[quoting Wager, 28 Jan 97] Well, I've lurked long enough with regard to this issue, and would like to get something straight with regard to Gagne, Briggs, and Wager concerning constructivism. Gagne, first of all, would tell you to your face that it is BS. Briggs, of course is dead, but as I knew him he was a futurist, concerned with affective and social outcomes of learning (both formal and informal). I think I fall mostly into the pragmatist camp.
Thanks, Walt, for entering the "fray" that I seemed to have started by using ISD and citing Gagne in the same post. I'm still trying to decide if I was brave, naive, or just foolhardy. Should I apologize formally for "bringing you into it" in your own self-defense? I, too, am a pragmatist and hopefully you understand that a two-plus year stint of managing courseware development for Dr. Rex Allen (where I met you, if you remember) definitely reinforced the importance of addressing the affective components, especially motivation to learn. But, I also agree that Gagne would consider constructivism as a "limited" perspective on design of effective learning materials, since it does not directly address establishing the appropriate conditions for learning, leaving entirely too much to chance.
Furthermore, Gagne believes in generative learning (he called it higher-order rule or problem solving. Problem solving leads to the learner's construction of new rules, which can serve in future situations if the cues call it back into working memory. Never did Gagne, Briggs, or Wager say that there was one path to learning anything. The learning hierarchies and/or curriculum maps simply represent a knowledge structure that should be supportive of learning.
I agree, these structures simply address establishing the appropriate conditions for learning. It was interesting to note that Clark's original paper cited Collins, Brown, & Newman on their concept of "cognitive apprenticeship" which incorporates many of Gagne's perspectives, yet requires (as you state) the "construction" of mental models, schema, etc., to effectively solve problems in a complex environment. (This research was extended by Lesgold, Gott, and others in some of the Air Force research that I helped sponsor/evaluate, and was the basis of 21 troubleshooting courses that Allen developed for the Air Force and that I was quite involved in). My support of Clark's point on "convergence" is that many different theories and perspectives support the general sequence of events that he proposed.
Never did I intend to insinuate that this is THE way, much less the ONE, RIGHT way to design instruction, only that it is a systematic, safe, and pragmatic way to design instruction, especially when extended by the concept of "enterprises" which establish and maintain relevance.
Direct instruction does have its benefits, and eight tenths of the time, the companies I consult for are asking for better direct instruction or performance support tools to eliminate the need for instruction. Maybe if supports generative learning, if that's what your goals are. Now, there is 2 cents from someone who believes in the traditional model of instructional design and constructivism concurrently.
I agree with your analysis of what companies are looking for--they are looking for direct, reliable and predictable results of their training/performance support investments (i.e., COSTS) and typically nothing more. Training is a "cost of doing business" that is growing, not decreasing, and they desire to decrease or at least control this cost. Constructivism has it's place, as does addressing affective objectives, for example, but if this is the primary perspective for designing the training, the results are not necessarily predictable (i.e., reliable). My point was that a gaming strategy also was not "safe" while a focus on relevance was. I also agree with your analysis of direct instruction, but I would not "prescribe" direct instruction, nor a constructivist approach, for every learning challenge. I too wish more people would try understanding Gagne, rather than refuting him.
My final two cents are a quote and a cliche. The quote I used on the cover of my thesis (titled: From Principles Into Practice, Practical Design Guidelines for Multimedia Technical Skills Training), and I also used as an E-mail signature for quite a while:
To imagine that the design process can be reduced to a set of cookbook exercises is wishful thinking. (Wager & Gagne)
Gott, S.P. (1989). Apprenticeship instruction for real-world tasks: The coordination of procedures, mental models, and strategies. In E.Z. Rothkoph (Ed), Review of Research in Education, Vol 15, (pp. 97-169). Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.
Lesgold, A.M. (1983). A rationale for computer-based reading instruction. In A.C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Classroom computers and cognitive science. New York: Academic Press.
Lesgold, A.M., Lajoie, S.P., Bunzo, M., & Eggan, G.M. (1988). Sherlock: A coached environment for an electronics troubleshooting job. Paper presented at the J.S. Macdonald Foundation Conference on CAI and ITSs, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Wager W., & Gagne, R.M. (1988). Designing computer-aided instruction. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 35-60). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.