In this article, the author presents Fox (2005) argument on functional contextualism and his assessment of the current conceptual frameworks in the field of instructional design and technology. The often unquestioning espousal of constructivism in the field of instructional design and technology has caused problems for a number of reasons. Fox draws one's attention to two of these: (a) a lack of theoretical clarity in a significant amount of constructivist writing; and (b) the failure among many educators to distinguish among the several varieties of constructivism. Fox's alternative view, "functional contextualism," has two distinct faces. Conceptually, it calls for a renewed focus on behavior and behaviorism, but in a new guise. Methodologically, it recommends a renewed emphasis on quantitative and experimental research. Fox offers a number of examples of what he believes are good uses of the new approach. In particular, he advocates relational frame theory (RFT). Insofar as RFT extends Skinnerian behaviorism to account for learning based on the relations among stimuli and the influence of the context in which the stimuli are encountered, not just the specific stimulus attributes, it is a useful advance. However, even those who developed RFT (including Fox) have acknowledged that its empirical grounding is weak and that there is little guidance about how to design interventions that embody its principles (Hayes et al., 2001, p. 28). RFT needs to mature a bit before instructional designers can decide how useful it will be for their work. However, the author argues that a more specific and viable frameworks are need to be established and developed. First is a cluster of theories that all fall under the rubic, "embodied cognition." Second is cognitive neuroscience and the third is the direct examination of student behavior in minute detail and at high temporal resolution.