Current progress and future directions for research in instructional technology

  • Richard E. Clark


Two perspectives on the status of current research are offered: (1) In the past 15 years, the field has made extraordinary advances in the technical excellence of research studies, and yet (2) our analytical investment at the front end of research planning has not kept pace. An analysis of present problems is accompanied by two suggestions for future developments in instructional technology research: (1) we need to go beyond descriptive research methods and adoptprescriptive research methodology; and (2) researchers should seek broader and deeper knowledge of previous research in both instructional design and development before they conduct studies.


Research Study Research Method Future Development Educational Technology Technology Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bruner, J. S. (1964). Some theorems on instruction illustrated with reference to mathematics.The sixty-third yearbook of the national society for the study of education, Part I, 63, 306–335.Google Scholar
  2. Case, R. (1978). A developmentally based theory and technology of instruction.Review of Educational Research, 48, 439–463.Google Scholar
  3. Case, R., & Bereiter, C. (1984). From behaviorism to cognitive behaviorism to cognitive development: Steps in the evolution of instructional design.Instructional Science, 13, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media.Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, R. E. (1988). The future of technology in educational psychology. In M. C. Wittrock & F. Farley, (Eds.),The future of educational psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, R. E., & Salomon, G. (1986). Media in teaching. In M. C. Witttrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, R. E., & Snow, R. E. (1975). Alternative designs for instructional technology research.AV Communication Review, 23, 373–394.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, R. E., & Voogel, A. (1985). Transfer of training for instructional design.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 33, 113–123.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979).Quasi-experimentation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.Google Scholar
  10. Cooley, W. W., & Lohnes, P. R. (1976).Evaluation research in education. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Cronbach, L. J. & Snow, R. E. (1977).Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Foster, S. F. (1986). Ten principles of learning revised in accordance with cognitive psychology: With implications for teaching.Educational Psychologist, 21, 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glaser, R. (1976). Components of a psychology of instruction: Toward a science of design.Review of Educational Research, 46, 1–24.Google Scholar
  14. Heinich, R. (1984). The proper study of instructional technology.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 32, 67–87.Google Scholar
  15. Kerlinger, F. N. (1977, September). The influence of research on education practice.Educational Researcher, 5–12.Google Scholar
  16. Kulik, J., Bangert, R., and Williams, G. (1983). Effects of computer-based teaching on secondary school students.Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 19–26.Google Scholar
  17. Landa, L. N. (1983). Descriptive and prescriptive theories of learning and instruction: An analysis of their relationships and interactions. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component display theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theory and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983).Instructional design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1981). Analogical processes in learning. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.),Cognitive skills and their acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Salomon, G. (1979).Interaction of media, cognition and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Simon, H. (1981).The sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Snow, R. E. (1977, November). Individual differences and instructional theory.Educational Researcher, 11–15.Google Scholar
  24. Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1984). Toward a cognitive theory of learning from instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 347–376.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard E. Clark
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Southern CaliforniaLos Angeles

Personalised recommendations