Spreadsheets are extensively taught in most construction management programs and also in other curriculums (Hein & Miller ’95, Christofferson 99). The spreadsheet is arguably the pre-dominant software used in the construction industry (Mead 98, Wiezel et al. 97). Among the various spreadsheet programs available, Microsoft^® Excel is the most popular program. Excel is used in construction management education in a variety of ways, including the instruction of estimating, scheduling, project management and basic structures. In most Universities, Excel is usually taught in the classroom in a lecture / lab format. Evaluating students’ knowledge of this software program is usually done by assigning homework and by giving quizzes. These methods require the instructor to spend valuable time in preparing these assignments/quizzes and grading them.

Microsoft^® Office User Specialist program offers educational institutions an opportunity to conduct a standardized examination to test students’ knowledge in various Microsoft^® Office products. Instructors at Auburn Universities’ construction management program adopted this method of testing students’ Excel skills. Upon successfully completing the exam, the candidates received an official "Microsoft^® Office User Specialist" certificate from Microsoft^®. A sample of the official certificate is presented in figure 1. Most corporations consider the certificate as proof of knowledge of that particular software (Marie Herman ’99, Career Magazine ’98 and Sireci et al. 98)

Certiport, formerly Nivo International is the exclusive, worldwide provider to Microsoft^® Corporation for the management, marketing, delivery and implementation of the MOUS program. Certiport refers to this exam as a ‘Concurrent’ exam. Concurrent/performance-based exams are tests that offer a real world experience, by testing applicants within an application while the application is running. This approach offers three distinct advantages for performance-based certification testing. First, it allows exam designers to create exams that directly measure a student’s knowledge, and his/her ability to apply that knowledge. Second, querying an examinee’s ability directly, concurrent exams deliver a high degree of, what testing experts refer to as, "construct validity." This, in laymen’s terms, gives the examiner an insight to the abilities of the examinee on a given instrument. Third, the ability to interact with a "live," fully functional application offers examinees a testing experience in which the examinee’s on-the-job interaction and mastery of the software is fully transferable to a similar situation in a different environment.

Results of an independent research study of participants (Certiport 2001) in the Microsoft^® Office User Specialist (MOUS) program indicate MOUS certification improves employee competency, productivity, and credibility. 87 percent of employers observed increased competency in their MOUS-certified employees and 83 percent of employers felt their MOUS-certified employees are more productive. 67 percent of employers felt MOUS simplifies hiring and advancement decisions.

At Auburn’s construction program, computer knowledge and skills are utilized in many different ways and in many different classes. IT skills include knowledge of spreadsheets, word processing, estimating, scheduling, database creation, digital media processes, presentations, macro commands, Internet and email, etc. In many ways, the more skillful and knowledgeable a student is in these topics, the more effective and efficient they can be in a curriculum centered on technology. The MOUS test is another step toward better educating the students in computers and specifically in Excel.

In some universities the introduction to information technology course is one of the universities core courses and is taught by the computer science department or its equivalent. At Auburn University, the information technology course for construction management students is taught within the program, so that instructors could focus on construction related problems. Excel is one part of the course and other material taught in this course usually includes software applications such as word processors, databases, image editors and web publishing. However, more than two-thirds of the course time is spent on covering spreadsheet (Excel) and database (Access) programs. The MOUS test was conducted in this class and the grade from this test was used as the student’s grade for the Excel portion of the course. Extra credit was given to students who passed the test on their first attempt.

This paper explains the procedures involved in administering the test, summarizes the opinions of the participants about the process, and analyzes the scores of the test for thirty-two students. The authors also present their views on the advantages and disadvantages of conducting the exam in an academic environment.

An academic institution must apply to Certiport to be an authorized testing center for the MOUS program. The approval of the application will depend on the criteria set forth by Certiport. Some of the criteria include ergonomics of the testing rooms, availability of Internet connectivity, and availability of an IT system administrator. The system administrator is responsible for overseeing the whole process and computer configurations. While most MOUS testing centers are open to the public, Certiport allows test centers to be private.

Conducting the MOUS test in an academic institution requires the effort of several people within the organization. The different steps involved in this process are explained in this section. The information technology system administrator must install the MOUS testing software on the computers, prior to conducting the exam. On the day of the exam, the system administrator downloads the exam via the Internet. These individual exams are purchased from either Certiport or one of their authorized dealers. The exam cost was $40 at the time the authors conducted it and the students paid this fee. Currently Certiport charges $75 for the exam. The system administrator is assigned a unique code, to enable them to administer the exam. The test is proctored under the supervision of the system administrator. The system administrator also makes sure that no other applications are open on the testing terminal, while the test software is running. At the end of the exam, the software requires the administrator to log in again and print the results of the test. The results are discussed later in this document.

The exam for Excel 2000 has two levels. They are the ‘Core’ level and the ‘Expert’ level. The Core level exam in made up of 36 questions and has a time limit of about 45 minutes, depending on the version of the test. The overall test is timed but individual questions are not timed. Prior to the test, the software presents the examinee with a set of instructions and test taking tips. Once a question has been answered, only the final result is graded and the intermediate steps taken in reaching the final answer and errant keystrokes performed are not monitored. Partial credit to responses on the Excel 2000 exam is awarded, this feature is not available in the exam for Excel 97. The authors conducted the exam for Excel 2000 for the Core level only in this study. The passing grade required for the test was 77%, as designated by Microsoft^®. The categories of topics for the Core level are presented in table 1 below.

At the end of the exam, the print out of the results showed how the examinee did on the test. A sample of the test results is presented in table 2.

The test was given to a sample of thirty-two students. At the time this test was conducted, Certiport provided a free exam to all the students who failed the exam in their first attempt. Since only thirty-two students took the test, significant statistics were not performed in this paper. The actual results from the test are presented and discussed in this paper.

The authors also conducted interviews with the instructors, students and the system administrator. Comments from those interviews are presented and discussed. The authors asked the participants the same questions regarding their experience, the problems faced, the advantages of the endeavor and the future possibilities for this project. The interviews were conducted in a casual atmosphere on a one-on-one basis. The interviews were not timed but the authors estimate that each interview lasted about five minutes. A qualitative analysis of the responses of the interviews is performed in this paper.

The average scores for the MOUS exam are presented below in table 3. The performance of the students on specific topics is also presented in the table below. Fifteen students passed in their first attempt and sixteen students passed in their second attempt. The average scores for both attempts are presented.

The representative comments from the interviews conducted were grouped into favorable and unfavorable comments and presented in table 4 shown below.

The participants’ opinions varied based on their experiences in the test. Students who passed the test in the first attempt naturally had a favorable response while most of those who failed the test in their first attempt had unfavorable comments. The students liked the fact they could use this as an advantage in their resume for employment opportunities. The instructors and students did not like the fact that the exam did not give feedback about specific mistakes the students may have made. This did not give the students who failed the test in the first attempt an opportunity to prepare better for the second attempt. The system administrator in an academic institution has a demanding job. The fact that the testing software occasionally crashed created further problems for the system administrator. Some of the questions in the test were repeated for the students who took the test in their second attempt and the instructors felt that this gave those students taking the exam for the second time an unfair advantage. The instructors complained about the grade distribution of a maximum of 865 and minimum of 776, which indicated that the only possible grades were either a B or a C in this test.

On any given day thousands of people around the world take some sort of certification exam (Sireci et al. ‘98). Certification is widely used by the many industries for the purpose of employment and career advancement. The participants of this study also concur that those students who are certified have an advantage over others who are not certified.

Based on the results from the test and the comments of the participants, the authors recommend that the reader not adopt MOUS testing in the classroom for the sole purpose of using it to grade the students’ Excel knowledge and skills, until the process becomes more efficient and reliable. The authors hope to continue to provide their students the opportunity to take the test in the institution but do not intend to use it as the only means of determining the students’ grade for the Excel portion of the course. The authors propose to conduct some sort of conventional test that is not as time consuming and combine it with the results from the students’ MOUS test in order to decide on the student’s grade for the Excel portion of the course. The authors also feel that giving student’s feedback about their performance is very critical, but this objective is not addressed in the MOUS test. Based on experiences in the future, the authors agree that it is possible to conceive using the MOUS test for the Access part of the course as well.

Career Magazine. (1998). The power of proof: why you should become a Microsoft^® office user specialist now. [WWW document]. URL: http://vertical.worklife.com/onlines/careermag/

Certiport [WWW document]. URL http://www.certiport.com/forOrganizations/successStoriesO.asp

Christofferson J.P (1999) Using Powerful Spreadsheet Application Tools to Increase the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Estimating, Proceedings of the Associated Schools of Construction

Hein M.F and Miller S. (1995) The Secret life of Spreadsheets: Dynamic Learning Tools for Construction, Proceedings of the Associated Schools of Construction

Herman, M. When it pays to get certified. [WWW document]. URL http://certcities.com/

Mead S. (1998) Construction IT: Recent Developments and Implications for Construction Education, Proceedings of the Associated Schools of Construction

Wiezel A, Walsh K and Brefla J (1997) A Critical Analysis of Introductory Computer Course for Constructors, Proceedings of the Associated Schools of Construction

Sireci S, Fitzgerald C and Xing D (1998) Adapting Credentialing Examinations for International Uses. Annual meeting of the American Education Research Association (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 428 118).