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 21st century 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, 21st century 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 ......................................................................................