801 Maddrell Article Review 2

IDT 810: Article Review 2

Jennifer Maddrell

1

Review Criteria: Good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Fair

Contribution to the Field Appropriateness for ETR&D Clarity of Writing Statement of Purpose Presentation of Relevant Literature Description of the Problem Suitability of method Presentation of results Appropriateness of conclusions

Poor x

N/A

x x x x x x x x

Recommendation: o Accept as is o Accept with revisions as noted in review o Resubmit after major revisions as noted in review  Reject 1. Contributions to the field This paper offers little in way of new contributions to the field. While the abstract and introduction indicate the article will shed a different light on the technology integration debate by focusing on the effect of educational policy on technology integration, the paper offers no original research and no supporting documentation that technology integration has increased or decreased based on the described policies. Further, the paper does not advance theory or instructional design practice. 2. Appropriateness for ETR&D Development This discussion paper is not appropriate for the ETR&D Development section which has a stated objective to publish not only research on instructional technologies and learning environments, but also formative evaluations and theoretically-based instructional design research papers. Papers published in ETR&D Development should Submitted: March 29, 2009

IDT 810: Article Review 2

Jennifer Maddrell

2

guide future theory and practice in the field. Unfortunately, this paper does not. The declared focus of the paper is a discussion of the effect of educational policies and legislation on technology integration. While it is conceivable that such a focus could offer guidance to researchers and practitioners through both a synthesis of past educational policy and recommendations for future policy action, this paper begins and ends as a history paper on educational policy with no support for the thesis that educational policy has increased (or decreased) technology integration. Further, the author fails to offer an original interpretation of existing policy to guide future research or practice. Given that the study offers little new contribution to the field and due to the deficiencies noted elsewhere in this review, the recommendation is to reject the submission. 3. Clarity of writing The clarity of writing in this paper is poor which makes it difficult to discern the author’s intellectual plot line. While the paper promises a discussion of how educational policies and legislation have impacted technology integration, the author roams through a mix of Department of Education reports, popular press books, and opinion pieces without offering an effective synthesis of prior policy and legislation or the promised discussion of the effect on educational technology integration. In addition, the paper ends with weak conclusions and no recommendations for future direction in research, practice, or policy. The author also includes un-cited statements and personal opinions, as on page 9, line 49 in the statement that by 1992 “the nation was ready for a national educational agenda”. Further, the paper has numerous grammatical errors, as in the sentence on page 12, line 1 which incorrectly describes President Clinton’s belief in technology in education as “not a new phenomenon”. In addition, the paper suffers from many awkwardly structured

Submitted: March 29, 2009

IDT 810: Article Review 2

Jennifer Maddrell

3

sentences, as in the sentence on page 6, line 46 which states, “What computers were not used for during the early 1980s was the teaching of or was the support for teaching of core academic course content.” In addition, the APA 5th citation requirements are often not followed, as in the citation on page 7, line 19. 4. Statement of purpose The stated purpose of the paper is a discussion of how educational policies and legislation have impacted technology integration. Unfortunately, the author is does not fulfill this purpose in the paper. As discussed below, the author does not link policy to specific increases or decreases in technology integration. 5. Presentation of relevant literature The author’s references include few peer-reviewed academic publications. Instead, the author bases the paper on Department of Education papers, opinion pieces, as well as popular press books, such as Friedman’s The World is Flat, to describe educational policy history. The paper would be stronger and deliver on its stated purpose had the author presented evidence of changes in technology integration and linked the changes in integration to changes in policy. 6. Description of the problem The author suggests in the abstract and introduction that while the educational technology research community has focused on the effect of teacher belief change on technology integration, such a focus is incomplete. Instead, the author argues educational policies have influenced teachers’ technology integration as much (more?) than teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning. It is expected that such an argument would be followed by evidence to support the suggestion that policies have influenced technology

Submitted: March 29, 2009

IDT 810: Article Review 2

Jennifer Maddrell

4

integration. Unfortunately, by not linking polices to actual changes in technology integration, it is impossible to see whether a focus on teacher beliefs is incomplete or if educational policies have increased or decreased technology integration. 7. Suitability of method As noted, there is no original research presented in this paper. Instead, the author draws on a range of Department of Education reports, opinion pieces, personal opinion, and popular press books to summarize educational policy history. Unfortunately, the author does not offer validation that the noted policies are factors which increased or decreased technology integration within U.S. schools. As a result, the method of merely recounting educational policy change over time is not suitable to deliver on the stated purpose of the paper. 8. Presentation of results Not applicable. No original results are presented in the paper and the author fails to tie changes in policy with increases or decreases in technology integration within U.S. schools. 9. Appropriateness of conclusions While the abstract promises to shed a different light on the technology integration debate, the author fails to deliver on that promise. It is not necessary to read about various policies to conclude that that educational policy is intended to change policy in our school. What is needed to support the author’s argument that policy has impacted technology integration is documentation that directly links the described policies to specific increases or decreases in technology use in U.S. schools.

Submitted: March 29, 2009