Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

First Principles of Instruction Revisited

  • Living reference work entry
  • Latest version View entry history
  • First Online:
International Handbook of Psychology Learning and Teaching

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

Abstract

First Principles of Instruction were introduced by the author in 2002. He asserted that implementation of these principles promotes effective, efficient, and engaging (e3) instruction and that failure to implement these principles results in less effective, less efficient, and less engaging instruction. These principles and their corollaries are Merrill’s attempt to develop a prescriptive theory of instructional design. He subsequently elaborated these principles and their implementation in several articles since the initial paper. This chapter brings together some of the more important elaborations of this theory including its historical background and rationale, a summary of the First Principles of Instruction, levels of instructional strategy, the challenge of measurement for complex problem-solving performance, the Pebble-in-the-Pond model for instructional design based on First Principles of Instruction, assessing the quality of existing instruction, and a summary of some of the research exploring the benefits and constraints of applying the First Principles of Instruction.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, M. W., Gur, B., & Wu, C. (2004). The impact of media on the family: Assessing the availability and Quality of instruction on the World Wide Web for enhancing marriage relationshjips. In Paper presented at the World Congress of the Family: Asia Pacific Dialogue, Kuala, Malaysia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, D. A. (2018). Does active learning work? A good question, but not the right one. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4(4), 290307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook: The cognitive diomain. New York, NY: Dvid McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis, B. M., & Margaryan, A. (2005a). Design criteria for work-based learning: Merrill’s first principles of instruction expanded. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 725–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis, B. M., & Margaryan, A. (2005b). Merrill plus: Blending corporate strategy and instructional design. Educational Technology, 45(3), 54–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2009). The systematic design of instruction (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francom, G., Bybee, D., Wolfersberger, M., Mendenhall, A., & Merrill, M. D. (2009). A task-centered approach to Freshman-level general biology. Bioscene, Journal of College Biology Teaching, 35(1), 66–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francom, G., Wolfsberger, M., & Merrill, M. D. (2009). Task-Centered peer-interactive redesign. TechTrends, 533, 35–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frick, T., Chadha, R., Watson, C., Wang, Y., & Green, P. (2009). College student perceptions of teaching and learning quality. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 57(5), 705–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frick, T., Chadha, R., Watson, C., & Zlatkovska, E. (2010a). Improving course evaluations to improve instruction and complex learning in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 115–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frick, T., Chadha, R., Watson, C., & Zlatkovska, E. (2010b). New measures for course evaluation in higher education and their relationships with student learning. Denver, CO: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved from https://www.indiana.edu/~tedfrick/TALQ.pdf.

  • Frick, T., & Dagli, C. (2016). MOOCs for research: The case of the Indiana University plagiarism tutorials and tests. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 21(2), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-016-9288-6.

  • Frick, T., Watson, C., Cullen, T., & Han, S. (2002). 5-Star instructional design evaluation of web-based instruction in medical science. In M. Simonson & M. Crawford (Eds.), Annual proceedings of selected research and development papers presented at the national convention of the association for educational communications and technology (Vol. 1, pp. 167–172). Dallas, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M. (1965, 1970, 1977, 1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hager, P., Gonczi, A. and Athanasou, J. (1994). General issues about the assessment of competence. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 19, 1, 3-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. & Gilbert, C. G.(2008). Effective peer interaction in a problem-centered instructional strategy. Distance Education, 29(2), 199–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist discoverym, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teachihng. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers and Education, 80, 77–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendenhall, A., Buhannan, C. W., Suhaka, M., Mills, G., Gibson, G. V., & Merrill, M. D. (2006). A task-centered approach to entrepreneurship. TechTrends, 53(3), 84–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component Display Theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models; An overview of their current status (pp. 279–333). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1987a). A lesson basded on Component Display Theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories in action (pp. 201–244). HIllsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1987b). The new Component Display Theory; instructional design for courseware authoring. Instructional Science, 16, 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1994). Instructional design theory. Engle Wood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publicatiions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2002a). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2002b). A pebble-in-the-pond model for instructional design. Performance Improvement, 41(7), 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2006a). Hypothesized performance on complex tasks as a function of scaled instructional strategies. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handlking complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 265–281). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2006b). Levels of instructional strategy. Educational Technology, 40(4), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2007a). First principles of instruction: A synthesis. In R. A. Reiser, J. V. Dempsey, R. A. Reiser, & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 62–71). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2007b). A task-centered instructional strategy. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2009a). First principles of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr (Eds.), Instructional design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III, pp. 41–56). New York, NY: Routledge Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2009b). Finding e3 (effective, efficient, and engaging) instruction. Educational Technology, 49(3), 15–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2013). First principles of instruction: Identifying and designing effective, efficient, and engaging instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2017a). A 50+ year search for effective, efficient and engaging instruction. Acquired Wisdom Series (S. Tobis, J. D. Fletcher, & D. Beliner, Eds.). Educationa Review, 24. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.14507/er.v24.2220.

  • Merrill, M. D. (2017b). A 50+ year search for effective, efficient and engaging instruction. In S. Tobias, J. D. Fletcher, & D. C. Berliner (Eds.), Educational review: Acquired wisdom: A publication series to preserve and transmit the knowledge and skills of distinguished educational researchers (Vol. 24, pp. 1–31) Retrieved from edrev.asu.edu.

  • Merrill, M. D. (2020). A syllabus review check-list to promote problem-centered instruction. TechTrends, 64, 105–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2020). First Principles of Instruction: Revised Edition. Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2020) First Principles of Instruction, Revised Edition. Association for Educational Communications and Technology

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D., & Boutwell, R. C. (1973). Instructional development: Methodology and research. In F. N. Kerlinger (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 1, pp. 95–131). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D., & Gilbert, C. G. (2008). Effective peer interaction in a pforlbm-centered instructional strategy. Distance Education, 29(2), 199–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D., Schneider, E. W., & Fletcher, K. A. (1980). TICCIT. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg-Kima, R. (2012). Effects of task-centered vs. topic-centered instructional strateghy approaches on problem-solving – Learning to program flash. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University. Retrieved from mdavidmerrill.com/.

  • Rumain, B. & Geliebter, A. (2020) A process-oriented guided-inquiry learning-based curriculum for the experimental psychology laboratory. Psychology Learning & Teaching. online publication ttps://doi.org/10.1177/1475725720905973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1, 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, E. K. R. (2018). Learning scientific explanations by means of worked examples -- promoting psychology students' explanation competence. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 17(2) pp 144-165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, R. S. (2015). Application of first principles of insruction: A correlational study of design expertise and implied course quality. Capella University. Ann Arbor Michigan: ProQuest LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tawfik, A. A. , & Kolodner, J. L. (2016). Systematizing Scaffolding for Problem-Based Learning: A View from Case-Based Reasoning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 10(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1608

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson Inc. (2002). Thompson job impact study: The next generation of learning. Napperville, IL: NETG.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Utah State University, St. George, UT, USA

    M. David Merrill

Authors
  1. M. David Merrill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Univ of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Joerg Zumbach

  2. Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Bonita Springs, FL, USA

    Douglas Bernstein

  3. Psychology Learning & Instruction, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Sachsen, Germany

    Susanne Narciss

  4. DISUFF, University of Salerno, Salerno, Salerno, Italy

    Giuseppina Marsico

Section Editor information

  1. University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Joerg Zumbach

  2. Psychologie des Lehrens und Lernens, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland

    Susanne Narciss

  3. Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    Douglas A. Bernstein

  4. Department of Human, Philosophic, and Education Sciences, University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy

    Giuseppina Marsico

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Merrill, M.D. (2022). First Principles of Instruction Revisited. In: Zumbach, J., Bernstein, D., Narciss, S., Marsico, G. (eds) International Handbook of Psychology Learning and Teaching. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26248-8_56-2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26248-8_56-2

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26248-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-26248-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    First Principles of Instruction Revisited
    Published:
    10 December 2021

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26248-8_56-2

  2. Original

    First Principles of Instruction Revisited
    Published:
    09 September 2021

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26248-8_56-1

Search

Navigation