Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
www.elsevier.com/stueduc
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
luation 34 (2008) 44–51
Studies in Educational EvaEvaluation competencies of professional and non-professional
teachers in Nigeria
Nwachukwu Prince Ololube
Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management and Social Sciences, NOVENA University, Nigeria
Abstract
Teachers’ job responsibility has changed significantly in recent years, and now, more than ever, there are pressing needs for high quality teachers
to meet the goals of education for sustainable development, especially in developing countries. This timely study examined the relationship
between professional and non-professional teachers’ evaluation competencies and its impact on testing complexities and student academic
achievement in Nigeria. A simple questionnaire incorporating multiple statistical procedures was fashioned containing a range of questions that
elicited information from 300 respondents on their perception of teachers’ evaluation competencies. From the findings, it was revealed that
professional teachers apply various evaluation techniques more effectively than non-professional teachers. Further, suggestions regarding
measures that could help improve the employability of teachers were succinctly discussed.
# 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction, rationale, and purpose
Without doubt, teacher education is of vital importance for
every country, but it is only a part of a country’s total system of
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
within our changing science-based and technology-driven
world (Zoller, 2000).
Nevertheless, education for sustainable development is
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
has shown that education can improve agricultural productivity,
E-mail addresses: [email protected],
0191-491X/$ – see front matter # 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2008.01.004
enhance the status of women, reduce population growth rates,
enhance environmental protection, and generally raise the
standard of living (McKeown, 2002).
In order to fulfil this mission we need quality education,
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
and in the evaluation of students’ academic achievement, which
is acknowledged as one of the criteria for quality education.
An effective student assessment and evaluation method
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).
This study focused on the balance of power between
teachers’ evaluation competencies and students’ learning
outcomes. Additionally, it emphasised the importance of
teacher education in fostering effective applications of
evaluation techniques whose end result bring about quality
N.P. Ololube / Studies in Educational Evaluation 34 (2008) 44–51 45
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
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
sense. However, there are many ways of gaining evidence about
N.P. Ololube / Studies in Educational Evaluation 34 (2008) 44–5146
behaviour changes in students as a result of particular
curriculum programs. 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.
Teachers’ role as professionals for student assessment
There are some standards that can be used in making sure
that students are evaluated properly. Some of these focus on
classroom-based competencies while others focus on the
assessment of the whole educational program. 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 the following activities.
Activities occurring prior to instruction
(a) understanding students’ cultural backgrounds, interests,
skills, and abilities as they apply across a range of learning
domains and/or subject areas;
(b) u
nderstanding students’ motivations and their interests inspecific class content;
(c) c
larifying and articulating the performance outcomesexpected of pupils; and
(d) p
lanning instruction for individuals or groups of students.Activities occurring during instruction
(a) monitoring pupil progress toward instructional goals;
(b) i
dentifying gains and difficulties pupils are experiencing inlearning and performing;
(c) a
djusting instruction;(d) g
iving contingent, specific, and credible praise and feed-back;
(e) m
otivating students to learn; and(f) j
udging the extent of pupil attainment of instructionaloutcomes.
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) c
ommunicating strengths and weaknesses based onassessment results to students and parents or guardians;
(c) r
ecording and reporting assessment results for school-levelanalysis, evaluation, and decision-making;
(d) a
nalyzing assessment information gathered before andduring instruction to understand each student’s progress to
date and to inform future instructional planning;
(e) e
valuating the effectiveness of instruction; and(f) e
valuating the effectiveness of the curriculum and materialsin use.
These activities imply that teachers need competencies in
student assessment and sufficient time and resources to
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. T
eachers should be skilled in choosing assessment methodsappropriate for instructional decisions.
2. T
eachers should be skilled in developing assessmentmethods appropriate for instructional decisions.
3. T
eachers should be skilled in administering, scoring andinterpreting the results of both externally produced and
teacher-produced assessment methods.
4. T
eachers should be skilled in using assessment results whenmaking decisions about individual students, planning
teaching, developing curriculum, and making changes for
school improvement.
5. T
eachers should be skilled in developing valid pupil gradingprocedures which use pupil assessments.
6. T
eachers should be skilled in communicating assessmentresults to students, parents, other lay audiences, and other
educators.
7. T
eachers should be skilled in recognizing unethical, illegal,and otherwise inappropriate assessment methods and uses of
assessment information (Sanders et al., 1990).
Thus, teachers need to critically examine the ways in which
the evaluation materials and techniques used in schools are
deemed acceptable or good enough for their students. That
means that they have to show how the evaluation instruments
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%)
principals, 270 (90%) subject heads and teachers from ten
N.P. Ololube / Studies in Educational Evaluation 34 (2008) 44–51 47
(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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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’
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
Principals 45.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 30.0 55.0 5.0 45.0
Teachers 24.8 0.0 40.0 0.0 30.7 39.6 4.4 60.4
Supervisors 22.0 0.0 48.0 0.0 20.0 18.0 10.0 82.0
S. Taught
Social Sc. 24.2 0.0 48.4 0.0 24.2 47.3 3.3 52.7
Sciences 22.1 0.0 35.3 0.0 36.8 39.0 5.9 61.0
Humanities 35.6 0.0 34.2 0.0 26.0 32.9 4.1 67.1
Aca. Qual.
OND. 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 100.0
HND. 25.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 25.0 70.0 0.0 30.0
Bachelor’s Degree 30.6 0.0 41.7 0.0 25.0 36.1 2.8 63.9
Master’s Degree 22.2 0.0 22.2 0.0 55.6 22.2 0.0 77.8
PhD. – – – – – – – –
Prof. Qual.
N.C.E. 30.8 0.0 33.3 0.0 33.3 48.7 2.6 51.3
B.Sc. (Ed). 22.7 0.0 38.7 0.0 33.3 42.7 5.3 57.3
B.A. (Ed). 34.6 0.0 38.5 0.0 26.9 46.2 0.0 53.8
B.Ed. 29.5 0.0 36.1 0.0 27.9 27.9 6.6 72.1
M.Ed. 4.5 0.0 63.6 0.0 18.2 40.9 13.6 59.1
Doctor of Education 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
L. Service
1–5 years 28.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 44.0 56.0 4.0 44.0
6–10 years 31.0 0.0 38.0 0.0 28.0 33.0 3.0 67.0
11–15 years 22.1 0.0 50.0 0.0 23.5 45.6 4.4 54.4
16+ years 22.0 0.0 40.2 0.0 30.5 34.1 7.3 65.9
OND (Ordinary National Diploma); HND (Higher National Diploma); NCE (Nigeria Certificate in Education).
N.P. Ololube / Studies in Educational Evaluation 34 (2008) 44–51 49
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.
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
N.P. Ololube / Studies in Educational Evaluation 34 (2008) 44–5150
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
professional manner. It is only when teachers understand the
techniques of evaluation or assessment that they will be capable
of realizing the potential of their students (cf., Amalaha, 1979).
Furthermore, the analysis of results yielded that every
standard is an expectation for assessment knowledge or skills
that teachers should possess in order to perform effectively in
their evaluation effort. The results from this empirical study did
not significantly deviate from preceding studies and literature
on teachers’ evaluation competencies (e.g., Iwanicki &
Rindone, 1995; Peterson, 2000; Sanders et al., 1990; Wheldall
& Glynn, 1989). Thus, the results suggest that professional
teachers are inclined to employ, construct and use appropriate
evaluation methods more than non-professional teachers. In
line with a number of studies, Gbamanja (1989) and Sanders
et al. (1990) called on teachers to demonstrate skill at selecting,
developing, applying, using, communicating, and evaluating
student assessment information and student assessment
practices. The standards are that:
� T
eachers should be skilled in choosing assessment methodsappropriate for instructional decisions.
� T
eachers should be skilled in developing assessment methodsappropriate for instructional decisions.
� T
eachers should be skilled in administering, scoring andinterpreting the results of both externally produced and
teacher-produced assessment methods.
� T
eachers should be skilled in using assessment results whenmaking decisions about individual students, planning
teaching, developing curriculum, and school improvement.
� T
eachers should be skilled in developing valid pupil gradingprocedures that use pupil assessments.
� T
eachers should be skilled in communicating assessmentresults to students, parents, other lay audiences, and other
educators.
� T
eachers 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
principles 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
enriching teachers’ use of evaluation/assessment techniques
N.P. Ololube / Studies in Educational 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). UN Decade 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],
