Mike Vanhala's [14 Apr 95] reference to the Bednar, Cunnigham, Duffy & Perry paper that claimed that "theory and methods simply cannot be separated" reminded me of a thwarted investigation of my own many years ago. I was attempting to determine the relative effectiveness of instructional materials designed by teams that followed different instructional philosophies.
The big differences in effectiveness turned out to be accountable mainly to the experience of the group (surprise--those with more experience in producing and validating materials tended to produce better materials!).
The more interesting finding was that a group of experienced designers who examined the resulting materials was able to identify the guiding philosophy behind their construction reliably ONLY for the inexperienced design teams. The experienced teams produced materials that were (a) effective, and (b) an eclectic mix of techniques. It was only when you asked the experienced teams to describe WHY their materials "worked" that you had a chance to identify their design philosophy. Conclusion: In instructional design, theory guided construction of materials for those with minimal practical experience but guided mostly the explanatory language of those with a lot of practical experience. The experience itself seemed to be what guided the design for those who had practical design and production experience. It would be interesting to know if this is still true.