Teachers’ Assessment Practices

  • Eva HartellEmail author
Part of the Contemporary Issues in Technology Education book series (CITE)


This chapter is based on my doctoral thesis Navigare necesse est—Necessities and complexities regarding teachers’ assessment practices—which is grounded in my prior experience as a teacher of elementary science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects. It focuses on teachers’ assessment practices in primary and lower secondary technology education and contributes to the fields of technology education and educational assessment. In this chapter, I summarize my findings and describe methods of providing affordance for teachers’ assessment practices to bridge teaching and learning in technology education.


  1. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. Scholar
  2. Black, P. (2008). Formative assessment in the learning and teaching of design and technology education: Methods and techniques. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 13(3), 19–26.Google Scholar
  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in education: Principles. Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. Scholar
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. Scholar
  5. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8–21. Retrieved from Scholar
  6. Goddard, R. D., Hoy Wayne, K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goddard, R., Goddard, Y., Sook Kim, E., & Miller, R. (2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 501–530. Scholar
  8. Harrison, C. (2009). Assessment for Learning. A Formative Approach to Classroom Practice). In A. Jones & M. deVries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education (pp. 449–459). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Hartell, E. (2013). Looking for a glimpse in the eye: A descriptive study of teachers’ work with assessment in technology education. In I.-B. Skogh & M. J. De Vries (Eds.), Technology teachers as researchers: Philosophical and empirical technology education studies in the Swedish TUFF research school (1st ed., pp. 255–283). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hartell, E. (2014). Exploring the (un-) usefulness of mandatory assessment documents in primary technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(2), 141–161. Scholar
  11. Hartell, E. (2015). The cared for teacher. In J. Evers & R. Kneyber (Eds.), Flip the system: Changing education from the ground up (1st ed., pp. 241–246). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Hartell, E. (2017). Teachers’ self-efficacy in assessment in technology education. In M. J. de Vries (Ed.), Springer international handbook of education: Handbook of technology education (1st ed., pp. 1–16). Cham: Springer. Scholar
  13. Hartell, E., & Ahlkvist, J. (2014). En kortfattade beskrivning om hur en skola i Haninge kommun har arbetat med att implementera formativ bedömning hållbart i verksamheten. In Bedömning för lärande, BFL, för praktik och forskning (pp. 1–3). Stockholm: IFOUS Retrieved from Scholar
  14. Hartell, E., Holmberg, S., & Åkesson, J. (2015). Att leda framåt och inte till leda. In Att leda för BLF; forskning och praktik möter varandra (pp. 1–2). Stockholm: IFOUS Retrieved from Scholar
  15. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers Maximizing impact on student learning. Exeter: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hirsh, Å. (2011). A tool for learning? An analysis of targets and strategies in Swedish individual educational plans. Nordic Studies in Education, 31(1), 14–30.Google Scholar
  18. Hirsh, Å., & Lindberg, V. (2015). Formativ bedömning på 2000-talet- en översikt av svensk och internationell forskning. Sweden: Stockholm. Retrieved from
  19. Jönsson, A. (2010). Lärande bedömning. Malmö: Gleerups.Google Scholar
  20. Kimbell, R. (2007). Assessment. In M. de Vries, R. Custer, J. Dakers, & G. Martin (Eds.), Analyzing best practices in technology education (pp. 247–258). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Siobhan Leahy, Christine Lyon, Marnie Thompson, and Dylan Wiliam. Quality Assurance, 63(November), 1–7. Retrieved from Minute,-Day-by-Day.aspx
  22. Leahy, S., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Embedding formative assessment-a professional development pack for schools. London: Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.Google Scholar
  23. Lindström, L. (2006). Creativity: What is it? Can you assess it? Can it be taught? The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 25(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moreland, J., Jones, A., & Barlex, D. (2008). Design and technology inside the black box assessment for learning in the design and technology classroom. London: GL Assessment.Google Scholar
  25. NAE. (2009). Allmänna råd och kommentarer. Den individuella utvecklingsplanen med skriftliga omdömen. Skolverkets allmänna råd 2008. Revised 2009. Statens Skolverk (NAE).Google Scholar
  26. Nilsson, P. (2008). Learning to Teach and Teaching to Learn Primary science student teachers’ complex journey from learners to teachers. Norrköping: Linköping university.Google Scholar
  27. Palmer, D., Dixon, J., & Archer, J. (2015). Changes in science teaching self-efficacy among primary teacher education students. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, (12), 40.
  28. Pettersson, A. (2009). Bedömning- varför, vad och varthän? In L. Lindström & V. Lindberg (Eds.), Pedagogisk bedömning (2nd ed., pp. 31–42). Stockholm: Stockholm universitets förlag.Google Scholar
  29. Pollitt, A. (2011). Comparative judgement for assessment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 157–170. Scholar
  30. Pollitt, A. (2012). The method of adaptive comparative judgement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19(3), 281–300. Scholar
  31. Rohaan, E. J., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2012). Analysing teacher knowledge for technology education in primary schools. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(3), 271–280. Scholar
  32. Skolinspektionen. (2014). Teknik – gör det osynliga synligt Om kvaliteten i grundskolans teknikundervisning. Stockholm: Skolverket.Google Scholar
  33. Skolverket. (2011). Diskussionunderlag för grundskolan Diskutera kursplanen i ämnet teknik. Retrieved from
  34. Timperley, H. (2011). Realizing the power of professional learning. Chippenham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Wiliam, D. (2009). Assessment for learning: Why, what and how? In An inaugural professorial lecture by Dylan Wiliam. London: Institute of Education University of London.Google Scholar
  36. Wiliam, D. (2016). Leadership for teacher learning. Creating a culture where all teachers improve so that all students succeed (1st ed.). West Palm Beach: Learning Sciences International.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations