According to Piskurich (2000), instructional design can be defined as “simply a process for helping you create effective training in an efficient manner” and helping “you ask the right questions, make the right decisions, and produce a product that is as useful and useable as your situation requires and allows” (p. 1).
Given a situation, instructional designers might find themselves favoring the use of one instructional design model comprised of instructional design principles. Instructional design models refer to instructional design process with steps (i.e., ADDIE). Whereas instructional design principles refer to components or elements important in the instructional design process (i.e., ARCS).
Merrill (2002) synthesizes instructional design theories to identify principles that are similar across each theory. He distills these theories down to five common principles: a problem, supported by integration, activation, demonstration, and application.
“(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”.
(Merrill, 2002, p. 43)
First principles guide the selection or evaluation of behavior, people, and events. In other words, first principles ought to be the instructional designer’s go-to method and should embody methods the designer should consider first in any given situation.
At the heart of Merrill’s (2002) first principles is their problem-orientation, where ‘‘learning is promoted when learners are engaged in solving real-world problems’’ (p. 44). This principle is most appealing and aligned to my instructional design situation. At MassiveU, we are developing a collaborative problem-solving digital platform—Solvably—that is rooted in a constructivist learning experience and content delivered in the format of problem-based learning. A core value of this product is that education ought to be a reconstruction of knowledge where learning is experiential and situated within a professional and social context—where learning is doing.
I would love to hear from you! Which of Merrill’s principles are most appealing and/or aligned to your instructional design situation and why?
References:
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.
Piskurich, G. M. (2000). Rapid instructional design: learning ID fast and right. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
Andrew R. Claassen 
Hi Andrew! I just checked out the website for Solvably that you posted– it looks really interesting! I’m fortunate to work for a large enough company that a Learning and Development department is required. In the past, I have worked for much smaller companies, and any task-based training responsibilities were placed on current employees who were sill required to complete their regular job. The effectiveness of a trainer who is only part-committed to the development of a new employee is very low. Having a guided discovery approach like Solvably would have been incredible!
LikeLike
Hi Andrew! I am in the same position as you. I teach writing, so you can imagine that students’ motivation is through the roof! Just kidding, it’s usually very low if non-existent. Therefore, I try to position their learning by solving a real-world problem that exists within their own major. I thought that if I can situate their research paper (and it’s component assignments) to solving a problem facing their field (that the student is passionate about), their motivation will rise. Some students latch onto this quickly, motivated to become a scholar, present potential solutions, and contribute to knowledge in their discipline.
LikeLike
I think the most important of the first principles is that learning should help solve a real-world problem. I was educated in Korea until high school, and Korea has an educational structure in which college entrance exams are almost determined through a high-risk test (equivalent to SAT but probably more severe), which can be taken only once a year since the last year of high school. In addition, there is a widespread belief among Koreans that graduating from a good university is more important than majoring in relevant studies to get a good job. Therefore, you have to go to college for professional success, do well on the test to go to college, and do well on the test, so education is tailored to it and conducted in a problem-solving manner. As I studied problem-solving throughout high school, I never felt the use of what I learned. It would have been much more enjoyable to learn if I thought that the knowledge I was learning helped solve a real-world problem.
LikeLike