Democratic Consensus on Student Defined Assessment Criteria as a Catalyst for Learning in Technology Teacher Education

Donal Canty
University of Limerick, Ireland

Niall Seery
University of Limerick, Ireland

Pat Phelan
University of Limerick, Ireland

Ladda ner artikel

Ingår i: PATT 26 Conference; Technology Education in the 21st Century; Stockholm; Sweden; 26-30 June; 2012

Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 73:14, s. 119-125

Visa mer +

Publicerad: 2012-06-18

ISBN: 978-91-7519-849-1

ISSN: 1650-3686 (tryckt), 1650-3740 (online)


Identifying the contemporary values and goals that underpin a new conception of technological education are important when contributing to the education of undergraduate initial technology teacher education students. Motivating students to explore and establish what is of value in their subject domain is a significant challenge facing academics and practitioners alike. Williams (2009) presents design based technology education as being embedded in the personal and social context of the student; where the value of what is being learned is as important as the content itself.

Design based tasks have the potential to encourage students to establish and make explicit their views and beliefs. Requiring students to establish their own assessment criteria introduces uncertainty; risk; and confusion into the process of learning. Establishing what is of value now becomes the primary concern for the learner in a quest to demonstrate their capability within a personal view of the subject domain.

This study implemented a constructivist approach to learning in a design based task focused on the development of design; craft and processing skills. The method employed a peer assessment strategy through the use of an Adaptive Comparative Judgement (ACJ) model of assessment that required students to democratically assess the work of their peers. Assessment criteria were not made explicit; as students were encouraged to present their own conception of capability developed throughout the learning activity.

The significance of the study was highlighted by the reaction of the students to their dual role as learner and assessor and how this affected their learning. The empirical evidence collected highlights the importance of empathy as a mediator when developing critical reflective practise. The study outlines the cultural impact of democratic peer assessment on initial teacher education students while establishing what to value within their subject domain.


Values; Democratic Assessment; Technology Education; Capability


Banks; F. and Barlex; D. (2002). “One Forgets a Good Teacher!” What do “Good” Teachers Know?” European Education 33(4): 17 - 27.

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

Cohen; L.; Manion; L. and Morrison; K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. London; m Routledge.

Dow; W. (2006). “The need to change pedagogies in science and technology subjects: A European perspective.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 16: 307 - 321.

Drakers; J. (2005). “The Hegemonic Behaviourist Cycle.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 15: 111 - 126.

Jeffrey; B. & Woods; P. (1997) The relevance of creative teaching: pupils’ views; in: A. Pollard; D. Thiessen & A. Filer (Eds) Children and their curriculum: the perspectives of primary and elementary children (London; Falmer); 15–33.

Kimbell; R. (2007). “E-assessment in Project e-scape.” Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 12(2).

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).

Kimbell; R. (2012). “The origins and underpinning principles of e-scape.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 22(2): 123 - 134.

Kimbell; R. and Perry; D. (2001). Design and Technology in the Knowledge Economy. E. Council. London.

Kimbell; R.; Stables; K.; Wheeler; T.; Miller; S.; Bane; J. and Wright; R. (2004). Assessing Design Innovation. London; Department of Education and Skills.

Kimbell; R.; Wheeler; T.; Perry; D.; Shepard; T.; Potter; J.; Martin; G.; et al. (2005). E-scape portfolio assessment. R. kimbell. London; TERU; Goldsmiths College: University of London.

Kimbell; R.; Wheeler; T.; Miller; S. and Pollitt; A. (2007). E-scape portfolio assessment phase 2 report. London; TERU: Goldsmiths University of London.

Kimbell; R.; Wheeler; T.; Stables; K.; Shepard; T.; Pollitt; A.; Martin; F.; et al. (2009). E-scape portfolio assessment phase 3 report. London; TERU: Goldsmiths University of London.

McDowell; L. and Sambell; K. (1999). The experience of innovative assessment: student perspectives. Assessment matters in higher education: Choosing and using diverse approaches. S. Brown and A. Glasner. Buckingham; Open University Press.

McGarr; O. (2010). The Elephant in the Room: The Influence of Prevailing Pedagogical Practice on the Integration of Design and Communication Graphics in the Post-Primary Classroom. Graphicacy and Modelling; University of Limerick; IDATER.

Owen-Jackson; G. (2000). Learning to Teach Design and Technology in the Secondary School. New York; Routedge.

Rasinen; A. (2003). “An Analysis of the Technology Education Curriculum of Six Countries.” Journal of Technology Education 15(1): 31 - 47.

Seery; N.; Canty; D. and Phelan; P. (2012). “The Validity and Value of Peer Assessment using Adaptive Comparative Judgement in Design Driven Practical Education.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 22(2): 205 - 226.

Williams; P. J. (2009). “Technological literacy: a multliteracies approach for democracy.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 19(3): 237-254.

Citeringar i Crossref