Instructional technology has typically been viewed as incorporating a systematic application of scientific principles of instruction to the learning environment. Within this framework, the focus has been on analysis, decision making, and evaluation regarding curriculum (what should be taught) and instruction (how one should teach). For most of its history, instructional technology has attempted to justify and verify its own basic assumption that both the processes of technology and the products of technology can help improve instructional effectiveness (Brody, 1984). Thus, an instructional design model (i.e., the systems approach to instruction) has predominated the field (Koetting, 1984). This article argues that, in spite of interest and aptitude, instructional designers have not yet come to grips with the tenets of constructivism. Rather, the field has been grounded in empiricism. An historical review of the research on instructional uses of media highlights such philosophical roots

O’Loughlin critiqued Piagetian constructivism and urged that science educators adopt a sociocultural constructivism in its place. The central thesis of this response is that Piaget’s revisions of his theory in the 10 years prior to his death offer a new model of equilibration that is contemporary and helpful as we rethink science education. Further, it is argued that decentering is an important human attribute – a necessary aspect of the scientific process. The sociocultural model is critiqued as nihilistic, culturally relative, and dangerous when placed in the context of real science classrooms.

Excerpt: Most contemporary neurobiologists and cognitive scientists agree: knowledge is actively constructed. The implications of constructivism for education, however, remain controversial. In the last ten years schools have been engaged in a flurry of reform initiatives encompassing new curricula, new forms of assessment, new standards, and professional development. But various interpretations of constructivism abound, often equating it with “hands-on“ learning, discovery, and a host of pedagogical strategies. Resulting confusion and misinterpretation has resulted in public attacks by the media, by parents, and even at times various groups in the academic community. Thus it seems appropriate in this speech, to reflect on the biological and cognitive science evidence and to provide further implications for an application of the theory to education.

Psychology – the way learning is defined, studied, and understood – underlies much of the curricular and instructional decision-making that occurs in education. Constructivism, perhaps the most current psychology oflearning, is no exception. Initially based on the work ofJean Piaget and LevVygotsky, and then supported and extended by contemporary biologists andcognitive scientists as they studied complexity and emergence, it is having major ramifications on the goals that teachers set for the learners with whomthey work, the instructional strategies teachers employ in working towardthese goals, and the methods of assessment used by school personnel to document genuine learning. What is this theory of learning and develop-ment that is the basis of the current reform movement and how is it different from other models of psychology?