Dave, thanks for giving me a chance to clarify my post. That's the conversational aspect of blogs, isn't it? Give a little, take a little.

I see informal, networked learning as a new field of learning practice. ISD came out of the need to train a lot of soldiers for war. In the case of informal learning, it has always been around, but now we need a lot more it for most of our lives.

Previously, the only way to be a continuous learner was to constantly take courses, go to conferences or read. With the Web we have more options, but we don't have a lot of tools and methods for learning outside the course model. Many learners, once dropped into a networked, informal work and learning environment, are in a state of confusion.

I don't see training & development or even ISD being replaced. Becaue ISD became pervasive in business, especially with the advent of CBT and WBT, we had too many performance issues labelled as training problems. That's why I think that informal learning has the potential to be the next ISD; because now we have the conditions to build informal, networked learning environments at a minimal cost and with a wide reach.

Informal learning isn't the salvation for the networked world; it is an essential requirement for success in a networked. Learning how to learn will be one of the most important skills for my children. Those who can learn quickly will thrive. Those who can't may fall further back on the economic and social ladder. As learning professionals, we had better come up with methods and practices for informal learning with the same sense of urgency as those who developed ISD for our soldiers.

So maybe it's a matter of approach, Dave. You think that "new models of instructional design which will draw upon and feed into the network effects that Benkler discusses" may be the solution, and I guess that my approach for a new field is a bit more radical.

Thanks again for taking me to task. It's always good to have constructive, informed feedback.