Skip to main content

A cultural embrace

Conclusion

As culture is at the heart of meaning making, it warrants exacting attention in the systemic design process. As Gustafson & Powell (1991) point out, too often models are not tested for validity and reliability. It is for this reason that we emphasize that research must critically evaluate this expanded ADDIE model.

As technology enables us to increase our interaction with the peoples of the world, we are enriched by the incessant shifts in our own cultural paradigms. Attention to this cultural dynamism and incessant interplay leads to both improved designs and improved designers. As instructional designers, we must be able to critically analyze our learner’s cultures and allow it to strengthen the instructional design process. In this way we address our ethical commitment to creating culturally sensitive products.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Alasuutari, P. (1995). Researching culture: Qualitative method and cultural studies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, M. (1925).Culture and anarchy. New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branch, R. (1997). Educational technol- ogy frameworks that facilitate culturally pluralistic instruction.Educational Technobgy, 37(2), 38–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branson, R. (1975).Interservice procedures for instructional systems development: Ex- ecutive summary and model. Tallahassee, FL: Center for Educational Technology, Florida State University. (National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161. Document Nos. AD-A019 486 to AD- A019 490)

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, L. (Ed.) (1977).Instructional design: Principles and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development: Where culture and cognition create each other. In J. Wertsch (Ed.),Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 146–161). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. (1996).Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cam- bridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corry, M., Frick, T., and Hansen, L. (1997). User-centered design and us- ability testing of a web site: An illustrative case study.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(4), 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, R. M. (1989).Designing & improving courses and curricula in higher education: A systemic approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1985).The systemic design of instruction (2nd ed.). Glenview, II: Scott, Foresman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, T. & Jonassen, D. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.),Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed: New revised 20th anniversary edition. New York, NY: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: To- ward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.),The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodenow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links between educational psychology and the study of social contexts.Educational Psychologist, 27(2), 177–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K. & Powell, G. (1991).Sur- vey of instructional development models (2nd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clear- inghouse on Information Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J., & Smaldino, S. (1999).Instructional Me- dia and Technologies for Learning (6th ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, L. (1996) Instructional design of interactive multimedia.Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(4), 85–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., Peck, K. & Wilson, B. (1999).Learning with technology A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knupfer, N. N. (1997). Gendered by design.Educational Technology, 37(2), 31–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroeber, A. & Kluckholn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of con- cepts and definitions.Peabody Museum Papers, 47(1), 180–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991).Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, W., Flynn, E. & Legere, C. (1966).The development of instructional systems. Ft. Devens, MA: U.S. Army Security Agency Training Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leshin, C., Pollock, J., & Reigeluth, C. (1992).Instructional design strategies and tactics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, C., Dillon, A., & Richardson, J. (1996). User-centered design of hypertext/hypermedia for education. In D. Jonassen (Ed.).Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 622–633). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.)Educational Measurement. New York, NY: Macmillian. 13–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, C. (1993).Redefining Designing. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molenda, M., Pershing, J. & Reigeluth, C. (1996). Designing instructional systems. In R. Craig (Ed.),The ASTD training and development handbook (4th ed.) (pp. 266- 293). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pai, Y. & Adler, S. (1997).Cultural foundations of education (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1963).The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. (1997a). On being a culturally sensitive instructional designer and educator.Educational Technology, 37(2), 6–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. (1997b). Understanding the language of diversity.Educational Technology, 37(2), 15–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, K. (1980).Geertz and culture. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. (1995). Trends in Instructional Design: Emerging Theory-Based Models.Performance Quarterly, 8(3), pp. 96–110. Retrieved May 24, 2001, fromhttp:// www.ittheory.com/idtrends.htm

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (1990).Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romiszowski, A. (1981).Designing instructional systems: Decision making in course planning and curriculum design. London: Kogan Page Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seels, B. & Glasgow, Z. (1990).Exercises in instructional design. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seels, B. & Richey, R. (1994).Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington DC: Association for Educational Communications & Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrock, S. (1991). A brief history of instructional development. In G. Anglin (Ed.),Instructional technology: past, present and future (pp. 11- 18). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis.Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tylor, E. (1924).Primitive culture. 2nd edition. New York: Brentano’s.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. (1998).Mind as Action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. (1993). Culture is Ordinary. In A. Gray Ann & J. McGuigan, (Eds.),Studying Culture: An introductory reader (pp. 5–14). London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. (1995). Situated instruc- tional design: Blurring the distinctions between theory and practice, design and implementation, curriculum and instruction. In M. Simonson (Ed.),Proceedings of selected research and development presentations. Washington D. C.: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yon, D. (2000).Elusive culture: Schooling, race, and identity in global times. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Additional information

His research interests include culture, identity development, and meaning making in technology rich environments.

His research interests are in the areas of Educational Gerontology, Instructional Design, and the Digital Divide.

His research interests include Systemic Change and the Digital Divide.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thomas, M., Mitchell, M. & Joseph, R. A cultural embrace. TECHTRENDS TECH TRENDS 46, 40–45 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02772075

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02772075

Keywords

  • Educational Technology
  • Instructional Design
  • Instructional Development
  • Subject Matter Expert
  • Meaning Making