Doug, Excellent point. This is one of the issues I deal with all the time at work. You can't simply re-purpose old instructional (or presentation) materials, and call it "online training." 1 pt

Brian, I think the approach you describe here is an important one, especially from the third-party provider's point of view. The more we can create instructional programs that integrate into or augment existing F2F approaches, the more likely IT folks will get that buy-in. But beyond just buy-in from potential clients, the blended approach is likely more effective from the learners' perspective as well. 1 pt

Teresa, Good point on integrating use of technology into the general curriculum. 1 pt from Pat

Chris,Lori, Brian: a point to each from Pat for your dissection of this cognitivist approach.

I think you do a good job of illustrating the emphasis of effeciency and consistency in the cognitivist approach. 1pt to Sarah from Pat

1pt to Brian for the comment regarding PT and "one-size-fits-all" programs. Thinking about this discrepancy helped me come up with a more refined definition of HPT. Pat

This is a great point regarding the time it takes to see "the fruits of your work." I wonder if the HPT definition should address immediacy of impact in its definition. Anyway, (1pt to Teresa from Pat)

Good point regarding the positive outlook/personality. It is hard to overlook that when you're knee-deep in theories, models, definitions, taxonomies, and systems. (1pt to Chris from Pat)

Timeline is an important aspect. Maybe you can't take the time to develop the perfect instruction... sometimes you have to do the best you can under the restraints of the situation. (1pt to Sarah from Pat)

This is a good point. How do you create motivation for the annual required training (as somebody who works for an organization that creates instruction on ethics, sexual harassment, etc., I'd like to know). Is it just, as Brian mentioned in last week's Wiki, "if you do the training you won't get canned" (1pt to Doug from Pat)

Thanks for getting things started on the definitions page, but also thanks for the link. (1pt to Lori from Pat)

Good idea bringing the collaborative definition over. As you say, it's good to have as a reference as we continue to deepen/refine our understanding of the concepts involved. (1pt to Chris from Pat)

I never thought of providing rationale as a formal part of the ID process until you articulated it here. Especially in my dealings with my superiors, I find myself drawing on vocabulary from learning/instructional theory all the time as explain why it takes more time to design/develop effective programs. (1 pt to Brian from Pat)

Thanks for the link to the tutorial. I always find it extremely useful to see the kinds of stuff others are developing. (1 pt to Doug from Pat)