IDT 810: Article Review 2 Jennifer Maddrell 1

Review Criteria:
Good Fair Poor N/A
1 Contribution to the x
Field
2 Appropriateness for x
ETR&D
3 Clarity of Writing x
4 Statement of Purpose x
5 Presentation of x
Relevant Literature
6 Description of the x
Problem
7 Suitability of method x
8 Presentation of results x
9 Appropriateness of x
conclusions

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