Here's an observation: Rob and several respondents appear to be of two minds with regard to prospects for the future of ID: promising, reaching maturity, finally discriminating between simple-minded designs and more elaborate designs involving learner conceptions--but a decade behind, dominated by a technology-addicted marketplace, etc.
Well, how are we in the ID profession really doing? Is there real progress in ID? Can the limiting factors be overcome? What are these limiting factors?
I happen to believe the complexity of ID is grossly underestimated. Compare the following with regard to complexity:
1. Create a spreadsheet for the budget of a small operation.
2. Document how the spreadsheet works in non-technical terms accessible to most adults.
3. Write a program in C++ to do the same thing.
4. Explain to Curious George (a bright fellow from the Hinterlands) how the program works.
5. Design a course to help a person become better at explaining things like this to curious persons like George.
The complexity of these activities increases. Perhaps I have the order of complexity a bit wrong, but I have no doubt that the complexity increases dramatically between the first three and the last two. Without better understanding of the complexities of learning, instructing, and designing, I seriously doubt that we are likely to make a great deal of progress in improving instructional designs and the effectiveness of learning environments. But, we will at least have challenging jobs.