Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The merit point is the sum of the 16 awarded grades, a total of 320 p: Pass = 10 p, Pass with distinction = 15 p, and the highest, Pass with special distinction = 20 p.
References
Andersson, C., Johansson, P., & Waldenström, N. (2011). Do you want your child to have a certified teacher? Economics of Education Review, 30(1), 65–78. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.07.003.
ASEI. (2005). Alla barns rätt till teknikundervisning. Stockholm.
ASEI. (2012). Teknikämnet i träda. http://www.teknikforetagen.se/documents/utbildning/teknikamnet_i_trada.pdf. Accessed 23 July 2013.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
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.
Bjurulf, V. (2008). Teknikämnets gestaltningar: En studie av lärares arbete med skolämnet teknik (1st ed., p. 196). Karlstad.
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.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2008). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Great Britain: Routledge.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/DoingWhatMattersMost.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2014.
Djurfeldt, G., Larsson, R., & Stjärnhagen, O. (2010). Statistisk verktygslåda 1: Samhällsvetenskapliga orsaksanalys med kvantiavia metoder. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Gipps, C. (2004). Beyond testing. Towards a theory of educational assessment. London; New York: The Falmer Press.
Harlen, W. (2010). On the relationship between assessment for formative and summative purposes. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 103–117). Chippenham: SAGE.
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.
Hartell, E. (2012). The inefficient loneliness. A descriptive study about the complexity of assessment for learning in primary technology education. Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
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.
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. doi:10.1007/s10798-013-9250-z.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A Synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Jones, A., Buntting, C., & Vries, M. J. (2013). The developing field of technology education: A review to look forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 191–212. doi:10.1007/s10798-011-9174-4.
Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2004). Enhancing practicing primary school teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 121–140. doi:10.1023/B:ITDE.0000026513.48316.39.
Jönsson, A. (2010). Lärande bedömning. Malmö: Gleerups.
Klasander, C. (2010). Talet om tekniska system: Förväntningar, traditioner och skolverkligheter. Linköping University.
Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute by minute, day-by-day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 19–24.
Moore, D. S., & McCabe, G. P. (2006). Introduction to the practice of statistics. W.H: Freeman & Company.
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.
NAE. (2009). Syllabuses for the compulsory school, (LpO94) 2nd ed.
NAE. (2010). Redovisning av Uppdrag att utarbeta nya kursplaner och kunskapskrav för grundskolan och motsvarande skolformer m.m., Pub. L. No. Dnr. 2008:741 (2010). Sweden. http://kursplaner.se/doc/upload/pdf/Skola2011_uppdraget.pdf. Accessed 22 March 2010.
NAE. (2011a). The Swedish National Agency for Education. Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and the recreation centre, 2011. Sweden. http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=2687. Accessed 6 December 2011.
NAE. (2011b). Skolverkets allmänna råd Planering och genomförande av undervisning för grundskolan, grundsärskolan, specialskolan och sameskolan. Stockholm: Elanders.
NAE. (2013). The Swedish National Agency for Education. Beskrivande data 2012. Förskola, skola och vuxenutbildning. (p. 200). http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=2994 Accessed 26 August 2014.
Newton, P. E. (2007). Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(2), 149–170. doi:10.1080/09695940701478321.
Nilsson, P. (2013). What do we know and where do we go? Formative assessment in developing student teachers’ professional learning of teaching science. Teachers and Teaching, 19(2), 188–201. doi:10.1080/13540602.2013.741838.
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.
Norström, P. (2014). How technology teachers understand technological knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(1), 19–38. doi:10.1007/s10798-013-9243-y.
Nyström, P. (2004). Rätt matt på prov. Om valideringar av bedömningar i skolan. Umeå: Pedagogiska institutionen, Umeå universitet.
Owen-Jackson, G. (2013). Sustaining teacher education: Does where you learn to teach make a difference to the teacher you become? In P. J. Williams (Ed.), PATT27 Technology education for the future: A play on sustainability (pp. 378–386). Christchurch: Technology Environmental Science and Mathematics Education Research Centre, University of Waikato.
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.
Ritz, J. M., & Martin, G. (2012). Research needs for technology education: an international perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 767–783. doi:10.1007/s10798-012-9215-7.
Ritz, J., & Martin, G. (2013). Research needs of technology education: Highlights of a preliminary analysis. In P John Williams (Ed.), PATT27 Technology education for the future: A play on sustainability (pp. 387–392). Christchurch, New Zealand: Technology Environmental Science and Mathematics Education Research Center, University of Waikato.
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. http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp_home/index.en.aspx?issue=017. Accessed 13 August 2012.
Skollagen Svensk författningssamling 2010:800 (2013). http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Lagar/Svenskforfattningssamling/Skollag-2010800_sfs-2010-800/?bet=2010:800. Accessed 23 August 2014.
Statistics Sweden. (2011). http://www.scb.se/default____2154.aspx. Accessed 12 May 2011.
Teknikdelegationen. (2010a). Vändpunkt Sverige – ett ökat intresse för matematik, naturvetenskap, teknik och IKT, SOU 2010:28. Stockholm.
Teknikdelegationen. (2010b). Vändpunkt Sverige – ett ökat intresse för matematik, naturvetenskap, teknik och IKT, SOU 2010:28. Stockholm.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 2020–2248.
Wiliam, D. (2009). Assessment for learning: Why, what and how? London: Institute of Education University of London.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Wiliam, D. (2013). Principled curriculum design: Redesigning schooling-3. In P. Chambers (Ed.). London: SSAT (The School Network) Ltd.
Williams, J. P. (2009a). Teacher education. In A. Jones & M. J. deVries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education (pp. 531–540). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Williams, J. P. (2009b). Teacher education and professional development. In A. Jones & M. J. deVries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education (pp. 525–529). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Williams, P. J. (2011). Research in technology education: Looking back to move forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 1–9. doi:10.1007/s10798-011-9170-8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hartell, E., Gumaelius, L. & Svärdh, J. Investigating technology teachers’ self-efficacy on assessment. Int J Technol Des Educ 25, 321–337 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9285-9
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9285-9