Teaching Standardization to Generation Z-Learning Outcomes Define Teaching Methods

  • Ivana MijatovicEmail author
Part of the CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance book series (CSEG)


This chapter aims to provide more insight in specific aspects of teaching about standardization and addressed teaching methods to better teach in order to facilitate a new generation of students—generation Z—to learn about standardization. Adequate teaching methods for teaching about standardization are based on the desired learning outcomes. In standardization community, it seems that prevailing opinion is that education about standardization should result in general awareness about standards and standardization. However, the learning outcome of higher education about standardization should be significantly more ambitious than ‘raising awareness’. Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956), teaching methods that can be used to enhance Generation Z students learning about standardization are systematized at four levels of learning outcomes. Taking into account unique features of Generation Z students, content related to standardization and standards should be engaging as possible, based on real-world and global. Cooperation among universities, nontraditional providers of higher education, governments, industry and SDOs related education about standardization can be more closed to increasing efforts of many universities related to internationalization and third mission development.


  1. Ackoff, R. L., & Greenberg, D. (2008). Turning learning right side up: Putting education back on track. Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Almarghani, E. M., & Mijatovic, I. (2017). Factors affecting student engagement in HEIs—It is all about good teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(8), 940–956. Scholar
  3. Anderson, T. & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance Learners in Higher Education. Atwood Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Backhaus, J. G. (2015). The university according to Humbolt—History, policy, and future possibilities. Springer briefs in economics.
  5. Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining internationalization at home. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 59–72). Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing. Scholar
  6. Blind, K., & Gauch, S. (2009). Research and standardisation in nanotechnology: Evidence from Germany. J Technol Transfer, 34, 320–342. Scholar
  7. Blind, K. & Dreshler, S. (2017). European market needs for education in standardisation/standardisation-related competence. Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (European Commission).
  8. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  9. Bloom, B. S. (1994). Reflections on the development and use of the taxonomy. In L. W. Anderson, & L. A. Sosniak (Eds.), Bloom’s taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective. Chicago National Society for the Study of Education.Google Scholar
  10. Bollag, B. (1996). Reform efforts appear stalled at colleges in Eastern Europe. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 43(8), A-59.Google Scholar
  11. Brindley, J. E., Walti, C., & Blaschke, L. M. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), Retrieved from:
  12. Chen, P., Gonyea, R., & Kuh, G. (2008). Learning at a distance: Engaged or not? Innovate, 4(3). Retrieved from:
  13. Choi, D. G., & De Vries, H. J. (2011). Standardization as emerging content in technology education at all levels of education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(1), 111–135. Scholar
  14. Choi, D., & de Vries H. J. (2013). Integrating standardization into engineering education: The case of forerunner Korea. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23:1111–1126. Scholar
  15. Choung, J. Y., Ji, I., & Tahir, H., (2011) International standardization strategies of latecomers: The cases of Korean Tpeg, T-Dmb, and binary CDMA. World Development, 39(5), 824–838.Google Scholar
  16. CONE GEN Y CSR STUDY: How to speak with Z. (2017). Retrieved 21.05.2018 from
  17. Credle, S. H., Beale, P. L., & Maheshwari, S. (2009). The use of case analysis training and competitions to assure learning and school-wide quality. Business Education & Accreditation, 1(1), 29–44. Scholar
  18. Dabija, D. C. (2018). Enhancing green loyalty towards apparel retail stores: A cross-generational analysis on an emerging market. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 4, 8.
  19. Damnjanović, V., & Mijatović, I. (2017). Student perception of benefits from being engaged in international case study competitions management. Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies, 22(2). Scholar
  20. Damnjanovic, V., Proud, B., & Ruangwanit, N. (2016).Perceived benefits and issues of student learning in business case competition—Comparison study of Serbia, Australia and Thailand. Athens Journal of Education, forthcoming issue, Retrieved 23 May 2017 from, Scholar
  21. de Vries, H. J. (2015). How to implement standardization education in a country. In K. Jakobs (Ed.), Modern trends surrounding information technology standards and standardization within organizations (pp. 262–275). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  22. Erskine, J. A., Leenders, M. R., & Mauffette-Leenders, L. A. (1998). Teaching with cases. London: Ivey Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337, SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission. (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of the Regions. Supporting Growth and Jobs—An Agenda for the Modernisation of Europe’s Higher Education Systems—COM/2011/0567 final. Retrieved 12.3.2018 from
  25. Fatemi, F. (2018). What’s your strategy for attracting generation Z?. Entrepreneurs #LikeABoss, March 31, 2018. Retrieved 21.05.2018 from
  26. Forbes Coaches Council. (2019). Here comes Gen Z: How to attract and retain the workforce’s newest generation.
  27. Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., Marshall, S. (2015). A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice. Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research. (2015). Emerging Theme Radar: What if I told you … themes, dreams and flying machines. Retrieved 12.05.2018 from
  29. Greisler, P. (2013). Welcome addresses. In B. Henningsen, J. Schlaeger, & H. E. Tenorth (Eds.). Humboldt’s Model: The Future of the Universities in the World of Research: Conference Report. BWV Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Jaeger, A., Kopper, J. (2014). Third mission potential in higher education: Measuring the regional focus of different types of HEIs. [Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft], Review of Regional Research, 34(2), 95–118. Retrieved 1.4.2018 from–118.
  31. Jermyn, D. (2018). How colleges are adapting for the new Gen Z. Special to the Globe and Mail, 1.6.2018.
  32. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
  33. Katusic, D., Skocir, P., Kusek, M., Jezic, G., Ratti, C., & Bojic, I. (2017). Hands-on education about standardization: Is that what industry expects? IEEE Communications Magazine, 55(5), 138–144. Scholar
  34. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. Scholar
  35. Krčadinac, U., Jovanović, J., & Devedžić, V. (2012) Visualizing the affective structure of students interaction. In S. K. S. Cheung, J. Fong, L. F. Kwok., K. Li, R. Kwan (Eds.), Hybrid learning. ICHL 2012. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 7411). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Light, G., Cox, R., Calkins, S. (2009). Learning and teaching in higher education: The reflective professional (pp. 38–43). SAGE Publication.Google Scholar
  37. Marron, M. B. (2015). New generations require changes beyond the digital. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 70(2), 123–124. Scholar
  38. Menand, L., Reitter, P., & Wellmon, C. (Eds.). (2017). The rise of the research university a sourcebook. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mijatovic, I., Horvat, A., Krsmanovic, M., (2014). Academics’ and researchers’ participation in the National Technical Committees in Serbia. EURAS Proceedings 2014, Cooperation Between Standardization Organizations and the Scientific and Academic Community (pp. 135–149). Germany: Wissenschaftsverlag Mainz GmBH Aachen. ISBN: 978-3-86073-305-2.Google Scholar
  40. Mijatovic, I., Jovanovic, J., & Jednak, S. (2012). Students online interaction in a blended learning environment—A case study of the first experience in using an LMS. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (ESEeL-2012) (pp. 445–454)., ISBN: 978-989-8565-07-5.
  41. Mijatovic, I., Krstic, I., & Komazec, S. (2013). Experiences with participation of Serbian academics in national technical committees. In Proceedings of the 18th EURAS Annual Standardisation Conference “Standards: Boosting European Competitiveness”, Brussels, Belgium, June 24–26, 2013 (pp. 279–295). ISBN: 978-3-86130-655-9.Google Scholar
  42. Montesinos, P., Carot, J. M., Martinez, J. M., & Mora, F. (2008). Third mission ranking for world class universities: Beyond teaching and research. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2/3). ISSN 0379-7724 print/ISSN 1469-8358 online/08/02/30259-13 # 2008 UNESCO.Google Scholar
  43. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Morris, L. V. (2014). Editor’s page: Who’s listening? Innovative Higher Education, 39:1–2. Scholar
  45. Muller, S. (1985). Wilhelm Von Humboldt and the University in the United States. Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, 6(3), 253–256. Retrieved 12.3.2018 from
  46. NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2015). Industry-Academic teaching support. Workshop–Summary Report—July 2015.Google Scholar
  47. O’Connell, J. (2007). Creative Web 2.0 learning. A talk given at Christian Teacher Librarians Association conference, Sydney, May 23, 2007. Retrieved from:
  48. Pask, G. (1976). Conversation theory: Applications in education and epistemology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  49. Pausits, A. (2015). The Knowledge Society and Diversification of Higher Education: From the Social Contract to the Mission of Universities. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European Higher Education Area: Between Critical Reflections and Future Policies (pp. 267–284). Scholar
  50. Purcell, D., & Kushnier, G. (2016, Mart/April). Globalization and standardization. The Journal of SES—The Society for Standards Professionals. Retrieved from
  51. Rezaei, A. (2017). Features of successful group work in online and physical courses. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 17(3), 5–22, Retrieved 12.05.2018. from
  52. Seemiller, C., Grace, M. (2017). Generation Z: Educating and engaging the next generation of students. About Campus. Scholar
  53. Siemens, G. (2002). Interaction. E-learning course, October 8, 2002. Retrieved May 19, 2008, from
  54. Simons, C. A. J. (1999). Education in standardization—Getting structured common sense into our society—The personal opinion of standards educator. ISO Bulletin.Google Scholar
  55. Unterhalter, E., & Carpentier, V. (2010). Global inequalities and higher education: Whose interests are you serving? Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  56. Vass, K., Littleton, K. (2010). Peer collaboration and learning in the classroom. In K. Littleton, C. Wood, J. K. Staarman (Eds.), International handbook of educational psychology (pp. 112, 113). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  57. Verman, L. C. (1973). Standardization. Archon Books.Google Scholar
  58. Wulz, J., & Rainer, F. (2015). Challenges of student mobility in a cosmopolitan Europe. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 43–58). Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  59. Zawdie, G. (2010). Knowledge exchange and the third mission of universities : Introduction: The triple helix and the third mission—Schumpeter revisited. Industry and Higher Education, 24(3), 151–155. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Organizational SciencesUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations