledge within and across subject areas 3. Instructional materials developed
highlighting effective application of content knowledge within and across subject areas 4. Performance
tasks/test material(s) used in demonstration teaching highlighting integration of content knowledge
within and across subject areas 5. Results of assessment used in demonstration teaching highlighting
mastery of lessons learned 6. Others (Please specify and provide annotations) Quality Modeled effective
applications of content knowledge within and across curriculum teaching areas as shown in MOV 1 with
a rating of 8 Modeled effective applications of content knowledge within and across curriculum teaching
areas as shown in MOV 1 with a rating of 7 Modeled effective applications of content knowledge within
and across curriculum teaching areas as shown in MOV 1 with a rating of 6 Modeled effective
applications of content knowledge within and across curriculum teaching areas as shown in MOV 1 with
a rating of 5 No acceptable evidence was shown Efficiency Submitted at least 4 lessons as evidenced by
MOV 1 and supported by any 1 of the other MOV given Submitted 3 lessons as evidenced by MOV 1
from colleagues and supported by any 1 of the other MOV given Submitted 2 lessons as evidenced by
MOV 1 from colleagues and supported by any 1 of the other MOV given Submitted 1 lesson as
evidenced by MOV 1 from colleagues and supported by any 1 of the other MOV given No acceptable
evidence was shown Timeliness Submitted MOV were distributed across 4 quarters Submitted MOV
were distributed across 3 quarters Submitted MOV were distributed across 2 quarters Submitted MOV
was completed in only 1 quarter No acceptable evidence was shown