Abstract
The endeavor to support creative and innovative activities within the construct of testing, grading, and rewarding in a standardized, reliable, and equitable way is a significant challenge for every subject. Technology education supports the development of a critical and inquisitive disposition (Williams 2011), yet one can question the capacity to effectively and validly measure the capabilities that enact this disposition. This chapter highlights the importance of integrating professional judgment as a means of supporting a more effective assessment of the evidence and actions that allude to the characteristics of a technologically capable person. The chapter discusses the proximal and distal effects of using adaptive comparative judgment (ACJ) as a means of judging evidence of capability so as to demonstrate the validity of the assessment method while supporting the pragmatic requirements of formal education. The chapter also discusses critical aspects of the impact assessment practices have from the perspective of the teacher and the student. The chapter concludes by presenting ACJ as a central approach to effective assessment “as” learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Archer, L. B. (1992). The nature of research into design and design education. In B. Archer, K. Baynes, & P. H. Roberts (Eds.), The nature of research into design and technology education (pp. 7–13). Loughborough: Department of Design and Technology, Loughborough University of Technology.
Barlex, D. (2007). Assessing capability in design and technology: The case for a minimally invasive approach. Design and Technology: An International Journal, 12(2), 49–56.
Barlex, D., & Trebell, D. (2008). Design without make: Challenging the conventional approach to teaching and learning in a design and technology classroom. International Journal of Design and Technology Education, 18(2), 119–138.
Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes and control: Towards a theory of educational transmission (Vol. III). London: Routledge.
Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse: Class codes and control (Vol. IV). London: Routledge.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. London: Routledge.
Broadfoot, P. (1996). Education, assessment and society: A sociological analysis. London: Open University Press.
Canty, D. (2012). The impact of holistic assessment using adaptive comparative judgment of student learning, PhD Thesis, University of Limerick, Ireland.
Canty, D., Seery, N., & Phelan, P. (2012). Democratic consensus on student defined assessment criteria as a catalyst for learning in technology teacher education. Paper presented at the 26th Pupils’ Attitudes towards Technology (PATT) Conference, Stockholm, Sweden.
Dow, W. (2005). Developing inclusive communities of learners in technology education: Practical craft skills – Facilitator or hindrance. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(1), 5–17.
Gibson, K. (2008). Technology and technological knowledge: A challenge for school curricula. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 3–15.
Hager, P., & Butler, J. (1996). Two models of educational assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(4), 367–378.
Kelly, A. V., Kimbell, R., Patterson, V. J., Saxton, J., & Stables, K. (1987). Design and technology: A framework for assessment. London: HMSO.
Kimbell, R. (2007). E-assessment in project e-scape. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 12(2), 66–76.
Kimbell, R. (2010). The transient and the timeless: Surviving a lifetime of policy and practice in assessment. Design and Technology: An international Journal, 15(3), 18–27.
Kimbell, R. (2011). Wrong…. But right enough. Design and Technology Education an International Journal, 16(2), 6–7.
Kimbell, R., & Perry, D. (2001). Design and technology in a knowledge economy. London: Engineering Council.
Kimbell, R., & Stables, K. (2007). Researching design learning: Issues and findings from two decades of research and development. Rotterdam: Springer.
Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wosniak, A., & Kelly, V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design and technology. London: School Examinations and Assessment Council/Central Office of Information.
Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Miller, S., Bain, J., & Wright, R. (2004). Assessing design innovation. London: Department of Education and Skills.
Lave, J., & Wegner, E. (1999). Learning and pedagogy in communities of practice. In B. Leach & J. Moon (Eds.), Learners and pedagogy (pp. 21–33). London: Open University Press.
McGarr, O., & Lynch, R. (2015). Monopolising the STEM agenda in second-level schools: Exploring power relations and subject subcultures. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, [online]. Available: doi:10.1007/s10798-015-9333-0.
O’Donovan, B., Price, M., & Rust, C. (2004). Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 325–335.
Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2000). The use of student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(1), 23–38.
Sadler, D. R. (1987). Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford Review of Education, 13(2), 191–209.
Sadler, D. R. (2005). Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 175–194.
Sadler, D. R. (2009). Transforming holistic assessment and grading into a vehicle for complex learning. In G. Joughin (Ed.), Assessment, learning and judgement in higher education (pp. 45–63). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Seery, N., Canty, D., & Phelan, P. (2012). The validity and value of peer assessment using adaptive comparative judgement in design driven practical education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 205–226.
Stables, K. (2008). Designing matters; designing minds: The importance of nurturing the designerly in young people. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 13(3), 8–18.
Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (2001). Developing formative assessment in the classroom: Using action research to explore and modify theory. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 615–631.
Williams, P. J. (2000). Design: The only methodology of technology? Journal of Technology Education, 11(2), 48–60.
Williams, P. J. (2011). Dispositions as explicit learning goals for engineering and technology education. In M. Barak & M. Hacker (Eds.), Fostering human development through Engineering and technology education (pp. 89–102). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477–501.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Seery, N., Canty, D. (2017). Assessment and Learning: The Proximal and Distal Effects of Comparative Judgment. In: de Vries, M. (eds) Handbook of Technology Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_54-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_54-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-38889-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-38889-2
eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education