Having read Diana's paper I found there was one main thing wrong with it. That was that it was too clear and lucid, and argued its points too well. I found nothing to discuss, because I agreed with all of it. Therefore, as a discussion paper it failed.
Don't be surprised if there is not much discussion. It will not be because people are not interested. I particularly liked the bricks and building analogy, and I made sure that the techno-heads at my university saw it. It might have an effect.
[quoting Laurillard's paper] Information technology has led to an alarming expectation that it may be possible to educate students by simply linking them up to the World Wide Web: give them access to information. ... But information is to knowledge as bricks are to buildings. It is as absurd to try and solve the problems of education by giving people access to information as it would be to solve the housing problem by giving people access to bricks.
I was also struck by the contrast between this and the last discussion paper. Don Norman's paper [ITForum #12] was so full of "Isn't technology great--look what it can do for you" that I didn't bother to respond after Jeff Oliver expressed my sentiments. Sure, the discussion picked up after Don found out where his audience was coming from, but the initial paper was disappointing.
I guess the key point of Diana's paper is that it provides guidelines on how we can "adapt" our teaching using technology in a way which improves the parts of the teaching-learning process which are given less emphasis in traditional teaching.