Skip to main content

Assessment and Learning: The Proximal and Distal Effects of Comparative Judgment

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Technology Education

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

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.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes and control: Towards a theory of educational transmission (Vol. III). London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse: Class codes and control (Vol. IV). London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadfoot, P. (1996). Education, assessment and society: A sociological analysis. London: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canty, D. (2012). The impact of holistic assessment using adaptive comparative judgment of student learning, PhD Thesis, University of Limerick, Ireland.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, K. (2008). Technology and technological knowledge: A challenge for school curricula. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hager, P., & Butler, J. (1996). Two models of educational assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(4), 367–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A. V., Kimbell, R., Patterson, V. J., Saxton, J., & Stables, K. (1987). Design and technology: A framework for assessment. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R. (2007). E-assessment in project e-scape. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 12(2), 66–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R. (2011). Wrong…. But right enough. Design and Technology Education an International Journal, 16(2), 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R., & Perry, D. (2001). Design and technology in a knowledge economy. London: Engineering Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R., & Stables, K. (2007). Researching design learning: Issues and findings from two decades of research and development. Rotterdam: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Miller, S., Bain, J., & Wright, R. (2004). Assessing design innovation. London: Department of Education and Skills.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (1987). Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford Review of Education, 13(2), 191–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (2005). Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 175–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. J. (2000). Design: The only methodology of technology? Journal of Technology Education, 11(2), 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niall Seery .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics