The purpose of this study was threefold: to expand on existing reviews of 20 years of educational technology policy in the United States, to perform an empirical content analysis of the four National Education Technology Plan (NETP) documents issued by the Department of Education since 1996, and to provide a dialectic analysis of the evolution of U.S. e-learning policy. The content analysis revealed that, as the United States aims to reestablish its leadership role internationally, with a focus on global competitiveness, a sense of urgency is communicated in the development of e-learning policy and general education reform over time throughout each of the NETP documents, justifying the need for increased funding and support for federal level initiative in terms of educational technology policy. Through a dialectical analysis, endemic tensions within the NETP discourse become apparent in the competing visions of education as a means of both conferring economic fluency and mobility to individuals within the society.
AbramS. (2005). The role of e-learning in the K-12 space. MultiMedia & Internet@Schools, 12, 19-21.
2.
AdgerC. T. (2006). Discourse in educational settings. In SchriffenD.TannenD.HamiltonH. E. (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 503-517). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
3.
BanselP. (2011). Becoming academic: A reflection on doctoral candidacy. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 543-556. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.594592
4.
BlolandH. G. (1995). Postmodernism and higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 66, 521-559. doi:10.2307/2943935
5.
BlolandH. G. (2005). Whatever happened to postmodernism and higher education?: No requiem in the new millennium. The Journal of Higher Education, 76, 121-150. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3838720
6.
DavisB.SumaraD. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
DittlerU.KahlerH.KindtM.SchwarzC. (Eds.). (2005). E-learning in Europe-Learning Europe. Munich, Germany: Waxmann.
8.
DoughertyC. (2004). How states can use information technology to support school improvement under NCLB. White Paper prepared for the U.S. Department of Education Secretary’s No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit, National Center for Educational Accountability, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.chlive.org/jburns/Rowan/Information_Technology.pdf
Guri-RosenbiltS. (2005). Eight paradoxes in the implementation process of e-learning in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 18, 5-29. doi:10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300069
11.
HardeeK.FeranilI.BoezwinkleJ.ClarkB. (2004). A framework for analyzing the components of family planning, reproductive health, maternal health, and HIV/AIDS policies. Policy Working Papers Series, 11, 1-38. Retrieved from http://www.policyproject.com/pubs/workingpapers/wps-11.pdf
12.
HasselB. C.TerrellM. G. (2004). How can virtual schools be a vibrant part of meeting the choice provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act?White Paper prepared for the U.S. Department of Education Secretary’s No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit, National Center for Educational Accountability, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nmoled.org/Hassel-Terrell-VirtualSchools.pdf
13.
HirschlandM. J.SteinmoS. (2003). Correcting the record: Understanding the history of federal intervention and failure in securing U.S. educational reform. Educational Policy, 17, 343-364. doi:10.1177/0895904803017003003
14.
JamesonF. (2009). Valences of the dialectic. London, England: Verso.
15.
KingK. P.GriggsJ. K. (2006). Harnessing innovative technology in higher education. Madison, WI: Attwood Press.
16.
KleimanG. W. (2004). Meeting the need for high quality teachers: E-learning solutions. White Paper prepared for the U.S. Department of Education Secretary’s No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit, National Center for Educational Accountability, U.S. Department of Education.
17.
McMillan CulpK.HoneyM.MandinachE. (2003). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Education Development Center, Center for Children and Technology, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/20years.pdf
18.
MendezF.MendezM. (2009). Comparing privacy regimes: Federal theory and the politics of privacy regulation in the European Union and the United States. The Journal of Federalism, 40, 617-645. doi:10.1093/publius/pjp031
NjengaJ.FourieC. (2010). The myths about e-learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 199-212. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00910.x
21.
OblingerD. G.HawkinsB. L. (2005). The myth about e-learning: “Why we don’t need to worry about e-learning anymore.”EDUCAUSE Review, 40, 14-15. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm05411.pdf
22.
Office of Technology Assessment. (1988). Power on! New tools for teaching and learning (OTASET-379). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
23.
PetersM. A.ArayaD. (Eds.). (2011). The U.S. National Education Technology Plan—Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology [Special issue]. E-Learning and Digital Media, 8(2). Retrieved from http://www.wwwords.co.uk/elea/content/pdfs/8/issue8_2.asp
24.
RoseR.WaksL. (2012). The National Education Technology Plan: Continuing the dialogue. E-Learning and Digital Media, 9, 96-99. doi:10.2304/elea.2012.9.1.96
25.
Roumell ErichsenE. A.SalajanF. D. (2014). A comparative analysis of e-learning policy formulation in the European Union and the United States: Discursive convergence and divergence. Comparative Education Review, 58, 135-165. doi:10.1086/674095
26.
SalajanF. D. (2007). The European eLearning Programme(s): Between rhetoric and reality. European Educational Research Journal, 6, 364-381. doi:10.2304/eerj.2007.6.4.364
27.
SangràA.VlachopoulosD.CabreraN. (2012). Building an inclusive definition of e-learning: An approach to the conceptual framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1161/2146
28.
ScottB. (1995). A systems-based approach to policymaking. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 12, 323-324. doi:10.1002/sres.3850120416
29.
ServageL. (2009). The scholarship of teaching and learning and the neo-liberalization of higher education: Constructing the “entrepreneurial learner.”Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 39, 25-44. Retrieved from http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/cjhe/article/download/484/511
30.
ShuyR. W. (2006). Discourse analysis in the legal context. In SchriffenD.TannenD.HamiltonH. E. (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 437-452). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
WaightC. L.WillgingP.WentlingT. (2004). Recurrent themes in e-learning: A narrative analysis of major e-learning reports. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5, 195-203.
36.
WaksL. J. (2011). Transforming American education: Revolution or counter-revolution?E-Learning and Digital Media, 8, 145-153. doi:10.2304/elea.2011.8.2.145
37.
WalkerG. E.GoldeC. M.JonesL.BueschelA. C.HutchingsP. (Eds.), (2008). The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
38.
WilsonJ. (2006). Political discourse. In SchriffenD.TannenD.HamiltonH. E. (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 398-415). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
