First principles of instruction

By David Merrill. 2012

2,100 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e575c93ded9197afbf7f98f5c9303e9f7ba771b3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Fred Paas
2. John Sweller
3. J. V. van Merriënboer
4. Paul A. Kirschner
5. Richard E. Mayer
6. Tamara van Gog
7. Logan Fiorella
8. Slava Kalyuga

In Education

1. Fred Paas
2. J. V. van Merriënboer
3. John Sweller
4. Paul A. Kirschner
5. Richard E. Mayer
6. Tamara van Gog
7. Logan Fiorella
8. Liesbeth Kester

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Fred Paas
2. John Sweller
3. J. V. van Merriënboer
4. Richard E. Mayer
5. Paul A. Kirschner
6. Tamara van Gog
7. Logan Fiorella
8. Slava Kalyuga

Citations in the corpus

• The Research We Still Are Not Doing: An Agenda for the Study of Computer-Based Learning (2005, methodology): “Other learning models such as Merrill’s first principles 13 (activation, demonstration, application, and integration in the setting of real-world problems) and the cognitive flexibility theory described by Spiro et al 14 are particularly relevant to CBL. Specific instructional methods include…”
• Why Minimally Guided Teaching Techniques Do Not Work: A Reply to Commentaries (2007, result): “This issue is reflected in many of the recent studies that support new instructional design theories and models (see Clark, Nguyen, & Sweller, 2006; Merrill, 2002; Van Merrienboer & Kirschner, 2007, for examples).”
• Instructional quality of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) (2015, methodology): “…'problem' to denote 'a wide range of activities, with the most critical characteristic being that the activity is some whole task rather than only components of a task and that the task is representative of those the learner will encounter in the world following instruction' (Merrill, 2002, p. 45).”
• Aesthetic principles for instructional design (2009, background): “The use of the term is in part an homage to Merrill's (2002) prescriptive first principles of instruction, which he derived as fundamental to good instruction after comparing a wide set of valued instructional theories with traditional sources.”
• Applying learning theories and instructional design models for effective instruction. (2016, background): “Five principles of instruction have been identified (31) that promote learning: 1) learners are engaged in solving real-world problems, 2) existing knowledge is activated as a foundation for new knowledge, 3) new knowledge is demonstrated to the learner, 4) new knowledge is applied by the learner, a”
• Teaching complex rather than simple tasks: balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning (2006, background): “…instructional theories and practical educational approaches more and more stress on the use of complex ‘real-life’ tasks, which are expected to help learners to integrate the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary for effective task performance in professional or daily life (Merrill, 2002).”
• First principles of motivation to learn and e3‐learning (2008, background): “The concept of first principles with regard to instruction was introduced by Merrill (2002) to refer to prescriptive principles of learning that are common to all theories of instructional design.”
• Representing the Learning Design of Units of Learning (2004, positive): “Based on a study of current pedagogical models, Merrill (2003) summarized them as follows: "… the most effective learning products or environments are those that are problem-centred and involve the student in four distinct phases of learning: (1) activation of prior experience, (2) demonstration of…”
• Criteria, Strategies and Research Issues of Context-Aware Ubiquitous Learning (2008, background): “Practice is effective when it is aligned with assessment and with the skills, knowledge and attitudes reflected in the objectives ( Merrill, 2002; Reiser & Dick, 1996).”
• The impact of flipped classrooms on student achievement in engineering education: A meta‐analysis of 10 years of research (2019, background): “According to Merrill (2002), student learning in the flipped classroom was promoted because they were provided with additional chances to apply their engineering knowledge through problem-solving activities.”