The Inefficient Loneliness

(1)

Eva HartEll the Inefficient loneliness a Descriptive Study about the Complexity of assessment for learning in Primary technology EducationKt Trita-ECE 2012:01

ISBN 978-91-7501-552-1

The Inefficient Loneliness

Eva H a rtE l l

licentiate thesis in Education and Communication in the technological Sciences Stockholm, Sweden 2012

A Descriptive Study about the Complexity of Assessment for Learning in Primary Technology Education

(2)

(3)

(4)

The Inefficient Loneliness

A Descriptive Study about the Complexity of Assessment for Learning in Primary Technology Education

EVA HARTELL

Licentiate Thesis Stockholm, Sweden 2012

The Inefficient Loneliness

A Descriptive Study about the Complexity of Assessment for Learning in Primary Technology Education

EVA HARTELL

Licentiate Thesis Stockholm, Sweden 2012

(5)

Papers that this thesis covers are:

I Hartell, E. Exploring the (un-)usefulness of formative assessment documents in primary technology education.

Submitted.

II Hartell, E. Looking for a glimpse in the eye.

Forthcoming in Skogh & de Vries (eds.) Technology Education – Practicing Teachers Researching Teachers Practice. Series: International Technology Education Studies. Sense Publishers.

(Published here with kind permission.)

Department of Learning

KTH School of Education and Communication in Engineering Science

SE-100 44 Stockholm Sweden

Typeset by Eva Hartell & Ann-Charlotte Ekstedt.

Printed by Eprint AB, Stockholm.

Trita-ECE 2012:01 ISBN 978-91-7501-552-1

©Eva Hartell, 2012

Papers that this thesis covers are:

I Hartell, E. Exploring the (un-)usefulness of formative assessment documents in primary technology education.

Submitted.

II Hartell, E. Looking for a glimpse in the eye.

Forthcoming in Skogh & de Vries (eds.) Technology Education – Practicing Teachers Researching Teachers Practice. Series: International Technology Education Studies. Sense Publishers.

(Published here with kind permission.)

Department of Learning

KTH School of Education and Communication in Engineering Science

SE-100 44 Stockholm Sweden

Typeset by Eva Hartell & Ann-Charlotte Ekstedt.

Printed by Eprint AB, Stockholm.

Trita-ECE 2012:01 ISBN 978-91-7501-552-1

©Eva Hartell, 2012

(6)

Abstract

This thesis provides findings from a qualitative study that explores the assessment process undertaken by teachers in Swedish primary technology education. The thesis aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of how teachers assess in technology education. In this study assessment with the purpose of acquiring information in order to adjust the teaching to the pupils’ needs for future progress is explored in particular. Teachers’ work with assessment is explored in two teacher-focused sub-studies. Sub-study 1 focuses on the long-cycle formative assessment and on the formal documentation of pupils’ attainment, the so-called IDP with written assessment.

Sub-study 2 explores the short cycle of formative assessment and highlights two teachers’ classroom assessments practice. The results presented are built upon authentic samples of assessment

documents (IDPs), classroom observations and teacher interviews.

The study shows that the teachers are alone in the planning, executing and follow-up of technology education. Support is both asked for and needed.

Keywords: technology education, assessment, formative assessment, assessment for learning, primary education

Abstract

This thesis provides findings from a qualitative study that explores the assessment process undertaken by teachers in Swedish primary technology education. The thesis aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of how teachers assess in technology education. In this study assessment with the purpose of acquiring information in order to adjust the teaching to the pupils’ needs for future progress is explored in particular. Teachers’ work with assessment is explored in two teacher-focused sub-studies. Sub-study 1 focuses on the long-cycle formative assessment and on the formal documentation of pupils’ attainment, the so-called IDP with written assessment.

Sub-study 2 explores the short cycle of formative assessment and highlights two teachers’ classroom assessments practice. The results presented are built upon authentic samples of assessment

documents (IDPs), classroom observations and teacher interviews.

The study shows that the teachers are alone in the planning, executing and follow-up of technology education. Support is both asked for and needed.

Keywords: technology education, assessment, formative assessment, assessment for learning, primary education

(7)

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I wish to thank my supervisor, Professor Inga- Britt Skogh (for everything), and my assistant supervisors, Professor Edward Nordlander and Dr Lena Gumaelius, who encouraged, challenged, supported and believed in me through this learning journey. A very special thanks my additional supervisor Professor Richard Kimbell for your extraordinary guidance into the field of research. I am really looking forward to the next parts of this learning journey.

Thank you, Karen and Karl, who invited me to your classrooms and squeezed me into your busy schedules. Without you, this would not have been possible!

I have had the privilege to be part of the program Lärarlyftet (´Boost for teachers’) initiated by the Swedish government. My work in TUFF (Teknikutbildning för framtiden – Technology education for the future) graduate school has been funded by the Swedish

government and by the municipality of Haninge. Their support is gratefully acknowledged. Very special thanks to all my friends in TUFF, at KTH and in Haninge, and especially to Mats Öhlin and Johan Ahlkvist and all my former pupils in the municipality of Haninge.

Presenting at international conferences, as part of the research process, has been made possible through funding from Internationella programkontoret, Sällskapet för Folkundervisningens Befrämjande and Jubileumsdonationen K & A Wallenberg Stiftelse, whose scholarships are greatly acknowledged.

Finally and most of all, I would like to thank my beloved family, who has shown support, patience and confidence through this adventurous journey. Anders! Alice! Axel! I love you and I will try to be away from the keyboard more in the future.

Eva Hartell, Nynäshamn 22 October 2012

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I wish to thank my supervisor, Professor Inga- Britt Skogh (for everything), and my assistant supervisors, Professor Edward Nordlander and Dr Lena Gumaelius, who encouraged, challenged, supported and believed in me through this learning journey. A very special thanks my additional supervisor Professor Richard Kimbell for your extraordinary guidance into the field of research. I am really looking forward to the next parts of this learning journey.

Thank you, Karen and Karl, who invited me to your classrooms and squeezed me into your busy schedules. Without you, this would not have been possible!

I have had the privilege to be part of the program Lärarlyftet (´Boost for teachers’) initiated by the Swedish government. My work in TUFF (Teknikutbildning för framtiden – Technology education for the future) graduate school has been funded by the Swedish

government and by the municipality of Haninge. Their support is gratefully acknowledged. Very special thanks to all my friends in TUFF, at KTH and in Haninge, and especially to Mats Öhlin and Johan Ahlkvist and all my former pupils in the municipality of Haninge.

Presenting at international conferences, as part of the research process, has been made possible through funding from Internationella programkontoret, Sällskapet för Folkundervisningens Befrämjande and Jubileumsdonationen K & A Wallenberg Stiftelse, whose scholarships are greatly acknowledged.

Finally and most of all, I would like to thank my beloved family, who has shown support, patience and confidence through this adventurous journey. Anders! Alice! Axel! I love you and I will try to be away from the keyboard more in the future.

Eva Hartell, Nynäshamn 22 October 2012

(8)

P ^ART I

Introduction 1

1.1 Assessment

Assessment is a big issue in today’s public debate. There are

discussions about assessment of learning and assessment for learning.

The debate commonly focuses on the pros and cons of one or the other, but the question of combining the two approaches is also addressed. Assessment in which the primary purpose is to bring the pupil forward in progress and to alter the gap between the current position and the targeted one is commonly referred to as formative assessment (Black & Wiliam, 1998a; Kimbell, 2007; Wiliam, 2009). An assessment act is not formative in itself; it is the use and impact of the assessment that determines if it is formative or not. It is easy to fall in love with the almost mythological reported success of formative assessment and forget the difficulties included. However, assessment is not enacted in an emotional vacuum. It is enacted in a social context where different roles and responsibilities are

distributed among all the participants, including not only the teacher but also the learner and her/his peers.

Monitoring and assessing pupils’ achievements in the compulsory school subject technology have had almost no place in this debate.

This, perhaps, is not so surprising given the fact that technology has had a minor role in the compulsory school system (Fabricius et al., 2002). Now is the time to change this. Pupils are entitled to exceed the knowledge level stipulated in the national curricula, in

technology as well as in any other mandatory subjects.

Within the educational context, assessments have had, still have and most likely will continue to have many different meanings, aims and purposes. However the aims and purposes of assessment may differ, if the purpose of the assessment does not include the pupil’s future progress, one must question the usefulness of it (Gipps, 2004;

P ^ART I

Introduction 1

1.1 Assessment

Assessment is a big issue in today’s public debate. There are

discussions about assessment of learning and assessment for learning.

The debate commonly focuses on the pros and cons of one or the other, but the question of combining the two approaches is also addressed. Assessment in which the primary purpose is to bring the pupil forward in progress and to alter the gap between the current position and the targeted one is commonly referred to as formative assessment (Black & Wiliam, 1998a; Kimbell, 2007; Wiliam, 2009). An assessment act is not formative in itself; it is the use and impact of the assessment that determines if it is formative or not. It is easy to fall in love with the almost mythological reported success of formative assessment and forget the difficulties included. However, assessment is not enacted in an emotional vacuum. It is enacted in a social context where different roles and responsibilities are

distributed among all the participants, including not only the teacher but also the learner and her/his peers.

Monitoring and assessing pupils’ achievements in the compulsory school subject technology have had almost no place in this debate.

This, perhaps, is not so surprising given the fact that technology has had a minor role in the compulsory school system (Fabricius et al., 2002). Now is the time to change this. Pupils are entitled to exceed the knowledge level stipulated in the national curricula, in

technology as well as in any other mandatory subjects.

Within the educational context, assessments have had, still have and most likely will continue to have many different meanings, aims and purposes. However the aims and purposes of assessment may differ, if the purpose of the assessment does not include the pupil’s future progress, one must question the usefulness of it (Gipps, 2004;

(15)

Nyström, 2004; Newton, 2007; Pettersson, 2009; Bennett, 2011;

Kimbell, 2012 in press). Thus it is time stop arguing about whether to assess or not. Instead, it is time to start asking questions about how, for what purposes and with what consequences we assess (Vallberg Roth, 2010). The change from quality control to quality insurance will shift focus from assessment of learning to assessment for learning is needed. Or, rather, the combination of both but with the emphasis on the latter is needed. To support teachers’ work with assessment a new assessment device, the Individual Development Plan with written assessments, was introduced in 2008 (NAE, 2009).

The main motive behind the introduction of written assessment was to improve clarity in the communication of/information about pupils’ knowledge development in school.

1.2 Learning is a journey

This study comes from the perspective that learning takes place within a social context together with others. If you are interested in teaching and learning, you have to understand assessment (Kimbell, 2012 in press). This thesis is grounded on the view of assessment as the bridge between teaching and learning, which goes back to the origin of the word assessment. Assessment originates from the Latin word assidere, which means sitting beside or sit by when translated into English. When translating the English word pupil into Swedish it can be translated in two different ways: first elev, which would be translated back as student/pupil and second, and here more important, ögonsten. Ögonsten means the apple of the eye or

sweetheart. Playing with these words in this way clarifies, to me, the true meaning of teachers’ work with assessment as spiritually (and sometimes also physically) sitting beside the pupils. To me assessment is the link between teaching and learning.

The regulations (LGR11) state that every pupil has the right to develop in school, feel the joy of growth and experience the satisfaction that comes from making progress and overcoming difficulties (NAE, 2011c, p. 13). The national regulations also state that every pupil has the right to

Nyström, 2004; Newton, 2007; Pettersson, 2009; Bennett, 2011;

Kimbell, 2012 in press). Thus it is time stop arguing about whether to assess or not. Instead, it is time to start asking questions about how, for what purposes and with what consequences we assess (Vallberg Roth, 2010). The change from quality control to quality insurance will shift focus from assessment of learning to assessment for learning is needed. Or, rather, the combination of both but with the emphasis on the latter is needed. To support teachers’ work with assessment a new assessment device, the Individual Development Plan with written assessments, was introduced in 2008 (NAE, 2009).

The main motive behind the introduction of written assessment was to improve clarity in the communication of/information about pupils’ knowledge development in school.

1.2 Learning is a journey

This study comes from the perspective that learning takes place within a social context together with others. If you are interested in teaching and learning, you have to understand assessment (Kimbell, 2012 in press). This thesis is grounded on the view of assessment as the bridge between teaching and learning, which goes back to the origin of the word assessment. Assessment originates from the Latin word assidere, which means sitting beside or sit by when translated into English. When translating the English word pupil into Swedish it can be translated in two different ways: first elev, which would be translated back as student/pupil and second, and here more important, ögonsten. Ögonsten means the apple of the eye or

sweetheart. Playing with these words in this way clarifies, to me, the true meaning of teachers’ work with assessment as spiritually (and sometimes also physically) sitting beside the pupils. To me assessment is the link between teaching and learning.

The regulations (LGR11) state that every pupil has the right to develop in school, feel the joy of growth and experience the satisfaction that comes from making progress and overcoming difficulties (NAE, 2011c, p. 13). The national regulations also state that every pupil has the right to

(16)

exceed the level of knowledge stipulated in the curricula in technology. The importance for teachers to start from where their pupils are and to make adjustments to the pupils’ needs in their teaching is emphasized. This is nothing new. Even in the 17^th

century Comenius acknowledged the importance of teachers starting from where the pupils are and adjusting their teaching towards the pupil’s needs in order to enhance pupils’ learning (Comenius, 1642, in Skogh, 2008). The concepts of learning and knowledge are in this study neither questioned nor problematized. Similar to the national policy documents, the focus of this study is to describe and discuss the realization of assessment in the teaching practice.

1.3 Aims and purpose

How do teachers follow up on their pupils’ progress? In what ways do they ‘locate’ their pupils and move them forward on their learning journey? In order to shed some more light concerning teachers’ educational assessment practices in technology education the following overall research questions are put:

How is assessment in technology education in primary school organized and performed (1) by local school organizers (school level) and (2) by teachers in the classroom (teacher level)?

Two sub-studies have been undertaken. The first research question relates to the question of the usefulness in technology of the mandatory document Individual Development Plan with written assessments. The second research question focuses on teachers’

assessments in the classroom.

How can the IDP document be used by primary school teachers in their follow- up on pupils’ knowledge development in technology?

How is teachers’ minute-by-minute follow-up enacted in the classroom?

Since previous results are rare (Bjurulf, 2011), an explorative approach has been used. This is described in Section 4 and in more detail in two separate papers.

exceed the level of knowledge stipulated in the curricula in technology. The importance for teachers to start from where their pupils are and to make adjustments to the pupils’ needs in their teaching is emphasized. This is nothing new. Even in the 17^th

century Comenius acknowledged the importance of teachers starting from where the pupils are and adjusting their teaching towards the pupil’s needs in order to enhance pupils’ learning (Comenius, 1642, in Skogh, 2008). The concepts of learning and knowledge are in this study neither questioned nor problematized. Similar to the national policy documents, the focus of this study is to describe and discuss the realization of assessment in the teaching practice.

1.3 Aims and purpose

How do teachers follow up on their pupils’ progress? In what ways do they ‘locate’ their pupils and move them forward on their learning journey? In order to shed some more light concerning teachers’ educational assessment practices in technology education the following overall research questions are put:

How is assessment in technology education in primary school organized and performed (1) by local school organizers (school level) and (2) by teachers in the classroom (teacher level)?

Two sub-studies have been undertaken. The first research question relates to the question of the usefulness in technology of the mandatory document Individual Development Plan with written assessments. The second research question focuses on teachers’

assessments in the classroom.

How can the IDP document be used by primary school teachers in their follow- up on pupils’ knowledge development in technology?

How is teachers’ minute-by-minute follow-up enacted in the classroom?

Since previous results are rare (Bjurulf, 2011), an explorative approach has been used. This is described in Section 4 and in more detail in two separate papers.

(17)

1.4 The context/arena of the study

The thesis is situated in the context of technology education in the early years of schooling in Swedish municipal compulsory school.

Focus is put on teachers wanting to make sure that their pupils exceed the stipulated levels of knowledge in the mandatory school subject of technology education in the primary years of schooling.

Neither the content of the school subject of technology nor the philosophy of the subject is in focus. In the review regarding assessment in Sweden it is concluded that assessment is a growing field of interest, not only nationally but also internationally, with the conclusion that more knowledge is needed (Lindberg, 2005;

Forsberg & Lindberg, 2010). Within the Swedish context there is today an increased interest in assessment in general. Studies focusing on the primary years of schooling have been undertaken and

presented in different subject areas such as mathematics (e.g., Björklund-Boistrup, 2010). The importance of studying assessment in technology has been highlighted by Bjurulf (2011). This present study is in fact the first Swedish thesis focusing on assessment in primary school technology education.

1.4.1 Technology education in Swedish primary schools Technology education has been a mandatory subject in compulsory school since the beginning of the 1980s. Technology shares national time table space with the science subjects (biology, chemistry and physics). The total amount of 800 hours (minimum) has been allotted to technology and science from school year 1 to 9. In 1994 technology got a national syllabus of its own, which was later revised in 2002 (Lpo94). In 2011 the technology subject was supplied with another syllabus (Lgr11). From 2011 technology has also been a mandatory subject in Special school.

The history of the technology subject in the later years of schooling (years 7–9 and in upper secondary school) is older than for the primary years (Riis, 1989), where consensus regarding the subject content and the description of the subject has not yet been set

1.4 The context/arena of the study

The thesis is situated in the context of technology education in the early years of schooling in Swedish municipal compulsory school.

Focus is put on teachers wanting to make sure that their pupils exceed the stipulated levels of knowledge in the mandatory school subject of technology education in the primary years of schooling.

Neither the content of the school subject of technology nor the philosophy of the subject is in focus. In the review regarding assessment in Sweden it is concluded that assessment is a growing field of interest, not only nationally but also internationally, with the conclusion that more knowledge is needed (Lindberg, 2005;

Forsberg & Lindberg, 2010). Within the Swedish context there is today an increased interest in assessment in general. Studies focusing on the primary years of schooling have been undertaken and

presented in different subject areas such as mathematics (e.g., Björklund-Boistrup, 2010). The importance of studying assessment in technology has been highlighted by Bjurulf (2011). This present study is in fact the first Swedish thesis focusing on assessment in primary school technology education.

1.4.1 Technology education in Swedish primary schools Technology education has been a mandatory subject in compulsory school since the beginning of the 1980s. Technology shares national time table space with the science subjects (biology, chemistry and physics). The total amount of 800 hours (minimum) has been allotted to technology and science from school year 1 to 9. In 1994 technology got a national syllabus of its own, which was later revised in 2002 (Lpo94). In 2011 the technology subject was supplied with another syllabus (Lgr11). From 2011 technology has also been a mandatory subject in Special school.

The history of the technology subject in the later years of schooling (years 7–9 and in upper secondary school) is older than for the primary years (Riis, 1989), where consensus regarding the subject content and the description of the subject has not yet been set

(18)

(Skogh, 2001; Norström, 2011). Several reports have highlighted the problematic situation, including pupils’ limited access to technology education (Fabricius et al., 2002; ASEI, 2005; SSI, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c; Teknikdelegationen, 2009, 2010). The situation is described as most alarming in the early years of schooling, in which teachers express insecurity and are not content with their practice. Lack of tradition and lack of teacher training in the subject are suggested as possible reasons for this (ASEI, 2005; Nordlander, 2011). Some interventions regarding in-service training have been undertaken, but the majority of the teachers teaching technology still lack training in the subject (Skogh, 2001; Hartell & Svärdh, 2012).

Technology has had two syllabuses (Lpo94; Lgr11), each describing two tuning points which the pupil is entitled to exceed in technology during the nine years of compulsory school. In the former curricula (LpO94) the targets to attain were stipulated in years 5 and 9. In the current curricula (LGR11) the knowledge demands are set for years 6 and 9. The Lgr11 syllabus also stipulates core content areas of tutoring for years 1–3, 4–6 and 7–9, which the former did not.

Some support material for the LpO94 curricula (e.g., guidelines, national tests) have been provided by the National Agency for Education (NAE), but not in technology (Hartell, 2011). Lundahl (2009) argues that teachers’ lack of training in assessment in general.

Some interventions regarding assessment have been undertaken by the NAE; unfortunately, the primary years of schooling were not considered as target groups (Fagerlund & Högberg, 2010). Teachers’

alignment with the previous and current steering documents as well as teachers’ opportunities and abilities to teach technology (e.g., teacher training, resources) has been questioned (e.g., Blomdahl, 2007; Bjurulf, 2008; Klasander, 2010). Available information regarding (Swedish) pupils’ educational positions in technology is limited and not easy to interpret (Teknikdelegationen, 2010; Hartell, 2011).

(Skogh, 2001; Norström, 2011). Several reports have highlighted the problematic situation, including pupils’ limited access to technology education (Fabricius et al., 2002; ASEI, 2005; SSI, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c; Teknikdelegationen, 2009, 2010). The situation is described as most alarming in the early years of schooling, in which teachers express insecurity and are not content with their practice. Lack of tradition and lack of teacher training in the subject are suggested as possible reasons for this (ASEI, 2005; Nordlander, 2011). Some interventions regarding in-service training have been undertaken, but the majority of the teachers teaching technology still lack training in the subject (Skogh, 2001; Hartell & Svärdh, 2012).

Technology has had two syllabuses (Lpo94; Lgr11), each describing two tuning points which the pupil is entitled to exceed in technology during the nine years of compulsory school. In the former curricula (LpO94) the targets to attain were stipulated in years 5 and 9. In the current curricula (LGR11) the knowledge demands are set for years 6 and 9. The Lgr11 syllabus also stipulates core content areas of tutoring for years 1–3, 4–6 and 7–9, which the former did not.

Some support material for the LpO94 curricula (e.g., guidelines, national tests) have been provided by the National Agency for Education (NAE), but not in technology (Hartell, 2011). Lundahl (2009) argues that teachers’ lack of training in assessment in general.

Some interventions regarding assessment have been undertaken by the NAE; unfortunately, the primary years of schooling were not considered as target groups (Fagerlund & Högberg, 2010). Teachers’

alignment with the previous and current steering documents as well as teachers’ opportunities and abilities to teach technology (e.g., teacher training, resources) has been questioned (e.g., Blomdahl, 2007; Bjurulf, 2008; Klasander, 2010). Available information regarding (Swedish) pupils’ educational positions in technology is limited and not easy to interpret (Teknikdelegationen, 2010; Hartell, 2011).

(19)

It should be noted that despite the previously reported neglect of instruction in technology, the results from grading in year 9 (pass or higher) shows that the pass rate in technology is among the highest of all the 16 subjects. According to statistics (SIRIS, 2009), 93.9% of all pupils reach or exceed the pass level. There are obviously no records yet regarding goal fulfilment prior to year 9, since grading has not (until now) been given prior to year 8.

1.4.2 Monitoring in technology in the Swedish compulsory school system

Assessment is sometimes associated with grading. Not all teachers teaching technology grade their pupils, but all teachers teaching technology work with assessment in one way or another. A teacher who fails to assess what the pupils do cannot conclude if (s)he is contributing to or impeding their process. Lindström (2006) argues that refusing to assess is a concession to those who argue that no learning takes place.

Sweden has a strong tradition of classroom assessment and relies on a belief in the teacher’s ability to independently assess the pupil’s knowledge and decide what grade is to be given (Klapp Lekholm &

Cliffordsson, 2008; Klapp Lekholm, 2009). Since 1994 the national curriculum has been a goal- and knowledge-based criteria

curriculum, in which the teachers should assess their pupils in relation to this document. According to the Swedish Educational Act (Skolfs2010:800) teachers must keep track of the pupil’s

development in order to make it possible for the pupil to develop as far as possible within the syllabuses. The school decides when, how and by whom the pupil will be taught as long as the pupil exceeds the level of attainment stipulated in the curricula.

It should be noted that despite the previously reported neglect of instruction in technology, the results from grading in year 9 (pass or higher) shows that the pass rate in technology is among the highest of all the 16 subjects. According to statistics (SIRIS, 2009), 93.9% of all pupils reach or exceed the pass level. There are obviously no records yet regarding goal fulfilment prior to year 9, since grading has not (until now) been given prior to year 8.

1.4.2 Monitoring in technology in the Swedish compulsory school system

Assessment is sometimes associated with grading. Not all teachers teaching technology grade their pupils, but all teachers teaching technology work with assessment in one way or another. A teacher who fails to assess what the pupils do cannot conclude if (s)he is contributing to or impeding their process. Lindström (2006) argues that refusing to assess is a concession to those who argue that no learning takes place.

Sweden has a strong tradition of classroom assessment and relies on a belief in the teacher’s ability to independently assess the pupil’s knowledge and decide what grade is to be given (Klapp Lekholm &

Cliffordsson, 2008; Klapp Lekholm, 2009). Since 1994 the national curriculum has been a goal- and knowledge-based criteria

curriculum, in which the teachers should assess their pupils in relation to this document. According to the Swedish Educational Act (Skolfs2010:800) teachers must keep track of the pupil’s

development in order to make it possible for the pupil to develop as far as possible within the syllabuses. The school decides when, how and by whom the pupil will be taught as long as the pupil exceeds the level of attainment stipulated in the curricula.

(20)

1.5 Formal documentation through IDP In 2006 the mandatory follow-up document Individual

Development Plan (IDP) was introduced. The intention of this mandatory and public document is to support the future learning of the individual pupil, that is, to be formative. Guidelines regarding the document (NAE, 2009) stress its importance as an active document clarifying information given by the teachers during the mandatory teacher-child-guardian meetings held once every semester. In 2008 the IDP was supplemented to include written assessments in every subject given. These written assessments are allowed to be similar to grades but are set on an individual basis.

The document shall have a clear focus on the knowledge

development in relation to the curricula and not include judgments on the pupil’s personality. The IDP is a public document and thus shall neither include any confidential information nor be used to compare between schools or individuals. Pupils are to receive written assessments, at least twice a year, in all 16 school subjects during their nine years of compulsory schooling. This means that all pupils will receive approximately 270 written assessments (Vallberg- Roth, 2010).

The designs of the IDP templates are decided upon locally, at each school. There are, however, some guidelines regarding the content provided by the NAE (2009). It should provide answers to three questions: Where is the learner now? Where is the learner going? and How is the learner going to reach the goals? Thus the IDP document should provide a description of suggested strategies regarding how to move the learning/learner forward to close the gap between the current and the targeted position. These three questions are reminiscent of those described by Wiliam (2009) as overarching the process of formative assessment. In short, the IDP document can be seen as an educational Global Positioning System (GPS) navigator device (c.f.

Hartell, 2010 or paper 2). The information in the IDP is expected to be clear and understandable to concerned learners and their

guardians (and teacher colleagues). It is to be used throughout the

1.5 Formal documentation through IDP In 2006 the mandatory follow-up document Individual

Development Plan (IDP) was introduced. The intention of this mandatory and public document is to support the future learning of the individual pupil, that is, to be formative. Guidelines regarding the document (NAE, 2009) stress its importance as an active document clarifying information given by the teachers during the mandatory teacher-child-guardian meetings held once every semester. In 2008 the IDP was supplemented to include written assessments in every subject given. These written assessments are allowed to be similar to grades but are set on an individual basis.

The document shall have a clear focus on the knowledge

development in relation to the curricula and not include judgments on the pupil’s personality. The IDP is a public document and thus shall neither include any confidential information nor be used to compare between schools or individuals. Pupils are to receive written assessments, at least twice a year, in all 16 school subjects during their nine years of compulsory schooling. This means that all pupils will receive approximately 270 written assessments (Vallberg- Roth, 2010).

The designs of the IDP templates are decided upon locally, at each school. There are, however, some guidelines regarding the content provided by the NAE (2009). It should provide answers to three questions: Where is the learner now? Where is the learner going? and How is the learner going to reach the goals? Thus the IDP document should provide a description of suggested strategies regarding how to move the learning/learner forward to close the gap between the current and the targeted position. These three questions are reminiscent of those described by Wiliam (2009) as overarching the process of formative assessment. In short, the IDP document can be seen as an educational Global Positioning System (GPS) navigator device (c.f.

Hartell, 2010 or paper 2). The information in the IDP is expected to be clear and understandable to concerned learners and their

guardians (and teacher colleagues). It is to be used throughout the

(21)

compulsory school system. Hence it is the only formal assessment and follow-up document that includes a description of the pupil’s achievements in school available prior to year 8 (year 6 starting fall 2012) when grading starts.

1.5.1 Previous findings regarding formal documentation The IDP document is a Swedish phenomenon. There are, however, similar documents internationally but only for those in need of special support. This is in contrast to the Swedish IDP

phenomenon, which is mandatory for all pupils. There is an additional document (action plan) provided for those in need of special support (Hirsh, 2011). The fact that the IDP document is compulsory for all pupils has implications for the possibility to ensure the quality of this document. The need for time to spend working with similar documents is identified as crucial within the international context (ibid.).

Prior results show that the IDP documents are primarily designed as checklists, with a primarily focus on what pupils should do and not on what the school should do. The pupil must be changed and the responsibility is laid upon the pupil and/or the guardian, that is, the document does not fulfil its intended purpose (Vallberg-Roth, 2010;

NAE, 2010a; Hirsh, 2011). Although the regulations state otherwise, previous results show that comments about personality appear frequently. Some comments can be perceived as offensive, with an evident risk for violations of the privacy of the child (Vallberg-Roth, 2010; NAE, 2010a; Andersson, 2011; Hirsh, 2011).

Insufficient implementation and enacting of IDP reform have been highlighted (NAE, 2010, Hirsh, 2011). The consequences of this document have been questioned from different points of view. First for the pupil’s development, second for the teacher in terms of quality, time and effort, thirdly for the school in terms of quality, costs and storage (Vallberg-Roth, 2010; Andersson, 2011).

compulsory school system. Hence it is the only formal assessment and follow-up document that includes a description of the pupil’s achievements in school available prior to year 8 (year 6 starting fall 2012) when grading starts.

1.5.1 Previous findings regarding formal documentation The IDP document is a Swedish phenomenon. There are, however, similar documents internationally but only for those in need of special support. This is in contrast to the Swedish IDP

phenomenon, which is mandatory for all pupils. There is an additional document (action plan) provided for those in need of special support (Hirsh, 2011). The fact that the IDP document is compulsory for all pupils has implications for the possibility to ensure the quality of this document. The need for time to spend working with similar documents is identified as crucial within the international context (ibid.).

Prior results show that the IDP documents are primarily designed as checklists, with a primarily focus on what pupils should do and not on what the school should do. The pupil must be changed and the responsibility is laid upon the pupil and/or the guardian, that is, the document does not fulfil its intended purpose (Vallberg-Roth, 2010;

NAE, 2010a; Hirsh, 2011). Although the regulations state otherwise, previous results show that comments about personality appear frequently. Some comments can be perceived as offensive, with an evident risk for violations of the privacy of the child (Vallberg-Roth, 2010; NAE, 2010a; Andersson, 2011; Hirsh, 2011).

Insufficient implementation and enacting of IDP reform have been highlighted (NAE, 2010, Hirsh, 2011). The consequences of this document have been questioned from different points of view. First for the pupil’s development, second for the teacher in terms of quality, time and effort, thirdly for the school in terms of quality, costs and storage (Vallberg-Roth, 2010; Andersson, 2011).

(22)

No previous results regarding the use of IDPs in relation to technology education have been found, prior to paper 1, except the NAE evaluative report (2010a). However, in the NAE report technology is accounted for within the grouping of science subjects (physics, biology and chemistry). Thus the report lacks information about the use of the IDP in relation to technology specifically.

1.6 Thesis outline

This thesis consists of four parts.

Part I

Part I of this thesis consists of nine sections. The disposition of the nine sections is made in the following way. Section one starts by stating the aims and purposes of the study in relation to previous results from the fields of both assessment and technology education.

The first section will also provide an overview over the school subject of technology within the Swedish compulsory school system in which the study has been undertaken. Section two provides the theoretical framework, provided from the field of assessment for learning and supplemented with relevant findings in assessment in technology, in which this thesis is positioned. Section three provides an overview of related research and previous studies relevant to this thesis within assessment for learning in general and in technology education in particular. Section four provides the methodology behind the thesis, such as a description of the underpinning decision making and ethical considerations during the collection and selection of data (documents, interviews and observations). Section four also describes additional information regarding the relation between the sub-studies which are not particularly described in the separate articles. Section five provides a summary of the two separate papers and in section six the results are presented. In section seven the results are discussed against the background of the theoretical framework. Section eight and nine provides conclusions, forward- looking remarks and possible future studies.

No previous results regarding the use of IDPs in relation to technology education have been found, prior to paper 1, except the NAE evaluative report (2010a). However, in the NAE report technology is accounted for within the grouping of science subjects (physics, biology and chemistry). Thus the report lacks information about the use of the IDP in relation to technology specifically.

1.6 Thesis outline

This thesis consists of four parts.

Part I

Part I of this thesis consists of nine sections. The disposition of the nine sections is made in the following way. Section one starts by stating the aims and purposes of the study in relation to previous results from the fields of both assessment and technology education.

The first section will also provide an overview over the school subject of technology within the Swedish compulsory school system in which the study has been undertaken. Section two provides the theoretical framework, provided from the field of assessment for learning and supplemented with relevant findings in assessment in technology, in which this thesis is positioned. Section three provides an overview of related research and previous studies relevant to this thesis within assessment for learning in general and in technology education in particular. Section four provides the methodology behind the thesis, such as a description of the underpinning decision making and ethical considerations during the collection and selection of data (documents, interviews and observations). Section four also describes additional information regarding the relation between the sub-studies which are not particularly described in the separate articles. Section five provides a summary of the two separate papers and in section six the results are presented. In section seven the results are discussed against the background of the theoretical framework. Section eight and nine provides conclusions, forward- looking remarks and possible future studies.

(23)

Part II

Part II of this thesis consists of both articles in full text.

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

Looking for a glimpse in the eye Part III

The third part of this thesis is a summary in Swedish.

Part IV

Part IV of this thesis consists of

Appendix 1 (observation chart) and

Appendix 2 (summary of subjects occurring in the IDP-data scope).

Part II

Part II of this thesis consists of both articles in full text.

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

Looking for a glimpse in the eye Part III

The third part of this thesis is a summary in Swedish.

Part IV

Part IV of this thesis consists of

Appendix 1 (observation chart) and

Appendix 2 (summary of subjects occurring in the IDP-data scope).

The Inefficient Loneliness

The Inefficient Loneliness

Eva H a rtE l l

licentiate thesis in Education and Communication in the technological Sciences Stockholm, Sweden 2012

The Inefficient Loneliness

EVA HARTELL

The Inefficient Loneliness

EVA HARTELL

Contents

Contents

P ^ART I

Introduction 1

P ^ART I

Introduction 1

The Inefficient Loneliness

The Inefficient Loneliness

Eva H a rtE l l

licentiate thesis in Education and Communication in the technological Sciences Stockholm, Sweden 2012

The Inefficient Loneliness

EVA HARTELL

The Inefficient Loneliness

EVA HARTELL

Contents

Contents

P ART I

Introduction 1

P ART I

Introduction 1

P ^ART I

P ^ART I