Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 43–59

First principles of instruction

  • M. David Merrill
Development

Abstract

For the past several years the author has been reviewing instructional design theories in an attempt to identify prescriptive principles that are common to the various theries. This paper is a preliminary report of the principles that have been identified by this search. Five first principles are elaborated: (a) Learning is promoted when learners are engaged in solving real-world problems. (b) Learning is promoted when existing knowledge is activated as a foundation for new knowledge. (c) Learning is promoted when new knowledge is demonstrated to the learner. (d) Learning is promoted when new knowledge is applied by the learner. (e) Learning is promoted when new knowledge is integrated into the learner's world.

Representative instructional design theories are briefly examined to illustrate how they include these principles. These include: Star Legacy by the Vanderbilt Learning Technology Center, 4-Mat by McCarthy, instructional episodes by Andre, multiple approaches to understanding by Gardner, collaborative problem solving by Nelson, constructivist learning environments by Jonassen, and learning by doing by Schank.

It is concluded that, although they use a wide variety of terms, these theories and models do include fundamentally similar principles.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andre, T. (1986). Problem-solving in education. In G.D. Phye & T. Andre (Eds.).Cognitive classroom learning (pp. 169–204). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andre, T. (1997). Selected microinstructional methods to facilitate knowledge construction: implications for instructional design. In R.D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, & S. Dijkstra,Instructional design: International perspective: Theory, research and models (Vol. 1) (pp. 243–267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.),Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 18–40). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, R.E. & Blake, S.B. (1997). Designing training for novel problem-solving transfer. In R.D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, & S. Dijkstra.Instructional design: International perspective: Theory, research, and models (Vol. 1) (pp. 183–214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. 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 Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Dijkstra, S., & van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (1997). Plans, procedures, and theories to solve instructional design problems. In S. Dijkstra, N. Seel, F. Schott & R.D. Tennyson (Eds.)Instructional design international perspective: Solving instructional design problems (Vol. 2) (pp. 23–43), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Gagné, R.M. (1965),The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  9. Gagné, R.M. (1985).The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  10. Gardner, H. (1999). Multiple approaches to understanding. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II) (pp. 69–89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Gentner, D. & Namy, L. (1999). Comparison in the development of categories.Cognitive Development, 14, 487–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibbons, A.S., Bunderson, C.V., Olsen, J.B. & Roberston, J. (1995). Work models: Still beyond instructional objectives.Machine-Mediated Learning, 5(3&4), 221–236.Google Scholar
  13. Hilgenheger, N. (1993). Johann Friedrich Herbart.Prospects: The Quarterly Review of Comparative Education.23(3&4), 649–664.Google Scholar
  14. Jonassen, D. (1999) Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II) (pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Kulhavy, R.W. (1997). Feedback in written instruction.Review of Educational Research, 47, 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kulhavy, R.W., & Stock, W.A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude.Educational Psychology Review, 1, 279–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laurillard, D. (1993).Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Mayer, R.E. (1975). Different problem-solving competencies established in learning computer programming with and without meaningful models.Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 725–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mayer, R.E. (1992a).Thinking, problem solving, cognition (2nd Ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  20. Mayer, R.E. (1992b). Illustrations that instruct. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Advances in instructional psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Mayer, R.E. (2001).Multimedia learning. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. McCarthy, B. (1996).About learning, Barrington, IL: Excell Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Merrill, M.D. (1994).Instructional design theory. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Merrill, M.D. (1997). Instructional strategies that teach.CBT Solutions, Nov./Dec., 1–11.Google Scholar
  25. Merrill, M.D., Tennyson, R.D. & Posey, L.O. (1992).Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide (2nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Nelson, L.M. (1999). Collaborative problem solving. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II) (pp. 241–267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Perkins, D.H., & Unger, C. (1999). Teaching and learning for understanding. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructionsl theory (vol. II) (pp. 91–114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Reigeluth, C.M. (1999).Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). 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. II) (pp. 425–453). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Savery, J., & Duffy, T. (1995). Problem based learning: an instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.),Designing constructivist learning environments (pp. 135–148). Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Schank, R.C., Berman, T.R. & Macperson, K.A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.)Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II) (pp. 161–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Schwartz D., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J.D. (1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II) (pp. 183–213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. 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. Spriro (Eds.),Cognition, education, and multimedia (pp. 163–205), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R.L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T.M. Duffy & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.)Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Tennyson, R.D., & Park, O. (1980). The teaching of concepts: A review of instructional design literature.Review of Educational Research, 50, 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tennyson, R.D., & Cocchierella, M.J. (1986). An empirically based instructional design theory for teaching concepts.Review of Educational Research, 56, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tennyson, R., Schott, F., Seel, N., & Dijkstra, S. (1997).Instructional design: International perspective: Theory, research, and models. (Vol. 1), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  38. van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (1997).Training complex cognitive skills. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Van der Meij, H., & Carroll, J.M. (1998). Principles and heuristics for designing minimalist instruction. In J.M. Carroll (Ed.)Minimalism beyond the Nurnberg funnel (pp. 19–53). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. David Merrill
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Instructional Technology at Utah State UniversityUtahUSA

Personalised recommendations