OHIO DEVELOPS TECHNOLOGY ACADEMIC CONTENT STANDARDS

Transcription

1 OHIO DEVELOPS TECHNOLOGY ACADEMIC CONTENT STANDARDS Background Paul E. Post The development of the Ohio is a high point on a long road of curriculum revision in Ohio. Four political paths and three sets of standards from national professional associations came together to form the most current section of that road dealing with technology. Curricula are revised and updated periodically. Ohio implemented the previous curriculum revision in The Ohio Department of Education (ODE), under the supervision of the Ohio Board of Education (OBE), undertook a new round of curriculum revisions in the 1990s. The initial process was guided by William Spady s (1994) model of outcomebased education. Opposed to this curriculum development model, the Ohio Legislature passed a set of graduation requirements based on credits, and required the ODE to stop its curriculum efforts. In 1997, it enacted Senate Bill 1/ House Resolution 1, which prescribed a method for the development of Academic Content in the areas of English, Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, Foreign Language, Arts, and Technology. The Legislature also retained the final say in approving all of the academic content standards developed. A timetable was also included in the legislation, with the Academic Content for Foreign Language, Arts, and Technology being in the final batch developed and only to be started after the others were approved. Combining technological literacy with computer and multimedia literacy and informational literacy. Earlier, Ohio had joined the national movement for high-stakes testing. Senate Bill 1/ House Resolution 1 modified Ohio s testing regimen. Both versions of the high-stakes testing program preceded the development of the Academic Content. Schools have had a problem designing their curricula to effectively meet the needs of students since there was no direct link between publicly developed curriculum standards and the tests. A third political element of the process was the Governor s Commission for Student Success. This was a broad-based group of parents, school personnel, politicians, and community members that recommended that the Academic Content be developmentally appropriate and built on the best of what was being done in Ohio and around the country. The Ohio Legislature acted upon the Commission s recommendations in Amended Substitute Senate Bill 1 that the Governor signed into law on June 12, The fourth path to the standards evolved from the fact that, throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Ohio s colleges and universities developed their own sets of admission standards that were different from the graduation standards required by the OBE. There was hope that in the development of the Academic Content there could be a greater alignment with the admission standards. A joint council of the Ohio Board of Regents and the Ohio Board of Education was created. The Joint Council oversaw the development of the Academic Content. The Process The process used for developing each of the Academic Content started with the identification of an advisory committee to determine what needed to be included in each of the Academic Content. Then a writing team was identified to develop standards and benchmarks. After a first draft was created, professional organizations were invited to comment. A second draft was produced, taking into account the comments. This draft was released online and in regional public meetings. Comments were again used to improve the Academic Content. A final round of public comment was combined with recommendations from the Ohio Board of Education to produce the Academic Content presented to Ohio Board of Education for approval. After the approval, a second writing team was given the task of fleshing out the standards through model curriculum and assessment guidelines. The Advisory Stage The advisory committee of 38 members was charged with determining the scope of the technology standards. The ODE provided background materials and presenters to help the THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER May/June

2 committee understand the state and national movements affecting instruction in the area of technology. The committee recognized the need for students to develop literacy in three areas of technology: computer and multimedia literacy, information literacy, and technological literacy. The committee endorsed the following meanings for the three areas: Computer and Multimedia Literacy is the ability to appropriately use hardware, software applications, multimedia tools, and other electronic technology. It includes the usage of technology tools for productivity and communication. Computer and multimedia literacy forms the foundation for advanced study in computer science. Information Literacy is the acquisition, interpretation, and dissemination of information. Information literacy focuses on effective methods for locating, evaluating, using, and generating information. Technology-based information literacy skills encompass the utilization of the Internet and other electronic information resources for research and knowledge building. Technological Literacy addresses the abilities needed to participate in a technological world. It is the intersection of mathematics, science, and technology. It encompasses unique knowledge, devices, and capabilities used to solve problems. It identifies career connections between technology and the world of work. Technological literacy includes technology education and encompasses preengineering concepts (Ohio Department of Education, 2004). The committee then developed a framework of nine major areas (Table 1) to be used in guiding the development of the standards and offered suggestions on the makeup of the writing team. The Writing Stage The writing team of 38 members, with some overlap in membership with the advisory team, was charged with three major purposes. First, the team turned the framework of nine major areas into standards. Secondly, each standard was broken into specific components, which were called benchmarks. Finally, performance indicators were written to establish how the benchmarks could be assessed. Performance indicators were intended to inform teachers, administrators, and parents exactly what students were expected to know and do in order to meet the standards. Nine standards were developed, but through the writing process it was determined that two of the standards should be combined with others, and so the final content standards have a total of seven standards. Table 1 shows the nine areas developed by the Advisory Committee and how they put nine into seven standards written up for the content. The standards descriptions consist of several parts: The first is a name for the standards; the second part is a one- or two-sentence description of each standard and; finally, there is a paragraph to help clarify what is included or meant by the standards. The names, and a one-or-two sentence description of each standard are shown in Table 2. Benchmarks were developed according to grade bands to make them developmentally appropriate. The grade bands used for the Ohio are: K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and The writing team worked at developing both benchmarks and indicators that were appropriate to each of the grade bands and built on previous learning. Assumptions were made at this point in writing benchmark indicators about the nature of their likely implementation in schools. One assumption was that early elementary level benchmark indicators would need to align with the already established curriculum, and that teachers were unlikely to add significantly more content to a curriculum that they felt was already very full. Observations, and especially teachers, show that teachers were already doing a very large number of technology-related activities and that benchmarks and indicators are very doable at this level. The second most important assumption was that the same teacher would not teach all three of these combined areas. The technology education teacher would address some of the benchmarks and indicators; the school librarian, media specialist, or a computer teacher might address others. The writing team met eight times from August 2002 to August Team leaders also met several times in the early fall to finish up the final revision of the standards before they were sent to the State Board of Education. During the standards writing process, the public was involved at three points to review what had been written. Early in 2003, the draft standards were presented to educators and science and industry professional focus groups for feedback. The writing team reviewed the feedback and revised the standards. The standards were then made available to the public online, with a response form at the Ohio Department of Education s (ODE) Web site, and in public hearings that were held around the state, with State Department of Education personnel facilitating and gathering information. Feedback from both sources was brought back to the writing team, and taken into consideration in the next revision, which was disseminated again mainly through professional organizations on the ODE Web site. This feedback was analyzed, and the draft of the standards was modified in late summer at the last full writing-team meeting. The third draft of the standards was given to the Committee of the State Board of Education. Suggestions from that committee were then incorporated by team members and State Department of Education personnel into the draft; then shared with the full Board of Education, with opportunity for comments during three monthly 26 May/June THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

3 Table 1 Relationship of Advisory Committee Recommended Areas to the Adopted Percentage of Textbook Advisory Committee Recommendations Final Developed 1. Nature of Technology 1. Nature of Technology 2. Technology and Society Interaction 2. Technology and Society Interaction 3. Productivity 3. Technology for Productivity 4. Technology and Information Literacy 5. Technology and Information Literacy Combined with Technology for Productivity, Design and Designed World 5. Technology and Problem-solving Tools and 6. Technology and Communication 4. Technology and Communication 7. Design 6. Design Combined with Design and Designed World 8. Abilities for a Technological World 9. Designed World 7. Designed World meetings. The Board voted and approved the standards in its December 2003 meeting. The standards are currently being edited into a publication format. Vignettes, resources, and photographs are being integrated in preparation for printing and posting on the ODE Web site in the near future. The next step underway in the standards process is to assemble a team to write curriculum materials that exemplify the standards. Local school districts and teachers can then use these materials in developing their own curricula. The Product Currently, there is a final product, and it is almost to press. So, what does this product look like? Technology Academic Content for Ohio did indeed come up with a blend of standards from the three technology related standards: National Educational Technology for Students, (International Society for Technology in Education, 1998); the Information Technology, Information Literacy for Student Learning (American Association for School Librarians, 1998); and for Technological Literacy: Content of the Study of Technology ( Association, 2000, 2002). Table 3 compares how these three standards were combined into the standards that are in the Ohio Academic Content. The Ohio Technology do indeed call for Ohio students to be given a broadly defined education in technology. It is a set of standards that will be difficult to implement in most schools current organization. Because of the breadth of the standards, schools will need to adopt a more collaborative model, with multiple teachers and departments instructing students in the areas of the standards. These are standards in which all three areas play a pivotal role, a role that cannot be fully assumed by any one area. It is a set of standards in which technology education, as defined by the Association, does play a very important role and provides the students of Ohio with much needed technology education. When published, the for Ohio will be available at content_standards/acstechnology.asp. Going Forward The process for writing the curriculum model will certainly provide a chance for more people to be involved in showing how the standards will work in the classroom. Teachers across the state will also have to take a look at the standards to assess how their programs fit or need to be modified to fully implement the standards for Ohio s students. This does not need to be done in a vacuum, as certainly other states are ahead of Ohio in some portion of this, and curriculum has already been developed in most of the areas (e.g., CATTS). It just now needs to be pulled together and adapted to fit each schools own specific situation. A key to the effectiveness of the standards is going to be the enforcement issue. The standards are now on the books, but, as mentioned before, there are currently no plans for statewide tests to be developed for them, so it remains to be seen exactly how the state plans to make sure that the districts are providing their students with the technology education that the standards now call for. For at least the past 20 years, in Ohio, the technology educator is the only person in many districts who really had a clear vision for what technology education needs to be. The technology educator has also needed to be a strong advocate in her/his district for technology education. Some districts and teachers have seen how this needs to be supplemented by the use of a local advisory committee. An advisory committee can help strengthen technology education s support by meeting with curriculum directors, principals, and other administrators, as well as school boards. The new state standards provide local teachers with a potent tool to advocate for their programs. The lack of enforcement by the state will require technology teachers to continue to advocate for their programs with administrators and the public. The standards can provide an excellent validation of what the teachers have been doing in THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER May/June

4 Table 2 Ohio s and Descriptions Nature of Technology Students develop an understanding of technology, its scope, core concepts*, characteristics and relationships between technologies and other fields. *The core concepts of technology include systems, resources, requirements, optimization and trade-offs, processes, and controls. Technology and Society Interaction Students recognize interactions among society, the environment and technology, and understand technology s relationship with history. Consideration of these concepts forms a foundation for engaging in responsible and ethical use of technology. Technology for Productivity Students learn the operations of technology through the usage of technology and productivity tools. Technology and Communication Students use an array of technologies and apply design concepts to communicate with multiple audiences, acquire and disseminate information, and enhance learning. Technology and Information Literacy Students engage in information literacy strategies, use the Internet, technology tools and resources, and apply information-management skills to answer questions and expand knowledge. Design Students will apply a number of problem-solving strategies demonstrating the nature of design, the role of engineering, and the role of assessment. Standard 7 Designed World Students understand how the physical, informational and bio-related technological systems of the designed world are brought about by the design process. Critical to this will be students understanding of their role in the designed world: its processes, products, standards, services, history, future, impact, issues and career connections. their classrooms if they can show how their curriculum serves to meet students needs as described by the standards. In truth, not all teachers are interested in the public relations or advocacy part of being a technology educator and will feel disappointed that the legislature has not required, in a more forthright fashion, that all students in the state of Ohio receive technology education. Some teachers will also be disappointed that the technology education standards combine the three areas and are not just the ITEA-developed portion of technology education, but we live in a world where compromises must be politically forged, and this is a compromise that should work. The are going to be changed over time. Hopefully, the next time, change will take less than 20 years, and there is certainly room in these standards for improvements. I hope that the state will institute a regular schedule of updating the standards. Now that the writing team has done its job, and the State Department of Education is publishing the standards, the hard work begins, as teachers need to implement the standards in their classrooms. Fortunately, help is available. There are many resources available at all levels, K-12, through the Association, the Ohio Technology Education Association, and local district associations throughout Ohio. The State Department of Education and the associations will also provide professional development opportunities for teachers across the state of Ohio to improve their knowledge and to implement the standards. It s now up to teachers to avail themselves of these professional development opportunities and opportunities to upgrade curricula across the state. References American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1998). Information literacy standards for student learning. Chicago: Author. 28 May/June THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

5 Table 3 Alignment of Ohio s and National Ohio Technology Ohio National Correlation This chart displays the shared characteristics between Ohio s Technology Academic Content and the technology-related National. Information Literacy for Student Learning AASL/AECT American Association of School Librarians & Association of Educational Communications & Technology Technology-related National National Educational Technology for Students ISTE International Society for Technology in Education for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology ITEA International Technology Education Association Nature of Technology Technology and Society Interaction 7, 8, 9, 7 Technology for Productivity 8, 9, 10 Technology and Communication, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Technology and Information Literacy Design Standard 7 Designed World 7, 8, 9 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Indicates direct alignment between Ohio and technology-related national standards. Indicates correlation between Ohio and technology-related national standards. Indicates connection between Ohio and technology-related national standards. Excerpts available online at www. ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslproftools/ informationpower/informationliteracy. htm International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). National educational technology standards for students: Connecting curriculum and technology. Eugene, Oregon: Author. Available online at Association. (2000, 2002). for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, Virginia: Author. Available online at STL/STLMainPage.htm Ohio Department of Education. (2004). Technology academic content standards. Retrieved February 4, 2004, from Spady, W. (1994). Outcome-based education: Critical issues and answers. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators. Paul E. Post, Ph.D. is an assistant professor in the Department of Math, Science, and Technology Education at The Ohio State University in Columbus, OH. He can be reached via at post.1@osu.edu. AD INDEX Black Hills State Univ...C-3 Goodheart-Willcox...24 Hearlihy & Company...C-3 Kelvin Electronics...C-2 SolidWorks Corporation...C-4 THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER May/June