ABSTRACT
This volume was started to discuss the present status of constructivism, one of the prominent contemporary approaches to instruction. Controversy about the value of the constructivist paradigm has existed for some time, and the most recent developments were summarized both in the introductory chapter of this volume and in Klahr’s chapter. Of course, such controversies are common in active fields of research and hopefully lead to a better understanding of the phenomena being studied. The purpose of this chapter is to comment on some of the themes sounded in the volume from an eclectic perspective, that is, rather than being either a critic or a supporter of constructivist approaches, I want to endorse, whenever possible, practices supported by research results. As suggested while commenting on a similar controversy between constructivists and advocates of instructional systems design (Tobias, 1992), it is important that controversies generate research so that data, rather than stirring rhetoric, may be brought to bear to clarify issues that are in dispute. A further purpose of this chapter was to evaluate the different positions from the perspective of a number of issues of importance to the controversy. Finally, specific suggestions for further research are made throughout the chapter. Our hope in developing this volume was to identify some of the cognitive processes engaged by different types of instruction. Some authors suggest that different approaches lead to varying instructional outcomes, presumably engaging different cognitive processes; however, few authors specify which cognitive processes are engaged by their recommended approach. That issue will be discussed further below. It was also expected that some narrowing of differences might be perceived beneath the spirited debates between supporters and critics of constructivist instruction. Some common ground did emerge in the chapters, for example constructivists and critics of that position agree that some form of guidance is needed for effective instruction, although-as expected-they disagree on the types of guidance. Finally, it was hoped that this volume would identify areas needing research. To some extent that did occur, and this chapter attempts to expand on these to suggest specific researchable questions that could clarify some issues between constructivists and their critics. Researchers, both in this volume and in the field generally, refer to non-constructivist approaches by a variety of names such as direct instruction, instructionism, and cognitive instruction, among others. These labels seem to share
a preference for explicit instruction, rather than encouraging students to fend for themselves, and that term will be used to describe these approaches in this chapter.
