Using the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Data Explorer, this analysis documents differences in student computer use across the states and across the years. A few noticeable trends emerged. First, there was a significant increase in the frequency of computer use, particularly for math, between 1998 and 2003. Second, elementary school students in the states of West Virginia, Georgia, and Mississippi continually exceed the national average with respect to reported daily (or almost daily) computer use. Finally, there is a regional aspect to student computer use in schools. Spurred by West Virginia and Florida initially, states in the southeastern quadrant of the country have experienced policy diffusion and have engaged in what can best be described as a digital horserace.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckerH. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right?Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51). Retrieved November 7, 2002, from http://epaa/asu.edu/epaa/v8n51
2.
BeckerJ. D. (2006). Digital equity in education: A multilevel examination of differences in and relationships between computer access, computer use and state-level technology policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(3). Retrieved August 6, 2008 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v15n3/
3.
Cohen-VogelL.IngleW. K.AlbeeA., & SpenceM. (2008). The “spread” of merit-based college aid: Politics, policy consortia and interstate competition. Educational Policy, 22(3), 339–362.
4.
DyeT. R. (1990). American federalism: Competition among governments.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
5.
Electronic Learning. (1983, November/December). EL's second annual survey of the states. Electronic Learning (pp. 62–71). New York: Scholastic, Inc.
6.
FowlerF. C. (2000). Converging forces: Understanding the growth of state authority over education. In TheobaldN. D. & MalenB. (Eds.), Balancing local control and state responsibility for K-12 education (pp. 123–146). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
7.
GrayV. (1973). Innovations in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review67, 1174–1191.
8.
GrissmerD.FlanaganA.KawataJ., & WilliamsonS. (2000). Improving student achievement: What state NAEP test scores tell us.Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
9.
HearnJ. C., & GriswoldC. P. (1994). State-level centralization and policy innovation in U.S. postsecondary education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(2), 161–190.
10.
HedgesL. V.KonstantopolousS., & ThoresonA. (2000). Computer use and its relation to academic achievement in mathematics, reading, and writing (NAEP Validity Studies).Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.
11.
IngleW. K.Cohen-VogelL., & HughesR. (2007). The public policy process among southeastern states: Elaborating theories of regional adoption and hold-out behavior. The Policy Studies Journal, 35(4), 607–628.
12.
JudgeS.PuckettK., & CabukB. (2004). Digital equity: New findings from the early childhood longitudinal study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 383–396.
13.
KirstM. W. (1987). The crash of the first wave. Bacharach, 85, 20–29.
14.
LemkeC., & ShawS. (1999). Education technology policies of the 50 states: Facts and figures.Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, Milken Family Foundation.
15.
MannD.ShakeshaftC.BeckerJ. D., & KottkampR. (1999). West Virginia story: Achievement gains from a statewide technology initiative.Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation.
16.
McLendonM. K.HellerD. E., & YoungS. (2005). State postsecondary education policy innovation: Politics, competition, and the interstate migration of policy ideas. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 363–400.
17.
MintromM., & VergariS. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. The Journal of Politics, 60(1), 126–148.
18.
National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–2005. (NCES No. 2007–020). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
19.
NorrisC.SullivanT.PoirotJ., & SolowayE. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 15–28.
20.
SilvernailD. L., & LaneDawn M. M. (2004, February). The impact of Maine's one-to-one laptop program on middle school teachers and students: Phase one summary evidence.Maine Education Policy Research Institute. Retrieved August 6, 2008 from http://www.usm.maine.edu/cepare/Reports/MLTI_Report1.pdf
21.
Southeastern Regional Council for Educational Improvement [SERCI]. (1983). Schooling & technology, Volume 1: State-level policy initiatives.North Carolina: SERCI.
22.
TheobaldN. D., & BardzellJ. (2000). Introduction and overview: Balancing local control and state responsibility for K-12 education. In TheobaldN. D. & MalenB. (Eds.), Balancing local control and state responsibility for K-12 education (pp. 3–18). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
23.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Technology literacy challenge fund: Report to Congress.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
24.
WalkerJ. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 880–899.
25.
ZhaoY., & ConwayP. (2001). What's in, what's out: An analysis of state educational technology plans. Teachers College Record, ID Number: 10717. Retrieved February 14, 2003 from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=10717
