Advertisement

Reconceptualizing Instructional Message Design: Toward the Development of a New Guiding Framework

  • M. J. BishopEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations book series (ECTII)

Abstract

According to Pettersson (2002, 2007), message design in the broadest sense comprises the analysis, planning, presentation, and understanding of the content, language, and form of messages that are created for the purpose of satisfying the aesthetic, economic, ergonomic, and subject matter information needs of the intended receivers. More specifically within the educational context, message design has been defined as the manipulation and planning of signs and symbols for the purpose of modifying the cognitive, affective, or psychomotor behavior of one or more persons (Fleming & Levie, 1978, 1993; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), 2000, 2005; Seels & Richey, 1994). As a part of the overall instructional design process, instructional message design is the point at which generalized specifications about the nature of instruction are translated into the specific plans for the instructional materials to be used and how they should be designed in order to enhance learning from them (Grabowski, 1991; Reigeluth, 1983). And, like the field of instructional design generally, perspectives on instructional message design have changed as the theoretic orientations of psychologists and educators have changed over the years about how people learn.

Keywords

Instructional design Message design Instructional message design Communication theory Learning theory Information-processing theory Multimedia learning Redundancy Communication noise Attention Retrieval Theoretical framework 

References

  1. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (2nd ed., pp. 89–195). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1971). The control of short-term memory. Scientific American, 225, 82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bednar, A., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do we link? In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 88–101). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  4. Berlyne, D. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berry, L. H. (1995). Instructional message design: Evolution and future directions. In B. Seels (Ed.), Instructional design fundamentals: A reconsideration (pp. 87–98). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  6. Bishop, M. J. (2000). The systematic use of sound in multimedia instruction to enhance learning. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(07), 2669.Google Scholar
  7. Bishop, M. J. (2013). Instructional design: Past, present, and future relevance. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook for research in educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Bishop, M. J., & Cates, W. M. (2001). Theoretical foundations for sound’s use in multimedia instruction to enhance learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boling, E. (2010). The need for design cases: Disseminating design knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  10. Boyd, G. M. (2004). Conversation theory. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 179–197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Carpenter, C. R. (1953). A theoretical orientation for instructional film research. AV Communication Review, 1(38), 52.Google Scholar
  12. Cooper, P. A. (1993). Paradigm shifts in designed instruction: From behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism. Educational Technology, 33(5), 12–19.Google Scholar
  13. Dale, E. (1969). Audiovisual methods in teaching. New York: Dryden.Google Scholar
  14. De La Cruz, G., & Kearney, N. (2008). Online tutoring as conversation design. In R. Luppicini (Ed.), Handbook of conversation design for instructional applications (pp. 124–143). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
  15. Dewey, J. (1900). Psychology and social practice. Psychological Review, 7, 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  17. Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Eysenck, M. (1982). Attention and arousal. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fisher, B. A. (1975). Communication study in system perspective. In B. D. Ruben & J. Y. Kim (Eds.), General systems theory and human communication (pp. 191–206). Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden.Google Scholar
  20. Fiske, J. (2011). Introduction to communication studies (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Fleming, M. (1993). Introduction. In M. Fleming & W. H. Levie (Eds.), Instructional message design: Principles from the behavioral and cognitive sciences (2nd ed., pp. ix–xi). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Fleming, M., & Levie, W. H. (Eds.). (1978). Instructional message design: Principles from the behavioral sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  23. Fleming, M., & Levie, W. H. (Eds.). (1993). Instructional message design: Principles from the behavioral and cognitive sciences (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  24. Gagné, E. D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  25. Gerbner, G. (1956). Toward a general model of communication. AV Communication Review, 4, 171–199.Google Scholar
  26. Gibbons, A. S. (2009). The value of the operational principle in instructional design. Educational Technology, 49(1), 3–9.Google Scholar
  27. Gibbons, A. S., & Rogers, P. C. (2009a). The architecture of instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models (3rd ed., pp. 305–326). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Gibbons, A. S., & Rogers, P. C. (2009b). Coming at design from a different angle: Functional design. In L. Moller & D. M. Harvey (Eds.), Learning and instructional technologies for the 21st century (pp. 15–25). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Gibson, J. J. (1954). A theory of pictorial perception. Audio-Visual Communications Review, 2, 2–23.Google Scholar
  30. Grabowski, B. L. (1991). Message design: Issues and trends. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present and future (pp. 202–212). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  31. Hannafin, M. J. (1992). Emerging technologies, ISD, and learning environments: Critical perspectives. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. R. (1989). An integrated framework for CBI screen design and layout. Computers in Human Behavior, 5, 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. R. (1993). Learning principles. In M. L. Fleming & W. H. Levie (Eds.), Instructional message design: Principles from the behavioral and cognitive sciences (2nd ed., pp. 191–231). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  34. Hannafin, M. J., & Rieber, L. P. (1989a). Psychological foundations of instructional design for emerging computer-based instructional technologies: Part II. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 102–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hannafin, M. J., & Rieber, L. P. (1989b). Psychological foundations of instructional design for emerging computer-based instructional technologies: Part I. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations on the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hooper, S. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (1988). Learning the ROPES of instructional design: Guidelines for emerging interactive technologies. Educational Technology, 28(7), 14–18.Google Scholar
  39. Jackson, D. (1969). The individual and the larger context. In W. Gray, F. J. Duhl, & N. D. Rizzo (Eds.), General systems theory and psychiatry (pp. 390–415). Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  40. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Jonassen, D. H. (1990). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist view of instructional design. Educational Technology, 30(9), 32–34.Google Scholar
  42. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kember, D., & Murphy, D. (1990). Alternative new directions for instructional design. Educational Technology, 30(8), 42–47.Google Scholar
  44. Krippendorff, K. (1975). The systems approach to communication. In B. D. Ruben & J. Y. Kim (Eds.), General systems theory and human communication (pp. 138–163). Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden.Google Scholar
  45. Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC–Taylor Francis.Google Scholar
  46. Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas, a series of addresses (pp. 61–89). New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  47. Lohr, L. (2008). Creating graphics for learning and performance: Lessons in visualliteracy (2nd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  48. Mayer, R. E. (1999). The promise of educational psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall/Merrill.Google Scholar
  49. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. The American Psychologist, 63, 760–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  55. Mayer, R. E. (2013). Multimedia learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Taangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2010). Techniques that reduce extraneous cognitive load and manage intrinsic cognitive load during multimedia learning. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 131–152). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Molenda, M., & Boling, E. (2007). Creating. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 81–139). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Morris, C. W. (1946). Signs, language, and behavior. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  62. Morrison, G. R., Ross, A. M., Kalman, H., & Kemp, J. E. (2011). Designing effective instruction (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  63. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) (2000). Educational computing and technology leadership standards. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/
  64. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) (2005). Educational computing and technology leadership standards. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/
  65. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  66. Newcomb, T. M. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological Review, 60, 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ogden, C., & Richards, I. (1956). The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism (8th ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
  68. Osgood, C. E. (1967). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  69. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pask, G. (1975). The cybernetics of human learning and performance: A guide to theory and research. London: Hutchinson Educational.Google Scholar
  71. Peirce, C. S. (1931). Collected papers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as drivers of learning and cognitive development. In R. A. Calvo & S. K. D’Mello (Eds.), New perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 23–40). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pettersson, R. (2002). Information design: An introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  74. Pettersson, R. (2007). Visual literacy in message design. Journal of Visual Literacy, 27(1), 61–90.Google Scholar
  75. Phye, G. D., & Andre, T. (1986). Cognitive classroom learning. Orlando: Academic.Google Scholar
  76. Potts, T. C. (1977). The place of structure in communication. In G. Vesey (Ed.), Communication and understanding (pp. 97–115). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  77. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design: What is it and why is it? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 3–16). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  78. Saussure, F. (1913/1986). Course in general linguistics. Peru, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  79. Schramm, W. (1955). Information theory and mass communication. In B. Berelson & M. Janowitz (Eds.), Reader in public opinion and communication (2nd ed., pp. 712–732). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  80. Seels, B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  81. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  82. Shiffrin, R. M. (1988). Attention. In R. C. Atkinson, R. J. Herrnstein, G. Lindzey, & R. D. Luce (Eds.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology: Vol. 2. Learning and cognition (pp. 739–811). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  83. Subramony, D. P. (2004). Instructional technologists’ inattention to issues of cultural diversity among learners. Educational Technology, 44(4), 19–24.Google Scholar
  84. Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Westley, B., & MacLean, M. (1957). A conceptual model for communication research. Journalism Quarterly, 34, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wilson, B. G. (2005a). Broadening our foundation for instructional design: Four pillars of practice. Educational Technology, 45(2), 10–15.Google Scholar
  87. Wilson, B. G. (2005b). Foundations for instructional design: Reclaiming the conversation. In J. M. Spector, C. Ohrazda, A. Van Schaak, & D. Wiley (Eds.), Innovations in instructional design: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill (pp. 237–252). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  88. Winn, W. D. (1993). Instructional design and situated learning: Paradox or partnership? Educational Technology, 33(3), 16–21.Google Scholar
  89. Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wittrock, M. C. (2010). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 40–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulation to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA

Personalised recommendations