Advertisement

Why Basic Principles of Instruction Must Be Present in the Learning Landscape, Whatever Form It Takes, for Learning to Be Effective, Efficient and Engaging

  • M. David Merrill
Part of the Lifelong Learning Book Series book series (LLLB, volume 12)

While today’s opportunities and contexts for learning are far more varied than they were only a decade or two ago the underlying learning mechanisms of individual learners have not changed. It is important as we explore these different learning landscapes that we don’t naively assume that because the landscape has changed dramatically the learners have also changed. There are fundamental instructional strategies, determined primarily by the type of content to be taught rather than by learning styles or by the form of instructional affordance, that are necessary for effective, efficient and engaging learning of specified knowledge and skill to occur. Those learning activities that best promoted learning in the past are those learning activities that will best promote learning in the future. Yet, we have all observed that many instructional environments fail. However, on close examination it is also evident that these learning environments also fail to implement these known instructional strategies resulting in ineffective and inefficient learning outcomes. As we explore the shifting learning landscape it is critical that we don’t assume that because existing instructional environments often fail that the fundamental strategies of instruction have also failed. Most often these strategies have never been adequately implemented in the first place.

Keywords

Instructional Design Instructional Strategy Direct Instruction Learner Control Instructional Environment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bransford, J. D., Slowinski, M., Vye, N., & Mosborg, S. (in this volume). The learning sciences, technology and designs for educational systems: Some thoughts about change. In J. Visser & M. Visser-Valfrey (Eds.), Learners in a changing learning landscape: Reflections from a dialogue on new roles and expectations (pp. 37–67). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  3. De la Teja, I., & Spannaus, T. W. (in this volume). New online learning technologies: new online learner competencies. Really? In J. Visser & M. Visser-Valfrey (Eds.), Learners in a changing learning landscape: Reflections from a dialogue on new roles and expectations (pp. 187–211). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Frick, T., Chadha, R., Wang, Y., Watson, C., & Green, P. (2007). Theory-based course evaluation: Nine scales for measuring teaching and learning quality. Unpublished manuscript, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  5. Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  6. Hall, M. (in this volume). Getting to know the feral learner. In J. Visser & M. Visser-Valfrey (Eds.), Learners in a changing learning landscape: Reflections from a dialogue on new roles and expectations (pp. 109–133). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Merrill, M. D. (1980). Learner control in computer-based learning. Computers and Education, 4, 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Merrill, M. D. (1983). Chapter 9–Component display theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Merrill, M. D. (1984). Chapter 17–What is learner control? In R. Bass & C. R. Dills (Eds.), Instructional development: The state of the art II. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Merrill, M. D. (1994). Instructional design theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Merrill, M. D. (1997). Instructional strategies that teach. CBT Solutions (November/December), 1–11.Google Scholar
  15. Merrill, M. D. (2002a). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Merrill, M. D. (2002b). Instructional Strategies and Learning Styles: Which takes precedence? In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 99–106). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  17. 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 (Vol. 2, pp. 62–71, 2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Merrill, M. D. (in press). First principles of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr (Eds.), Instructional design theories and models III (Vol. III). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., Pratt, J., & ID2_Research_Group (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5–7.Google Scholar
  20. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? On the horizon, NCB University Press, 9(6), 1–9.Google Scholar
  21. Stirling, D. (in this volume). Online learning in context. In J. Visser & M. Visser-Valfrey (Eds.), Learners in a changing learning landscape: Reflections from a dialogue on new roles and expectations (pp. 165–186). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Thomson. (2002). Thomson job impact study: The next generation of learning. (www.netg.com). Naperville, IL: NETg.
  23. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Stoyanov, S. (in this volume). Learners in a changing learning landscape: Reflections from an instructional design perspective. In J. Visser & M. Visser-Valfrey (Eds.), Learners in a changing learning landscape: Reflections from a dialogue on new roles and expectations (pp. 69–90). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. David Merrill
    • 1
  1. 1.Florida State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations