Macroergonomics (ME) theory and methods have not been systematically applied to the field of education despite the fact that as a complex work system, education would almost assuredly benefit from ME applications. This discussion panel proposal briefly describes the complexity of the US education system and some of the areas where resources are currently being directed by federal and state funding agencies. In addition, a brief overview of technical subsystems is provided to demonstrate where mismatches between work and technology might be found. The panel members' expertise and current work will focus an discussion on three questions: 1) what are the expected benefits of applying ME theory to educational settings, 2) where and how should ME practitioners target efforts to do more work in education, and 3) what strategies should one consider to ensure successful application and outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AERA (2008, June 22). Homepage for the American Educational Researcher Association. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net.
2.
BerlinerD.C.CalfeeR.C. (Eds.) (1996). Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
3.
BrownH.CardD.DickersinK.GreenhouseJ.KlingJ.LittellJ. (2008). Report of the What Works Clearinghouse Expert Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/director/board/pdf/panelreport.pdf.
4.
CECR (2009, June 22). Homepage for the Center for Education Compensation Reform, Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.cecr.ed.gov/.
5.
DynarskiM.AgodiniR.HeavisideS.CareyN.CampuzanoL.MeansB. (2007, March 1). Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort. Report to Congress. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED496015) Retrieved June 19, 2009, from ERIC database.
6.
HalversonR.GriggJ.PrichettR.ThomasC. (2007). The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in schools. Journal of School Leadership, 17(2), 159–194.
HendricksH. (2002). An Overview of macroergonomics. In HendrickH.KleinerB. (Eds.), Macroergonomics: Theory, Methods, and Applications. (pp. 1–23) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
IEA (2009, June 22). Homepage for the International Ergonomics Association. Retrieved from http://www.iea.cc/browse.php?contID=what_is_ergonomics.
10.
IES. (2009, June 22). Homepage for the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/.
11.
JohnsonD.W.JohnsonR.T. (1989). Cooperation and competition. Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
12.
KraemerS.ThornC.WatsonJ. (2008). Macroergonomics of education reform: A framework for transforming merit-based educator compensation systems. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 52nd annual meeting (pp. 1135–1139). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
13.
LeggS. (2007). Ergonomics in schools. Ergonomics, 50(10), 1523–1529.
14.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008) Numbers and Types of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools from the Common Core of Data: School Year 2006–07: First Look. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009304.pdf.
15.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008) Guide to U.S. Department of Education Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/programs/gtep/gtep.pdf.
PrichettR. (2007). How school leaders make sense of and use formative feedback systems. Unpublished dissertation: University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Education.
18.
SmithK.U. (1972). Cybernetic psychology. In SingerR.N. (Ed.), The psychomotor domain (pp.285–348). New York: Lea and Febiger.
19.
SmithK.U.SmithM.F. (1966). Cybernetic principles of learning and educational design. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
20.
SmithT.J. (2007). The ergonomics of learning: Educational design and learning performance. Ergonomics, 50(10), 1530–1546.
21.
SmithT.J.HenningR.A. (2005). Cybernetics of augmented cognition as an alternative to information processing. In HCI International 2005. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. St. Louis, MO: MIRA Digital Publishing.
22.
StoneN.J. (2008). Human factors and education: Evolution and contributions. Human Factors, 50(3), 534–539.
23.
WoodcockA. (2007) Ergonomics, education and children: A personal view. Ergonomics, 50(10), 1547–1560.
