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

S. Danforth & S. Gabel (Editor), Alan Foley

Research output: Chapter in Book/Entry/PoemChapter

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
Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationVital Questions Facing Disability Studies in Educationital Questions Facing Disability Studies in Education
EditorsS. Danforth & S. Gabel
Place of PublicationNew York
PublisherPeter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Pages237-252
Number of pages16
ISBN (Print)0820478342
StatePublished - 2007

Publication series

NameVital Questions Facing Disability Studies in Educationital Questions Facing Disability Studies in Education

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Informing instructional technologies: Re-readings of policy, practice, and design'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this