Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Assidere Necesse Est: Necessities and complexities regarding teachers’ assessment practices in technology education
KTH, School of Education and Communication in Engineering Science (ECE), Learning, Teknikdidaktik.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8889-2562
2015 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

This thesis focuses on teachers’ assessment practices in primary and lower secondary schools for technology education (Sv. Teknik). It is grounded in my prior experience as a teacher but also addresses the national and international research fields of technology education and assessment.

The thesis is based on four papers covering different aspects of teachers’ assessment practices in technology. Its aim is to contribute to knowledge regarding how teachers use assessments in primary and lower secondary school. The thesis explores: teachers’ formal documenting practices; primary teachers’ minute-by-minute classroom assessment; teachers’ views on assessment and finally teachers’ statements and motives relating to criteria for success while assessing students’ e-portfolios.

The choice of methods varies, depending on the focus of each sub-study, including quantitative data, collected from official governmental databases, software-generated statistical data and questionnaires as well as qualitative methods such as observations and interviews.

Formal documents proved to be unsupportive for teachers’ assessment practices. Lack of instruction and deficiencies in design templates made these documents practically useless. The classroom study shows that the studied teachers have great ambitions for their pupils to succeed but lack collegial support concerning their assessment practices. Findings also show that teachers who are specifically trained in technology show higher self-efficacy regarding their assessment practices. Based on the results from the teachers' assessments of e-portfolios, it is concluded that there is consensus among the teachers to focus on the whole rather than on particular details in student’s work. The overall results strengthen the importance of designing activities and that students should be taught and not left to unreflective doing in technology.

Teachers’ assessment practices are complex. This thesis shows that teachers work with assessment in different ways. It is also shown that the educational environment is not supportive enough. Assessment is a necessity in the endeavour of bridging teaching and learning in technology, thus affordance for teachers’ assessment practices must be increased. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2015. , 89 p.
Series
TRITA-ECE, 2015:2
Keyword [en]
technology education, primary education, assessment, classroom assessment, formative assessment, assessment for learning, self-efficacy, e-portfolio, e-assessment, engineering education, STEM
Keyword [sv]
teknikundervisning, teknikdidaktik, formativ bedömning, bedömning, grundskola, klassrumsbedömning, bedömning för lärande, betyg
Keyword [no]
vurdering, vurdering for laring
National Category
Engineering and Technology
Research subject
Education and Communication in the Technological Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-160092ISBN: 978-91-7595-459-2 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-160092DiVA: diva2:788413
Public defence
2015-03-06, Kollegiesalen, Brinellvägen 8, KTH, Stockholm, 14:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Note

QC 20150216

Available from: 2015-02-16 Created: 2015-02-13 Last updated: 2015-02-16Bibliographically approved
List of papers
1. Exploring the (un-)usefulness of formative assessment documents in primary technology
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Exploring the (un-)usefulness of formative assessment documents in primary technology
2014 (English)In: International journal of technology and design education, ISSN 0957-7572, E-ISSN 1573-1804, Vol. 24, no 2, 141-161 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Every student in the Swedish compulsory school system is entitled to information regarding their progress in all school subjects given. In 2008, a mandatory assessment tool, called the individual development plan (IDP) with written assessment, was introduced by the Government. The statutory purpose was to provide teachers with a formative assessment tool to be used mandatory in the follow-up of student’s progress all thru mandatory compulsory school (year 1–9). This study explores the use of the IDP documents in technology education. Authentic documents from different municipalities, different schools and different school years have been studied. In this article findings regarding formal assessment documents and teacher’s formal assessment practice in primary (year 1–6) technology education are presented.

Keyword
primary technology education, assessment document, individual development plan, written assessment, formative assessment, individuella utvecklingsplaner med skriftliga omdömen, iup, skriftliga omdömen, bedömning, formativ bedömning, uppföljning, teknikundervisning
National Category
Social Sciences Educational Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-104441 (URN)10.1007/s10798-013-9250-z (DOI)000340487500002 ()2-s2.0-84905638037 (Scopus ID)
Note

QC 20150623

Available from: 2012-11-02 Created: 2012-11-02 Last updated: 2015-06-23Bibliographically approved
2. Looking for a glimpse in the eye: A descriptive study of teachers’ work with assessment in technology education
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Looking for a glimpse in the eye: A descriptive study of teachers’ work with assessment in technology education
2013 (English)In: Technology teachers as researchers:: Philosophical and Empirical Technology Education Studies in the Swedish TUFF Research School / [ed] Inga-Britt Skogh & Marc J De Vries, Sense Publishers, 2013, 1, 255-283 p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

In order to position yourself with a Global Positioning System (GPS) device, you need (1) to have a GPS device with (2) accurate software, (3) the knowledge to use and interpret it, and last but not least (4) information from at least three different satellites in order to determine a position. Depending on the model and the coverage in the area, you can get different accuracy levels. Being a technology teacher myself, I can see many similarities between the traveller’s need for milestones along the road and the teachers’ need for several clear benchmarks to support the assessment work that supports the student’s progress. The importance of navigating at sea is familiar to me, after years of sailing on our family boat. Teaching could, in my experience, be seen in many respects as a similar activity, which put demands on all the participants. Neither teaching nor sailing is an easy, laid-back activity.

To ‘navigate’ students towards the goals of the curriculum, while making sure to keep every student ‘on-board’, is a challenge worthy of a world sailor. Despite thorough planning, you still need to make frequent check-ups, since you know neither exactly what will happen during the journey in advance nor which way to take to reach the wanted destination. This, I find, is part of the excitement/allure with travel, both as a sailor and teacher. In this study teachers’ day-to-day work with assessment to support the student’s progress is highlighted from the perspective of technology education. How does a technology teacher gather information in order to position her/his students before deciding on what step to take next?

Assessment and evaluation of student performance and progress in school is an ongoing process and far from consisting of only grades and test scores. Teachers make assessments/assess their students all the time with the intention of moving their students forward on their learning journey (Kimbell, 2007). They ask questions and they look for signs of response (‘a glimpse in the eye’) in the faces of their students. This subtle evaluation and appraisal work, which takes place every day in every classroom, is the focus of this article.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Sense Publishers, 2013 Edition: 1
Series
International Technology Education Studies, 12
Keyword
technology education, classroom assessment, formative assessment, assessment for learning, documenting, teachers assessment practice, teknikundervisning, teknikdidaktik, formativ bedömning, bedömning, bedömning för lärande, feedback, vurdering for laring, vurdering, formativ
National Category
Educational Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-104450 (URN)978-94-6209-441-3 (ISBN)978-94-6209-442-0 (ISBN)978-94-6209-443-7 (ISBN)
Note

QC 20121108

Available from: 2012-11-02 Created: 2012-11-02 Last updated: 2016-04-18Bibliographically approved
3. Investigating technology teachers’ self-efficacy on assessment
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Investigating technology teachers’ self-efficacy on assessment
2015 (English)In: International journal of technology and design education, ISSN 0957-7572, E-ISSN 1573-1804, Vol. 25, no 3, 321-337 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This study explores possible differences in the views on assessment between two groups of teachers teaching technology in compulsory school: 1) teachers with subject-specific teacher training in technology education; and 2) teachers without such training. This topic is of particular interest because of the recent changes in the regulations that govern compulsory schools in Sweden, such that only certified teachers now will be permitted to teach and assign grades, despite the clear lack of certified teachers in technology education. The study is situated in two fields of interest—technology education and assessment. Both topics are highly relevant, especially in combination, because previous research on teachers’ assessment practices in technology is rare. In this study, the goal is to contribute to deepening the understanding of how subject-specific teacher training affects teachers’ ability to assess students’ knowledge while maintaining alignment with stated regulations. The results show significant difference between these two groups’ use of curriculum documents as the basis of their teaching and their self-efficacy in assessing student’s knowledge in technology. The results suggest interesting possibilities for curriculum alignment and indicate that the opportunities for student learning increase according to whether teachers are specifically trained in the subject. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Publishing Company, 2015
Keyword
Assessment, Certified teacher, Compulsory schooling, Self-efficacy, Teacher education, Teacher training, Technology education, Bedömning, lärarutbildning, lärarlegitimation, utbildade lärare, självbild, grundskola, teknikundervisning, vurdering, lærer, lærerutdanning, teknologi utdanning
National Category
Engineering and Technology
Research subject
Education and Communication in the Technological Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-152549 (URN)10.1007/s10798-014-9285-9 (DOI)000357342400002 ()2-s2.0-84957975860 (Scopus ID)
Note

Updated from Accepted to Published. QC 20150707

Available from: 2014-09-29 Created: 2014-09-29 Last updated: 2015-08-25Bibliographically approved
4. Criteria for Success: A study of primary teachers' assessment of e-portfolios
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Criteria for Success: A study of primary teachers' assessment of e-portfolios
2015 (English)In: Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, ISSN 1449-5554, E-ISSN 1449-5554Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Transparency regarding criteria for success in assessment processes is challenging for most teachers. The context of this study is primary school technology education. With the purpose to establish what criteria for success teachers put forward during the act of assessment, think-aloud protocols were collected from five primary teachers during an assessment act. Results are based on content analysis of think-aloud protocols and quantitative measures of reliability in order to ascertain teachers’ motives for decision-making when assessing Year 5 pupils’ multimodal e-portfolios.

Findings show consensus among these teachers, focusing on the execution of the task in relation to the whole, rather than to particular pieces of student work. The results confirm the importance of task design, where active learning in combination with active tutoring is an integral part, including provision of time and space for pupils to finish their work.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Waikato: University of Waikato, 2015
Keyword
Assessment, technology education, primary school, e-portfolio, adaptive comparative judgments, teachers, bedömning, e-portföljer, digitalt lärande, grundskola, teknik, parvisa jämförelser, teknikdidaktik, teknikundervisning, lärares bedömning, betygssättning
National Category
Educational Sciences
Research subject
Education and Communication in the Technological Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-160094 (URN)10.15663/ajte.v2i1.27 (DOI)
Note

QC 20150901

Available from: 2015-02-13 Created: 2015-02-13 Last updated: 2015-09-01Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

hartell2015_phdthesiskappa(459 kB)1016 downloads
File information
File name INSIDE01.pdfFile size 459 kBChecksum SHA-512
4f6c60aa73b7976552809093a147c69c88341b0f52f97c31cfea991469201f8d2d8b8a96d12e4de9f0ab28d3f927ef80385e089f5014b6709bc12311daf64171
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hartell, Eva
By organisation
Teknikdidaktik
Engineering and Technology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 0 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Total: 3112 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf