What Lies Behind Us, and What Lies Before Us, Are Tiny Matters Compared to What Lies Within Us. Ralph Waldo Emerson

What lies behind us, and what lies before us, are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

University of Alberta

Education and Technology Policy Discourse in Alberta: A critical analysis

by

Charmaine Dorelle Brooks

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Secondary Education
©Charmaine Dorelle Brooks
Spring 2011
Edmonton, Alberta

Permission is hereby granted to the University of Alberta Libraries to reproduce single copies of this thesis and to lend or sell such copies for private, scholarly or scientific research purposes only. Where the thesis is converted to, or otherwise made available in digital form, the University of Alberta will advise potential users of the thesis of these terms.

The author reserves all other publication and other rights in association with the copyright in the thesis and, except as herein before provided, neither the thesis nor any substantial portion thereof may be printed or otherwise reproduced in any material form whatsoever without the author's prior written permission.

Abstract

My research is a critical examination of technology policy discourse between four organizational groups: Alberta Education, the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA), the College of Alberta School Superintendents (CASS) and the Alberta School Councils’ Association (ASCA). I adopt a discursive theoretical position, to examine how education policy promotes a way of thinking about technology by endorsing some values over others and is therefore qualitative. One overarching question and a related sub-question guide my inquiry:
1. What ways of thinking about technology are evident in Alberta’s education policy discourse?
• What relationship exists between the ways of thinking about technology in
Alberta’s education policy discourse and nodal discourses, specifically, the knowledge-based economy and globalization?
The literature base informing my inquiry encompasses three fields of research, the philosophy of technology, education policy and critical organizational discourse. Since my study is based on technology policy in education through an interest in discourse, meaning and power, I employ critical discourse analysis to excavate the common sense notions and assumptions in documents and interview data from the four organizations. Feenberg suggests the various ways of thinking about technology can be summarized into four categories, instrumentalism, determinism, substantivism and critical theory (1999). Feenberg’s model (1999) serves as a lens through which to roughly classify the philosophical positions of the organizations.
The findings illustrate technology policy discourse in Alberta is divided along the values axis between the ATA and ASCA taking up substantivist and critical theory positions and Alberta Education moving between instrumentalist or determinist positions. In addition, the data suggests a value-neutral view of technology has dominated the discursive field with significant implications on implementation. Despite the apparent philosophical divide in the ways of thinking about technology in education, the concept of 21^stcentury learning emerged across all four philosophical positions. My findings point to a need for future policy dialogue to adopt a more philosophically inclusive and balanced approach to ensure the potential of technology to support student learning does not go unrealized or continue to narrowly support technical goals.

Keywords: philosophy of technology, policy discourse, 21^stcentury learning

Acknowledgments

I was able to complete this study because of the sacrifices, encouragement and contributions of my family, friends and colleagues. The privilege of taking time to study a topic deeply comes at tremendous cost often borne by others. This thesis is not so much a reflection of my understanding, but rather a measure of what one can accomplish given a strong foundation of love, respect and acceptance.
First, my supervisor, Dr. Norma Nocente, shared her knowledge, experience and guidance with an unwavering confidence in my ability. She unfailing provided just the right amount of support and pressure to ensure the thesis was completed to the best of my ability. My supervisory committee members, Dr. Alison Taylor and Dr. David Smith, were also invaluable to shaping my thinking and improving my writing throughout the process.
My husband, Terry, and my children, Kate and Jack, are my anchors to all that is good. You were my everyday reasons to keep going when my own reasons faded. In the years ahead, I look forward to being there for each of you as you meet new challenges. Thank you for your generous spirits and unending patience.
My parents, Richard and Dorelle, by always welcoming my questions and accepting my interest in pursuing a rather ‘organic’ career path, made the possibility of doctoral studies a matter of when and not if. For patiently listening to me rant on about technology policy discourse, for taking care of our children when I was in class, for all the sanity-saving comforts of home and for your unfaltering confidence in me – I thank you.
My brother, Colin, embodies strength, courage and determination. His understated, calm confidence was a source of inspiration to me throughout the last few years. For your thoughtful words, your conviction and your advice along the way – thank you.
Finally, I am so fortunate to be surrounded by incredibly wise and talented colleagues each of whom have challenged, inspired and shared my passion for education.

Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................... 1

Questioning the solution: a vignette............................................................................ 1 Purpose of my research ................................................................................................ 7 Alberta context.............................................................................................................. 9 Significance of the inquiry ......................................................................................... 23 Delimitations................................................................................................................ 24 Limitations................................................................................................................... 27

Chapter 2: Ways of thinking about technology and education policy.......... 30

What are the ways of thinking about technology?................................................... 33 What is the relationship between the ways of thinking about technology, education policy and discourse? ................................................................................ 53

What is discourse?.................................................................................................... 53 What is education policy? ........................................................................................ 54 What influences the ways of thinking about technology in education policy discourse? ................................................................................................................. 57

What relationship exists between the ways of thinking about technology in Alberta’s education policy discourse and nodal discourses, specifically, the knowledge-based economy and globalization?......................................................... 59

What are prominent discourses?............................................................................... 61

High School Completion: an example...............................................................................61

How do organizations use prominent discourses to secure power? ......................... 64

Grade level of achievement reporting: an example...........................................................66

Why are some ways of thinking about technology more widely accepted than others?.......................................................................................................................... 69

Globalization and the knowledge-based economy: two nodal discourses at work in education policy ....................................................................................................... 70

The KBE and Alberta’s videoconferencing initiative: an example...................................73

How do nodal discourses become common sense?.................................................. 74

Reframing nodal discourses....................................................................................... 79

What is learning?...................................................................................................... 84

Chapter 3: Methodology..................................................................................... 90

Conceptual frame: research focus, theoretical orientation and method ............... 90 Critical discourse analysis (CDA): theory and method........................................... 92

Critical theoretical underpinnings ............................................................................ 93 Defining discourse.................................................................................................... 95 Analysis: methodological approaches...................................................................... 96

Document analysis: method ....................................................................................... 98

Step 1: Identify, analyze and group assumptions into prominent discourses........... 99

Identify assumptions..........................................................................................................99 Analyze assumptions.......................................................................................................102 Group assumptions ..........................................................................................................103 Brief example of method applied ....................................................................................104

Step 2: Align prominent organizational discourses with philosophical orientations. ................................................................................................................................ 106

Brief example of method applied ....................................................................................106

Step 3: Analyze the prominent organizational discourses to ascertain correlations with two nodal discourses. ..................................................................................... 108

Brief example of method applied ....................................................................................109

Interview analysis: Methods .................................................................................... 110 Data sources and collection...................................................................................... 111

Rationale for selection: Organizational groups...................................................... 114

College of Alberta School Superintendents ....................................................................114 Alberta School Councils’ Association (ASCA) ..............................................................116

Rationale for selection: discourses genres.............................................................. 120

The relationship between primary and secondary documents: an example ....................121

Rationale for selection: documents ........................................................................ 124 Rationale for exclusion........................................................................................... 126

Interview selections................................................................................................... 127

Rationale for selection............................................................................................ 129 Rationale for exclusion........................................................................................... 129

Questions of validity ................................................................................................. 130

Chapter 4: DATA ANALYSIS FINDINGS.................................................... 134

What ways of thinking about technology are evident in Alberta’s education policy discourse? .................................................................................................................. 136

Overview of findings.............................................................................................. 137 Samples of evidence............................................................................................... 143

Instrumentalism ...............................................................................................................143 Determinism ....................................................................................................................151 Substantivism ..................................................................................................................160 Critical theory..................................................................................................................166

Evidence of overlap: 21^stcentury learning............................................................. 175 Evidence of a gap: lack of a formal position on technology from CASS .............. 183

Possible reasons for a lack of a formal policy position from CASS ...............................184

Ways of thinking about technology in education policy discourse in Alberta: A summary .................................................................................................................... 191

Examples of a prominent discourses aligning with the two nodal discourses ....... 195 Examples of prominent discourses reframing the two nodal discourses................ 198 Evidence of the nodal discourses in the interview data.......................................... 201

Ways of thinking about technology dominating education policy discourse: A summary .................................................................................................................... 205

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 208

Chapter 5: Discussion...................................................................................... 211

What ways of thinking about technology are evident in Alberta’s education policy? ........................................................................................................................ 213

What relationship exists between the ways of thinking about technology in Alberta’s education policy discourse and nodal discourses, specifically, the knowledge-based economy and globalization?....................................................... 216

What are the possible implications of the interpretation of the findings? .......... 219

Hindering dialogue................................................................................................. 221 Fostering a compliant or defensive posture by teachers......................................... 223 Promoting the underutilization of educational leaders........................................... 224 Narrowing futures for students............................................................................... 225

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 229 Reflections.................................................................................................................. 244

References.......................................................................................................... 248 APPENDIX A: THE EVOLUTION OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN ALBERTA, ALBERTA EDUCATION..................................................... 265

APPENDIX B: TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION, ALBERTA TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION – PRIMARY DOCUMENT........................ 266

APPENDIX C: ANALYSIS - TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION, ALBERTA TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION.................................................... 274

APPENDIX D: CHANGING LANDSCAPES OF THE NEXT ALBERTA, ALBERTA TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION – SECONDARY DOCUMENT ............................................................................................................................. 278

APPENDIX E: ANALYSIS - CHANGING LANDSCAPES OF THE NEXT ALBERTA: 2008 – 2028, ALBERTA TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION ........ 291

APPENDIX F: ANALYSIS - INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY (ICT) PROGRAM OF STUDIES – RATIONALE AND PHILOSOPHY, ALBERTA EDUCATION................................................... 295

APPENDIX G: MEDIA RELEASE – SCHOOLS BROADEN TECHNOLOGY USE TO TRANSFORM STUDENTS’ LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES, ALBERTA EDUCATION – SECONDARY DOCUMENT..................................................................................................... 298

APPENDIX H: ANALYSIS - MEDIA RELEASE – SCHOOLS BROADEN TECHNOLOGY USE TO TRANSFORM STUDENTS’ LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES, ALBERTA EDUCATION............................................. 300

APPENDIX I: LEARNING AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY FRAMEWORK, ALBERTA EDUCATION – PRIMARY DOCUMENT.. 302

APPENDIX J: ANALYSIS - LEARNING AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY FRAMEWORK, ALBERTA EDUCATION.................................................. 317

APPENDIX K: BUSINESS PLAN 2008 – 2011, ALBERTA EDUCATION – PRIMARY DOCUMENT ................................................................................ 323

APPENDIX L: ANALYSIS - 2008 – 2011 BUSINESS PLAN, ALBERTA EDUCATION.................................................................................................... 333 APPENDIX M: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ........ 338
List of Tables

Table 1: Feenberg’s Table (1999) of Philosophical Positions.......................................34 Table 2: Jessop’s examples of KBE across sectors .......................................................76 Table 3: Theoretical Strategies ......................................................................................91 Table 4. Data sources: primary and secondary documents............................................113 Table 5. Interview participants ......................................................................................128 Table 6: Feenberg’s Table (1999) of Philosophical Positions.......................................137 Table 7: Prominent Discourses mapped to Feenberg’s Table (1999) of
Philosophical Positions...................................................................................142

List of Figures

Figure 1: Feenberg’s Table (1999) of Philosophical Positions-Instrumentalism ...
36, 143
Figure 2: Feenberg’s Table (1999) of Philosophical Positions – Determinism......
39, 151
Figure 3: Feenberg’s Table (1999) of Philosophical Positions – Substantivism....
42, 160
Figure 4: Feenberg’s Table (1999) of Philosophical Positions – Critical Theory..
46, 166

Chapter 1: Introduction
Questioning the solution: a vignette

I began my position as an education and technology consultant for my former district by spending time at each school to get a sense of the culture, the professional development needs of the teaching staff and leadership approach of the administrative team. I was immediately struck by the huge disparity between schools in terms of resources. Schools in middle to high socio-economic neighbourhoods tended to have engaged parent councils. In these schools, the parent councils were highly proficient in raising funds for technology by participating in supporting local casino events. There were also differences in the student populations with schools in low socio-economic neighbourhoods having relatively high numbers of special needs and immigrant children. However, across the district each administrative team expressed an interest in acquiring more technology or updating existing systems. I was not surprised by this general consensus but the level of commitment and the sense of urgency to do more, something, anything with technology reflected a certain inadequacy that was disconcerting.

1
One particular school visit was particularly perplexing. The school has the unfortunate distinction of being one of the lowest on the Fraser Institute rankings, a right-wing think tank report, each year. After the principal took me on a tour of the old (1911) building, we discussed the needs of the students and staff. The teaching assistants outnumber the teachers, the school relies on several social programs, issues with abuse, poverty and basic care are common. The principal concluded his long list of challenges with “and so we’re going to get some

Smartboards¹in here”. I was taken aback by his response because I couldn’t understand the connection between the litany of social issues and the Smartboard solution. “Smartboards?” I asked. “Well, we have to give these kids every advantage. They’re already starting out at the bottom. They need technology skills if they’re ever going to get a piece of the pie” the principal explained. As I drove back to the office, I tried to understand the principal’s rational. Where did this faith in technology come from and why are technology skills the ticket to a better future? Are the teachers and teacher assistants asking for Smartboards? Who is best served by the assumptions inlaid in the skills gap discourse taken up by the principal and supporting the Smartboard solution?