Informing instructional technologies: Re-readings of policy, practice, and design

Abstract

In general, the field of instructional technology has not incorporated a devel- oped critical and sociocultural language into its discourse. There have been isolated attempts to bring issues of culture and production of knowledge to the forefront, but they have been sparse and infrequent (DeVaney, 1998; Hlynka and Belland, 1991; Streibel, 1986; Streibel, 1998). Most standard views of instructional technology are grounded in some form of “scientific” practice: behaviorism (e.g. Burton et al., 1996), cognitivism (e.g. Wynn and Snyder, 1996), systems theories (e.g. Banathy, 1996), or constructivism (e.g. Jonassen, 1990) Traditional approaches to instructional technology (qua instructional design) are typically predicated on the principles of systematic- ity, replicability, and predictability (Smith and Ragan, 1999). Unfortunately, many of these models fail to consider the social and cultural aspects of technology, and thus instructional technologists do not consider the broader role of technology within society