Pre-publication draft, reference information at end of post.
To access PDF copies of this and other articles, visit my Academia.edu page.
Abstract:
Research
has shown that when Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction are
used as part of an instructional strategy, student learning
increases. Several articles describe these principles of
Instruction, including specific methods for implementing this theory.
However, because teachers and designers often have little time to
design instruction, it can be difficult to implement a comprehensive
theory like First Principles of Instruction. Therefore, this article
provides basic methods for applying First Principles, including
several examples from the literature. It also provides a basic
template for organizing a module or lesson plan using First
Principles of Instruction.
Keywords: instruction; instructional theory; First Principles
of Instruction; applying theory; instructional design;
Introduction
The
issue of transferring theory into teaching practice is often
discussed in the field of education, (De Corte, 2000; Defazio, 2006;
Randi & Corno, 2007). For example, a recent study found that most
courses in higher education, even those that are award-winning, do
not effectively use First Principles of Instruction in their teaching
strategy (Cropper et al., 2009). Without using sound theory
in the educational practice, instruction can potentially fall short
of its power to increase student learning.
Research
has shown that the use of First Principles of Instruction in
education improves student learning and satisfaction (Frick et
al., 2007; Merrill, 2006; Thomson, 2002).
However, although several articles describe First Principles of
Instruction (Merrill, 2002, 2006), including methods for implementing
and evaluating these principles (Merrill, 2009), experience has shown
it can be difficult to apply this theory into educational practice.
This article therefore describes basic ways for instructional
designers and educators to begin using Merrill’s First Principles
of Instruction, including a template for designing instruction.
Specific methods for applying each principle are also provided.
First
Principles of Instruction
A
principle describes a relationship that is always true under
appropriate conditions, regardless of program or practice (Merrill,
2002). Principles are different from methods, which are “ways
to facilitate learning” (Reigeluth, 1999). For methods to
effectively bring about student learning, they must be based on
principles that describe a true relationship.
Principles
are often included in instructional theory, which “offers explicit
guidance on how to better help people learn and develop”
(Reigeluth, 1999). Merrill emphasizes that instructional design
theory should address what actions to take and how and why we should
take those particular actions (Merrill & Twitchell, 1994).
Instructional theories describe how to teach effectively. They
identify methods of instruction, which can be broken into detailed
steps, and the situations in which those steps should be taken
(Driscoll, 2005, p. 352; Reigeluth, 1999).
In
presenting First Principles of Instruction, Merrill (2002, 2006)
provides very powerful instructional methods based on five
foundational principles of instruction. He writes that learning is
promoted when:
- Instruction
is in the context of real-world problems or tasks and
students are engaged in solving a sequence of increasingly complex
problems or tasks.
- Students
activate relevant cognitive structures and recall or acquire
a structure for organizing new knowledge, which structure is used
for instruction, coaching, and reflection activities.
- Students
observe a demonstration of skills to be learned that is
consistent with the content type, guides students to relate general
information to specific instances, and uses media that is relevant
to the content and appropriately used.
- Students
engage in application of new knowledge that is consistent
with the type of knowledge being taught, receive intrinsic or
corrective feedback, and receive coaching that is gradually
withdrawn for each subsequent problem or task.
- Students
integrate their new knowledge or skill by reflecting on,
discussing, or defending the new knowledge or skill, and exploring
personal ways to use it and displaying it publicly.
These
five principles can be converted into four phases of instruction,
occurring in the context of a real-world problem or task. See Figure
1. This four-phase process guides instructional designers and
educators to bundle their teaching and learning activities in a way
that improves student learning and that makes it easy to incorporate
new methods within that process. The process begins with activation
of students’ prior learning, followed by demonstration of new
knowledge, student application of knowledge, and student integration
of knowledge, all based on the real-world problem or task.
Figure 1. Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction.
Several
research articles provide significant empirical and anecdotal support
for First Principles of Instruction (Frick et
al., 2007; Merrill, 2006; Thomson,
2002). Thomson (2002) showed how these principles were used
to teach a potentially drab spreadsheet course. By using real-world
scenarios and following the four-phase cycle of instruction, students
achieved a 30% performance improvement over the traditional
instruction, including a 41% improvement in time performance (p.8).
In another study, Frick et al. (2007) found strong correlation
between the use of Merrill’s First Principles and student
satisfaction and perceived and actual performance in the class. In
addition, several authors show how these principles have been applied
in educational and corporate settings (Collis & Margaryan, 2005;
Gardner et al., 2008; Gardner & Jeon, in press; Mendenhall
et al., 2006).
While
the results of these studies and cases are impressive, it can be
difficult to apply this theory. To help
transfer these principles from theory into educational practice, this
article will provide prescriptions based on a review of several
instructional theories and case descriptions.
Applying
First Principles of Instruction
This
section describes instructional methods and strategies based on First
Principles of Instruction. Several questions are asked followed by
practical answers for applying First Principles of Instruction.
Figure 2 is a worksheet for planning how to use these principles in a
lesson or unit.
How can I base my
instruction on real-world problems or tasks?
Real-world experience is the bedrock of all learning (Dale, 1996).
The goal of the instruction should be to have students solve problems
(Jonassen, 1999), so have students do performances that matter in the
real world (Gardner, 1999). Make sure the problems are authentic
(Nelson, 1999), useful (Dale, 1996), meaningful (Mayer, 1999), and
intrinsically motivating to the student (Schank et al., 1999).
The challenges should be easy at first (Burton et al., 1984)
but be increasingly difficult as you move through the materials
(Gardner et al., 2008; Perkins & Unger, 1999; Schwartz et
al., 1999). Make sure your problems and tasks safely allow the
practice of skills and subskills (Burton et al., 1984) and try
to make them physical, tangible activities (Collis & Margaryan,
2005).
How do I activate
my students’ prior knowledge?
- Have your
students relate or recall what they already know about the subject
(Gardner et al., 2008; McCarthy, 1996). Try to choose
subjects the students will relate to (Schank et. al., 1999)
and build on your students’ relevant prior knowledge (Collis &
Margaryan, 2005).
- Allow your
students to “look ahead” and preview what they will learn
(Schwartz et al., 1999). Let them see the problem(s) to be
solved and the subjects they will learn (Mendenhall et al.,
2006). Also, show them the process they will go through to solve
these problems (Nelson 1999). Try to make the structure of the
information and knowledge obvious by using a model to organize
instructional materials (Darabi, 2002).
- Give your
students a foundation to build new knowledge on. Give them a good
reason for engaging in the problem (Jonassen, 1999). Tell stories,
give them statistics, and provide hands-on activities (Gardner,
1999) upon which to build new knowledge. Discuss the fundamentals of
the topic or give a simple analogy upon which to build the new
knowledge (Mayer, 1999).
How can I
effectively demonstrate new knowledge to the students?
- Your
students will learn a lot by watching you work, so model performance
of the task as you teach (Collins et al., 1991). Teach and
model the entire task (Gardner et al., 2008; Mendenhall et
al., 2006). Give varied examples of the topic (Gardner, 1999),
and related cases and information sources (Jonassen, 1999),
including multiple expert perspectives (Schank et al., 1999;
Schwartz et al., 1999). This will broaden your students’
understanding.
- Be sure to
make the structure of the knowledge clear (Mayer, 1999) by following
and referring to the organizing model for the knowledge. Be sure to
have students relate new knowledge to old knowledge (McCarthy, 1996)
to promote encoding of new knowledge.
- Encourage
your students to ask questions during the demonstration (Gardner et
al., 2008) and give them instruction as they request or need it
(Nelson, 1999).
- To broaden
student understanding, tell analogies and metaphors (Gardner, 1999).
Focus your students’ attention by asking questions (Nelson, 1999)
and summarizing your instruction (Mayer, 1999). Make your thinking
obvious to the student (Collins et al., 1991).
How do I have
students apply this new knowledge effectively?
- Have your
students use what they have been taught (McCarthy, 1996) and spend
significant time on practice (Schank et al., 1999). Your
students’ activities should include problem-solving activities and
you should have them apply new skills in a realistic setting as soon
as possible (Keller, 1987). Students should solve as much of the
problem or task as possible at each stage (Mendenhall et al.,
2006). Problems and tasks should be done in the actual environment
using real workplace situations and resources (Collis &
Margaryan, 2005).
- Help your
students be cognitively active (Mayer, 1999) by having them solve
problems. You can even encourage them
to solve problems as a group (Nelson, 1999). Have them recognize and
articulate the elements that are common across the differing
problems and tasks you have them solve (Collins et al.,
1991).
- Give your
students coaching and feedback (Burton et al., 1984; Collins
et al., 1991; Nelson, 1999; Perkins & Unger,
1999). Feedback should occur frequently (Darabi, 2002; Perkins &
Unger, 1999). Your feedback may need to be visually demonstrated so
that students can see their error (Burton et al., 1984) and
should be based on clear criteria (Perkins & Unger, 1999). Help
your students use your feedback to bring their performance closer to
the level of an expert (Collins et al., 1991) and to
plan future performance (Perkins & Unger, 1999). When you praise
successful work, be sure to attribute the students’ success to
their effort, not luck or ease (Keller, 1987). Provide more guidance
initially, reducing it as expertise is developed (Gardner et al.,
2008).
How do I
encourage students to integrate this new knowledge into their
everyday life?
- Have your
students reflect on what they learn (Collis & Margaryan, 2005;
Gardner et al., 2008; Jonassen, 1999; Nelson, 1999; Perkins &
Unger, 1999; Schwartz et al., 1999), describing their
experiences and challenges in applying what is taught (Darabi,
2002). Have students relate their new knowledge to future goals
(Keller, 1987). As well, have students leave tips and ideas for
future students (Schwartz et al., 1999).
- Have your
students take part in a culminating performance that includes
students and parents outside the class (Perkins & Unger, 1999).
Afterwards, show the students a recording of their performance
(Jonassen, 1999).
Subject of Lesson or Module: |
|
Principle of Instruction |
Your
instructional plan
|
Problem-Centered
What real-world,
relevant problem or task will the learner be able to perform when
we finish this lesson or unit?
|
|
Activation
How will you activate
the learner’s prior knowledge about this subject and prepare
them to learn?
How will your students
preview what they will learn?
|
|
Demonstration
How will you show the
learner how to perform the real-world problem or task?
What various examples
of the problem or task will you give your students?
|
|
Application
How will your learner
practice solving the problem or task?
How will you give them
feedback on their performance?
|
|
Integration
How will you encourage
your learner to integrate this new knowledge and skill into their
life?
How will they reflect
on, discuss or debate this new knowledge?
|
|
Discussion
and Summary
The
diverse ways that First Principles of Instruction are used in these
theories and cases is refreshing, and one can recognize the abundant
theoretical and anecdotal support for First Principles of Instruction
in the articles cited. By understanding the purpose of the principle
and using it in a way that matches design style and personal
preference, instructional designers can apply these principles in
natural, meaningful ways.
This article is designed to provide teachers and instructional
designers with ideas for creating effective instruction. The goal is
to provide a framework for organizing teaching and learning
activities in a way that is easy to implement and beneficial to
students. Designers are encouraged to use the worksheet provided in
Figure 2 to plan how to apply these principles. By doing so, one can
expect an increase in student learning and satisfaction.
It
is often difficult to transfer theory to practice instructional
design. This description of how several theorists and designers use
Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction should generate ideas for
applying this theory in design practice. As well, the template found
it Figure 2 provides structured, basic methods for application.
Merrill
has synthesized and distilled First Principles of Instruction through
a lifetime of research, practice and synthesis. Using these
principles increases the efficiency and effectiveness of instruction.
Most importantly, instructional designers and educators who use these
principles will increase student learning and satisfaction by
engaging them in solving meaningful problems and tasks.
References
Burton, R. R., Brown, J. S., & Fischer, G. (1984).
Skiing as a model of instruction. In B. Rogoff and J. Lave (Eds.),
Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp.
139-150). Cambridge, MA and London , Harvard University Press.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991).
Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American
Educator, 15(3), 6-11.
Collis, B., & Margaryan, A. (2005). Merrill plus:
Blending corporate strategy and instructional design. Educational
Technology, 45(3), 54-58.
Cropper, M., Bentley, J., & Schroder, K. (2009). How
well do high-quality online courses employ Merrill's first principles
of instruction? In M. Orey, V. J. McClendon, & R. Branch (Eds.),
Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 34, pp.
121-140). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Dale, E. (1996). The "cone
of experience." In D. P. Ely & T. Plomp (Eds.), Classic
writings on instructional technology (Vol. 1, pp. 169-180).
Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Darabi, A. (2002). Teaching program evaluation: Using a
systems approach. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(2), 219.
De Corte, E. (2000). Marrying theory building and the
improvement of school practice: A permanent challenge for
instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction, 10(3),
249-266.
Defazio, J. (2006). Theory into practice: A bridge too
far? AACE Journal, 14(3), 221-233.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for
instruction (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Pearson Education,
Inc.
Frick, T., Chadha, R., Wang, Y., Watson, C., &
Green, P. (2007, December 11). College student perceptions of
teaching and learning quality. Educational Technology Research and
Development. Retrieved June 19, 2009, from
http://www.springerlink.com/content/722jm250401j7l77/fulltext.pdf.
Gardner, H. E. (1999). Multiple approaches to
understanding. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design
theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol.
2, pp. 69-89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Gardner, J., Bentley, J., & Cropper, M. (2008).
Evaluating online course quality: Teaching evaluation using first
principles of instruction. Midwest Journal of Educational
Communication and Technology, 2(2), 1-7.
Gardner, J., & Jeon, T. K. (in press). Creating
task-centered instruction for web-based instruction: Obstacles and
solutions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers:
An introduction (3 ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc..
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning
environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design
theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol.
2, pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS
model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional
Development, 10(3), 2-10.
Mayer, R. H. (1999). Designing instruction for
constructivist learning. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of
instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 141-159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
McCarthy, B. (1996). About learning. Barrington,
IL: Excell, Inc.
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. (2006). 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). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Merrill, M. D. (2009). Finding e3 (effective, efficient,
and engaging) instruction. Educational Technology, 49(3),
15-26.
Merrill, M. D. & Twitchell, D. (1994). Instructional
design theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications.
Nelson, L. M. (1999). Collaborative problem solving. In
C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A
new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 241-267).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Perkins, D. N., & Unger, C. (1999). Teaching and
learning for understanding. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of
instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 91-114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Randi, J., & Corno, L. (2007 ). Theory into
practice: A matter of transfer. Theory into Practice, 46(4),
334-342.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design
theory and how is it changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of
instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 5-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & Macpherson, K. A.
(1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of
instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 169-181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Schwartz, D. L., 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.
2, pp. 183-213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Thomson. (2002). Thomson job
impact study: The next generation of learning [electronic version].
Retrieved June 13, 2009 from
http://www.delmarlearning.com/resources/job_impact_study_whitepaper.pdf.
This is a pre-publication draft of an article published
in Educational Technology Magazine in 2010. Please feel free to refer to and use these materials, just be sure to use
the reference below when citing the publication:
Gardner, J. (2010). Applying Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction: Practical Methods Based on a Review of the Literature. Educational Technology Magazine. 50(2), pp. 20-25.