A Critical Analysis of Selected Policy Making Decisions in the US and the UK with Regard to the Implementation of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in National State Primary and Secondary School Education Systems

Mark Brooke

Department of Linguistics, Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong.

DOI: 10.4236/ojml.2013.31012                

Abstract

Information and Communication Technology has played an important and pervasive role in modern business and everyday living over the last decade and more. The industry accounts for trillions of annual revenue. Yet, it has proved hard for a similar role for Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to emerge in education. In this paper, I will argue that policy regarding ICT use at national state levels in the UK and the US has striven to create, and continues to perpetuate, a system of education with technological divisions of labour, and marginalized innovative and communicative practical uses of technology for enhancing education in schools.

Keywords

Information; Communication Technology; Policy Studies; Lifeworld; Virtual Learning; Environment; Interactive White Board

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Anderson, R., & Ronnkvist, A. (1998). The presence of computers in American schools (Rep. No. 2). Teaching, learning and computing: 1998 national survey. Irvine: Centre for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California.
[2]	Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogical imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
[3]	Ball, S. (1990). Politics and policy in education. London: Routledge.
[4]	Ball, S., & Shilling, C. (1994). At the crossroads: education policy stud ies. British Journal of Educational Studies, 42, 1-5. doi:10.1080/00071005.1994.9973979
[5]	Bates. T. (1993) Theory and practice in the use of technology in distance education. In D. Keegan (Ed.) Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 213-233). London: Routledge.
[6]	Becker, H., Ravitz, J., & Wong, Y. (1999a). Teaching, learning and computing; 1998 national survey. Irvine: Centre for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California, University of Minnesota.
[7]	Becker, H., & Wong, Y. (1999b). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software (Rep. KO. 3). Irvine: Centre for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California, University of Minnesota.
[8]	Becta Report (2008). “Harnessing Technology Strategy”, stating that “technology is no longer optional”. http://foi.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=37952
[9]	Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London and Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
[10]	Bowe, R., Ball, S. J., & Gold, A. (1992). Reforming education and changing schools: Case studies in policy sociology. London: Routl edge.
[11]	Cetron, M., & Gayle, M. (1996). Educational renaissance: Our schools at the turn of the twenty-first century. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
[12]	Chun, D. C., & Plass, J. L. (2000). Networked multimedia environments for second language acquisition. In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds.), Cambridge applied linguistics series (pp. 151-170). Cam bridge: Cambridge University Press.
[13]	Clegg, S. R. (1989). Frameworks of power. London: Sage.
[14]	Clegg, S. R. (1989). Organization theory and class analysis: New approaches and new issues. Berlin: De Gruyter.
[15]	Cohen, D. (1987). Educational technology, policy, and practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 153-170.
[16]	Cohen, D. (1988). Teaching practice: Plusque ca change. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Contributions to educational change (pp. 27-34). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
[17]	Cohen, D. (1990). Educational technology and school organization. In R. Nickerson, & P. Zodhiates (Eds.), Technology in education: Look ing toward 2020 (pp. 231-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[18]	Consultants-E (2009). www.theconsultants-e.com
[19]	Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 813-834. doi:10.3102/00028312038004813
[20]	Dale, R., & Ozga, J. (1991). Understanding education policy: Principles and perspectives (Course E333 Module 1). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
[21]	Evans, T., & Nation, D. (1992). Theorising open and distance education, Open Learning, 7, 3-13. doi:10.1080/0268051920070202
[22]	Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[23]	Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
[24]	Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). The landscape of qualitative research theories and issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[25]	Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
[26]	Halliday, M. A. K. (1982). Linguistics in teacher education. In R. Carter (Ed.), Linguistics and the teacher (pp. 10-15). London: Routledge & Keegan Paul.
[27]	Keegan, D. (1990) Foundations of distance education (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
[28]	Lewis, D., & Allan, B. (2005). Virtual learning communities: A guide for practitioners. Oxford: Open University Press.
[29]	Mehan, H. (1989). Microcomputers in classrooms: Educational technology or social practice? Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 20, 4-22. doi:10.1525/aeq.1989.20.1.05x1208l
[30]	National Educational Assessment Program (1994). Reading assessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
[31]	National Educational Assessment Program (1996). Math assessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
[32]	Papert, S. (1993). The children s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.
[33]	Quinn, M. (1999). Green with envy. San Jose Mercury News, 1, 8-10A.
[34]	Quinn, M., & Lafleur, J. (1999). Money, money, everywhere so why don’t you feel rich? San Jose Mercury News, 17-18.
[35]	Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman.
[36]	Sarason, S. (1971). 7be culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston, MA: Allan and Bacon.
[37]	Schofield, J. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. London: Cam bridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571268
[38]	Stevenson, D. (1997) Information and communications technology in UK schools: An independent inquiry. London: Independent ICT in Schools Commission.
[39]	Sumner, J. (2000). Serving the system: A critical history of distance education. Open Learning, 15, 267-285. doi:10.1023/A:1009636417727
[40]	National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences (2006). Internet access in US public schools and classrooms: 1994-2005 (NCES 2007-020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
[41]	US Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (2005). Computer technology in the public school classroom: Teacher perspectives. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html
[42]	Watson, D. M. (1993). The impact report: An evaluation of the impact of information technology on children’s achievements in primary and secondary schools. London: Department for Education and King’s College Centre for Educational Studies.
[43]	Watson, D. M. (1993). Do enthusiastic users inhibit change? In D. C. Johnson, & B. Samways (Eds.), Informatics and changes in learning (pp. 269-276). Amsterdam: Holland.
[44]	Watson, D., & Tinsley, D. (1995). Integrating information technology into education. London: Chapman and Hall.
[45]	Watson, D. M. (1998). Blame the technocentric artefact! What research tells us about problems inhibiting teacher use of IT. In G. Marshall, & M. Ruohonen (Eds.), Capacity building for it in education in developing countries (pp. 185-192). London: Chapman and Hall.
[46]	Watson, D. M. (2001). Pedagogy before technology: Re-thinking the relationship between ICT and Teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6, 251-266.