Challenges to the Bruce/Levin taxonomy

I found that the Bruce/Levin taxonomy on educational technologies focused on the interaction between the user (learner and educator) and the media, rather than merely providing descriptive categories of educational uses of technology. Although the taxonomy claims to be incomplete, it considers the overlap between categories and subcategorizes, and the continual expansion of educational technology. Therefore, by assuming these "merges" and growth, I found it extremely difficult to find an example that does not fit in the taxonomy.

The philosophy of the taxonomy is formed by a set interactive activities (between the user and the technology) that are categorized by John Dewey's four-part division: inquiry, communication, construction, and expression. These activities encompasses the processes of technological activity. In order to challenge the taxonomy, I first attempted to define "technology". Technology I think, is a means (or set of processes) used to improve our lifestyle or find a solution to a soceital problem. According to the taxonomy, we could define technology as a tool or object (noun: i.e., a computer, a power drill) or as a practice we engage in (verb i.e., programming, teleconferencing).

The taxonomy does not view technology as dependent on soceital influences. By soceital influences I mean that even before we apply our knowlege to generate technological activity, we are acknowleging a problem that we will attempt to solve using available technology. A really basic example is early man using his knowlege of fire (he had already discoved it) to keep warm or to cook food. Enough about that. So, the only way I found I could challege the taxonomy was to provide an example that demonstrates the dependency of technology on soceital influences.

The immediate thing that came to mind is the Apple Macintosh interface. When it was initially created, the interface did not change the way the computer worked nor did it drastically change the way the user interacted with the machine (the keyboard and screen were still the primary components). What it did do was install a confidence in the common man who up to that point, was probably not using computers. The soceital problem (the new innovation of the PC was alien and intimmidating to the majority of people who consequently, would not use them) was solved by an interface that smiled at you. Therefore the technology process was not the interface itself but the realization of the PC's limitations.