The authors write, "In this paper we offer instructional designers' stories of practice through which we explore two
interconnected theoretical frames using four lenses: reflexivity, voice, strong objectivity, and power/authority. These lenses themselves are woven together by the idea of moral action." I'm not agreeing with everything in this paper - I certainly don't agree that "learning involves shared thinking or understanding" and would question the proposition that it is "most effective if embedded in social experience." I'm also not comfortable with the idea of theoretical 'lenses' you can just pick and choose like different settings on your microscope. I agree that the design is 'messy' and that "this 'messiness'should not be seen as a problem to be overcome, but as a stimulating and creative environment in which relationships, rather than
content, are at the center of the action." But does this paper get at that? I'm not sure. I want to think McLuhan, but I walk away thinking Mead. PDF; more papers from the current Journal of Learning Design are now available online.
Today: 0 Total: 1100 [Direct link] [Share]
