Paper prepared for the Australian Association for Educational Research
Conference,
Brisbane 1997: Researching Education in New Times
Using Standards to Improve Quality: The Construction and Application
of Academic Standards
Rees Barrett
PhD Student, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia
The world is going mad about standards! Increasingly we hear of
standards being used as a policy instrument of economic rationalism to
drive reform in industry as well as in education. Concepts of best
practice, benchmarking, quality assurance, total quality management and
identification of sub-standard performance, have become part of the
jargon of industrial reform. Each relies on commonly accepted
standards that may be used to make accurate judgments on individual and
organisational performance.
This paper explores processes used in setting and implementing academic
standards and suggests limitations on their use in quality assurance
or as part of the market mechanism driving economic rationalism. It
will describe research currently being undertaken on ways in which
policy makers, curriculum writers, teachers and students make sense of
academic standards.
Background
Standards are used in every field of human endeavour to define what is
acceptable and what is not. They are used as rallying points,
instruments for influencing the behaviour of individuals or
institutions, as a means of communicating expectations and of providing
quality assurance for consumers. In essence a standard is a 'tool for
rendering appropriately precise the making of judgments and decisions
in a context of shared meanings and values' (Sykes and Plaistrik,
1993).
The drive for standards-led reform coming from business and industry
has spawned a standards industry in its own right. The International
Standards Organisation (ISO) has defined a series of standards
applicable to a wide range of service and production industries. A
positivistic view of standards that sees as them as external to the
users, forms the basis of such an approach. For those who view
standards as being socially constructed such approaches are
problematic. Standards are, at least in part, internal to the user,
value-laden and contestable. We do not know enough about the
construction of standards and yet the world is placing a lot of faith
in them!
Similar trends are evident in education. Corporate managerialism has
become central to the reform process in that it impels educators to
quantify outputs and outcomes as the basis for accountability and
continuous improvement. Pascoe (1995) compares the 'standards
movements' in American and Australian education and the linkage of
standards with the accountability for the achievement of the national
goals for schooling. The achievement of this standards-driven
education reform must be dependent on the definition of commonly
accepted standards. There is a tendency to talk about these standards
as if they are fixed, absolute, value-free, held by all, and capable of
being measured precisely.
The view of standards that transfers the absolute nature of a measure,
such as the standard metre, to fields of human endeavour, such as
service delivery, provides a high degree of comfort for many. Such
standards are used in some fields where precise measurements are
possible and appropriate to achieving the desired effect. However, in
many other fields the standards set are influenced by contextual
factors such as cultural norms and community expectations,
technological change and political forces. In such cases the desired
effect from which the standards flow is value-laden and socially
constructed. Problems arise because of the difficulties in achieving
shared meanings and values and the lack of trust in an approach to
measurement or assessment which is not perceived to be value-free.
Human service industries in general, and education in particular, are
becoming increasingly subjected to quality assurance measures that are
based on positivistic views of standards. In these fields there is no
readily identified or commonly agreed tool for making the precise
judgements and decisions required in contested (or high-stakes)
contexts. Acceptance of the view that standards applied in these
fields are constructed, not discovered, may contribute to the review of
measurement tools and the meanings attached to them by policy makers.
The recent development and piloting of a new approach to defining and
communicating standards in post-compulsory courses by the Secondary
Education Authority (SEA) in Western Australia affords an opportunity
to increase understanding of the construction of standards and the
impact that curriculum design has on the nature and use of academic
standards. This development has been undertaken in response to a
number of policy imperatives impacting on post-compulsory education.
The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) approach hinges on the definition
of conceptual and process outcomes which form the focal point for a
common assessment framework. The outcomes are elaborated through
knowledge and skills components, performance criteria and recommended
resources. The approach is based on the philosophy that standards for
student performance are most effectively communicated if they are fully
integrated throughout the teaching-learning program. In particular it
is believed that this approach presents opportunities for improved
performance by students through the clearer and more consistent
application of course standards. However, there are challenges for
teachers in constructing a common interpretation of those standards.
The new Year 11 Australian Studies course, in the Society and
Environment curriculum area, is one of a large number of courses
developed using this approach. In addition it represents a departure
from traditional practice in that it is not based on a particular
humanities discipline. It has been designed to cater for the rapidly
growing number of post-compulsory students who aim to enter TAFE or
employment after secondary school. Another contextual factor was the
call from various sources for opportunities for students to develop and
demonstrate a generic competency termed cultural understanding.
Political pressure was also exerted to provide citizenship and legal
education with a more practical orientation than the current highly
theoretical, discipline-based courses which cater mainly for students
who learn through symbolic representation.
Australian Studies provides a most useful case study for the analysis
of the process of constructing academic standards. It was first
implemented in the 1995 academic year. The author has been involved in
the development of the curriculum and assessment framework, resource
materials and quality assurance processes that comprise the
instructional rubric. It is also linked with the use of learning
outcomes, key competencies and a different view of assessment and
pedagogy in post-compulsory schooling.
The purpose of the study is to explore the nature of standards and the
ways in which they are used in the reform process to achieve
improvement in the quality of teaching and learning. In the enthusiasm
for reform there is a tendency to view standards as absolute and
unproblematic. The intent of this study is not to challenge the
importance of standards in the reform process but to highlight their
complexity and problematic nature. These attributes have significant
implications for the ways in which we construct standards and make
decisions based upon them.
It is contended that conventional wisdom about education standards in
the high stakes environment of post-compulsory education is no longer
appropriate for the changing student population. This wisdom asserts
that standards are rigorous and therefore acceptable if they are seen
to be fixed, absolute, discipline-based, content-driven and measurable
using technical strategies (particularly norm-referenced measurement
strategies based on external, written examinations). Competition
between students for limited opportunities is seen as the purpose of
curriculum and assessment. A 'zero-sum' philosophy prevails. It
assumes that for every successful student there must be an unsuccessful
one, otherwise the curriculum standards are questioned as not being
rigorous enough. Assessment is viewed as something imposed on students
at the end of the course, or a section of it, in order to sort them out
in a kind of gate-keeping exercise. Unless there is an acceptable
level of failure then standards are perceived to be slipping. This
mind-set has tended to restrict access and success in post-compulsory
schooling for a significant proportion of the age cohort. It is no
longer appropriate because changes in the social, economic and
political environments of schooling have changed the function of the
post-compulsory years. That function can no longer be the 'weeding
out' of non-academic students. The values upon which we base our view
of educational standards need to be refined so that the goal of
providing a meaningful general and vocational education for the whole
of the student cohort may be fulfilled.
The research question is therefore:
What is the nature of an academic standard as applied to a
post-compulsory course in Western Australia and how does a social
constructivist approach to setting and using standards assist in the
improvement of the quality of student performance?
Theoretical Framework
The social constructivist perspective views standards as social
symbols. "Accounts of the world ..... take place within a shared
system of intelligibility - usually a spoken or written language.
These accounts are not viewed as the external expression of the
speaker's internal processes (such as a cognition, intention) but as an
expression of relationships among persons" (Gergen and Gergen, 1991,
78). The collective generation of meaning is shaped by social
processes "by which the world is understood"...through "social
artifacts, products of historically situated interchanges among people"
(Gergen, 1985,267).
The social constructivist framework shapes the view of teaching,
learning and academic standards that underpins this research. Learning
is the construction of meaning by the learner. Cognition is adaptive
and serves in the organisation of experiences rather than the discovery
of transmitted knowledge. Knowledge is not passively received but is
actively built by the learner. Rather than transmitting information
the effective teacher facilitates challenging learning situations and
the encouragement of reflection. Assessment is not just about making
judgements about substantive learning but also about the process
through which students construct knowledge. Standards are built in a
context and are limited in their utility by the language used, as well
as the multiple realities and agendas of those involved.
The recognition of the significance of context of educational change
signifies an organic rather than a mechanistic view of the way things
happen in the real world. Capra (1983) presents a powerful rationale
for the holistic view of the world which must transcend the
reductionist, mechanistic view which has dominated the industrial era
and has resulted in a series of crises for the planet. The
sociopolitical perspective must transcend the technological
perspective. "We live in a globally interconnected world in which
biological, psychological, social and environmental phenomena are all
interdependent" (p229). Recognition of this, Capra argues, represents
a paradigm shift at a critical turning point for humankind, which will
result in a new consciousness and a transformation of unprecedented
dimensions.
The context of the development of academic standards is therefore not
restricted to the classroom or to the school. Systemic and national
contexts are particularly important and they may be seen as nesting
into the higher order global systems. It is necessary to recognise the
interconnectedness of all systems and structures operating in society
in order to unravel the nature of standards. An holistic view enables
links to be drawn between education and other fields of human
endeavour. It becomes apparent that trends in educational change
including the use of standards have much in common with trends in areas
such as commerce and industry and health services. Increasingly
standards in all of these areas of human endeavour are being driven at
an international level.
In this sense there are broader structural processes that determine the
context for developing academic constructs such as literacy and
citizenship (see Gee, Hull and Lankshear, 1996). Ultimately, standards
are constructed within a social totality. They aren't neutral or
value-free. Bessant (1988) also illustrates this point by linking the
peaks in the public debate about academic standards with periods of
economic restructuring in the 1890s, 1930s and 1970s. Gusfield (1984,
6) argues that an observable phenomenon such as auto fatalities -
becomes 'real' through "a selective process from among a multiplicity
of possible and potential realities". Through the "prevailing rhetoric
and dramatic ritual we are locked into a consciousness" of a public
problem or phenomena "which narrowly shuts out alternative
conceptualisations and solutions".
It is important to recognise that constructivism is not without its
critics. In particular it is criticised for its lack of critical
purchase. All accounts of reality are equally good or bad, true or
false. Reality exists only in people's minds, implying that there are
as many realities as there are people (solopsism). "I hope that the
pilots on my flight aren't constructivists" quip the cynics!
Hendry (1996, ) argues that "solopsism can be avoided simply by
specifying that knowledge is constructed in interrelation with the
world… Constructivism represents a synthesis of idealism … and
realism". The continuity of social and physical reality is explored by
Searle (1995) who argues that social constructions are based on
reality. 'Institutional facts' (eg. that piece of paper represents
money which has a particular function ascribed through collective
intentionality) exist on a continuum with 'brute facts' (eg. Mt Everest
has snow and ice at its summit). The distinctive feature of
institutional facts is symbolisation, the basic capacity underlying
language and all other forms of institutional reality. "Money,
property, marriage, governments and universities all exist by forms of
human agreement that essentially involve the capacity to symbolise"
(p228). Truth is determined by correspondence with fact. The cultural
world comprises institutional facts which are epistemologically
objective and ontologically subjective. Through his philosophical
analysis Searle establishes a rationale that sees social constructivism
founded on physical reality, not in competition with it, as some would
argue.
A number of competing positions exist within the constructivist
epistemology. Phillips (1995) describes these as sects within the
constructivist 'religion'. He argues that the strength of this
epistemology is the attention it draws to the active involvement of the
learner in the production of knowledge. The weakness is the tendency
to relativism and the claim that all knowledge is consensus-based.
Phillips provides a framework of three continua which may be used to
analyse the competing positions.
The first is the unit of analysis - either individual psychology or
public discipline. In the middle of this continuum are those
constructivists who have an interest in "how individuals build up
bodies of knowledge and how human communities have constructed the
public bodies of knowledge known as the various disciplines" (p7).
That position best describes the theoretical position taken in this
research.
The second dimension is characterised by Phillips as "humans the
creators versus nature the instructor". Is knowledge made in isolation
from nature or is it discovered in nature? The position taken in this
research is that developed by Searle and captured by Popper in the view
"man proposes, nature disposes" (cited in Phillips, p9).
The third dimension refers to who is involved in the active process.
At one end of this continuum are those like Piaget who focus on the
individual as the active constructor and at the other are those who
contend that knowledge construction is a socio-political process. This
process is rational in that "it proceeds deliberately according to
methodological rules and criteria that are consciously held within a
sociocultural group" (Phillips, 9). That is the position taken in this
research. Individual teachers and students are involved in making
standards but these standards will always be validated in the
sociocultural group. The knower is situated in an historical and
sociocultural setting.
In summary, social constructivism provides the theoretical framework
for this research. Phenomena such as the academic performance of
students may be observed using artefacts such as academic standards.
The latter are socially constructed symbols which exist independent of
the observer and which provide reference points that imprecisely
measure academic performance. These symbols are constructed through a
socio-political process and as such are contestable and subject to
interpretation.
Significance of the Study
This study may make a contribution to improving quality of performance
in both education and industry through unpacking the nature of
standards and the ways in which they are constructed and used. The
perception of standards as being absolute and unproblematic may have
negative implications for the achievement of reform. What are the
implications for industry reform in general, and education reform in
particular, if reform is based on an inappropriate perception of the
nature of standards?
It is also intended that the study may make some contribution to
understanding the difficulties faced by policy-makers in achieving
educational change. Because of the contentious nature of such change
and the reality that policies alone do not guarantee change in the
classroom there is a degree of cynicism about the value of educational
reform and the leverage of educational policies. Focussing on the
interactive process which applies to the negotiation of new academic
standards may provide valuable insights into the conditions
contributing to effective educational change.
Constructing academic standards is a critical but complex process. An
understanding of that process may contribute to increased understanding
of what works for teachers and students. It may also provide insights
into the impact on student performance of making transparent the
standards expected of them. Indeed there may be some transference to
the management of performance of people in schools and other
organisations.
The construction of standards for the Australian Studies course has
taken place in a dynamic policy-making environment. The emerging
standards frameworks of learning outcomes and key competencies have
influenced the shape of the course. Consensus on the precise
definition of the particular Key Competency of cultural understanding
had proved elusive at the time of development of the course.
Therefore, it has not been possible to achieve consensus about the
standard to be used to make judgements about the degree to which
students demonstrate cultural understanding. It was acknowledged by
policy makers, however, that Australian Studies could and should make a
significant contribution to this type of construct.
Also at this time the demand for increased comparability of assessment
with simultaneous increase in flexibility for school delivery of
post-compulsory curriculum provided a challenge for course developers
and policy makers alike. The use of outcomes, a common assessment
framework emphasising performance assessment and performance criteria,
represent the strategy constructed to address these issues. It is
envisaged that this case study may make a contribution to testing the
usefulness of this strategy.
More generally, the course was developed at a time when the usefulness
of a course-based approach to defining upper secondary curriculum was
being questioned. Such an approach, it has been argued, narrows the
curriculum and restricts the potential for student achievement of
outcomes defined for eight learning areas. School and system level
measurement, evaluation and decision-making will be based on a learning
area framework. The increased level of academic specialisation
required in the post-compulsory years poses particular difficulties for
the implementation of a standards framework based solely on learning
areas. It is envisaged that this research may make a contribution to
the understanding of the value of a course-based approach to the
achievement of quality in post-compulsory education.
The research is also timely because of the recent formation of the
Curriculum Council in Western Australia with the legislative brief of
implementing an outcomes-based, K-12 Curriculum Framework. The
outcomes-based common assessment framework approach has focussed
attention for course developers on the relationship between student
achievements in the compulsory years of education and those in the
post-compulsory years. Similarly, issues related to the linkages
between the latter and post-secondary education and training have also
been more sharply focussed.
The move to a competency-based assessment approach in the vocational
education and training sector has raised a number of significant
issues. What is the relationship between course outcomes and
competencies? What is the relationship between generic competencies
and course outcomes? What is the relationship between specific
knowledge and skills objectives and outcomes? Is it appropriate to
view standards-referenced assessment, and normative assessment as
being mutually exclusive? Is it possible to have norm-referenced and
criterion-referenced standards?
This research is also situated in a context of increasing pressure on
education authorities to release 'league tables' of data on school
performance. Measures of school effectiveness have been simplified
through the use of economic rationalist metaphors such as 'value
added'. The appropriateness of such standards for highly complex
phenomena is hotly disputed. Should the community accept that only
some dimensions of educational performance can be measured in the
quantitative paradigm? Should educators respond to the community's
rightful demands for feedback on school performance by constructing a
manageable qualitative approach?
There may also be a linkage between emerging academic standards and
those that are increasingly being used in business and industry. How
may an understanding of the construction of academic standards transfer
to the standards movement in business and industry, particularly in
measuring the quality of human service provision? Does the debate
about educational standards and the way they are used to improve the
quality of student performance offer any insights into the highly
problematic area of human resource performance management?
It is not expected that the research outlined in this proposal will
provide a definitive answer to each of these questions. However, it is
considered that they are interrelated with the research problem and may
provide useful avenues for further research.
Methodology
As befits the constructivist meta-theoretical position adopted for the
study and described earlier qualitative methodology has been used to
conduct this research. An ethnographic approach has been used in that
there will be strong emphasis on exploring a social phenomenon rather
than setting out to test a hypothesis. Primarily this has involved
working with unstructured data which is not coded at the point of data
collection.
An instrumental case-study approach (Yin, 1989) has been employed as
the basis of data collection and as a way of organising and presenting
data. This has allowed the researcher to analyse the context and the
experiences of the individuals involved in each of the cases selected
for research. The case for study is the Year 11 Australian Studies
course accredited by the SEA for implementation in 1995. Study of its
implementation has been conducted at two school sites.
Analysis was also made of observations of the researcher as a
participant in the process of developing the curriculum design of the
CAF approach. This process occurred from 1993 to 1994. Documents and
records of meetings prepared in this period will provide the data for
analysis. In addition, other individuals involved in the process were
interviewed.
Reports related to the Key Competencies Project will also be analysed.
The CAF model and the Australian Studies courses form a part of this
project which was conducted from 1994 to 1996. The CAF Evaluation
report also forms a valuable source of data.
Documents describing the standards of the Year 11 course have also been
analysed. Writers and SEA committee members have been interviewed.
A journal kept by the researcher in the process of developing student
resource materials for the Year 11 course (1994-1995) will be analysed
to identify and describe issues confronting the writers in translating
the course standards. Approaches used to address these issues will
also be analysed. Others involved in the writing team have commented
on the observations made.
The researcher also had the opportunity to participate in teacher
meetings before the first year of course implementation and in a
consensus meeting to achieve comparability in the application of
assessment standards. Observation notes from these meetings have been
analysed in this research.
Observations were classrooms of two teachers who are currently teaching
the course. Unstructured interviews with teachers and students in
those classrooms were used to develop an insight into the ways in which
the standards are developed, communicated and applied in the classroom.
Sampling of school sites and teachers has been based on the
opportunity to learn, rather than the opportunity to predict
frequencies. Opportunity to learn includes the seeking out of cases
which may provide disconfirming evidence. Through this sampling
procedure it is expected that the story of the experiences of these
teachers will unfold, as learnings are constructed and embedded in
contexts. Spiro et al (cited in Stake, 1993, 241) describe this as
cognitive flexibility. Such openness to new interpretations is
achieved through "case-based presentations that treat a content domain
as a landscape that is explored through 'criss-crossing' it in many
directions, by reexamining each case 'site' in the varying contexts of
neighbouring cases, and by using a variety of abstract dimensions for
comparing cases".
Students at both of the selected schools were also interviewed.
Classroom observation and interviews with teachers and students in the
case-study schools provided the opportunity to look for the ways in
which teachers interpret the course standards and the ways in which
these are communicated to and translated by students. The
constructivist theoretical framework views the teachers and students as
standard-makers rather than standards-takers. Analysis of student work
samples and the process used to provide feedback to students were also
observed. Particular attention was given to recording the dialogue
between teacher and student in order to understand the process by which
a standard is constructed.
Preliminary Findings
The economic rationalist perspective of standards does not sit
comfortably with the observations made of the ways teachers and
students used the standards for Australian Studies in the case study
schools.
Both teachers have been positive about the foundation provided by the
new course structure. They have also enjoyed the flexibility offered
in selecting content and learning strategies that interest their
students. It is also evident that the teachers have constructed their
understanding of the standards in their interaction with the students.
They each have a general concept of the types of behaviours they
expect. The performance criteria don't clearly tell them that. In
fact the words seem to get in the way. The words intended by the
course writers to communicate the course standards are useful in
providing the scaffold for teachers to build their assessment practice
and to justify the decisions they make. Both refer to their own
experience as a reference point for knowing the standards. They also
plead for more opportunities to interact with other teachers, because
it is in those situations that they share ideas, gain validation for
their own practice. As Longino (1993, 112) argues, knowledge is
actively "constructed not by individuals but by interactive, dialogic
communities". Teachers make meaning of the words on paper as part of a
community of practice.
The contexts for both of the classes are significantly different.
In one case the teacher is firmly in control, has access to
considerable resources. She tells the students "your parents have sent
you here because they expect high standards". And in a friendly manner
she uses the standards as a device to remind the students that she is
watching their performance at all times. She has a warm but
business-like manner with the students in their classroom interaction.
She acts as the facilitator using a constructivist approach to
learning. But the more process-oriented approach represented by the
CAF approach suits her desire for teacher control of the learning
process. "I tell them that in their project work I'm watching what
they do and how they are applying the research skills, I like that
aspect of this new approach although it is really time-consuming."
One student comments in describing how she knew she had performed well
on the exam "I knew I had written a reasonably long answer and I had
given the teacher what she wants".
In the other case the teacher is relatively inexperienced. She is
seeking confirmation whether she is doing "the right thing". She grows
in confidence through the year. She believes that the basis of her
work lies in developing a good rapport with the students. "It's a
struggle because there are high rates of absenteeism, some students
start work but complete little." She confides that she feels that the
more experienced teachers in her school "have a problem with her less
disciplinarian approach". At one stage her students smuggle a pizza
she has bought for them into class. She has used the course to develop
understandings of the 'racism' debate. She talks of the constant
battle with some students who see that she is trying to push her own
views about Reconciliation onto them. There is a strong representation
of Aboriginal students in the school population, although there are
none in her class. At the end of the year some of her students comment
that the one thing they have gained from the course is that they have
changed their opinion on Pauline Hanson. Before they read her speech
they supported the Hanson stance. But when they had the opportunity to
read the speech in class they changed their opinion.
The broader national context about Hanson, Wik and Dr Kemp's drive for
higher literacy standards through funding controls provide the broader
canvas on which these comments may be placed.
Drawn from these data and those gathered in other contexts, such as the
teacher consensus meetings, the social basis of academic standards in
this case study course becomes evident. The standards are used to
build layers of meaning. They are based upon a physical reality of
students engaging with tasks set for them and demonstrating in the
process some general behaviours that teachers are looking for.
Teachers and education policy-makers use standards to achieve
conformity of students and credibility for an essentially uncertain and
contested enterprise - the preparation and selection of the young for
future predicted realities. There is a tension in the use of standards
between their use as a device for improvement and as device for control
or for proving conformity. As such education standards are prone to be
used, at various levels of social interaction, as symbols of authority
and to provide an image of certainty. Those who gain control of these
symbols are able to shape the way in which a social phenomenon is
constructed as a public problem about which something must be done.
References
Bessant, J. (1988). An Examination of Public Criticisms of Schooling
During Three Periods of Economic Crisis - the 1890s, the 1930s, and the
mid 1970s to 1980s, Unpublished Thesis, La Trobe University.
Gee, J., Hull, G. and Lankshear,C. (1996). The New Work Order, Allen
and Unwin: Sydney.
Gergen, K. and Gergen, M. (1991). Towards reflexive methodologies, in
Steier, F. (ed.) Research and Reflexivity., 76-95, Sage Publications:
Newbury Park, California.
Gergen, K. (1985). The Social Constructivist Movement in Modern
Psychology, American Psychologist. 400, 266-275.
Gusfield, J. (1984). The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking
Driving and the Symbolic Order, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Hendry, G. (1996). Constructivism and Educational Practice, Australian
Journal of Education, 40,1,
Longino, H. (1993). Subjects, Power and Knowledge: Description and
prescription in feminist philosophies of science. In L. Alcoff and E.
Potter (Eds.), Feminist Epistemologies (pp 101 - 120). New York,
Routlege.
Pascoe, S. (1995). The Standards Movement in America: A United
States/Australia Comparison.
Phillips, D. (1995). The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: The Many Faces of
Constructivism, Educational Researcher, 24, 7, 5-12.
Searle, J. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. The Free
Press, New York.
Stake, R. (1993). Case Studies, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y.
(eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications: Thousand
Oaks, California.
Sykes, G. and Plaistrik, P. (1993). Standard Setting as Educational
Reform, Trends and Issues Paper No. 8, ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher
Education
Yin, R. (1989). Case Study Research Design and Methods. Sage
Publications: Newbury Park, California.
28622_1.DOC
10
1
Researching Education in New Times: Using Standards to Improve Quality
________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________Researching Education in New
Times: Using Standards to Improve Quality