I'm sorry that Charles saw my comments [4 Dec 96] as hostile and negative--I assure you, it's just my crusty and politically incorrect way of trying to force you lurkers our of your holes. Unfortunately it seems to have failed miserably so far! This really is a significant topic and I hope argument picks up on the issues.
Let me try to continue the discussion by taking up some of Charles' points in reply.
1. Is ISD an "American preoccupation"? Richard Cornell put the argument in context when he wrote:
[quoting Cornell, 4 Dec 96] As you know, the "ISD" movement was spawned during World War II when the United States found itself needing a more efficient approach for the delivery of training to the troops. This "systems" approach was designed to do one basic thing--to teach military personnel how to kill (win battles?) without being killed first.
I guess my argument was that in other parts of the world education has been regarded more as an art than a science and we have placed greater emphasis on the training of teachers than on the sculpting of "teacher-proof" instructional design systems. And, maybe Charles is correct in saying that there aren't many non-U.S. theorists that fit the definition.
[quoting Reigeluth, 5 Dec 96] of non North Americans who have been actively developing design theory (not descriptive theory) in education, particularly design theory that reflects at least some of the elements of the new paradigm...
But this is surely a weakness of the "new paradigm" because non Americans have not taken it up. If you would like some alternative views, in this part of the world I would include John Biggs, Paul Morris, and Cheng Kai-ming, all of whom have written extensively on curriculum reform in Hong Kong and the responsibilities of teachers. I'm sure there are similar writers in Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, etc.
2. Some interesting thoughts on "information age educational values." ... For example, for standardization versus customization, mass production is giving way to customized production in industry, mass marketing is giving way to customized marketing, and mass communications are giving way to customized communications, to name but a few. In education, we are seeing this reflected in the move toward "learner-centered" education.
I think this is drawing a long bow, not to mention a North American designed one. The mass production methods developed by Henry Ford and others have not yet reached many parts of the world, which have been dragged in recent times from cottage culture directly into the information age.
My point was that in many countries, national curriculum goals--particularly of literacy and numeracy--are considered far more important than "individual freedoms." In Singapore, for example (the country which had the effrontery to cane an American teenager exercising his democratic right to spray-paint the neighbor's cars) and in Hong Kong, the only natural resources are the people who live here. Here, national goals, national aspirations, and national curricula are set by governments, and are followed and (on the whole) supported by parents.
I know nothing of Japan apart from newspaper reports, but I have the impression that the Japanese are struggling harder than most to resist American influences, whether it be in militarism, culture, or trade. (I'm sure Steve can enlighten us here.)
Indonesia, Malaysia, and China do the same with varying success, complicated as it is by ideology, nepotism and internecine power struggles (not a subject for this debate). The point is that their goals are distinctly non-American and the ideals Charles listed very definitely are American.
3. I am curious about Ian's impression that I was devaluing teachers' roles in education. On the contrary, I believe teachers' roles will be more professional, more enjoyable, and more rewarding than they have been in the industrial-age educational system.
But this is not the impression we have from practicing teachers--their jobs are becoming more difficult, not to mention dangerous. And I feel that a part of the reason is the conflicting messages schools are receiving from the community, from governments, and from educational gurus. When you compare the respect which teachers enjoy in Asian societies to the harassment they experience in American and (sad to say) Australian schools it is not surprising why the ideals which Charles puts forward are not being universally embraced.
Now let's get one thing straight--I'm not an apologist for Li Peng (the butcher of Tiananmen) nor even Lee Kwan-yew (wielder of the cane). I have a healthy skepticism about the use of the education as a means of social control and I'm old enough to have been around during the Cultural Revolution and seen it in action. And I'm here to say that in its crudest form it doesn't work--it leads to anarchy. But there are other ways of looking at the question, and they are not the American way.
However, let's also admit that the American way is just as valid as any other way and this issue should not stop us discussing the other very provocative questions which Charles raises. Come on you lurkers!