Assessment for Learning in Primary Technology Classrooms

AbstractEmerging international research suggests thatenhancing teacher-student assessment for learning(AfL) interactions is a key to enhancing studentlearning. Planning frameworks that make explicit themultiple dimensions of technology can be used toextend teacher knowledge and focus interaction.Effective AfL interactions in technology encompass themultidimensional nature of technology, help studentsbuild continuity and coherence between ideas andactions over time, and are multimodal. AfL in primarytechnology classrooms is complex. Yet in thiscomplexity there are rich opportunities for effectiveAfL interactions that contribute to students’ technologylearning.

Key wordsprimary, assessment for learning, technological literacy,pedagogical content knowledge

IntroductionThere is increasing agreement that assessment forlearning (AfL) is an essential feature of classroomlearning and that its development can raiseachievement (Black and Wiliam, 1998). AfL isaccomplished through teacher-student interactions andwhile these interactions can be informal they need tofocus on key subject ideas and practices in a way thatmoves learning forward. In this paper we provideexamples of productive teacher-student AfL interactions.We explain and show the need for teachers to be clearabout and focus on the multiple dimensions oftechnology, the value of multimodal AfL conversations,and the need for AfL conversations to build continuityand coherence. These features benefit studentengagement with and understanding of technology.

Assessment for learning in technology classroomsPeople use technology to expand their possibilities, tointervene in the world through the development ofproducts, systems and environments. To do this,intellectual and practical resources are applied.Technology education is a compulsory subject formany students throughout the world. The currentfocus of attention in technology education is towardstechnological literacy for all. This is also the case for

New Zealand. In the New Zealand technologycurriculum three strands are specified: technologicalknowledge and understanding, technologicalcapability, and an understanding and awareness ofthe interrelationship between technology and society(Ministry of Education, 1995). The inter-related natureof these strands emphases a holistic approach fordeveloping technological literacy. Technological areasare specified in the curriculum to represent thediversity of technological practice in New Zealand andinclude materials, information and communication,electronics and control, biotechnology, structures andmechanisms, process and production, and food.Technological learning outcomes encompassconceptual, procedural, technical and societal aspectsreflecting the multidimensional nature of technologicalactivity.

The technology tasks teachers devise for the studentsare necessarily complex in order to accommodateopportunities for students to achieve multifacetedlearning outcomes in an integrated manner. This thenmeans that tasks may be undertaken over time. Thelong-term nature of technology tasks poses particularissues for learning, teaching and assessment. Theseinclude students maintaining focus on the overallgoals of the technology task, sustaining interest andengagement over time, and building connectionsbetween tasks and lessons. When teachers havestudents working on a technology task over time, theyneed to encourage students to think reflectively andprojectively about the tasks they are undertaking.Teachers need to assist students to work iterativelywhen designing, making and testing (Kimbell, et al.,1991; Stables, 1997). Without this teacher assistancethe design process can become ritualised andsteplike. Students undertaking design in such a step-wise fashion can create a veneer of accomplishment(Hennessy, McCormick and Murphy, 1993; Lave,1988). However, when students are undertakingtechnology tasks problems may arise that areunforeseen by them, or their teacher. These problemsneed to be dealt with on the spot. Teachersresponding to students’ emerging technological ideasand problems require an in-depth understanding ofthe nature of technology reflecting its multipledimensions.

RES

EAR

CH

Assessment for Learning in Primary Technology ClassroomsJudy Moreland, Bronwen Cowie and Alister Jones, Centre for Science andTechnology Education Research University of Waikato, New Zealand

37Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 12, 2

RES

EAR

CH

38 Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 12, 2

Teachers and AfLTeachers are obliged to provide assistance such as theprovision of models to be imitated, the orchestrationof tasks and opportunities, feedback and guidance,and explicit explanations of principles and procedures(Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, and Wiliam, 2003;Wells and Claxton, 2002). This poses a number ofchallenges for technology teaching given thattechnology is complex. AfL is about recognising andresponding to learning for the purposes of enhancinglearning and is undertaken during learning (Bell andCowie, 2001). It is accomplished through interactionand conversation. Productive teacher interactionsinvolve descriptive feedback and discussion withstudents about the next steps in the learning process(Tunstall and Gipps, 1996).

For teachers to undertake AfL interactions effectivelythey require particular knowledge and skill, some ofwhich is encompassed within the idea of pedagogicalcontent knowledge (PCK). PCK is concerned withhow teachers transform their knowledge of subjectmatter/content to a form their students can makesense of, but at the same time maintain the integrityof the content idea. Teachers need to understandsubject matter and be able to clarify subject matter ‘innew ways, reorganise and partition it, clothe it inactivities and emotions, in metaphors and exercises,and in examples and demonstrations, so that it canbe grasped by students’ (Shulman, 1987, p.13).Teacher PCK is therefore crucial to the efficacy of theirAfL interactions (Jones and Moreland, 2004). Whenteachers lack knowledge and understanding of what isimportant in technology they are not able to structuretheir interactions around curriculum learning goals andtend to focus on the managerial and social aspects(Black and Wiliam, 1998; Jones and Moreland, 2004;Moreland, 2003). The continuity of teacher-studentrelationships plays an important role in interactions.Mercer (1995) argues that the interactions in onelesson can be thought of as one part of a “longconversation” that lasts for the whole of the teacher-student relationship (p.70).

Interactions are integral to effective AfL practices.Effective AfL interactions require a complex blendingof teacher knowledge including their knowledge ofsubject ideas, pedagogical approaches for teachingthose ideas, and effective student learning of those

ideas. To be effective AfL interactions in technologyneed to encompass the multidimensional nature oftechnology, and help students build continuity andcoherence between ideas and actions over time.Effective AfL interactions in technology invoke multiplemodes such as drawing, modelling and examinationof real artefacts, not just talk, for communicating anddeveloping ideas.

Our researchAn interpretivist methodology (Erickson, 1998)underpins the three research projects that provide thedata for this paper. The researchers in the first studyworked with Years 1 to 8 teachers over three years toenhance their AfL practices in technology (Jones andMoreland, 2004; Moreland, 2003). The focus of thesecond study was to describe biotechnology teachingand learning in Years 5 to 10 classrooms (Moreland,France, Cowie, and Milne, 2004). In the third studycurrently being undertaken we are working in Years 1to 8 technology and science classrooms over threeyears to explore the nature of effective student andteacher interactions around technology and scienceideas and the PCK teachers utilized during theseinteractions. In each study multiple methods wereused including case studies, interviews (teacher andstudent; individual and group), document analysis andclassroom observations (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000).Combined, the research studies represent work over aperiod of nine years. In all, the researchers workedwith 31 primary (Years 1-8) teachers.

Aspects of AfL in primary technology classroomsIn this paper we present ‘telling examples’ (Mitchell,1985) of AfL interactions from six of our teachers.Rachel and her Year 2 and 3 students developedmock-ups of containers for storing their classroommathematics equipment. Ellie and her Year 2 and 3students made masks to wear in their schoolproduction. Burt and his Year 5 and 6 studentsdesigned hand held devices to aid those with arthritis.Betty and her Year 5 and 6 students made a lighttower for a model stage. Jennifer and her Year 7 and8 students modified traditional fermented drinks.Grant and his Year 4 to 6 students made signs fortheir school grounds. The examples illustrate threeaspects of AfL in primary technology classrooms:being clear about and focusing on the multiple

Assessment for Learning in Primary Technology Classrooms

RES

EAR

CH


dimensions of technology, AfL interactions to buildconnections and coherence, and the value ofmultimodal AfL interactions.

Being clear about and focusing on the multipledimensions of technologyTo help students develop a sophisticatedunderstanding of the multiple dimensions oftechnology it is important for teachers to identify andinclude these in their planning. Teachers need to beclear about and focus on the conceptual (knowledgeand understanding of relevant technological conceptsand procedures); procedural (knowing how to dosomething, what to do and when to do it); societal(the interrelationship between technology and groupsof people); and technical (skills related tomanual/practical techniques) aspects (Jones andMoreland, 2003). As well teachers need to thinkabout and plan for the establishment andsustainment of a dynamic interaction between theseaspects. The findings across the three studies illustratehow planning may be a tool for clarifying and focusingon the multiple dimensions of technology. Teachersperceived that planning around the dimensions addedbreadth, depth and focus to their interactions.

• Planning as a tool for focusing on technology asmultidimensional

Planning emerged as a key tool for assisting teachersto be clear about, and focus on, the multidimensionalnature of technology, and to engage with the broadspectrum of student technology ideas and actions.When the teachers were planning they were requiredto think about the task/unit as a whole and how theactivities they outlined might contribute to the fullrange of intended learning; their PCK was activated.The teachers began their planning by deciding on atopic and overall task that fitted their students. In eachof the three studies the researchers provided theteachers with a planning format that required them tothink about the conceptual, procedural, societal andtechnical learning outcomes of the task/unit. Theplanning format included a space that promptedteachers to think about how these learning outcomeswould come together in technological practice, ratherthan being individual and discrete. This articulationhelped teachers to decide what they wanted thestudents to know and do within the context of theoverall task. Table 1 is an example of Rachel’s

planning for her Year 2 and 3 students (6- and 7-years) for their task of designing and constructing anattractive, portable and durable 3D storage containerfor holding classroom maths equipment.

Table 1 overleaf shows that Rachel defined the taskthrough describing the broad task boundariesincluding the procedural aspects of designing andconstructing, the technological principles of aesthetics,portability, and durability and the artefact to beconstructed (a mock-up of a 3D storage container tohold classroom mathematics equipment). She alsodefined three overall aspects of technological practice,which were more detailed than the task definition, butnot as detailed as the more specific learningoutcomes she has articulated in the conceptual,procedural, societal and technical categories. Thereare connections between the task definition and theaspects of technological practice. In the aspects oftechnological practice she has identified technologicalconcepts (knowing about the design process,aesthetics, portability, durability, practical solutions, andstorage equipment for different groups of people)and procedures (being able to design, develop,evaluate the technological principles). She has alsosynthesised conceptual and procedural aspects in thetechnological practice aspects. For example, anunderstanding of the design process is to be blendedin with developing a solution; and an understandingof attractiveness, portability and durability is to beintegrated in with developing and evaluating solutions.Finally her planning shows the intended learningoutcomes itemised in detail in the four categorieswhere connections are also made to key aspects oftechnological practice. The conceptual learningoutcomes specify the technological principles(durability, optimisation, portability, purpose of mock-ups, aesthetics); techniques (joining of materials); andmaterials and structures (nature of materials and size,shape and capacity of container); the procedurallearning outcomes specify the procedures andprocesses to be undertaken; the societal learningoutcomes specify the people and environmentalconsiderations; and the technical learning outcomesspecify the technical skills required.


RES

EAR

CH


Rachel’s planning also demonstrates that she had herstudents in mind when she was detailing the learningoutcomes as she defined their meanings in terms herstudents would understand. For example, durabilitywas defined as ‘takes lots of use over a long time’;portability as ‘one person can carry the container andit can be easily moved around the room’; aestheticsas ‘eye catching’; suitable shape as ‘needs to fit’; andoptimisation as ‘don’t waste materials’. Rachel hadchanged the different technological aspects into terms

suitable for her young students. These translationscould be used as guides for her AfL practices, as shespecified the terminology she would use wheninteracting with her students. She commented afterteaching the unit:

My formative assessment was more specific, as myinteractions were constantly using the vocabularythat I wanted the students to understand and usethemselves.


Task Definition: Design & construct a mock-up of an attractive, portable, durable 3D-storage container to hold classroom maths equipment

Key Aspects of Technological Practice • Knowledge: Develop an understanding of the importance of the design process in developing a solution to storage problems;

• Capability: Develop & evaluate a suitable & practical storage solution for maths equipment taking into accountattractiveness, portability & durability;

• Society: Identify the differing requirements for storing maths equipment for a variety of age groups of children.

Conceptual Learning OutcomesProcedural Learning

OutcomesSocietal Learning

OutcomesTechnical Learning

Outcomes

Understand:• Design is an important factor in

making storage containers.

• Planning includes criteria for making.

• Durability (takes lots of use over along time).

• Nature of material to be storedneeds to fit inside container.

• Optimisation of materials (don’twaste materials).

• Container needs to be suitableshape for storage space (needs tofit) & suitable capacity for equipment(right size).

• Portability (1 person can carry it andeasily move it around room).

• Joining of materials (staple, glue,tape, dovetails, tabs).

• Purpose of a mock-up – to test outsome variables.

• Containers can be identified withlabelling.

• Containers should be aestheticallypleasing (eye catching).

• Examine current storagein classroom to identifymain variables fordesigning suitablecontainers.

• Select an option thatneeds improving.

• Examine nets, 2D & 3Ddrawings.

• Make annotatedconcept, net, & 3Ddrawings and takeaccount of capacity,durability, portability &attractiveness.

• Construct 3D mock-ups.Test and evaluate forshelf size, capacity &portability. Makemodifications.

• Establish andunderstandclassroom storageneed/problem.

• Different people havedifferent aestheticresponses –attractiveness of area& containers.

• Recycling material isimportant forminimising waste.

• Draw from differentviews, magnify someareas.

• 3D drawing.

• Draw lines, rightangles, nets.

• Measure.

• Cut.

• Join by: folding,interlocking,overlapping, glueing,stapling, taping.

Table 1: Rachel’s planning

RES

EAR

CH


Teachers’ PCK as evidenced in their ability to analysetasks to identify appropriate technological learning wasenhanced considerably by their use of this planningformat. Burt reported that the process of articulatingand specifying concise learning goals compelled himto hone in on the technological concepts and skillshe intended students to learn and helped him toconsider the ways the selected activities could supportlearning. As part of his planning, for example, heinvestigated a wide range of technological learningoutcome possibilities from which he then selectedparticular learning outcomes that best fitted hisstudents and the overall technology task.

During the planning stage teachers were sometimesunsure of the technological ideas and procedures thatmight be embedded in a task. They sought thisinformation from researchers, each other, experts inrelevant fields, the Internet and a variety of othersources. For example, Jennifer, a teacher of Year 7and 8 students had had very little experience ofteaching biotechnology, the technological area shewanted to teach. She was concerned about thedemands of biotechnology for her Year 7 and 8students. She talked with other teachers andresearchers to clarify the distinguishing characteristicsof technology, science, biotechnology andbiotechnological processes that could be suitable forher students. She was interested in ensuring that herstudents gained an understanding of biotechnologyconcepts through, and while they were undertaking,any activities she planned.

One of the hardest things is thinking of abiotechnology activity for this age group that willbe hands-on. I want them to be making things, tobe adapting living organisms. You could just getthem to do some theory and have a debate, butthat is not much fun. I don’t think they learn asmuch as when they are doing alongside thethinking. You’ve got to have the thinking and theactivity happening together.

Teachers consulted a variety of sources to help themtease out the ideas and procedures embedded in thestudent tasks. They considered that the tasks and theirembedded ideas and procedures needed to be alsosuitable for their students.

• Planning for the dimensions adds breadth anddepth to interactions

Teachers planned for the multiple dimensions oftechnological learning and designed activities tosupport these multiple dimensions. They reportedthat planning in this way changed their interactions;they now focused on the conceptual, procedural,societal and technical aspects within the tasks. Forexample, Burt reported that his being aware of themultiplicity of learning outcomes meant he was betterable to appreciate and respond to divergent studentideas. He explained:

The planning helped me to have a better look atexactly what technology is being taught and whatthe technology is in different activities. The activitiesthat I am giving my children are more clearlytargeted and identified. My children had a fair ideaof where they were going to go but they have stillgone in a thousand different directions. You canstart to see the divergence coming out in childrenand that’s neat too.

At the end of her biotechnology unit Jennifercommented that her clarity about the learningoutcomes and the science and biotechnology ideasand activities had contributed to her interactions withstudents. She said:

Having the unit planned in advance in detail wasimportant. We knew where we were going. I reallyhad to be clear about the big picture. Teachers musthave a solid understanding of the science behindthe technology, or I think the learning wouldn't bethat meaningful. It would be difficult for a teacher toscaffold a child if they don't really have a deepunderstanding and experience with the science.

Other teachers in the studies also confirmed thatthere were connections between their planning andtheir AfL conversations with students. Theresponsiveness and focus of their interactions derivedfrom their PCK.

AfL interactions to build connections and coherenceThe long-term and multi-dimensional nature oftechnology tasks means that particular students maystruggle to see the connections between days,between activities and between ideas. Teachershelping students build continuity and coherence is alegitimate and important aspect for effective AfL.


RES

EAR

CH


• Making connections

Teachers in our studies nearly always took time tomake links between lessons. Connections wereeffective when the linking focused on technology. Forexample, Ellie open and closed lessons withdiscussions related to the students’ task of making amask for their school production. Ellie orchestratedclass conversations at the beginning of lessons to lookback at what had been achieved and to introduce theactivities and ideas for that day. End of lessonconversations were also set up so that activities andideas of that day were reviewed. Together Ellie andthe students talked about what might happen thenext day. For example, in the following conversation atthe beginning of the third day of working on theirmasks Ellie asked the students to recall the ideasfrom the previous day. She also introduced the activityand ideas for the day:

Ellie: Today we are going to carry on with our ideasabout masks. Can you tell me about yoursketching from yesterday? What does it mean?

Tama: It doesn’t need to be good.Paru: It’s fast and quick pictures.Ellie: Aye (yes). So what did you sketch?Tama: We sketched pictures of the mask we are

going to make.Ellie: Aye, kapai (good). You did sketches of the

masks you will make, so you could decide onwhat you might make a mask of, and howthey might look. Today we’re going to go onfrom there and take a look at thespecifications your mask will need to have.We’ll talk about specifications now. What doyou think this big word might mean?

This dialogue allowed Ellie to check studentunderstanding. Conversations like this guided thestudents to see how the activities they wereundertaking linked to each other and contributed tothe overall task. The conversations built a sense ofconnectedness and continuity across the technologicalideas. The students were encouraged to think aheadto next steps and to think back to what hadhappened and what they learned. Theseconversations provided a framework to help studentsmonitor their ideas and progress over the course ofthe lesson and unit.

• Supporting coherency and continuity

Success criteria are often advocated within the AfL asa means to support students’ self-assessment. Just asimportantly they can serve as a mechanism todevelop continuity and coherence in students learningand understanding. In technology productspecifications are encompassed in the brief that thetechnologist works to. Teachers and students may useproduct specifications to the same effect as successcriteria. Betty and her Year 5 and 6 students wereinvolved in designing and making a light tower for amodel stage. Betty used success criteria as productspecifications as a tool for students to independentlyassess their product. They contributed to building asense of coherency. Students used the successcriteria to assist them in the design and evaluation oftheir model. Betty encouraged the students to use thesuccess criteria, which were posted on public display.The success criteria were an on-going point ofreference and therefore provided coherency in thedesign process.

Betty: Now, how big is it? (the model light tower)going to be? Look at the success criteria, howbig is it going to be?

Kyle: 25-35cm. Betty: That’s right. So you have to think of a material

Kyle that you can make it out of that would fitthat. Okay. Now we did choose that heightbecause, look at our stage, our stage is about30 cm (she measures again). So your lighttower has to be between that height and thatheight (she points to height criteriaspecifications written on the board).

Betty told the students that the criteria were to helpyou keep focused on what we are doing, what weare working towards. It was this explicit and ongoingemphasis on the main task and its success criteria(product specifications) that provided for coherenceof student experience.


RES

EAR

CH


The value of multimodal AfL interactionsTechnologists draw, make models and prototypes todevelop and test ideas. In technology teacherstypically engage students in tasks that have a practicalaspect. As teachers and students work together ontechnological tasks, meaning is constituted throughthe interplay of linguistic, pictorial, material andgestural resources (Kress, et al., 2001; Roth, 2005).These experiences provide students with access tomultiple modes for developing, representing andcommunicating their technological ideas. An analysisof the teacher-student interactions in our studiesrevealed that the teachers deployed a range ofstrategies when interacting with students to assessand come to a shared understanding of the task andrelated ideas. The strategies incorporated multiplemeans for representing and exploring student ideasand designs. Drawing, modelling and manipulatingmaterials contributed to, and became integral to,teachers and students exploring tasks and negotiatingideas together.

• Helping students to understand andparticularise the task

Students may need teacher guidance to understandand particularise the task so that it is meaningful tothem. Students need to make connections with thetask if they are to draw on their prior experiences.Because technology briefs are often multi-faceted andcomplex, students may require help to define, andrefine, the task they will work on. For example, Ellieand her 6- and 7-year-old students were involvedwith designing and making masks for their schoolproduction about Maui (a Mäori mythical person).Ellie set up an introductory activity where the studentsexamined real masks and books about masks to getideas in preparation for creating their own. Two boyshad the following conversation:

Rakai: Let’s look in the books and get a (sic) idea tochoose then.

Tama: Yea.(The boys looked through the mask booktogether. They were very taken with thepatterns on a photograph of an African mask.)

Tama: Look at that.Rakai: Yea.

(Ellie joins the boys to check their progress.)Ellie: What have you got there?

Tama: Patterns on a mask.Ellie: Oh, it says here [pointing to the text] this is an

African mask. It looks a bit like moko(traditional Mäori facial tattoo).

Rakai: Let’s do a warrior then. They can have that(pointing to the patterns on the African mask).

Tama: OK. (Enthusiastically)Ellie: That’s good. Now I’ll give you some more

books to get some ideas for making a warriormask.

In the first part of their conversation Tama suggestedthey get a book to help them find ideas. Ellie enteredthe conversation when the boys’ attention wasfocused on a decorated African mask. She askedabout it; Tama told her the features they were lookingat ‘patterns on a mask’; and then Ellie gave them newinformation ‘this is an African mask’. She connectedthe patterns on the African mask to the boys’ culturalexperience of moko. This customization opened upnew possibilities for the boys because of the explicitconnection to their past experience of moko,something that Maori warriors had tattooed on theirfaces. In response to her comment Rakai proposedthat they make a warrior mask. Ellie praised the boysfor reaching their decision. She gave them somebooks to help them think about their next stepsaround how to make such a mask.

• Establishing a shared understanding

The complexity of technology tasks can pose achallenge to shared understanding between teachersand students. Teachers need student ideas to bemanifest before they can interact with them.Multimodal conversations provide rich points of entryinto discussion of ideas. The necessity for aconversation to involve more that talk is evident in thefollowing example. Burt had noticed that Danielle, a9-year-old student, was sitting looking at her conceptsketch of a device she was designing to help peoplewith arthritis get toothpaste out of toothpaste tubesmore easily. The first drawing is Danielle’s conceptsketch.


RES

EAR

CH


Burt asked Danielle to explain her sketch to him.

Burt: I'm not sure how this works? (He pointed tothe scissor-like handles at the side of thetoothpaste tube). Does this go in to thetoothpaste tube and push against it?

Danielle: No. That joins onto it, so you clip it on. (Shepointed to the piece attached to the side ofthe tube).Burt (looking puzzled) OK. But what doesthis do? (He pointed to the scissor-likehandles again).

Danielle: There's a button that you press there andthen you pull up the handle and thetoothpaste comes out.

Burt was puzzled and began to draw his interpretationof her ideas. The second drawing presented hereshows his sketches. The top two are his ideas forgetting toothpaste out more easily. The bottom right-hand sketch is another view. As he drew the bottom

left-hand sketch he described the sort of toothpastetube he was designing.

Burt described his toothpaste tubes as being soft-sided and with screw tops. Danielle then realised hewas thinking of a different type of toothpaste tubefrom her. She explained that her drawing was of apump toothpaste tube, not a squeeze tube. Burt thensought confirmation he had understood her correctlyusing her sketch as a referent:

Burt: Oh, those pump ones. So you are making adevice that will depress the pump easier.

Danielle: Yes.Burt: (Pointed to Danielle’s concept sketch and

the handles). So this is your device and it isgoing to go on here and basically you aregoing to have a bigger device to pressdown the existing depressor. Is that whereyou're going?

Danielle: Yes.

In this example, the combination of talk, gesture anddrawing were pivotal to Burt and Danielle coming tounderstand each other’s ideas. The drawings servedas tools that contributed to the meanings that weretaken-as-shared by Burt and Danielle.

• Extending technological thinking

Multimodal interactions are productive when teachersinteract with students to extend their technologicalthinking. This happened in the continuation of Burt’sconversation with Danielle. Once he understoodDanielle’s idea his goal turned to helping Daniellethink about the functionality of her device if it were tobe used. Burt helped Danielle develop her device byfocusing her attention on the key features offunctionality for a workable device that could beattached to a pump toothpaste tube.

Burt: I see. You're saying that as you pull this oneup (Pointing to a handle) it’s going to pushdown like that. So you might need a hingein here (Pointing to the space between thehandles).

Danielle: Yes, I suppose I will.

He prompted Danielle to think about attaching herdevice to the pump and to stability issues.


Danielle’s concept sketch

Burt’s sketches

RES

EAR

CH


Burt: And this one is going to be locked on. Iwant you to think about how you are goingto lock that on and think about how youattach it to there (Pointing to the pump).You will need to draw them as explodeddrawings. My one concern is, that I've gotthis device and it is attached to thetoothpaste pump here, (Pointing to thejoining point). I'm wondering about how tomake sure the pump doesn't fall over, I’mwondering about its stability. That's what Iwant you to also think about. What aninteresting idea. It's different.

In this sequence Burt’s AfL conversation utilisedDanielle’s concept sketch to alert her to aspects offunctionality relevant to her device: hinging,attachments and stability.

• Artefacts as a source of ideas and feedback

Technological development may involve the analysisand refinement of existing technologies. Withappropriate teacher guidance real artefacts are a richand powerful source of ideas and feedback. Forexample, Ellie used books with mask photographs forthis purpose. In a continuation of the previoussequence Burt encouraged Danielle to examine therange of devices for arthritis sufferers that he hadpreviously collected. Burt also provided her withexamples of how mechanisms are represented inexploded drawings. Danielle studied these. She alsotalked with peers and looked at their work, practiseddrawing skills and participated in follow-upconversations with Burt. Danielle’s final designspresented here indicated she had made coherentsense of the task. She had appreciated and addressedthe task as a technological one.


Danielle’s final concept sketches

RES

EAR

CH


In another example Grant’s students made outdoorsigns for their school. Initially he took his students ona ‘discovery walk’ around the neighbourhood toexamine signs in situ to discern their shape, theirvisual impact and fitness for purpose. He also tookphotographs of many signs around the town andneighbourhood, placed them in a PowerPointpresentation, which he showed to the students. Inaddition he gave printouts of the photographs to eachstudent. His students initially examined thePowerPoint photographs as a class and discussedtheir salient features. With this information, and theinformation they had gleaned from their walk, theyestablished the specifications for their own signs. Theyreferred to the printouts over time for more particulardetail and usually as individuals. Features such assuitable materials, weatherproofing, structural stability,and sign and lettering size and colour were evident inthe students’ final products. Incorporating thesefeatures was critical given that the signs were to beactually used in the school grounds (see photographsof some completed signs).

The analysis of existing artefacts, systems andenvironments provides a source of ideas for studentswhen they design and produce their own artefacts,systems and environments. They provide a vehicle forstudents to think about and a forum for teachers andstudents to talk about. Teacher guidance is importantin helping students to analyse and transform andtranslate the salient aspects of examples intosomething that is useful for their context and purpose.

DiscussionIn this paper we have illustrated some of the waysthe teachers we have worked with have been able toestablish and sustain effective AfL interactions inprimary technology classrooms. Teacher pedagogicalcontent knowledge plays a crucial role in assistingteachers to plan for student learning and to thinkabout how they might interact with students aroundtechnology ideas and practices. Planning is a powerfultool for helping teachers clarify the intended learning,deepen and extend their pedagogical contentknowledge, design learning activities and anticipateAfL interactions. Planning formats that make explicitthe multiple dimensions of technology, and thatrequire teachers to detail the accompanying activities,


Sarah’s pool sign

Hine’s office sign

Ann’s car park sign

RES

EAR

CH


support teachers to envisage and build links betweenthe learning goals and effective interactions. Theteachers indicated that the planning had changedtheir AfL interactions to focus on each of theconceptual, procedural, societal and technical aspectsof the tasks and the relationship between theseaspects. The teachers in our studies considered thatdetailed planning increased their ability to respond tostudent understanding of technology ideas and, at thesame time, increased their confidence to allowstudents to pursue divergent ideas and interests. An important goal for AfL interactions is to helpstudents build a sense of continuity and coherencebetween ideas and actions over time. Technologytasks are usually complex and multifaceted.Product/artefact specifications are integral to studentsunderstanding and achieving technological solutions.Product specifications provide a touchstone in thedesign-make-test process thereby acting as a meansto connect and provide coherence to these activities.In technology AfL success criteria can be the same asproduct specifications. Hence, in technology successcriteria/product specifications can support students’genuine involvement in AfL and enhance theirtechnology learning. Multimodal interactions provide rich entry points intostudents developing ideas. In technology teachers canuse different modes singly, and in combination, tohelp students understand and particularise atechnological task. For example, drawing and theexamination of real artefacts are authentic activitiesthat can help students access a range of ideas andsolutions. Teacher and student use of multiple modesin technology helps develop shared understandingsand extends students’ technological thinking.Technology is a multidimensional and multimodalsubject. This means that the challenges teachers andstudents face in AfL interactions are complex. Yet thisvery complexity provides teachers with richopportunities to find out about, and engage with andenhance, student learning.

[email protected]

References

Bell, B. and Cowie, B. (2001). ‘The characteristics offormative assessment in science education.’ ScienceEducation, 85, 536-553.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., and Wiliam,D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it intopractice. Buckingham, UK: Open University.

Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998). ‘Assessment andclassroom learning.’ Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.

Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) (2000). Handbookof qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: SagePublications.

Erickson, F. (1998). ‘Qualitative research methods forscience education.’ In B. J. Fraser, and K. G. Tobin,(Eds.) International handbook of science education.(1155-1173) Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishing.

Hennessy, S., McCormick. R. and Murphy, P. (1993).‘The myth of general problem solving capability:Design and technology as an example.’ TheCurriculum Journal, 4(1), 73-89.Jones, A. and Moreland, J. (2004). EnhancingPracticing Primary School Teachers' PedagogicalContent Knowledge. Technology International Journalof Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 121-140.

Jones, A. and Moreland, J. (2003). ‘Developingclassroom-focused research in Technology Education.’Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics andTechnology Education. 3(1), 37-50.

Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wozniak, A. andKelly, V. (1991). The assessment of performance indesign and technology – the final report of the APUdesign and technology project. London, SEAC/COI.

Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J. and Tsatsarelius, C.(2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: Therhetorics of the science classroom. London:Continuum.


Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind,mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Mercer, N. (1995). Guided construction ofknowledge: Talk amongst teachers and students.Multilingual Matters Ltd: UK.

Ministry of Education (1995). Technology in the NewZealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Mitchell, J. (1984). ‘Typicality and the case study.’ InR.F. Ellen (Ed.), Ethnographers Guide to Conduct. SanDiego, CA: Academic.

Moreland, J. (2003). Becoming effective technologyteachers: enhancing assessment practices in primaryclassrooms. Unpublished PhD thesis, Hamilton:University of Waikato.

Moreland, J., France, B., Cowie, B. and Milne, L.(2004). ‘Case studies of biotechnology in theclassroom.’ In A. Jones (Ed) Biotechnology in the NewZealand Curriculum. (92-120). Hamilton, NewZealand: CSTER, University of Waikato.

Roth, W.–M. (2005). Talking science: Language andlearning in science classrooms. Lanham: Rowmanand Littlefield Publishers.

Shulman, L. (1987). ‘Knowledge and Teaching:Foundations of the New Reform.’ Harvard EducationalReview, 57(1), 1-22.

Stables, K. (1997). ‘Critical issues to consider whenintroducing technology education into the curriculumof young learners.’ Journal of Technology Education,8(2), 1-17.

Tunstall, P. and Gipps, C. (1996). ‘Teacher feedback toyoung children in formative assessment: a typology.’British Educational Research Journal, 22, 389-404.

Wells, G. and Claxton, G. (Eds.) (2002). Learning forlife in the 21st century: sociocultural perspectives onthe future of education. Oxford, UK: BlackwellPublishers.

RES

EAR

CH



Assessment for Learning in Primary Technology Classrooms

Documents

Transcript of Assessment for Learning in Primary Technology Classrooms