of in Pr gem , an ly i pete sta che cti suc Without doubt, teacher education is of vital importance for has shown that education can improve agricultural productivity, enhance environmental protection, and generally raise the standard of living (McKeown, 2002). and in the evaluation of students’ academic achievement, which is acknowledged as one of the criteria for quality education. This study focused on the balance of power between teachers’ evaluation competencies and students’ learning Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Studies in Educational Evalua taken to be a life-wide and lifelong endeavor that challenges individuals, institutions and societies to view tomorrow as a day that either belongs to all of us or will not belong to anyone (UNESCO, 2005b). Education is an essential tool for achieving sustainability. The relationship between education and sustain- able development is complex. Generally, research shows that education is an indispensable player in a nation’s ability to develop and achieve sustainability targets. Equally, research results stimulates student learning. Studies (e.g., Ololube, 2004) have shown that absence of effective students’ evaluation results in ineffective classroom management, and this, in turn, results in poor academic achievement. Therefore, the education of classroom teachers should be a priority. We must, moreover, distinguish and compare diverse educational systems with our own experiences (Ololube, 2005a). Nevertheless, education for sustainable development is An effective student assessment and evaluation method within our changing science-based and technology-driven world (Zoller, 2000). education. Education is one of the most important institutions for the well being of society in that it ensures sustainable development (Kansanen, 2004). Educational sustainability is a key factor in determining, affecting and/or modifying human behaviour, in both individuals and societies. Yet, contemporary education has not prepared people to handle local, national and global systems of such size and complexity as have emerged good schools and excellent teachers (Kansanen, 2004). Therefore, teacher education is of paramount importance. Thus, the effectiveness of teacher education imposes a range of different tasks and responsibilities (Meri & Maaranen, 2002; Niemi, 1996). As teachers learn about student assessment, measurement and evaluation in their teacher education programs, the more positive they become in using these tools every country, but it is only a part of a country’s total system of In order to fulfil this mission we need quality education, Evaluation competencies of pr teachers Nwachukwu Department of Business Management, Faculty of Mana Abstract Teachers’ job responsibility has changed significantly in recent years to meet the goals of education for sustainable development, especial between professional and non-professional teachers’ evaluation com achievement in Nigeria. A simple questionnaire incorporating multiple elicited information from 300 respondents on their perception of tea professional teachers apply various evaluation techniques more effe measures that could help improve the employability of teachers were # 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction, rationale, and purpose E-mail addresses:
[email protected],
[email protected]. 0191-491X/$ – see front matter # 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2008.01.004 essional and non-professional Nigeria ince Ololube ent and Social Sciences, NOVENA University, Nigeria d now, more than ever, there are pressing needs for high quality teachers n developing countries. This timely study examined the relationship ncies and its impact on testing complexities and student academic tistical procedures was fashioned containing a range of questions that rs’ evaluation competencies. From the findings, it was revealed that vely than non-professional teachers. Further, suggestions regarding cinctly discussed. enhance the status of women, reduce population growth rates, www.elsevier.com/stueduc tion 34 (2008) 44–51 outcomes. Additionally, it emphasised the importance of teacher education in fostering effective applications of evaluation techniques whose end result bring about quality tion education. This is a key theme in sustainable development, given that students’ academic and professional skills are more effectively learned when they are accurately evaluated as they progress (Ololube, 2005b). This article draws on substantial research from industrialised countries in the West and compares them to similar situations in Nigeria. In Nigeria, both non-professional teachers (academically qualified teachers) and those that are professionally qualified are engaged in instructional processes in secondary schools. By academically qualified teachers, I mean teachers who have received academic training as a result of enrolment in an educational institution, and, as a result, obtain qualifications such as HND (Higher National Diploma), B.Sc., B.A., M.A., M.Sc., and so on. Professionally qualified teachers, on the other hand, are teachers who have received professional training and thus gained appropriate knowledge, skills, techniques, and aptitude rather than general education. They hold professional teaching qualifications such as B.Sc. Ed., B.A. Ed., B.Ed., and M.Ed. These two categories of teacher’s evaluation compe- tencies and their role in guaranteeing quality education for sustainable development instigate information search and attribution formulation. The motivation for this study stems from the fact that education is a fundamental human right. It provides children, youth and adults with the power to reflect, make choices and enjoy a better life. It breaks the cycle of poverty and is a key ingredient in economic and social development (UNESCO, 2005a). This article is addressed to teachers who share my conviction that education can make a difference and for those whose daily lives are driven by the imperatives of making educational policies and planning in helping children to learn effectively (Kerry & Wilding, 2004). Hence, this text is addressed first and foremost to teacher educators and teachers who seek empirical evidence on their job, and who want to be at the very top of their profession as teachers. It is also for principals, education planners, and policy makers in developing countries, especially those in Africa, with the aim to help them come to terms with reality. Research question The research question for this study is as follows: To what extent do teachers employ and use various evaluation techniques effectively? Theoretical background and literature review The concept of evaluation competencies Teachers’ evaluation competencies included in this text are the knowledge and skills critical to a teacher’s role in classroom instruction processes. However, it is understood that there are many competencies beyond evaluation competencies that teachers must possess in order to be effective in their instructional processes. Thus, students’ evaluations are an essential part of teaching and good teaching cannot exist N.P. Ololube / Studies in Educa without them as they might have positive implications for academic progress (Sanders et al., 1990). In the same vein, the evaluation of students’ learning requires that all parties involved understand and apply sound student evaluation principles (Gullickson, 2002). For example, results from studies (e.g., Iwanicki & Rindone, 1995; Peterson, 2000; Wheldall & Glynn, 1989) provide powerful evidence for the importance of effective evaluation techniques. Numerous authors, practitioners, and researchers have advanced definitions of evaluation. According, for example, to Eraut (in Goddard & Leask, 1992), evaluation is a general term used to describe any activity where the quality of provision is subject to systematic study. It involves the collection, analysis, interpretation and reporting of evidence about the nature, impact and value of an entity. Thus, monitoring, review and assessment are aspects of evaluation if systematic analysis of data is used to provide information for decision. Assessment is used as a term for investigating the status of an individual or group, usually with reference to certain expected outcomes that tell us how well a student or group of students have achieved particular concepts or skills using various forms of measuring techniques. Assessment is under- taken either as a terminal or continuous process. Terminal assessment involves one final test or examination at the end of a program while continuous assessment is a continuous updating of teachers’ judgment about their students, which permits cumulative judgments about their performance. It includes finding out how far the learning experiences as developed and organized are actually producing the desired results. This involves identifying the strengths and weaknesses of a plan, and it helps one check the validity of the basic hypotheses upon which the instructional program has been developed. In addition, it checks the effectiveness of the particular instru- ments, including the teachers, that are being used to carry forward the instructional program. Evaluation results assist teachers to know whether the curriculum has been effective and how curriculum programs could be improved upon (Gbamanja, 1989). On the whole, evaluation is a process by which we find out whether planned changes in student behaviour have occurred. If these changes have not occurred, we are left to question why this is so and what could be done to improve the situation. In a broader perspective, several aspects of the curriculum must be evaluated such as the objectives, their scope, the quality of teachers, principals and other personnel in charge of the curriculum, the capability of the students, the relative importance of the various subjects, the effectiveness of the equipment and materials, the suitability of the instructional environment and all strategies and methods proposed to achieve the objective at hand. Thus, the value of an evaluation object is determined on the basis of a pre-set standard. Teachers set up standards through their objectives of instruction: through them teachers try to establish whether or not their students meet the teaching objectives. Therefore, competent teachers are con- cerned with teaching outcomes, both quantitatively and qualitatively (Amalaha, 1979; Sanders et al., 1990). In the present article I use the above terms in their widest al Evaluation 34 (2008) 44–51 45 sense. However, there are many ways of gaining evidence about (e) 6. ion (f) judging the extent of pupil attainment of instructional outcomes. Activities occurring after the appropriate instructional segment (e.g., lesson, class, semester, grade) (a) describing the extent to which each pupil has attained both short- and long-term instructional goals; (b) communicating strengths and weaknesses based on assessment results to students and parents or guardians; (c) recording and reporting assessment results for school-level analysis, evaluation, and decision-making; (d) analyzing assessment information gathered before and during instruction to understand each student’s progress to date and to inform future instructional planning; (e) evaluating the effectiveness of instruction; and (f) evaluating the effectiveness of the curriculum and materials in use. These activities imply that teachers need competencies in stud back; motivating students to learn; and (d) g adjusting instruction; iving contingent, specific, and credible praise and feed- l (c) identifying gains and difficulties pupils are experiencing in earning and performing; (a) m (b) onitoring pupil progress toward instructional goals; (d) planning instruction for individuals or groups of students. Activities occurring during instruction e clarifying and articulating the performance outcomes xpected of pupils; and s (c) pecific class content; (b) u domains and/or subject areas; nderstanding students’ motivations and their interests in s kills, and abilities as they apply across a range of learning (a) u nderstanding students’ cultural backgrounds, interests, Sanders et al. (1990) the scope of a teacher’s professional role and responsibilities for student assessment may be described in terms of the following activities. Activities occurring prior to instruction ssment of the whole educational program. According to class asse students are evaluated properly. Some of these focus on room-based competencies while others focus on the T that here are some standards that can be used in making sure Teac sidered an appropriate evaluation procedure. hers’ role as professionals for student assessment educ con ational objectives laid out in a school curriculum is evide riculum programs. Consequently, any way of getting valid nce about the kinds of behaviour represented by behaviour changes in students as a result of particular cur N.P. Ololube / Studies in Educat46 ent assessment and sufficient time and resources to designed for used in the classroom are actually tailored to fit into a particular pedagogical strategy. It involves appropriate feedback to students, motivating students, identifying group and individual learning requirements, evaluating instructional procedures, being able to make instructional decision about students, and using evaluation data to improve job situations (Austin, Dwyer, & Freebody, 2003; Creemers, 1994; Ololube, 2005b). Procedure and methodology Demographic information The research population for this study was drawn from Rivers State, one of the states in the south–south geo-political zone of Nigeria. The population comprised 10 (3.3%) dee mea pri evaluation materials and techniques used in schools are med acceptable or good enough for their students. That ns that they have to show how the evaluation instruments T the hus, teachers need to critically examine the ways in which a Teachers should be skilled in recognizing unethical, illegal, and otherwise inappropriate assessment methods and uses of ssessment information (Sanders et al., 1990). e 7. procedures which use pupil assessments. Teachers should be skilled in communicating assessment results to students, parents, other lay audiences, and other ducators. 5. T school improvement. eachers should be skilled in developing valid pupil grading t Teachers should be skilled in using assessment results when making decisions about individual students, planning eaching, developing curriculum, and making changes for t 4. complete the assessment in a professional manner (Peterson, 2000). Thus, it is only when teachers understand the techniques of evaluation that they will be capable of realizing the potential of their students (Amalaha, 1979). Standards for teacher competencies in educational assessment of students The standards below all express specific expectations for assessment knowledge or skill that teachers should possess in order to perform well in their evaluation effort. According to Sanders et al. (1990), the standards call on teachers to demonstrate skill at selecting, developing, applying, using, communicating, and evaluating student assessment information and student assessment practices. The standards are: 1. Teachers should be skilled in choosing assessment methods appropriate for instructional decisions. 2. Teachers should be skilled in developing assessment methods appropriate for instructional decisions. 3. Teachers should be skilled in administering, scoring and interpreting the results of both externally produced and eacher-produced assessment methods. al Evaluation 34 (2008) 44–51 ncipals, 270 (90%) subject heads and teachers from ten (10) randomly selected secondary schools, as well as 20 supervisors (6.7%) from the Ministry of Education and Post Primary Schools Board. Out of the total number of respondents, 76 (25.3%) were academically qualified while 224 (74.7%) were professionally qualified. Where 91 (30.3%) respondents were social sciences teachers, 136 (45.4%) were science teachers, and 20 were humanities teachers. Moreover, 126 (42.0%) were female whereas 174 (58.0%) were male. Fig. 1 presents more demographic information. Instruments statistical analyses were conducted using the SPSS version 11.5 computer program: mean point value and standard deviation, ANOVA, t-test of significance and cross tabulation (N = 300). One-way-analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to test the relationship between variables and respondents’ demo- graphic information. The t-test was used for finding statistically significant differences in the variables. Statistical significant was set at p < 0.05 to assess if the researcher’s level of confidence observed in the sample also existed in the population. For easy comprehension of the data analysis in this study, cross tabulation was employed because it is one of the simplest and most frequently used ways of demonstrating N.P. Ololube / Studies in Educational Evaluation 34 (2008) 44–51 47 Participants in this study responded to a questionnaire that employed a four-point Likert-type scale (summated) (4 = strongly agree; 3 = agree; 2 = disagree; and 1 = strongly disagree) which allowed them to rate their perception on possible evaluation competencies (effective construction of various evaluation instruments; employing various evaluation techniques correctly; assessing students’ behaviour effectively; using evaluation data to improve job situations, and keeping records of individual students accurately). It is a rating scale that was considered to be of approximately equal ‘‘attitude value’’ to which subjects respond with degree of agreement or disagreement (intensity) (Kerlinger, 1973). Section A of the research questionnaire tapped respondents’ demographic information, including: gender, age, status, subjects taught, academic qualification, professional qualification and length of service. Section B comprised possible instructional evaluation competencies. Since different categories of people were chosen as respondents, it was important to make the questionnaire as simple as possible. The questionnaire was also designed with the help of professional colleagues. The questionnaire had face validity because the feedback from colleagues helped in assuring that the measure reflects the content of the concept in question (Bryman & Cramer, 2001). Procedure This study is part of a comparative study that examined the professional competencies of academically qualified and professionally qualified teachers (e.g., Ololube, 2005a, 2005b). A survey research design was used in this study. To arrive at the intended comparative investigation, several sets of Fig. 1. Frequency and percentages of res the presence or absence of a relationship (Bryman & Cramer, 1990, p. 151; Bryman & Cramer, 2001, p. 159). Reliability of the study A measurement to appraise the reliability of the research instrument was regarded appropriate in this investigation since the respondents, especially teachers, answered the questions because they were directly affected in that the study directly focused on their evaluation competencies, which is part of a determinant for their professional development and compe- tencies. Consequently, a quantitative analysis of the inquiry was performed to statistically test the reliability of the research instrument because in research statistics, when reliability of a research instrument has been established, it provides a basis for continuity. Thus, the instrument was tested with Cronbach alpha coefficient and a reliability coefficient of 0.914 was obtained (see Table 1). Therefore, the research instrument was accepted as very reliable (see Bryman & Cramer, 1990, p. 71; Bryman & Cramer, 2001, p. 63; Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2000, p. 361). Data analysis and results Mean, standard deviation and variance of respondents’ perception of teachers’ evaluation competencies This research was aimed at assessing teachers’ appropriate use of the various evaluation techniques at their disposal to determine if the goals for carrying out the evaluation were achieved. It was also intended to examine the connection pondents’ demographic information. S.D. = 0.50, variance = 0.25) also discipline more diligently than non-professional teachers (M = 2.34, S.D. = 0.81, var- iance = 0.66). By using evaluation data to improve job situations, professional teachers appeared to be more compe- tent than non-professional teachers (M = 3.56, S.D. = 0.50, variance = 0.25/M = 2.18, S.D. = 0.92, variance = 0.55). The results also revealed that professional teachers keep records of individual students more accurately than non-professional teachers. This is depicted in their mean, standard deviation and variances, at 3.59, 0.50, and 0.25 as compared to 2.43, 0.76, 0.58, respectively. The cumulative mean, standard deviation and variances prove likewise (see Table 2). Cross tabulation and ANOVA analysis of respondents’ Table 1 The reliability of paired variables for academic and professional teachers S/N Teaching evaluation competencies Reliability 1 (a) Teachers with academic qualification construct various evaluation instruments effectively. 1.0** (b) Teachers with professional qualification construct various evaluation instruments effectively. 2 (a) Teachers with academic qualification employ various evaluation techniques correctly. 1.0** (b) Teachers with professional qualification employ various evaluation techniques correctly. 3 (a) Teachers with academic qualification assess students’ behaviour effectively. .81** (b) Teachers with professional qualification assess students’ behaviour effectively. N.P. Ololube / Studies in Educational Evaluation 34 (2008) 44–5148 between teachers’ evaluation competencies and their input towards teaching effectiveness. Thus, teachers were evaluated 4 (a) Teachers with Academic qualification use evaluation data to improve work situations. 1.0** (b) Teachers with professional qualification use evaluation data to improve work situations. 5 (a) Teachers with academic qualification keep records of individual students accurately. .76* (b) Teachers with professional qualification keep records of individual students accurately. Cumulative alpha (reliability). .914** * Accepted as reliable. ** Accepted as very reliable. on the competency statement items of the research instrument (questionnaire). Mean, standard deviation and variance were used in the analysis of respondents’ answers. The results of the study revealed that professional teachers tend to construct various effective evaluation instruments more than non- professional teachers, as is borne out by their scores: (M = 3.53, S.D. = 0.53, variance = 0.28) against (M = 2.10, S.D. = 0.90, variance = 0.81), respectively. Also, professional teachers have the propensity to employ various evaluation techniques correctly, which is not likely with non-professional teachers (M = 3.69, S.D. = 0.49, variance = 0.24 and M = 2.14, S.D. = 0.86, variance = 0.73). Professional teachers (M = 3.56, Table 2 Responses on how teachers employ various evaluation techniques effectively Competencies (variables) items Professional teachers (professionally Mean S.D. CVEIE 3.53 .53 EVETC 3.60 .49 ASBE 3.56 .50 UEDIJS 3.56 .50 KRISA 3.59 .50 Total 3.57 .50 Key: CVEIE = constructing of various evaluation instruments effectively. EVETC = employing various evaluation techniques correctly. ASBE = assessing students’ behaviour effectively. UEDIJS = using evaluation data to improve job situation. KRISA = keeping records of individual students accurately. perception of teachers’ evaluation competencies Results from the cross tabulation analysis on the variables examined indicated that the sample for this study reported significantly more satisfaction with professional teachers’ evaluation competencies and considerably less satisfaction with non-professional teachers (see Table 3 for details). Whereas the results from ANOVA analysis indicate that no significant differences were found in respondents’ opinion of teachers evaluation competencies at significant level (F = 1.923, p > 0.491), all the respondents favored professional teachers as having competent knowledge and skills in handling evaluation situations in the classroom. t-Test analysis of paired sample statistics of respondents’ perception To further verify my analytical information, a t-test analysis of paired samples was conducted. The t-test aimed at determining if there are significant differences between respondents’ means. As a result, the variables were paired just as they appeared on the questionnaire (hence ‘‘a and b’’ in Table 4 below). The results showed that there are significant differences between non-professional teachers and professional teachers in all the variables. SPSS version 13.0 displayed this as 0.000 significant levels. This does not mean that the probability is 0. It means that it is less than 0.0005. Table 4 explains the qualified) Non-professional teachers (academically qualified) Variance Mean S.D. Variance .28 2.10 .90 .81 .24 2.14 .86 .73 .25 2.34 .81 .66 .25 2.18 .92 .55 .25 2.43 .76 .58 .25 2.24 .85 .67 Table 3 Cross tabulation analysis of respondents’ demographic information on evaluation competencies Demographic information Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Aca. Prof. Aca. Prof. Aca. Prof. Aca. Prof. Gender Female 25.0 0.0 38.5 0.0 32.5 40.9 4.0 59.1 Male 25.3 0.0 40.8 0.0 28.7 35.9 5.2 64.1 Age 20–29 34.7 0.0 30.6 0.0 32.7 49.0 2.0 51.0 30–39 25.5 0.0 40.0 0.0 31.8 39.1 2.7 60.9 40–49 20.0 0.0 43.3 0.0 29.2 36.7 7.5 63.3 50+ 42.9 0.0 28.6 0.0 23.8 42.9 4.8 57.1 Status N.P. Ololube / Studies in Educational Evaluation 34 (2008) 44–51 49 Principals 45.0 0.0 20.0 Teachers 24.8 0.0 40.0 Supervisors 22.0 0.0 48.0 S. Taught Social Sc. 24.2 0.0 48.4 highest t-value as �23.23 and the lowest t-value as �27.36, p < 0.000, meaning that professionally qualified teachers are more competent in their evaluation processes than non- professionally qualified teachers. Table 4 Two-tailed test of differences between paired means Paired variables Paired mean S.D. Std. error m CVEIE a and b �1.43 .95 .055 EVETC a and b �1.46 .93 .053 ASBE a and b �1.21 .90 .052 UEDIJS a and b �1.39 .95 .055 KRISA a and b �1.16 .85 .049 CVEIE = constructing of various evaluation instruments effectively. EVETC = employing various evaluation techniques correctly. ASBE = assessing students’ behaviour effectively. UEDIJS = using evaluation data to improve job situation. KRISA = keeping records of individual students accurately. d.f. = N � 1. N = 300. Sciences 22.1 0.0 35.3 Humanities 35.6 0.0 34.2 Aca. Qual. OND. 0.0 0.0 50.0 HND. 25.0 0.0 50.0 Bachelor’s Degree 30.6 0.0 41.7 Master’s Degree 22.2 0.0 22.2 PhD. – – – Prof. Qual. N.C.E. 30.8 0.0 33.3 B.Sc. (Ed). 22.7 0.0 38.7 B.A. (Ed). 34.6 0.0 38.5 B.Ed. 29.5 0.0 36.1 M.Ed. 4.5 0.0 63.6 Doctor of Education 50.0 0.0 0.0 L. Service 1–5 years 28.0 0.0 24.0 6–10 years 31.0 0.0 38.0 11–15 years 22.1 0.0 50.0 16+ years 22.0 0.0 40.2 OND (Ordinary National Diploma); HND (Higher National Diploma); NCE (Nige 0.0 30.0 55.0 5.0 45.0 0.0 30.7 39.6 4.4 60.4 0.0 20.0 18.0 10.0 82.0 0.0 24.2 47.3 3.3 52.7 Discussion Evaluation of students is central to student learning in every school and classroom. Without evaluation we do not know if ean t d.f. Significance (two-tailed) �26.13 299 .000 �27.36 299 .000 �23.25 299 .000 �25.22 299 .000 �23.65 299 .000 0.0 36.8 39.0 5.9 61.0 0.0 26.0 32.9 4.1 67.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 0.0 25.0 70.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 25.0 36.1 2.8 63.9 0.0 55.6 22.2 0.0 77.8 – – – – – 0.0 33.3 48.7 2.6 51.3 0.0 33.3 42.7 5.3 57.3 0.0 26.9 46.2 0.0 53.8 0.0 27.9 27.9 6.6 72.1 0.0 18.2 40.9 13.6 59.1 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 44.0 56.0 4.0 44.0 0.0 28.0 33.0 3.0 67.0 0.0 23.5 45.6 4.4 54.4 0.0 30.5 34.1 7.3 65.9 ria Certificate in Education). of no & ion practices. The standards are that: � Teachers should be skilled in choosing assessment methods appropriate for instructional decisions. � Teachers should be skilled in developing assessment methods appropriate for instructional decisions. � Teachers should be skilled in administering, scoring and interpreting the results of both externally produced and teacher-produced assessment methods. � Teachers should be skilled in using assessment results when making decisions about individual students, planning teaching, developing curriculum, and school improvement. � Teachers should be skilled in developing valid pupil grading procedures that use pupil assessments. � Teachers should be skilled in communicating assessment results to students, parents, other lay audiences, and other educators. � Teachers should be skilled in recognizing unethical, illegal, and otherwise inappropriate assessment methods and uses of assessment information. There are many ways of getting evidence about behaviour changes in students as a result of a particular curriculum program. Consequently, any way of getting valid evidence about the kinds of behaviour represented by educational objectives laid out in a school curriculum is considered an appropriate evaluation procedure (Amalaha, 1979; Gbamanja, 1989; Gullickson, 2002; Sanders et al., 1990). This research study revealed that one of the guiding dev stu pr al. (1990) called on teachers to demonstrate skill at selecting, eloping, applying, using, communicating, and evaluating dent assessment information and student assessment line et aluation methods more than non-professional teachers. In with a number of studies, Gbamanja (1989) and Sanders tea ev indone, 1995; Peterson, 2000; Sanders et al., 1990; Wheldall Glynn, 1989). Thus, the results suggest that professional chers are inclined to employ, construct and use appropriate on R eir evaluation effort. The results from this empirical study did t significantly deviate from preceding studies and literature teachers’ evaluation competencies (e.g., Iwanicki & tha th andard is an expectation for assessment knowledge or skills t teachers should possess in order to perform effectively in st chniques of evaluation or assessment that they will be capable realizing the potential of their students (cf., Amalaha, 1979). Furthermore, the analysis of results yielded that every pro te learning has taken place nor can we plan for future learning opportunities (Gullickson, 2002). Therefore, in discussing teachers’ professional role and responsibilities for student evaluation or assessment according to Sanders et al. (1990), the scope of a teacher’s professional role and responsibilities for student assessment may be described in terms of making sure that students are evaluated properly and a number of standards focus on classroom-based competencies. These activities imply that teachers need ‘‘professional competence’’ in student assessment and sufficient time and resources to complete them in a fessional manner. It is only when teachers understand the N.P. Ololube / Studies in Educat50 inciples of student evaluation is that the way teachers assess students should reflect as closely as possible what they want them to learn (Gullickson, 2002; Welch & Lawrenz, 2004). For example, if teachers want to check whether their students have acquired content knowledge, they should use something like a paper-and-pencil test that requires them to display that knowledge, but if they want to know if their students can construct an argument, operate a microscope correctly, or sing the interval of a perfect fifth, then they have to use an assessment technique that allows them to demonstrate the skill. It is more difficult, though not impossible, to assess students on such attributes as achievement of self-awareness and indepen- dence. The main point here is that the way teachers assess their students should match the type of learning they want them to develop (Saskatchewan Education, 1991). Adapting assessment techniques may require changing parameters such as the frequency of use, the criteria for judging students’ progress, the length of time allowed to complete the assessment activity, and the type of assessment technique itself. Some examples of these changes include: demonstrating skills or knowledge rather than completing a written test or report, using oral assessment techniques for students with reading or writing disabilities, allowing more time to complete tests and other assignments, stating instructions in simpler terms, focusing on a smaller number of assessment techniques or changing the frequency of gathering assessment information, adjusting the type of criteria used for expected responses and the degree of accuracy required in these responses, reducing expectations regarding the amount of work accomplished, and requiring above-average students to provide more than one solution to a problem. For instance, in a situation where students have problems spelling, using a word processing program with a spell- check feature is a step in the right direction, and modifying the presentation and answer sheets of tests and assignments to accommodate student weaknesses is also very important. Additionally, reducing student anxiety by providing familiar surroundings and practice in test-taking strategies will result in a more accurate assessment of skills and knowledge. The first step in the adaptive dimension is the assessment and evaluation of all students’ needs relative to the approved curriculum. Then, teachers have the opportunity to make decisions concerning the needs, abilities, and interests of small groups of students or individuals (Saskatchewan Education, 1991). Accordingly, the findings from this study can be used to help teachers work out strategies for more effective manage- ment of classroom instruction and contexts for learning academic skills. Concluding remarks This article measured and examined contradictory perspec- tives about the teaching profession, especially in Nigeria where it is believed that all that is needed to be an effective teacher is a university certificate. This study supports the need to use professionally qualified teachers in teaching and learning processes. It has at the same taken inventory of teachers’ evaluation practices and competencies and looked at options for al Evaluation 34 (2008) 44–51 enriching teachers’ use of evaluation/assessment techniques tional Evaluation 34 (2008) 44–51 51 towards realizing students’ academic potential. The article further described a range of evaluation/assessment techniques to help us make evaluation-related choices that reflect our own particular teaching-learning situation. In addition, it reflects the fundamental importance of the philosophy of student evalua- tion according to which assessing and evaluating student progress is a process that requires professional competencies from the perspective of a developing country. Teachers’ evaluation effectiveness is a sensitive and important factor in determining students’ academic achieve- ment and attainment, yet the central question remains whether and to what extent does teachers’ evaluation effectiveness positively affect school effectiveness and quality improvement? This study and others (e.g., Austin et al., 2003; Harris & Muijs, 2005) suggest that accurate and effective evaluation compe- tencies amongst teachers result in quality teaching which in turn leads to school effectiveness and quality improvement. This is invariably assumed to be positively related to effective teacher education and education for sustainable development. We must also recognize that while this article offers a tool that can assist in teacher education programs for professional competencies and development in the area of student evaluation and assessment, it has its limitations. These limitations are the number of schools that were included in the study and the generalizability of the findings. I attempted to improve the generalizability of the results because it would be difficult to conclude from the responses from the selected respondents from only ten schools, the Ministry of Education and the Post Primary Schools Board in Rivers State, out of the thousands in Nigeria. Nevertheless, it is significant that teacher education programs and teachers take the knowledge and skills developed through this empirical study and put them to practical use within the context of their classrooms. Additional investigation in this direction will be in order. A new perspective on teachers’ evaluation competencies, which not only takes into considera- tion the exclusive features of the variables used in this study and their cultural derivations, is thus recommended. Besides, researchers need to give close attention to the ways in which professional and non-professional teachers construct the category of students for their particular purposes. References Amalaha, B. M. (1979). The teacher in the classroom. In B. O. Ukeje (Ed.), Foundations of education. Benin-City, Nigeria: Ethiope. Austin, H., Dwyer, B., & Freebody, P. (2003). Schooling the child: The making of students in classrooms. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1990). Quantitative data analysis for social scientists. London: Routledge. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for windows: A guide for social scientists. Philadelphia: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. Creemers, B. P. M. (1994). The effective classroom. London: Cassell. Gbamanja, P. T. (1989). Essentials of curriculum and instruction. Theory and practice. Port Harcourt, Nigeria: Pam Unique. Goddard, D., & Leask, M. (1992). The search for quality: Planning for improvement and managing change. London: Paul Chapman. Gullickson, A. R. (2002). Student evaluation standards: How to improve evaluation of students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2005). Improving schools through teacher leadership. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press. Iwanicki, E. F., & Rindone, D. A. (1995). Integrating professional development, teacher evaluation and student leaning: The evolution of evaluation policy in Connecticut. In D. L. Duke (Ed.), Teacher evaluation policy: From account- ability to professional development (pp. 65–98). New York: State University of New York Press. Kansanen, P. (2004). The idea of research-based teacher education. Didacta Varia, 9(2), 11–24. Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundation of behavioral research. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Kerry, T., & Wilding, M. (2004). Effective classroom teacher: Developing the skills you need for today’s classroom. London: Pearson Education. McKeown, R. (2002). Education for sustainable development. Retrieved 10/02/ 06 from http://www.esdtoolkit.org/discussion/default.htm. Meri, M., & Maaranen, K. (2002). The effectiveness of the subject teacher students’ education: A brief view of the study conducted on students’ conception of their education in the Department of Teacher Education in the University of Helsinki. Didacta Varia, 7(2), 41–48. Niemi, H. (1996). Effectiveness of teacher education: A theoretical framework of communicative evaluation and the design of a Finnish research project. In H. Niemi, & K. Tirri (Eds.), Effectiveness of teacher education—New challenges and approaches to evaluation. Report from the Department of Teacher Education University of Tampere, 6/1996, pp. 17–26. Ololube, N. P. (2004). Professionalism: An institutional approach to teachers’ job effectiveness in Nigerian secondary schools. Paper presented at the Seventh International LLinE Conference, September 23–25, 2004. Ololube, N. P. (2005a). Benchmarking the motivational competencies of academically qualified teachers and professionally qualified teachers in Nigerian secondary schools. The African Symposium, 5(3), 17–37. Ololube, N. P. (2005b). School effectiveness and quality improvement: Quality teaching in Nigerian secondary schools. The African Symposium, 5(4), 17–31. Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Sanders, R. J., Hills, J. R., Nitko, A. J., Merwin, J. C., Trice, C., Dianda, M., et al. (1990). Standards for teachers competence in educational assessment of students. American Federation of Teachers, National Council on Mea- surement in Education, and National Education Association. Saskatchewan Education (1991). Student evaluation: A teacher handbook. Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Education. Retrieved 14/02/06 from http:// www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/policy/studeval/ index.html. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2000). Research methods for business studies (2nd ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall. UNESCO (2005a). Education for all—An achievable vision. Retrieved on 10/ 02/2006 from http://www.unesco.org/education/efa/ed_for_all/back- ground/background_brochure_EFA.shtml#all. UNESCO (2005b).UNDecade for education for sustainable development (2005- 2014). Retrieved 10/02/06 from http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ ev.php-URL_ID=23279&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC& URL_SECTION=201. html. Welch, W., & Lawrenz, F. (2004). The use of evaluation. In A. R. Gullickson, F. Lawrenz, & N. Keiser (Eds.), Evaluating the upgrading of technical courses at two-year colleges, Volume 9: NSF’s Advanced Technological Education Program. Greenwich: JAI Press. Wheldall, K., & Glynn, T. (1989). Effective classroom learning: A behavioural interactionist approach to teaching. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Zoller, U. (2000). Chemistry education: Review of research. Research and Practice in Europe, 1(2), 189–200. Nwachukwu Prince Ololube, PhD Is a lecturer 1 in the Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management and Social Sciences, NOVENA University, Nigeria. His research focuses on institutional management and leadership, school effectiveness, teacher effectiveness and quality improve- ment, and ICT in education. He has published in various international journals, and leading international conference proceedings.
[email protected], N.P. Ololube / Studies in Educa
[email protected].. Evaluation competencies of professional and non-professional �teachers in Nigeria Introduction, rationale, and purpose Research question Theoretical background and literature review The concept of evaluation competencies Teachers’ role as professionals for student assessment Activities occurring prior to instruction Activities occurring during instruction Activities occurring after the appropriate instructional segment (e.g., lesson, class, semester, grade) Standards for teacher competencies in educational assessment of students Procedure and methodology Demographic information Instruments Procedure Reliability of the study Data analysis and results Mean, standard deviation and variance of respondents’ perception of teachers’ evaluation competencies Cross tabulation and ANOVA analysis of respondents’ perception of teachers’ evaluation competencies t-Test analysis of paired sample statistics of respondents’ perception Discussion Concluding remarks References