Download pdf - The Challenges Inherent to the Standardization of Technology Education in America

8/3/2019 The Challenges Inherent to the Standardization of Technology Education in America

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-challenges-inherent-to-the-standardization-of-technology-education-in-america 1/8

The Challenges Inherent to the Standardization

of Technology Education in America

Mark Stanislav <[email protected]>

mailto:[email protected]





Standardization isn’t merely a ‘good idea’ but a requirement for efficiency and breadth of

capacity in any stable industry. Much like standardization occurs in general technology

(protocols, interfaces, media formats, etc.) it also occurs within the realm of education. Every

day students attend classes that have been composed, reviewed, and determined to be

informative and useful by governing bodies of school system, large and small. The ability for

students to be able to learn content, no matter how seemingly trivial, is a true goal of education.

“The dramatic differences in what states believe should be taught are not so much in what should

be taught but in how they much expect students to learn.” (Musick, 1997) Without a sense of

what is being taught across states or even countries, can we really glean a sense of where

education is taking any one generation. Now more than ever, technology education is a key

factor in the lively-hood of modern day adults but more so, the next generation who is being

taught now.

“Computers and Internet access in schools are products of governmental policies that

demand them (Department of Education, 1996, 2000), corporations that produce them, and

numerous people who are often misinformed or ignorant about their purpose in

education.” (Amiel, 2008) It’s no wonder with statements such as this that education is rooted in

a sense of an almost monkey-see, monkey-do attitude for curriculum. Standardizing the scope of

what education offers any student demands a sense of bias on the part of the educator due to

constraints in both available teaching time as well as managing sizable content areas in short

semesters. Purcell noted in 2004 that, “The academic world's perspective on standards education,

however, may be about to change--and well it should.” (Purcell, 2004). Whether the education is

focused on standards, or we are standardizing education, the sentiment remains that without



concentrated effort on evolution, content will stagnate and those being educated will ultimately

lose out.

Education is almost at an impasse regarding technology and having to standardized

around it’s very nature. For generations ‘technology’ could simply relate to a farm machine or a

television. Today, technology’s reach is almost insurmountable. Education is expected due to

increasing reliance on technology to enable school children to understand concepts of the

Internet, cellular communication, presentation design, spreadsheets, social media, instant

messaging, and more. The days of a simple diorama and poster-board collage are nearly over.

The “National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers” document I was able to find is

over a dizzying 300 pages long. To expect a teacher to integrate that kind of breadth of content

into a already standardized curriculum of math, science, and literacy is overwhelming.

In my personal experience as an adjunct lecturer at Eastern Michigan University, I’ve

found the goal of adequate curriculum creation daunting. My speciality is the Linux operating

system, to which I have had over 10 years of hands-on experience, many of those professional.

Despite my knowledge and time with the operating system, it’s still extremely hard to convey

what information is crucial and what information is just ‘good to know’. “If international

standards are so important, you'd think that they would be the focus of extensive analysis at

schools of engineering in the United States.” (Purcell, 2004) The difficulty in Purcell’s earnest

but slightly snarky comment is that relevance in curriculum isn’t necessarily driven by

standardization from any one end. Curriculum at the end of the day is still architected by a

collection of people whose viewpoints may be myopic to the topic at hand. In regard to this a

struggle isn’t whether or not to teach my students standardized Linux curriculum, but which



standardized topics are of most importance! The true problem lies in the fact that standardization

isn’t always exclusive in regard to any one topic.

“Developing a set of standards that has a broad base of consensus has never been touted

as an easy task.” (Kelly, 2002) The implementation of a standardized format for education may

be done at a state level but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s being taught with a focus on

relevance or actual content retainment. Indeed, with technology the scope of what should be

taught is often impossible to refine for most topics and even then, a governing body on subject

matter may not be the de facto standard. Take for example the organization ISC^2 which handles

the Certified Information System Security Professional (CISSP). They are a well-known,

respected, and important certification group for information security world-wide. Even then,

many other organizations such as the SANS Institute with their GIAC certification are equally or

closely matched in respect and governance over a subject matter. To what end then is one

professor right or wrong in teaching the course material for either examination as a ‘standard’?

One statement that I can personally attest to which is defined eloquently by Siebert is

“students learn best by active participation in the learning process” (Siebert, 2001) The lab

sessions my students engage in are the cornerstone of everything I want a student to take away

from my class. Technology education is about the interaction with the technology more so than

the theory. A notion that should be on the top of every technology educators mind is ensuring that

students have a healthy judgement of what technologies they are being told matter or are

positive. “Educational technologists are frequently more concerned with the possibilities of using

a new technology (means), such as a newer course management system or the hottest wireless

device, than seriously considering the ultimate aims of its use and its consequences.” (Amiel,



2008) The focus of what is being taught cannot simply be that a given technology is all important

and without flaw. Students shouldn’t be expected to walk blindly into using technology anymore

than they should be expected to agree with the statements of a political science professor.

Education and standardization should have a healthy checks and balances system where the

students can engage their educators and occasionally call-out a topic’s merit or relevance to their

lives.

An important aspect of trying to gauge effectiveness and the relationship that

standardization has is to quantitatively evaluate a given set of circumstances. “Some states will

have high expectations [for education], others will have low ones, and the public will be

justifiably confused and cynical.” (Musick, 1996) Without communication between

standardizing bodies of a general nature or with specific focus on education, there’s little chance

that the proper metrics will be set for what is really a standard. The first to a topic does not make

them an authority on the subject and nor should the first people to compose a book or write a

course necessarily be the authoritative entity. It’s only through community of excellence that

truly usable and note-worthy standards will arrive to any given industry. In the sense of “Cloud

Computing” two governing technology bodies worked together to create the first “Cloud

Computing Security Knowledge” certification available to help separate potential subject matter

experts from everyone else. Either organization (CSA or ENISA) could have on their own

deemed themselves a standardizing body of knowledge of this given subject but rather worked

together to find a common ground.

I feel that Amiel’s focus on design-based research is simply a focused component of what

Purcell is trying to convey regarding standardization. “Design-based research calls for iterative



cycles of study that lead to a better understanding of the process of intervention (process

oriented).” (Amiel, 2008) To this point, Purcell notes that “Nevertheless, the economic

implications for international standards are huge. Nations and organizations such as associations

must remain involved in the development of international standards to guarantee their respective

futures.” (Purcell, 2004) The standardization of something as ever-changing as the broad scope

of any technology requires iterative change that Amiel speaks to and is at the heart of Purcell’s

note towards remained involvement to standardization. For instance, NIST is up to version 15 of

their “Cloud Computing” definition. As the technology changes, so must the relevant definition

to which standards are created for does as well. Without the adequate evolution of standards,

technology would be pulled-down, as the general masses have to try and re-define for themselves

what now constitutes a standard.

To these ends and many more, a common goal for any sort of education should be a

distinct focus on adhering standards to the way we learn and teach. By unifying topics around

sound basis and collective esteem, we further allow students and followers of research to engage

with an almost alive stream of consciousness regarding a given topic. Because technology moves

so quickly our only chance to keep education from stagnating is to contribute back the research

we as individuals or educators do to the very topics we are so focused on. Without the insight

from those who have to interact with topics on a daily basis, content will transform from current

and exciting to historical and dull. “A central tenet of the National Science Education Standards

is teaching science as inquiry...” (Siebert, 2001) Indeed, our education should be thorough and

inquisitive. Through a stedfast dedication to education as more than just recitation but as

molding the landscape of a generation’s understanding of a technology we can help to evolve



both the very standards being taught as well as ensure that the cross-section of lives touched are

more apt to contribute to the next chapter of evolution its self.



Bibiography

Amiel, T., & Reeves, T C (Oct 2008). Design-based research and educational technology:

rethinking technology and the research agenda. Educational Technology & Society, 11, 4. p.29

(12). Retrieved October 14, 2010, from Academic OneFile via Gale:

http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.emich.edu/gtx/start.do?

prodId=AONE&userGroupName=lom_emichu

Kelly, M.G. (Ed.). (2002). National educational technology standards for teachers: Preparing

teachers to use technology (1st ed.). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technolgoy in

Education.

Musick, M. D. (1996, July). Setting education standards high enough. Atlanta, GA: Southern

Regional Education Board.

Purcell, D. (2004). Strategic Standard Setting on the Global Stage. Association Management , 56

(8), 97-102. Retrieved from OmniFile Full Text Select database

Siebert, E.D., and McIntosh, W.J., 2001, College pathways to the science education standards,

National Science Teachers Association Press, 192p.

http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.emich.edu/gtx/start.do?prodId=AONE&userGroupName=lom_emichu


