--I think this is one of the more important distinctions between constructivism as is sometimes "locally construed" as knowledge-making in local settings and sociocultural approaches to knowledge-making, which emphasize mediation by cultural tools, which are historical artifacts transformed in human action. The distinction also has parallels to the debate that often arises between certain conversation analysts and discourse analysis over the relevance of "context" for the understanding of communicative action. To me, this context, and the cultural tools that make that context and shape the action, are important in ways that constructivist approaches have less to contribute (at least directly).
It seems also that Barbara Rogoff's suggestions that "child-centered" and "adult-centered" learning as two sides of the same coin are relevant to this discussion. Both discourses view children and adults as analytic priors, ignoring at once their mutual, but asymmetrical construction and the "work" we do around building, crossing, and resisting this boundary (youth-adult).
At the same time, constructivist approaches have gotten a bad rap from the right, and there's something to be said for the way constructivist pedagogies have been able to engage students in many traditional school "subjects" that authoritarian pedagogies fail to do.
Bill Penuel _______________________ PreventionInventions PO Box 40692 Nashville TN 37204 (615) 297-5923