Mile Wide Inch Deep ICT Education





Here are some related resources:


 * Information Underload and Overload.
 * Minimalism in Education.
 * National Standards and State Standards.

In discussions of the US math and science education system (versus other countries), it is often said that the US system is "a mile wide and an inch deep."

It could well be that a similar description applies to much of the US education system. This specific document focuses on Information and Communication Technology in education.

Email from David Moursund Distributed 6/13/09
Here is an email message from David Moursund that was sent to various lists on 6/13/09:


 * Hi Everybody:


 * Recently I listened to a 13 minute interview of Jay McTighe at (accessed 6/11/09) http://ascd.typepad.com/blog/2009/06/why-just-look-at-the-answers-that-a-text-book-offers-when-you-can-examine-the-questions-that-lead-to-the-answersw.html.


 * In essence, McTighe is pointing out that our entire school curriculum has the characteristics of being very broad and very shallow.


 * I listened to this interview shortly after having served as a reviewer on a graduate program of study that is designed to lead to an ISTE/NCATE endorsement as a school-level Technology Facilitator.


 * The result was that a bell went off in my head. The process of creating and describing standards tends to lead to a huge list (often called a laundry list) that might well be characterized as being a mile wide and an inch deep. McTighe does a great job of pointing out that we have this type of education system and the major failings in this type of education system.


 * What are your thoughts and feelings on this topic as it applies to the courses you teach in the field of computers in education?

Some responses are given below.

Response from Craig Cunningham 6/13/09

 * I agree the ISTE TF standards contribute the problem. Thing is, the people who created them probably brainstormed how many different skills you’d want a tech facilitator to have. It wouldn’t do (would it?) merely to say that the person could learn what they need to when they need it?


 * And yes, this is a systemic problem with the whole US system. Standards are, um, double-edged.  They both remind us what to include and elbow out what’s not listed.


 * I prefer the concept of broad criteria for success, such as “Demonstrates the capacity to learn new applications as needed.” But, alas, our program can’t result in Illinois certification without meeting the laundry list.

Response from Jeff Foster 6/13/09

 * As a textbook author, I am faced with that issue every day. I am now of the opinion that all textbooks should be written by teachers in the state where they will be used- not New York, London, Oregon, etc. (Texas is good, however!). Let experienced teachers earn a little extra money for all their dedication and time by being co-authors. It’s really easy.

Response from David M. Marcovitz 6/15/09
This is a great question. I have thought about this as well because I run an “ISTE-approved” program that follows these standards (our program was one of the first to be approved by ISTE under the new NCATE process and, for a long time, was the only ISTE-TF example assessment system on their site—if this sounds like bragging, it is not meant to be, I attribute this to the timing of our accreditation, not any particular quality of our program over others). While I could nitpick about individual standards, I think the key is the assessment system that is created around them. I think the standards need some adjusting, but the positive thing about this system is that we are empowered to create an assessment system that does what we want with them. The largest pieces of my assessment system are portfolios that allow my candidates to demonstrate the standards in various ways. While I do see similar class projects filling many of the slots, others are filled in a variety of ways by the candidates.

If I remember my counts correctly, there are about 40 standards and about 80 bullet points under those standards. We do not cover everything on every last bullet point but rather use them as suggestions and examples of the kinds of things that speak to the larger standard. This gives us the freedom to be very flexible in meeting the spirit of the standards without overemphasizing the details. As I recall, at one of the early meetings about the standards, we were told that we only needed to demonstrate compliance with the ~40 standards, not the ~80 sub-standards.

While a laundry list of 80 items is certainly too much, and 40 is probably too many, I appreciate a list (perhaps, of about 20 broader ideas) because it would be too easy to leave out some very important things. For example, when I was a Technology Specialist in a school, I had no background in adaptive-assistive technology. When I developed this program (before we were accredited), I could have easily left that out because it didn’t match my skill set and experience. Fortunately, I put it in, but I could see others in my position, without standards to guide them, making a different decision (and what I think would be the wrong decision).

To summarize, at a broad level, I think that the standards are very valuable, especially when coupled with different programs having the ability to teach them and assess them in a variety of different ways.

Author
The original version of this Page was created by David Moursund.