As someone who is interested in designing online learning environments, I find Reigeluth's model useful to explain what I am trying to do, but not particularly prescriptive. I appreciate his statement...
[quoting Reigeluth, 6 Dec 96] Regardless of what term you use to characterize the more learner-centered orientation, we certainly need guidance for how to do it.
[quoting Hughes, 5 Dec 96] Consider for a moment a virtual community working with teachers and a design team? ...[it's] more along the lines of construction of a learning environment rather than instruction but I may be nit-picking here. The way you have referred to instructional theory bespeaks of an environment more than an event. This I think is a major part of the shift in the paradigm.
I would add that (beyond including teachers in the design process) designing an online learning environment can also entail working with technology providers, content/resource providers, subject matter experts, mentor/partners, and facilitators.
I think a lot of the problems people have is that they are stuck in an old paradigm of "instruction" and "ISD." I don't think Billie is nit-picking! It seems to me that the learning environments described have little to do with "instruction" per se, and a lot to do with learning. My understanding is that Maricopa is very interested in language skills development, but I wouldn't call it instruction to participate in a MOO discussion (unless there's someone teaching via the MOO).
My suspicion is that Merrill et al., as cited by Tom Reeves, have little to say about the type of learning environments discussed here, but rather have a more limited view of "instruction." Therefore, it's apples and oranges. (Forgive me, I haven't read Merrill et al., but I do like both apples and oranges!) Moreover, I do see some scientific knowledge developing about learning communities (e.g., Riel, M., & Levin, J. (1990). Building electronic communities: success and failure in computer networking. Instructional Sciences, 19, 145-169).
What I don't see is these people calling themselves instructional designers!
I see very few people who do this work (particularly in K-12, US) who think in ISD terms. One view might be that ISD should stay as ISD, and stick with it's strengths (ala Merrill?). Alternatively, I think there is a place for expanding our thinking, as Reigeluth is doing. I'd like to see a joining of forces with what I see as a more generic group, i.e., educational researchers, and try to bring some of the strengths of ISD to bear--e.g., attention to formative evaluation, production, management, clarity of purpose and roles, graphic representation of processes, etc. Finally, I am very interested in hearing how people choose to evaluate online learning communities and assess authentic learning.
Although, my dissertation has taken me in a different direction (diffusion), and I have not kept up with the 1996 articles cited by Tom Reeves, I will still be presenting my efforts to sort some of this out at AECT.
My proposal was inspired by the following...
A strength of the instructional design community is its ability to articulate, manage, and systematize the process involved in designing effective learning environments ... A strength of the research community is its theoretical expertise and investigation of a learner-centered approach. (Lin, et al., 1995, p. 58)
Lin, X., Bransford, J. D., Hmelo, C.E., et al. (1995), Instructional design and development of learning communities: An invitation to dialogue. Educational Technology, 35(5), 53-63.