The validity and value of peer assessment using adaptive comparative judgement in design driven practical education

International Journal of Technology and Design Education

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 205-226

  Seery, Niall ^a   Canty, Donal ^a   Phelan, Pat ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Comparative pairs; Holistic assessment; Teacher education; Technology education

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA; COMPARATIVE PAIRS; CRAFT SKILLS; DESIGN ACTIVITY; DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT; EDUCATIONAL APPROACH; EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES; FIRST YEAR; HOLISTIC ASSESSMENT; ITERATIVE LEARNING PROCESS; LEARNING OUTCOME; LEARNING PROCESS; PEER ASSESSMENT; PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT; TEACHER EDUCATION; TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION; UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMMES;

CURRICULA; DESIGN; EDUCATION COMPUTING; ENGINEERING EDUCATION; RATING; TEACHING;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84862218004     PISSN: 09577572     EISSN: 15731804     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10798-011-9194-0     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Banks, F., Barlex, D., Jarvinen, E., O'Sullivan, G., Owen Jackson, G., & Rutland, M. (2004). DEPTH-developing professional thinking for technology teachers: An International Study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 141-157.
2. Barlex, D. (2007). Creativity in school design and technology in England: A discussion of influences. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17, 149-162.
3. Barlex, D., & Trebell, D. (2008). Design-without-make: Challenging the conventional approach to teaching and learning in a design and technology classroom. International Journal of Technology Design Education, 18, 119-138. (Pubitemid 351415818)
4. Baynes, K. (2010). Models of change: The future of design education. Design and Technology: An International Journal, 15.3. The Design and Technology Association.
5. Carty, A., & Phelan, P. (2006). The nature and provision of technology education in Ireland. Journal of Technology Education, 18(1), 7-11.
6. Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49-55.
7. Davies, A. (1996). Assessment and transferable skills in art and design. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 3, 327-331.
8. Dunbar, R. (2010). Informing technology teacher education; exploring the effects of contemporary teaching and learning. PhD thesis, University of Limerick.
9. Gibson, K. (2008). Technology and technological knowledge: A challenge for school curricula. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 3-15.
10. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. The American Psychologist, 5(9), 444-454.
11. Kimbell, R. (2007). E-assessment in Project e-scape. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 12(2), 66-76.
12. Kimbell, R. (2010). The transient and the timeless: Surviving a lifetime of policy and practice in assessment. Design and Technology: An international Journal, 15.3, The Design and Technology Association.
13. Kimbell, R., & Stables, K. (2007). Researching design learning. Dordrecht NL: Springer.
14. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Miller, S., Bane, J., & Wright, R. (2004). Assessing design innovation. London: Department of Education and Skills.
15. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wosniak, A., & Kelly, V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design and technology. London: School Examinations and Assessment Council/Central Office of Information.
16. Kimbell, R., Wheeler, T., Miller, S., Pollitt, A., (2007). E-scape portfolio assessment phase 2 report. TERU, Goldsmiths University of London.
17. Kimbell, R., Wheeler, T., Shepard, T., Browne Martin, G., Perry, D., Hall, P., et al. (2005). E-scape portfolio assessment phase 1 report. Teru: Goldsmiths University of London.
18. Kimbell, R., Wheeler, T., Stables, K., Shepard, T., Pollitt, A., Martin, F., et al. (2009). E-scape portfolio assessment phase 3 report. Teru: Goldsmiths University of London.
19. Lewis, T. (2009). Creativity in technology education: Providing children with glimpses of their inventive potential. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19, 255-268.
20. Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond "The Design Process": An alternative pedagogy for technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 117-128.
21. McCormick, R., & Davidson, M. (1996). Problem solving and the tyranny of product outcomes. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 1(3), 230-241.
22. McDowell, L., & Sambell, K. (1999). The experience of innovative assessment: Student perspectives. In S. Brown & A. Glasner (Eds.), Assessment matters in higher education: Choosing and using diverse approaches (pp. 71-82). Buckingham: Open University Press.
23. Pollitt, A. (2004). Let's stop marking exams. Paper presented at the annual conference of the international association for educational assessment, Philadelphia.
24. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
25. Rasinen, A. (2003). An analysis of technology education curriculum of six countries. Journal of Technology Education, 15(1), 31-47. (Pubitemid 40640670)
26. Ritz, J. M. (2009). A new generation of goals for technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 20(2), 50-64.
27. Schunk, D. (2004). Learning theories: An educational perspective (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Pearson.
28. Stiggins, R. (2005). Rethinking the motivational dynamics of productive assessment. Manitoba Association of School Superintendents Journal, 5(1), 8-12.
29. Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273-286. Reprinted as Chapter 3 in L. L. Thurstone (1959), The measurement of values. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
30. Williams, P. J. (2000). Design: The only methodology of technology. Journal of Technology Education, 11(2), 48-60.