Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of electronic assessment systems within the USA and their ability to meet the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Standard 2

  • Published:
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explored what types (commercial, in-house, or hybrid) of electronic assessment systems (EASs) are currently being used at university-based educator preparation programs, how important the system components were at the time of system selection, how satisfied users were with the components of the system, and how well they perceive that their EAS was able to meet the data collection requirements of National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Standard 2. An electronic survey was sent to 775 NCATE coordinators or their equivalent as identified from each institution’s Web site with 225 participants completing the survey for a response rate of 31 %. Results showed that all EAS components identified were considered to be important and that the respondents were satisfied in general with the performance of those components. Further analysis revealed a lower level of satisfaction with the EAS components when compared to the importance of those same components. Also, analysis based on the specific type of EAS revealed differences in respondent perceptions regarding the system’s ability to systematically collect data, faculty access to the data, the ability to aggregate data, the ability to collect multiple assessments, and the costs associated with the system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AASCU. (n.d.) AASCU College Accountability Policy Priorities. Retrieved from http://www.congressweb.com/aascu/collegeaccountability.htm.

  • CAEP (2013). CAEP accreditation standards. Retrieved from http://caepnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/final_board_approved1.pdf.

  • CAEP (2014). CAEP evidence guide. Retrieved from http://caepnet.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/caep_evidence_guide1.pdf.

  • Cavanaugh, T., Cavanaugh, C., Daniels, L., et al. (2005). A journey of design: developing a technology based unit assessment system: designing and implementing a teacher education unit assessment system. In C. Crawford (Ed.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference 2005 (pp. 40–46). Chesapeake: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cibulka, J.G. (2012). How the use of data will transform educator preparation. The Newsletter of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 21(2). Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=xBeteqTC1pM%3D&tabid=523.

  • Cibulka, J., LaCelle-Peterson, M., Benbow, C., Poda, J., Rigden, D., & Eldridge, D. (2012). CAEP/NCATE/TEAC:A Workshop on Standards-Setting for Our Profession, retrieved from http://ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=SNDMQKSFgqM%3d&tabid=391.

  • Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. A. (2010). The impact of no child left behind on students, teachers, and schools. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2010(2), 149–194. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from Project MUSE database.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Educational Testing Service:KY (n.d.). Overview of Kentucky testing requirements. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/praxis/ky.

  • Educational Testing Service:TX (n.d.) Overview of Texas testing requirements. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/praxis/tx.

  • Grant, R. W., & Keohane, R. O. (2005). Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. American Political Science Review, 99, 29–43. doi:10.1017/S0003055405051476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J., & Walsh, K. (2010). Evaluating the fundamentals of teacher training programs in Texas, National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/edschoolreports/texas/docs/executive_summary.pdf.

  • Hebert, D. M. (2007). Innovation in Teacher Education: Faculty Members’ and Assessment Coordinators’ Perceptions of Electronic Assessment Systems. Retrieved from http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-11062007-181936/.

  • Holmes Partnership. (n.d.). Holmes Partnership – History. Retrieved from http://www.holmespartnership.org/about/history.cfm.

  • Jackson, J. (2006). Increasing accountability for teacher preparation programs, Southern Regional Accreditation Board, Retrieved from http://publications.sreb.org/2006/06E18_Increasing_Accountability.pdf.

  • Ma, X. (2005). Building an accountability system for teacher education: an actor-network approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, United States - Maryland. Retrieved December 4, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3237664).

  • National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future | Strategies | Assure Quality Teacher Preparation. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.nctaf.org/strategies/assure/index.htm.

  • National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional Standards for Accreditation of Teacher Preparation Institutions. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/documents/standards/NCATE%20Standards%202008.pdf.

  • No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).

  • Noell, G. H., & Burns, J. L. (2006). Value-added assessment of teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 37–50. doi:10.1177/0022487105284466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owsiak, N. (2008). Teacher quality accountability measures: perceptions of degree and direction of influence on university-based teacher education programs. Ed.D. dissertation, The George Washington University, United States - District of Columbia. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3296990).

  • Reusser, J., Butler, L., Symonds, M., Vetter, R., & Wall, T. J. (2007). An assessment system for teacher education program quality improvement. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(2), 105–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • RiCharde, S. R., (n.d.). Data management and data management tools. Retrieved September 9, 2011 from http://usfweb2.usf.edu/assessment/Resources/Data%20Management%20and%20Data%20Management%20Tools.pdf.

  • Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS) database: implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement. Retrieved July 13, 2011 from http://www.mccsc.edu/~curriculum/cumulative%20and%20residual%20effects%20of%20teachers.pdf.

  • Sandoval, P., & Wigle, S. (2006). Building a unit assessment system: creating quality evaluation of candidate performance. Education, 126(4), 640–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulte, L., Danielson, L., Conway, D., & Clark, P. (2006). Avoiding the pitfalls: a comprehensive approach to meeting NCATE’s standard 2. Online Submission, Retrieved from ERIC database.

  • Sivakumaran, T., Holland, G., Wishart, W., Heynig, K., & Flowers-Gibson, B. (2010). Electronic assessment systems: implementation, maintenance and support. Focus on Colleges, Universities, and Schools, 4, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (2007). Educational research in an age of accountability. Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoulig, D. (2009). Teacher education preparation assessment system and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education accreditation. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi, United States - Mississippi. Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3396130).

  • Subedi, B. R., Swan, B., & Hynes, M. C. (2011). Are school factors important for measuring teacher effectiveness? A multilevel technique to predict student gains through a value-added approach. Educational Research International, 2011, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teacher preparation: reforming the uncertain profession—remarks of Secretary Arne Duncan at Teachers College, Columbia University. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/10/10222009.html.

  • Wineburg, M. S. (2006). Evidence in teacher preparation: establishing a framework for accountability. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 51–64. doi:10.1177/0022487105284475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zou, J., De Vaney, C., & Wang, Y. (2009). A meta-modeling framework to support accountability in Business process modeling. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 20, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01112-2.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Technology, College of Education and Behavioral Sciences, Western Kentucky University, 1906 College Heights Blvd, Bowling Green, KY, 42101-1030, USA

    Anthony Kirchner

  2. Educational Leadership Doctoral Program, College of Education and Behavioral Sciences, Western Kentucky University, 1906 College Heights Blvd, Bowling Green, 42101-1030, KY, USA

    Antony D. Norman

Authors
  1. Anthony Kirchner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antony D. Norman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony Kirchner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kirchner, A., Norman, A.D. Evaluation of electronic assessment systems within the USA and their ability to meet the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Standard 2. Educ Asse Eval Acc 26, 393–407 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-014-9204-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-014-9204-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation