Assignment 1: Analyze Training Needs (25% of grade)

Select or create an organization for the authentic assessment. In this first assignment, you will begin to develop a training needs analysis (TNA) for your chosen organization. Note: It is recommended that you choose your own organization (where you are currently employed). If you are not employed, reach out to the professor to help with selection of an organization. DO NOT use Walmart, Target, or Starbucks as your organization.  For this assignment, you will work on items 1-5 only.

NOTE: you will include a summary of assignment one as the intro to assignment two!

1. Provide information about the organization and its needs regarding the training issue:

   This should include general, high level information about the company in terms of product/services, size, geography, workforce attributes, etc.  The training issue is the problem or challenge (could be deficiency OR need based on a predicted change in the operation, workforce, etc.).  Here this should be “high level”, focused on the organization (not specifically the individual workers yet).

2. Determine the group or individuals who will receive the training:

   This should include information about the target audience as it will impact the training developed – including demographic information, type of work, location of work, etc.

3. Identify the training issue:

   This is a continuation from item 1.  Here you will focus more on the individual workers and/or teams.
   NOTE: the training issue should NOT be that they lack training.  It should be tied to a performance deficiency or need.  

4. Provide a training needs assessment questionnaire:

   The questionnaire should provide insight into the training need/gap; therefore it should focus on the training issue itself – choose questions that provide insight to the issue.  In a sense, the questionnaire helps you identify and analyze the “why” (e.g., if you are addressing a performance issue, the questionnaire would help you hone in on the real issue).
   SUGGESTION: think hard about using questions that ask how the audience “feels” about something – you want to obtain the most tangible and useful information.
   NOTE: you will NOT administer the questionnaire! 
   Your questionnaire should be included as an appendix to your paper – inserting questions within the narrative of your paper does not suffice.

5. Explain how the questionnaire will be utilized and will lead to the development of training outcomes/learning objectives within your written report:

   Here you will essentially validate the questions posed in your questionnaire – if you can’t do that, you should probably revisit your questions.

   You will probably not have the time or resources to implement the questionnaire or compile all the organizational and training-specific information necessary to complete the TNA. (If you are able to get real data and results, great! Otherwise, be creative and fabricate results.) The goal is to understand how a TNA is done effectively and to practice completing one.

(Assignment 2 items below)

1. Include at least three training outcomes, based on the TNA
2. Identify the expected performance of the group or individuals as a result of the training
3. Identify performance gaps and detail how training can help close those gaps

REMINDER: Students must use at least 3 class resources for each assignment to support your position with course evidence. Review the grading rubric which indicates what will be graded. 

Course References

 

• ADDIE Model https://www.trainingindustry.com/wiki/entries/addie-model.aspx
• Successive Approximation Model (SAM) http://www.trainingindustry.com/taxonomy/s/successive-approximation-model-(sam).aspx
• Nine Events of Instruction http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Nine_events_of_instruction
• Kemp Design Model http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Kemp_design_model%20
• Instructional Design Taxonomies http://www.instructionaldesign.org/concepts/taxonomies.html
• Creating a Custom Training Plan for Your Organization http://trainingtoday.blr.com/employee-training-resources/Develop-a-Custom-Training-Plan-for-Your-Organization
• Merrill, M. D. (2002). First Principles of Instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, (3). 43. First Principles By Merrill

First Principles of Instruction

M. David Merrill

For the past several years the author has been
reviewing instructional design theories in an
attempt to identify prescriptive principles that
are common to the various theories. This paper
is a preliminary report of the principles that
have been identified by this search. Five first
principles are elaborated: (a) Learning is
promoted when learners are engaged in
solving real-world problems. (b) Learning is
promoted when existing knowledge is
activated as a foundation for new knowledge.
(c) Learning is promoted when new knowledge
is demonstrated to the learner. (d) Learning is
promoted when new knowledge is applied by
the learner. (e) Learning is promoted when
new knowledge is integrated into the learner’s
world.
Representative instructional design
theories are briefly examined to illustrate how
they include these principles. These include:
Star Legacy by the Vanderbilt Learning
Technology Center, 4-Mat by McCarthy,
instructional episodes by Andre, multiple
approaches to understanding by Gardner,
collaborative problem solving by Nelson,
constructivist learning environments by
Jonassen, and learning by doing by Schank.
It is concluded that, although they use a
wide variety of terms, these theories and
models do include fundamentally similar
principles.

Recent years have seen a proliferation of in-
structional design theories and models. Ten-
nyson, Schott, See, and Dijkstra (1997) and
Reigeluth (1999) summarize a number of these
different positions. Instructional design theory,
as represented in Reigeluth, varies from basic
descriptive laws about learning to broad cur-
riculum programs that concentrate on what is
taught rather than on how to teach. Are all of
these design theories and models merely alter-
native ways to approach design? Do all of these
design theories and models have equal value?
Do these design theories and models have fun-
damental underlying principles in common? If
so what are these underlying first principles?
The purpose of this paper is to identify and ar-
ticulate the prescriptive design principles on
which these various design theories and models
are in essential agreement.

Reigeluth (1999) distinguishes two major
kinds of instructional methods: basic methods
and variable methods. This paper identifies
what Reigeluth calls basic methods but which I
prefer to call first principles of instruction. This
paper refers to variable methods as programs
and practices. A principle (basic method) is a
relationship that is always true under ap-
propriate conditions regardless of program or
practice (variable method). A practice is a specific
instructional activity. A program is an approach
consisting of a set of prescribed practices. Prac-
tices always implement or fail to implement un-
derlying principles whether these principles are
specified or not. A given instructional approach
may only emphasize the implementation of one
or more of these instructional principles. The
same principles can be implemented by a wide
variety of programs and practices. A given

ETR&D, Vol. 50, No. 3, 2002, pp. 43–59 ISSN 1042–1629 43

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 09-30-2002 / 11:57

theory may specify both principles and practices
for implementing these principles. For some ex-
amples in Reigeluth (1999) a program is
specified but the underlying first principles are
not specified. Parsimony would dictate that
there should be only a few first principles of in-
struction that can support a wide variety of in-
structional programs and practices (design
theories, models, and methods).

What are the properties of first principles of
instruction? First, learning from a given pro-
gram will be promoted in direct proportion to its
implementation of first principles. Second, first
principles of instruction can be implemented in
any delivery system or using any instructional
architecture. Third, first principles of instruction
are design oriented or prescriptive rather than
learning oriented or descriptive. They relate to
creating learning environments and products
rather than describing how learners acquire
knowledge and skill from these environments or
products.

In this paper, I have identified the principles
that are included in a variety of design theories
and models. There is no attempt in this paper to
identify the empirical support for these prin-
ciples. I assume, perhaps without sufficient jus-
tification, that if a principle is included in several
instructional design theories, the principle has
been found either through experience or empiri-
cal research to be valid. My associates and I are
involved in a review effort to identify empirical
research that supports or fails to support these
design principles. The present report merely
identifies the principles that have been iden-
tified by a variety of theorists and model
builders.

The premise of this paper is that there is a set
of principles that can be found in most instruc-
tional design theories and models and even
though the terms used to state these principles
might differ between theorists, the authors of
these theories would agree that these principles
are necessary for effective and efficient instruc-
tion. This premise also assumes that these
design principles apply regardless of the in-
structional program or practices prescribed by a
given theory or model. If this premise is true,
there will be a decrement in learning and perfor-
mance when a given instructional program or

practice violates or fails to implement one or
more of these first principles. Obviously, the
support for this hypothesis can only come from
evaluation studies for a given instructional
product or research studies comparing the use
and misuse of these principles.

The theories cited in this paper are illustra-
tive of our approach rather than exhaustive. Not
all of the principles stated in this paper are in-
cluded in the theories that are very briefly
described. The vocabulary used to describe
these theories and their implementation details
varies significantly. Each of the theories and
models reviewed here tends to emphasize dif-
ferent principles.

This paper will provide a concise statement
of these first principles of instruction and then
review selected theories to see how these prin-
ciples are incorporated by each of these theories.
As each theory is reviewed, there will be an at-
tempt to translate the vocabulary of the theory to
the vocabulary of the first principles as stated.

INSTRUCTIONAL PHASES

Many current instructional models suggest that
the most effective learning products or environ-
ments are those that are problem-centered and
involve the student in four distinct phases of
learning: (a) activation of prior experience, (b)
demonstration of skills, (c) application of skills,
and (d) integration of these skills into real-world
activities. Figure 1 illustrates these four phases.
Much instructional practice concentrates
primarily on the demonstration phase and ig-
nores the other phases in this cycle of learning.

Most of the theories reviewed in this paper
stress problem-centered instruction and include
some (if not all) of these four phases of effective
instruction. Figure 1 provides a conceptual
framework for stating and relating the first prin-
ciples of instruction. The first principle relates to
problem-centered instruction. Four more prin-
ciples are stated for each of the four phases for
effective instruction. These five first principles
stated in their most concise form are as follows:

1. Learning is promoted when learners are
engaged in solving real-world problems.

2. Learning is promoted when existing

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 09-30-2002 / 11:57

44 ETR&D, Vol. 50, No. 3

knowledge is activated as a foundation for
new knowledge.1

3. Learning is promoted when new knowledge
is demonstrated to the learner.

4. Learning is promoted when new knowledge
is applied by the learner.

5. Learning is promoted when new knowledge
is integrated into the learner’s world.

FIRST PRINCIPLES OF INSTRUCTION

In the following paragraphs, I elaborate the five
prescriptive design principles for problem-
centered instruction and for each of the four in-
structional phases. First, I state each principle
and its corollaries including a short descriptor
for each principle or corollary. After this concise
statement, I elaborate and explain the principle
and its corollaries in more detail citing some rep-
resentative theorists or investigators who have
suggested the principle.

Principle 1—Problem-centered: Learning is
promoted when learners are engaged in solving
real-world problems.

• Corollary—Show task: Learning is promoted
when learners are shown the task that they
will be able to do or the problem they will be
able to solve as a result of completing a
module or course.

• Corollary—Task level: Learning is promoted
when learners are engaged at the problem or

task level, not just the operation or action
level.

• Corollary—Problem progression: Learning is
promoted when learners solve a progression
of problems that are explicitly compared to
one another.

Problem-centered

Much of the current work in cognitive psychol-
ogy has shown that students learn better when
engaged in solving problems (Mayer, 1992a).
Problem-centered learning is well represented
by a number of recent instructional models in-
cluding: Collins, Brown and Newman (1989),
Cognitive Apprenticeship; Schank, Berman, and
Macperson (1999), Goal Based Scenarios; Jonassen
(1999), Constructivist Learning Environments;
Savery and Duffey (1995), Problem-Based Learn-
ing; Clark and Blake (1997), Novel Problem Solv-
ing; and van Merriënboer (1997), Whole Task
Practice in 4C/ID Model.

The definition of a problem varies among
theorists. For some, a problem is engaging in
some form of simulation of a device or situation.
For others, it merely means being involved in
some form of real world task. I use the word
problem to include a wide range of activities,
with the most critical characteristics being that
the activity is some whole task rather than only
components of a task and that the task is repre-
sentative of those the learner will encounter in
the world following instruction. Problem-
centered instruction is contrasted with topic-
centered instruction where components of the
task are taught in isolation (e.g., “You won’t un-
derstand this now but later it will really be im-
portant to you”) before introducing the real
world task to the students.

Figure 1 Phases for Effective Instruction

1. I used the word knowledge in its broadest connotation to
include both knowledge and skill, and to represent the
knowledge and skill to be taught as well as the knowledge
and skill acquired by the learner.

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 09-30-2002 / 11:57

FIRST PRINCIPLES 45

Show task

It has become common practice to state learning
objectives at the beginning of module or lesson
material. These objectives are usually some form
of: “The learner will be able to . . . .” Objectives
of this form are abstract and often only under-
stood following the instruction. Most theorists
suggest that a specific demonstration of the par-
ticular whole task similar to those the learners
will be able to do following instruction provides
a better orientation to the instructional material
to follow than a list of abstract objective state-
ments. Van Merriénboer (1997) recommended
that the first problem in a sequence should be a
worked example that shows students the type of
whole task that they will learn to complete.

Task level

Much available instruction teaches commands
or individual actions and assumes that the
learner will be able to put these individual com-
ponents together to do real world tasks. Too
much traditional instruction is topic based,
teaching all the prerequisites before introducing
the real world whole task or problem. Learning
to complete a whole task involves four levels of
instruction: (a) the problem, (b) the tasks re-
quired to solve the problem, (c) the operations
that comprise the tasks, and (d) the actions that
comprise the operations. Effective instruction
should engage students in all four levels of per-
formance: the problem level, the task-level, the
operation-level, and the action-level. Schank et
al. (1999) stressed that one shortcoming of tradi-
tional instruction is the emphasis on decontex-
tualized skills. Jonassen (1999) stressed that
learners will assume ownership only if the
problems to be solved are interesting, relevant
and engaging. Other theorists have stressed that
effective learning requires engaging the learners
in authentic problems (Savery & Duffy, 1995;
Nelson, 1999).

Problem progression

Some of the problems or whole tasks that
learners must complete are very complex. Most
theorists would agree that solving a single prob-
lem or receiving little or no guidance (sink-or-

swim) is not effective. To master a complex
problem students must first start with a less
complex problem. When the first problem is
mastered, students are then given a more com-
plex problem. Through a progression of increas-
ingly complex problems, the students’ skills
gradually improve until they are able to solve
complex problems. Problem progression is ad-
vocated by Elaboration Theory (Reigeluth, 1999),
4C/ID Model (van Merriënboer, 1997), work model
progression (Gibbons, Bunderson, Olsen, &
Robertson, 1995), scaffolding (Collins, et al.,
1989), and understanding-performances (Perkins &
Unger, 1999).

Activation Phase

Principle 2—Activation: Learning is promoted
when relevant previous experience is activated.

• Corollary—Previous experience: Learning is
promoted when learners are directed to
recall, relate, describe, or apply knowledge
from relevant past experience that can be
used as a foundation for the new knowledge.

• Corollary—New experience: Learning is
promoted when learners are provided
relevant experience that can be used as a
foundation for the new knowledge.

• Corollary—Structure: Learning is promoted
when learners are provided or encouraged to
recall a structure that can be used to organize
the new knowledge.

Activation

It has long been a tenet of education to start
where the child is. It is therefore surprising that
many instructional products jump immediately
into the new material without laying a sufficient
foundation for the students. If students have had
relevant experience, then the first phase of learn-
ing is to be sure that this relevant information is
activated ready for use as a foundation for the
new knowledge. If students have not had suffi-
cient relevant experience, then the first phase of
learning a new skill should be to provide three-
dimensional experience that they can use as a
foundation for the new knowledge. Too much
instruction starts with abstract representations

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 09-30-2002 / 11:57

46 ETR&D, Vol. 50, No. 3

for which learners have insufficient foundation.
This paper borrowed the term activation from
Andre (1997) who provided one of the best
recent discussions of this principle.

Previous experience

When learners think that they already know
some of the material to be taught, then their ex-
isting experience can be activated by an ap-
propriate opportunity to demonstrate what they
already know. This activity can be used to help
direct students to the yet-to-be-learned new
material and thus result in more efficient in-
struction. Requiring students to complete the
usual information-oriented pretest of the
material to be taught when they don’t feel that
they know the material is frustrating and not
productive in activating prior experience. A
simple recall of information is seldom effective
as an activating experience. Andre (1997) cited
theory and research supporting schema activa-
tion and advance organizers.

Provide experience

Often the new learning may be foreign to the
previous experience of the learner. When in-
struction jumps immediately to this new
material the learner feels overwhelmed. Elemen-
tary school teachers understand this
phenomenon and spend considerable time
providing experiences upon which later learn-
ing can be built. As learners mature the educa-
tional system seems to feel that providing
relevant experience prior to instruction is no
longer necessary. Consequently students must
resort to memorizing the material presented be-
cause they lack previous mental models based
on experience that can be used to structure the
new knowledge.

Structure

Activation is more than merely helping students
recall previous experience or providing relevant
experience. Activation also involves stimulating
those mental models that can be modified or
tuned to enable learners to incorporate the new
knowledge into their existing knowledge. Andre
(1997) cited theory and research showing that

themes can serve as an organizing structure if
they are relevant to the content being taught.
There is a current emphasis on introducing
motivational themes into instruction, for ex-
ample, playing golf, flying a space ship, and so
forth. When these themes are irrelevant to the
content of the instruction, they activate inap-
propriate mental models and may actually inter-
fere with, rather than promote instructional
effectiveness. In an attempt to promote motiva-
tion, these themes may actually increase the cog-
nitive load required to acquire the target
knowledge. If learners have a mental model that
can be used to organize the new knowledge,
they should be encouraged to activate this men-
tal model. However, if the mental model is in-
sufficient to adequately organize the new
knowledge, then learning is promoted if the in-
struction provides a structure that the learner
can use to build the required organizational
schema for the new knowledge. Andre (1997)
discussed the role of advance organizers in
providing structure for later learning. Mayer
(1975) indicated that providing learners with a
conceptual model can facilitate the acquisition of
problem solving. Clark and Blake (1997) recom-
mended presenting dynamic schema and analog
models to promote far transfer.

Demonstration Phase

Principle 3—Demonstration (Show me): Learning
is promoted when the instruction demonstrates
what is to be learned rather than merely telling
information about what is to be learned.

• Corollary—Demonstration consistency: Learn-
ing is promoted when the demonstration is
consistent with the learning goal: (a) ex-
amples and nonexamples for concepts, (b)
demonstrations for procedures, (c) visualiza-
tions for processes, and (d) modeling for be-
havior.

• Corollary—Learner guidance: Learning is
promoted when learners are provided ap-
propriate learner guidance including some of
the following: (a) learners are directed to
relevant information, (b) multiple repre-
sentations are used for the demonstrations, or
(c) multiple demonstrations are explicitly
compared.

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 09-30-2002 / 11:57

FIRST PRINCIPLES 47

• Corollary—Relevant media: Learning is
promoted when media play a relevant in-
structional role and multiple forms of media
do not compete for the attention of the
learner.

Demonstration (Show me)

Knowledge to be learned exists at two levels: (a)
information and (b) portrayal. Information is
general and inclusive and refers to many cases
or situations. Portrayal is specific and limited
and refers to a single case or a single situation.
Presenting information is by far the most com-
mon form of instruction. Often instruction is
merely information followed by a few remem-
ber-what-you-were-told questions. This tell-
and-ask instruction by itself is seldom effective
instruction. Instruction is far more effective
when it also includes the portrayal level in that
the information is demonstrated via specific
situations or cases. Learners remember and can
apply information far more readily when the in-
formation includes specific portrayals. Van Mer-
rienboer (1997) identified a number of different
problem formats. He indicated that showing a
learner what to do via a worked-out example
and modeling examples, which show the learner
how to do the problem, are important first steps
in an instructional sequence. Merrill (1994) cited
research that shows that presenting examples is
more effective than merely presenting informa-
tion; presenting examples in addition to practice
promotes better learning than practice alone.

Demonstration consistency

Gagné (1985) identified categories of learning
and suggested that effective learning occurs
when the conditions of learning were consistent
with the desired category of learned perfor-
mance. Merrill (1994) elaborated the categories
of Gagné and prescribed primary and secondary
presentation forms consistent with each out-
come category. Merrill (1997) identified the
knowledge structure, presentation, practice, and
learner guidance that are consistent for each of
these different kinds of learning outcomes.
Dijkstra & van Merriënboer (1997) identified
three classes of problems: (a) problems of

categorization, (b) problems of design (plans
and procedures), and (c) problems of interpreta-
tion (principles, models, and theories). Each of
these different classes of problems require dif-
ferent knowledge structures (corresponding to
the desired cognitive structure) and different
constituent skills (concepts, activities, and
processes) if learning is to be efficient and effec-
tive. Van Merriënboer (1997) has extended this
work in the context of problem-centered instruc-
tion. These theorists agree that if demonstrations
are inconsistent with the intended learning out-
comes then learning will be ineffective. The con-
sistency criterion should be applied first since if
the presentation is inconsistent with the in-
tended learning outcome then it doesn’t matter
if there is learner guidance or if the media is
relevant.

Learner guidance

Clark & Blake (1997) indicated that problem
solving (far transfer) is promoted when the
structural features are carefully identified and
explicitly mapped for the student. This explicate
guidance focuses the learner’s attention on
relevant information in the task. Early in an in-
structional presentation this attention-focusing
function facilitates knowledge acquisition.
However, as the instruction progresses this in-
formation focusing role should be faded and
students expected to attend to and focus their
own attention on the relevant aspects of the in-
formation (Andre, 1997).

Another form of guidance is to provide
learners with multiple representations of the
ideas being taught and the demonstration being
provided. Spiro and Jehng (1990), Schwartz, Lin,
Brophy, and Bransford (1999), and Clark and
Blake (1997) all stressed the importance of alter-
native points of view, especially for ill-defined
domains and nonrecurrent skills. Spiro, Fel-
tovich, Jacobson and Coulson (1992), in cogni-
tive flexibility theory, stressed the importance of
coming at a given topic from multiple perspec-
tives.

Gentner and Namy (1999) have demon-
strated that merely presenting alternative repre-
sentations is not sufficient. When learners are
explicitly directed to compare different view-

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 09-30-2002 / 11:57

48 ETR&D, Vol. 50, No. 3

points they are forced to tune their mental
models to provide a broader perspective.

Relevant media

Mayer (1992b, 2001) has demonstrated that
gratuitous illustrations make little or no instruc-
tional contribution and are often ignored by
learners or may actually interfere with efficient
learning He has also demonstrated that some
combinations of multimedia (e.g., text and a
graphic) compete for attention and therefore in-
crease the cognitive load for the student. Other
combinations of media, such as audio and
graphics, support one another and promote
more effective learning.

Application Phase

Principle 4—Application (Let me): Learning is
promoted when learners are required to use
their new knowledge or skill to solve problems.

• Corollary—Practice consistency: Learning is
promoted when the application (practice)
and the posttest are consistent with the stated
or implied objectives: (a) information-about
practice—recall or recognize information, (b)
parts-of practice—locate, and name or
describe each part, (c) kinds-of practice—
identify new examples of each kind, (d) how-
to practice—do the procedure and (e)
what-happens practice—predict a conse-
quence of a process given conditions, or find
faulted conditions given an unexpected con-
sequence.

• Corollary—Diminishing coaching: Learning is
promoted when learners are guided in their
problem solving by appropriate feedback
and coaching, including error detection and
correction, and when this coaching is
gradually withdrawn.

• Corollary—Varied problems: Learning is
promoted when learners are required to
solve a sequence of varied problems.

Application (Let me)

Merrill (1994) cited research demonstrating that
adding practice to information and examples in-

creases learning. Most instructional design
theories advocate application of knowledge and
skill as a necessary condition for effective learn-
ing. Gagné (1985) stated eliciting performance
and providing feedback as necessary instruc-
tional events. Gardner (1999) and Perkins and
Unger (1999) both emphasized the necessity of
many opportunities for performance. All of the
problem-based models (Clark & Blake, 1997;
Jonassen, 1999; Nelson, 1999; Savery & Duffy,
1995; Schank et al., 1999; Schwartz et al., 1999;
van Merriënboer, 1997) emphasized the impor-
tance of being involved in doing real-world
tasks or problems. It is astounding that with this
almost universal agreement on the importance
of applying knowledge to real-world tasks, so
much instruction merely includes a few multi-
ple-choice questions that are labeled practice.
Such remember-what-you-were-told questions
do little to promote learning.

Practice consistency

Just as there are different components of
knowledge, presentation, and learner guidance
appropriate for different kinds of instructional
goals, so there are different kinds of practice ap-
propriate for different instructional goals. En-
gaging in practice that is inconsistent with the
desired instructional goal will do little to im-
prove performance. Gagné (1965, 1985) and
Merrill (1994, 1997) identified appropriate prac-
tice for each of the kinds of knowledge and skill
identified. Learning is promoted when the prac-
tice is consistent with the learning goal. The con-
sistency criterion should be applied first. If the
application is inconsistent with the intended
goals of the instruction, then it will be ineffective
and it won’t matter whether or not there is ap-
propriate coaching and feedback or a sequence
of problems.

Diminishing coaching

One theory of effective instruction is scaffolding
(Burton & Brown, 1979; Collins et al., 1989). The
idea is that early in learning students need con-
siderable support, but as the learning progresses
this support is gradually taken away leaving the
students eventually on their own. Scaffolding in-

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 09-30-2002 / 11:57

FIRST PRINCIPLES 49

volves performing parts of the task that the stu-
dents cannot perform and gradually reducing
the amount of guidance and shifting the control
to the student.

Feedback has long been recognized as the most
important form of learner guidance. All theories
advocate some form of feedback as a necessary
condition for learning. Gagné (1985) included
feedback as one of the events for instruction.
Andre (1997) included feedback as one of his three
phases of effective instruction. Numerous research
studies have demonstrated the importance of feed-
back while investigating a number of variables
about what type of feedback is most effective (Kul-
havy, 1977; Kulhavy & Stock, 1989).

Making errors is a natural consequence of
problem solving. Most learners learn from the
errors they make, especially when they are
shown how to recognize the error, how to
recover from the error, and how to avoid the
error in the future. Error diagnosis and correc-
tion is a fundamental principle of minimialism
(van der Meij & Carroll, 1998).

Varied problems

Applying knowledge to a single problem is in-
sufficient for learning a cognitive skill. Adequate
practice must provide multiple opportunities for
learners to use their new knowledge or skill for a
variety of problems. Andre (1986) indicated the
importance of providing learners with a range of
examples. Merrill, Tennyson, and Posey (1992)
indicated that a necessary condition for effective
concept instruction was a range of divergent ex-
amples. Tennyson & Park (1980) and Tennyson
& Cocchierella (1986) reviewed research
demonstrating the value of a sequence of varied
examples in concept instruction, and van Mer-
rienboer (1997) stressed variability of practice.

Integration Phase

Principle 5—Integration: Learning is promoted
when learners are encouraged to integrate
(transfer) the new knowledge or skill into their
everyday life.

• Corollary—Watch me: Learning is promoted
when learners are given an opportunity to

publicly demonstrate their new knowledge
or skill.

• Corollary—Reflection: Learning is promoted
when learners can reflect on, discuss, and
defend their new knowledge or skill.

• Corollary—Creation: Learning is promoted
when learners can create, invent, and explore
new and personal ways to use their new
knowledge or skill.

Integration

McCarthy (1996) suggested that the fourth
phase of effective instruction is creating per-
sonal adaptations of the new knowledge and
skill. The Vanderbilt group (Schwartz et al.,
1999) included reflecting back on the experience
as a step in their Star Legacy system. Current in-
struction literature has much to say about the
importance of motivation. Often glitz, anima-
tion, multimedia, and games are justified as
motivational elements of an instructional
product. However, for the most part, these
aspects have a temporary effect on motivation.
The real motivation for learners is learning.
Learners have integrated instruction into their
lives when they are able to demonstrate im-
provement in skill, to defend their new
knowledge, and to modify their new knowledge
for use in their everyday lives.

Watch me

Whenever learners acquire new skills, their first
desire is to show a close friend or associate their
newly acquired ability. Learning is the most
motivating of all activities when the learner can
observe his or her own progress. One of the
main attractions of computer games is the in-
creasing skill level that is apparent to the player.
Effective instruction must provide an oppor-
tunity for learners to demonstrate their newly
acquired skills. This principle of going public
with their newly acquired knowledge is em-
phasized in Teaching for Understanding (Gardner,
1999; Perkins & Unger, 1999) and for Vander-
bilt’s Star Legacy (Schwartz et al., 1999).

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 09-30-2002 / 11:57

50 ETR&D, Vol. 50, No. 3

Reflection

Learners need the opportunity to reflect on,
defend, and share what they have learned if it is
to become part of their available repertoire. Nel-
son (1999) cites a number of problem-solving
models that include synthesize and reflect as an
important process activity for collaborative
problem solving. Laurillard (1993) stressed the
role of reflection in her Conversational Framework
model of instruction. Boud, Keogh, and Walker
(1985) presented a model for reflection in learn-
ing.

Creation

Modifying new knowledge to make it one’s own
is where a learner moves beyond the instruction-
al environment and takes the new knowledge
and skill into the world beyond. McCarthy
(1996) stressed creating, revising, editing, syn-
thesizing, and refocusing as important final
phases of a learning experience.

AN ANALYSIS OF REPRESENTATIVE
INSTRUCTIONAL THEORIES

This section briefly reviews several instructional
theories. The theories described in this section
all implement some of the first principles and
their corollaries. Since the vocabulary is often
different, this paper attempts to do some transla-
tion of theorist’s terms to be consistent with the
terms used in the above statement of the prin-
ciples. I have sometimes quoted these authors to
provide the reader with the vocabulary of the
theorists so that the reader can see first hand
how the statements have been interpreted as
representative of the first principles outlined in
this paper. This overview is representative only
and does not present all of the principles
specified by the theory, but only enough to give
the reader a feel for the correspondence with the
first principles stated. The reader is encouraged
to examine these and other theories in detail to
determine whether or not the theory reflects the
first principles as stated.

Herbart (1776 – 1841)

The first principles of instruction presented in
this paper are not new. Johann Friedrich Herbart
is often identified as the father of scientific peda-
gogy. He recommended that the teacher should
first prepare the pupils to be ready for a new les-
son. Further, he suggested that the pedagogy
should associate the new lesson with ideas
studied earlier. Both of the recommendations
are consistent with the principle of activation.
He also recommended that the pedagogy should
use examples to illustrate the lesson’s major
points. Clearly, he also emphasized demonstra-
tion in addition to the presentation of informa-
tion. Finally he recommended that the pedagogy
should test pupils to ensure they have learned
the new lesson. This is the principle of applica-
tion (Hilgenheger, 1993).

Vanderbilt Learning Technology
Center—Star Legacy

The Learning Technology Center at Vanderbilt
(Schwartz et al., 1999) described Star Legacy, a
software shell for instruction. The Vanderbilt
approach is a good illustration of the phases of
instruction and the five general principles that
have been identified. They describe a learning
cycle that, they believe, involves important, yet
often implicit, components of effective instruc-
tion. They emphasize making the learning cycle
explicit. Their learning cycle is illustrated in Fig-
ure 2.

Look ahead provides the learning context and
learning goals. The challenges are problems to be
solved. The Vanderbilt group (Schwartz et al.,
1999) uses the metaphor of successively higher
mountains to represent a progression of increas-
ingly difficult problems. Generate ideas is an ac-
tivation activity where learners interact with
other learners to share experience and to share
what they already know related to the challen-
ges. Multiple perspectives is an opportunity for
students to compare their view of the problem
and possible solutions with the view of other
students and, more importantly, with the view
of experts. During multiple perspectives con-
cepts, procedures and principles that the student

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 09-30-2002 / 11:57

FIRST PRINCIPLES 51

may need in order to solve the problem are
demonstrated. Research and revise continues the
demonstration phase and moves into the ap-
plication phase; students gather numerous dif-
ferent ideas and try them out to see how they
might solve the problem. Check your mettle is an
opportunity for students to apply their ideas
and receive feedback before they go public with
their solutions. Go public is a chance for the stu-
dents to demonstrate their solutions and to
defend their ideas. This is an important com-
ponent of the integration phase of instruction.
Reflect back is an opportunity for the students to
review their learning activities and is another
important aspect of integration. Because the
authors believe that the learning cycle should be
made explicit, Star Legacy is one of the most ex-
plicit representations of the learning cycle that
forms the structure for the first principles of in-
struction. This same cycle of learning is also
found in other theories and models, but it is fre-
quently more subtle and not as explicit as in Star
Legacy.

McCarthy—4-MAT

McCarthy (1996) represented a model used by
many teachers in K–12 education. McCarthy is
seldom cited in the instructional technology

literature. Her work is important to our con-
sideration of first principles because she made
the learning cycle explicit. McCarthy ap-
proached this idea from a consideration of stu-
dent learning styles but concluded that,
although learners may have preference for
various approaches to learning, effective in-
struction requires them to be involved in the
whole cycle of learning activities. Figure 3 il-
lustrates some of the ideas that she emphasized
in her 4-MAT approach.

McCarthy did not emphasize problem solv-
ing as much as did the Learning Technology
Center. Her emphasis was on the various types
of activities that might be appropriate for each of
the learning phases and how these learning ac-
tivities reflect learning preferences of various
types of learners. Her Phase 1 serves the role of
activation, in which the learners share what they
know and try to find meaning related to the new
material they will learn. 4-MAT Phase 1 is
similar to Star Legacy’s generate ideas, but em-
phasizes a more learner-centered approach,
whereas the Vanderbilt group is more problem
focused. 4-MAT Phase 2 is the demonstrate
phase, where the learners acquire new
knowledge and relate it to what they already
know. McCarthy (1996) included subphases, the
description of which is beyond the scope of this

Figure 2 Learning Cycle of Star Legacy (Schwartz et al., 1999)

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 09-30-2002 / 11:57

52 ETR&D, Vol. 50, No. 3

presentation, but which provide practices and
theory for making the transition from one phase
to the next. Phase 3 is clearly the application
phase, where learners use what they know to do
something, make something, or play with the
ideas. This phase is also related to the Star
Legacy research and revise and test your mettle
components. McCarthy Phase 4 is where
learners make the knowledge their own. This is
the integration phase of first principles, and I
borrowed McCarthy’s term integration for this
phase. The formulation of the learning cycle for
first principles and the graphic representation of
these phases were influenced by McCarthy’s
work. She provided perhaps the most explicit
articulation of the cycle of learning and the
phases required for effective instruction.

Andre—Instructional Episode

Andre’s (1997) work was focused on the research
supporting instruction rather than a theory per
se. He described an instructional episode consist-
ing of three major phases: (a) activation phase
(from which first principles borrowed the term),
(b) instructional phase, and (c) feedback phase.
For Andre the instructional phase consisted of
presentation, discovery and practice (the first
principles demonstration and application phase).
His feedback phase was only part of the first
principles application phase as described above.
Andre did not emphasize problem solving or in-
tegration following the practice-feedback phase.
Andre described research findings that support a
number of the corollaries stated above.

Figure 3 McCarthy 4-MAT Cycle of Learning (McCarthy, 1996)

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 09-30-2002 / 11:57

FIRST PRINCIPLES 53

Gardner—Multiple Approaches to
Understanding

Gardner’s (1999) performance approach to under-
standing emphasized understanding content
(“important questions and topics of the world”
p. 73) rather than problem solving, but his ap-
proach did embrace each of the four phases of
instruction as described in this paper. He
stressed that understanding can only be ob-
served when students engage in “performances
that can be observed, critiqued, and improved”
(p. 73). He organized his theory around phases
he identified as entry points, telling analogies, and
approaching the core.

Entry points are a form of activation. “One
begins by finding a way to engage the students
and to place them centrally within the topic. I
have identified at least six discrete entry points,
which can be roughly aligned with specific intel-
ligences” (p. 81). He then described entry points
from these six viewpoints: (a) narrational, (b)
quantitative-numerical, (c) foundational-exis-
tential, (d) aesthetic, (e) hands-on, and (f) social.

Telling analogies forms a transition from ac-
tivation to demonstration. “[C]ome up with in-
structive analogies drawn from material that is
already understood, and that can convey impor-
tant aspects of the less familiar topic” (p. 82).

Approaching the core includes some of the
prescriptions for demonstration. “[P]ortray the
topic in a number of ways . . . [use] multiple ap-
proaches [that] explicitly call upon a range of in-
telligences, skills, and interests” (p. 85).

He also stressed application. “[M]ultiple repre-
sentations is one component of effective teaching;
the complementary component entails the
provision of many opportunities for performance,
which can reveal to the student and to others the
extent to which the material has been mastered”
(p. 86). “Although it is easy to fall back on the tried-
and-true—the short answer test, the essay ques-
tion—there is no imperative to do so.
Performances can be as varied as the different
facets of the topic, and the diverse sets of skills of
students” (p. 87). Gardner did emphasize entry
points and multiple approaches to the topic consis-
tent with different kinds of intelligences, however,
in his paper, he did not explicitly identify practice
consistency with these different intelligences.

Perhaps the primary emphasis of Gardner
was on those prescriptions for integration that
involve going public. “When students realize
that they will have to apply knowledge and in-
sights in public form, they assume a more active
stance vis-à-vis material, seeking to exercise
their ‘muscles of performance’ whenever pos-
sible” (p. 74).

Nelson—Collaborative Problem Solving

Nelson’s (1999) theory emphasized problem
solving and included all of the phases, but with
more emphasis on application and less em-
phasis on demonstration. She attempted to pro-
vide “an integrated set of guidelines . . . to
design and participate in authentic learning en-
vironments which invoke critical thinking,
creativity, and complex problem solving while
developing important social interaction skills”
(p. 246). She provided an extensive list of
guidelines, and the source for these guidelines,
organized under nine process activities:

1. Build readiness.

2. Form and norm groups.

3. Determine a preliminary problem definition.

4. Define and assign roles.

5. Engage in an iterative collaborative problem-
solving process.

6. Finalize the solution or project.

7. Synthesize and reflect.

8. Assess products and processes.

9. Provide closure. (Nelson, 1999, Table 11.2, p.
258)

Some of these activities are clearly related to col-
laboration and, as such, are not included in our
set of first principles (see especially numbers 2,
4, and 9). I view collaboration as one way to im-
plement first principles; thus the activity
guidelines for collaboration provided by Nelson
are viewed as implementation guidelines rather
than first principles.

Nelson (1999) was clearly problem oriented
as demonstrated by the following guideline:
“Develop an authentic problem or project
scenario to anchor instruction and learning ac-
tivities” (p. 258).

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 09-30-2002 / 11:57

54 ETR&D, Vol. 50, No. 3

She promoted activation via the following
learning activities: “[a] Negotiate a common un-
derstanding of the problem, [b] Identify learning
issues and goals, and [c] Brainstorm preliminary
solutions or project plans” (Nelson, 1999, p. 258).

She provided guidelines for gathering infor-
mation that may be required for the problem-
solving process. I view these activities as part of
application rather than demonstration per se:
“[a] Identify sources of needed resources, [b]
Gather preliminary information to validate the
design plan, [c] Acquire needed information,
resources, and expertise, and [d] Collaborate
with instructor to acquire additional resources
and skills needed” (Nelson, 1999, p. 258).

Application activities include: “[a] Select and
develop initial design plan, [b] Refine and
evolve the design plan, [c] Engage in solution or
project development work, [d] Conduct forma-
tive evaluations of the solution or project, [e]
Draft the preliminary final version of the solu-
tion or project, [f] Conduct the final evaluation
or usability test of the solution or project, [g]
Revise and complete the final version of the
solution or project, and [h] Evaluate the
products and artifacts created” (Nelson, 1999, p.
258).

Integration activities include: “[a] Identify
learning gains, [b] Debrief experiences and feel-
ings about the process, and [c] Reflect on group
and individual learning processes” (Nelson,
1999, p. 258).

Jonassen—Constructivist Learning
Environments (CLE)

Jonassen’s (1999) approach emphasized prob-
lem solving and included all four phases of in-
struction. The primary emphasis of CLE is
problem solving as reflected in the following
statements: “The goal of the learner is to inter-
pret and solve the problem or complete the
project” (p. 217), “. . . the problem drives the
learning” (p. 218), “Students learn domain con-
tent in order to solve the problem, rather than
solving the problem as an application of learn-
ing” (p. 218), and “. . . you must provide inter-
esting, relevant, and engaging problems to
solve. . . . The problem should not be overly cir-

cumscribed. Rather, it should be ill defined or ill
structured, so that some aspects of the problem
are emergent and definable by the learners” (p.
219). Jonassen recommended problem progres-
sion: “Start the learners with the tasks they
know how to perform and gradually add task
difficulty until they are unable to perform
alone” (p. 235).

Some attention was directed toward activa-
tion. “What novice learners lack most are ex-
periences. . . . Related cases [demonstrations]
can scaffold (or supplant) memory by providing
representations of experiences that learners
have not had” (Jonassen, 1999, p. 223).

Demonstration was stressed: “Carefully
demonstrate each of the activities involved in a
performance by a skilled (but not an expert) per-
former. . . . Modeling provides learners with an
example of the desired performance. . . . Two
types of modeling exist: . . . Behavioral modeling
. . . demonstrates how to perform the activities
identified. . . . Cognitive modeling articulates
the reasoning . . . that learners should use while
engaged in the activities” (Jonassen, 1999, p.
231). “A widely recognized method for model-
ing problem solving is worked examples” (p.
232).

Application was also stressed, with an em-
phasis on coaching and scaffolding. “[I]n order
to learn, learners will attempt to perform like the
model, first through crude imitation, advancing
through articulating and habituating perfor-
mance, to the creation of skilled, original perfor-
mances. At each of these stages the learner will
likely improve with coaching” (Jonassen, 1999,
p. 232). “The most important role of the coach is
to monitor, analyze, and regulate the learners’
development of important skills” (p. 233). Jonas-
sen “. . . suggests three separate approaches to
scaffolding of learning: adjust the difficulty of
the task to accommodate the learner, restructure
the task to supplant a lack of prior knowledge,
or provide alternative assessments” (p. 235).

The reflection aspect of integration was sug-
gested as one role of coaching. “[A] good coach
provokes learners to reflect on (monitor and
analyze) their performance” (p. 233).

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 09-30-2002 / 11:57

FIRST PRINCIPLES 55

Van Merriënboer—Four Component
Instructional Design Model (4C/ID)

Van Merriënboer (1997) provided perhaps the
most comprehensive recent model of instruc-
tional design that is problem-centered and in-
volves all of the phases of instruction identified
in this paper. His model integrated more direc-
tive approaches to instruction with problem-
based approaches all in the context of what is
known about cognitive processing. The model
described multiple approaches to analysis and
how the products of these various analysis tech-
niques lead to instructional designs that focus on
whole task practice. This short summary is in-
adequate to illustrate the comprehensive nature
of the 4C/ID model.

The model was clearly problem-based. “At
the heart of this training strategy is whole-task
practice, in which more and more complex ver-
sions of the whole complex cognitive skill are
practiced. . . . In . . . the analysis phase . . . the
skill is decomposed in a hierarchy of constituent
skills; . . . classified as recurrent constituent
skills, which require more-or-less consistent per-
formance over problem situations, or nonrecur-
rent constituent skills, which require highly
variable performance over situations” (van
Merriënboer, 1997, p. 8). “While learners prac-
tice simple to complex versions of a whole task,
instructional methods that promote just-in-time
information presentation are used to support the
recurrent aspects of the whole task while, at the
same time, instructional methods that promote
elaboration are used to support the nonrecurrent
aspects of the task” (p. 10).

Van Merriënboer’s (1997) model did not ex-
plicitly address the issue of activation. However,
his detailed attention to analysis and the various
kinds of knowledge that comprise an instruc-
tional sequence certainly addressed some of the
concerns of activation.

Demonstration was addressed at several
levels. The first problems in a sequence should
be worked-out examples of how to perform the
task. As the student progresses through the se-
quence of problems other information is
presented or demonstrated. These include part-
task practice for development of “situation
specific, automated rules . . .” (van Merriënboer,

1997, p. 12). For just-in-time information,
“Demonstration is usually needed to illustrate
the application of rules or procedures and to ex-
emplify concepts, principles, or plans that are
prerequisite to a correct application of those
rules or procedures [in solving the problem]”
(p.13). The heuristic methods used by skilled
performers were modeled for the student. It
should be noted that all of this demonstration
occured in the context of having the student
engage in whole-task performance or problem
solving.

Application and integration were at the cen-
ter of the model. “The heart of the 4C/ID model
concerns the design of whole-task practice. . . .
The design of information presentation
[demonstration] is always subordinate to, al-
though integrated with, the design of practice”
(van Merriënboer, 1997, p. 170). The emphasis of
the model was on a sequence of problems so that
demonstration and application are an integrated
whole rather than distinct phases. The model
described in some detail both product-oriented
problem formats and process-oriented problem
formats. The model suggested that appropriate
practice involves scaffolding of problems, but
rather than leaving the definition of scaffolding
somewhat unspecified, the model suggested
how different types of problem formats relate to
cognitive load and practice sequences that were
likely to promote the most effective skill
development. The whole-task practice model
led the student toward a real-world task that
van Merrienboer thought should promote maxi-
mum integration.

Schank—Learning by Doing

Shank’s (Schank et al., 1999) model was clearly
problem-centered with a very strong emphasis
on the application phase of instruction. In this
model there was limited emphasis on activation
and demonstration and, while integration was
certainly the goal, there was very little in the
model to direct the integration process per se.
“GBS [goal-based scenario] is a learn-by-doing
simulation in which students pursue a goal by
practicing target skills and using relevant con-
tent knowledge to help them achieve their goal”

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 09-30-2002 / 11:57

56 ETR&D, Vol. 50, No. 3

(p. 165). “There are seven essential components
of a GBS: the learning goals, the mission, the
cover story, the role, the scenario operations, the
resources, and the feedback, including coaches
and experts” (p. 173).

Scenarios (problems) were carefully defined.
“[T]he first step in creating a GBS is determining
a goal or mission that will be motivational for
the student to pursue. . . . The cover story is the
background story line that creates the need for
the mission to be accomplished. . . . the most im-
portant thing to consider is whether the story
will allow enough opportunities for the student
to practice the skills and seek the knowledge you
wish to teach. . . . The role defines who the stu-
dent will play within the cover story. . . . it is im-
portant to think about what role is the best in the
scenario to practice the necessary skills” (Schank
et al., 1999, p. 173–175).

Schank et al., stressed that new cases
(memories) are developed from existing cases
(memories). Activation is elicited via stories.
“The memories that contribute to our library of
cases [memories] are of specific events in the
form of stories. . . . the best way to convey infor-
mation is . . . to embed lessons in stories
[portrayal] that the learner can understand as an
extension of the stories he or she already knows
[activation]” (1999, p. 177).

Demonstration was provided within the con-
text of the scenario. “[T]he resources we provide
are usually experts telling stories about the in-
formation the student needs [demonstration]”
(Schank et al., 1999, p. 177). “Information is
provided primarily via feedback during the
operation of the scenario in three ways: . . . con-
sequence of actions . . . coaches . . . [who] pro-
vide . . . a just in time source to scaffold the
student through tasks . . . and domain experts
who tell stories that pertain to similar experien-
ces” (p. 178).

“The scenario operations [application] com-
prise all of the activities the student does in
order to work toward the mission goal” (Schank
et al., 1999, p. 175). “The scenario operations
should . . . have consequences that become evi-
dent at various points throughout the student
interaction. . . . It is important that . . . little time
be spent talking to the student about the
scenario, and much more time be spent with the

student practicing the skills and learning the in-
formation that comprise the learning goals” (p.
176).

The model did not address integration direct-
ly but assumed that, if the mission is motivating
and of interest to the student, the student will in-
ternalize the case (memories) and it will be avail-
able in later real-world or other instructional
scenarios.

CONCLUSION

Do the theories and models reviewed in this
paper involve fundamentally different first prin-
ciples? The answer appears to be no.

• All the theories and models reviewed incor-
porate some of these principles.

• No theory or model reviewed includes all of
these principles.

• Some theories and models reviewed include
principles or prescriptions that are not
described in this paper. These represent areas
for further investigation.

• No theory or model reviewed includes prin-
ciples or prescriptions that are contrary to
those described in this paper.

How do these theories and models differ?
The vocabulary used to describe these

theories and their implementation details vary
significantly.

These theories and models tend to emphasize
different principles. Gardner (1999) stressed
public exhibition of understanding (integration)
and different kinds of intelligence (which is not
included in the prescriptions of this paper). Nel-
son (1999) emphasized collaboration (which is
not included in the prescriptions of this paper).
Collaboration is emphasized by a number of
current models, especially constructivist
models. I agree that collaboration is a very im-
portant implementation of activation and in-
tegration but I am not yet convinced that
collaboration is a first principle. Jonassen (1999)
emphasized problem solving in learning en-
vironments. Van Merriënboer (1997) em-
phasized problem sequence and the sequence of
supporting information. Schank (Schank et al.,
1999) emphasized stories (a form of demonstra-
tion) and problem solving (cases).

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 09-30-2002 / 11:57

FIRST PRINCIPLES 57

This survey of instructional theories and
models demonstrates that these theories do in-
clude first principles of instruction that are
similar, regardless of theory or philosophical
orientation.

M. David Merrill [merrill@cc.usu.edu] is a Professor
in the Department of Instructional Technology at
Utah State University.

REFERENCES

Andre, T. (1986). Problem-solving in education. In
G.D. Phye & T. Andre (Eds.). Cognitive classroom
learning (pp. 169–204). New York: Academic Press.

Andre, T. (1997). Selected microinstructional methods
to facilitate knowledge construction: implications
for instructional design. In R.D. Tennyson, F. Schott,
N. Seel, & S. Dijkstra, Instructional design: Internation-
al perspective: Theory, research, and models (Vol. 1) (pp.
243–267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As-
sociates.

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Promoting
reflection in learning: A model. In D. Boud, R.
Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.) Reflection: Turning ex-
perience into learning (pp. 18–40). London: Kogan
Page.

Burton, R.R., & Brown, J.S. (1979). An investigation of
computer coaching for informal learning activities.
International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 11, 5–24.

Clark, R.E. & Blake, S.B. (1997). Designing training for
novel problem-solving transfer. In R.D. Tennyson, F.
Schott, N. Seel, & S. Dijkstra. Instructional design: In-
ternational perspective: Theory, research, and models
(Vol. 1) (pp. 183–214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cogni-
tive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading,
writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.)
Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of
Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Dijkstra, S., & van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (1997). Plans,
procedures, and theories to solve instructional
design problems. In S. Dijkstra, N. Seel, F. Schott &
R.D. Tennyson (Eds.) Instructional design internation-
al perspective: Solving instructional design problems
(Vol. 2) (pp. 23–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Gagné, R.M. (1965). The conditions of learning. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Gagné, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory
of instruction (4th Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.

Gardner, H. (1999). Multiple approaches to under-
standing. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional
design theories and models: A new paradigm of instruc-

tional theory (Vol. II) (pp. 69–89). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gentner, D. & Namy, L. (1999). Comparison in the
development of categories. Cognitive Development,
14, 487–513.

Gibbons, A.S., Bunderson, C.V., Olsen, J.B. &
Roberston, J. (1995). Work models: Still beyond in-
structional objectives. Machine-Mediated Learning,
5(3&4), 221–236.

Hilgenheger, N. (1993). Johann Friedrich Herbart.
Prospects: The Quarterly Review of Comparative Educa-
tion. 23(3&4), 649–664.

Jonassen, D. (1999) Designing constructivist learning
environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional
design theories and models: A new paradigm of instruc-
tional theory (Vol. II) (pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kulhavy, R.W. (1997). Feedback in written instruction.
Review of Educational Research, 47, 211–232.

Kulhavy, R.W., & Stock, W.A. (1989). Feedback in writ-
ten instruction: The place of response certitude.
Educational Psychology Review, 1, 279–308.

Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A
framework for the effective use of educational technology.
New York: Routledge.

Mayer, R.E. (1975). Different problem-solving com-
petencies established in learning computer
programming with and without meaningful
models. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 725–
734.

Mayer, R.E. (1992a). Thinking, problem solving, cognition
(2nd Ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman.

Mayer, R.E. (1992b). Illustrations that instruct. In R.
Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia learning. London:
Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, B. (1996). About learning. Barrington, IL: Ex-
cell Inc.

Merrill, M.D. (1994). Instructional design theory.
Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publica-
tions.

Merrill, M.D. (1997). Instructional strategies that teach.
CBT Solutions, Nov./Dec., 1–11.

Merrill, M.D., Tennyson, R.D. & Posey, L.O. (1992).
Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide (2nd
Ed.). 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. II)
(pp.241–267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As-
sociates.

Perkins, D.H., & Unger, C. (1999). Teaching and learn-
ing for understanding. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), In-
structional design theories and models: A new paradigm
of instructionsl theory (vol. II) (pp. 91–114). Mahwah,
NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). Instructional design theories and
models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II).

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 09-30-2002 / 11:57

58 ETR&D, Vol. 50, No. 3

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). The elaboration theory:

guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C.M.
Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and
models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II)
(pp. 425–453). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As-
sociates.

Savery, J., & Duffy, T. (1995). Problem based learning:
an instructional model and its constructivist
framework. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.), Designing construc-
tivist learning environments (pp. 135–148).
Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publica-
tions.

Schank, R.C., Berman, T.R. & Macperson, K.A. (1999).
Learning by doing. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instruc-
tional design theories and models: A new paradigm of in-
structional theory (Vol. II) (pp. 161–181). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schwartz, D., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J.D.
(1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive
instructional designs. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), In-
structional design theories and models: A new paradigm
of instructional theory (Vol. II) (pp. 183–213). Mah-
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Spiro, R.J., & Jehng, J.C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility
and hypertext: Theory and technology for the non-
linear and multidimensional traversal of complex
subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition,

education, and multimedia (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson,
R.L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism,
and hypertext: Random access instruction for ad-
vanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured
domains. In T.M. Duffy & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.) Con-
structivism and the technology of instruction: A conver-
sation. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tennyson, R.D., & Park, O. (1980). The teaching of con-
cepts: A review of instructional design literature.
Review of Educational Research, 50, 55–70.

Tennyson, R.D., & Cocchierella, M.J. (1986). An em-
pirically based instructional design theory for teach-
ing concepts. Review of Educational Research, 56,
40–72.

Tennyson, R., Schott, F., Seel, N., & Dijkstra, S. (1997).
Instructional design: International perspective: Theory,
research, and models. (Vol. 1). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (1997). Training complex cogni-
tive skills. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technol-
ogy Publications.

Van der Meij, H., & Carroll, J.M. (1998). Principles and
heuristics for designing minimalist instruction. In
J.M. Carroll (Ed.) Minimalism beyond the Nurnberg
funnel (pp. 19–53). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 09-30-2002 / 11:57

FIRST PRINCIPLES 59

Week 1 Notes.html
An open system continuously interacts with its environment. If you think of training as an open system, we can see that the needs of the trainees must be considered by the training development process. Training needs would be input of the process, and the output would be the training. A training process that does not interact with its environment would probably not be able to meet the training needs because it has no way of knowing what the training needs are.

An open system model:
•Depends on the environment for inputs
•Environmental inputs are transformed into outputs
•In effective systems, the system output influences the environment to supply new supportive inputs
A system must be responsive to the needs and demands of its environment because environment provides the input needed for the system to continue and replenish itself. Training is a subsystem within a larger human resource unit.
Inputs: Organizational Needs, Training budget, Staff, Equipment
Outputs: Improved knowledge, skills, and attitudes, Job performance
Looking at training from an open systems perspective shows how interconnected training activities are with what is happening elsewhere in the organization.
Training Process Model: ADDIE
All training processes are critical to the success of training. An effective training system is a set of processes designed to transform organizational inputs into outputs that meet the organizational needs. Training should be viewed as a set of integrated processes in which organizational and employee needs are analyzed and responded to in a rational, logical and strategic manner.

The ADDIE training process model is a 5 step process for developing effective training programs. The acronym ADDIE stands for Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate. Each stage of the model has a specific purpose, and serves as a foundation and input for the next phase, ensuring an effective and comprehensive approach to training.

Click here to learn more about the ADDIE model

 

 

 

 

 

 

                       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Addie_model