How far have we shifted from "instrucionism" to "learning sciences"? | W2 Q1 | Discussion

One of my main concerns with the learning sciences is about application and implementation. Sawyer (2006) discusses how learning sciences is different from instructionism. While teachers were traditionally seen as having substantial knowledge on a subject and students as the collectors of new knowledge (i.e. instructionism), learning science proposes that teachers should help students make meaningful connections to material and help them guide their own learning. For instance, Sawyer states that “in the knowledge economy, memorization of facts and procedures is not enough for success” (p.2). Sawyer mentions that the learning sciences are now nearly 30 years old, but courses are still being taught using instructionism methods (p.3). For instance, testing is sometimes implemented in a way that still promotes memorization of facts. So to some degree, we may not have shifted from instructionism to learning sciences in education.
This method of learning has had resistance and not all educators have switched their teaching methods. Sawyer mentions that instructors have had trouble “envisioning a different type of school,” (p.3) and at the end of the day the instructors are at the forefront of this movement and are important for change. Although many new professors have taken a learning sciences approach in their teaching, not all subject areas are taught this way. For instance, in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM), courses are often taught using instructionism, through memorization, problem solving, and procedural methods. Considering this, I think the implementation of courses in STEM could greatly benefit from learning sciences pedagogy.