Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the (un-) usefulness of mandatory assessment documents in primary technology

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. German and French (which were back then the most common modern languages [except English]) were evaluated in 1995. Technology was not evaluated back then either.

  2. Spanish is also a common third language.

  3. In Swedish Vad gäller ämnena spanska och teknik är kunskapsläget oklart, något som i sig motiverar en kompletterande nationell utvärdering (NAE 2004).

  4. Sweden does participate in international evaluation studies (e.g., PIRLS, TIMSS and PISA) in which student performance in mathematics, science, and reading is investigated, but again not in technology.

  5. Technology is not the only mandatory subject missing (e.g., home economics). However, technology is the least frequently appearing subject of them all.

  6. There are no national statistics, on a national level, available regarding goal fulfilment in previous years (primary school).

References

  • Andersson, H. (2011). Skriftliga omdömen-klara besked? Pedagogiska rapporter från Pedagogiska institutionen. Umeå universitet 2010, Nr 08. Umeå.

  • ASEI. (2005). Alla barns rätt till teknikundervisning. Stockholm.

  • Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education Principles Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjurulf, V. (2008). Teknikämnets gestaltningar: en studie av lärares arbete med skolämnet teknik (1st ed., p. 196). Karlstad. Retrieved September 9, 2013, from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-2729.

  • 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 

  • Black, P. (2009). Formative assessment issues across the curriculum: The theory and the practice. Tesol Quarterly, 43(3), 519–523. Retrieved May 2, 2011, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ867883.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education Principles Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomdahl, E. (2007). Teknik i skolan-en studie av teknikundervisning för yngre skolbarn. Stockholm: HLS förlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresler, L. (2006). Embodied narrative inquiry: A methodology of connection. Research Studies in Music Education, 27, 21–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elwood, J. (2008). Gender issues in testing and assessment, I. In P. Murphy & K. Hall (Eds.), Learning and practice. Agency and identities (pp. 87–101). London: Open University SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabricius, T., Malm, I., & Pisilä, S. (2002). Skolinspektörernas årsrapport 2001/2002: Grundskolan. Stockholm.

  • Fagerlund, P., & Högberg, B. (2010). Bedöma är inte att döma. In A. Petterson (Ed.), Sporre eller otyg (2nd. ed) (pp. 125–130). Mölnlycke: Lärarförbundets förlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsberg, E., & Lindberg, V. (2010). Svensk forskning om bedömning-en kartläggning. Rapportnummer 2:2010.. Stockholm.

  • Fuglesang, C. (2010). Fuglesang slår larm: Teknik finns överallt utom i skolan. In Ny Teknik February 9, 2010.

  • Gipps, C. (2004). Beyond testing. Towards a theory of educational assessment. London/New York: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartell, E. (2010). GPS-performance in technology education. In H. Middleton (Ed.), Knowledge in technology education (pp. 171–177). Brisbane: Griffith Institute for Education Research. Retrieved September 9, 2013, from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-55091.

  • Hartell, E. (2011). Hur sätter man betyg i teknik? In S.-O. Hansson, E. Nordlander, & I.-B. Skogh (Eds.), Teknikutbildning för framtiden-perspektiv på teknikundervisningen i grundskola och gymnasium (pp. 75–87). Stockholm: Liber AB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartell, E. (2012). The inefficient loneliness. A descriptive study about the complexity of assessment for learning in primary technology education. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartell, E., & Svärdh, J. (2012). Unboxing technology education part I—starting point. Technology education in the 21st century (pp. 211–222). Stockholm: Linköping University Electronic Press. Retrieved February 1, 2013, from http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp_article/index.en.aspx?issue=073;article=025.

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers maximizing impact on student learning. Exeter, Devon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsh, Å. (2011). A tool for learning? An analysis of targets and strategies in Swedish individual educational plans. Nordic Studies in Education, 1, 14–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofvendahl, J. (2006). Riskabla samtal: en analys av potentiella faror i skolans kvarts- och utvecklingssamtal. Institutionen för språk och kultur. Retrieved February 3, 2013, from http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:21706.

  • James, M. (2010). Assessment, teaching and theories of learning. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 47–60). Chippenham: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R. (2007). Assessment. In M. de Vries, R. Custer, J. Dakers, & G. Martin (Eds.), Analyzing best practice in technology education (pp. 247–258). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klapp Lekholm, A. (2010). Lärares betygssättningspraktik. In S. Eklund (Ed.) Bedömning för lärande- en grund för ökat lärande. Forskning för undervisning och lärande (3), 20–29.

  • Klasander, C. (2010). Talet om tekniska system : förväntningar, traditioner och skolverkligheter. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute by minute day-by-day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, V. (2005). Svensk forskning om bedömning och betyg 1990–2005. In Studies in Educational Policy and Educational Philosophy (STEP). E-tidskrift, 1(1), 1–32.

  • Lundahl, C. (2009). Varför nationella prov? Framväxt, dilemman, möjligheter. Lund: Studentlitteratur AB.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • NAE. (2004). Nationella utvärderingen av grundskolan 2003. (NU03) Sammanfattande huvudrapport. Rapport 250. Retrieved September 9, 2013, from http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=1369.

  • NAE. (2008a). Naturorienterande ämnen. En samtalsguide om kunskap, arbetssätt och bedömning. Retrieved December 2, 2012, from http://www.skolverket.se/2.3894/publicerat/2.5006?_xurl_=http://www4.skolverket.se:8080/wtpub/ws/skolbok/wpubext/trycksak/Record?k=1952.

  • NAE. (2008b). Matematik. En samtalsguide om kunskap, arbetssätt och bedömning. Retrieved December 2, 2012, from http://www.skolverket.se/2.3894/publicerat/2.5006?_xurl_=http://www4.skolverket.se:8080/wtpub/ws/skolbok/wpubext/trycksak/Record?k=1952.

  • NAE. (2009a). Allmänna råd och kommentarer Individuella utvecklingsplanen med skriftliga omdömen 2008 reviderad 2009. Stockholm: Statens skolverk (NAE). Retrieved November 21, 2010, from http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=2114.

  • NAE. (2009c). Syllabuses for the compulsory school (LpO94) 2nd edition, Originally published 1994. Revised 2000 and 2008.

  • NAE. (2010a). Om nationella prov. Dr 71-2010:4. Retrieved April 29, 2013, from http://www.skolverket.se/sb/d/2853.

  • NAE. (2010b). Individuella utvecklingsplaner med skriftliga omdömen i grundskolan. En uppföljning och utvärdering av skolornas arbete. Rapport 340. Dnr 71-2009:115. Retrieved April 29, 2013, from http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=2350.

  • NAE. (2011). Skolverkets allmänna råd. Planering och genomförande av undervisningen för grundskolan, grundsärskolan, specialskolan och sameskolan. Stockholm: Elanders Sverige AB.

  • Newton, P. (2007). Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Assessment in Education Principles Policy & Practice, 14(2), 149–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordlander, E. (2011). Vad tycker tekniklärarna? In S.-O. Hansson, E. Nordlander, & I.-B. Skogh (Eds.), Teknikutbildning för framtiden -perspektiv på teknikundervisning i grundskolan och gymnasium (pp. 90–102). Stockholm: Liber AB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norström, P. (2011). Technology education and non-scientific technological knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. KTH. Retrieved September 19, 2012, from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-48237.

  • 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 

  • Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review, 3(1), 16–20. doi:10.1007/BF02322211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skogh, I.-B. (2006). Innovative performance—how can it be assessed. In T. Ginner & J. Hallström (Eds.), Forskningskonferens i teknikdidaktik: Styrdokument och klassrumsverklighet i skolans teknikundervisning. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press. Retrieved April 11, 2013, from http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp_home/index.en.aspx?issue=017.

  • SSI. (2009). Skolinspektionsmyndigheten (Swedish School Inspectorate). Retrieved December 16, 2009, from http://www.skolinspektionen.se/Documents/Rapporter/Mora_Inspektionsrapport.pdf?epslanguage=sv.

  • Svensson, M. (2012). Slarviga omdömen hjälper inte eleverna. Dagens Nyheter, p. 8. Stockholm.

  • Teknikdelegationen. (2010). Vändpunkt Sverige–ett ökat intresse för matematik, naturvetenskap, teknik och IKT, SOU 2010:28. Stockholm.

  • Vallberg-Roth, A.-C. (2010). Bedömning i förskolans och skolans individuella utvecklingsplaner. In C. Lundahl & M. Folke-Fichtelius (Eds.), Bedömning i och av skolan- praktik, princip, politik (pp. 49–67). Lund: Studentliteratur AB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vetenskapsrådet. (2005). Vad är god forskningsed? Rapport 1:2005. Retrieved September 2, 2011, from http://www.vr.se/download/18.6b2f98a910b3e260ae28000334/god_forskningssed_3.pdf.

  • Wiliam, D. (2009). Assessment for learning: why, what and how? An inaugural professorial lecture by Dylan Wiliam. London: Institute of Education University of London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Learning, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44, Stockholm, Sweden

    Eva Hartell

Authors
  1. Eva Hartell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Hartell.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 2.

Table 2 Participating municipalities and number of IDP samples
Full size table

Appendix 2: A thorough description of the design on the 14 different templates

The following appendix provides detailed information about the templates in general and technology subject in particular.

T1

Description

A digital template including boxes to tick indicating whether the student had achieved the goals in the subjects respectively. No information regarding the goals was found. There is limited space at the end to write additional comments for all subjects (240 pc in database).

Technology

Technology is included. In this category most of the students achieved the goals. However, ten students were identified as not achieving the goals in technology as shown by teachers having not ticked the box designated for goal achievement. The information showed that these 10 students did not achieve the goals in most of the other subjects either. No information was found regarding on what grounds any of the assessments were made or regarding strategies on what to do next.

T2

Description

General rubric with a box to tick for achieved goals. Standardised goals and space for additional individual comments beneath every subject were included. Between 4 and 13 standardized goals in the sense ‘you can’ per subject included (three pc in paper).

Technology

Technology is included. The template included descriptions of four goals in technology. All students included in the data received the same comment in technology. It said, ‘You will reach the goals.’ Information about when they would reach the goals was not found. Neither was information on how to make further progress.

T3

Description

There is space available for the teacher to write comments. No standardized goals are presented. There is a chart with columns where comments can be written by hand for the included subjects regarding knowledge compared with goals, pupil’s responsibility/area of development. There is an additional column for pupil/parent to leave comments regarding in what ways their view is concurrent to the teachers’ (seven pc in paper).

Technology

Is not included.

T4

Description

There is space available for the teacher to write comments. No standardized goals are presented. There is a chart with columns where comments can be typewritten for the included subjects regarding knowledge compared with goals, pupil’s responsibility/area of development and an additional column for pupil/parent to leave comments regarding in what ways their view is concurrent to the teachers’. No standardized goals included (five pc in paper).

Technology

The word teknik was present together with the science (no) subject (no/tk). No information regarding technology was found.

T5

Only the general forward looking plan was included. No written assessments were found neither was information about technology (13 pc in paper).

T6

Description

General rubric with a box to tick for achieved goals and including some standard formulations on what goals and space for additional individual comments. Four-point scale to tick regarding in what ways the student has achieved the standardized goals. There were eight or nine goals per subject included (10 pc in paper).

Technology

Is not included.

T7

Description

No standardized goals are presented. There is space for the teacher to write comments. There are columns for the teacher to typewrite comments; current status/performance, goals, social relations/behaviour for each subject included (nine pc digital in paper).

Technology

Is not included.

T8

Description

There is space for the teacher to write comments (columns for the teacher to typewrite comments); current status/performance, goals, social relations/behaviour for each subject is included. No standardized goals are presented. Similar to T7, but different subjects are included (four pc digital in paper).

Technology

Is not included.

T9

Description

Space available for the teacher to write comments. No standardized goals are presented. T9 is similar to T7 and T8 but with a different combination of subjects (nine pc digital in paper).

Technology

Is not included.

T10

Description

There is space available for the teacher to write comments (six pc in paper).

Technology

Is not included.

T11

Description

There is space for the teacher to write comments, by hand. No standardized goals. (Five pc).

Technology

Is not included.

T12

Description

There is a general rubric with a box to tick for achieved goals and includes some standard formulations on goals and space for additional individual comments. There are three to six standardized goals, with additional comments beneath each subject. The same software as in T13 and T14 is used, but different goals and subjects are included. Teacher signed comments (eight pc digital in paper).

Technology

Is not included.

T13

Description

There is a general rubric with a box to tick for achieved goals and including some standard formulations on goals and space for additional individual comments. There are three to five standardized goals which could be ticked on a three-point scale of achievement with additional comments beneath each subject. Same software is used as in T12 and T14, but different goals and subjects are included. Teacher signed comments (seven pc digital in paper).

Technology

There are three standardized goals in technology. The teachers commented on the students in all the subjects including technology. The information regarding technology reveals that the students had not yet had instructions in technology. No information is given regarding when the tutoring in technology would be undertaken.

T14

Description

There is a general rubric with boxes to be ticked on a three-point scale of achievement and including some standard goals and space for additional individual comments. There are three to six standardized goals with additional comments beneath each subject. T14 uses the same software as T12 and T13 but presents different goals and subjects (25 pc digital in paper).

Technology

Template T14 is similar to T13 (the form), but there are different standardized goals in technology. All students achieved all three goals in technology. The teacher commented on all the students in all subjects except technology. One comment to a student in technology was found in the sample.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hartell, E. Exploring the (un-) usefulness of mandatory assessment documents in primary technology. Int J Technol Des Educ 24, 141–161 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9250-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9250-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation