[quoting Dalgarno, 27 Jan 97] 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?
Mutual exclusivity only exists in the way we choose to think about things.
It seems to me that concentrating on the micro-definition of terms, and being more concerned with citation than issue, are two states of education which tend to separate our efforts; therefore, causing us to be weaker collectively than we are individually.
If each of us pursues our paradigm, keeping in mind that learning is the issue, and each of us refuses to spend time in the inefficient pursuit of attempting to discredit other rationales, then all of us will be more productive.
I don't think for a minute that anyone believes that there is one "right" way to instruct, teach, and learn. I also don't think that anyone believes that a learner can or will on her own accord (without help, structure, resources, or limits), invent an individual learning paradigm which will be useful throughout all of their life.
So, it seems, a way to go with what has been cast as two views in opposition is simply to accept the faults of vision of each direction. The question is "What do the rationales have in common?" rather than "Who did what, when, under what name?"
Middle schoolers spend a lot of time with: "It did not," "It did so." We need to move on.