[quoting Smith, 6 May 94] I have been following this debate for the last week. As a relative newcomer to the field (about 5 years) I have a hard time seeing what all the fuss is about. Are the ideas represented here all that radical? ... As a whole the class finds these approaches exciting and fresh. In fact, there has been almost no controversy at all, just an eagerness to try out these ideas in our current settings.
I would like to think that they are not all that radical, however, a significant portion of our field has a very deep investment in the belief that teachers/designers know best, that we should design instruction that guides the learner to pre specified outcomes (read the mathemagenic literature from the 70s and 80s). I agree with what Lloyd said earlier about polarizing the debate. Computers as cognitive tools if another approach. Computers can also represent rich learning environments, performance support systems, etc.