Let's situate me before we begin: I write as an Australian who has spent a fair amount of time living and working in Asia; not just Hong Kong, but China, Thailand, and Indonesia. I am not an anthropologist and would not by any stretch of the hyperbole describe myself as an expert on things Asian, but I hope I have developed some degree of cultural sensitivity. So please note that I am not adopting an anti-American stance here, but am making a plea for a greater degree of pluralism in our debates.
What therefore struck me about Charles Reigeluth's paper was its cultural bias and its focus on "American values" (a phrase which is not always a compliment in this part of the world.)
1. The first example of cultural bias is the list of authors he proposes for Volume II of what should be probably called North American Instructional Design Theories and Models--I searched in vain for familiar European and Australian names, let alone South American, Asian, or African authors. Of course ISD is a particularly North American preoccupation
Q: What is the difference between ISD and what other countries call "curriculum development?"
2. The second example was Charles' dichotomy between the "Industrial Age" (old, bad, yuk!) and the "information Age" (new, neat, cool!). To many Asian (and European) readers I suspect Charles' "Information Age" qualities exemplify in education what they object to in American films, foreign policy, and commercial practices.
Let me pose a different dichotomy for your consideration...
| TRADITIONAL EDUCATIONAL VALUES | INFORMATION AGE EDUCATIONAL VALUES | |
| Cultural pluralism | .......... | Cultural imperialism |
| Leadership from above | .......... | Everyone for himself |
| Hierachical relationships | .......... | Series of horizontal relationships |
| National goals | .......... | Individual whims |
| Compliance | .......... | Freedom to do as you like |
| Compartmentalization (stress on literacy, numeracy) | .......... | Holism (decline of literacy, numeracy) |
| Outcome orientation | .......... | Process orientation |
| Teacher in charge | .......... | Teachers in trouble |
Q: Has the current American monopoly of the information channels (Internet, Hollywood, AT&T, etc.) seduced it into the belief that McLuhan was right? Will it be so complacent when it loses this monopoly and is swamped by non-American material?
3. I am a little disturbed by the identification of Teachers as the "clientele" of instructional designers. Charles seems to be devaluing their role by the terms he employs. Or is he just saying that teachers buy textbooks and cut them up? The way I see it, academic instructional designers sit in university departments designing theoretical constructs which they send to one another between the covers of increasingly highly priced journals. I would argue that it is only pre-service teachers who are even aware of these constructs, having been forced to write essays on them as part of their training. As Charles says, "most teachers tend to take pre-constructed instructional products, deconstruct them, and then use the resulting resources in unique ways during instruction" (i.e. cut them up).
Q: Back to basics: What is the difference between an "instructional systems designer" and a text book author? (Under the text book rubric we can include educational films and WWW resources) And how does s/he assist the teacher in the classroom?