Although traditional instructional design and technology (IDT) has largely been based on objectivism, in the past 20 years, constructivism has emerged as a dominant framework for IDT. Both perspectives, however, present shortcomings. This paper explores enactivism-an emerging new philosophical world view-as an alternative paradigm. It also investigates the possibilities offered by this new paradigm to IDT. The philosophical world view known as enactivism is reviewed to illustrate the similarities and differences among the three philosophical paradigms, namely, objectivism, constructivism and enactivism. Finally, details of enactivism and its implications for IDT are explored. IntroductionThis paper explores enactivism and the possibilities offered by this paradigm to instructional design and technology (IDT). Enactivism, rooted in the phenomenological work of Merleau-Ponty and Bateson's biological perspectives, is an emerging philosophical world view and has flourished particularly in the field of mathematics education. At a fundamental level, it rejects dualism and focuses on the importance of embodiment and action to cognition.

No abstract

Campbell launches a sustained attack against traditional theological conceptions of justification and aims to free Romans 1-4 (on which these conceptions seemingly rest) from a widespread rationalistic, contractual, individualistic (mis)reading, which gains its plausibility only by the modernistic theological superstructure forced upon it. Campbell then presents an in-depth re-reading of Romans 1-4 (as well as parts of chs. [9][10][11] Phil. 3), in which Paul engages in a highly complex, 'subtle' polemic, creatively employing 'speech-incharacter' as a means of subverting a Jewish Christian 'Teacher' whose visit to Rome threatens to undermine the Roman Christians' assurance of salvation. Campbell argues that justification is participatory and liberative: Christ's death and resurrection constitute the 'righteousness/deliverance of God', by which he justifies, or delivers, an enslaved humanity from the power of sin. This article concentrates primarily on Campbell's own exegesis, concluding that, while important aspects of Campbell's critique of both "justification theory" and traditional readings of Romans 1-4 must be carefully considered, his own exegesis is not only ingenious, asking too much of Paul and the letter's auditors, but altogether untenable at key points.

No abstract