theoretical frameworks

I wanted to reflect on what was said last week about theoretical frameworks. My academic background is in philosophy, not the social sciences, so I'm still learning the lay of the land. One thing I know about the program at UWB is that constructivism is the official theoretical framework for what we do. As well as I understand it, I think constructivism is basically the right idea about how people learn. However, I am eager for an explicit discussion about what exactly this theory is, and what it is not. It seems that many who write as constructivists think of it as a fairly specific doctrine about how teachers ought to teach, ie, a pedagogy, rather than simply a theory about how people learn. Thus, it is said that small group discussions, or hands-on activities, are constructivist activities. But as far as I can tell, constructivism as a theory of learning does not entail that one type of classroom activity is inherently superior to others. Although I think there are sound reasons for the view that too much listening and book work in the classroom is an ineffective way to structure classroom experience, I think an equal case can be made that too much small group work and/or computer work is also ineffective.

Anyway, I am somewhat suspicious of the idea of claiming a theoretical framework, except in a broad way, when it comes to taking an intellectual stand on something. It is always preferable to state what exactly your assumptions are about a subject, rather than to bat around labels that are ambiguously used in the literature. Obviously, the discourse should not degenerate to the level of cheap political dialogue, in which saying "I'm a Democrat" somehow justifies or explains your view of a particular question. Too often, labels are a way to avoid real thought.