Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Training designers to think about thinking

  • Articles
  • Symposium On Training Instructional Developers: Introduction
  • Published:
Journal of instructional development

Abstract

Instructional products can be characterized as reaching three different levels of achievement: (1) students remember the information presented; (2) students can apply conceptual classification schemes, can apply rules, or can follow procedures; (3) students can discover how conceptual and rule-governed structures work. While memory is often a useful outcome, it does not imply the ability to use the knowledge. Ability to think at an adult level is an increasingly called-for outcome, especially among science educators, an outcome that calls for new ways of designing instruction. Designs that enable students to apply conceptual schemes and rules do not foster thinking skill development. The pursuit of efficiency and content coverage in instructional products will have to be sacrificed in some cases in order to train students in thinking skills.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson, R. C., & Faust, G. W. The effects of strong formal prompts in programed instruction.American Educational Research Journal, 1967,4, 345–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arons, A. Toward wider public understanding of science.American Journal of Physics, 1973,41, 769–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, W. C., Engelmann, S., & Thomas, D. R.Teaching 2: Cognitive learning and instruction. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R.A taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I, Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A.A Study of Thinking. New York: Wiley, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan, D. E., & Greeno, J. R. Acquiring cognitive structure by discovery and rule learning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973,64, 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. L., Homme, L. E., & Glaser, R. The RULEG system for the construction of programmed verbal learning sequences.Journal of Educational Research, 1962,55, 513–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faust, G. W. Selecting instructional strategies.Journal of Instructional Development, 1977,1, 18–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M. Domains of learning.Interchange, 1972,3, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P.The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landa, L. N.Instructional regulation and control. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Educational Technology Publications, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, B. N., & Horabin, I. S. Algorithmics 1967.Improving Human Performance Quarterly, 1977,6, 55–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lochhead, J. & Clement, J. (Eds.)Cognitive process instruction. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markle, S. M.Designs for designers. Champaign, Ill.: Stipes, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markle, S. M., & Tiemann, P. W.Really understanding concepts: Or in frumious pursuit of the Jabberwock, Champaign, Ill.: Stipes, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D., (Ed.)Instructional design: Readings. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parnes, S. J.Creative behavior guidebook. New York: Scribner’s, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renner, J. W., Stafford, D. G., Lawson, A. E., McKinnon, J. W., Friot, F. E., & Kellogg, D. H.Research, teaching, and learning with the Piaget model. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B., Wang, M. C., & Kaplan, J. Task analysis in curriculum design: A hierarchically sequenced introductory mathematics curriculum.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973,6, 679–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samson, R. W.Thinking skills. Stamford, Conn.: Innovative Sciences, Inc., 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F.Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Centry-Crofts, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiemann, P. W., & Markle, S. M.Analyzing instructional content: A guide to instruction and evaluation. Champaign, Ill.: Stipes, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whimbey, A., & Lochhead, J.Problem solving and comprehension: A short course in analytic reasoning. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R. T., & Gagné, R. M. Past and future research on learning hierarchies.Educational Psychologists, 1974,11, 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office of Instructional Resources, University of Illinois, 60680, Chicago, IL

    Susan M. Markle

Authors
  1. Susan M. Markle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Markle, S.M. Training designers to think about thinking. Journal of Instructional Development 4, 24–27 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02905321

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02905321

Keywords

Search

Navigation