knowledge, skills, and attitudes of preservice and inservice teachers in educational measurement

This article was downloaded by: [University of Ulster Library]On: 25 November 2014, At: 01:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asia-Pacific Journal of TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/capj20

Knowledge, skills, and attitudes ofpreservice and inservice teachers ineducational measurementHussain Alkharusi a , Ali Mahdi Kazem a & Ali Al-Musawai aa College of Education , Sultan Qaboos University , OmanPublished online: 12 Apr 2011.

To cite this article: Hussain Alkharusi , Ali Mahdi Kazem & Ali Al-Musawai (2011) Knowledge, skills,and attitudes of preservice and inservice teachers in educational measurement, Asia-Pacific Journalof Teacher Education, 39:2, 113-123

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2011.560649

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/capj20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2011.560649

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher EducationVol. 39, No. 2, May 2011, 113–123

Knowledge, skills, and attitudes of preservice and inservice teachersin educational measurement

Hussain Alkharusi*, Ali Mahdi Kazem and Ali Al-Musawai

College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman

(Received 11 January 2010; final version received 1 November 2010)

Optimal outcomes of the educational assessment of students require that teachersshould have adequate knowledge of, strong skills in, and favourable attitudes towardeducational measurement. The present study investigated differences between preser-vice and inservice teachers’ knowledge of, perceived skills in, and attitudes towardeducational measurement. Participants were 279 preservice teachers and 233 inser-vice teachers from Oman. Results indicated that inservice teachers had a lower levelof knowledge, a higher level of perceived skilfulness, and a more favourable attitudetoward educational measurement than preservice teachers. In addition, the results notonly testified to the value of preservice measurement training, but also showed the meritof teaching practicum and teaching experience when preparing teachers in educationalmeasurement. Implications for professional preparation in educational measurement aswell as recommendations for future research are discussed.

Keywords: educational measurement; inservice teachers; preservice teachers; teacherattitudes; teacher education; teacher knowledge; teacher skills

Introduction

A large portion of teachers’ professional time is devoted to activities related to theassessment of student learning (Stiggins & Conklin, 1988, 1992). Optimal implementa-tion of these activities requires strong knowledge of and skills in as well as favourableattitudes toward educational measurement (Alkharusi, 2009; Bryant & Barnes, 1997;Popham, 2006). Hence, many teacher education programs require the completion of atleast one course in educational measurement for teaching certification (Mertler, 2004).Unfortunately, studies of educational measurement have repeatedly expressed concernabout the adequacy of preservice and inservice teachers’ knowledge of, skills in, and atti-tudes toward this subject (Alsarimi, 2000; Daniel & King, 1998; Mertler, 2003; Mertler &Campbell, 2005; VanZile-Tamsen & Boes, 1997).

For example, in a study on classroom assessment practices of 246 third preparatory(ninth grade) science teachers in Oman, Alsarimi (2000) found that although teach-ers completed a substantial amount of preservice and inservice training in educationalmeasurement, they had only a moderate understanding of educational measurement prin-ciples. Similarly, Daniel and King (1998) examined testing and measurement literacyof 95 elementary and secondary school teachers in the United States, and found that

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1359-866X print/ISSN 1469-2945 online© 2011 Australian Teacher Education AssociationDOI: 10.1080/1359866X.2011.560649http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:55

25

Nov

embe

r 20

14

114 H. Alkharusi et al.

teachers’ knowledge base regarding testing and measurement was somewhat inadequate.Further evidence can be obtained from studies comparing assessment literacy of preser-vice and inservice teachers. Specifically, in two studies, Mertler (2003, 2004) found that,despite their recent completion of educational measurement coursework, preservice teach-ers demonstrated a lower level of assessment literacy than inservice teachers. These studiessuggest that the professional preparation of teachers in educational measurement shouldreceive considerable scrutiny. In addition, the aforementioned research points to a conclu-sion that the inadequate level of assessment competency seems to apply equally to inserviceand preservice as well as novice and experienced teachers across a range of contexts andsubject domains. Therefore, in an attempt to gain insights into improving educational mea-surement preparation and instruction, this study aimed at examining differences betweenpreservice and inservice teachers regarding their knowledge of, perceived skills in, andattitudes toward educational measurement.

Educational measurement knowledge

The curriculum reform movement in educational measurement for teachers started with asurvey conducted by Mayo (1964). In this survey, classroom teachers, school principalsand superintendents, college professors and measurement specialists were asked to judgewhat beginning teachers ought to know about educational measurement. Results indicatedthat although there was general agreement on the importance of some testing and measure-ment competencies for teachers, there was a strong bias against statistical concepts amongteachers. Goehring (1973) surveyed teachers, guidance counsellors and school adminis-trators on the essential educational measurement competencies for classroom teachers.Like Mayo’s survey results, Goehring found that competencies related to the construc-tion, administration, and interpretation of classroom tests were rated as essential, whereascompetencies requiring knowledge of statistical concepts were rated as least useful forclassroom teachers’ daily assessment work.

Teachers’ knowledge and skills in educational measurement have been equated toassessment literacy (Mertler & Campbell, 2005; Popham, 2006; Volante & Fazio, 2007).This entails knowing what it is being assessed, why it is assessed, how best to assess it, howto make a representative sample of the assessment, what problems can occur within theassessment process, and how to prevent them from occurring (Stiggins, 1995). In addition,the American Federation of Teachers, the National Council on Measurement in Education,and the National Education Association (1990) have jointly developed ‘Standards forTeacher Competence in Educational Assessment of Students’. These standards describethe knowledge and skills that should be possessed by teachers to be assessment literate.The standards state that teachers should be able to choose and develop appropriate assess-ment methods; administer, score, and interpret assessment results; use these results whenmaking educational decisions; develop valid grading procedures; communicate assessmentresults to various audiences; and recognise inappropriate practices of assessment.

Moreover, in an attempt to make educational measurement training more relevant toclassroom teachers’ work, several educators (e.g., Airasian, 1991; Arter, 1999; Schafer,1991; Stiggins, 1991) have recommended certain content areas to be included in theprofessional preparation of teachers in educational measurement. For example, Airasian(1991) mentioned that nontraditional assessment topics such as using and improving infor-mal assessment methods, planning instruction, critiquing instructional materials, assessinglearning during instruction, and evaluating curriculum-embedded tests are more importantthan the traditional topics covered by educational measurement courses. The inclusion of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:55

25

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 115

these topics in educational measurement courses may help teachers attain a desirable levelof assessment literacy that enables them ‘to meet the challenge of day-to-day classroomassessment’ (Stiggins, 1999, p. 24). Studies comparing assessment literacy of preserviceand inservice teachers have indicated that the assessment literacy level of preservice teach-ers tends to be lower than that of inservice teachers (Mertler, 2003, 2004). This suggeststhat an experiential base in classroom assessment might instigate assessment literacy. Itmight be argued, however, that certain personal factors such as attitudes toward educa-tional measurement and self-perceptions of skills may override the effects of preservicepreparation in educational measurement.

Educational measurement skills and attitudes

Theoretically, knowledge levels are improved when the learned materials are viewed tobe useful and relevant to one’s needs and the individual perceives himself or herself asskilful in performing the relevant tasks (Keller, 1979). Research on teachers’ attitudes andself-perceptions of skills concerning educational measurement has shown that perceivedusefulness and relevance of educational measurement is positively related to perceivedskilfulness in assessment (Alkharusi, 2009; Green & Stager, 1987) and that knowledgeabout educational measurement is positively related to attitudes toward educational mea-surement (Quilter, 1999). These findings suggest that teachers who judge their abilitiesin performing educational measurement tasks to be low are likely to develop negativeattitudes toward educational measurement, which, in turn, may translate into either poorassessment practices or avoiding the use of contemporary assessment techniques.

In earlier surveys of inservice teachers, both Gullickson (1984) and Wise, Lukin, andRoos (1991) found that although most of the inservice teachers believed that strong skills ineducational measurement were important to their classroom assessment work, the major-ity did not perceive their testing and measurement coursework to be useful and relevantto their classroom assessment needs. When considering preservice teachers, Bryant andBarnes (1997) as well as VanZile-Tamsen and Boes (1997) found that many preserviceteachers felt anxious about taking an educational measurement course, viewed it as lessuseful, and expected it to be difficult. Zhang and Burry-Stock (2003) found that teacherswith measurement training, irrespective of teaching experience, reported a higher level ofperceived skilfulness in educational assessment than those without measurement training.Although Zhang and Burry-Stock’s survey results imply that formal training in educa-tional measurement might convey to teachers that they are capable of performing classroomassessment tasks, teachers also need a clear vision about the usefulness and relevance ofthe training to daily classroom assessment practices. In other words, to raise teachers to thedesirable level of assessment literacy, measurement training should simultaneously giveattention to teachers’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to educational measurement.It could be argued that measurement training in preservice teacher education needs to intro-duce knowledge and skills within an authentic classroom context for prospective teachersto practise what has been learned. This critical feature of the preservice teacher educa-tion program might help future teachers develop a deeper understanding of educationalmeasurement principles.

Research problem and purpose of the study

Teachers’ lack of competence in educational measurement, as identified in the literature(e.g., Daniel & King, 1998), and the demands for sound classroom assessment have ledteacher educators to identify an acceptable level of assessment literacy, defined by the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:55

25

Nov

embe

r 20

14


‘Standards for Teacher Competence in Educational Assessment of Students’ (AmericanFoundation of Teachers et al., 1990), that should be demonstrated by teachers to ensureoptimal outcomes in classroom learning and instruction. It could be argued that with-out adequate knowledge of, strong skills in, and favourable attitudes toward educationalmeasurement, it is unlikely that teachers’ assessment practices will lead to the desiredimprovements in classroom learning and instruction. Given the empirical evidence indicat-ing the inadequacies of teachers’ assessment literacy and that formal training in educationalmeasurement is a prerequisite for effective assessment literacy, further exploration ofteachers’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes in educational measurement is needed.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine differences between preservice andinservice teachers’ knowledge of, perceived skills in, and attitudes toward educational mea-surement. In addition, the study aims at examining whether (a) teaching practicum makesa difference to preservice teachers’ educational measurement knowledge, perceived skills,and attitudes; (b) teaching experience makes a difference to inservice teachers’ educationalmeasurement knowledge, perceived skills, and attitudes; and (c) preservice training in edu-cational measurement makes a difference to inservice teachers’ educational measurementknowledge, perceived skills, and attitudes. It was hoped that the study would provide someinsights to improve teachers’ assessment literacy.

Methods

Participants

The participants in this study were 279 preservice teachers (86 males and 193 females) and233 inservice teachers (125 males and 108 females) teaching grades 5 to 10 in Oman. Thepreservice teachers were surveyed at the end of a Spring 2008 semester course in educa-tional measurement in the College of Education at Sultan Qaboos University. The majorityof them (n = 144) were taking teaching practicum while taking the educational measure-ment course. The teaching experience of the inservice teachers ranged from 1 to 17 yearswith an average of 7.10 and a standard deviation of 4.70. The majority of them (n = 117)have taken one course in educational measurement during their preservice preparation.

Instrumentation

A self-report questionnaire of four parts was used in this study. The first part was aboutparticipants’ demographic data. The other three parts were about attitudes toward edu-cational measurement, perceived skilfulness in educational measurement, and knowledgeof educational measurement, respectively. To establish content validity, the questionnairewas given to a group of experts in educational measurement and psychology from SultanQaboos University. They were asked to judge the clarity of wording and the appropriate-ness of each item and its relevance to the construct being measured. Their feedback wasused for further refinement of the questionnaire.

Attitudes toward educational measurement

This part of the questionnaire contained 29 items from Bryant and Barnes’s (1997) AttitudeToward Educational Measurement Inventory, designed to assess teachers’ perceptions ofthe usefulness of educational measurement to teaching, their emotional reactions to educa-tional measurement, and their willingness to take more educational measurement courses.Responses were obtained on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree). Scoring of the negative items was reversed so that a high score reflecteda more positive attitude toward educational measurement. An individual’s attitude toward

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:55

25

Nov

embe

r 20

14


educational measurement was represented by an average rating score across all the items.Bryant and Barnes reported an internal consistency reliability coefficient of .93 and a three-week test-retest reliability coefficient of .74. In the present study, the internal consistencyreliability coefficient was .92 as measured by Cronbach’s alpha.

Perceived skills in educational measurement

This part of the questionnaire contained 50 items from Zhang and Burry-Stock’s (1994)Assessment Practices Inventory, designed to measure individuals’ perceptions of skills inperforming certain educational measurement tasks related to constructing paper-and-penciltests and performance measures, grading, communicating assessment results, and test revi-sion and analysis. Responses were obtained on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (notall skilled) to 4 (very skilled). An individual’s perceived skilfulness level in educationalmeasurement was represented by an average rating score across all the items. A high scorereflected a high level of perceived skilfulness in educational measurement. Zhang andBurry-Stock reported an internal consistency reliability coefficient of .97. In the presentstudy, the internal consistency reliability coefficient was .95 as measured by Cronbach’salpha.

Knowledge of educational measurement

This part of the questionnaire consisted of 35 items from Plake and Impara’s (1992)Teacher Assessment Literacy Questionnaire. The items were developed to align with the‘Standards for Teacher Competence in Educational Assessment of Students’ (AmericanFoundation of Teachers et al., 1990). All items followed a multiple-choice format with fouroptions, one being the correct answer. Plake, Impara, and Fager (1993) reported a KR20reliability coefficient of .54 for the questionnaire scores whereas Campbell, Murphy, andHolt (2002) reported a KR20 reliability coefficient of .74. In the present study, item diffi-culty values across all items ranged from .28 to .81 and item discrimination values rangedfrom .20 to .56. Also, in the present study, the KR20 reliability coefficient for the scoreswas .78.

Procedures

Permission was requested from course instructors and school principals to collect datafrom preservice teachers. The participants were informed that the study was being con-ducted to investigate differences between preservice and inservice teachers with respect totheir knowledge of, perceived skills in, and attitudes toward educational measurement. Theparticipants were also informed that they were not obligated to participate in the study, andthat if they wished, their responses would remain anonymous and confidential. Those whowished to participate in the study were provided with a consent form which explained thepurpose of the study, asserted that no risks were involved with participation in the study,ensured anonymity and confidentiality were protected, described the process of respondingto the questionnaire, and confirmed that the participant may stop their participation at anytime. The participants were allowed approximately 10 minutes to read and sign the con-sent form. After that, they were given a cover letter and the questionnaire along with briefinstructions about the information that was requested in the questionnaire, how to respondto the items, and where to find directions that were also included both in the cover letterand in the questionnaire.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:55

25

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Results

Preservice teachers versus inservice teachers

Independent samples t-tests were employed to investigate differences between preserviceteachers and inservice teachers with respect to knowledge of, perceived skilfulness in, andattitude toward educational measurement. Table 1 presents means and standard deviationsof educational measurement knowledge, perceived skills, and attitudes for preservice andinservice teachers. The results revealed that when compared with the preservice teachers,the inservice teachers had on average lower levels of educational measurement knowledge,t(510) = 7.80, p < .001, d = .69, 95%CI = [2.06, 3.44]; higher levels of perceived skilful-ness in educational measurement, t(510) = 4.66, p < .001, d = .41, 95%CI = [.12, .28];and more positive attitudes toward educational measurement, t(510) = 3.67, p < .001, d =.33, 95%CI = [.07, .25].

Three additional independent samples t-tests analyses were performed in an attemptto verify whether (a) teaching practicum makes a difference to preservice teachers’ edu-cational measurement knowledge, perceived skills, and attitudes; (b) teaching experiencemakes a difference to inservice teachers’ educational measurement knowledge, perceivedskills, and attitudes; and (c) a preservice educational measurement course makes a dif-ference to inservice teachers’ educational measurement knowledge, perceived skills, andattitudes. Following are the results of these analyses.

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of educational measurement knowledge, perceived skills,and attitudes for preservice teachers and inservice teachers.

Preservice teachers (n = 279) Inservice teachers (n = 233)

Variable M SD M SD

EM knowledge 15.30 3.94 12.55 4.01EM perceived skills 2.63 .46 2.83 .51EM attitude 3.50 .50 3.66 .48

Note: EM = educational measurement.

Teaching practicum

In this study, there were 135 preservice teachers who did not have teaching practicumwhile taking the educational measurement course. This group was compared with thegroup of 144 preservice teachers who had teaching practicum while taking the educationalmeasurement course. Table 2 presents means and standard deviations of educational mea-surement knowledge, perceived skills, and attitudes for preservice teachers categorised byteaching practicum. The results revealed that when compared with the preservice teacherswho did not have teaching practicum while taking the educational measurement course,those having teaching practicum had on average higher levels of educational measurementknowledge, t(277) = 10.94, p < .001, d = 1.31, 95%CI = [3.79, 5.45]; higher levelsof perceived skilfulness in educational measurement, t(277) = 9.76, p < .001, d = 1.17,95%CI = [.42, .69]; and more positive attitudes toward educational measurement, t(277)= 5.80, p < .001, d = .70, 95%CI = [.30, .60].

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:55

25

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Table 2. Means and standard deviations of educational measurement knowledge, perceived skills,and attitudes for preservice teachers categorised by teaching practicum.

Without teaching practicum(n = 135)

With teaching practicum(n = 144)

Variable M SD M SD



Teaching experience

With respect to the inservice teachers’ teaching experience, educational measurementknowledge, skills, and attitudes of inservice teachers with less than seven years of teachingexperience were compared with those with seven years or more of teaching experience.This classification was based on the median of the inservice teachers’ teaching experiencewhich was seven years. Table 3 presents means and standard deviations of educationalmeasurement knowledge, perceived skills, and attitudes for inservice teachers categorisedby teaching experience. The results revealed that when compared with the highly experi-enced inservice teachers (seven years or more of teaching experience), those having lessexperience of teaching (less than seven years) had on average higher levels of educa-tional measurement knowledge, t(231) = 3.66, p < .001, d = .48, 95%CI = [1.14, 3.82].However, there were no statistically significant differences between inservice teachers withless than seven years of teaching experience and those with seven years or more of teachingexperience on the perceived educational measurement skills, t(231) = 1.36, p > .05, andattitudes, t(231) = .95, p > .05.

Table 3. Means and standard deviations of educational measurement knowledge, perceived skills,and attitudes for inservice teachers categorised by teaching experience.

Less than sevenyears (n = 122)

Seven years ormore (n = 111)

Variable M SD M SD



A preservice educational measurement course

In this study, there were 100 inservice teachers who did not take an educational measure-ment course during their preservice preparation. This group was compared with the groupof 117 inservice teachers who had taken an educational measurement course during theirpreservice preparation. Table 4 presents means and standard deviations of educational mea-surement knowledge, perceived skills, and attitudes for inservice teachers categorised by apreservice educational measurement course. The results revealed that when compared withthe inservice teachers with no preservice educational measurement course, those having

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:55

25

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Table 4. Means and standard deviations of educational measurement knowledge, perceived skills,and attitudes for inservice teachers categorised by preservice measurement course.

Without measurement course(n = 100)

With measurement course(n = 117)

Variable M SD M SD

EM knowledge 11.81 2.63 16 2.53EM perceived skills 2.85 .49 2.73 .43EM attitude 3.70 .40 3.69 .46


taken a preservice educational measurement course had on average higher levels of educa-tional measurement knowledge, t(215) = 11.94, p < .001, d = 1.63, 95%CI = [3.50, 4.88].However, there were no statistically significant differences between inservice teachers withand without a preservice educational measurement course on the perceived educationalmeasurement skills, t(251) = 1.92, p > .05, and attitudes, t(215) = 0.17, p > .05.

Discussion

This study investigated differences between preservice teachers and inservice teachersconcerning their knowledge of, perceived skills in, and attitudes toward educational mea-surement. Interest in this topic stemmed from disappointing research findings suggestingteachers’ lack of competence in educational measurement. Results showed that inserviceteachers demonstrated a lower level of knowledge, a higher level of perceived skilfulness,and a more favourable attitude toward educational measurement than preservice teach-ers. These results are in partial agreement with previous research investigating teachers’educational measurement knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Daniel & King, 1998; Green,1992; Mertler, 2003; Mertler & Campbell, 2005; VanZile-Tamsen & Boes, 1997; Volante &Fazio, 2007; Zhang & Burry-Stock, 2003).

The high levels of educational measurement knowledge possessed by preservice teach-ers compared with inservice teachers could be attributed to their recent completion ofeducational measurement coursework. Although positive attitudes as well as high levelsof perceived skilfulness in educational measurement demonstrated by inservice teacherscompared with preservice teachers are necessary, they might not be sufficient to ensure thedevelopment of an assessment-literate teacher. Knowledge of the fundamentals of educa-tional measurement is also a basic requirement for effective classroom assessment practices(Popham, 2006; Stiggins, 1995). Therefore, we recommend that continuous inservice train-ing programs in educational measurement should be designed to compensate for inserviceteachers’ low levels of educational measurement knowledge. This recommendation wassupported by the findings of this study in two ways. First, inservice teachers with lessexperience in this study demonstrated on average a higher level of educational measure-ment knowledge than highly experienced inservice teachers. Second, inservice teachers inthis study with a preservice educational measurement course demonstrated on average ahigher level of educational measurement knowledge than those without a preservice edu-cational measurement course. These findings imply that measurement training could havea positive impact on educational measurement knowledge.

The less favourable attitudes and the low levels of perceived skilfulness in educa-tional measurement demonstrated by preservice teachers compared to inservice teachers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:55

25

Nov

embe

r 20

14


suggest that teacher educators should be aware of and avoid neglecting the affectiveaspects of instruction in educational measurement. Preservice teachers might need tooperationalise their educational measurement knowledge into actual classroom settings.Effective educational measurement instruction may result from connecting the contentmaterials of the course to the daily and ongoing assessment activities of the classroomand providing the preservice teachers with real-life opportunities for application of educa-tional measurement concepts and principles (Criswell & Criswell, 1995). This might enablepreservice teachers to see the usefulness of the educational measurement course and itsrelevance to their prospective teaching careers and to foster their perceived skilfulness inperforming educational measurement tasks.

Therefore, we recommend that the educational measurement course be offered whilestudents are having teaching practicum in their program so that they have opportunities toreceive feedback regarding their practices related to educational measurement. This rec-ommendation was supported in this study by finding that preservice teachers with teachingpracticum tended to have on average higher levels of educational measurement knowl-edge and perceived skills as well as more positive attitudes than those without teachingpracticum. This suggests that teaching practicum that gives preservice teachers opportu-nities to practise applications of educational measurement principles would be effectivein influencing their educational measurement knowledge, perceived skills, and attitudes.It should also be acknowledged that engaging students in a structured reflective practiceand self-evaluation might promote skill acquisition and competence (Branch & Paranjape,2002). This can be done by means of reflective journals, peer learning, and de-briefing.For example, students might be asked to write down their feelings and thoughts aboutclassroom assessment practices and to provide an evaluation of their own assessment prac-tices. This might increase the likelihood that the educational measurement concepts andtechniques learned are carried through to the classroom during the teaching practicum.

In addition, given that many preservice teachers have misinformed ideas about theplace of measurement and assessment in instruction (Bryant & Barnes, 1997; VanZile-Tamsen & Boes, 1997), interviews might be used as a formative tool to diagnoseprospective teachers’ initial conceptions of measurement and assessment. Specifically,course instructors might need to periodically conduct short individual interviews withtheir students to explore ways that might help improve the course. Such interviews mighthelp instructors to know what students have learned and what they still need to learn inorder to help them be assessment literate. Understanding preservice teachers’ beliefs mightassist teacher educators as they prepare them to face the realities of classroom assessment(Kushner, Carey, Dedrick, & Wallace, 1995).

The research design of this study is cross-sectional. A longitudinal study examiningeducational measurement knowledge, perceived skills, and attitudes over time from preser-vice to inservice might be required to identify developmental progression. Further studiesmay also use teacher interview to validate the self-report questionnaires. The question-naires may need to be administered to a representative sample selected from differentgeographical regions across the country.

Notes on contributorsHussain Alkharusi is an assistant professor of measurement and evaluation in the Department ofPsychology in the College of Education at Sultan Qaboos University. His research interests are inclassroom assessment and teacher education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:55

25

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Ali Mahdi Kazem is an associate professor of measurement and evaluation in the Department ofPsychology in the College of Education at Sultan Qaboos University. His research interests are indeveloping and validating psychological measures and evaluation of academic programs.

Ali Al-Musawai is an associate professor of instructional and learning technologies in the Departmentof Instructional and Learning Technologies in the College of Education at Sultan Qaboos University.His research interests are in LRCs, e-learning, and m-learning.

ReferencesAirasian, P.W. (1991). Perspective on measurement instruction. Educational Measurement: Issues

and Practice, 10, 13–16, 26.Alkharusi, H. (2009). Correlates of teacher education students’ academic performance in an

educational measurement course. International Journal of Learning, 16, 1–15.Alsarimi, A.M. (2000). Classroom assessment and grading practices in the Sultanate of Oman

(Unpublished dissertation). University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.American Foundation of Teachers, National Council on Measurement in Education, & National

Education Association. (1990). Standards for teacher competence in educational assessment ofstudents. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 2, 30–32.

Arter, J. (1999). Teaching about performance assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues andPractice, 18, 30–44.

Branch, W.T., & Paranjape, A. (2002). Feedback and reflection: Teaching methods for clinicalsettings. Academic Medicine, 77, 1185–1188.

Bryant, N.C., & Barnes, L.L.B. (1997). Development and validation of the attitude toward educa-tional measurement inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 870–875.

Campbell, C., Murphy, J.A., & Holt, J.K. (2002, October). Psychometric analysis of an assessmentliteracy instrument: Applicability to preservice teachers. Paper presented at the annual meetingof the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Columbus, OH.

Criswell, J.R., & Criswell, S.J. (1995). Modeling alternative classroom assessment practices inteacher education coursework. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 22, 190–193.

Daniel, L.G., & King, D.A. (1998). Knowledge and use of testing and measurement literacy ofelementary and secondary teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 331–343.

Goehring, H.J. (1973). Course competencies for undergraduate courses in educational tests andmeasurement. The Teacher Educator, 9, 11–20.

Green, K.E. (1992). Differing opinions on testing between preservice and inservice teachers. Journalof Educational Research, 86, 87–42.

Green, K.E., & Stager, S.F. (1987). Testing: Coursework, attitudes, and practice. EducationalResearch Quarterly, 11, 48–55.

Gullickson, A.R. (1984). Teacher perspectives of their instructional use of tests. Journal ofEducational Research, 77, 244–248.

Keller, J.M. (1979). Motivation and instructional design: A theoretical perspective. Journal ofInstructional Development, 2, 26–34.

Kushner, S.N., Carey, L.M., Dedrick, R.F., & Wallace, T.L. (1995, April). Preservice teachers’ beliefsabout the relevance of teacher education coursework and their confidence in performing relatedskills. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, SanFrancisco.

Mayo, S.T. (1964). What experts think teachers ought to know about educational measurement.Journal of Educational Measurement, 1, 79–86.

Mertler, C.A. (2003, October). Preservice versus inservice teachers’ assessment literacy: Doesclassroom experience make a difference? Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid-WesternEducational Research Association, Columbus, OH.

Mertler, C.A. (2004). Secondary teachers’ assessment literacy: Does classroom experience make adifference? American Secondary Education, 33, 49–64.

Mertler, C.A., & Campbell, C. (2005, April). Measuring teachers’ knowledge and applicationof classroom assessment concepts: Development of the Assessment Literacy Inventory. Paperpresented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Plake, B.S., & Impara, J.C. (1992). Teacher competencies questionnaire description. Lincoln:University of Nebraska.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:55

25

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Plake, B.S., Impara, J.C., & Fager, J.J. (1993). Assessment competencies of teachers: A nationalsurvey. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12, 10–12, 39.

Popham, W.J. (2006). Needed: A dose of assessment literacy. Educational Leadership, 63, 84–85.Quilter, S.M. (1999). Assessment literacy for teachers: Making a case for the study of validity.

Teacher Educator, 34, 235–243.Schafer, W.D. (1991). Essential assessment skills in professional education of teachers. Educational

Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10, 3–6, 12.Stiggins, R.J. (1991). Relevant classroom assessment training in teacher education programs.

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18, 23–27.Stiggins, R.J. (1995). Assessment literacy for the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 238–245.Stiggins, R.J. (1999). Evaluating classroom assessment training in teacher education programs.

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18, 23–27.Stiggins, R.J., & Conklin, N.F. (1988, November). Teacher training in assessment. Portland, OR:

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED303439)

Stiggins, R.J., & Conklin, N.F. (1992). In teachers’ hands: Investigating the practices of classroomassessment. Albany: State University of New York Press.

VanZile-Tamsen, C., & Boes, S.R. (1997, November). Graduate students’ attitudes and anxietytoward two required courses: Career development and tests and measurement. Paper presentedat the meeting of the Georgia Educational Research Association, Atlanta.

Volante, L., & Fazio, X. (2007). Exploring teacher candidates’ assessment literacy: Implications forteacher education reform and professional development. Canadian Journal of Education, 30,749–770.

Wise, S.L., Lukin, L.E., & Roos, L.L. (1991). Teacher beliefs about training in testing andmeasurement. Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 37–42.

Zhang, Z., & Burry-Stock, J.A. (1994). Assessment Practices Inventory. Tuscaloosa: The Universityof Alabama.

Zhang, Z., & Burry-Stock, J.A. (2003). Classroom assessment practices and teachers’ self-perceivedassessment skills. Applied Measurement in Education, 16, 323–342.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:55

25

Nov

embe

r 20

14

knowledge, skills, and attitudes of preservice and inservice teachers in educational measurement

Documents