Design Theories Overview

This chart represents my thoughts on the relevancies and connections or threads that I see amongst various instructional design theories. -JG



ET followed ITT in the's that for a connection. The concepts of "learning episode" and "learning transaction" share similarities. Each are made up of component parts
Psychomotor and ET both roughly follow the idea of starting with simpler, less complex tasks and increasingly building up to more complex skills or concepts.

explain, predict, troubleshoot; and identify, execute and interpret are all ideas of ITT that could be said to mirror the explain, demonstrate, practice ideas of PM instruction.

Both models like the use of simulations in the learning process.

ET indicates that affect is not addressed by its design. They do both agree that progressing to new levels of skill/attitude should not occur too fast, but be done only after mastery (consolidation) occurs. The concepts of "learning episode" and "3-part" learning nugget also share similarities.
ITT strongly emphases the cognitive domain, seemingly ignoring the affective domain. This does not seem to address Merrill's later concept of appealing instruction chosing instaed to focus on effective.
Attitudinal instruction includes psychomotor or behavior as one of it's core componants. While not necessarily dwelling on developing skills, changed attitudes seem to ultiomately manifest themselves through behavior and actions
Both share an interest in heuristics including heuristic task analysis
These are both very systematic and algorythmic approaches to designing instruction--an intimidating and demotivating factor for my adopting them.
These theories differ in a at least a few ways ways. Landa deals with generalizable higher-order thinking skills, while psychomotor deals with teaching very specific skills for specific tasks or goals. One (PM) emphsizes content, the other strategies (Lan).
Landamatics is very cognitively-focused. It unfortunately seems to ignore the other 2 componants of learning identified important to attitudinal instruction (affect, psychomotor).
Both of these models value student choice over scope and sequence, although it is possible that some (poor) SRL would just prescribe following programmed instruction at the learner's own pace.
ITT and SRL share an interest in a student-centered approach to learning.
While not directly psychomotor instruction, both emphasize the modelling and visualizing of behavior and skills before the practicing of them.
SRL could complement attitudinal instruction quite well, specifically when one wishes to change their own attitude. The processes of self-reflection and realistic goal-setting would help facilitate p[ersonal attitude change.
In some ways, SRL works to develop higher order thinking skills in learners (as well as good study habits) What is learned is meant to be applicable to other areas. In addition SRL emphasises reflection and self-evaluation on one's practice--both concepts that smack of Landamatics

Motivation (ARCS)

ET indicates that affect is not addressed by its design, but certainly would benfit the theory to more directly address the issues of motivation (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction).
ITT is potentially quite motivating in that it adapts to the learners needs. This only works however if the architecting and knowledge deconstruction (process entitiy and activity network--PEAnet) has been done well--a major task!
Many PM skills require a good deal of motivation to learn...keyboarding, playing a musical instrument. This is maybe becuase of the difficulty of autopmatizing certain tasks. Many motor skills decay quickly if not rehearsed enough to be internalized into the muscles.
These two theories are very related and share some overlapping values: Relevance might be mapped on to the Cognition, Attention, Confidence and Satisfaction on to Affect. Attitudinal instruction is perthaps a little more systematic approach to instruction in this domain.
careful that you don't drive your students bonkers (demotivate them) by overemphasizing abstract root or core thinking skills at the expense of more practical and useful solutions.
Motivation is very important to SRL. It seemed to be assumed in Corno & Randi's chapter, but should not be as it takes a great deal of effort (motivation) to practice SRL. Relevance is also important to SRL as they seek to find SRL models in the lioves of the learner.

Knowledge Base Home | Joel Galbraith's Home

Page last modified: Friday, April 30, 2004