Henderson, L. (1996). Instructional design of interactive multimedia: A cultural critique. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(4), 85-104. doi:10.1007/BF02299823
“The article explores the proposition that the selective traditions of instructional design consist of values, ideologies and images which act in the interests of particular cultural (class and gendered) groups.” (p 85)
“The journey to this conclusion involves the realization that instructional design and instructional designers do not exist in a vacuum; nor are they neutral. As part of their social and cultural fabric, they influence and are influenced by particular world views; their class, gender, culture, values, and ideologies; selected learning theories; and particular instructional design paradigms.” (p 85)
[Definitions of culture (p 85-86).]
“She contends that computer generated artistic and scientific graphics reveal characteristics associated with three world views: the prediction control model of modernism, the relativistic model of postmodernism, and a connectivity paradigm suggested by chaos theory and computer models of complex, dynamic self-organizing phenomena.” (p 86)
“A prevalent characteristic of the modern world view is dependence on a conceptual view of information as hierarchical and time as linear and sequential. … As the example reveals, differing world views coexist thus indicating that cultural change and continuity occur simultaneously.” (p 86)
“Another major breakdown and boundary appears with what Jones (1993) sees as the emergence of a third world view that is characterized by connectivity, that is, simultaneous unity in diversity as a structure of knowledge, ordered unpredictability, and non-linearity.” (p 86-87)
“The Internet is also proving to be a culture that condones verbal aggression, that is, ‘flaming.’ As a non-negotiable socialization strategy, flaming is justified on the grounds that, because it minimizes wastage of time, it provides a more effective way of keeping listservs manageable than the use of the gentler etiquette of reprimand usually found in face-to-face encounters.” (p 87)
“Instructional design can de-emphasize or amplify factors and thereby shape symbolic and material culture.” (p 87)
[Heading: "Objectivism" (p 88)]
“In summary, objectivist instructional design structures the environment, provides accurate information, is sequential, direct, and rewards performance so that learning is cumulative, receptive, and involves practicing, performing, and giving accurate information on demand. Objectivist instructional design creates IMM environments reflecting a modernist world view.” (p 88)
[Heading: "Constructivism" (p 88)]
“… although reality exists independent of the knower, what is known is individually and collectively constructed …” (p 88)
“The IMM program would contain educational activities that reflect the seven constructivist values of collaboration, personal autonomy, generativity, active engagement, reflectivity, personal relevance, and plurality of perspectives rather than the objectivist values of replicability, reliability, communication, and control (Lebow, 1993).” (p 88)
“The constructivist design emphasis is on providing enabling experiences in authentic versus decontextualized contexts, and cultivating learning processes versus learning outcomes (Choi & Hannafin, 1995).” (p 88)
“Constructivist design creates IMM environments that combine elements from the postmodernist (such as the emphasis on context and multiple realities) and connectivity world views (such as non-linearity and ordered unpredictability) (d. You, 1993).” (p 89)
[Heading: "Eclectic paradigm" (p 89]
“… the ‘critical theory-neomarxist-postmodern-praxis paradigm,’ … questions the neutrality of instructional design and the designer, and seeks to expose the ‘hidden curriculum’ underlying the cultural, gender, and class assumptions inherent in the design process and the designed artifact.” (p 89)
[Heading: "Culture Blind" (p 89)]
“First, what often occurs with deracialization is an unintentional exclusion and silencing of issues of cultural contextualization because of a ‘culture blind’ or unconscious culturally homogeneous approach to IMM instructional design, whether it is driven by an instructivist or constructivist pedagogy.” (p 90)
[Heading: "Learning Theory" (p 90)]
“What can result is IMM courseware that is a self-contained, insulated entity where the user has no identity other than ‘the learner’ and no other major concern than the replication of knowledge (if the IMM software favors an instructivist approach to design) or the construction of knowledge (a constructivist approach) (d. Scheel and Branch, 1993).” (p 90)
“The accumulated achievements (language, ways of thinking and doing, etc.) of particular cultural groups mold the intellectual development of the individual (Gallimore & Tharp, 1990).” (p 90)
[Heading: "Inclusive or perspectives paradigm" (p 91)]
“In an inclusive or perspectives paradigm, instructional design is driven by social justice and equity issues while instructional design solutions range from soft to hard multiculturalism or what Scheel and Branch (1993) term, ‘mild to strong interventions’ (p.9).” (p 91)
[Heading: "Tokenism" (p 92)]
“Tokenism is another instructional design issue. … also occurs in IMM packages when the music, pictures, and first language of the students’ cultures are incorporated as fill-ins or in ways that have nothing to do with the content being interrogated.” (p 92)
“Minority ethnic groups or developing nations looking for technological solutions to their educational and training needs will not be well served by packages designed for a majority Western culture. Instructional design of IMM materials needs to empower, extend, and enrich the students’ culturally specific knowledge and ways of thinking and achieve a nexus between these and the demands of the required academic culture.” (p 93)
[Heading: "Inverted curriculum approach to instructional design" (p 93)]
“Inverting the curriculum means instructionally designing a topic from the minorities’ perspectives, that is, endowing it with a critical theory-postmodernist paradigm.” (p 93)
[Heading: "Multiple cultural model" (p 94)]
“A major weakness in the multicultural, inclusive and inverted paradigms is avoidance of the cognitive, epistemological, and philosophical aspects of cultural educational contexts.” (p 94)
“… the multiple cultural model belongs in the eclectic paradigm as it incorporates particular elements from (a) the behaviorist-constructivist-critical theory paradigms, (b) both mainstream and minority cultures, and (c) the modernist, postmodernist, and interconnectivity world views. It is informed by Vygotskian learning theory and sees the zone of proximal development as particularly relevant.” (p 94)
[Heading: "Pedagogic dimensions in the multiple cultural model" (p 95)]
“… Reeves (1992) identified 14 pedagogic dimensions of interactive learning; after a critique by Henderson (1994) a 15th, cultural context, was added. Each dimension is represented as a continuum with a graduated range of values between the two extremes that, in effect, represent the behaviorist school of instructional design and the constructivist school (see Figure 1).” (p 95)
[Heading: "Epistemology" (p 97)]
“Standpoint epistemology questions the assumption that ‘the social identity of the observer is irrelevant to the `goodness` of the research asserting that the racism and sexism of western knowledge is both highly visible and damaging; … that [scientific] norms themselves appear to be biased in so far as they have been incapable of detecting ethnocentrism and androcentrism’ (McDonald, 1992, p.4). Standpoint epistemology also challenges the belief that knowledge and politics can be divorced.” (p 97-98)
“Constructivist epistemology argues for a multiplicity of perspectives. Standpoint epistemology ensures that the politics inherent in theories about the nature of knowledge are important foci. In so doing, it brings into question the notion of perspective, particularly when applied to ethnic/racial minorities.” (p 98)
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.
Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 4-16.
- Aabø (2005). The role and value of public libraries in the age of digital technologies.
- Gervais (2011). Finding the faithless: Perceived atheist prevalence reduces anti-atheist prejudice.
- Dorner & Gorman (2011). Contextual Factors Affecting Learning in Laos and the Implications for Information Literacy Education.
- Gervais, Shariff, & Norenzayan (2011). Do you believe in atheists? Distrust is central to anti-atheist prejudice.
- Goleman (2000). Emotional intelligence: Issues in paradigm building.
- Smith (1996). David A. Kolb on experiential learning.
- Bruffee (1995). Sharing our toys: Cooperative learning versus collaborative learning.
- Britz (2004). To Know or Not to Know: A Moral Reflection on Information Poverty.
- Wright (2010). Twittering in teacher education.
- Kinasevych (2011). Considering culture in e-learning environments and post-secondary learning success (Abstract)
- Wicks et al. (2011). bPortfolios: Blogging for reflective practice.
- Rinaldo, Tapp, & Laverie (2011). Learning by tweeting: Using Twitter as a pedagogical tool.
- Gabriel & Richtel (2011). A Classroom Software Boom, but Mixed Results Despite the Hype.
- Elavsky, Mislan, & Elavsky (2011). When talking less is more: Exploring outcomes of Twitter usage in the large‐lecture hall.
- Junco, Heiberger, & Loken (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades.
- Higdon, Reyerson, McFadden & Mummey (2011). Twitter, Wordle, and ChimeIn as Student Response Pedagogies.
- Veltsos & Veltsos (2010). Teaching responsibly with technology-mediated communication.
- Dunlap & Lowenthal (2009). Horton Hears a Tweet.
- Blankenship (2011). How Social Media Can and Should Impact Higher Education.
- Young (2010). Teaching with Twitter: Not for the Faint of Heart.
FeedbackComments, suggestions, criticisms, and any type of feedback would be greatly appreciated. Use the comment tools provided in the articles or use any of the means indicated on the Contact page to reach the author.