While working my way through my reading list for the final paper, I found myself asking questions that address two different ways in: (1) the socio-cultural context of an artifact as well as (2) the artifact itself.

At this point, I’m not ready to constrain myself to one approach or the other. But I am curious as to whether its advisable to adopt one approach (as the dominant approach?) for the final analysis or if a balanced approach would be acceptable.

At the moment — and this is subject to change as I get further into the readings — I’m not sure if I can effectively critique Khan Academy as an artifact without also addressing the socio-cultural context that drove it into existence and cultivated it into the online learning force that it is today.

Advertisements