Technology-Mediated Assessment in Crossover Learning Assessment Design (CLAD): A Case from Sustainable Engineering Design Education

  • Fariha Hayat SalmanEmail author
  • David R. Riley
Living reference work entry


Crossover Learning Assessment Designs (CLADs) are unique in their coordination of formal and informal learning through technology-mediated assessment of curricular concepts. This chapter captures the research-based design of one CLAD that employed technology-mediated assessments driven by an augmented reality learning (ARL) platform to provide high school students an exposure to sustainable engineering design concepts. These assessments were embedded in the learning content that drew on the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and spread across the real-world setting of a solar house. Learners interacted with the overlaid augmented content and assessments on their mobile devices as they physically navigated the GPS-marked locations across the solar house. Analytics on the learners’ performance on these assessments were secured on the ARL platform for further analyses. Data collected through iterative usability cycles helped improve the design of technology-mediated assessments that are essentially: (1) place-based, (2) curriculum-focused, and (3) technology-driven. Most importantly, the design of these assessments is deeply rooted in the conceptual distinction of informal and formal learning based on the emphasis on experiential and explanatory knowledge respectively. This chapter proposes CLAD as a pedagogical solution that coordinates explanatory (formal) and experiential (informal) learning through technology-mediated assessments. The chapter also presents the design framework of technology-mediated assessments within a particular CLAD with the hope that educational researchers and practitioners will draw upon this framework in their efforts to bridge formal and informal learning experiences.


Next generation science standards Technology-mediated assessments Sustainable engineering design STEM education Augmented reality Formal and informal learning 


  1. Arena, D.A., and D.L. Schwartz. 2014. Experience and explanation: Using videogames to prepare students for formal instruction in statistics. Journal of Science Education and Technology 23 (4): 538–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barr, S., K. Leigh, and B. Dunbar. 2011. Green schools that teach: Whole-school sustainability. In Greenbuild Conference Proceedings. Toronto: US Green Building Council.Google Scholar
  3. Bellocchi, A., D.T. King, and S.M. Ritchie. 2016. Context-based assessment: Creating opportunities for resonance between classroom fields and societal fields. International Journal of Science Education 38 (8): 1304–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bransford, J.D., and D.L. Schwartz. 1999. Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education 24: 61–101.Google Scholar
  5. Bybee, R.W. 2013. The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  6. Cardiel, C.L.B., S.A. Pattison, M. Benne, and M. Johnson. 2016. Science on the move: A design-based research study of informal STEM learning in public spaces. Visitor Studies 19 (1): 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, C.H., and G.J. Hwang. 2017. Effects of the team competition-based ubiquitous gaming approach on students’ interactive patterns, collective efficacy and awareness of collaboration and communication. Educational Technology & Society 20 (1): 87–98.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, J. 2007. Generating new learning contexts: Novel forms of reuse and learning on the move. Invited talk at ED-MEDIA 2007 – World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, June 25–29, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  9. Cope, B., and M. Kalantzis, eds. 2009. Ubiquitous learning. Urbana: Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  10. Craig, S., S. Barr, V. Loftness, A. Aziz, and E. Cochran. 2012. Buildings as teaching tools: Strategies to maximize the pedagogical potential of a sustainably built environment. In The 9th Greening of the campus conference. Muncie: Ball State University.Google Scholar
  11. Crook, C. 2002. Children’s computer use at home and at school: Context and continuity. British Educational Research Journal 28 (6): 751–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Datoo, A., and Z. Chagani. 2011. Street Theatre: Critical pedagogy for social studies education. Social Studies Research & Practice 6 (2): 21–30.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, K., and S. Singh. 2015. Digital badges in afterschool learning: Documenting the perspectives and experiences of students and educators. Computers & Education 88: 72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diamantopoulou, S., and D. Christidou. 2016. The choreography of the museum experience: Visitors’ designs for learning. The International Journal of Arts Education 11 (3): 1–13. Scholar
  15. Dohn, N.B. 2010. The formality of learning science in everyday life: A conceptual literature review. NorDina: Nordic Studies in Science Education 6 (2): 144–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eraut, M. 2004. Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education 26 (2): 247–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Falk, J.H. 2005. Free choice environmental learning: Framing the discussion. Environmental Education Research 11 (3): 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Falk, J.H., and L.D. Dierking. 2000. Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Lanham: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  19. Freeman, S., S.L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M.K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M.P. Wenderoth. 2014. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (23): 8410–8415. Scholar
  20. Goff, E., K.L. Mulvey, M. Irvin, and A. Hartstone-Rose. 2018. Applications of augmented reality in informal science learning sites: A review. Journal of Science Education and Technology 27: 433. Scholar
  21. Hofstein, A., and S. Rosenfeld. 1996. Bridging the gap between formal and informal science learning. Studies in Science Education 28 (1): 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hsu, Y.C., H.N.J. Ho, C.C. Tsai, G.J. Hwang, H.C. Chu, C.Y. Wang, et al. 2012. Research trends in technology-based learning from 2000 to 2009: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. Educational Technology & Society 15 (2): 354–370.Google Scholar
  23. Hwang, G.J. and Tsai, C.C. 2011. Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: a review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal of Educational Technology 42(4). E65–E70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ito, M., K. Gutiérrez, S. Livingstone, B. Penuel, J. Rhodes, K. Salen, et al. 2013. Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.
  25. Käser, T., N.R. Hallinen, and D.L. Schwartz. 2017. Modeling exploration strategies to predict student performance within a learning environment and beyond. In Proceedings of the seventh international learning analytics & knowledge conference (LAK ‘17), 31–40. New York: ACM. Scholar
  26. Klopfer, E., and J. Perry. 2014. UbiqBio: Adoptions and outcomes of mobile biology games in the ecology of school. Computers in Schools 31: 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lanir, J., T. Kuflik, J. Sheidin, N. Yavin, and K. Leiderman. 2017. Visualising museum visitors’ behavior: Where do they go and what do they do there? Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 21: 313–326. Scholar
  28. Manca, S., and M. Ranieri. 2016. Is Facebook still a suitable technology-enhanced learning environment? An updated critical review of the literature from 2012 to 2015. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 32 (6): 503–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McClain, L.R., and H.T. Zimmerman. 2014. Prior experiences shaping family science conversations at a nature center. Science Education 98 (6): 1009–1032. Scholar
  30. Mclennan, J. F. 2004. Philosophy of Sustainable Design. Kansas, MO: Ecotone Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  32. National Research Council. 2015. Identifying and supporting productive programs in out-of-school settings. Committee on Successful Out-of-School STEM Learning, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  33. Newell, S. 2017. Optimizing daily fantasy sports contests through stochastic integer programming. Unpublished Master thesis, Kansas State University.Google Scholar
  34. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  35. Plummer, J.D., S. Schmoll, K.C. Yu, and C. Ghent. 2015. A guide to conducting research in the Planetarium. Planetarium 44 (2): 8–24.Google Scholar
  36. Rivet, A.E., and J.S. Krajcik. 2008. Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students’ prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45 (1): 79–100. Scholar
  37. Rogers, A., and J. Rock. 2017. Testing a mobile platform for community co-created exhibitions. Curator, the Museum Journal 60 (3): 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sahin, A., M.C. Ayar, and T. Adiguzel. 2014. STEM related after-school program activities and associated outcomes on student learning. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 14 (1): 309–322.Google Scholar
  39. Salman, F.H., and D.R. Riley. 2016. Augmented reality crossover gamified design for sustainable engineering education. In Future Technologies Conference 2016. San Francisco.
  40. Salman, F.H., H.T. Zimmerman, and S.M. Land. 2014. Collective problem solving in a technologically mediated science learning experience: A case study in a garden. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference of the learning sciences, vol. 1, 378–384.
  41. Schwartz, D., D. Sears, and J.D. Bransford. 2005. Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective, ed. J. Mestre, 1–51. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Sharples, M., A. Adams, N. Alozie, R. Ferguson, E. FitzGerald, M. Gaved, P. McAndrew, B. Means, J. Remold, B. Rienties, J. Roschelle, K. Vogt, D. Whitelock, and L. Yarnall. 2015. Innovating Pedagogy 2015: Open University Innovation Report 4. Milton Keynes: The Open University.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, B., P. Sharma, and P. Hooper. 2006. Decision making in online fantasy sports communities. Interactive Technology and Smart Education 3 (4): 347–360. Scholar
  44. Stephen, R., S.L. David, and D.M. James. 2008. Using technology of university buildings in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education 24 (3): 521–528.Google Scholar
  45. Sun, D., and C.-K. Looi. 2018. Boundary interaction: Towards developing a mobile technology-enabled science curriculum to integrate learning in the informal spaces. British Journal of Educational Technology 49 (3): 505–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Uzick, R., and P.G. Patrick. 2017. Family discourse on an arboretum nature trail: Explorers, protectors, rememberers, and sticky features. International Journal of Science Education, Part B 8 (1): 76–93. Scholar
  47. Vahey, P., D. Tatar, and J. Roschelle. 2007. Using handheld technology to move between private and public interactions in the classroom. In Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact, ed. M. van’t Hooft and K. Swan, 187–210. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Vos, N., H. van der Meijden, and E. Denessen. 2011. Effects of constructing versus playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy use. Computers & Education 56 (1): 127–137. Scholar
  49. Wang, M., S. Derry, and X. Ge. 2017. Guest editorial: Fostering deep learning in problem-solving contexts with the support of technology. Educational Technology & Society 20 (4): 162–165.Google Scholar
  50. Wardrip, P.S., and L. Brahms. 2015. Learning practices of making: Developing a framework for design. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on interaction design and children(IDC’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA. 375–378.
  51. Wardrip, P.S., and B.R. Shapiro. 2016. Digital media and data: Using and designing technologies to support learning in practice. Learning, Media and Technology 41 (2): 187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zimmerman, H.T., S.M. Land, L.R. McClain, M.R. Mohney, G.-W. Choi, and F.H. Salman. 2015. Tree investigators: Supporting families and youth to coordinate observations with scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education 5 (1): 44–67. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning and Performance Systems, College of EducationPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Architectural Engineering, College of EngineeringPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Raeal J. Moore
    • 1
  1. 1.Research DivisionACT, IncIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations