A new model of concept teaching and learning

  • Martin Tessmer
  • Brent Wilson
  • Marcy Driscoll


Current models of instructional design assume that concepts are (a) classifying rules, (b) components of a more complex network or schema in memory, and (c) evaluated/taught by classification performance. Based on current research and theory, however, concepts should be viewed as conceptual tools rather than classification rules. Concepts may be schemas or networks in themselves, as a complex arrangement of declarative, procedural, and inferential knowledge. Concept learning may be measured by concept use and inferences as well as classification and taught via analogies, learning strategies, use/inference practice, and rational-set generators.


Complex Network Current Model Educational Technology Classification Performance Instructional Design 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, J. R., & Pirolli, P. L. (1984). Spread of activation.Journal of Educational Psychology, 10(4), 791–799.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. C. (1973). How to construct achievement tests to assess comprehension.Review of Educational Research, 42(1), 145–170.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. C., & Ortony, A. (1975). On putting apples into bottles: A problem of polysemy.Cognitive Psychology, 7, 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barsalou, L. W. (1982). Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts.Memory and Cognition, 10(1), 82–93.Google Scholar
  5. Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals of central tendency and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 11(4), 629–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biederman, I., & Shiffrar, M. M. (1987). Sexing day-old chicks: A case study and expert systems analysis of a difficult perceptual learning task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13(4), 640–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bower, G. (1970). Organizational factors in memory.Cognitive Psychology, 1, 18–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  9. Camp, C. J., Lachman, J. L., & Lachman, R. (1980). Evidence for direct-access and inferential retrieval in question-answering.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 583–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carroll, J. B. (1964). Words, meanings and concepts.Harvard Educational Review, 34, 178–202.Google Scholar
  11. Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1972). How to make a language user. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.),The organization of memory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Driscoll, M. P., & Tessmer, M. A. (1985). The rational set generator: A method for creating concept examples for teaching and training.Educational Technology, 25(2), 29–32.Google Scholar
  13. Ellis, J. A., Wulfeck, W. A., Konoske, P. J., & Montague, W. A (1986). Effect of generic advance instructions on learning a classification task.Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 294–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1988). The nature of conceptual understanding in biomedicine: The deep structure of complex ideas and the development of misconceptions.Technical report #3, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.Google Scholar
  15. Gage, N. L., & Berliner, D. C. (1988).Educational Psychology (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin & Co.Google Scholar
  16. Gagné, E. (1985).The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston: Little, Brown, & Co.Google Scholar
  17. Gagné, R. (1985).The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  18. Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1987).Principles of instructional design (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  19. Gagné, R. M., & Driscoll, M. P. (1988).Essentials of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Greeno, J. G. (1978). Understanding and procedural knowledge in mathematics instruction.Educational Psychologist, 12, 262–283.Google Scholar
  21. Howard, R. W. (1987).Concepts and schemata. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  22. Hunter, M. (1983).Mastery teaching. Segundo, California: Tip Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Jonassen, D. (1984). Developing a learning strategy using pattern notes: A new technology.Programmed learning and educational technology, 21(3), 163–175.Google Scholar
  24. Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1985).Models of teaching (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Klausmeier, H. J. (1980).Learning and teaching concepts: A strategy for testing applications of theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lehrer, R., & Koedinger, K. (1988).Conceptual change and fuzzy induction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  27. Markle, S. M. (1975).They teach concepts, don't they? Invited address at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  28. Markle, S. M. (1977). Teaching conceptual networks.Journal of Instructional Development, 1(3), 13–17.Google Scholar
  29. Merrill, M. & Tennyson, R. (1977).Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Naveh-Benjamin, M. McKeachie, W., Lin, Y., & Tucker, D. (1986). Inferring students' cognitive structures and their development using the “ordered tree” technique.Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 130–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Newby, T. J., & Stepich, D. A. (1987). Learning abstract concepts: The use of analogies as a mediational strategy.Journal of Instructional Development, 10(2), 20–26.Google Scholar
  32. Ortony, A. (1975, Winter). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice.Educational Theory, 45–53.Google Scholar
  33. Park, O., & Tennyson, R. D. (1980). Adaptive design strategies for selecting number and presentation order of examples in coordinate concept acquisition.Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(3), 362–370.Google Scholar
  34. Pogrow, S. (1985).Higher order thinking skills project (HOTS). Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  35. Pollock, J. (1974).Knowledge and justification. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Meaningfulness and instruction: Relating what is being learned to what a student knows.Instructional Science, 12, 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reigeluth, C. M., Merrill, M. D., & Bunderson, C. V. (1978). The structure of subject matter content and its instructional design implications.Instructional Science, 7, 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive reference points,Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532–547.Google Scholar
  39. Salisbury, D. F., Richards, B. F., & Klein, J. D. (1985). Designing practice: A review of prescriptions and recommendations from instructional design theories.Journal of Instructional Development, 8(4), 9–20.Google Scholar
  40. Shavelson, R. J. (1974). Methods for examining representations of subject matter structure in a student's memory.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(3), 231–249.Google Scholar
  41. Siegel, M. (1985).The heuristic power of transmediation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  42. Slavin, R. (1986).Educational Psychology: Theory into Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981).Categories and concepts. Cmabridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  44. Striley, J. (1988). Physics for the rest of us.Educational Researcher, 17(6), 7–10.Google Scholar
  45. Suhor, C. (1982).Reading in a semiotics-based curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Reading Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  46. Tennyson, R. D. (1987).Computer-based enhancements for the improvement of learning. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for educational Communications and Technology, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  47. Tennyson, R. D., & Park, O. (1980). The teaching of concepts: A review of instructional design research literature.Review of Educational Research, 50(1), 55–70.Google Scholar
  48. Tennyson, R. D., & Cocchiarella, M. J. (1986). Concept learning effectiveness using prototype and skill development presentation forms.Review of Educational Research, 56, 40–71.Google Scholar
  49. Tennyson, R. D., Park, O., & Christensen, D. (1985). Adaptive control of learning time and content sequence in concept learning using computer-based instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 481–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tessmer, M. A., & Driscoll, M. P. (1986). Effects of a diagrammatic display of coordinate concept definitions upon concept classification performance.Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 34(4), 195–205.Google Scholar
  51. Tessmer, M. A., & Jonassen, D. P. (1988). Learning strategies: A new instructional technology. In D. Harris (Ed.),World Yearbook of Education for 1988: Education for the new technologies. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  52. Tessmer, M. A., Jonassen, D. P., & Caverly, D. C (1989).A nonprogrammer's guide to designing instruction for microcomputers. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  53. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity.Psychological Review, 84(4), 327–352.Google Scholar
  54. Vaughan, J. (1984). Concept structuring: The technique and empirical evidence. InSpatial Learning Strategies. New York: Academic Press, 127–147.Google Scholar
  55. Wagner, M., & Rohwer, W. D. (1981). Age differences in the elaboration of inferences from text.Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), 728–735.Google Scholar
  56. Whitehead, A. N. (1954).Dialogues of Alfred North Whitehead. New York: Mentor Books.Google Scholar
  57. Wilson, B. (1986). What is a concept? Concept teaching and cognitive psychology.Performance and Instruction, 25(10), 16–18.Google Scholar
  58. Wilson, B., & Tessmer, M. (1989).Concept teaching: A comprehensive view. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Education Communications Technology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  59. Wilson, J. (1971).Thinking with concepts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Tessmer
    • 1
  • Brent Wilson
    • 1
  • Marcy Driscoll
    • 2
  1. 1.Instructional Design and the Department of Instructional Technology, Media and Telecommunications DivisionUniversity of Colorado at DenverDenver
  2. 2.Florida State UniversityTallahassee

Personalised recommendations