I have been following the latest discussion about constructivism versus ISD with great interest. My own struggles with this issue as a student in an Instructional Technology master's program have taken me back and forth across the Great Ideological Divide so many times that I feel emboldened to abandon my usual lurker's role and contribute a few thoughts.
Constructivism means many things to many people. It's roots lie in Piagét's ideas about the stages of intellectual development--the mind, or at least the brain, is not a blank slate where experience writes the truth. Instead, we interpret experience through cognitive templates that change over time. This idea was further developed by Bruner and the cognitive psychologists, who were also inspired by the linguistic theories of the fifties demonstrating a language structure implicit in the brain.
We can see a continuum developing here. At one end reality is in the world, at the other end it is in the perceptions of the individual. As the view of a constructed reality developed, it was impacted by French critical theory and deconstructionism (I know--but it gets worse) and by the general balkanization of everything. At the far radical end of the spectrum of definitions, where some of the strangest shadows are cast, it abandons any connection to an objective world and sails off into very deep post-epistemological waters.
For learning theorists, constructivism has meant a learner centered pedagogy that concentrates on the experience of the individual. In its moderate form this is firmly allied with Dewey and progressive educational ideas in general, and discovery learning in particular. For instructional technologists the issue is complicated by the development of the computer and its educational possibilities. The enormous power of data manipulation and individualized learning situations that the computer allows has enabled learners to take control of their learning in a historically novel way. Hyperlinked information designs (encyclopedias, instructional programs, interactive fiction) have especially relied on constructivist ideas for theoretical support.
Many of us have been troubled by the shaky epistemological assertions of the more radical constructivists. Many of us are excited by the educational possibilities that computer technology promises (and has sometimes delivered). Traditional ISD approaches seem unsuited to really exploiting the excitement and creative potential offered by contemporary computer development. Constructivist thinkers can seem flaky, and hyperlinked environments can have all the depth of an evening spent channel surfing.
What's an instructional technologist to do? Rod Sims' comments [3 Aug 95] that emphasize focusing on the desired outcomes of learning seem sensible and to the point: we're all in the business of helping people turn experience into learning--but experience is so varied, and learning so idiosyncratic, that we must remain flexible in our approaches.