You are here:

Agency of the instructional designer: Moral coherence and transformative social practice
ARTICLE

, ,

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology Volume 21, Number 2, ISSN 0814-673X Publisher: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education

Abstract

In this paper we propose a view of instructional design practice in which the instructional designer is an agent of social change at the personal, relational, and institutional levels. In this view designers are not journeymen workers directed by management, but act in purposeful, value based ways with ethical knowledge, in social relationships and contexts that have consequences in and for action. The paper is drawn from the data set of a three-year study of the personal meaning that instructional designers make of their work, in a world where identities rely less on institutionally "ascribed status or place" than on the spaces that we make as actors in the social world. Through the voices of two instructional designers in this study, we begin to make the case for instructional design practice as ethical knowledge in action, and for how agency emerges from the designer's validated sense of identity in institutions of higher learning.

Citation

Campbell, K., Schwier, R., Kenny, R. & Kenny, R. (2005). Agency of the instructional designer: Moral coherence and transformative social practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(2),. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Retrieved August 15, 2024 from .

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Anderson, K. & Jack, D.C. (1991). Learning to listen: Interview techniques and analyses. In S.B. Gluck & D. Patai (Eds), Women’s words: The feminist practice of oral history (pp11-26). NY: Routledge.
  2. Andrews, D.H. & Goodson, L.A. (1991). A Comparative Analysis of Models of Instructional Design. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional Technology, Past, Present, and Future (pp. 133-155). Eaglewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. (Reprinted from
  3. Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (1997). Reframing organisations. Artistry, choice and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  4. Braden, R.A. (1996). The case for linear instructional design and development: A commentary on models, challenges and myths. Educational Technology, 36(2), 5-23.
  5. Britzman, D.P. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  6. Carter, V.K. (2000). Virtual shades of pale: Educational technologies and the electronic “other”. In N.M. Rodriguez and L.E. Villaverde (Eds.), Dismantling white privilege: Pedagogy, politics and whiteness (Counterpoints, Vol. 73) (pp. 25-40).
  7. Christians, C.G. (2000). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd edition) (pp 133-155).
  8. Conle, C. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Research tool and medium for professional development. European Journal of Teacher Education, 23(1), 49-63.
  9. Dick, W. (1996). The Dick and Carey Model: Will it survive the decade? Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 55-63.
  10. Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
  11. Donald, J. (1979). Green paper: Noise of crises. Screen Education, 30, 13-49.
  12. Ewing, J.M., Dowling, J.D. & Coutts, N. (1998). Learning using the WorldWide Web: A collaborative learning event. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(1), 3-22.
  13. Francis, B. (1999). Modernist reductionism or post-structuralist relativism: Can we move on? An evaluation of the arguments in relation to feminist educational research. Gender and Education, 11(4), 381-393.
  14. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  15. Fullan, M. (2004). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  16. Garrison, D.R. (1993). A cognitivist constructivist view of distance education: An analysis of teaching-learning assumptions. Distance Education, 14(2), 199-211.
  17. Glaser, R. (1991). The maturing of the relationship between the science of learning and cognition and educational practice. Learning and Instruction, 1(2), 129-144.
  18. Goodson, I. (1994). Studying the teacher’s life and work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(1), 29-37.
  19. Goodson, I. (1995). Storying the self: Life politics and the study of the teacher’s life and work. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
  20. Goodson, I.K. & Cole, A.L. (1994). Exploring the teacher’s professional knowledge: Constructing identity and community. Teacher Education Quarterly, 21(1), 85-105.
  21. Gustafson, K.L. & Branch, R.M. (1997). Survey of instructional development models (3rd ed). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.
  22. Hannafin, M., Land, S. & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods and models. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.). Instructional–design theories and models, Volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  23. Hartman, J.E. (1991). Telling stories: The construction of women’s agency. In Joan Hartman& Ellen Messer-Davidow (Eds), (En)gendering knowledge: Feminists in academe (pp 11-31). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
  24. Herda, E.A. (1999). Research conversations and narrative: A critical hermeneutic orientation in participatory inquiry. London: Praeger.
  25. Heilbrun, C. (1988). Writing a woman's life. New York: Ballantine Books. Campbell, Schwier and Kenny 261 Hill, J.R., Bichelmeyer, B.A., Boling, E., Gibbons, A.S., Grabowski, B.L., Osguthorpe,
  26. R.T., Schwier, R.A. & Wager, W. (2004). Perspectives on significant issues facing instructional design and technology. In M. Orey (Ed), Educational media and technology yearbook, 29, 23-43.
  27. Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed), Instructional design theories and models, Volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  28. Jonassen, D., Dyer, D., Peters, K., Robinson, T., Harvey, D., King, M. & Loughner, P. (1997). Cognitive flexibility hypertexts on the Web: Engaging learners in making meaning. In B.H. Khan (Ed), Web-based instruction (pp. 119-133). Englewood
  29. Koper, R. (2000). From change to renewal: Educational technology foundations to electronic learning environments. Inaugural address of the Educational Technology Expertise Center, Open University of the Netherlands.
  30. Kugelmass, J.W. (2000). Subjective experience and the preparation of activist teachers: Confronting the mean old snapping turtle and the great big bear. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 179-194.
  31. London Feminist Salon Collective (2004). The problematization of agency in postmodern theory: As feminist educational researchers, where do we go from here? Gender and Education, 16(1), 25-33.
  32. Mayer, R.H. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed), Instructional design theories and models, Volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 141-159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  33. Merrill, M.D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 50(3), 43-60.
  34. Morrison, G.R., Ross, S.M. & Kemp, J.E. (2004). Designing effective instruction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley& Sons.
  35. Reigeluth, C.M. (1996). A new paradigm of ISD? Educational Technology, 36(3), 13-20.
  36. Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed), Instructional design theories and models, Volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory (5-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  37. Saettler, P. (1992). A history of instructional technology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  38. Shambaugh, R.N. & Magliaro, S.G. (2001). A reflexive model for teaching instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 69-91.
  39. Schwier, R.A., Campbell, K. & Kenny, R. (2003). Instructional designers’ interpretations of their communities of practice. In M. Simonson (E.), Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Paper Presentations, Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), Anaheim, California. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2005, 21(2)
  40. Schwier, R.A., Campbell, K. & Kenny, R.F. (2004). Instructional designers' observations about identity, communities of practice and change agency. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 69-100.
  41. Smith, P.L. & Ragan, T.J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley& Sons.
  42. Tergan, S.O. (1997). Misleading theoretical assumptions in hypertext/hypermedia research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6(3/4), 257-283.
  43. Vrasidas, C. (2001). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339-362.
  44. Weick, K.E. & Quinn, R.E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361-86
  45. Willis, J. (1998). Alternative instructional design paradigms: What’s worth discussing and what isn’t? Educational Technology, 38(3), 5-16.
  46. Willis, J. (2000). The maturing of constructivist instructional design: Some basic principles that can guide practice. Educational Technology, 40(1), 5-16.
  47. Wood, D.R. (1992). Teaching narratives: A source for faculty development and evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 62(4), 535-550.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Also Read

Related Collections