Bybee

THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY WORKFORCE: A CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGE FOR TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION Rodger W. Bybee Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE, CAE

Technology education must be seen as fundamental to achieving workforce competencies, especially when the competencies

In tbe past decade tbere bas emerged a new urgency for tecbnology education. The need, expressed in numerous reports, centers on the global economy and the fact tbat tbe United States is losing its competitive edge, Witb some consistency, tbe reports warn tbat our tecbnological superiority may be at risk. For example. The American Competitiveness Initiative (2006) suggests that technical progress may account for as mucb as one-balf of tbe economic growtb of the U,S. since World War II (p, 4), Rising Above the Gathering Storm, a 2006 report from tbe National Researcb Council, identifies tbe top actions tbat federal policy makers could take to enbance the science and technology enterprise so tbat tbe United States can successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in tbe global community of tbe twenty-first century (p, 3), Recently, popular books bave addressed tbemes associated witb tbe U.S, position in tbe global economy and the need for improving education, Thomas Friedman wrote one of the most popular books. The World Is Flat (2005), Friedman bas a compelling premise: Tbe international economic playing field is level, bence bis use of tbe metapbor—tbe world is flat. The "flattening" has resulted from information technologies and associated innovations that have made it technically possible and economically feasible for U,S, companies to locate work "offsbore," for example, call centers in India, Friedman argues tbat a flatter world will benefit all of us, tbose in developed and developing countries. About balfway through the book, Friedman asks the educational question, "Have we been preparing our

include critical thinking, solving semistructured problems, and reasoning. children for the world they will live in?" He answers the question in a chapter entitled "The Quiet Crisis," According to Friedman, "The American education system from kindergarten through twelfth grade just is not stimulating enough young people to want to go into science, math, and engineering" (p, 270), Friedman makes this bold statement about science and technology education in America: Because it takes fifteen years to create a scientist or advanced engineer, starting from wben tbat young man or woman first gets hooked on science and math in elementary school, we should be embarking on an all-hands-on-deck, no-holds-barred, no-budget-toolarge, crasb program for science and engineering education immediately, Tbe fact tbat we are not doing so is our quiet crisis. Scientists and engineers don't grow on trees. They have to be educated tbrougb a long process, because, ladies and gentlemen, tbis really is rocket science (p, 275), We bave intentionally pointed out technology as one of the disciplines identified as a major factor influencing economic progress. The various reports also consistently identify edu-

cation as an important means of resolving the problems. However, seldom have we seen technology and education combined, as in technology education. We think this is a situation that has been overlooked for too long. So, the technology education community is left with the fundamental questions: What should be done to address the quiet crises and what changes are required in our purposes, policies, programs, and practices? It is one thing to proclaim the need to change, and it is quite another to provide specific recommendations for criticai components of the educational system. The discussions by the federal government, business and industry, and popular autbors reveal a perspective tbat tecbnology educators bave known for some time: Tbe global economy is largely driven by technological innovation. One reasonable extension of this proposition is that the United States needs engineers. Another implication is that all citizens need higher levels of technological literacy. Our main argument is simple and straightforward. Whether the need is for more engineers or better educated citizens, acbieving bigher levels of technological literacy is an imperative for all nations, and K-12 education must play a significant role. But, what is the appropriate response? What

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • May/June 2006 27

T

direction can technology educators derive from the perspectives and recommendations presented by groups closely aligned with technological innovation and interest in the economy?

T

The Problem for Technology Education Although there are many reports, all with varied recommendations, there still is a need for specific recommendations that answer the question: How should K-12 technology education respond to the growing crises? With support from the Office of Science Education, National Institutes of Health, Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) convened an expert panel and facilitated the synthesis of key recommendations from twelve major reports from business, industry, government agencies, and associated groups (see Table 1), We focused tbe process on recommendations for K-12 science and technology education and used a framework that resulted in recommendations for different dimensions of the K-12 system. This article presents results that specifically apply to technology education.

The General Recommendations

T

The general criteria for selection of the reports included: representation of multiple organizations, inclusion of a broad perspective, and presentation of recommendations for education. Tbe synthesis process identified broad areas of commonality that included educational themes: workforce competence, career awareness, equity and excellence, technology education, and systemic alignment. Not surprisingly, the review clarified the following categories as the educational components that should be empbasized: teachers and teaching, content and curriculum, and assessments and accountability, Tbe main goal, common to all reports, was a prepared twenty-first century workforce, Tbe indicator tbat K-12 science and tecbnology education is attaining this goal is higher levels of

28 May/June 2006 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

Table 1: Reports Reviewed Achieve, Inc, and National Governors Association. (2005), America's high schools; The front line in the battle for our economic future. Washington, DC: Authors, Achieve, Inc. and National Governors Association. (2005), An action agenda for improving America's high schools. 2005 National Education Summit on High Schools, Washington, DC: Authors, Achieve, Inc, (2005), Rising to the challenge: Are high scbool graduates prepared for college and work? A Study of Recent High School Graduates, College Instructors, and Employers, Washington, DC: Peter D, Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies, American Electronics Association (AEA), (2005), Losing the competitive advantage? The challenge for science and technology in the United States. Wasbington, DC: Authors. Barton, P, (2002), Meeting the need for scientists, engineers, and an educated citizenry in a technological society. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Business-Higher Education Forum (BHEF), (2005), A commitment to America's future: Responding to the crisis in mathematics B science education. Business-Higher Education Forum, (BHEF), (2005), Building a nation of learners: The need for changes in teaching and learning to meet global challenges. Business Roundtable, (2005), Tapping America's potential: The education for innovation initiative. Washington, DC: Authors. Coble, C, & Alien, M. (2005), Keeping America competitive: Five strategies to improve mathematics and science education. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States, Committee for Economic Development. (2003). Learning for the future: Changing the culture of math and science education to ensure a competitive workforce. New York, NY: Author, The Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS), (2000), Learning for a living: A blueprint for high performance. A SCANS Report for America 2000, Washington, DC: U,S, Department of Labor, Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, The knowledge economy: Is the United States losing its competitive edge? Benchmarks of Our Innovation Future, February 16, 2005,

student achievement for higher numbers of students. The metrics are those familiar to the education community: the results on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), and state assessments. The reports identified a number of cross-cutting tbemes tbat related to the findings and recommendations. Viewed as a whole, these themes provide an answer to the question: What is unique about tbis reform of education? Policies, programs, and practices should address: workforce competencies, career awareness, equity issues, and technology, as well as science and systemic alignment. What were the broad areas of commonality across tbe reports? Not surprisingly, tbe reports and experts identified components at tbe core of

I

science and tecbnology education— teacbers and teaching, content and curricula, assessments and accountability. Stated in less neutral and more value-laden language, we need bigb quality teacbers, rigorous content, coberent curricula, appropriate classroom assessments, and general accountability that align with our most valued goals. One finding in this effort was disturbing. Almost without exception, the reports mentioned the critical role of science and technology in the economy. But seldom did the reports specifically address technology education. Literacy and mathematics were the leading disciplines, and we have to account for that. But, technology education must be seen as fundamental to acbieving workforce competencies, especially when the competencies include critical thinking, solving semistructured problems, and reasoning. This sounds much like the abilities of technological design.

T

Specific Recommendations for Technology Education From time to time, it is important for an educational community sucb as technology educators to pause, gather good ideas, and redirect efforts toward those that are consistent with its strengths, matched to the most pressing contemporary challenges, and hold some promise of long-term, large-scale, fundamental improvement. The framework used for synthesizing recommendations reflects a number of fundamental commitments and views: Tbe major educational goal of our work is a prepared twenty-first century workforce, Tbe metric for evaluating tbe degree to wbich we achieve the goal is higher levels of student achievement. Achieving the goal will take long-term changes in educational policy, school programs, and classroom practices.

Table 2: Types of Reform Initiatives in Technology Education

Purpose

Programs

Purpose includes aims, goals, and rationale. Statements of purpose are universal and abstract, and apply to all concerned witb reforming technology education. Preparing the twenty-first century workforce is an overreaching educational purpose. Achieving technological literacy is a purpose statement for technology education.

Programs are the actual materials, textbooks, software. and equipment tbat are based on policies and developed to acbieve tbe stated purpose. Programs are unique to grade levels, disciplines, and types of tecbnology education. Curriculum materials for K-6 tecbnology and a teacber education program are two examples of programs.

Policies

Practices

Policies are more specific statements of standards. benchmarks, state frameworks, school syllabi, and curriculum designs based on the stated purpose. Policy statements are concrete translations of the purpose and apply to subsystems sucb as curricula, instruction. assessment, teacher education, and grade levels within technology education. Specification of the knowledge. skills, and attitudes required to improve technological literacy in all grades is an example of policy. Standards for Technological Literacy is a statement of policy specifications.

Practices describe tbe specific actions of the technology educators. Practice represents the unique and fundamental dimension, and it is based on educators' understanding of the purpose, objectives, curriculum. scbool, students, and their strengths as teachers.

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • May/June 2006 29

T

The design of the framework is consistent with the aim of advancing reform and the perspectives of various audiences with responsibility for acbieving that aim. We propose four basic types of reform initiatives characterized by the terms: purpose, policies, programs, and practices, Tbese dimensions of reform are described in greater detail elsewbere (Bybee, 1997; 2003), Tbis framework applies to different initiatives tbat will ultimately enhance student learning (see Table 2),

T

Reviewing tbe twelve reports presented a challenge. Difficulties centered on the fact that most recommendations did not neatly fall into the framework. Rather, the experts had to decide which recommendations were purposes, policies, programs, or practices. For the most part, the various reports had presented clear purpose statements for education; e,g,, improve K12 science and technology education, ensure that teachers have adequate knowledge and skills, improve teacher

T

education. The expert panel had to make inferences about policies, programs, and practices. Tables 3, 4, and 5 use the aforementioned framework to present results from the synthesis effort for teachers and teaching, content and curricula, and assessments and accountability. Many of the recommendations for teachers and teaching, content and curricula, and assessments and accountability sbould not be surprising

Table 3: High Quality Teachers and Teaching

Purpose Teachers have adequate knowledge and skills to improve student achievement in technology.

Programs • Resources and support are allocated for continued professional development. • Professional development is aligned with curricula and assessment. • Dpportunities for technology teachers to work in business and industry.

Policies • Districts hire technology specialists for elementary schools. • Districts have qualified technology teachers for secondary schools. • Differentiated pay for qualified technology teachers.

Practices • Teacbers incorporate skills and abilities in tbeir teaching. • Teacbers incorporate technology concepts in the curriculum. • Teachers incorporate awareness of technologyrelated careers.

Table 4: High Quality Content and Curricula

T

Purpose Curricula have engaging, challenging, and relevant content based on the technology standards.

Programs • Districts adopt and implement instructional materials appropriate for elementary and secondary schools. • Districts implement an evaluation program to determine the effectiveness of technology curricula.

Policies • Districts develop adoption criteria for high-quality curricula. • Districts provide materials, equipment, and facilities for curricula. • School boards, administrators, and parents learn about tecbnology curricula.

30 May/June 2006 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

Practices • Teachers implement curriculum materials with high fidelity. • Teachers receive feedback on tbeir use of materials.

Table 5: High Quality Assessments and Accountability

Purpose Assessments incorporate twenty-first century workforce knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Programs • Assessment results are available at classroom, school, and district levels, • Professional development for school personnel to understand assessment results and make instructional decisions.

Policies • Require use of "sbort cycle" tests tbat align with state assessments, • Districts use assessment data to monitor and adjust curricula, professional development, teaching, and testing.

Practices • Teachers and administrators use assessment data to identify needs for improvement across the system.

for the technology education community. In a very real sense, the recommendations emphasize the "core" of education and underscore the basics of educational reform. Based on prior work, the technology education community should be well poised to pursue tbese recommendations. We refer to results from ITEA's Tecbnology for All Americans Project and reports such as Developing Professionals: Preparing Technology Teachers (ITEA, 2005), Planning Learning: Developing Technology Curricula (ITEA, 2005), and Realizing Excellence: Structuring Technology Programs (ITEA, 2005), There are, of course, other resources; see, for example, Britton, et al (2005) and TeachEngineering,com (ASEE, 2005), Technology educators should use the STL standards (ITEA, 2000/2002) as the content for curriculum reform and student assessment. There is a clear need for model programs that exemplify the skills and abilities of a twentyfirst century workforce.

omission of technology in K-12 school programs. When business and industry began recognizing tbe role of education and tbe need for a competent and capable twenty-first century workforce, tbe importance of technology education increased yet further. These external forces have heightened the need for technology educators to respond constructively to the contemporary challenges. More than at any time in our history, technology is positioned in international assessments such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the NAEP Science Framework for 2009, and in the numerous reports discussed in this article, A few leaders in the technology education community have assumed responsibility for these philosophical and political positions. Now, it is time for the profession to embrace these efforts and improve our programs and practices—sbowing tbis country tbe critical role of tecbnology education as a major contributor to tbe twenty-first century workforce.

Conclusion

References

More than at any time in recent history, technology education has emerged to an important role in American education. The emergence of economic issues and the essential role of technology in the global economy bave highlighted the often too glaring

American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), TeachEngineering.com. A searchable, web-based digital library populated with standards-based K-12 curricula that engineering faculty and teachers can use to teach engineering in K-12 settings.

1

Britton, E,, De Long-Cotty, B, & Levenson, T, (2005), Bringing technology education into K-8 classrooms: A guide to curricular resources about the designed world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Bybee, R, W, (1997), Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, Bybee, R, W, (2003), Achieving technological literacy: Education perspectives and political actions. In Martin, G, and Middleton, H, (Eds,), Initiatives in technology education: Comparative perspectives, pp, 171-180, El Paso, Texas: Technical Foundation of America, Domestic Policy Council and Office of Science and Technology Policy, (2006), American competitiveness initiative: Leading the world in innovation. February 2006, Washington, DC, International Technology Education Association, (ITEA), (2000/2002), Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author, International Technology Education Association (ITEA), (2005), Developing professionals: Preparing technology teachers. Reston, VA: Author, International Technology Education Association (ITEA), (2005), Planning learning: Developing technology curricula. Reston, VA: Author, International Technology Education Association (ITEA), (2005), Realizing excellence: Structuring technology programs. Reston, VA: Author,

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • May/June 2006 31

T

Meade, S, D, & Dugger, W, E, (2004), Reporting on the status of technology education in the U,S, The Technology Teacher, 64(2), 29-33,

• 1 1

National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council, (2005), Assessing technological literacy in the United States. Draft Report.

Thank you!

National Research Council (NRC), (2006), Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, Pearson, G, & Young, T, (2002), Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1 1 1 1 1

Rose, L, C, Gallup, A,M,, Dugger, W,E, & Starkweather, K,N, (2004), The second installment of the ITEA/Gallup poll and what it reveals as to how Americans think about technology. The Technology Teacher, 64(1) ^-U.

1

T

Rodger W. Bybee is Executive Director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum

1

H | H ^ ^ r i l Study, a non-profit

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

I ^ T O B M f f J organization that develops curriculum materials, provides professional development, and conducts research and evaluation for the science education community. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

1

^^^^^^^H

1

Kendall N

^ V ^ ^ ^ l

Starkweather, DTE,

Hpih]a^| •nab^H ^^^^9^1 ^A_X^^I

CAE is Executive Director of the International Technology

Education Association. He can be reached via e-mail at itea @iteaconnect. org.

Al Amato Ken Amos Patrick Angel Jeff Bachus Rachel Baxter James Belgrave Jared Bitting Pam Brown, DTE Linda Chambers Craig Clark, DTE Larry J. Claussen Kathie Cluff Charles Corley, DTE Scotty Davis Staci Davis Trent Davis William E, Davis Katie de la Paz Michael A. DeMiranda Ed Denton, DTE Bill Downs Donald Downs Bill Dugger, DTE Dan Dudley Eric Elder Dan Engstrom Mike Fitzgerald Pat Foster Lori Fritzsche Curtis Funkhouser Kendall Gadd Michael S. Gembar Darrell Green Joan Haas Dale Hanson James Hardin Ben Herzog

^Sfl

Van Hughes Laura J, Hummell Stan Komacek Tony Korwin Mark LeFeber Ethan Lipton, DTE Peter Olesen Lund Mike Madison David McGee, DTE Randy McGriff Paul McNeary Chris Merrill Doug Miller Barbara Mongold Jim Mongold Mellissa Morrow Julie Moore Lauren Olson Steve Price, DTE Ed Reeve, DTE John Ritz, DTE Joe Sargent Joe Scarcella Peter Sewert David W, Shabram Rodney Stanley Kenneth Starkman Kendall Starkweather, DTE Phillip Steinberg Andy Stephenson, DTE Anna Sumner, DTE Ron Vickers Doug Wagner Gary Wynn, DTE Ben Yates, DTE Ron Yuill, DTE

For your generous support of the Foundation for Technology Education. Special thanks go again to Andy Stephenson, [DTE for his tireless efforts on behalf of the Foundation!

32

1

May/June 2006 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

1—\^