Learning theories and instructional design: A historical perspective of the linking model

Innovations in Instructional Technology: Essays in Honor of M. David Merrill

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 219-235

  Tennyson, Robert D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 45649084861     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410613684     Document Type: Chapter

References (28)

1. Ausubel, D. P. (1969). A cognitive theory of school learning. Psychology in the Schools, 6, 331-335.
2. Breuer, K., & Kummer, R. (1990). Cognitive effects from process learning with computer-based simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 6, 69-81.
3. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
4. Bruner, J. S. (1964). Study of thinking. New York: Wiley.
5. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
6. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath.
7. Dick, W. (1997). A model for the systematic design of instruction. In R. D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Instructional design: International perspectives, Vol. I: Theory and research (pp. 361-370).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Finn, J. D. (1957). Automation and education: General aspects. AV Communications Review, 5, 343-360.
9. Gagné, R. M. (1962). Military training and principles of learning. American Psychologist, 17, 83-91.
10. Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979). Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
11. Mager, R. (1962). Instructional behavioral objectives. San Francisco: Fearon Press.
12. Markle, S. M. (1969). Good frames and bad: A grammar of frame writing (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
13. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Merrill, M. D., Li, Z., & Jones, M. K. (1990). Limitations of first generation instructional design. Educational Technology, 30(1), 7-11.
15. Reigeluth, C. M., & Stein, F. S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 335-381). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Scandura, J. M. (1970). The role of rules in behavior: Toward an operational definition of what (rule) is learned. Psychological Review, 77, 516-533.
17. Scandura, J. M. (2001). Structural learning theory: Current status and recent developments. Instructional Science, 29(4), 311-336.
18. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24, 86-97.
21. Smith, W. I., & Moore, J. W. (Eds.). (1962). Programmed learning. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
22. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Tennyson, R. D. (2002). Linking learning theories to instructional design, Educational Technology, 42(3), 51-55.
24. Tennyson, R. D., & Breuer, K. (1997). Psychological foundations for instructional design theory. In R. D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Instructional design:International perspectives, Vol. I: Theory and research (pp. 113-133). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26. Tennyson, R. D., & Rasch, M. (1988). Linking cognitive learning theory to instructional prescriptions. Instructional Science, 17, 369-385.
27. Thorndike, E. (1913). The psychology of learning: Educational psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Teachers College Press.
28. Winn, W. D. (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.