[quoting Wild, 5 May 94] And, it is not a matter of a simple dichotomy between objectivism and constructivism as epistemologies--there is not a continuum connecting these two supposed extremes. There are many dimensions in learning theory, not all fit along an imaginary continuum--this is where Tom Reeves' work on evaluation of instructional technologies is questionable (Reeves, T. (in press) Evaluating what really matters in Computer Based Education). A continuum suggests that something or someone can be placed along its linear measure, that it, or they, can lean more or less towards either constructivism or objectivism--this is surely a misrepresentation. Constructivism offers a theory of knowledge acquisition that shares characteristics with other cognitivist theories and is different to objectivism--but it is not on the same continuum.
If this were a purely philosophical debate, then I guess I would agree with you that objectivism and constructivism could not exist on the same continuum. (Actually, if this were purely a philosophical debate, I wouldn't participate because I'm not purely a philosopher--in fact, I'm not pure). However, as an educational issue, I prefer to think of the application of constructivism as residing on a continuum, though I would label the other end as "instructivism" to get at the sense of external intervention by one person (e.g., teacher, designer) on behalf of another (e.g., student) (also because it rhymes). I think that's really what the debate is all about and the one I grapple with the most, even if you scrap the label of "teacher" in favor of "facilitator." There can be a very fine line between too much or too little facilitating, scaffolding, etc.
Also, I know that many hardcore constructivists view these issues as either "you are for us or against us" but my experiences in education have been far more evolutionary than revolutionary. For me, a continuum is a better metaphor for understanding these issues--and for me it is only a metaphor (even the idea of "construction" is a metaphor; Papert has recently written that "cultivation" may be a better metaphor). Obviously, I hope that this does not misrepresent constructivism as a result. Although many find an eclectic or pragmatic position to be weak, I think this is the real strength of instructional technology. Of course, I come from the Will Rogers' school of IT in that I never saw a good idea I didn't like.