oAccept as is
oAccept with revisions as noted in review
oResubmit after major revisions as noted in review

This paper offers little in way of new contributions to the field. While the abstract
and introduction indicate the article will shed a different light on the technology
integration debate by focusing on the effect of educational policy on technology
integration, the paper offers no original research and no supporting documentation that
technology integration has increased or decreased based on the described policies.
Further, the paper does not advance theory or instructional design practice.

This discussion paper is not appropriate for the ETR&D Development section
which has a stated objective to publish not only research on instructional technologies
and learning environments, but also formative evaluations and theoretically-based
instructional design research papers. Papers published in ETR&D Development should

guide future theory and practice in the field. Unfortunately, this paper does not. The
declared focus of the paper is a discussion of the effect of educational policies and
legislation on technology integration. While it is conceivable that such a focus could offer
guidance to researchers and practitioners through both a synthesis of past educational
policy and recommendations for future policy action, this paper begins and ends as a
history paper on educational policy with no support for the thesis that educational policy
has increased (or decreased) technology integration. Further, the author fails to offer an
original interpretation of existing policy to guide future research or practice. Given that
the study offers little new contribution to the field and due to the deficiencies noted
elsewhere in this review, the recommendation is to reject the submission.

The clarity of writing in this paper is poor which makes it difficult to discern the author\u2019s intellectual plot line. While the paper promises a discussion of how educational policies and legislation have impacted technology integration, the author roams through a mix of Department of Education reports, popular press books, and opinion pieces without offering an effective synthesis of prior policy and legislation or the promised discussion of the effect on educational technology integration. In addition, the paper ends with weak conclusions and no recommendations for future direction in research, practice, or policy. The author also includes un-cited statements and personal opinions, as on page 9, line 49 in the statement that by 1992 \u201cthe nation was ready for a national educational agenda\u201d. Further, the paper has numerous grammatical errors, as in the sentence on page 12, line 1 which incorrectly describes President Clinton\u2019s belief in technology in education as \u201cnot a newphenomenon\u201d. In addition, the paper suffers from many awkwardly structured

sentences, as in the sentence on page 6, line 46 which states, \u201cWhat computers were not
used for during the early 1980s was the teaching of or was the support for teaching of
core academic course content.\u201d In addition, the APA 5th citation requirements are often
not followed, as in the citation on page 7, line 19.

The stated purpose of the paper is a discussion of how educational policies and legislation have impacted technology integration. Unfortunately, the author is does not fulfill this purpose in the paper. As discussed below, the author does not link policy to specific increases or decreases in technology integration.

The author\u2019s references include few peer-reviewed academic publications.
Instead, the author bases the paper on Department of Education papers, opinion pieces, as
well as popular press books, such as Friedman\u2019s The World is Flat, to describe
educational policy history. The paper would be stronger and deliver on its stated purpose
had the author presented evidence of changes in technology integration and linked the
changes in integration to changes in policy.

The author suggests in the abstract and introduction that while the educational
technology research community has focused on the effect of teacher belief change on
technology integration, such a focus is incomplete. Instead, the author argues educational
policies have influenced teachers\u2019 technology integration as much (more?) than teachers\u2019
beliefs about teaching and learning. It is expected that such an argument would be
followed by evidence to support the suggestion that policies have influenced technology