After watching Lisa's and Jim's video, I now want a cowboy hat.
I can't recall the number of classes I've sat through, the number of seminars and trainings during my K-12 career, and the number of conferences I've attened that focused on educational theory, but the video's simple and short grouping of the three main ones was really clear: instruct, construct, connect.
In working on my TESOL Certificate, a stat jumped out that I've never forgotten: In most classrooms, more than 80% of the time, the instructor does the talking. Take that info and add Harry Wong's (a rather dynamic presenter/researcher on the topic of classroom management) idea of the person who does the work in the classroom (in this case the talking teacher) is the person who is learning, and there is a recipe for perhaps reassessing effective pedagogy. However, in the video, Jim noted that the last two MCC instructors of the year are dynamic presenters, and they fall within the instructivist realm. That balanced viewpoint is important. I think that a balancing act among these three educational theories is important, and subscribing to one or another really depends on the objectives of the learning. This last statement sounds like what a buddy of mine used to say, "No shit Sherlock!" (pardon the French)
One of the things I really like about undertaking this POT experience is the exposure to sources of thought and materials that I have not come across. Larry Sanger's article was insightful, and it's one of those slated for a re-reading this summer. Too busy right now.