This is my last response. In it, I address comments by Leonard Webster and Joe Beckmann. I will now have responded to all postings I've received. If I haven't responded to any postings, it is because they did not make it into a digest that I received, and I apologize.
Leonard's [Webster, 9 Dec 96] comments about the need for "more human centered design and the tools to accomplish it" seem right on target to me. And I agree that narrative (personal and social stories) can be a powerful tool to that end. At least one of the chapters in the Green Book II will address that.
Joe [Beckmann, 9 Dec 96] says that I "fail to address how [my] formulation is particularly new or different from that of a large number of earlier philosophers and analysts." Perhaps that's because it isn't. Many others have proposed and even done things that belong to a information-age paradigm. In those cases, they were ideas that were ahead of their time and therefore could not yet take hold as the predominant paradigm. Technology, human knowledge (soft technology), and mindsets were not yet sufficiently advanced to allow them to take permanent root. But of course as hard and soft technologies have advanced, more powerful ways are being invented to accomplish many of the same things that those pioneers tried to accomplish through more primitive means. That is perhaps the only way that the current formulations (which I certainly cannot lay claim to as being "mine") are any different from theirs.
Joe also says that I "fail to use paradigm the way it would be used by structuralists or other philosophers, as a comprehensive system rather than a set of 'key markers'." I am used to the term being used to refer to a pattern that prevails across particular systems, rather than to a particular system itself. For example, metatheory is a kind of paradigm, for it applies to many theories. The aptitude-treatment interactions metatheory and the conditions-methods-outcomes metatheory are two different paradigms of instructional theories. Similarly, industrial-age societal systems tended to have certain characteristics in common, that differentiate them from agrarian-age systems and information-age systems. Therefore, these are three different paradigms of societal systems. And, indeed, it is "key markers" that are most useful, in my view, for characterizing the differences among these paradigms of societal systems. This certainly fits the dictionary definition, but I am sorry if it doesn't fit the particular meaning used by structuralists or other philosophers. As constructivists are quick to point out, this is one of the problems with language--many of us tend to construct different meanings for the same terms (which, incidentally, was a major theme of the Green Book I).
I find it curious that Joe talks about conceptual models of instructional design being outdated before they are transmitted on the net, while at the same time talking about Dewey's and Montessori's conceptual models of instructional design as still being valid today. I'm not sure what his purpose was here, but I believe it is important to think of every technology as having a life cycle wherein it undergoes an evolution--a continual improvement process that follows an S curve of development, until it reaches its upper limit, after which a new paradigm of technology may eventually surpass it--see Branson's article in the Journal of Instructional Development, 10(4). During the steep part of the S curve, designs become outdated very quickly, sure, but that doesn't mean they should not be created! They serve a useful purpose, not only in meeting people's needs of the moment, but also in serving as a stepping stone to better designs. It seems Joe recognizes this, for he went on to talk about the need for "evaluation strategies ... which capture unanticipated benefits and build those values into new programs." So I'm not sure what Joe was trying to say here, but perhaps he was building the case for this statement:
[quoting Beckmann, 9 Dec 96] So, why bother with a paradigm when there are not enough models around to assemble a conceptual scheme.
I don't think it's a matter of bothering with a paradigm. I think paradigms exist independently of our ability to perceive them. But perceiving them gives us much greater insights as to the nature of things. For example, the key marker of "adversarial relationships" in the industrial age can be seen in the legal system (prosecution versus defense), political system (two-party system, with its natural tendency toward gridlock), and business systems (labor versus management), as well as in education (teachers versus administrators, and even teachers versus students). Seeing those features can help us to redesign those systems to better meet our changing needs in the information age. We are already developing a new metaphor in education to capture this difference: "Teacher as coach," or "The guide on the side, rather than the sage on the stage." Furthermore, it should be apparent that individual conceptual schemes are likely to change far more rapidly than the paradigms that characterize them.
Whereas we once contemplated change as a condition of education, it is now so much more accelerated that formal educational systems are collapsing under a dynamic which transcends classrooms and class, language and literature.
I certainly agree with the latter part of the sentence, but it seems to me the current system of education was designed to be rigid and highly resistant to change. But perhaps Joe was referring to students changing rather than the system itself changing.
Bricks define policy, and industry had very little to do with it. If you want to blame the rigidity of American Education on anything, it probably reflects the rigidity of particular ethnic groups and their fear of illegitimate economic or social mobility more than Henry Ford.
Policy is determined through a very complex set of mechanisms. Soft systems theory (see e.g., Peter Checkland's book) helps us to recognize the tremendous complexity involved. Bricks, with all due respect, are but one element in a very complex policy formulation system. Certainly, one factor that contributes strongly to the rigidity of the educational system is the bureaucracy, which is a key marker of the industrial age. Standardization is another powerful force, as is conformity. The key markers, if accurately identified, can provide a lot of insight into understanding societal systems.
In closing, I would like to say that I strongly believe systems theory is a tremendously powerful tool for educators, especially instructional designers. It gives us an understanding that helps us to design our future rather than being logs just floating down the river of change.