Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 59, Issue 6, pp 799–815 | Cite as

A critical-realist response to the postmodern agenda in instructional design and technology: a way forward

Research Article
First Online:

Abstract

Although providing an invigorating foundation for instructional design and technology theory and research, the postmodern agenda would benefit from clearer articulation and further refinement of ontological, epistemological, and methodological positions. Consequently, we reveal possible weaknesses in the radically constructivist-inspired position and, in the spirit of scholarly dialogue, counter with a critical-realist perspective that presents a potentially more innovative and defensible approach to the discovery of scientific knowledge about teaching and learning infused with technology. Without doubt, we concur with postmodernists that issues of agency, identity, race, gender and ethnicity must be addressed and given a central position in instructional design and technology research and practice. Under the critical-realist designator, case study, ethnographic, arts-based, and phenomenological methodologies are appropriate and can co-exist. Our point of distinction is that as a scientific venture, instructional design and technology as a discipline must be more public and transparent in warrants, claims and discourse for proposed change to take place. We conclude by indicating future lines of inquiry inspired by the critical-realist perspective, detailing topics in technology integration and digital games.

Keywords

Critical-realism Epistemology Instructional design and technology Methodology Scientific claims Postmodernism 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (1996). Critical theory and postmodernism approaches to organizational studies. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 191–217). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, R. (1999). The abdication of reason: Postmodern attacks upon science and reason. In J. Swann & J. Pratt (Eds.), Improving education: Realist approaches to method and research (pp. 30–38). New York: Cassell.Google Scholar
  4. Barab, S. A., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from an ecological perspective. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bereiter, C. (1985). Toward a solution of the learning paradox. Review of Educational Research, 55(2), 201–226. doi: 10.3102/00346543055002201.Google Scholar
  6. Bernstein, R. J. (1976). The restructuring of social and political thought. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Leeds: Leeds Books.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryson, M., & De Castell, S. (1994). Telling tales out of school: Modernist, critical, and postmodern “true stories” about educational computing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10(3), 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cilesiz, S. (2010). A phenomenological approach to experiences with technology: current state, promise, and future directions for research. Educational Technology Research and Development. DOI:  10.1007/s11423-010-9173-2.
  11. Collis, B., & Margaryan, A. (2004). Applying activity theory to computer-supported collaborative learning and work-based activities in corporate settings. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conlon, T. (2000). Visions of change: Information technology, education and postmodernism. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(2), 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cook, S. D. N., & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(4), 373–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corson, D. (1999). Critical realism: Post-Popper realism for a real world. In J. Swann & J. Pratt (Eds.), Improving education: Realist approaches to method and research (pp. 67–76). New York: Cassell.Google Scholar
  15. Court, D. (1999). Lakatos revisited. Journal of Educational Thought, 33(3), 209–229.Google Scholar
  16. Dawson, L. L., & Prus, R. C. (1993). Interactionist ethnography and postmodernist discourse: Affinities and disjunctures in approaching human lived experience. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 15, 147–177.Google Scholar
  17. Dawson, L. L., & Prus, R. C. (1995). Postmodernism and linguistic reality versus symbolic interactionism and obdurate reality. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 17, 105–124.Google Scholar
  18. De Vaney, A. (1998). Can and need educational technology become a postmodern enterprise? Theory Into Practice, 37(1), 72–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dewey, J. (1929/1958). Experience and nature. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Dickey, M. D. (2010). The pragmatics of virtual worlds for K-12 educators: investigating the affordances and constraints of Active Worlds and Second Life with K-12 in-service teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development. doi: 10.1007/s11423-010-9163-4.
  21. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3/4), 391–450.Google Scholar
  22. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konultit.Google Scholar
  23. Finley, S. (2005). Arts-based inquiry: Performing revolutionary pedagogy. In N. K. Denizen & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 681–694). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis theory and method. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  26. Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy: Revised and updated edition. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., & Odella, F. (1998). Toward a social understanding of how people learn in organizations: The notion of situated curriculum. Management Learning, 29(3), 273–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hay, K. E. (1994). The three activities of a student: A reply to Tripp. Educational Technology, 34(8), 22–27.Google Scholar
  29. Heath, S. B., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1994). Learning for anything everyday. Curriculum Studies, 26(5), 471–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Henricksson, K. (2000). When communities of practice came to town: On culture and contradiction in emerging theories of organizational learning. Working paper series no. 2000/3. Lund, Sweden: Lund University, Institute of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  31. Hillier, Y. (1999). Exploring informal practitioner theory in adult basic education. In J. Swann & J. Pratt (Eds.), Improving education: Realist approaches to method and research (pp. 146–155). New York: Cassell.Google Scholar
  32. Hlynka, D. (1991). Postmodern excursions into educational psychology. Educational Technology, 31(6), 27–30.Google Scholar
  33. Hoadley, C. (2004). Learning and design: Why the learning sciences and instructional systems need each other. Educational Technology, 44(3), 6–12.Google Scholar
  34. Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., et al. (2009). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Transforming learning with technology: Beyond modernism and post-modernism or whoever controls the technology creates the reality. Educational Technology, 40(2), 21–25.Google Scholar
  36. Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Lindström, B. (2006). A relational, indirect, meso-level approach to CSCL design in the next decade. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kirby, J., Hoadley, C., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2006). Instructional systems design and the learning sciences: A citation analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kirchner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lawson, T., & Comber, C. (2000). Introducing information and communication technologies into schools: The blurring of boundaries. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(3), 419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371–388). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lien, H. N., Jeng, I., & Yin, L. R. (1998, April). The paradox of the world wide web in education: An investigation of the links between power, knowledge, and human interest of inquiry (report no. IR-019-825). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  44. Lipscomb, M. (2008). Mixed method nursing studies: A critical realist critique. Nursing Philosophy, 9, 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moallem, M. (1998). An expert teacher’s thinking and teaching and instructional design models and principles: An ethnographic study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(2), 37–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. New York: Rowan & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  47. Popper, K. R. (1962). Conjecture and refutations: Growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  48. Reed, M. I. (1997). In praise of duality and dualism: Rethinking agency and structure in organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 18(1), 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reed, M. I. (2000). The limits of discourse analysis in organizational analysis. Organization, 7(3), 524–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reeves, T. C. (2000). Socially responsible educational technology research. Educational Technology, 31(6), 19–28.Google Scholar
  51. Reigeluth, C. M. (1997). Instructional theory, practitioner needs, and new directions: Some reflections. Educational Technology, 37(1), 42–47.Google Scholar
  52. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Higher levels of agency in children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schwen, T. M. (2001, December). The digital age: A need for additional theory in instructional technology. Paper presented at the meeting of The Instructional Supervision Committee of Educational Technology in Higher Education Conference, Guangzhou, China.Google Scholar
  54. Scott, D. (2005). Critical realism and empirical research methods in education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39(4), 633–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scott, D. (2007). Resolving the quantitative-qualitative dilemma: A critical realist approach. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sherman, L. W. (2000). Postmodern constructivist pedagogy for teaching and learning cooperatively on the web. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3(1), 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Solomon, D. L. (2000). Toward a postmodern agenda in instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Solomon, D. L. (2002). Rediscovering post-modern perspectives in IT: Deconstructing Voithofer and Foley. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(1), 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Swann, J. (1998). What doesn’t happen in teaching and learning? Oxford Review of Education, 24(2), 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Swann, J. (1999). Pursuing truth: A science of education. In J. Swann & J. Pratt (Eds.), Improving education: Realist approaches to method and research (pp. 15–29). New York: Cassell.Google Scholar
  62. Thornton, S. (2000, July 20). Karl Popper. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/.
  63. Tsoukas, H. (2000). False dilemmas in organization theory: Realism or social constructivism. Organization, 7(3), 531–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). National Educational Technology Plan. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010.
  65. Voithofer, R., & Foley, A. (2002). Post-IT: Putting postmodern perspectives to use in instructional technology—a response to Solomon’s “Toward a post-modern agenda in instructional technology”. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(1), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Volkoff, O., Strong, D. M., & Elmes, M. B. (2007). Technological embeddedness and organizational change. Organization Science, 18(5), 832–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Willower, D. J. (2001). Epistemology, science, and moral practice. Interchange, 32(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wilson, B. (1997). Thoughts on theory in educational technology. Educational Technology, 37(1), 22–27.Google Scholar
  72. Yanow, D. (2000). Seeing organizational learning: A ‘cultural’ view. Organization, 7(2), 247–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Yeaman, A. (2000). Coming of age in cyberspace. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 102–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yeaman, A. R. J., Hlynka, D., Anderson, J. H., Damarin, S. K., & Muffoletto, R. (1996). Postmodern and poststructural theory. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 253–295). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Learning Sciences & Technologies, School of Education (0313)Virginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations