International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education / Revue internationale du e-learning et la formation à distance

Vol. 41 No. 1 (2026)
Research Articles

Educational Technology: Bridging the Gap Between Policy and Practice

HTML PDF
Sana Jamil
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2026.v41.i1.1397

Published 2026-07-21

How to Cite

Jamil, S. (2026). Educational Technology: Bridging the Gap Between Policy and Practice. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 41(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2026.v41.i1.1397
Copyright Notice

Abstract

No empirical investigations have attempted to explore the integration of educational technology along with policy in K-12 schools, despite continuous investments by the Newfoundland and Labrador Government (Education and Early Childhood Development, 2020). This study explores how educational technology policies shape teachers’ use of technology. Specifically, the study seeks to understand the mechanisms through which policy decisions impact elementary teachers' instructional practices in Newfoundland and Labrador Schools. The study is guided by the following research questions: (1) How do provincial policies shape teachers' use of educational technology in classrooms? (2) What are the existing policy frameworks that support or hinder the implementation of educational technology? and (3) How do teachers perceive the relevance and effectiveness of these policies in their instructional practices? Guided by Feenberg’s (1991) critical theory of technology and a qualitative single case study approach, data were gathered through documents, a questionnaire, interviews, and classroom observations. Findings emphasize the need for administrative support and planning, ongoing professional development, and teacher involvement in policy design. A new implementation model called the Educational Technology Action Cycle is proposed, thereby integrating elements from Deliverology and the Alberta Teachers’ Association professional development planning cycle. The study offers recommendations to align policy, investment, and professional learning for more effective technology integration in education.

Technologies éducatives : combler l’écart entre les politiques et les pratiques

Résumé : Aucune étude empirique n’a jusqu’à présent cherché à examiner l’intégration des technologies éducatives en lien avec les politiques publiques dans les écoles primaires et secondaires, malgré les investissements continus du gouvernement de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador (Education and Early Childhood Development, 2020). Cette étude analyse la manière dont les politiques relatives aux technologies éducatives influencent l’usage que les enseignants font des technologies. Plus précisément, elle vise à comprendre les mécanismes par lesquels les décisions politiques affectent les pratiques pédagogiques des enseignants du primaire dans les écoles de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador.

L’étude est guidée par les questions de recherche suivantes : (1) De quelle manière les politiques provinciales influencent-elles l’utilisation des technologies éducatives par les enseignants en classe ? (2) Quels sont les cadres politiques existants qui soutiennent ou entravent la mise en œuvre des technologies éducatives ? et (3) Comment les enseignants perçoivent-ils la pertinence et l’efficacité de ces politiques dans leurs pratiques pédagogiques ?

S’appuyant sur la théorie critique de la technologie de Feenberg (1991) et sur une approche qualitative fondée sur une étude de cas unique, les données ont été recueillies à l’aide de documents, d’un questionnaire, d’entretiens et d’observations en classe. Les résultats soulignent l’importance du soutien administratif et de la planification, du développement professionnel continu ainsi que de la participation des enseignants à l’élaboration des politiques. Un nouveau modèle de mise en œuvre, appelé Cycle d’action des technologies éducatives (Educational Technology Action Cycle), est proposé. Ce modèle intègre des éléments issus de la Deliverology et du cycle de planification du développement professionnel de l’Association des enseignants de l’Alberta. L’étude formule enfin des recommandations visant à mieux harmoniser les politiques, les investissements et le développement professionnel afin de favoriser une intégration plus efficace des technologies en éducation.

Mots-clés : technologies éducatives, mise en œuvre des politiques, développement professionnel des enseignants, écoles primaires et secondaires.

HTML PDF

References

  1. Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2005). Professional development planning framework. Alberta Teachers’ Association. https://aplc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/A-Guide-to-Comprehensive-PD-Planning-2.pdf
  2. Alberta Education. (2013). Learning and technology policy framework. Government of Alberta. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/6354617/resource/72df59e2-f1b9-47e0-accc-cb932bdf37a9
  3. Barber, M., Moffit, A., & Kihn, P. (2011). Deliverology 101: A field guide for educational leaders. Corwin Press.
  4. Bashir, M., Afzal, M. T., & Azeem, M. (2008). Reliability and validity of qualitative and operational research paradigm. Pakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation Research, 35–45. https://doi.org/10.18187/pjsor.v4i1.59
  5. Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Education policy: Process, themes and impact. Routledge.
  6. Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2015). Education policy: Process, themes and impact. Routledge.
  7. Cerna, L. (2013). The nature of policy change and implementation: A review of different theoretical approaches. OECD. https://www.luciecerna.com/uploads/5/1/2/5/5125288/the_nature_of_policy_change_and_implementation.pdf
  8. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
  9. Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: The power of the bottom over the top. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 339–347. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737012003339
  10. Dede, C., Honan, J. P., & Peters, L. C. (2005). Scaling up success: Lessons from technology-based educational improvement. Jossey-Bass.
  11. Department of Education. (2013). Safe and caring schools policy. Newfoundland and Labrador Government. https://www.gov.nl.ca/education/files/k12_safeandcaring_policy.pdf
  12. Devault., G. (2018). Establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research. Retrieved October 29, 2025 from https://www.thebalancesmb.com/establishing-trustworthiness-in-qualitative-research-2297042
  13. Education and Early Childhood Development. (2020). Digital learning in K-12 education. Newfoundland and Labrador Government.
  14. Education Accord NL. (2025). Education accord: Interim report (2023–2033). https://educationaccordnl.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Education-Accord_InterimReport_web.pdf
  15. Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. Oxford University Press.
  16. Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.
  17. Government of Alberta. (2013). Learning and technology policy framework. Government of Alberta. https://education.alberta.ca/media/1046/learning-and-technology-policy-framework-web.pdf
  18. Haddad, W. D., & Demsky, T. (1995). Education policy-planning process: An applied framework. UNESCO.
  19. Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2002). Implementing public policy: Governance in theory and in practice. Sage.
  20. Honig, M. I. (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity. State University of New York Press. https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9780791481431_A40634836/preview-9780791481431_A40634836.pdf
  21. Hopfenbeck, T. N., Flórez Petour, M. T., & Tolo, A. (2015). Balancing trust and accountability? The assessment for learning programme in Norway: A governing complex education systems case study. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 117, OECD Publishing.
  22. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
  23. Machado, L., & Chung, C. (2015). School leadership and technology integration: The pivotal role of principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(5), 653–671.
  24. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage publications.
  25. McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178.
  26. MediaSmart. (2015). Mapping digital literacy policy and practice in the Canadian education system. MediaSmart. https://mediasmarts.ca/sites/default/files/publication-report/full/mapping-digital-literacy.pdf
  27. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
  28. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. (3rd ed.). Sage publications. https://www.metodos.work/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Qualitative-Data-Analysis.pdf
  29. Murphy, R., Roschelle, J., Feng, M., & Mason, C. A. (2020). Investigating efficacy, moderators and mediators for an online mathematics homework intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(2), 235–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1710885
  30. Nakamura, R. T., & Smallwood, F. (1980). The politics of policy implementation. St. Martin’s Press.
  31. OECD. (2015). Education policy outlook 2015: Making reforms happen. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2015/01/education-policy-outlook-2015_g1g4b5cf/9789264225442-en.pdf
  32. OECD. (2017). The OECD handbook for innovative learning environments. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2017/06/the-oecd-handbook-for-innovative-learning-environments_g1g7aeda/9789264277274-en.pdf
  33. O’Toole, L. J. (2004). The theory–practice issue in policy implementation research. Public Administration, 80(2), 309–329. https://live.unpad.ac.id/pluginfile.php/1718287/mod_resource/content/1/otoole2004.pdf
  34. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage.
  35. Rowe, T. (2011). Lost in Translation: Mobilizing smart in Ontario Public Schools (pp. 1–148). Wilfrid Laurier University.
  36. Sargeant, J. (2012). Qualitative research part II: Participants, analysis, and quality assurance. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-11-00307.1
  37. Saskatchewan Ministry of Education. (2015). Digital citizenship education in Saskatchewan schools: Policy planning guide. Government of Saskatchewan.
  38. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2009). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Pearson.
  39. Suggett, D. (2011). Classifying implementation challenges: A four-part matrix. OECD.
  40. Tisdell, E. J., Merriam, S. B., & Stuckey-Peyrot, H. L. (2025). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
  41. Wurzburg, G. (2010). Making reform happen: Lessons from OECD countries. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2010/05/making-reform-happen_g1ghce4e/9789264086296-en.pdf