Third-Generation Instruction: “Tools in the Toolbox” Rather Than the “Latest and Greatest”

The work of cognitive and social constructivists is not cited in the industrial and organizational (I–O) training and learning literatures, so the introduction of that work is an important contribution of the Kraiger (2008) article. Our commentary delves deeper into the connection between social constructivism and Web-based instruction that is central to Kraiger’s description of a third-generation instructional model. We believe that the use of the term ‘‘third generation,’’ although intuitively appealing, is problematic because it (a) overemphasizes the connection between Web-based training delivery and constructivist instructional methods, (b) overemphasizes their respective usefulness across situations, and (c) underemphasizes the usefulness of earlier models and their associated instructional methods. In an area often accused of being overly faddish (Salas, Cannon-Bowers, Rhodenizer, & Bowers, 1999), one might mistakenly infer from Kraiger’s article that Web-based instruction and social constructivist design can and should be used in all situations for all training needs. Our commentary draws from work by two prominent instructional theorists: Richard Clark and his distinction between method and media, and Charles Reigeluth and his paradigm for a new instructional theory. We also draw from the multidisciplinary research on computermediated communication that suggests a more tempered optimism regarding Webbased instruction than conveyed in Kraiger’s article. In total, we concur that both social constructivist methods and Web-based delivery can be valuable, but we view these as being only a few of many possible tools for designing training.