Plans, procedures, and theories to solve instructional design problems

Instructional Design: International Perspectives: Volume 2: Solving Instructional Design Problems

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 23-43

  Dijkstra, Sanne ^a   Van Merriënboer, Jeroen J G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85071543693     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315044743-10     Document Type: Chapter

References (21)

1. Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2-16.
2. DeCecco, J. P. (1964). Educational technohgy: leadings in programmed instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
3. Dijkstra, S., Krammer, H. P. M., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (Eds.). (1992). Instructional models in computer-based learning environments. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Verlag.
4. Gagné, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
5. Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979). Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York
6. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology, Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
7. Jones, M. K., Li, Z., & Merrill, M. D. (1990). Domain knowledge representation for instructional analysis. Educational Technology, 30(10), 7-32.
8. Kaufman, R. (1986). Obtaining functional results: Relating needs assessment, needs analysis, and objectives. Educational ‘Technology, 26(1), 24-27.
9. Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component display theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (pp. 279-333). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Merrill, M. D. & Boutwcll, R. C. (1973). Instructional development: Methodology and research. In F. N. Kerlinger (Ed.), Revieiu of research in education (Vol. 1, pp. 95-131). Itasca, NY: Peacock.
11. Merrill, M. D., Li, Z., & Jones, M. J. (1990a). Limitations of first generation instructional design. Educational Technology, 30(1), 7-11.
12. Merrill, M. D., Li, Z., amp; Jones, M. J. (1990b). Second generation instructional design. Educational Technology, 30(2), 7-14.
13. Paas, F. G. W. C, amp; van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology 86, 122-133.
14. Perkins, D. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? Educational Technology 31(5), 18-23.
15. Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1983). Instructional design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Schank, R. C, & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
17. van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1990). Strategies for programming instruction in high school: Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research 6, 265-285.
18. van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (Ed.). (1994). Dutch research on knowledge-based instructional systems [Special issue]. Computers in Human Behavior, 10.
19. van Merrienboer, J. J. G., amp; de Croock, M. B. M. (1992). Strategies for computer-based programming instruction: Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research 8, 365-394.
20. van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Jelsma, O., amp; Paas, F. G. W. C. (1992). Training for reflective expertise: A four-component instructional design model for complex cognitive skills. Educational Technology, Research & Development 40(2), 23-43.
21. van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Krammer, H. P. M. (1987). Instructional strategies and tactics for the design of introductory computer programming courses in high school. Instructional Science 16, 251-285.