Skip to main content
Log in

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Gagné, R.M. (1965),The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R.M. (1985).The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gentner, D. & Namy, L. (1999). Comparison in the development of categories.Cognitive Development, 14, 487–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hilgenheger, N. (1993). Johann Friedrich Herbart.Prospects: The Quarterly Review of Comparative Education.23(3&4), 649–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kulhavy, R.W. (1997). Feedback in written instruction.Review of Educational Research, 47, 211–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R.W., & Stock, W.A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude.Educational Psychology Review, 1, 279–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurillard, D. (1993).Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R.E. (1992a).Thinking, problem solving, cognition (2nd Ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R.E. (1992b). Illustrations that instruct. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Advances in instructional psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R.E. (2001).Multimedia learning. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, B. (1996).About learning, Barrington, IL: Excell Inc.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M.D. (1997). Instructional strategies that teach.CBT Solutions, Nov./Dec., 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Reigeluth, C.M. (1999).Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Tennyson, R.D., & Park, O. (1980). The teaching of concepts: A review of instructional design literature.Review of Educational Research, 50, 55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R.D., & Cocchierella, M.J. (1986). An empirically based instructional design theory for teaching concepts.Review of Educational Research, 56, 40–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (1997).Training complex cognitive skills. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Merrill, M.D. First principles of instruction. ETR&D 50, 43–59 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024

Keywords

Navigation