Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What is instructional strategy? Seeking hidden dimensions

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

Abstract

Instructional strategy is defined in abstract terms independent of instructional theories, philosophies, or standard formulas. Strategies share dimensions in common that allow instructional designers to communicate about them in theory-agnostic terms. These dimensions supply a common reference for comparing design viewpoints and discussing their relative strengths and applicability. This definition simplifies the design of strategies. It provides a stable framework for the instructional designer, regardless of loyalty to a philosophy or theory. Examples show how theories about strategy compare with regard to the framework’s dimensions.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1996). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreissen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In J. Andreissen, M. J. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. C., & Wilson, H. A. (1969). Computer-assisted instruction: A book of readings. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. (1978). In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the critics. Review of Educational Research, 48, 251–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20, 481–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. S. (1988). The tutorial process. Springfield: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–452). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R. R., Brown, J. S., & Fischer, G. (1999). Skiing as a model of instruction. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Development in social cognition (pp. 139–150). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. M., Warnock, E. H. & Passafiume, J. J. (1975). Analysis and synthesis of tutorial dialogues. Psychology of learning and motivation, 9, 49–87. Also, Bolt Beranek and Newman Technical Report No. 2789. Cambridge: Bolt Beranek and Newman. DTIC AD0776596. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/776596.pdf .

  • Collins, A. M. (1977). The goal structure of a Socratic tutor. Proceedings of the 1977 annual conference of the Association for Computing Machinery. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 256–263. Also, Technical Report BBN-3518. Cambridge: Bolt Beranek & Newman. DTIC AD038359. https://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a038359.pdf .

  • Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. L., Homme, L. E., & Glaser, R. (1962). The Ruleg system for the construction of programmed verbal learning sequences. Journal of Educational Research, 55(9), 513–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. A., & Rick, J. (2014). Supporting learning with interactive surfaces and spaces. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 689–702). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, B. A. (1993). The human-tutorial dialogue project: Issues in the design of instructional systems. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2014). An architectural approach to instructional design. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S., & Boling, E. (in press). Conversational forms of instruction and message layer design. In Educational Communication and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Association for Educational Communications and Technology/Springer.

  • Gibbons, A. S., Bunderson, C. V., Olsen, J. B., & Robertson, J. (1995). Work models: Still beyond instructional objectives. Machine-Mediated Learning, 5(3&4), 221–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S., & Langton, M. B. (2016). The application of layer theory to design: The control layer. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(2), 97–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S., & Rogers, P. C. (2009). The architecture of instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models. vol. 3, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear, P. (2008). Flexible learning and the architecture of learning places. In M. J. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. vanMerrieboër, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 251–258). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C. (2016). Conversations with autotutor help students learn. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 124–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C. R. (2019). Current research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore & W. C. Diehl (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, R. E., Nicol, E. H., Kleinman, J. C., & Grace, M. G. (1969). Information mapping for learning and reference. Cambridge: Information Resources Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, R. E. (1993). Structured writing at 25. Performance and Instruction, 32(February), 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, W. L., & Lester, J. C. (2016). Face-to-face interaction with pedagogical agents, twenty years later. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, W. L., & Rickel, J. (1998). Steve: An animated pedagogical agent for procedural training in virtual environments. SIGART Bulletin, 8, 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, F., Bakhtiar, M., Resnick, M., Silverman, B., & Berg, R. (2000). To mindstorms and beyond: Evolution of a construction kit for magical machines. In A. Druin & J. Hendler (Eds.), Robots for kids: Exploring new technologies for learning (pp. 9–33). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J. K., & Gibbons, A. S. (2007). Technology I, II, and III: Criteria for understanding and improving the practice of instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 377–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, D. C., Reiser, B. J., Ranney, M., & Trafton, J. G. (1992). Effective tutoring techniques: A comparison of human tutors and intelligent tutoring systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 277–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D., Schneider, E. W., & Fletcher, K. A. (1980). TICCIT (instructional design library). vol. 40, Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D., & Twitchell, D. G. (Eds.). (1994). Instructional design theory. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1994). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, D., Ryu, H., & Cranshaw, M. (2007). A design requirements framework for mobile learning environments. Journal of Computers, 2(4), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plowman, L., & Luckin, R. (2004). Interactivity, interfaces, and smart toys. Computer, 37(2), 98–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. vol. 2, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickel, J., & Johnson, W. L. (1999). Animated agents for procedural training in virtual reality: Perception, cognition, and motor control. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13, 343–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. W. (1999). Toward development of flexibly adaptive designs. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. vol. 2, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sanchez, I., Milrad, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning: Small devices, big issues. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning: Principles and products (pp. 233–250). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanney, K. M. (2002). Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanney, K. M., & Zyda, M. (2002). Virtual environments in the 21st century. In K. M. Stanney (Ed.), Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications (pp. 1–14). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K., Siler, S., Murray, C., Takashi, Y., & Baggett, W. B. (2003). Why do only some events cause learning during human tutoring? Cognition and Instruction, 21(3), 209–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R. T., & Gagné, R. M. (1974). Past and future research on learning hierarchies. Educational Psychologist, 11(1), 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Psychology and Technology Department, McKay School of Education, Brigham Young University, 150-A MCKB, Provo, UT, 84602, USA

    Andrew S. Gibbons

Authors
  1. Andrew S. Gibbons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew S. Gibbons.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gibbons, A.S. What is instructional strategy? Seeking hidden dimensions. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 2799–2815 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09820-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09820-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation