nicohwilliam
3thrat zmn
hidercreatingstandardsbasedcurr_1.pdf
WHAT'S THE BIG ISSUE? CREATING STANDARDS-BASED CURRICULUM
Glenn R. Hider
A student in my methods class
recently presented an engaging lesson
to his classmates. He asked about a
technology used in sporting events
using video camera images. The sys-
tem, made by Ques Tec, uses a series
of cameras, computers, and sophisti-
cated tracking technologies to create
computer-generated virtual replays in a
number of venues including tennis, golf,
and baseball. The students quickly rec-
ognized applications: tennis balls barely
hitting the white line, slow motion
analysis of golf swings, and pitches
entering the strike zone of batters.
The discussion continued with the
baseball application: How could the
technology actually help the game?
Suggestions included: batters scouting
the pitchers for their tendencies; pitch-
ers scouting batters for their tenden-
cies; pitchers scouting umpires for their
tendencies in calling strikes; and the
league using the results to help
umpires improve. Ultimately, the dis-
cussion settled on whether or not
umpires should be replaced outright by
the new technology. A lively debate
presented issues from several points of
view. I knew right away this would be
a great topic for a recently finished cur-
riculum entitled Technological Issues.
Technological Issues is one of a series
of standards-based curricula being
developed through the Center for the
Advancement of Teaching Technology
and Science (CATTS). The curriculum,
which should be available to CATTS
Consortium members this fall, has been
developed by this author over the past
year and a half. Surprisingly, it seems
T What is necessary is a re-wiring of that
part of your hrain that controls curriculum
development.
that many issues, such as the one that
surfaced in my class, appear to be an
excellent fit within this curriculum.
Given a topic as broad and far-reaching
as technological issues, how then do
you begin to develop a curriculum that
is standards-based, relevant but not
dating itself, and that can please the
many consortium constituents? This
indeed was a challenge, and one that I
would like to share with the readers.
The simplest approach is to look at this
curriculum development as a system:
inputs (guiding principles), processes
(how to develop standards-based cur-
riculum), output (the curriculum), and
feedback (what the reviewers reacted
to). Knowing there are readers who will
T
i
examine this from different perspec-
tives. Figure 1 shows the system
model and what each section refers to
(feel free to skip to the section that
most affects you).
Inputs Obviously, for standards-based
curriculum, we need to start with the
standards. This is easy to say, but a bit
more difficult to put into practice.
Fortunately, we have national stan-
dards that have been developed
through ITEA with the collaboration of
other nationally recognized organiza-
tions (NSF, NASA, AAAS, NAE).
Standards for Technological Literacy
{ITEA, 2000/2002) provides the starting
Inputs: Guiding Principles
Processes: Developing Standards- Based Curriculum
Output: What s in the Curriculum
Feedback: What did the Reviewers Say, Adjustments?
Figure 1. Curriculum Development System
30 December/January 2006 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHEH
point But whicfi standards and bench-
marks should be included, and how
many should the curriculum include?
The first step in the process was to
identify organizing principles. In other
words, what are the major ideas that a
technologically literate person should
be able to articulate? A discussion of
ttiis process was presented by Barry
Burke in the May/June 2005 issue of
The Technology Teacher (Burke, 2005),
and has been identified by ITEA as the
Engineering byDesign" model. This
process resulted in the identification of
course content organizers. The next
step involved the use of experts to
identify which standards/bencfimarks
represented each of the organizing
principles. The final result is a series of
courses, which, taken as a whole in
the high school sequence, will ensure
that all standards are covered. Not all
standards are covered in any one
course, and some standards may be in
more than one course, but all standards
are addressed within the collection
of courses.
The next detail was to identify specific
benchmarks for each course curricu-
lum, and the intensity of their use.
Should they be covered in detail and
drive the lesson, covered with some
detail, or merely be supportive?
Additionally, standards and bench-
marks for mathematics and science
were also identified for each curriculum
by content specialists. Once this matrix
was completed, and a title was identi-
fied based on the organizing principles,
an author was sought to develop the
curriculum. With a little coaxing, this is
the point at which I entered into the
system.
Process With a large collection of
standards/benchmarks from three
disciplines, and a succinct title.
Technological Issues, how does one
start to develop a standards-based cur-
riculum? The natural tendency of some-
one who has been developing
curriculum for years was to start witfi
the activities to meet the standards.
T However, as Burke (2005) exposes,that would result in a standards- reflected rather than standards-based
curriculum.
What is necessary is a rewiring of that
part of your brain that controls curricu-
lum development. Here's a good analo-
gy: Many of us trained in industrial arts
years ago were "wired" to use three-
view drawings in our approach to
design. We are able to see a device in
each of the three views. Along came
parametric modeling, or 3-D visualiza-
tion. Young students today pick up this
approach to design quite quickly; it is
close to how the brain visualizes
devices. However, those of us wired
for the three-view approach require a
rewiring to begin to use this new
design paradigm. The same is true for
curriculum development.
The first step in this new process was
a detailed examination of the standards
recommended for this course. With the
concept of issues in the background, a
brainstormed list of potential topics,
T
i
links, concepts, impacts, specific prob-
lems, and other technological experi-
ences was generated. This list was
massaged, rearranged, and generally
bantered about for a while. The goal at
this juncture was to determine the ulti-
mate experiences we want students to
leave with following their exposure to
tfiis course, based on these specific
standards. In other words, what were
the Big Ideas we wanted students to
leave with and be able to apply to
future situations?
The process for developing standards-
based curriculum is shown in Figure 2
(a more detailed explanation can be
found in Planning Learning, ITEA 2005}.
It is important to note that this is not a
linear process. I didn't discover this
until after I went through the process
and started to reflect upon it. My analo-
gy of the process is to the design
process: a circular process whereby, if
need be, you can revisit earlier steps
based on knowledge gained later in the
process. Some examples may help
shed light on this process.
Identify Standards and Benchmarks Technology
Science Mathematical
Organize Content into
Important "Big ideas"
Develop Activities that
Support the Units and
H Lessons
Development Assessment of Big Ideas and
Standards
Develop Units and Specific
Lessons
Figure 2. Curriculum Development Process
T
THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • December/January 2006 31
The organization of content into the big ideas was one area that had to be re- visited over several iterations. It required continuous questioning: Were the big ideas representative of the stan- dards? Were the big ideas inclusive enough to welcome all of the ideas brainstormed around the course con- cept of technological issues? And, were the big ideas representative of the course concept as envisioned by the consortium members? It sbould be
T
i
noted that system feedback (from con- sortium members) was used at various stages in the development process (see Figure 1).
Another area that required some re- examination was tbe initial selection of standards, or specific benchmarks. Some strongly suggested benchmarks (ones that should drive the lessons) appeared initially out of place within the organization I had developed. Other
T benchmarks, though not identified asimportant to this course, I felt were major ones that fit my big ideas. For example, I was charged with including the following benchmark (STL-5 I): "With the aid of technology, various aspects of the environment can be monitored to provide information for decision making." Although this is more specific than my Big Idea for that unit would include, I did add a lesson that addresses that standard
Unit
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Big Ideas Recognition - The selection, application, and consequences of all technology create various types of issues, which may affect individuals, groups and/or society as a whole.
Sources - Technological issues can result from the technology itself, how or where it is transferred, or how it interacts with the limitations of the environment or ecosystem.
Examinine - Examining whv and what humans design, including the constraints and limitations, and how the designs interact with society and the environment, helps us create designs and solve problems with fewer technological issues. Addressing ~ Developine solutions to address human needs or wants, requires certain practices, policies, and protections to minimize technological issues.
Predicting- A variety of lools and processes are available to predict outcomes of designs or problem solutions in advance, thus limiting negative technological issues.
Supporting Ideas A. Historical examples of technological issues help us
better understand current and future issues as they arise.
B. Recognizing and addressing technological issues requires a multidisciplinary approach.
C. Technology and society affect each other. 0. All technologies have alternatives, each with their
own benefits and risks.
A. Growth of human population and economic systems create technological issues.
B. Transferring technology can create cultural as well as technological issues.
C. Engineering design otkn creates unforeseen failures. D. The earth has limited energy and material resources
as well as a limited ability to recycle wastes. A. Needs assessment for design include safety and
quality of life. B. Design criteria and constraints should use ergonomic
principles. C. Ethics and product liability are important to reduce
technological issues. D. Environmental assessments and monitoring should be
done in advance to limit technological issues. A. Appropriate technology is a design methodology that
incorporates the technology, the user, and the location.
B. Careful selection of materials and processes, including recycling and green products, limits technological issues.
C. Policies and regulations can govern designs and problem solutions to limit technological issues.
D. Acquiring, applying, and protecting technical knowledge reduces technological issues.
A. Design analysis tools can be used to select a design or solution with the least amount of technological issues.
B. Modeling, gaming, and simulations can be used to examine systems before they are fully developed.
C. Technology assessment tools are used to research possible negative impacts prior to the selection and use of a variety of technologies.
D. Forecasting and other futurology techniques can be used to minimize possible technological issues in advance.
Figure 3. Curriculum Units and Big Ideas.
32 December/January 2006 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER
specificallv. In another case, the bench-
mark (S71-3 G) was pertinent to a Big
Idea, which stated: "Technology trans-
fer occurs when a new user applies an
existing innovation developed for one
purpose in a different function," which
must be done thoughtfully to avoid
causing issues. Interestingly enough,
additional technological concepts were
explored that are not even in the
standards, but perhaps should be.
One example is the examination of
engineering design failures, an impor-
tant learning tool for many engineering-
based programs.
Additionally, input was provided from
consortium members from over a
dozen different states, each with their
unique requirements and desires. Tfie
initial design of the curriculum, based
on consortium requests, was a curricu-
lum that could be used as a stand-
alone course, or Integrated into existing
courses. That original curriculum
evolved through several iterations into
the current stand-alone, full-year, high
school level course, with a variety of
compromises to meet the consortium
needs. The resulting curriculum is
described in the next section.
Output
Technological Issues is a standards-
based (rather than standards-reflected),
full-year high school curriculum. The
technology, mathematics, and science
standards and benchmarks identified
for this curriculum are included in a
matrix in the appendix of the docu-
ment. They were the building blocks
that were used to develop a curriculum
centered on the topic of technological
issues, as discussed in the last section.
Topics, links, concepts, impacts, spe-
cific problems, and other technological
experiences that addressed the identi-
fied standards were molded into five
units. The five units represent five Big
Ideas, or major concepts all students
should be able to understand and
apply. The goal is to help students
become technologically literate; stu-
T dents should be able to understand andapply these big ideas not only in the course, but in future situations they
encounter.
The five units and corresponding Big
Ideas are shown in Figure 3. Units one
through three progress from recognition
of issues and identifying sources to
examining some current issues. Unit
four allows students to tackle techno-
logical problems that are aimed at
avoiding the creation of issues. Finally,
unit five allows students to use tools of
predicting (and hopefully avoiding)
technological issues with future tech-
nologies.
Each Big Idea is then broken down into
supporting ideas. Each of the support-
ing ideas represents a lesson organizer
(20 lessons total). The technology stan-
dards are listed for each lesson, and
mathematics and science standards
are tied to the lesson objectives. The
lessons provide background information
for the teacher and student, sugges-
tions for teaching the unit, assessment
tools, a listing of resources, and stu-
dent assignment/activity handouts.
Lesson titles are shown in Figure 4.
Another important part of each lesson
is Additional Extension Activities, which
allow students to explore additional
topics/activities and provide sugges-
tions for teachers to use students'
work to help promote their program
and link their solutions to the communi-
ty. For example. Lesson 4-2, which has
the class developing a model city using
themes of recycling and green prod-
ucts, can be presented to local or
regional planning groups in the
community.
One important output for this type of
curriculum development is the types of
lessons that occur. The
assignments/activities may not look
like your traditional technology course.
Students are engaged in research and
presentations for most of the activities.
They are involved in examining some
designs, suggesting and modeling
design changes, and developing.
T prototyping, and packaging otherdesigns. They are asked extensively to relate technology to their other sub-
jects and to real-world problems. They
are challenged to take a critical look at
the application of technology and, in
one case, even debate a current issue.
The last unit encourages them to apply
predictive tools to examine how tech-
nology may be applied in the future
without creating major issues.
The output, or product, of this curricu-
lum development may appear different
than what is currently taught in a tech-
nology program. Every day I continue
to see issues in the news that could be
addressed in this course. Hopefully,
this guide will help teachers present
the standards and big ideas in active,
real-world programs. As teachers gain
experience with this course, they will
be able to add additional activities to
suit their needs. This was the case at a
workshop for teachers in the Baltimore
area this summer, where additional
activities were created for each unit
based on their experience and expert-
ise. I believe this enrichment will help
reduce the main negative feedback to
this course, as discussed in the next
section.
Feedback
Consortium members were involved in
feedback to the curriculum throughout
the process. This began with an early
proposal of how my outline and big
ideas would meet the intended stan-
dards for this course. Originally, the
consortium members requested a flexi-
ble type of curriculum, one that could
be used as a stand-alone course, or
able to be integrated into existing tech-
nology courses. The resulting curricu-
lum is intended as a full-year,
stand-alone technology high school
course (although parts of it could be
integrated into existing courses).
The current version of the curriculum
was reviewed by consortium members
in various regions of the country. Many
of their concerns were addressed in
the most recent editing period. For
T
THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • December/January 2006 33
Lesson Number and Title
Ovet^'iew of the Course Unit I - Lesson One: Introduction to Technological Issues Using an Historical Case Study Unit I - Lesson Two: Relatitig Technological Issues to Other Subject Areas Unit f - Lesson Three: Examining a Technology and its Adoption Unit I - Lesson Four: Technology Alternatives: Benefits and Risks Unit II - Lesson One: Examining Exponential Growth Unit II - Lesson Two: Evaluating Technology Transfer Unit II - Lesson Three: Issues From Engineering Design Failures Unit II - Lesson Four: Examining Earth's Limited Resources Unit III - Lesson One: Design and Technology for Quality of Life Unit III - Lesson Two: Criteria for Safe and Ergonomic Design Unit III - Lesson Three: Design Ethics and Product Liability Unit III - Lesson Four: Modeling Monitoring Technology Unit IV- Lesson One: Appropriate Technology Design Unit IV - Lesson Two; Model City Design Based on Recycling and Green Products Unit IV- Lesson Three: Debating Current Technologies and Their Issues Unit IV- Lesson Four: Protecting Technology Unit V- Lesson One: Weighing and Prioritizing Design Trade-OtTs Unit V- Lesson Two: Using Models, Simulations, and Games Unit V- Lesson Three: Applying Technology Assessment Tools Unit V- Lesson Four: Applying Forecasting/Futurology Tools Review, Quizzes, Tests School Functions/Make-up Time Total
Corresponding Assignment Number
Lesson 1-1
Lesson 1-2
Lesson 1-3
Lesson 1-4
Lesson 2-1
Lesson 2-2
Lesson 2-3
Lesson 2-4
Lesson 3-1
Lesson 3-2
Lesson 3-3
Lesson 3-4
Lesson 4-1
Lesson 4-2
Lesson 4-3
Lesson 4-4 Lesson 5-1
Lesson 5-2
Lesson 5-3
Lesson 5-4
Hours of Instruction
2
4
4
4
4 4
6
4
6
6
4
4
6
12
12
6
6 4
6
4
6
4 2
120 hours*
*120 hours equates to 180 days (full year course) at 40 minutes per period
Figure 4. Course Lessons and Corresponding Assignments (Activities)
34 December/Janijary 2006 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER
example, the mathematics and science
standards are referenced more clearly
in each lesson, and additional ques-
tions were added to the pre/post test
questions—questions that are more
open-ended in nature and more directly
assess students' mastery of the
standards/benchmarks.
Two feedback issues, however, are still
not resolved. First is the issue of
"hands-on" activities. It was apparent
from the start that a standards-based
course entitled Technological Issues
would be difficult to develop that
matches our current activity-driven cur-
riculum. Believe me, it was difficult.
However, I would argue that research-
Ing, examining, and presenting on tech-
nological issues is an alternative
method of hands-on (just doesn't have
the traditional smoke and chips}.
The second issue is related to the
first—how will teachers in the field
react to the curriculum? This remains
to be seen. I believe if teachers are
given introductory instruction on the
delivery of this course, and gain experi-
ence adapting it to their class and stu-
dents, it will be a rewarding experience
for both. It should be apparent for the
reader to see many things that are not
currently in this curriculum that easily
could be incorporated. That is truly the
goal of technological literacy—applying
knowledge and skills to new and future
situations.
Last Remarks Getting back to the issues presented in
my introduction: Should umpires be
replaced by a proven, more reliable
technology? Obviously this scenario
has already happened in other work sit-
uations, displacing many jobs (and cre-
ating others). As with most
technological issues, there are not sim-
ple yes or no decisions to be made.
This may be a new concept for both
students and teachers. Examining and
avoiding issues can be a complex and
challenging activity.
T Hopefully, the reader now has a betterunderstanding of the product—a cur- riculum entitled Tecbnological Issues.
Equally important, the reader should
now have an appreciation for and
understanding of the process required
to develop standards-based curriculum.
As a profession, I believe we are on the
forefront for this type of curriculum
development, and as such, are in
uncharted waters. Thus, I would wel-
come any critique to the process or the
product, as would the CATTS consor-
tium members.
References Burke, B. (2005, May/June). Why CAnS
needs space! The Technology Teacher. 64-3.(21-26). Reston, VA: ITEA
International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2000/2002). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of techr^oiogy. Reston, VA: Author.
International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2005). Planning learning: Developing technology curricula. Reston, VA: Author.
Glenn R. Hider, Ed.D., is a profes- sor in the
Department of
Applied Engineering
and Tecbnology at
California University
of Pennsylvania.
He can be reacbed at [email protected].
T California University of Pennsylvania
One Tenure-Track Faculty Position in Technology Education; effec- tive August 2006. The successful applicant will teach undergraduate
Technology Education courses in
physical: information, and biotech
systems and graduate courses.
Other responsibilities could include;
supervising student teachers, advising
students and student clubs, assist-
ing with program accreditation and
curriculum development, improving
and maintaining facilities, serving
on committees, recruiting students,
continuing scholarship, and develop-
ing relationships with constituents.
Qualifications include strong
academic and teaching experience
in Technology Education. Master's
required; doctorate preferred, with
at least one degree in Technology
Education/Industrial Arts required.
To be considered, applicants must sub- mit hardcopy of all the following before an on-campus interview is considered:
• Comprehensive curriculum vitae • Official transcripts from all colleges
and universities attended • Application letter highlighting the
qualifications, teaching interests, teaching philosophy, and plans for continuing scholarship
• Contact information for three profes- sional references that have current knowledge of the applicant's abilities as a teacher and scholar
Initial Review of applicants
begins November 30, 2005.
Ca! U is M/FA//D/AA/EEO
Dr. Daniel E. Engstrom: [email protected] Phone: 724-938-4381 For more information visit www.cup.edu/employment
THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • December/January 2006 35
