Charles Reigeluth does a masterful job of commenting on many facets of the Prolegomena paper. I intend to discuss all of them in good time, but not one by one. Indeed, I detect a strand within Charles' comments in the first part, a strand that leads to a fundamental difference of view around the issue of theory integration. This is what I think we should focus on--and it is this very issue that has driven me to write the paper in the first place. I take this opportunity to point out that Prolegomena is a "reaction paper," maybe even a type of book review (and indeed JiME is currently considering publishing it as a book review of sorts--JiME at http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/ ). This to say that I believe the book that Charles has crafted is a wonderful set of theoretical chapters and that it is the way to move to integration. In other words, bring them together, then see how they sit one against the other.
Now for our great difference of views. It hovers around the notions of unification and compatibility and deals with integration.
Charles represents what I would like to call the culinary theoretical strand--as in a great restaurant, the clients pick and choose from an array of choices depending on their needs of the moment and their tastes (I hope this is not too far-fetched). In Prolegomena, I present what might be called the dog chow theoretical strand--based on the view that there is one best (and only one) chow mix for my dog at any given moment.
Both Charles and I agree on the value of integration, although I think we see it happening differently. For Charles, the integrator is the user--the instructional designer; for me, it is or should be the theorist.
The underlying rationale for the dog chow strand of ID is that there is one best way to design any one piece of instruction--ideally, that is. ID is a scientific technology in that sense--a science of the artificial as Simon has called it, but nonetheless a science. So in effect, if two theories purport to prescribe how to design that piece of instruction, one of them is wrong. Or maybe elements from both can be combined to form a third single and correct theory.
The culinary strand on the other hand, as I read it, says something like the following. The various theories we have described here in front of us each deal with a particular facet or follow a particular value track. They are compatible but not truly opposed to one another. Forcing them together would require unwarranted harm to the underlying value orientations of the users or stakeholders. Hence a menu approach is best. Underlying this strand is, I think, a belief that we know so little about deciding what values are best for education (see the Anderson reference in Prolegomena) that we cannot integrate the diverse theories and must by default leave it open to choice. (Maybe I'm putting this too strongly--can values be decided upon? Or, are values exactly those things that we cannot decide collectively?)
At any rate, one strand believes in the ambition of scientific integration while the other disbelieves it can be achieved because of the human character of educational goal-making. Both believe in the ambition of an integrated ID, but not in its potential for realization. The chow strand thus talks about "prescriptive theory," the culinary about "guidelines for design." The first about overcoming pluralism, the second about its healthy state.
The dog chow strand seeks a unified grand theory. What would this look like? Two analogies come to mind. The first is learning theory (even though it is descriptive), the second statistical theory (prescriptive).
Learning theory is a mess. Open any book in ed psych and you will find categories like behavioral theories, cognitive theories and so on. As if these are alternative (!) theories that are proposed to account for learning, as indeed they have been, and that are there to choose from depending on one's inclination. And yet there is only one learning, even though it may come in different forms. Consider John Anderson's ACT theory which in a single theory describes both declarative and skill (procedural) learning. Or Robert Gagné's conditions of learning which brought together in one theory a variety of forms. These are integrative attempts most worthy of emulation.
As for statistical theory, I am very simply reminded of the inside cover of a number of intro stat books that had laid out the various statistical tests, matrixed as to when they were each appropriate (i.e., under what conditions they were valid). This is what ID should strive for--a matrix that indicates when theory x is appropriate, under what conditions theory y should be applied, and so on. That matrix would then be the unified, integrated grand theory--the one that exists ideally and that our science seeks to establish. This is the complementarity that Charles speaks of, the situational drivers that should effect choice. But if the theorists cross paths in the night, without seeing each other (as the learning theories alluded to above do), then there will be no matrix, no scientific theory of ID.
Now, agree for a moment that integration is desirable and possible. How can it be achieved? The political facet I bring up in Prolegomena is a hindrance--it just keeps getting in the way. That is why I suggest goal-making not remain an aspect of ID but become instead a situational factor. Such that we could say "given that this goal is sought in this case, here is the design prescription (or set thereof) that is best at enabling it." We extricate ourselves from the politics of educational goal-making. In passing, I believe that much of the rhetoric surrounding the constructivist debate is severely stuck in this issue of goals determination.
The sociological facet I discuss in Prolegomena highlights the fact that our theorists do not speak scientifically much to one another. There is little criticism, little attempt to relate and co-locate one's theory alongside others. In other words, little attempt at integration. Now, I must be clear here: I am not suggesting personal or value-laden confrontation (as has occurred in the constructivist debates), but I am suggesting scientific confrontation - one that is of gentleman nature, seeking resolution through seeing how the theories fit together at the seams.
To take the example pursued in Prolegomena and like Charles in his comments, I do agree that elaboration theory is compatible with authentic problem solving (with constructivist design). But how do they fit? How do they relate? And this is just the case of these two theories. Others may well at times be less compatible, but no matter--the point is that it is these compatibility areas (the seams between the theories) that are crucial not only for the grand theory, but also for the further development of each individual component theory as well.
Charles, I hope I have not misrepresented your views too much in my recasting of all this. And now, all ye ID friends, come to the table to choose--will it be the culinary strand or the dog chow strand? And watch your values!