Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 93–110 | Cite as

Applying the First Principles of Instruction in a short-term, high volume, rapid production of online professional development modules

  • James D. Klein
  • Anne Mendenhall


The purpose of this paper is to describe a case study conducted to examine the application of Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction (Educ Technol Res Dev 50(3):43–59, 2002, First principles of instruction, Pfeiffer, San Francisco, 2012) to determine how they were implemented during a fast-paced project that required the creation of a large number of online modules. Design and development research (Richey and Klein in Design and development research, Routledge/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, 2007) was employed to investigate the conditions and factors that impacted the decisions made by a design team including project leads, team leads, and instructional designers. Findings revealed that project requirements, personnel, physical setting, time, designer experience, training and team meetings influenced the use of the First Principles of Instruction.


Instructional design First Principles of Instruction Design and development research 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

This research study was not funded and there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Collins, B., & Margaryan, A. (2005). Design criteria for work-based learning: Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction expanded. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 725–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  3. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Driscoll, M. P. (1984). Paradigms for research in instructional systems. Journal of Instructional Development, 7(4), 2–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edmonds, G. S., Branch, R. C., & Mukherjee, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for comparing instructional design models. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(4), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gardner, J. L. (2010). Applying Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction: Practical methods based on a review of the literature. Educational Technology, 50(2), 20–25.Google Scholar
  7. Gardner, J. L. (2011a). How Award-winning professors in higher education use Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 8(5), 3–16.Google Scholar
  8. Gardner, J. L. (2011b). Testing the efficacy of Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction in improving student performance in introductory biology courses. (Utah State University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from
  9. Gardner, J. L., & Jeon, T. (2009). Creating task-centered instruction for web-based instruction: Obstacles and solution. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(1), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibbons, A. S. (2003). What and how do designers design? TechTrends, 47(5), 22–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). Survey of instructional development models (4th ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse of Information & Technology, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
  13. Kim, C., Mendenhall, A., & Johnson, T. E. (2010). A design framework for an online English writing course. In J. M. Spector, D. Ifenthaler, & Kinshuk (Eds.), Learning and instruction in the digital age (pp. 345–360). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klein, J. D., & Richey, R. C. (2015). Design and development research. In J. M. Spector, T. Johnson, D. Ifenthaler, W. Savenye, & M. Wang (Eds.), Encyclopedia of educational technology (pp. 183–184). New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Mendenhall, A., Buhanan, C., Suhaka, M., Mills, G., Gibson, G., & Merrill, M. D. (2006). A task-centered approach to entrepreneurship. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 50(4), 84–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  17. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First Principles of Instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Merrill, M. D. (2009a). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology, 46(4), 5–10.Google Scholar
  20. Merrill, M. D. (2009b). Finding e3 (effective, efficient and engaging) Instruction. Educational Technology, 49(3), 15–26.Google Scholar
  21. Merrill, M. D. (2012). First Principles of Instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  22. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Rauchfuss, G. H. (2010). How principled are designers? A study of instructional designers use of first principles. Capella University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from
  24. Reigeluth, C. M., & Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating and improving design theories. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models, Volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 633–651). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Richey, R. C. (2005). Validating Instructional Design and Development Models. In J. M. Spector, C. Ohrazda, A. Van Schaack, & D. Wiley (Eds.), Innovation in instructional technology: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill (pp. 171–185). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Research on design and development. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 748–757). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van den Akker, R. M. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers’ decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(2), 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Psychology and Learning SystemsFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SaintsBountifulUSA

Personalised recommendations