It would be of value, I think, to move away from the notion and language of "paradigm shifts" when we are talking of creating instructional theory. We are surely beyond wholesale replacement of one model with another, where there is an implication that "new" is best--the idea that one "paradigm" of thinking should eclipse a previous one. This essentially Whig approach to creating premises for change lends little to improve our understanding of practice or theory. For example, it seems inappropriate to artificially place "Adversarial relationships" against "Cooperative relationships" in the "key markers" listing above--cooperation is a useful learning strategy (marker?) in a range of instructional contexts, and has received good press in the 80s and 90s. But then, competition or negotiation (viz. of an adversarial type) is also valuable as a learning strategy; and particularly so at a cognitive level (where negotiation is seen to be a particularly powerful process in the concept of accommodation, and in the formation of functional cognitive (mental) models). There is no sense in the view that one should receive ascendancy over the other in the devising of a useful "paradigm" of instructional theories.
Charles asks what we feel about his "key markers"--well, I consider that as a premise on which to rationalize the need for a new instructional theory(ies), it is inadequate. It is inadequate because it creates an artificial and misleading dichotomy between old and new; and is false in its implication that one set of "markers" is more useful than another in devising instructional theory.
Charles goes on to table the idea of "adaptive instruction", focused in a "users as designers" model of instructional design, and quotes Winn (1987), thus:
This means that the role of instructional designers will involve less direct instructional decision making and more concentration on the mechanisms by means of which decisions are made. ...It follows that the only viable way to make decisions about instructional strategies that meshes with cognitive theory is to do so during instruction using a system that is in constant dialogue with the student and is capable of continuously updating information about the student's progress, attitude, expectations, and so on. (pp. 39-41)
What both Winn and Charles are implicating here can be understood by reference to Conversation theory, first applied to instruction by Pask (1976); and more lately given credence by Laurillard (1993), in relation to a model of university instruction. The power of "adaptive instruction" lies in the processes of negotiation, dialogue, reflection, modeling, and accommodation--and these are all (concerned with) cognitive processes. I make this point to illustrate the notion that we do not need new instructional theories to explain or validate concepts such as "adaptive instruction"--they already exist (and, moreover, exist outside of systems design theory).
Charles goes onto comment on teachers as "clients" of instructional designers--a strange view, to say the least. Another view of teachers is AS instructional designers--they create instruction using a range of instructional models, often based in concepts such as challenge, negotiation, engagement, modeling, scaffolding, and cognitive mismatch, to name a few. I would suggest that teachers, as instructional designers, need appropriate resources that can be used in a range of instructional contexts and designs--they already have a whole range of theoretical constructs in which to frame their instruction.
Charles completes an interesting paper with a request:
Finally, please let me know if you know of any other theorists or design theories that should be included in Volume II of Instructional Design Theories and Models.
Not to include contributions from (European) people like Diana Laurillard (Open University, UK), Betty Collis (University of Twente, Netherlands), Paul Ramsden, Salomon, and the like, surely has to be a mistake?
Finally, I would suggest that we do not need a "new paradigm of instructional theory"--we simply need to better use what we already (think we) know about learning and instruction in existing theoretical frameworks.
PS: In making my comments above, it might be that I have misrepresented Charles' view of instructional design theory--but for me, it seems that outside the U.S., there is a much broader (or at least, different) view of what instructional design is and the theories that are available to inform our practice in this field. This may be since ISD has, in educational contexts at least, never really caught on outside the U.S.; and learning theory, rather than instructional theory, has always been seen to have much greater value in designing instructional models.