Proposing National Standards
for Educational Technologists

Laura J. Dowling
Madeleine Foord-May
Cynthia Mathena
EDUC 6400
Walden University

Educational Technologists

Defining Educational Technologist
Evolving Roles of the Educational Technologist
Defining the Role of Educational Technologist
Current Model for Educational Technologist
Implications for the Future

The Current Situation Pertaining to National Standards

Introduction
The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE)
Other Organizations Calling for Standards
Standards in Higher Education
State Efforts
Conclusion

National Standards: The Pros and Cons

In Support of a National Standard
Opposition to a National Standard

Proposal for National Standards
References

Educational Technologists-Laura Dowling

Defining Educational Technology

Before any suggestions can be made as to what makes a good educational technologist, it is necessary to define the field and the position as it relates to a variety of educational situations. According to Ely (1997), educational technology, while being a term that is used in all levels of education, carries with it a profusion of different meanings. To begin with, Ely describes the word technology as the term used to describe the hardware--"the devices that deliver information and serve as tools to accomplish a task." People that work in the field of technology "use technology to refer to a systematic process of solving problems by scientific means. Hence, educational technology properly refers to a particular approach to achieving the ends of education." (Ely, 1997).

In addition, Bruce (1999) refers to educational technology as a field of study and practice that is conventionally conceived in light of its two essential words. "First, it is concerned with the educational applications of technologies and not the myriad uses of technologies in modern society. Second, it examines those aspects of education that are crucially dependent on (usually new) technologies."

"Instructional technology" is a term that had been used interchangeably with educational technology for many years. Even though the terms are substituted for each other, there are very subtle differences between the two. Ely (1997) defines instructional technology as "the use of such technological processes specifically for teaching and learning." The Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) has adopted the following definition of instructional technology: "Instructional Technology is the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, management and evaluation of processes and resources for learning" Seels & Richey (1994).

With these definitions in mind, it is safe to say that educational technology deals more with the technological equipment required in an educational setting to carry out the daily requirements while instructional technology deals more with the methods and practices of how to utilize this technology in daily lessons.

Evolving Roles of the Educational Technologist

Educational institutions have a long history of introducing technologies into the classroom. More recently, the radio and television have caused a large stir in the educational community (Cuban, 1993). Many of these early technologies were expected to change the very nature of schools. They were purchased and placed in the classrooms, but many of these technologies met resistance from teachers.

When computers were first making their debut into classrooms in late 1970 and early 1980, they were introduced in much the same way as the other "high technologies" (Kent, & McNergney, 1999, p. 22). Teachers were left to fend for themselves with little knowledge of how to use the equipment. In response, vendors of educational software, in an effort to make things straightforward, tried to "teacher proof" their products (Verville, 2000). Many computers sat unused in classrooms because teachers did not know how or want to use them.

It was out of this necessity that many of those teachers that were interested in using technology in classrooms became the first educational technologists. They were the ones that rallied support of other teachers to use the computers, and they were the ones who came to the rescue of the others when computers crashed or balked (Reiber, 1988). With the advent of networks and Internets, however, the job of troubleshooting and integration became more of a job than any classroom teacher could handle in addition to regular teaching duties. Many of these pioneering teachers found themselves transformed into the new role of educational technologists, and they paved the road for a new field where before, there was none. Many of these teachers went back to school to either take classes on computer technology or to obtain degrees in the new field of educational technology (Reiber, 1988).

Defining the Role of Educational Technologist

With so many differing ideas of just what constitutes the technology in schools, it becomes apparent that the exact role of the technologist can be ambiguous. Is the technologist the overseer of the technology equipment, making sure that it is working smoothly and ordering any necessary components for school sites? Or, is this person in charge of developing technology related lessons to be incorporated into classrooms for teachers? This second definition would also include such responsibilities as training teachers to bridge the gap between machine and curriculum through the use of theory and educational design.

In many cases, the educational technologist and the instructional technologist are one and the same person. The two responsibilities become irreversibly intertwined, and the school personnel look to this person to meet all of their technology needs. The very act of combining the roles into one has confused the administration of many schools. The position becomes enlarged to include a wide range of responsibilities and carries a large workload. Administrators are unable to determine if this position is a technician or a staff position and thus do not know how provide appropriate support. Many schools do not pay these technologists adequately for their services, and consequently realize a large turnover in technology personnel.

Since the jobs are many times one-in-the-same, for the purposes of this paper, the position will be referred to as an educational technologist, realizing that the skills for fulfillment of the position range far beyond the technical side. With that in mind, what exactly is an educational technologist and how does he or she function in a school? There appear to be many different answers to that important question. Surry (1996) maintains that the role of the educational technologist can be described in metaphors-descriptions that relate the job of educational technologist to other, more commonly known, jobs. The following are some of the ways that Surry describes an educational technologist.

Consultant- The consultant works closely with administrators and staff in the process of strategic, long term, planning for the integration of technology.
CAI developer- The CAI developer's responsibility is to develop computer-assisted instruction and presentations.
Trainer- The trainer is primarily responsible for developing, conducting, and evaluating training workshops in areas related to instructional technology.
Lab Manager- The lab manager is primarily responsible for coordinating the hardware and software in one or more computer labs
Distance Learning Expert- The distance learning expert is primarily responsible for purchasing, installing, and maintaining distance learning equipment.
Technician- The technician is primarily responsible for maintaining, installing, and troubleshooting instructional hardware and software.

Furthermore, Latchem (1986) describes technology as essentially seeking "to develop knowledge, skills and successful practices through problem-oriented research and development and uses of all available systems, methods and media to help advance." His list consists of the following responsibilities:

Curriculum and instructional design;
Training and professional development;
Teaching and learning techniques and strategies;
Computer-assisted, computer-based and computer-managed learning;
Open learning, informal learning and distance education;
Resource-based learning and resource management;
Applications of AV, information and communications technology;
Research and evaluation;
Theoretical studies in educational technology.

Current Model for Educational Technologist

If one were to look at several institutions of education, it would seem that each one has a different idea of what constitutes a good educational technologist. Clearly, there are no standardized guidelines for administrators and school boards to follow when selecting qualified applicants. Rude-Parkins (http://leader.louisville.edu/hre/faculty/crrude01/aprepost.html) has developed a comprehensive chart that specifically cites standardized requirements for educational technologists. Others take a more generalized approach to defining the issues involved. Wasser, et al. (1998) describe four areas where the educational technologist can contribute to the success of a technology program in a school:

Educational practice. The composition and conduct of classroom learning activities and the growth of students' knowledge, skills, and experience over the school year.
Professional culture. The social medium in which adults in the schools interact, grow, and develop as knowledgeable educational professionals. This includes the composition and conduct of educators' formal and informal learning activities and the growth of educators' knowledge, skill, and experience over the school year and across their careers.
Technology leadership and management. The matrix of formal administrative structures and policies through which learning experiences and resources are organized within and across schools.
School community and family. The school community comprises services that support and extend young people's educational experiences outside the normal school day. It also includes the family members and friends who support the learner and are concerned about his or her educational development and learning opportunities.

Additionally, Reiber (1998) created a list of responsibilities that he has noted in his career as an educational technologist.

I help people learn new things.
I solve problems in education and training, or find people who can.
I use many different tools in my job; some are 'things' like computers and video, other tools are ideas, like knowing something about how people learn and principles of design.
I know a lot about these tools, but I know I have to use them competently and creatively for the task before they will work.
I consider using all of the resources available to me, though sometimes I have to go and find additional resources.
I am most interested in helping children, but many of my colleagues work with adults.
I resist doing things only because "we've always done it that way," but I'm also careful not to fall for fads or gimmicks.
I always try to take the point of view of the person who is going to be using the stuff I make while I'm making it; that's really hard, so I get people to try out my stuff as soon as I can to see what I am doing wrong.
I am not afraid to say, "Yes, that's a better way to do it."

Implications for the Future

This review of the research demonstrates clearly that when it comes to determining the qualities of a good and well-prepared educational technologist, that the position requires many diverse qualifications. It does not suffice to be a "computer genius, " although that quality is extremely important in a school where there are many who need assistance when the computer stops working properly. Because of the high profile nature of the job, it is also necessary to be a good "People Person." Communication skills and the ability to relate well with people are required. Certainly, continuing education is the only way for technologists to keep skills current.

Today, the role of a technologist is still in transition, and it is generally recognized that there are still many issues to resolve before anyone can come to terms with a definitive answer to the question of just what makes a good educational technologist. While not everyone shares the same perception of what educational technology is or what the educational technologist should do, the past few decades have witnessed the implementation of many technological and educational changes that have been to some degree stimulated by educational technologists in their diverse roles. As Latchem noted, educational technologists may have responsibilities to students, faculty, administrators, staff and the school community at large. Based on this conclusion, Latchem stated: "Future progress is more likely to be dependent upon attitudinal change and political will than technical advancement and there is a growing awareness of a need for some kind of national standard that will more clearly and definitively mark the parameters of the educational technologists responsibilities" (Latchem, 1986).

If this need was recognized and stated so clearly by Latchem in 1986, why is there still no national standard fifteen years later? In seeking an answer to this question, it will be instructive to begin by examining the current situation pertaining to national standards.

Table of Contents

The Current Situation Pertaining to National Standards-Cynthia Mathena

Introduction

We live in what is often referred to as the Information Age. It is a time in which citizens can celebrate the ability to access almost any type of information they desire. Clearly this availability is possible because of some form of technology. Thus it is safe to assume that accessing information in today's society requires a skill set that includes technology literacy.

Moursund, as cited in Roblyer (2000), states there are three kinds of competencies that are recognized as basic for survival in the Information Age. They are technology literacy, information literacy and visual literacy. The primary focus of this project will be to examine the standards most closely associated with technology literacy.

No one can argue that computer literacy is now a basic survival skill, not an option. Agreement and consensus on the issue appears to stop there. As various organizations are developing their own sets of standards, it has become clear that the focus and agendas of these agencies are varied and sometimes overlapping. Although national standards are prevalent, they are not mandated, merely suggested. States and districts have their own standards and it appears that these that are more closely aligned with the needs for the district or region.

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE)

There are a variety of agencies active in the process of developing technology literacy standards. The most widely recognized group is The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). They have collaborated with the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) to develop standards for teacher training. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) is the official body for accrediting teacher preparation programs. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) is the professional education organization responsible for recommending guidelines for accreditation to NCATE for programs in educational computing and technology teacher preparation. These guidelines are specific to the competencies a college student should receive, before entering the workforce as a teacher. Two types of standards are applied in the accreditation process:

Curriculum guidelines for preparation in the specialty, educational computing, and related technologies
Unit guidelines for infrastructure affecting all professional education programs.
The NCATE standards lie at the heart of quality teacher preparation. The four areas of the standards emphasize prospective teacher performance in the context of solid preparation in professional and liberal arts studies. Current ISTE/NCATE standards for programs in educational computing and technology are available in the following areas:

Educational Computing and Technology Literacy
Educational Computing and Technology Leadership
Secondary Computer Science Education Endorsement
Secondary Computer Science Education Degree

Information on the Teacher Preservice Standards developed by ISTE/NCATE

Additionally, ISTE has proposed the National Educational Technology (NET) Standards for students in grades K-12. "The primary goal of the ISTE NETS Project is to enable stakeholders in PreK-12 education to develop national standards for educational uses of technology that facilitate school improvement in the United States. The NETS Project will work to define standards for students, integrating curriculum technology, technology support, and standards for student assessment and evaluation of technology use" (ISTE, 2001).

NET Standards

Several other projects sponsored by ISTE have developed standards for specific groups of educators. The Collaborative for Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA Collaborative) is undertaking a year-long project to facilitate a national consensus and to document what school administrators should know about and be able to do in order to lead effective implementation of technology in P - 12 education.

TSAA Project

Other Organizations Calling for Standards

International Technology Education Association (ITEA) began its standards development in 1994. It launched its Technology for All Americans Project (TfAAP) and then a document titled, Technology for All Americans: A Rationale and Structure for the Study of Technology. They have since developed into a well-funded, non-profit organization dedicated to technology literacy for all Americans. Later this year they will release their report on a Gallop poll survey that should provide details about the level of technology literacy amongst all demographics in America.

ITEA standards

Standards in Higher Education

The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) has developed a document outlining Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. These standards focus solely on the need for information literacy vs. technology literacy. Some would argue that these two areas are inter-related and should be addressed in one set of standards. The information literacy standards developed by ACRL stress the need for students to be able to utilize the abundance of information made available via technology. Such skills might include evaluation, organization and interpretation of information.

ACRL Standards

State Efforts

While the aforementioned organizations have focused on a more widespread effort, states have tended to focus on their own public schools. There appears to be a plethora of methods for instituting such standards. One state that has been credited with a high quality methodology is North Carolina. They have adapted the ISTE standards for grade level and revolve around key issues such as ethics, use of databases, and telecommunications. These standards are directed towards the student, while the teachers and staff appear to have no formal standards for technology use or training.

NC Public Schools Standards

Idaho is another state that has pushed forward with requirements for those calling themselves Educational Technologists. They have suggested a teacher may be qualified in the specialty area of educational technology with continuing education and through completion of one or more competencies. Certificated personnel and school districts use the Idaho Technology Competency Exam, the Idaho Technology Portfolio Assessment, or another process which meets the approval of the State Board of Education to demonstrate the required basic technology competencies.

Idaho State Board of Education Standards

Conclusions

Many of the states we looked at have adapted the ISTE standards and expanded on their detail. It seems that national standards serve as a guide for the more specific plans at the state and district levels. The only organization that currently offers guidance in the way of educational technology training (K-12) is NCATE. There seems to be no clear guidance for national standards of those who work in educational settings as educational technologists.

Clearly there are several levels at which national standards could be defined. They could be defined by an organization such as ISTE, which has demonstrated the ability to work with other agencies, such as NCATE, to develop definitive standards. Another possibility would be for standards to be defined by individual states, or by widely recognized organizations such as ITEA. Or, standards could be defined for different levels of education, such as ACRL.

However, the question still remains, are such national standards necessary and should they be mandated? In order to answer this question, it will be helpful to examine the advantages and disadvantages of developing definitive national standards for Instructional Technologists.

Table of Contents

National Standards: The Pros and Cons-Madeleine Foord-May

In Support of a National Standard

Many professions have a broad range of expectations within their practice. Lawyers or physicians may practice in many different areas, and even hold "specialist" degrees. A teacher may be expected to teach in any of a variety of settings from the classrooms of the K-12 environment to those of higher education, community colleges and technical schools. However, each of these well-established professions comes with a clear expectation of the role that individual will fill. The profession of Instructional Technologist currently lacks such a definition. This is, by all measures, a new field, with an uncertain definition.

Support for the development of a national standard primarily advocates clarification of the position. The first step towards clarification could be to define the roles of an educational technologist and an instructional technologist. A national standard which clearly defines and distinguishes these professions would provide the foundation on which job responsibilities and performance expectations may be developed.

The lack of understanding of the profession often leads to problems with the design of the job description itself. Because the position is not well understood by many in administration, it is placed at a low salary range, which makes it difficult to fill with qualified persons. Many position descriptions list responsibilities which are so far-ranging that it is impossible for any one person to successfully meet them all. Often, the position is shared among more than one school or department, thus making the instructional technologist responsible to multiple directors. If these directors have overwhelming or competing expectations, the individual is set up for failure.

All of these problems begin with the inadequate understanding of the position and lead to difficulty in hiring and retaining an instructional technologist. Furthermore, without a clarifying national standard, school administrators at all levels will remain without guidance in developing the organizational structure which is needed to provide support for meaningful integration of technology into teaching. Successful integration of technology into teaching is not accomplished by providing a room in each school which is filled with computers. Few administrators are fully aware of what structures will be required if that room filled with computers is to be utilized to its highest potential. A clearly defined national standard can help administrators understand the role that the instructional technologist can play in supporting the effective and efficient integration of technology into education.

Opposition to a National Standard

Opposition to the development of a national standard may be related to concern about creating excessive limitations on the instructional technologist.

For example, it is clear from preceding definitions of the instructional technologist that there is a need for a vast amount of creativity which is not only possible but also desirable within this role. Instructional technologists need to be available to work with faculty, staff and students in whatever ways they are needed. Any national standard which limits the potential development of this position would not be moving the educational process in the direction of further enhancement and expansion through the use of technology.

A strict national standard could also affect the educational process of instructional technologists. Currently, there appears to be wide variety in the educational programs which prepare instructional technologists. It is this variety, in part, which allows many of those who hold the position to fill it, and perhaps extend it by expanding its boundaries and extending their skills in ways that might not have been anticipated at the time the position was defined. A strict national standard could lead to the creation of curricula which "teach to the standard", rather than preparing professionals able to be pro-active as well as re-active in the practice of their profession.

And finally, if a national standard is to be defined, it must be defined by a single organization which is widely recognized as capable of delivering and maintaining a definitive national standard. The current vagaries and confusion will not be diminished if a number of standards come to the forefront; in fact this might actually serve to increase the confusion.

Table of Contents

Proposal for a National Standard
Laura Dowling, Madeleine Foord-May, and Cynthia Mathena

The following grid represents the educational technologist specialization areas with competency skills listed. Below the grid is an explanation of each competency skill.

Each educational technologist must be properly trained and endorsed in the competencies to obtain national standards certification.

Grid

Ed Tech: General	Ed Tech: K-12	Ed Tech: Adult Learners	Ed Tech: Instructional Design	Ed Tech: Leadership
Computer Operation Skills	Computer Operation Skills	Computer Operation Skills	Computer Operation Skills	Computer Operation Skills
Setup, Maintenance and Troubleshooting	Setup, Maintenance and Troubleshooting	Setup, Maintenance and Troubleshooting	Setup, Maintenance and Troubleshooting	Setup, Maintenance and Troubleshooting
Word Processing, Introductory Desktop Publishing	Word Processing, Introductory Desktop Publishing	Word Processing, Introductory Desktop Publishing	Word Processing, Introductory Desktop Publishing	Word Processing, Introductory Desktop Publishing
Spreadsheet / Graphing	Spreadsheet / Graphing	Spreadsheet / Graphing	Spreadsheet / Graphing	Spreadsheet / Graphing
Database	Database	Database	Database	Database
Networking	Networking	Networking	Networking	Networking
Telecommunications	Telecommunications	Telecommunications	Telecommunications	Telecommunications
Media Communications	Media Communications	Media Communications	Media Communications	Media Communications
Multimedia Integration	Multimedia Integration	Multimedia Integration	Multimedia Integration	Multimedia Integration
	Educational Theory related to learning needs of K-12 population		Educational Theory related to learning needs of K-12 population	Educational Theory related to learning needs of K-12 population
	Educational Theory related to training and instruction of the adult learner	Educational Theory related to training and instruction of the adult learner	Educational Theory related to training and instruction of the adult learner	Educational Theory related to training and instruction of the adult learner
			Training and experience in writing and design for the web.	Curriculum design
			Training and experience in evaluation of educational software.	Budgeting
				Research methodology/ needs assessment
				Administration/ organizational skills

The Educational Technologist will be able to:

Curriculum Design

Design developmentally appropriate learning opportunities that apply technology-enhanced instructional strategies to support the diverse needs of learners.
Apply instructional design principles to the design of screens, text, graphics, audio and video in instructional products under development.
Apply instructional design principles to develop substantive interactive multimedia computer-based instructional products.
Practice strategies for testing and evaluating instructional products produced.
Conduct research on teaching and learning with technology when planning learning environments and experiences.
Design curriculum that is accessible by a variety of learners including those with disabilities
Use sound principles of theory and design while developing appropriate learning activities.

Database

Use information from an existing database
Sort a database by specific fields, add and delete record
Create database with multiple fields and records
Create custom layouts including columnar reports
Insert database fields into word processing document
Define and describe the following terms: database, field, record, layout, sort/arrange, search/select/filter, mail merge

Educational Theory Related To Training And Instruction Of The Adult Learner

Define learning theories as they relate to the education of adults
Apply theories of learning to the learning environment of the adult
Give examples of theories based on use of technology in education of the adult learner
Design, deliver and assess adult student learning activities that integrate computers/technology for a variety of student grouping strategies and for diverse student populations.
Design adult student learning activities that foster equitable, ethical and legal use of technology by students.
Teach others (faculty, staff, community) utilizing a variety of educational approaches based on sound theory

Educational Theory Related To Learning Needs Of K-12 Population

Define learning theories as they relate to educational technology in the K-12 classroom
Apply theories of learning to classroom application activities in the K-12 classroom
Give examples of theories based on use of technology in the classroom
Design, deliver and assess student learning activities that integrate computers/technology for a variety of student grouping strategies and for diverse student populations.
Design student learning activities that foster equitable, ethical and legal use of technology by students.
Teach others (faculty, staff, community) utilizing a variety of educational approaches based on sound theory

Media Communications

Produce print-based products (e.g., newsletters, brochures, posters, books)
Produce electronic slides/overheads
Define terms such as painting tool, drawing tool, compression
Define the characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses of different media
Be familiar with consumer issues including identification/evaluation of available media communication resources
Use painting and drawing tools
Use digital camera and scanner
Use camcorder and edit video from a camcorder

Multimedia Integration

Use a linear multimedia presentation
Use a non-linear, hypermedia presentation
Define terms such as media, multimedia, hypermedia, clip media
Plan/produce a linear multimedia presentation
Plan/produce a non-linear, hypermedia presentation
Use a file compression utility
Input and digitize sound from microphone and audiocassette player/recorder
Create simple animations

Networking

Use a file server (connect/log on, retrieve a program or document, save a document to a specified location)
Share files with others on a network6.3 Terms such as local area network, wide area network, access rights, security passwords, file server, zone
Select/de-select a network zone

Budgeting

The Educational Technologist will demonstrate the ability to:
Develop a budget that allows for equipment, training and maintenance and considers the changing nature of technology.
Investigate and recommend purchasing strategies and procedures for acquiring administrative and instructional software for educational settings.
Apply budget planning and management procedures related to educational computing and technology facilities and resources.
Identify funding sources available at local, state, and/or national level and collaborate on development of a grant proposal.
Plan, develop, implement and evaluate strategies and procedures for resource acquisition and management of technology-based systems including hardware and software.

Research/Evaluation

Use technology to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate findings to improve instructional practice and student learning.
Assess staff knowledge, skills, and performance in using technology and use results to facilitate quality professional development and inform personnel decisions.
Use technology to assess and evaluate managerial and operational systems.
Assess and evaluate, using multiple methods, appropriate uses of technology resources for learning, communication, and productivity.

Table of Contents

References

Bruce, B. C. (1999 ). Educational technology. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.educacao.pro.br/educationaltechnologychip.htm

Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Consistency and change in American classrooms 1880-1990. NY: Teachers College Press.

Ely, D. (1997). The field of educational technology: A dozen frequently asked questions. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed413889.html

Kent, T. W., & McNergney, R. F. (1999). Will technology really change education? Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Latchem, C. M. (1986). Educational technology - A recipe for change? Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 2(1), p. 5-11.

Reiber, L. (1998). The proper way to become an instructional technologist. [On-Line]. Available: http://it.coe.uga.edu/~lrieber/pdean/pdean.html

Rude-Parkins C. Basic and advanced standards for instructional technology leaders. [On-Line]. Available: http://leader.louisville.edu/hre/faculty/crrude01/aprepost.html

Seels, B. B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definitions and domains of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Surry, D. W. (1996). Defining the role of the instructional technologist in higher education. [On-Line}. Available: http://www.mtsu.edu/~itconf/papers96/it.html

Verville, A. (2000). Achieving educational equity with advanced technology. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.ibm.com/ibm/publicaffairs/pdf_file/education.pdf

Wasserman, J. D, McGillivray, K. &, McNamera, E. T. (1998). Diary of an educational technologist. (1998). [On-Line]. Available: http://www.terc.edu/handsonIssues/f98/diaries.html

Proposing National Standards for Educational Technologists

Laura J. Dowling Madeleine Foord-May Cynthia Mathena EDUC 6400 Walden University

Proposal for a National Standard Laura Dowling, Madeleine Foord-May, and Cynthia Mathena

References

Proposing National Standards
for Educational Technologists

Laura J. Dowling
Madeleine Foord-May
Cynthia Mathena
EDUC 6400
Walden University

Proposal for a National Standard
Laura Dowling, Madeleine Foord-May, and Cynthia Mathena