Isn't the comparison of historical concepts and lens grinding a comparison of unlike conditions and outcomes? The basic difference seems to be the main differences found between Education and Training. The task of learning how to make lenses seems to be one that has very quantifiable outcomes that are directly observable and must be performed to certain standards. The study of history and the measurement of the attainment or mastery of the concept of "conflict" through history is much more general and thus should be taught using different instructional methods.
I have wrestled with the above applications between behaviorism and constructivism in the domain of Aviation Training. I believe that when the task requires a psychomotor skill or procedural skill as an outcome that a behavioral approach can be very effective. If we are looking at higher order types of skills--acquisition of a concept such as "the history of conflict"--a constructivist approach would make sense.
I am currently researching the application of a constructivist approach to the teaching of "trouble shooting" skills to aviation maintenance technicians. Our training program is a behaviorally based one and it appears that with the use of more high-tech interfaces on the airplanes we are going to have the need to change the paradigm of training to one that includes and allows a more constructivist approach.
It is hoped that training using a constructivist approach will allow the technicians to acquire not only detailed airplane systems knowledge (mental models) but also strategic knowledge (knowledge about how to use the tools and references available to trouble shoot problems on the airplane.)
I hope to be able to determine if this type of training will teach skills to the technicians that will be generalizable to new and unencountered faults on airplanes.
Again the two different types of learning environments need to be examined. The reality of the situation is that in a business, training time is perceived as "down time"--how do we sell the idea to the managers (who are only concerned about getting someone back on the job as quickly as possible) that we should let someone construct their own knowledge at their own pace? Not an easy sell.
In the school room, I trust, it would be much easier and fall on more receptive ears. But possibly not with the complaints we are hearing about high school graduates that don't have mastery of basic skills and are thus unemployable. In the future we will see more requirements for accountability and a narrowing of educational goals to become more specific ones related to preparation to the job world.
I bring this up because it is a very real concern for me and most any other Instructional Designer who is trying to apply the theory we learned in a classroom to a very practical world.
The concept of apprenticeship is something that should be renewed on a more formal level (the guilds may have had it right all along), unfortunately many jobs are so compartmentalized that there is little chance, at a technician level, to have this apprenticeship experience.
John Seely-Brown made some excellent observations with Xerox technicians and how they communicated "undocumented fixes" to Xerox copy machines in many informal ways, at coffee breaks, over beers after work, etc. This type of communication or "tribal knowledge," as it is called in the aviation maintenance world, is priceless to the new technicians that need to learn from the experts. They communicate with each other in a story mode, telling horror stories (the repair from hell) or humorous stories of their own mistakes.
Formalizing this as an approach to training may be a way to apply the constructivist approach to the workplace and to make this type of instruction a valuable addition to the traditional "behaviorist/connectionist" approach. I liked the idea that we should be looking at a range of instructional solutions (in an analog mode) as opposed to a digital, either constructivist or behaviorist.