Historical Reflection on Learning Theories and Instructional Design

Year 2010, Volume: 1 Issue: 1, 1 - 16, 01.03.2010

Robert D. Tennyson

Abstract

Employing my research and practical experience in the field of educational psychology, with a specialty in instructional design and technology, I would like to reflect on the theoretical foundations of instructional design. My purpose is to show the growth of the field through theories associated with learning psychology and educational technology. Both human psychology and technology are the main foundations for instructional psychology. Evaluation and assessment continue to be integral to the field but more in the form of tools. Included is my view of the field in reference to work I and my colleagues have done in what we label as a linking theory of instructional design. That is, linking learning theory directly with research findings and practice I argue that educators need to clearly propose and define their own theoretical foundations when engaging in the design of effective learning environments.

Keywords

Instructional technology, Learning theory, Instructional design, Technology, Theoretical foundations

References

• Ausubel, D. P. (1969). A cognitive theory of school learning. Psychology in the Schools, 6, 331-335.
• Breuer, K., & Kummer, R. (1990). Cognitive effects from process learning with computer-based simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 6, 69-81.
• Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
• Bruner, J. S. (1964). Study of thinking. New York: Wiley.
• Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath.
• Finn, J. D. (1957). Automation and education: General aspects. AV Communications Review, 5, 343- 360.
• Gagné, R. M. (1962). Military training and principles of learning. American Psychologist, 17, 83-91.
• Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979). Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
• Mager, R. (1962). Instructional behavioral objectives. San Francisco: Fearon Press.
• Merrill, M. D. (1997). Instructional transaction theory: An instructional design model based on knowledge objects. In R. D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Instructional design: International Perspectives, Vol. I: Theory and research (pp. 215-241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Scandura, J. M. (1970). The role of rules in behavior: Toward an operational definition of what (rule) is learned. Psychological Review, 77, 516-533.
• Schott, F., & Driscoll, M. P. (1997). On the architechtonics of instructional theory. In R. D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Instructional design: International Perspectives, Vol. I: Theory and research (pp.135-173). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Seel, N., & Winn, W. D. (1997). Research on media and learning: Distributed cognition and semiotics. In R. D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Instructional design: International Perspectives, Vol. I: Theory and research (pp.293-326). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24, 86-97.
• Snow, R. E. (1997). Individual differences. In R. D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Instructional design: International Perspectives, Vol. I: Theory and research (pp. 215-241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Tennyson, R. D., &. Elmore, R. L. (1997). Learning theory foundations for instructional design. In R. D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Instructional design: International Perspectives, Vol. I: Theory and research (pp. 55-78). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Tennyson, R. D., & Rasch, M. (1988). Linking cognitive learning theory to instructional prescriptions. Instructional Science, 17, 369-385.
• Thorndike, E. (1913). The psychology of learning: Educational psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Teachers College Press.
• Winn, W. (1993). A constructivist critique of the assumptions of instructional design. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 213-234). Berlin: Springer.
• Correspondence: Robert D. Tennyson, Learning and Cognition, Department of Educational
• Psychology, University of Minnesota, 250 Education Sciences Bldg, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.