When learning about all the different learning theories, once can become confused and overwhelmed very quickly. When these theories are then elaborated into learning programs, it can become too congested and complicated. How then can we understand what makes others learn? Can we start by searching for similarities amongst all the theories? Are there any consistencies to simplify our understanding?
Merril (2002) in his article “First Principles of Instruction” goes on this journey in amongst all the theories and some of the research. In this paper he shares his finding that he discoverd five similarities among the theories and calls them The First Principles of Instruction. These set of principles are common among most of the theories and models. He states that these are the basic design principles that must be present for effective and efficient learning to take place. With these five principles he is able to create a language and framework to boil down all of the theories. The article goes into detail describing each principle.
The first principle of instruction is Problem-centered. It supports that learners must be engaged in the learning process. This engagement can be solving a problem or doing an activity. This is in contrast to the topic-centered form of instruction where the student listens to instruction before trying it out for him/herself. This makes complete sense to me and aligns with my own learning design perceptions. I believe that learning is a behavior that involves doing and interacting. In my work, I support adult students who are earning their degree. Whenever I ask them how they learn best, they almost always answer, “I am a hands-on learner and do my best when I am shown and then do it myself.” It is important to focus on the actual designing of the learning activities to promote learning.
Within this principle I also found some other design considerations quite interesting. Merril stresses the importance of stating the learning objectives at the beginning of the module. He highlights that some theories support showing the whole task before the instruction has even started. It seems the brain wants to know where it is headed! Other points he makes are the different levels of performance and needing to engage learners at all levels. And along with this, the problems to be solved need to be of perceived value to the learner. I agree with this because when learning is clear and interesting it feels fun and engaging!
The second principle of instruction is Activation. When I read this, much of it sounded familiar from my neuropsychology and memory courses that I have taken. Merril makes the point that it is not only important to ignite learning but to also link it. Learning is best achieved when it can be linked back to prior knowledge and linked to future tasks. It seems we can do a lot as educators and designers to connect learning and lighten the cognitive load by including some structure and organization into the instruction for the learning to access. I like to think of instruction as a labyrinth and the Instructional designer and instructors roles are to connect the pathways so that the student no longer feels lost but connected and open to more routes.
The third principle of instruction is Demonstration. When designing instruction it is very important to include models of what we want the student to be doing and then ask them to apply it. This feels like a very effective way to teach. It provides the student with clarity and guidance. I like the idea of providing multiple examples and practice. One idea I had not considered that the article mentions as a way to demonstrate is visualization. I think that demonstrating is often skipped because of the cost. It can be expensive in both time and resources to provide multiple opportunities to practice as new skill. I think that visualization for some instruction could be an effective and economical way to demonstrate instruction and learning.
Some other points that Merril makes in explaining this principle includes that the guidance should be explicit. I am a very big proponent of this for designing instruction! I do not think the expectations should be vague, unclear or open to interpretation. As a learner myself, I have always wanted to know “what exactly do I need to do?” Knowing this can relieve a lot of anxiety and help make the instruction more effective. He also makes a slight comment in regards to multimedia. He cites some research that seems to be a caution against overuse of graphics and cognitive overload. As I am learning, the actual research around multimedia seems counterintuitive and is worth reading the research on. This is one area where I am unsure if my perceptions match Merril and the research.
The fourth principle of instruction is Application. For this stage, I can almost hear the learner saying, “Let ME do it!” I see this as the part where we, as educators, get down off the stage and intermingle in the crowd of learners and become reviewers of their work. It seems important to stay engaged as the instructor and not step back completely. Merril highlights the role feedback and coaching have in promoting learning. We do not just tell the student what to do and then expect them to go and do it. We stand by to observe and give feedback to them to help guide them in mastering the new skill. I very much support the theory of scaffolding that Merril mentions and calls diminishing coaching. I think that this can greatly support diverse learners. Being able to make mistakes and learn from the errors is another way to de-stress learning.
Lastly, the fifth principle of instruction is Integration. Here is where what has been learned gets applied to the future. Learners can take what they have learned and mold it into what is going to work for them and give it a personalized touch. I think this can be reflected with the question, “So… what will you do with what you have learned?” Integrating the new learning into their acquired knowledge base and current lives is key. This provides great opportunities to include design activities like discussions, debates, and reflections. I really appreciated how Merril touched on this being related to internal motivation. It is here that learners feel the joy of learning, experience the pleasure and feel their brains light up. With this they can then share their learning experience with their communities, families and friends. This, I believe, creates the circle of learning that allows us to continue to communicate and grow despite all the different theories and models being developed.
So, according to Merril, there are similarities and commonalities that can be identified among learning theories and models. In his work he found five basic principles of instruction that are present in most theories and promot learning. I think it is good to be able to boil down to the basic as it can unify us in designing effective instruction. I found Merril’s article very helpful to read and was in agreement with the majority of his principles.
Reference
Merril, M.D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology, Research, and
Development. 3(50). 43-59.
When learning about all the different learning theories, once can become confused and overwhelmed very quickly. When these theories are then elaborated into learning programs, it can become too congested and complicated. How then can we understand what makes others learn? Can we start by searching for similarities amongst all the theories? Are there any consistencies to simplify our understanding?
Merril (2002) in his article “First Principles of Instruction” goes on this journey in amongst all the theories and some of the research. In this paper he shares his finding that he discoverd five similarities among the theories and calls them The First Principles of Instruction. These set of principles are common among most of the theories and models. He states that these are the basic design principles that must be present for effective and efficient learning to take place. With these five principles he is able to create a language and framework to boil down all of the theories. The article goes into detail describing each principle.
The first principle of instruction is Problem-centered. It supports that learners must be engaged in the learning process. This engagement can be solving a problem or doing an activity. This is in contrast to the topic-centered form of instruction where the student listens to instruction before trying it out for him/herself. This makes complete sense to me and aligns with my own learning design perceptions. I believe that learning is a behavior that involves doing and interacting. In my work, I support adult students who are earning their degree. Whenever I ask them how they learn best, they almost always answer, “I am a hands-on learner and do my best when I am shown and then do it myself.” It is important to focus on the actual designing of the learning activities to promote learning.
Within this principle I also found some other design considerations quite interesting. Merril stresses the importance of stating the learning objectives at the beginning of the module. He highlights that some theories support showing the whole task before the instruction has even started. It seems the brain wants to know where it is headed! Other points he makes are the different levels of performance and needing to engage learners at all levels. And along with this, the problems to be solved need to be of perceived value to the learner. I agree with this because when learning is clear and interesting it feels fun and engaging!
The second principle of instruction is Activation. When I read this, much of it sounded familiar from my neuropsychology and memory courses that I have taken. Merril makes the point that it is not only important to ignite learning but to also link it. Learning is best achieved when it can be linked back to prior knowledge and linked to future tasks. It seems we can do a lot as educators and designers to connect learning and lighten the cognitive load by including some structure and organization into the instruction for the learning to access. I like to think of instruction as a labyrinth and the Instructional designer and instructors roles are to connect the pathways so that the student no longer feels lost but connected and open to more routes.
The third principle of instruction is Demonstration. When designing instruction it is very important to include models of what we want the student to be doing and then ask them to apply it. This feels like a very effective way to teach. It provides the student with clarity and guidance. I like the idea of providing multiple examples and practice. One idea I had not considered that the article mentions as a way to demonstrate is visualization. I think that demonstrating is often skipped because of the cost. It can be expensive in both time and resources to provide multiple opportunities to practice as new skill. I think that visualization for some instruction could be an effective and economical way to demonstrate instruction and learning.
Some other points that Merril makes in explaining this principle includes that the guidance should be explicit. I am a very big proponent of this for designing instruction! I do not think the expectations should be vague, unclear or open to interpretation. As a learner myself, I have always wanted to know “what exactly do I need to do?” Knowing this can relieve a lot of anxiety and help make the instruction more effective. He also makes a slight comment in regards to multimedia. He cites some research that seems to be a caution against overuse of graphics and cognitive overload. As I am learning, the actual research around multimedia seems counterintuitive and is worth reading the research on. This is one area where I am unsure if my perceptions match Merril and the research.
The fourth principle of instruction is Application. For this stage, I can almost hear the learner saying, “Let ME do it!” I see this as the part where we, as educators, get down off the stage and intermingle in the crowd of learners and become reviewers of their work. It seems important to stay engaged as the instructor and not step back completely. Merril highlights the role feedback and coaching have in promoting learning. We do not just tell the student what to do and then expect them to go and do it. We stand by to observe and give feedback to them to help guide them in mastering the new skill. I very much support the theory of scaffolding that Merril mentions and calls diminishing coaching. I think that this can greatly support diverse learners. Being able to make mistakes and learn from the errors is another way to de-stress learning.
Lastly, the fifth principle of instruction is Integration. Here is where what has been learned gets applied to the future. Learners can take what they have learned and mold it into what is going to work for them and give it a personalized touch. I think this can be reflected with the question, “So… what will you do with what you have learned?” Integrating the new learning into their acquired knowledge base and current lives is key. This provides great opportunities to include design activities like discussions, debates, and reflections. I really appreciated how Merril touched on this being related to internal motivation. It is here that learners feel the joy of learning, experience the pleasure and feel their brains light up. With this they can then share their learning experience with their communities, families and friends. This, I believe, creates the circle of learning that allows us to continue to communicate and grow despite all the different theories and models being developed.
So, according to Merril, there are similarities and commonalities that can be identified among learning theories and models. In his work he found five basic principles of instruction that are present in most theories and promot learning. I think it is good to be able to boil down to the basic as it can unify us in designing effective instruction. I found Merril’s article very helpful to read and was in agreement with the majority of his principles.
Reference
Merril, M.D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology, Research, and
Development. 3(50). 43-59.