Opposite Intended Effect: A Case Study of How Over-Standardization Can Reduce Efficacy of Teacher Education, The

Teacher Education Quarterly, Summer 2004 by Hughes, Bob

The technology standards that new teachers must meet are divided into two levels. The Level 1 standards are for teachers in teacher training programs. The Level 2 standards apply to teachers in the induction phase of their professional development. According to the SB2042 guidelines, induction occurs in the two years immediately subsequent to a teacher's initial preparation program. The progression between the two levels is logical and sequential. In Level 1, the candidate is required to show proficiency in two categories of computer-related technology use: general knowledge and skills, and specific knowledge and skills. Within both of these areas, the emphasis is on the personal use of computers as a productivity tool, an understanding of how of computers impact ethical issues, and how technologies and their uses can be evaluated. In the Level 2 standards, the emphasis moves from an individual teacher's use to that teacher's understanding of how to use of computers as a communications tool, as a pedagogical device, and as a tool to extend students' learning. There are few (if any) of these standards in both levels that people who advocate for the implementations of technology in education would find obj ectionable. It is reasonable, for example, given the potential for using technologies, that a teacher "demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the appropriate use of computer-based technology in teaching and learning" (Level 1, Standard G1.5). As is the case when mandating a one-size-fits-all approach to learning, however, the issue is not what is in the standards, but what the standards leave out, and what a program must ignore or omit to meet the standard.

For example, the technology standards focus almost exclusively on computer-based technologies. There are multiple references to "electronic" or "computer" technologies. However, other instructional technologies are not mentioned. Missing are the technologies that are most accessible to the teachers who are earning a credential in the program that I direct. While it is important that these teachers know how to use computers, online communication, and electronic media, these are not the technologies that they have readily available in their schools. I would prefer to be able to find a pathway for these teachers to build their skills with the technologies they now have: VCRs, televised broadcasts, radio, audio tapes, and still photographs. As they become proficient at these available technologies, I would like to continue their skills development with the technologies that I can provide them when they come to the university. This is the kind of scaffolding that is consistent with adult development models (e.g., Lave, 1988; Lave & Wenger, 1990) which calls for a clear progression of skills and comfort with new concepts. However, the state standards appear to want all teachers in the state to know how to use computer-based technologies exclusively; and there is no effort to address any developmental needs of the teacher.