Thanks to Chet [Hedden, 23 Mar 97] and Kent [Thomas, 24 Mar 97] for their very different perspectives on this issue. My response to Chet is to suggest he re-read the contributions he is referring to and may be surprised to find there is not much disagreement. I don't know much about the old dog's network in the USA, I have to contend with a quite different research agenda in Hong Kong.
The type of thorough literature review described by Kent is spot on (and number three of Tom's sins of omission). People forget, or neglect to notice, that the profession of educational technology is more than 50% "education" and the criticism of much of the research in the field has come about from studies which put the emphasis the other way. My personal research heroes are Buber, Piaget, Dewey, Bruner, Vygotsky, and Marton. At least three of them are more properly called philosophers and only Bruner could comfortably wear the cap of an educational technologist.
Is it courting the feared label of "anti-constructivist" to suggest that students learn to read before they are allowed to conduct research? Not at all. Knowledge should be based on the sum of human experience, not ignorance. That was the agenda of the Cultural Revolution.
I'm happy to keep this going until Lloyd pulls the plug.