, Volume 62, Issue 4, pp 345–353 | Cite as

Avoiding Educational Technology Pitfalls for Inclusion and Equity

  • Monica Sulecio de Alvarez
  • Camille Dickson-Deane
Original Paper


The integration of technology in learning, from a cultural perspective, continues to be of concern to many. The concerns include understanding the use of tools in meaningful ways, designing learning experiences where learners retain agency in learning, avoiding unintended consequences in learning, and reconciling perspectives to allow natural learning to flourish. The purpose of this article is to encourage a healthy discussion regarding how designs may be created considering common cultural belief systems. The discussions presented will challenge how learning has been understood in the past, how it is being understood now, and how it may be designed, with thought to how contextually-cultured learning pathways can be achieved.


Educational technology Culture Innovation Guided participation 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Bobbitt, J. F. (1916). What the schools teach and might teach (Vol. 4). Survey Committee of the Cleveland Foundation.Google Scholar
  2. Bourdieu, P. (2005). Habitus. Habitus: A sense of place, 2, 43–49.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, J. S. (2017). Sense-making in our post alphaGo world | mediaX [conference recording]. Standford, CA: Stanford Ubniversity Retrieved from
  4. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cabrera, D., & Cabrera, L. (2015). Thinking made simple: New hope for solving wicked problems. Ithaca: Odyssean.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, G. (2017). Educating the whole person [Interview Recording]. Retrieved from
  7. Carr, N. (2008). Is Google making us stupid? Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 107(2), 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chavajay, P., & Rogoff, B. (2002). Schooling and traditional collaborative social organization of problem solving by Mayan mothers and children. Developmental Psychology, 38(1), 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coppens, A. D., Silva, K. G., Ruvalcaba, O., Alcalá, L., López, A., & Rogoff, B. (2014). Learning by observing and pitching in: benefits and processes of expanding repertoires. Human Development, 57, 150–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  11. Emerich, P. (2018). Why I left Silicon Valley, EdTech, and “personalized” learning [Blog]. Retrieved January 27, 2018, from
  12. Essa, A. (2016). A possible future for next generation adaptive learning systems. Smart Learning Environments, 3(16), 1–24.Google Scholar
  13. Farahani, F. (1996). Culture and technology: The cultural aspect of technology. In B. Saraswati (Ed.), Interface of cultural identity development (p. 290). India: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts. Retrieved from
  14. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twentieth century. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
  15. Goleman, D. (2014). FOCUS: Desarrollar la atención para alcanzar la excelencia. Barcelona: Kairós.Google Scholar
  16. Haines, S. G. (2000). The complete guide to systems thinking & learning. Amherst, MA: HRD Press, Inc..Google Scholar
  17. Hannafin, M. J., & Hannafin, K. M. (2010). Cognition and student-centered, web-based learning: Issues and implications for research and theory. In Learning and instruction in the digital age (pp. 11–23). , Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2013). The Nature of Learning. In Self-Determined Learning: Heutagoy in Action (p. 211). New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.Google Scholar
  19. Hernández, F., & Sancho, J. M. (2011). Larry Cuban: la introducción de las TIC no demuestra que el alumnado aprenda mejor. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 411, 40–45.Google Scholar
  20. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herrington, J., Reeves, T., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic learning environments. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 401–409). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(3), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McLuhan, M., Fiore, Q., & Agel, J. (1968). War and peace in the global village (Vol. 127). New York: Bantam books.Google Scholar
  24. Mehaffy, M., & Salingaros, N. A. (2011). The “wholeness-generating” technology of Christopher Alexander: To manage a phenomenon of “wholeness” requires a technology that brings with it a set of useful methods and practices. Retrieved August 8, 2017, from
  25. Mitra, A. (2010). Alien technology : Coping with modern mysteries. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Liu, M. Z. (2014). Designing CMS courses from a pedagogical usability perspective. Perspectives in Instructional Technology and Distance Education: Research on course management systems in higher education, 143–169.Google Scholar
  27. Papert, S. (1999). Ghost in the machine: Seymour Papert on how computers fundamentally change the way kids learn with Dr. S. Papert/interviewer: Dr. D. Schwartz. Retrieved from
  28. Paquette, G. (2015). Competency-based personalization process for smart learning environments. In Learning, design, and technology. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activity as a model for web-based learning (Vol. 41.06, pp. 1–14). Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  30. Reigeluth, C. M. (2012). Instructional Theory and Technology for the New Paradigm of Education. RED. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 32. Retrieved from Accessed 30 Sept 2012.
  31. Reigeluth, C. M., & Garfinkle, R. J. (1994). Introduction: The imperative for systemic change. In Systemic change in education (pp. 3–11). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Reigeluth, C. M., & Karnopp, J. R. (2013). Reinventing schools: It’s time to break the mold. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  33. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development (Kindle). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Schaffert, S., & Hilzensauer, W. (2008). On the way towards personal learning environments: Seven crucial aspects. eLearning papers, 9, 1–10.Google Scholar
  36. Scharmer, O. (2013). Leading from the emerging future: From ego-system to eco-system economies (Kindle version). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the klearning organization (Revised Edition, Kindle). The Crown Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  38. Siemens, G. (2015). Adios Ed Tech. Hola something else. [Blog post]. Retrieved August 8, 2017, from
  39. Siemens, G. (2016). Being human in a digital age. Retrieved July 30, 2017, from
  40. Silius, K., Tervakari, A. M., & Pohjolainen, S. (2003). A multidisciplinary tool for the evaluation of usability, pedagogical usability, accessibility and informational quality of web-based courses. In The Eleventh International PEG Conference: Powerful ICT for Teaching and Learning (Vol. 28).Google Scholar
  41. Spector, J. M. (2014). Conceptualizing the emerging field of smart learning environments. Smart Learning Environments, 1(2), 1–10. Scholar
  42. Squires, D., & Preece, J. (1996). Usability and learning: evaluating the potential of educational software. Computers & Education, 27(1), 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Taylor, F. W. (1914). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  44. Verschaffel, L., Torbeyns, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2009). Conceptualizing, investigating, and enhancing adaptive expertise in elementary mathematics education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XXIV(3), 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Watson, S. L., Reigeluth, C. M., & Watson, W. R. (2008). Systems design for change in education and training. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 691–701).Google Scholar
  47. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007). A new look at habits and the habit–goal Interface. Psychological Review, 114(4), 843–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Independent ConsultantGuatemala CityGuatemala
  2. 2.University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations