Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model

  • Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer
  • Richard E. Clark
  • Marcel B. M. de Croock
Development

Abstract

This article provides an overview description of the four-component instructional design system (4C/ID-model) developed originally by van Merriënboer and others in the early 1990s (van Merriënboer, Jelsma, & Paas, 1992) for the design of training programs for complex skills. It discusses the structure of training blueprints for complex learning and associated instructional methods. The basic claim is that four interrelated components are essential in blueprints for complex learning: (a) learning tasks, (b) supportive information, (c) just-in-time (JIT) information, and (d) part-task practice. Instructional methods for each component are coupled to the basic learning processes involved in complex learning and a fully worked-out example of a training blueprint for “searching for literature” is provided. Readers who benefit from a structured advance organizer should consider reading the appendix at the end of this article before reading the entire article.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackerman, P.L. (1990). A correlation analysis of skill specificity: Learning, abilities and individual differences.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 883–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J.R. (1983).The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J.R. (1993).Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, J.R., & Lebiere, C. (1998).The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Balzer, W.K., Doherty, M.E., & O'Connor, R. (1989). Effects of cognitive feedback on performance.Psychological Bulletin, 106, 410–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berryman, S.E. (1993). Learning in the workplace. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.),Review of research in education (Vol. 19, pp. 343–401). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  7. Butler, D.L., & Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis.Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlson, R.A., Khoo, H., & Elliot, R.G. (1990). Component practice and exposure to a problem-solving context.Human Factors, 32, 267–286.Google Scholar
  9. Carroll, J.M., Smith-Kerker, P.L., Ford, J.R., & Mazur-Rimetz, S.A. (1988). The minimal manual.Human-Computer Interaction, 3, 123–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cascio, W.F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing world of work?American Psychologist, 50, 928–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, R.E. (1988). When teaching kills learning: Research on mathemathanics. In H. Mandl, E. DeCorte, N. Bennett, & H.F. Friedrich (Eds.),Learning and instruction: European research in an international context (Vol. 2, pp. 1–22). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, R.E., & Estes, F. (1999). The development of authentic educational technologies.Educational Technology, 39(2), 5–16.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Corneille, O., & Judd, C.M. (1999). Accentuation and sensitization effects in the categorization of multi-faceted stimuli.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 927–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Croock, M.B.M. (1999).The transfer paradox: Training design for troubleshooting skills. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  16. de Croock, M.B.M., van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & Paas, F.G.W.C. (1998). High vs. low contextual interference in simulation-based training of troubleshooting skills: Effects on transfer performance and invested mental effort.Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W.R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains.Review of Educational Research, 68, 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Driscoll, M., & Dick, W. (1999). New research paradigms in instructional technology: An inquiry.Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dufresne, R.J., Gerace, W.J., Thibodeau-Hardiman, P., & Mestre, J.P. (1992). Constraining novices to perform expertlike problem analyses: effects on schema acquisition.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fisk, A.D., & Gallini, J.K. (1989). Training consistent components of tasks: Developing an instructional system based on automatic-controlled processing principles.Human Factors, 31, 453–463.Google Scholar
  21. Gagné, R.M., Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W.W. (1992).Principles of instructional design (4th ed.), New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  22. Gick, M., & Holyoak, K.J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer.Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gropper, G.L. (1983). A behavioral approach to instructional prescription. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models (pp. 101–161). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  24. Jelsma, O. (1989).Instructional control of transfer. Enschede, The Netherlands: Bijlstra & van Merriënboer.Google Scholar
  25. Jonassen, D. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model.Educational Technology, 34(4), 34–37.Google Scholar
  26. Kester, L., Kirschner, P.A., van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & Bäumer, A. (2001). Just-in-time information presentation and the acquisition of complex cognitive skills.Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kluger, A., & DiNisi, A. (1998). Feedback interventions: Toward the understanding of a double-edged sword.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(3), 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kozma, R. (2000). Reflections on the state of educational technology.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Landa, L.N. (1983). The algo-heuristic theory of instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models (pp. 163–211). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Leutner, D. (2000). Double-fading support-a training approach to complex software systems.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Merrill, M.D. (1983). Component display theory. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.).Instructional design theories and models (pp. 278–333). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Merrill, M.D. (1999). Instructional transaction theory: Instructional design based on knowledge objects. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Merrill, M.D. (2000, October).First principles of instruction. Paper presented at the international conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  34. Nadolski, R.J., Kirschner, P.A., van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & Hummel, H.G.K. (2001). A model for optimizing step size of learning tasks in competency-based multimedia practicals.Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Newell, A., & Simon, H.A. (1972).Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  36. Ohlsson, S., & Rees, E. (1991). The functional of conceptual understanding in the learning of arithmetic procedures.Cognition and Instruction, 8, 103–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paas, F.G.W.C. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paas, F.G.W.C. (1993).Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  39. Paas, F.G.W.C., & van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem solving skills: A cognitive load approach.Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pellegrino, J.W., Doane, S.M., Fischer, S.C., & Alderton, D. (1991). Stimulus complexity effects in visual comparisons: The effects of practice and learning context.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 781–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Perkins, D.N., & Grotzer, T.A. (1997). Teaching intelligence.American Psychologist, 52, 1125–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pointe, L.B., & Engle, R.W. (1990). Simple and complex word spans as measures of working memory capacity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 1118–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reigeluth, C.M. (Ed.) (1999a).Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  44. Reigeluth, C.M. (1999b). The 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, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  45. Reigeluth, C.M., & Stein, F. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models (pp. 335–381). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  46. Richey, R. (1998). The pursuit of useable knowledge in instructional technology.Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(4), 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Salisbury, D.F., Richards, B.F., & Klein, D. (1985). Designing practice: A review of prescriptions and recommendations from instructional design theories.Journal of Instructional Development, 8(4), 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schneider, W. (1985). Training high-performance skills: Fallacies and guidelines.Human Factors, 27, 285–300.Google Scholar
  49. Schneider, W., & Detweiler, M. (1988). The role of practice in dual-task performance: Toward workload modeling in a connectionist/-control architecture.Human Factors 30, 539–566.Google Scholar
  50. Schuurman, J.G. (1999).On the proper treatment of learning and transfer: A study on introductory computer programming. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  51. Schwartz, D., Brophy, S., Lin, X., & Bransford, J. (1999). Flexibly adaptive instructional design: A case study from an educational psychology course.Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & Paas, F.G.W.C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design.Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tabbers, H.K., Martens, R.L., & van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2001, August).The modality effect in multimedia instruction. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science (Society Cogsci), Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  54. van der Meij, H., & Carroll, J.M. (1995). Principles and heuristics for designing minimalist instruction.Technical Communication, 42, 243–261.Google Scholar
  55. van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (1990a). Strategies for programming instruction in high school: Program completion vs. program generation.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6, 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (1990b).Teaching introductory computer programming: A perspective from instructional technology. Enschede, The Netherlands: Bijstra & van Merriënboer.Google Scholar
  57. van Merriënboer J.J.G (1997).Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  58. van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & de Croock, M.B.M. (1992). Strategies for computer-based programming instruction: Program completion vs. program generation.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8, 365–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & Dijkstra, S. (1996). The four-component instructional design model for training complex cognitive skills. In R.D. Tennyson & F. Schott (Eds.),Instructional design: International perspectives. Theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 427–445). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  60. van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Jelsma, O., & Paas, F.G.W.C. (1992). Training for reflective expertise: A four-component instructional desig model for training complex cognitive skills.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(2), 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & Luursema, J.J. (1996). Implementing instructional models in computer-based learting environments: A case study in problem selection. In: T.T. Liao (Ed.),Advanced educational technology: Research issues and future potential (NATO ASI Series F, Vol. 145, pp. 184–206), Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  62. van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Schuurman, J.G., de Croock, M.B.M., & Paas, F.G.W.C. (2002). Redirecting learners' attention during training: Effects on cognitive load, transfer test performance and training efficiency.Learning and Instruction, 12, 11–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wenger, J.L., & Carlson, R.A. (1996). Cognitive sequence knowledge: What is learned?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 599–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer
    • 2
  • Richard E. Clark
    • 1
  • Marcel B. M. de Croock
    • 2
  1. 1.Rossier School of Education, University of Southern CaliforniaUSA
  2. 2.Educational Technology Expertise Center (OTEC)Open University of the NetherlandsHeerlenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations