Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A critical review of elaboration theory

  • Development
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article the authors examine elaboration theory (ET), a model for sequencing and organizing courses which was developed by Charles Reigeluth and associates in the late 1970s. The purpose of the article is to offer a critique of ET based on recent cognitive research and to offer suggestions for updating the model to reflect new knowledge.

Commentary by Charles Reigeluth follows this article.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge.Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 315–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (1990).Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (3rd ed.). New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C. (1991, April). Implications of connectionism for thinking about rules.Educational Researcher, 20(3), 10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., & Vye, N. J. (1989). A perspective on cognitive research and its implications for instruction. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.),Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 173–205). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989, January–February). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 32–42.

  • Bruner, J. S. (1966).Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: The Belnap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, C. V., Gibbons, A. S., Olsen, J. B., & Kearsley, G. P. (1981). Work models: Beyond instructional objectives.Instructional Science, 10, 205–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R. R., & Brown, J. S. (1979). An investigation of computer coaching for informal learning activities.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 11, 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R. R., Brown, J. S., & Fischer, G. (1984). Skiing as a model of instruction. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.),Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 139–150). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case, R. (1978). A developmentally based theory and technology of instruction.Review of Educational Research, 48, 439–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case, R., & Bereiter, C. (1984). From behaviourism to cognitive behaviourism to cognitive development: Steps in the evolution of instructional design.Instructional Science, 13, 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clancey, W. J. (1992). Representations of knowing: In defense of cognitive apprenticeship.Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 3(2), 139–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., & Stevens, A. L. (1983). A cognitive theory of inquiry teaching. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 247–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, D. J. (1991, May). Assessing constructions and constructing assessments: A dialogue.Educational Technology, 13–17.

  • Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986).Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Education and the structure of knowledge. (1964). Fifth annual Phi Delta Kappa Symposium. Chicago: Rand McNally.

  • Ford, G. W., & Pugno, L. (Eds.). (1964).The structure of knowledge and the curriculum. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • GagnĂ©, E. (1985).The cognitive psychology of school learning. Chicago: Scott Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • GagnĂ©, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (in press).The cognitive psychology of school learning (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.

  • GagnĂ©, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1988).Principles of instructional design (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillian, C. (1982).In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harel, I. (1991, April).When mathematical ideas, programming knowledge, instructional design, and playful learning are intertwined. The Instructional Software Design Project. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

  • Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment.Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning.Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 549–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1982).Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (1982).The technology of text: Principles for structuring, designing, and displaying text. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (1985).The technology of text: Principles for structuring, designing, and displaying text (vol. 2). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1990, February). Chaos in instructional design.Educational Technology, 30(2), 32–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., Hannum, W. H., & Tessmer, M. (1989).Handbook of task analysis procedures. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosslyn, S. M. (1980).Image and mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1987).Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurel, B. (1991).Computers as theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannes, S. M., & Kintsch, W. (1987). Knowledge organization and text organization.Cognition and Instruction, 4, 91–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1980). Elaboration techniques that increase the meaningfulness of technical text: An experimental test of the learning strategy hypothesis.Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(6), 770–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, D. (1988).Drawing inferences from expository text. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.

  • McDaniel, M. A., & Schlager, M. S. (1990). Discovery learning and transfer of problem-solving skills.Cognition and Instruction, 7(2), 129–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D., Kowallis, T., & Wilson, B. G. (1981). Instructional design in transition. In F. Farley & N. Gordon (Eds.),Psychology and education: The state of the union. Chicago: McCutcheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D., Wilson, B. G., & Kelety, J. C. (1981). Elaboration theory and cognitive psychology.Instructional Science, 10, 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montague, W. E. (1988). Promoting cognitive processing and learning by designing the learning environment. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 125–149). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, W. A., & Orey, M. A. (1991, April).Reconceptualizing the instructional design process: Lessons learned from cognitive science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

  • Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989).The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D., Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. (1976). Comments on learning schemata and memory representation. In D. Klahr (Ed.),Cognition and instruction (pp. 177–196). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1988). The conservation of Piaget: The computer as grist to the constructivist mill. In G. Forman & P. B. Pufall (Eds.),Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 3–13). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. A. (1991, September). What constructivism demands of the learner.Educational Technology, 19–21.

  • Posner, G. J., & Rudnitsky, A. N. (1986).Course design: A guide to curriculum development for teachers (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. J., & Strike, K. A. (1976). A categorization scheme for principles of sequencing content.Review of Educational Research, 46, 665–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. W. (1991). Recipes and reflective learning: “What would prevent you from saying it that way?” In D. A. Schön (Ed.),The reflective turn: Case studies in and on reflective practice (pp. 145–163). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1983).Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1987). Lesson blueprints based on the elaboration theory of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating selected theories and models (pp. 245–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Darwazeh, A. N. (1982). The elaboration theory's procedure for designing instruction: A conceptual approach.Journal of Instructional Development, 5, 22–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., Merrill, M. D., & Wilson, B. G. (1979, February).The structural strategy diagnostics profile project: Final report. Provo, UT: David O. McKay Institute, Brigham Young University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., Merrill, M. D., Wilson, B. G., & Spiller, R. T. (1978, July).Final report on the structural strategy diagnostic profile project. A final report submitted to the Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, San Diego.

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Rodgers, C. A. (1980). The elaboration theory of instruction: Prescriptions for task analysis and design.NSPI Journal, 19, 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Stein, R. (1983). Elaboration theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B. (1983). Toward a cognitive theory of instruction. In S. G. Paris, G. M. Olson, & H. W. Stevenson (Eds.),Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 5–38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickards, J. P. (1978). Instructional psychology: From a behavioristic to a cognitive orientation.Improving Human Performance Quarterly, 7(4), 256–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Gray, W., Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories.Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossett, A. (1991, February).Coaching successful performance. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando.

  • Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1981). Analogical processes in learning. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.),Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 335–359). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, G. (1949).The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson's University Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1974). What is learned and how it is taught: The interaction between media, message, task and learner. In D. R. Olson (Ed.),Media and symbols: The forms of expression, communication, and education (73rd Yearbook of NSSE, pp. 383–406). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Sieber, J. E. (1970). Relevant subjective response uncertainty as a function of stimulus-task interaction.American Educational Research Journal, 7, 337–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmoni, A. W., Schmidt, R. A., & Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal.Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 355–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C., & Jona, M. Y. (1991). Empowering the student: New perspectives on the design of teaching systems.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 7–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985).Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. (1983).The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. (1987).Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S. (1991).Children's thinking (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1980). Problem solving and education. In D. T. Tuma & F. Reif (Eds.),Problem solving and education: Issues in teaching and research (pp. 81–96). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. L., & Wedman, J. F. (1988). The effects of organization of instruction on cognitive processing. In M. Simonson (Ed.),Selected research papers. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Coulson, R. L., & Anderson, D. K. (1989). Multiple analogies for complex concepts: Antidotes for analogy-induced misconception in advanced knowledge acquisition. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 498–531). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J-C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. J. Spiro (Eds.),Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1976). Epistemological perspectives on conceptions of curriculums organization and learning.Review of Research in Education, 4, 106–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R. (1991, Spring). NSPI president challenges instructional design profs.ITED Newsletter, 1, 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M. (1991, April). Personal communication.

  • Tessmer, M., Wilson, B., & Driscoll, M. (1990). A new model of concept learning and teaching.Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 45–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulving, E. (1985). How many memory systems are there?American Psychologist, 40(4), 385–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1990). Adapting instructional design to project circumstance: The layers of necessity model.Educational Technology, 31(7), 48–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. V. (1985).Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1986).Progressions of quantitative models as a foundation for intelligent learning environments [Technical Report #6277]. Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek & Newman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G. (1985). Techniques for teaching procedures.Journal of Instructional Development, 8(2), 42–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G. (1985–86). Using content structure for course design.Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 14(2), 137–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G., & Cole, P. (in press-a). An instructional-design review of cognitive teaching models emerging from cognitive psychology.Educational Technology Research & Development Journal.

  • Wilson, B., & Cole, P. (in press-b). Cognitive dissonance as an instructional variable.Ohio Media Spectrum.

  • Wilson, B. G., & Merrill, M. D. (1980). General-to-detailed sequencing of concepts in a taxonomy is in general agreement with learning hierarchy analysis.Performance and Instruction, 19, 11–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G., & Tessmer, M. (1990). Adults' perceptions of concept learning outcomes: An initial study and discussion. In M. Simonson (Ed.),Proceedings of selected research presentations. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Research and Theory Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (1990). Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional design.Instructional Science, 19, 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986).Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Colorado at Denver, Campus Box 106, P.O. Box 173364, 80217-3364, Denver, CO

    Brent Wilson & Peggy Cole

Authors
  1. Brent Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peggy Cole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wilson, B., Cole, P. A critical review of elaboration theory. ETR&D 40, 63–79 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296843

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296843

Keywords

Search

Navigation