Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Applying a Critical and Humanizing Framework of Instructional Technologies to Educational Practice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Learning and Instructional Technologies for the 21st Century

Abstract

Traditionally in the field of instructional design and instructional technology, educators and researchers have focused on technical tools, rather than the socio-cultural implications of technology integration. Thus, integration of technology into educational practice is often made without evaluation of the belief systems informing those choices, and without adequate contemplation of the unique needs of the human users using these systems. Analysis of the ideological perspectives that impact our educational technology, including technological determinism, social determinism, technological utopianism, and technological dystopianism is the starting point of this examination of our relationship with technology. The humanizing framework subsequently outlined draws directly from this discussion of ideology by calling on educators to critique their own beliefs about technology. It serves as the starting point for reflection on the impact of human interaction in educational technology practice. The humanizing framework emphasizes strategies and techniques that promote the integration and development of critical thinking skills, the fostering of student engagement and interaction, and the development of community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Attewell, P. (2001). Comment: the first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74(3), 252–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, N. S. (2002). Who sets e-mail style? Prescriptivism, coping strategies, and democratizing communication access. The Information Society, 18, 403–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartolome, L. I. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 64(2), 173–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belz, J. A. (2005). Intercultural questioning, discovery and tension in internet-mediated language learning partnerships. Language and Intercultural Communication, 5(1), 3–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordia, P. (1997). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: a synthesis of the experimental literature. The Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 99–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgmann, A. (1984). Technology and the character of contemporary life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham, D., & Scanlon, M. (2004). Connecting the family? 'edutainment' web sites and learning in the home. Education, Communication and Information, 4(2–3), 271–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, A., Angus, K. B., & Carter-Wells, J. (2000). Creative and active strategies to promote critical thinking. Yearbook, 58–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C.-H., & Ge, X. (2006). The design of a web-based cognitive modeling system to support ill-structured problem solving. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 299–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, G., Harmon, T. C., & Baker, E. L. (2001). The impact of a simulation-based learning design project on student learning, 44(4), 390–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clare, J. (2002, October). Computers 'to replace teachers'. Telegraph.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antimony in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39, 250–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conlon, T. (2000). Visions of change: Information technology, education and postmodernism. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(2), 109–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppola, N. (2004). Building trust in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(2), 95–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, R. (2003). The digital divide: A global and national call to action. The Electronic Library, 21(3), 247–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damarin, S. K. (1998). Technology and multicultural education: The question of convergence. Theory into Practice, 37(1, Technology and the Culture of Classrooms), 11–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, W. (2003). Interpreting a meaning of technology. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implications of the internet. Annual Review of Sociology Annual, 27, 307–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1999). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 63–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, L., & Schaverien, L. (2004). Re-presenting collective learning: A generative way forward. In R. Klamma, M. Rohde & G. Stahl (Eds.), ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin Special Issue on Community-Based Learning: Explorations into Theoretical Groundings, Empirical Findings and Computer Support (Vol. 24, pp. 24–30).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 54(3), 363–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire, P. (1999). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical Inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, M. J., & Bromley, H. (2004). Social contexts, defensive pedagogies, and the (mis)uses of educational technology. Educational Policy, 18(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students' problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gellner, E. (Ed.). (1974). Legitimation of belief. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (1997). The machine at work. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2), 147–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 1). Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemming, H. E. (2000). Encouraging critical thinking: “but – what does that mean?” McGill Journal of Education, 35(2), 173–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISTE National Educational Technology Standards (NETS). (2004). Retrieved November 1, from http://cnets.iste.org.

  • Johnson, L., & Johnson, N. E. (1987). Knowledge elicitation involving teachback interviewing. In A. Kidd (Ed.), Knowledge elicitation for expert systems: A practical handbook. (pp. 91–108). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology: Research & Development, 48(4), 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prenctice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., Wilson, B.G., Wang, S., & Grabinger, R.S. (1993). Constructivistic uses of expert systems to support learning. Journal of Computer Based Instruction, 20(3), 86–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). London: Macmillan Library Reference USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leh, A. S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and social presence in a distance learning environment. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(2), 109–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (Eds.). (1985). The social shaping of technology: How the refrigerator got its hum. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainzer, K. (2005). Science, technology, and utopia: Perspectives of a computer-assisted evolution of humankind. In M. F. Jorn Rusen & Thomas Rieger (Ed.), Thinking utopia: Steps into other worlds. Oxford: Berghahn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, C., & McCarthy, M. (2002). School leadership reforms: Filtering social justice through dominant discourses. Journal of School Leadership, 12, 480–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinn, R. E. (1991). Science, technology and society. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLoughlin, C. (1999). Culturally responsive technology use: Developing an on-line community of learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 231–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2002). A learner-centred approach to developing team skills through web-based learning and assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 571–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesthene, E. G. (2003). The role of technology in society. In A. H. Teich (Ed.), Technology and the future (pp. 49–58). Canada: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In R. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Ed.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mody, C. C. M. (2004). Small but determined: Technological determinism in nanoscience. HYLE: International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 10(2), 99–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niederhauser, D., Lindstrom, D., & Strobel, J. (2007). Addressing the NETS*S in K-12 classrooms: Implication for teacher education. Journal of the Technology and Teacher Education, 15(4), 483–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty and the internet worldwise. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okan, Z. (2003). Edutainment: Is learning at risk? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 255–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ovortrup, L. (1984). The social significance of telematics: An essay on the information society. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin's.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacey, A. (2000). The culture of technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrone, C., Clark, D., & Repenning, A. (1996). Webquest: Substantiating education in edutainment through interactive learning games. Paper presented at the Fifth International World Wide Web Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, A. (2002). Falling through the gap: Whatever happened to the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. (Ed.). (2006). Special Issue on Systemic Change (Vol. 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Riedel, J., Fitzgerald, G., & Leven, F. (2003). The design of computerized practice fields for problem solving and contextualized transfer. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(4), 377–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins, K., & Webster, F. (1989). The technical fix: Education, computers, and industry. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. (1995). The diffusion of innovation. New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. M., & Lowther, D. L. (2003). Impacts of the Co-nect school reform design on classroom instruction, school climate, and student achievement in inner-city schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8(2), 215–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of educational technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schement, J. (2002). Of gaps by which democracy we measure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, H. (1985). Technological utopianism in American culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Servon, J. L. (2002). Bridging the digital divide: Technology, community and public policy. Melbourne: Blackwell Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Servon, L. J., & Nelson, M. K. (2001). Community technology centers: Narrowing the digital divide in low-income, urban communities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(3), 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, N. (1958). Reasons and faiths. London, GB: Routledge & Paul Kegan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. R., & Marx, L. (1994). Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solem, M. N., Bell, S., Fournier, E., Gillespie, C., Lewitsky, M., & Lockton, H. (2003). Using the internet to support international collaborations for global geography education. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Soloway, E., Jackson, S. L., Klein, J., Quintana, C., Reed, J., Spitulnik, J., et al. (1996, April 13–18). Learning theory in practice: Case studies of learner-centered design. Paper presented at the CHI 96 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Songer, N. B. (1996). Exploring learning opportunities in coordinated network-enhanced classrooms: A case of kids as global scientists. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(4), 297–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spagnolli, A., Varotto, D., & Mantovani, G. (2003). An ethnographic, action-based approach to human experience in virtual environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(6).

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R. (2007). Learning after the end of knowledge: Instructional technology in the age of interpretive meaning. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Concordia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Törpel, B. (2005). Participatory design: A multi-voiced effort. Paper presented at the Critical Computing. 4th decennial conference on critical computing: Between sense and sensibility, Aarhus, Denmark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tselios, N., Avouris, N., Dimitracopoulou, A., & Daskalaki, S. (2001). Evaluation of distance-learning environments: Impact of usability on student performance. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(4), 355–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tu, C.-H. (2001). How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learning environment. Education Media International, 38(1), 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • v. Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warshauer, M. (2000, January 7). Technology and school reform: A view from both sides of the tracks. Educational policy analysis archives [Electronic Version], 8, 1068–2341 Retrieved November, 15, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n4.html.

  • Watts, L., Nugroho, Y., & Lea, M. (2003, 559–556). Engaging in email discussion: Conversational context and social identity in computer-mediated communication. Paper presented at the Human Computer Interaction – Interact'03.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, A. M. (2003). Can technology replace social engineering? In A. H. Teich (Ed.), Technology and the future. Australia: Thomson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J. (1996). Utopianism and national competitiveness in technology rhetoric: The case of Japan's information infrastructure. The Information Society, 12(3), 251–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 109(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zophy, J. W. (1998). Lost in cyberspace: Some concerns about televised instruction. The History Teacher, 31(2), 265–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Purdue University, Neil Armstrong Hall of Engineering, , Rm. 1231, 701 W. Stadium Avenue, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA

    Johannes Strobel

Authors
  1. Johannes Strobel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather Tillberg-Webb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Strobel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of South Dakota, E. Clark Street 414, Vermillion, 57069-2390, U.S.A.

    Leslie Moller

  2. Dept. Media & Instructional Technology, University of West Georgia, Maple St. 1601, Carrollton, 30118, U.S.A.

    Jason Bond Huett

  3. Dept. Instructional Technology, Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, Pomona, 08240, U.S.A.

    Douglas M. Harvey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Strobel, J., Tillberg-Webb, H. (2009). Applying a Critical and Humanizing Framework of Instructional Technologies to Educational Practice. In: Moller, L., Huett, J., Harvey, D. (eds) Learning and Instructional Technologies for the 21st Century. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09667-4_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation