Abstract
E-learning specialists tend to be very pragmatic in orientation, building programs and developing courses, and curriculum in response to problems and opportunities encountered in practice. This is done out of conviction that technology can open up doors of quality and access hitherto closed. Yet e-learning programs do not have unilaterally positive impacts—sometimes programs aggravate social distance and widen the achievement gap of already disadvantaged groups. In this chapter, we explore issues surrounding the social impacts of e-learning practice, encouraging a critical stance toward our work. We take the position that e-learning programs have the best chance for positive impacts through the informed, intentional practices and commitments of individual professionals, aligned with a professional community that shares these values and encourages critical and reflective practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The two great wars fought in the twentieth century had a similar impact on European thinking—hence the similarities between American pragmatism and continental philosophy as seen through the work of Heidegger, Derrida, and Foucault.
References
Carlysle, T. (1829). Signs of the times: The ‘mechanical age.’ Modern History Sourcebook [first published in the Edinburgh Review.] Online: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/carlyle-times.html.
Collins, J., & Mayblin, B. (1996). Introducing Derrida. Lanham, MD: National Book Network.
DeVaney, A. (1993). Reading educational computer programs. In R. Muffoletto & N. N. Knupfer (Eds.), Computers in education: Social, political, and historical perspectives (pp. 181–196). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
DeVaney, A. (1994). Watching channel one: The convergence of students, technology, and private business. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Dimitriadis, G., & Kamberelis, G. (2006). Theory for education. New York: Routledge.
Edelbach, R. (2010, September). IDS 252—Society, ethics, and technology [course syllabus]. Online: http://www.tcnj.edu/∼set/edelset.htm and http://www.tcnj.edu/∼set/set.htm.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Friesen, N. (2009). Re-thinking e-learning research: Foundations, methods, and practices. New York: Peter Lang.
Hlynka, D. (2004). Postmodernism in educational technology: Update: 1996—present. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), The handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 243–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hlynka, D., & Belland, J. C. (Eds.). (1991). Paradigms regained: The uses of illuminative, semiotic and post-modern criticism as modes of inquiry in educational technology. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology.
ISBTPI (2010). International Board of Standards for Training, Performance, and Instruction: Instructional design. Online: http://www.ibstpi.org/Competencies/instruct_design_competencies.htm.
Menand, L. (2001). The metaphysical club. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Perkins, D. N. (1996). Foreward: Minds in the ‘hood. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53–64.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design: Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49, 4–17.
Tenner, E. (1997). Why things bite back: Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. New York: Knopf.
Wilson, B. G. (1997). The postmodern paradigm. In C. Dills & A. Romoszowski (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms (pp. 297–309). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Wilson, B. G., & Parrish, P. (2011). Transformative learning experience: Aim higher, gain more. Educational Technology, 51(2), 10–15.
Yanchar, S. C., South, J. B., Williams, D. D., Allen, S., & Wilson, B. G. (2010). Struggling with theory? A qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 39–60.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wilson, B.G. (2012). Developing a Critical Stance as an E-Learning Specialist: A Primer for New Professionals. In: Fee, S., Belland, B. (eds) The Role of Criticism in Understanding Problem Solving. Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies, vol 5. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3540-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3540-2_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-1051-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-3540-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)