[quoting Noah, 5 Aug 95] 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. ... Many of us have been troubled by the shaky epistemological assertions of the more radical constructivists.
Two thoughts occur to me:
1. considering the constructivism/instructivism debate as a continuum is close to what Salomon had in mind in his article on systemic and analytic research (reconciling the objectivists and the anti-positivists). Rather than consider these two approaches as members of different paradigms (which cannot be compared), Salomon suggests that we consider them together as complementary and vital to educational research. Seems similar to the debate between constructivism/instructivism, though perhaps we need to first consider my next "thought" below.
2. David's mention of "shaky epistemological assertions" (often made by both camps in the debate) stem from larger essentialist versus existentialist views of the world. Perhaps it is at this level where the real debate is taking place. Maybe we as instructional designers can never reconcile the two philosophic camps.
As for the critical theorists, at least they have contributed plenty of food for thought on behalf of oppressed groups. Look a bit further in philosophy at the post-modernists, and you find not only criticism of critical theory but criticism of any debate such as the one between constructivism/instructivism. They would tell us that we are really discussing personal power and control.
(You're right, David. It does get worse!!)