DEVELOPMENT OF A TRAINING COURSE FOCUSING ON TEACHERS’ ANALYTICAL THINKING SKILLS IN MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION

Main Article Content

Rungrudee Klaharn

Abstract

This research and development aimed to organize a training course focusing on teachers’ analytical thinking skills in measurement and evaluation. The three phases of the study were as follows: 1) The current state of the teachers’ problems and needs of teachers in analytical thinking skills; 2) A training course was developed; and 3) Designing a course trial and efficacy assessment were implemented through one-group pretest-posttest design during May 11-12, 2017. The sample was 440 teachers teaching at elementary and secondary schools level from five regional regions in large schools, Thailand. They were chosen via multi-stage random sampling for phase 1. Five experts were selected by purposive sampling in phase 2. A total of 30 teachers from the sample volunteered to take part in the research. Research instruments included interview, questionnaire, test, assessment form and training course. Each instrument had a content validity value between .80 -1.00 and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients reliability were equal to .93 - .97 The test had difficulties ranging .30 - .77 and discrimination powers ranging .27 - .60 Data analysis employed mean, standard deviation, percentage, paired samples test. The Priority Needs Index (PNI modified) was used and content analysis used for the interview data.
Findings indicated the following:
1. Under actual conditions, the mean of overall measurement and evaluation in teachers’ analytical thinking skills was moderate ( x =2.03, SD=.66). The mean of overall desired condition was high ( x =2.91, SD=.30).


The PNImodified values of priority needs, for all measurement and evaluation in all developments of teachers’ analytical thinking skills, were between 0.40 and 0.48 and the overall mean was 0.43.


2. The developed training course consisted of six aspects, i.e. principles and reasons, objectives, course contents, learning activities, learning materials, and measurement and evaluation. The experts viewed the course were the high appropriate and consistent level ( x = 3.94, SD = .90; x = 4.09, SD = .79) respectively.


3. The results of the course trial and efficacy evaluation revealed that the trainees’ knowledge before and after training differed significantly at a statistical level of .05. The trainees viewed the course as one at the highest satisfied level ( x = 4.36, SD = .62).

Article Details

Section
Articles