In response to Dave's statement, I thought it might be worthwhile first to reflect on the context in which it was given. The presentation was part of a session titled Theory Based Automated Authoring Tools, which included details on the "performance support" system GUIDE and an automated design environment XAIDA. (For those who weren't at AECT, the session began at 8:30 a.m., just after the sun had appeared in the cold skies of Indianapolis--which of course was quite strange for us Aussies.)
I think the statement may have been better received had the other presentations shown some degree of advancement in the development of automated tools for instructional technology. Unfortunately, both sets of tools reflected the very reason why many have rejected the seemingly rigid structure of ID--they were simplistic, patronizing and used trivial, poorly designed examples of their output. Others in the audience were, to quote, "furious" at the poor quality of these tools, and the inability of those developing them to explain their value. I believe such tools represent a danger to the progress of instructional technology as they were promoted as being useful for the "novice" developer--I believe development should be in the hand of the experts, not the novice, and that providing novice-based tools will only prolong and proliferate the development of linear, NON-INTERACTIVE instruction.
Now back to Dave's comments. They were expressed very eloquently, and I must admit to being tempted to relinquish any thoughts I may have had of the evils of constructivism and return to the true faith of ID.
I still firmly believe that there is a place for a range of sciences, disciplines and theories within our field of practice--and creativity. That is not to deny the importance of design, but to emphasize different aspects of the process of creating interactive resources to support the learning process. There are a whole range of issues to be considered, and I'd like to offer a few for thought.
First, there IS a difference between INSTRUCTION (the imparting of knowledge) and LEARNING (the acquisition of knowledge), although the two are inexorably linked. However, when it comes to using the computer as a means to facilitate either one of these, it is important to determine whether you believe that the computer is a good TEACHER or a better learning TOOL. While it can be programmed to do both, I believe that it is better suited as a TOOL, which then suggests that it falls into a constructivist mode rather than an instructional mode. And, where is the problem with an instructional strategy using constructivist ideas?
Second, while it is clear that we don't go around creating knowledge willy-nilly, and that in an educational environment it is important to have teachers who can provide a context and structure for that knowledge, can this translate effectively to a computer-based environment where there is NO instructor, only a dumb machine trying an impersonation act! So the question comes again: in an isolated environment with only the computer as an information source, is an instructional-oriented (i.e., imparting knowledge) approach better than a learning-tool (i.e., constructing knowledge) approach?
I imagine there will be a range of responses to Dave's statement, and it is critical for us to develop a clear notion of what we can do, educationally, with the tools available to us. It is, and always has been, critical to develop educational software with the aim of developing the knowledge and skills of the learner (a term I prefer). However, that does not necessarily eliminate the option to use strategies which adopt collaborative, constructivist or other (heretical?) philosophies in our attempts to make learning better.