[quoting Gustafson, 26 Feb 97] Make sure they are awake and then tell the students (probably in very stylized form) what the objectives are, after which you tell them a bunch of information and ask them to recall it, and don't forget the drill and practice session and be sure to tell them they are right or wrong. ... It reminds me of the old Skinner programmed instruction formula for design. The result is instruction that may work (if carefully tested and revised), but is boring as hell! And of course, higher level outcomes are conveniently ignored.
Kent, shame on you for using this old straw man! No designer who understood the notion of conditions of learning, or the purpose of the events of instruction, would equate it with Skinnerian programmed instruction. Certainly I find an information processing model viable for looking at alternative learning strategies and activities. Higher level learning outcomes are not ignored because of this model, they are generally ignored because the curriculum planner doesn't know how to assess them, or even to articulate them. After reading your reaction again, I am not sure what you were trying to say with regard to TBT. If what you say is true, then it is true of everything we do in the name of Instructional Design, and we all ought to be soundly flogged.