Pre-publication draft, reference information at end of post.
To access PDF copies of this and other articles, visit my Academia.edu page.
Note:
All names of schools and people are pseudonyms.
Abstract
There is increasing
evidence that using Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction as
part of an instructional strategy increases learning. However, these
principles are written in general terms, and little is written about
how these principles function in the real world. Knowing how these
principles are currently used in the real-world would extend our
understanding of the principles and provide insight into how they can
be implemented. Therefore, a study was conducted to determine how
four award-winning instructors in higher education used First
Principles of Instruction in their teaching. The instructors’ use
of these principles is described and analyzed. In addition to these
principles, several additional strategies for providing effective
instruction emerged during the study, including instructor
enthusiasm, compassion, organization, and expertise. Specific methods
for using these principles in higher education are explored, and
several important questions regarding the use of First Principles of
Instruction are posed, particularly related to the use of real-world
problems in instruction. Suggestions for future research and practice
are also provided.
Gardner, J., (2011). How Award-winning Professors in Higher Education Use Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 8(5), p. 3-16).
Introduction
One
current theory of instruction is Merrill’s First Principles of
Instruction (Merrill, 2002, 2007, 2008), which proposes five
foundational principles of instruction which, when used, are proposed
to increase student learning. Merrill states the following
principles: (1) Task/Problem-Centered – learning is
increased when instruction is centered on real-world problems or
tasks; (2) Activation – learning increases when learners
recall or demonstrate relevant prior learning and recall or are given
a way to organize what they will learn; (3) Demonstration –
learning increases when learners observe a demonstration in which a
similar problem is solved and/or a similar task is performed; (4)
Application – learning increases when learners apply what
they have learned by solving real-world problems and/or performing
real-world tasks; (5) Integration – learning increases when
students reflect on, discuss, debate, or give a presentation on what
they have learned (Merrill 2002; 2006). These principles can be
converted into a cycle of instructional activities, centered on
real-world tasks and problems. See Figure 1.
Figure
1. Instruction can follow a cycle of instruction centered on
real-world tasks beginning with activation and continuing through
integration.
There
is some evidence that these principles increase learning. Thomson
(2002) reported a study in which an online Excel spreadsheet course
using First Principles was compared with a traditional online course
teaching Excel. Basing the course on real-world tasks and using the
four-phase cycle of instruction caused a 30% student improvement in
performance accuracy using Excel, including a 41% improvement in the
time taken to complete tasks (p.8). In a separate study, Frick (2009)
discovered a significant correlation between student satisfaction
with a course and the reported use of First Principles of
Instruction. There is also evidence that these principles are
supported by various instructional models and theories (Gardner,
2010; Merrill, 2002; Merrill, Barclay, & van Schaak, 2008). In
addition, there is some empirical support for the individual
principles (Merrill, 2006; Merrill, Barclay, & van Schaak, 2008).
Additionally, several authors have described successful instruction
that uses First Principles (Collis and Margaryan 2005; Mendenhall, et
al., 2006; Gardner, et al. 2008). Growing empirical, theoretical, and
anecdotal support for First Principles of Instruction warrants
further investigation and understanding of how these principles
operate in a live instructional setting.
Study Purpose
Principles
are intentionally general and to be used effectively must be tailored
to specific contexts, problems and situations (Merrill, 2002; Keller,
2008).Because these principles are written in a general form, it can
be difficult to interpret and apply these principles to a real-world
setting, and guidance on how to implement these principles is needed
(Merrill, 2007). Because effective practice can contribute to and
help build theory (
http://www.aect.org/),
it would be beneficial to study how these principles are used
successfully by expert teachers. To date there have been no studies
that report how award-winning instructors are using Merrill’s First
Principles of Instruction in higher education. Therefore, I studied
four award-winning professors in higher education with the goal of
discovering methods of instruction that adhere to Merrill’s First
Principles of Instruction. The guiding question in the design of the
study is, “How do effective, award-winning instructors at a large
western university use Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction?”
Method
The
study took place at a large western university. To ensure that I
studied quality instruction, I selected four professors who had been
recognized in previous years as the teachers of the year for the
entire university. This recognition is very prestigious and is
awarded to one of several hundred instructors for outstanding
teaching at the university. Awardees are experienced instructors who
were considered and selected based on the recommendations of their
peers and the feedback of past students. It was assumed, and later
confirmed, that the instructors selected for this study effectively
apply some or all of Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction.
Potential participants were identified from an online list showing
past award winners on the university website. They were contacted
twice via email and were asked to participate in the study. Of the
winners for the past ten years at university, six replied to my
emails. And of the six that replied, four agreed to participate in
the study and were included as participants in this study.
The Researcher
An
important aspect of my relationship to these instructors was my
employment as an instructional designer in the university’s center
for teaching. In this role, I supported several departments at the
university in developing and managing course content in Blackboard
Vista, the university’s Course Management System. Because I worked
directly with professors at the university, I was particularly
well-positioned to gather relevant knowledge for this study.
The
purpose of this study was to find out how instructors use First
Principles of Instruction in higher education. To gain a rich
understanding of the instructors’ teaching strategies, I followed
the advice of Glesne (1992) and gathered data from several sources:
an interview with each instructor (which was recorded and later
transcribed), an observation of the instructor in a teaching setting,
and documents provided by the professor relating to their teaching
philosophy and strategy. These documents included course syllabi,
student evaluation feedback data, assignment descriptions, peer
evaluations, and emails from students. These multiple sources
provided triangulation of data for this study.
Data
were analyzed using thematic analysis (Glesne, 1992; Gall, Gall &
Borg, 2007). I searched for any reference in the sources that
referred to the use of any of the five First Principles of
Instruction. In addition to themes directly related to First
Principles, several other themes and patterns emerged from the data.
Appendix 1 demonstrates the codes and associated themes that
emerged during the study. All documents and transcripts were coded
according to these themes and were then analyzed and are described in
the following section.
Results: Instructors’ Use of First Principles of Instruction
This
section describes the findings of the data, which were analyzed using
thematic analysis and grouped into categories defined by First
Principles and other themes that emerged during the study. The
instructors included in this study are described to provide context
for who was studied. Instructor use of Merrill’s First Principles
of Instruction is described. Themes that emerged during the analysis
but were not specific to First Principles of Instruction are also
described. The findings are presented as a description of how the
instructors used each principle in the courses. The additional themes
are then presented, including examples from each instructor. Tallies
recording how often each principle was observed are presented in
Appendix 2, which also indicates the source of the
observation.
Study
Participants
Dr. Linda Kelley
Dr. Linda Kelley is a professor in the department of Family,
Consumer, and Human Development. She began her career as a
kindergarten teacher and has earned graduate degrees in child
development. She has worked with small children throughout her career
and chose to take a position as a professor and director of a
student-teaching preschool lab because her “three favorite
populations are parents, little children and college students.”
In student evaluations, students described Dr. Kelley as “very
approachable and friendly,” and “enthusiastic.” In the class I
observed, she arranged the classroom in a circle and spent time
chatting and laughing with the students before and after the class.
Students described the class as “a comfortable conversation where
we could discuss anything.” The nature of her relationship with
students appears to be comfortable and enjoyable to Dr. Kelley and to
her students.
Dr. Bretton
Wellington
Dr. Bretton Wellington is a professor of Marketing in the School of
Business at the university. He began his studies at San Jose State
where he earned a bachelor’s degree in Marketing. After earning and
MBA from Santa Clara University and a Ph. D. in Marketing from
Arizona State University, he taught briefly in Arizona and afterward
took a position at the university where he has taught for nearly 17
years. Most of his research focuses on the market diffusion of
renewable energy and clean technologies. Dr. Wellington has a
confident and an engaging personality, and peers in the School of
Business who had observed his teaching described him as “”terrific
in engaging students,” “very animated and energetic,” and
“enthusiastic.” My observation of his teaching style confirms
this description, and I found myself drawn into his presentation
through his use of dynamic voice inflections and witty humor.
Suzan Harrison
Suzan Harrison is an instructor in the Department of Nutrition and
Food Science at the university. She was born and raised in the
community surrounding the university and earned a bachelor’s and a
master’s degree from the program at the university. Before taking
a position as professor, she worked in many positions in the field of
nutrition, including an outpatient dietician at the local hospital, a
dietary manager for patients in a nursing home, and even worked with
diabetics and clients with eating disorders. After working in a
research position at the university, she transitioned from researcher
to professor and now manages and organizes all of the undergraduate
introductory nutrition courses at the university. Harrison is a
pleasure to talk to and many of her students describe her as “very
professional,” “extremely knowledgeable,” and “fun to listen
to.”
Dr. Pradeep Sumbramony
Dr. Pradeep Sumbramony is a professor in the Department of Economics
in the School of Business at the university. He began his education
at Calcutta University where he earned a bachelor’s degree in
Economics. He later earned a PhD in Economics from Chicago University
and afterward came to the university as professor. He has taught at
the university for over 33 years and has received many awards for
excellence in teaching and mentorship. Students described Dr.
Sumbramony as “enthusiastic,” “very entertaining,” and that
he showed “genuine care for his students.” Dr. Sumbramony had
compassion for his students and worked to provide individual guidance
and attention to each of his students. One student wrote, “I admire
and appreciate (his) effort and love for teaching me.”
Instructor
Use of First Principles of Instruction
The instructors’ use of First Principles of Instruction is
described below. Results are presented according to the themes
associated with each principle, and discussion of the findings
follows the presentation of the findings.
Problem/Task-Centered
Dr. Kelley (Child
Development)
- In one class,
students plan out and executing lesson plans in the university
pre-school lab.
- In another class,
students do home visits to the families of their students, attend
parent meetings and conferences and write reports on the meetings.
- Students also work
in small groups to respond to real world scenarios they might
encounter in their work as pre-school teachers.
Dr. Wellington
(Marketing)
- In one class,
students assume the role of consultants for a real-world companies
and perform a marketing audit.
Suzan Harrison
(Nutrition and Health)
- Harrison
shared real-world, personal examples of the nutrition and
development phenomena that she was teaching in lectures.
- Harrison
embodied a personal example of excellent fitness and nutrition, as
noted by her students.
- In
one class, students used what they had learned by analyzing the
contents of infant formula to see how well it matched important
research knowledge.
Dr. Sumbramony
(Economics)
- Students solved
economics problems using complex equations.
Activation
Dr. Wellington
(Marketing)
- When lecturing, he created an itinerary on the board that organized
the class.
- Referred to and built on the knowledge obtained in previous
prerequisite courses.
Suzan Harrison
(Nutrition and Health)
- When beginning a lecture, she reviewed what was discussed in the
previous class prior to lecturing on new content.
- She then previewed the key points of the day’s lecture, providing
an organizing structure for the content to be learned.
Dr. Sumbramony
(Economics)
- At beginning of the class period he asked questions to the students
regarding more fundamental principles of economics, slowly
progressing to questions about more abstract, complex principles,
and finally moved into the content of the current class.
Demonstration
Dr. Kelley (Child
Development)
- Students learned from other students by observing and evaluating
them as they planned out and executed lesson plans in the pre-school
lab.
- Students listened to how other students responded to real world
scenarios provided by Dr. Kelley, and also listened to Dr. Kelley’s
feedback on their responses.
Dr. Wellington
(Marketing)
- Students were given access to several high quality marketing audits
performed by students in previous semesters.
- Dr. Wellington provided many relevant examples from the popular
media that illustrate the marketing audit steps to be applied by the
students.
Suzan Harrison
(Nutrition and Health)
- Shared personal
examples from her life of the nutrition phenomena and human
development concepts presented in the lecture.
- Provided a personal
example of excellent fitness and nutrition to her students.
Dr. Sumbramony
(Economics)
- Showed and worked
through an example of how to use an equation to solve an economics
problem on the chalkboard.
Application
Dr. Kelley (Child
Development)
- Students planned out and executed lesson plans at the pre-school
lab.
- Students responded to real world scenarios provided by Dr. Kelley.
Dr. Wellington
(Marketing)
- Students performed
a marketing audit, including several specific audit-specific
activities.
Suzan Harrison
(Nutrition and Health)
- Students went to
the grocery store and analyzed the contents of infant formula to see
how it matched what was discussed in class.
- Students tracked
their own nutritional intake and compared it with what they had
learned in class.
Dr. Sumbramony
(Economics)
- Students used a complex equation solved an economic problem in class
and then used the equation to solve a similar problem on their own
out of class.
Integration
Dr. Kelley (Child
Development)
- Dr. Kelley facilitated an in-class discussion with students on their
experiences in the lab in which students shared insights with one
another.
Dr. Wellington
(Marketing)
- Facilitated interactive class discussions by posing engaging and
sometimes off-beat questions to help students to expand their
knowledge of the subject.
- Described to students how the skills they are developing will be
useful in the future.
Suzan Harrison
(Nutrition and Health)
- Constantly asked students, “What does this mean to you?”
Dr. Sumbramony
(Economics)
- On several occasions asked students, “Why is this important?”
Cycle of
Instruction
Dr. Kelley (Child
Development)
- Student groups responded to real-world scenarios provided by Dr.
Kelley in class. Other students learned from those sharing their
responses while the sharing group applied their knowledge to the
scenario. This was repeated by several groups on several occasions.
Dr. Kelley facilitated the discussion by asking questions and also
provided feedback and insights to each student group and to the rest
of the class on how to improve responses and expand their knowledge
related to the scenario.
Dr. Wellington
(Marketing)
- When teaching how to do each of the several specific market analysis
tasks, Wellington provided students with multiple examples of the
market analysis task, including examples from previous students and
examples from the popular media. Students then performed the market
analysis task and were later given feedback from Dr. Wellington on
how to improve their analysis.
Suzan Harrison
(Nutrition and Health)
- In one class, Harrison directed students to read a nutritional case
as a group and were given a worksheet to guide them through the
process of applying their knowledge to solve nutritional problems.
They then integrated their knowledge by presenting their solution to
other groups. Students also learned from each other in the sharing
process. This cycle was repeated several times.
Dr. Sumbramony
(Economics)
- When teaching how to solve a difficult economics-related problem,
Dr. Sumbramony first worked through the problem using a complex
equation on the chalkboard. He then presented another similar
problem and had students use the equation to solve a portion of the
problem. He then gave them another problem to solve on their own for
outside of class.
Additional Themes
In addition to the instructors’ use of Merrill’s First Principles
of Instruction, several themes emerged as I analyzed the data for
this study. This section briefly describe each of these themes.
Enthusiasm
The first theme that emerged was enthusiasm. For example, Dr. Kelley
describes herself as enthusiastic about child development, and in
course evaluations, students described Dr. Kelley as “enthusiastic
and very effective,” and that Dr. Kelley had “enthusiasm and love
of the subjects we studied.” Perhaps this is why one student wrote,
“I always look forward to class.” I personally found Dr. Kelley
to be very engaging and enthusiastic as I interviewed her and
observed her class.
Dr. Wellington also exhibited enthusiasm as part of his teaching, and
his peers describe him as engaging, energetic and enthusiastic. My
observation confirms the presence of enthusiasm in his presentation
and communication style, and I thoroughly enjoyed my interview with
him. This enthusiasm is related to what Dr. Wellington calls his
“stage presence,” which he attributes to his experience as an
opera performer during his time as a student.
Dr. Sumbramony also had high levels of enthusiasm, and in my
interview, I was impressed with his ability to speak with energy and
passion. Students also noted this energy, describing him as
“energetic,” “very passionate,” and that his “activity and
enthusiasm are astounding.”
Knowledgeable
In addition to enthusiasm, students noted that an instructor’s
knowledge and expertise were important to effective instruction. For
example, one student wrote that Dr. Kelley “had the experience and
examples to back up what she was teaching.” Others wrote that she
“really knew the subject matter” and was “well prepared” for
class. This perceived knowledge of child development gave her
teaching credibility in the eyes of the students. This theme was also
found in Suzan Harrison, whose students described her as “very
knowledgeable in the subject,” and that she “really knows her
stuff!”
Organization
Instructor organization was also noted as key to effective teaching.
For example, Dr. Wellington mentioned, “I like a lot of structure,”
and his course syllabus reflects this structure and appears to be
very clear and easy to follow. Suzan Harrison also exhibited clear
organization, and in our interview, she acknowledged “I work very,
very hard and diligently to make sure I’m organized.” There are
several components to this organization. Harrison’s students also
appreciated her organization, and wrote that they liked the “learning
objectives,” and the “outlines.” One student appreciated that,
“She is consistent with the structure of the class.” Harrison’s
syllabus is also quite organized and provides students with clear
structure to the course.
Humor
Humor was another theme that emerged in the study. For example, after
observing Dr. Wellington in class, one if his peers wrote “the
group laughter which followed (Dr. Wellington’s humorous comments)
gave evidence of a very positive rapport between teacher and
students.” Dr. Sumbramony’s was also very humorous, and students
wrote that they “loved the humor,” that “his humor was
excellent,” and that the class was “entertaining.” In the
course I observed, Dr. Sumbramony told many jokes and some of the
students even made their own jokes during the class. Reflecting on
this, Dr. Sumbramony mentioned, “I create a relaxed, enjoyable
atmosphere, (even though) we are dealing with difficult, complex
things.” This relaxed, enjoyable atmosphere seems to facilitate
student engagement in the class.
Compassion
Dr. Sumbramony took what he calls a “compassionate approach,” and
his compassion for his students was apparent. He provided them
with individual one-on-onetime, even in courses that have over 70
students. In these visits, he guided students through problems and
assignments using what he calls the Socratic method, asking questions
that guided the students to solving problems on their own. Students
greatly appreciated this attention and were impressed with his love
and concern for their success. One wrote that “he take(s) an active
stance in making sure each of us in his class learned and understood
the subject matter.” Another appreciated that he “was concerned
with each individual student and took time to help anyone who needed
it.” Perhaps this is why students wrote in their evaluations that
“he has been my favorite teacher in the Econ department by far”
and that he “should definitely be the teacher of the year.” In
every class, Dr. Sumbramony sets appointments with students who are
struggling and guides them through the content. He even calls
students at home if they have missed several classes. This compassion
and personal interest in each individual student certainly seems to
increase student learning.
Challenging
Another theme that developed was an appreciation of a challenging
course. For example, Harrison works to be aware of her students and
how they perform in her courses, and she makes sure the course is
reasonably difficult for the students, who noted that the challenging
course “pushed me to learn more” and “made sure we know exactly
what we needed to know.”
Discussion
Problem-Centered
The
way that problems were used varied. Previously, Duffy &
Cunningham (1996) noted five ways that problems can be used: (1) the
problem as guide; (2) the problem as an integrator or test; (3) the
problem as an example; (4) the problem as a vehicle for process; and,
(5) the problem as a stimulus for authentic activity. Merrill (2002,
2007) seems to emphasize a gradual transition during an instructional
sequence from using problems as examples to using the problem
as a vehicle for authentic activity. In this study, problems
were used by the instructors in a similar way- as examples and as
vehicles for authentic activity.
However,
the size of the problems used varied greatly. For example, as
described above, Dr. Kelley directed teams of child development
students to respond to parents’ complaints that had come up in the
past at the school’s child care lab. This is a relatively small
problem and in class, the discussion for each problem lasted roughly
6-7 minutes. However, the problem of dealing with parent complaints
can be seen as one component of the larger task of working with
parents, which is a component of the larger task of working as a
child care professional. So, which of these is a whole task or
problem? The question is important because the use of at least 3
whole tasks is described as vital to task-centered course (Merrill,
2009). But if the task or problem is so large that three tasks cannot
be included within the constraints of a single course, then what
should be done? How big should a problem be in problem-centered
instruction?
An
example of a very large whole problem or task is a market audit,
which Dr. Wellington’s marketing students perform. This problem is
performed over the course of the semester because the market audit is
so large that there is not enough time to work through multiple whole
tasks. Interestingly, Wellington appears to use the cycle of
instruction for each component of this whole task, providing
demonstrations and examples from current media and giving students
feedback on their application of each component. So, are these
components of a market audit several whole tasks in the course, or is
the market audit? One could argue that the whole task of “working
as a marketing associate” is taught over the course of a
curriculum, and that the components associated with that task are
taught throughout the curriculum. In both scenarios First Principles
are used and a whole task is performed by the students.
Perhaps
the examples described above provide methods for implementing tasks
in a real-world context. Dr. Kelley used small whole problems
(responses to pre-school cases) which included student application,
peer-peer demonstration, and instructor feedback and guidance, many
times throughout the course. However, in the pre-school lab, she used
much larger whole problems (student-generated lesson plans) which
also included students application, peer-peer demonstration and
feedback and guidance. I would designate each of these as whole tasks
of different sizes, adapted to the context of the specific context in
which the design takes place.
By
nature, whole problems or tasks are components of larger tasks, and
selecting the appropriate “problem” must fit the constraints of
the instructional context and be tailored to the needs and prior
knowledge of the students who will receive the instruction. However,
there is little guidance on how this can be effectively done, and
much is left to the instructor to determine how large the task should
be based on the instructional context.
Activation
Three
of the instructors in this study used activation strategies to
varying degrees. However, some of these strategies were more passive
in nature. For example, Merrill wrote that learning is promoted “when
learners are directed to recall, relate, describe, or apply knowledge
from relevant past experience” (p. 46). This statement implies
active participation by the students. However, two of the three
instructors who used activation in this study employed more passive
strategies by verbally reviewing previously learned materials at the
beginning of a class or during lecture. Dr. Sumbramony, did use an
interesting active strategy for activating student prior learning. As
noted above, this strategy included asking questions to activate the
graduate students’ prior knowledge. His questions began very basic
and gradually became more complex and abstract, finally moving into
the content of the course. This strategy appeared to allow the
students to see the relationship between the more fundamental
principles of economics and the complex content being taught in the
course.
Cycle of
Instruction
One
interesting finding was the instructors’ use of a cycle of
instruction including demonstration of multiple whole task or
problems and student applications of those whole tasks.
Interestingly, these cycles of instruction varied from course to
course and from task to task. Cycles of instruction varied from
several cycles within a 50-minute class to cycles lasting several
days. These cycles appeared to change based on the size of the whole
task or problem on which the instruction was centered- the larger the
task or problem, the longer the cycle appeared to take. This seems to
confirm the flexibility of these principles and the potential to
adapt them to specific needs and contexts.
I
was impressed with how these professors use these principles of
instruction seamlessly in their teaching strategies. Instructors move
between the phases of activation, demonstration, application and
integration fluidly many times during a single class. This fluidity
highlights the dynamic nature of these principles and provides
examples of how to integrate them effectively in a course.
Additional Themes
The additional themes that emerged during the study provide great
insight into how excellent teachers personalize their instruction
while naturally implementing First Principles. Many of these
additional characteristics and techniques appear to fit with what
Keller (2008) has called First Principles of Motivation, which he
based on the ARCS model of motivation (Keller, 1987). These
principles are designed to increase student motivation to learn, and
the instructors in this study clearly used several of the components
outlined. The professors gain and maintain students’ Attention
through the use of humor and enthusiastic teaching. They instill
Confidence of success in their students by challenging them
and giving them compassionate guidance in their studies. They also
provide real-world experiences that give students satisfaction of
Success (Keller, 2008, p. 176-178).
These
characteristics and techniques seem to act as facilitators of
effective instruction based on First Principles. First Principles
alone would not appear to be as effective as First Principles with
these facilitating principles. Figure 2 highlights how these
principles appear to work as facilitators of First Principles.
Figure
2. The additional themes identified in this study appear to
facilitate student movement through the phases of instruction.
This study confirms the existence of First Principles of Instruction
and links the use of these principles to high quality instruction. It
is worth noting that these principles were used by teachers in
content areas that are very different in nature. The presence of
these principles in several different settings in higher education
highlights the ubiquitous nature of First Principles and shows that
they can be present and utilized, “regardless of program or
practice” (Merrill, 2002, p. 43). This study also suggests that
recognized instructors naturally employ both principles of
instruction and principles of motivation in their teaching.
This study has discovered two things. First, it confirms the
existence and use of First Principles of Instruction and links their
use to effective instruction in higher education. Second, it
emphasizes that the effectiveness of these principles is potentially
enhanced through positive motivational strategies and
characteristics.
Because
principles are general in nature, work must be done to “examine the
specific problems and best practices that can be applied in a given
situation (Keller, 2008, p. 175).” Therefore, future studies should
identify how First Principles of Instruction function in specific
learning contexts. For example, work should be done to identify how
First Principles of Instruction are used in an online environment in
higher education. Future research should also study the interaction
between First Principles of Instruction and First Principles of
Motivation in a variety of settings. Identifying how these
motivational and instructional principles interact can give us
greater insight into designing effective and motivating instruction
in many environments, contexts.
Conclusion
To
bring life to Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction, we should
observe how they are used in real settings. This study provides some
insight into how these principles can function in higher education.
To advance as a field, we should be willing to analyze how theory
functions in realistic settings and discover methods for using and
personalizing instructional theories like First Principles of
Instruction so that they can be made more accessible to teachers and
instructional designers in many settings.
References
Association for Educational Communication and Technology,
(2009).Knowledge Base. Retrieved April 25, 2009 from
http://www.aect.org/default.asp.
Collis, B., & Margaryan, A. (2005).
Merrill plus: Blending corporate strategy and instructional design.
Educational Technology, 45(3),
54-58.
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996).
Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of
instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for
educational communications and technology (pp. 170-198). New York:
Macmillan.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.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007).
Educational research: An introduction.
Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Gardner, J., & Jeon, T. K. (2009).
Creating task-centered instruction for web-based instruction:
Obstacles and solutions. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, (38)1, pp.
21-34.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming
qualitative researchers. New York: Longman.
Keller, J. M. (1987a). Development and use
of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional
Development, 10(3), 2–10.Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of
motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance Education, 29(2),
175-185.
Mendenhall, A., Buhanan, C. W., Suhaka, M.,
Mills, G., Gibson, G. V., & Merrill, M. D. (2006). A
task-centered approach to entrepreneurship. TechTrends,
50(4), 84-89.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational
Technology Research and Development 50(3): 43-59.
Merrill, M. D. (2007). First principles of instruction: a synthesis.
In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in
Instructional Design and Technology, 2nd Edition (Vol. 2, pp. 62-71).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Merrill, M. D., Barclay, M., & van Schaak, A. (2008).
Prescriptive principles for instructional design. In J. M. Spector,
M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll
(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and
Technology (pp. 173-184). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Appendix 1
Codes and Themes Identified in Analysis
| Code |
Theme |
| P-C |
Problem/Task-Centered Principle |
| Ac |
Activation Principle |
| D |
Demonstration Principle |
| Ap |
Application Principle |
| In |
Integration Principle |
| Enth |
Enthusiasm |
| Kn |
Knowledgeable |
| Org |
Organization |
| Hum |
Humor |
| Comp |
Compassion |
| Chal |
Challenging |
This is a pre-publication draft of an article previously published
in the International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning in 2011. Please feel free to refer to and use these materials, just be sure to use
the reference below when citing the publication:
Gardner, J., (2011). How Award-winning Professors in Higher Education Use Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 8(5), p. 3-16).
