The Study

Associate Professor Yong Zhao and Paul Conway of the National University of Ireland present in this article an analysis of dominant themes in state educational technology plans. The researchers were primarily interested in understanding the views promoted in those plans.

Findings

State technology plans are state level policy documents that provide frameworks for implementing educational technology in a given state. Zhao and Conway note that state technology plans not only indicate the areas in which resources should be deployed, but also shape what technology is purchased, what pedagogical approaches are used, and what professional development should contain. In their study, the researchers selected 15 state technology plans for close analysis. The plans were selected because they were representative according to size of state (Texas to New Jersey), geographic dispersion (Alaska to Maryland), and time of creation (1993 to 1997). Their analysis concentrated on the four key dimensions of education technology: technology, students, teachers, and educational goal. The researchers found that in terms of technology, state plans favored “new” technologies over old, and that invariably meant “globally connected computer networks, in essence the information superhighway or the Internet.” In terms of students, the plans often focused on technology’s capacity to improve student test scores, while paying little attention to important epistemological assumptions about student learning. When dealing with teachers, the authors found that the plans acknowledged that teachers are important in technology adoption but did not go as far as to identify ways in which teachers could be resourceful and purposeful designers of educational technology. Finally, in terms of educational goals, the plans privileged the goal of economic progress or social efficiency over democratic equality. “Although many plans mention providing equal access …the goal of democratic equality is seldom elaborated as concretely as the goal of economic competitiveness.”  They also found a consistent and “skillful use of sales techniques which capitalize on our fears of being left behind, hope for quick and simple solutions to complex problems, dream of a utopian future, and desire for practical and measurable outcomes.” The authors conclude by noting that the idealistic vision statements are geared at rallying political support. But they also write that such “technocentrism” is problematic. “To some extent, these images are consistent with current thinking about student learning, teacher professional development…, and school reform. They are, however, overstated and naïve in that they portray technology as the sole cure for many societal and educational ills.”

What It Means To You

State technology plans can have substantial influence on such things as decisions on hardware and software purchases, and strategies for teacher professional development. Which views are endorsed by your state’s technology plan, and which are ignored? What impact has that had on your district’s use of technology in the classroom?

For More Information

Zhao, Y. & Conway, P. (1/27/2001). What’s in, what’s out: An analysis of state educational technology plans. TCRecord.org [On-line]. Available: www.tcrecord.org .

< back to 2001 ed-research reports