U.S.

NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN – ANAYTICAL REVIEW

1

Political Analysis of The United States Department of Education’s

National Education Technology Plan (NETP) and Policy

Jennifer A. Falestiny, M.Ed.

College of Education - PhD Instructional Design and Technology (IDT) Candidate,

Keiser University

Professor - Dr. Fuda Daddio

EDUC712 - Policy, Politics and Community Relations

October 10, 2018

U.S. NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN – ANAYTICAL REVIEW
2

Introduction

The United States is a nation that is becoming increasingly dependent on technology, but

at the same time is also “ignorant of the history and fundamental nature of the technology that

sustains it” (ITEA, 2007). This leads to a culture of citizens disengaged from the decisions that

are being made to shape the framework of the future of technology; in a country founded on

‘democratic principles, this is a dangerous situation” (ITEA, 2007). To keep up with the pace of

technological innovations, the U.S. Department of Education (Department of Educational

Technology) produces a yearly policy know as the National Education Technology Plan (NETP).

As new technology is introduced throughout the year, the NETP acts as a guide for educational

stakeholders to understand advancing innovations as well as new challenges faced by

stakeholders in U.S. Education. Technology is the present and future of education in the United

States and this policy is relevant to all teachers, administrators, and educational stakeholders

nationwide, as technology is becoming increasingly integrated throughout all aspects of

education.

Statement of Purpose

The following paper is an analytical review of the political policy known as the National

Education Technology Plan (NETP) developed by the United States Department of Education

(Education Technology Department). The purpose of this paper is to review two current issues in

technology education as stated in the NETP: 1. The Digital Use Divide and 2. Teacher

preparedness in classroom technology integration. The goal of this review is to focus on the ,

background of the National Education Technology Plan, the current challenge of the Digital Use

Divide, and perspective on teacher preparedness in classroom technology integration.

U.S. NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN – ANAYTICAL REVIEW
3

Review of Literature

National Education Technology Plan

The National Education Technology Plan (NETP) is a policy document updated yearly

discussing the topics of technology in the education system, specifically targeted on learning,

teaching, leadership, assessment, and infrastructure as it relates to technology. The policy,

written by the U.S. Department of Education (Education Technology Division), discusses yearly

advances, new and ongoing challenges faced. The policy also gives suggestions on improvement

and further research needed for new problems and or current relevant issues as it relates to

technology in education (ITEA, 2007).

In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education board completed a study

and stated that the nation was at risk in “5 major areas” (NCEE, 1983), one being

technology/computer science. In the report, it specified that all High School student graduates

should be proficient in computer technology (i.e., basic information, computation and

communication), and be able to use a computing system for personal or work-related problems.

It was also recommended that in addition to computers, students should also understand and have

basic knowledge of electronics and other related technologies by graduation (Culp, Honey, &

Mandinach, 2003). It wasn’t until 2000, with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) passing in

2001, that a national policy was written for technology in education; nearly twenty years prior, it

would have been difficult to predict the advancement in technology and its involvement in

education.

The NCLB Act stated that all students graduating from 8th grade should be

technologically literate and be able to “communicate, to locate and manage information, and,

perhaps most importantly, to use these tools effectively to support learning the content” (Culp,
U.S. NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN – ANAYTICAL REVIEW
4

Honey, & Mandinach, 2003) of core subjects. Succeeding the first NETP written in 2000, the

policy was updated every 5 years, until 2017 when policy writers announced that the policy will

be updated annually to keep up with the demand of advancing technology in education (DOE,

2017). With innovation comes new challenges; once the push for technology was put into action,

the first major challenge was closing the gap of the Digital Divide.

Digital Divide to Digital Use Divide

Within the last 10 years, a major challenge of advancing technology in the United States

was the ability to level the playing fields for our student population. Originally, this challenge

described in the NETP was known as the “Digital Divide”. The Digital Divide was described as

the division between those education institutions who had access to technology and broadband

internet vs. those institutions that did not because of lack of funding. After the No Child Left

Behind Act was passed in 2001, federal efforts were made in making technology available and

accessible to all, and as of 2016, 87% of U.S. Schools have internet access. (DOE b., 2017).

Today, student access to technology is “no longer a privilege: it is a prerequisite for full

participation in high-quality education opportunities” (Campbell, 2014). Technology has become

a part of the “basic infrastructure” of public education today (Campbell, 2014).

Today, as the pace of technological innovation quickens, research has found that

technology has revolutionized the way children of this generation “learn, play, communicate, and

socialize” (Venson, 2016), and simply becoming a “way of life” to our students. In 2017, the

opportunity to receive and use technology is more available to more students and schools around

the United States regardless of the socioeconomic status. Since technology is no ubiquitous,

policy makers changed the major issue in technology in education from the "Digital Divide" to
U.S. NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN – ANAYTICAL REVIEW
5

an issue of "Digital Use Divide" (Department of Education [DOE], 2017, pg.20) (Figure 1.

Infographic).

Figure 1. Digital Use Divide

Source: https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf

Digital Use Divide

The Digital Use Divide is described as: “the disparity between students who use

technology to create, design, build, explore, and collaborate and those who simply use

technology to consume media passively” (DOE, 2017) (see Figure 1.). The Department of

Technology Education warns that although connectivity and devices are available, they do not on

their own guarantee quality education, and without “thoughtful intervention and attention to the

way technology is used for learning, the digital use divide could grow even as access to
U.S. NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN – ANAYTICAL REVIEW
6

technology in schools increases” (DOE, 2017). Because technology is a normality to our

students, it is important to teach students how to be use technology appropriately and responsibly

as a tool.

Now that technology has become increasingly available as an educational resource, new

challenges arise with the new generation of students. As stated in the 2016 publication of the

NETP, the issue of the Digital Divide is no longer, and the challenge of technology in education

has shifted from the availability of technology to now the proper use of technology in education.

Researcher from the 2016 NETP have found that there is a divide between two major types of

technology users in students: passive, and active.

Passive use is described as consuming media content passively or simply completing

digitalized school work (worksheets, textbooks ect.). Active use is described as using technology

in a way that challenges the learner to use technology as a tool to produce innovative learning

outcomes. The NETP refers to this policy challenge as the “Digital Use Divide” and states that

teachers need to ensure their students understand how to use technology actively rather than

passively, to provide a foundation for life-long learning habits for our students (NEPT, 2016).

The challenge that this presents is that there are no suggestions on how to implement active vs.

passive use in the policy and currently there are no nationally recognized (or adopted) models for

classroom technology integration for teachers to follow (ie. Bloom’s Taxonomy). Teachers are

given technology but not the proper training on how to use it effectively in classroom instruction.

Today’s generation is the most connected generation to date and with that there are pros

and cons (Reinhart,Thomas, & Toriskie, 2015). Technology used actively can be a revolutionary

learning tool allowing for students of all learning modalities the ability to have personalized
U.S. NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN – ANAYTICAL REVIEW
7

comprehensive learning opportunities. Technology used to consume passive content can pose

several cons including occupational therapy risk, developmental issues, anxiety/depression, and

dependence/addiction (Hatch, 2011). Knowing this, as teachers we have a moral obligation to

help our students become well-rounded individuals in all aspects of education. As technology is

now a common education tool, it is our responsibility to know the way technology should be

used and what can happen with misuse. Just as we teach appropriate habits when it comes to the

use of any other tool in education from a young age (scissors, exacto knives, hot glue ect.), we

have to look at technology as another “tool”. Students need to learn from an early age of what is

appropriate and what is not appropriate when it comes to everyday use of technology.

Teacher Preparedness

In 2016, research gathered through the Department of Education Technology shows over

50% of U.S. teachers desire more technology training (Department of Education [DOE], 2017).

It is important to remember that technology is new to our educators, not to our students. Teachers

require new and updated training as new technology is introduced or teachers will not be able to

effectively implement that technology into their classrooms (Roach, 2010). Educational

technology effectiveness towards improving student learning depends on how the technology is

used, supported, and implemented by teachers and students (Campbell, 2014).

According to research conducted by Dr. Quadrini (2013), studying the concerns of

teachers in integrating technology, she found that many educators do not have the skills or

comfort levels to integrate technology into instruction. Dr. Quadrini also states in her

observations that teachers need support to “ensure they have mastered the skill level required to
U.S. NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN – ANAYTICAL REVIEW
8

use technology in teaching practices” (Quadrini, 2013). As stated above, in addition to

Quadrini’s study in 2013, the NEPT still found that over 50% of teachers request more

technology training, and that has remained a trend over the last 10 years (DOE, 2017). The

Department of Education Technology produced a policy brief in 2017 called Advancing

Educational Technologies in Teacher Preparedness, in which there are some broad suggestions

on integrating technology, but no actual procedures are noted.

In 2010, a research study was conducted by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

studying the use of technology in children and adolescence. Researchers found that on average a

child between the ages of 8 and 18 are using media technology for 10.75 hours a day as a

mixture of independent use and while multi-tasking (television, cellphones, computers ect.)

(Rideout, Foehr, Roberts, & Kaiser, 2010). The report also finds that students under the category

of passive users (Figure 1.) or heavy users of technology have on average lower course grades

and test scores than students who are using technology more actively as a learning tool.

After reviewing the report from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2015 Kuyatt,

Bishop, & Jones of Texas A&M University, conducted a research study to observe teacher

effectiveness related to technology integration in secondary education. The study observed 46

middle school teachers from public schools located in Region 2 of southern Texas. Teachers

from the study filled out a Technology Use Survey and submitted their responses along with

their students’ exams. Student exam scores from the STAAR (State of Texas Assessment of

Academic Readiness) assessment were compared with the Technology Use Survey from the

teacher of each class. The goal of the study was to see if there was a correlation between the use

of technology integration and student test scores.

U.S. NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN – ANAYTICAL REVIEW
9

Teachers observed in this study were compared in two groups based on the survey

results: one group who did not use technology to prepare for exams and one group that did use

technology to prepare for the exams. In the study it was concluded that student scores were

higher in the classrooms that did not use technology to prepare over the classrooms that did use

technology to prepare. It is important to understand that after reviewing the responses from the

Technology Use Surveys, it was found that most teachers using technology to prepare for the

exams, were using technology passively by means of digital documents, and digital text books.

The surveys show that teachers were not implementing technology in an active approach to

promote higher-level cognitive learning outcomes (Kuyatt, Bishop, & Jones, 2015). This shows

that technology used in a passive way can be detrimental to student learning outcomes. It was

also suggested by the study that the administrative teams and district needs to determine a

method of instructional strategy of how to effectively integrate classroom technology in a way

that is active not passive.

As teachers, we have an obligatory ethical responsibility to teach our students good habits

and how to use technology as a tool to close the gap of the Digital Use Divide. Currently there is

not adopted or standardized technology integration model for U.S. Education. It is up to

individual schools and school districts to either develop their own technology integration model

focused on the NETP policy definition of active vs. passive use, or to adopt an existing model

created or adopted by other school districts or by individual educational professionals. To close

the gap of the Digital Use Divide, it is important to recognize that the divide will not close

without the proper educational technology training administered to our Nation’s teachers.
U.S. NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN – ANAYTICAL REVIEW
10

Suggestions

The National Education Technology Plan Policy states that “on its own, access to

connectivity and devices does not guarantee access to engaging educational experiences or a

quality education and without thoughtful intervention and attention to the way technology is used

for learning, the digital use divide could grow even as access to technology in schools increases”

(NETP, 2017, Pg.20). Our students need proper training to understand what is considered as

“active” use of technology vs. “passive” use of technology and understand the dangers it can

present. Because of not having a baseline or standard of instruction, teachers are not given a

clear, unified direction of how to effectively implement technology into classroom instruction.

For our students, technology is a way of life, and that is the issue; the technology is becoming a

mere replacement in areas that it does not need to be and creating a crutch rather than an

innovation (Falestiny, 2016). Teachers lacking technology training sometimes assume that any

technology in the classroom is good; when that is not the case (Roach, 2015).

In past research, the author (Falestiny) explored the SAMR Model (Figure 2),

popularized by Dr. Ruben Puentedura, to help serve as a guide for classroom technology

integration (Netolicka, & Simonova, 2017). SAMR stands for Substitution, Augmentation,

Modification and Redefinition, and the model stresses on the importance of implementing

technology in the transformative stages of Modification and Redefinition, to help challenge the

learners and produce greater outcomes (Falestiny, 2016).

U.S. NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN – ANAYTICAL REVIEW
11

Figure 2. SAMR Model

Source:http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2012/08/23/SAMR_BackgroundEx

emplars.pdf

To streamline the ideas of the SAMR model with the policy stated in the FETP, Falestiny

developed a technology implementation model known as the TAP Technology Triangle (Figure

3). The TAP model was developed as a framework implementing technology in an action

research project studying the effectiveness of higher-level technology integration in promoting

creative and innovative outcomes through project based learning in middle school STEM classes.

The TAP Technology Triangle is broken into three tiers uses of technology integration:

Transformative use, Active use and Passive use. The TAP Technology Triangle is a

constructivist approach to technology integration modeled after policy in the 2016 National

Education Technology Plan (NETP).

The TAP integration model is intended to act as a framework for classroom teachers to

use as a guide in integrating technology into their classes. The model is intended to be used as a

reference for educators to consciously implement technology in a way that challenges our

students learning throughout all aspects of learning. In compliance with the NETP, technology
U.S. NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN – ANAYTICAL REVIEW
12

should be implemented in the Active Tier, but educators should strive to implement technology

in the Transformative Tier. Technology should be limited in the Passive Tier as research shows

that technology implemented in a “passive” way is detrimental to student growth and

achievement (NETP, 2016) (Falestiny, 2016).

Figure 3. TAP Technology Triangle

Source: http://falesteamy.weebly.com

To close the gap of the Digital Use Divide, we must first train our educators on how to do

so. Without proper training for our teachers, the Digital Use Divide will continue to grow and

could result in a drastic disconnect between teachers and students in the classroom (NETP,

2016). Teachers need to understand what technology integration is, what is considered as passive

technology use and what is considered as active technology use. It is suggested for stakeholders

to continue to develop independent training for teachers on technology in the classroom. As this

has been a recurring concern over the past 10 years, it poses the question as to why the nation’s

educational technology leaders have yet to develop a common framework for the proper use of
U.S. NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN – ANAYTICAL REVIEW
13

technology integration in the classroom. It is recommended that further qualitative research be

conducted on technology integration to aid in the development of a strategic plan to train our

nation’s educators on how to close the Digital Use Divide gap. Furthermore, it is suggested that

schools and districts either develop or adopt a strategic technology integration model to be used

consciously by educators while implementing technology into daily lessons.

Conclusion

Technology is evolving, and it is available in almost every classroom in the United States

(NETP, 2016). The technology available to our educators is being used in the classroom, but

teachers still state that they are unsure of how to properly use technology in their day-to day

lessons (Kuyatt, Bishop, & Jones, 2010). According to the 2016 annual report from the NETP,

there is a Digital Use Divide between students using technology passively to consume content

and students using technology actively as a tool to promote higher-level learning outcomes. The

NETP urges teachers to ensure that our students understand how to use technology actively not

passively.

Research shows that students are using technology to consume information passively at

an average of upwards to 10 hours or more a day. Research also shows that passive use of

technology is detrimental to our students’ well-being, health, and academic achievement.

Teachers have been asking for continued training on technology for the past 10 years (Culp,

Honey, & Mandinach, 2003) and are still reporting they feel unprepared when it comes to

effective technology implementation in the classroom (Roach, 2015). Currently there are no

“Nationally Adopted” instructional strategy models that put the NETP policy of technology
U.S. NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN – ANAYTICAL REVIEW
14

integration into practice, therefore resulting in a disconnect in teacher understanding for

classroom technology integration. It can be assumed that because there isn’t a clear

implementation model of how to integrate technology actively and effectively, teacher training

opportunities for technology integration are virtually non-existent (Kuyatt, Bishop, & Jones,

2010).

In conclusion, it is suggested that individual schools and/or districts review the NETP and

either develop their own plan for technology integration or adopt a pre-existing model used by

other educators or schools that aligns with the policy of the NETP. Policy is useless without

active practice and movement. Technology is the future, and our students depend on the

educators today to act and put the NETP policy into practice by holding themselves accountable

for teaching our future leaders responsible use of technology. If we build a strong foundation for

technology use today, our students will be ready to use future technology in a way that

challenges what we know about education and our world.

U.S. NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN – ANAYTICAL REVIEW
15

References

Campbell, M. (Ed.). (2014). Learning Technology Effectiveness. U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Education Technology. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/wp-

content/uploads/2014/11/Learning-Technology-Effectiveness-Brief.pdf.

Culp, K., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E., (2003). A Retrospective on Twenty Years of Education

Technology Policy. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.

Retrieved from: https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/20years.pdf

Falestiny, J. (2016). Technology Integration to Promote Creative and Innovative Outcomes in

Project Based Engineering and Design Lessons. University of San Diego. Retrieved

from: https://falesteamy.weebly.com/project-overview.html

Hatch,K. (2011). Determining the Effects of Technology on Children. Digital Commons-

University of Rhode Island. Retrieved from:

https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1212

&context=srhonorsprog

ITEA (International Technology Education Association). (2007). Standards for Technological

Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology. International Technology Education

Association. Reston, Virginia. Retrieved from:

https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=67767&v=b26b7852

Kuyatt, A., Holland, G., & Jones, D. (2015). An analysis of teacher effectiveness related to

technology implementation in texas secondary schools. Contemporary Issues in

Education Research (Online), 8(1), 63. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.prx-

keiser.lirn.net/docview/1655539254?accountid=35796
U.S. NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN – ANAYTICAL REVIEW
16

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (April, 1983). A nation at risk. Available

online at http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

Netolicka, J., & Simonova, I. (2017). SAMR Model and Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy Applied in

Blended Learning/Teaching of General English and ESP. 2017 International Symposium

on Educational Technology (ISET). doi:10.1109/iset.2017.68

Quadrini, V. (2013). Teacher-Education Student Perceptions for Stages of Concern Related to

Integrating Technology. Retrieved from:

file:///C:/Users/jenni/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bb

we/TempState/Downloads/Teacher-education_student_perc.pdf

Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., Roberts, D. F., & Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2010).

Generation M[superscript 2]: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds. Henry J. Kaiser

Family Foundation. Retrieved from http://prx-

keiser.lirn.net/login?url=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%

3dtrue%26db%3deric%26AN%3dED527859%26site%3dehost-live

Reinhart, J., Thomas, E., & Toriskie, J. (2015). K-12 Teachers: Technology Use and the Second

Level Digital Divide. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38(3), 181-193. Retrieved

from:http://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=76117154&S=R

&D=ehh&EbscoContent=dGJyMNHX8kSeqLA40dvuOLCmr1Cep7BSs6

4SLOWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMOnb4Ye549 B7LHjgO3p8gAA

Roach, B. (2010). Educational technology in the classroom from the teacher's perspective (Order

No. 3398012). Available from ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses

Global; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global: The Humanities and Social Sciences
U.S. NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN – ANAYTICAL REVIEW
17

Collection. (220003368). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.prx-

keiser.lirn.net/docview/220003368?accountid=35796

US Department of Education Office of Educational Technology (A.). (2017). Reimagining the Role of

Technology in Education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update [2].

Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf

US Department of Education Office of Educational Technology (B.). (2017). Advancing Educational

Technologies in Teacher Preparedness: Policy Brief [2]. Retrieved from

https://tech.ed.gov/files/2016/12/Ed-Tech-in-Teacher-Preparation-Brief.pdf

Venson, Nel C.,(2016). A Multi-case Study on Teaching Practices and How Teachers Use

Technology to Support Scientific Inquiry in 1:1 Classrooms.https://search-proquest-

com.prx-keiser.lirn.net/docview/2058680095