[quoting Thomas, 23 Jan 97] I do agree, however, that we have a "converging model" for instruction of cognitive skills (higher-order rules or problem-solving, ala Robert Gagne). In fact, Gagne and M. David Merrill's most recent collaborations ... address the issue of making the instruction both relevant and engaging to improve the effectiveness of instruction and its transfer (both near and far transfer). Training has used the basic model that you've noted for quite a while... Training, as a field and a practice, has had (or should have, at least) the "luxury" of the relevance being much more obvious than the challenges faced by educators, especially K-12.
[quoting Quinn, 24 Jan 97.e] Well, I agree that the ISD approach (how I characterize the influences you are citing above) is similarly converging on this model, but I don't think they've had it right all along. I believe they have neglected some of the reflection aspects, and been focused more on near transfer than far transfer.
It does look as though Kent is talking about ISD, whereas it looks as though Clark is talking about a range of approaches that could be grouped under the heading of constructivist approaches.
I don't agree with Clark, however that the ISD approach is converging on the constructivist model. Although some of the main advocates of the ISD approach over the years are starting to say things that sound a little constructivist, I would say that they themselves are moving away from "ISD" gradually. Wouldn't most people agree that "ISD" taken as a whole in the form that we normally understand it, is in fact mutually exclusive with constructivism?
There are certainly elements of the ISD approach that are consistent with the converging model that Clark describes, but aspects of ISD like "task analysis," based on the premise of an objectively "correct" way of understanding the domain, and "learning hierarchies" leading to a single sequence through the material for all learners, are in my view diametrically opposed to constructivism.