1. No category

Preservice Teacher Use of Learning and Instructional Design Principles
Author(s): James D. Klein
Source: Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 39, No. 3 (1991), pp. 83-89
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30219980 .
Accessed: 03/10/2011 20:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational Technology
Research and Development.
http://www.jstor.org
Preservice Teacher
Instructional Design
Use of Learning
Principles
and
O James D.Klein
JamesD. Kleinis withtheDivisionof Psychology
ArizonaStateUniversity,
in Education,
Tempe.
Althoughmanyinstructional
technologists
havesuggestedthatteachers
shouldbetrained
in usinginstructional
designmodels,few
studies havebeenconductedto determineif
teacherscanbesuccessfulin acquiringand
applyingthesemodels.Thepurposeof this
teacher
studywastoexaminepreservice
successin acquiringandapplyingprinciples
of learningandinstructional
design.Preserviceteachers
enrolledin a professional
teacherpreparation
programweretaughtthe
essentialsof learningandcompetency-based
instructionandwererequired
to plana
lessonusingtheseconcepts.Resultsindicate
thatmostof thepreservice
teacherswere
in
and
successful acquiring usingtheprinciplesof learningandinstructional
design.
The course describedin this paper is modeled in part
aftera coursedesigned by facultyat FloridaStateUniversity. The authorwishes to thank MarcyDriscollfor sharing these course materials. The author also wishes to
recognizeJohnErchul,Ann Igoe, JayneKlein, and Doris
Pridemorefor their comments on an earlierdraft of this
manuscript.
ETR&D,
Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 83-89 ISSN1042-1629
O In recentyears, a numberof authorshave
addressed how instructional design theory
can be applied to classroomteaching(Dick&
Reiser,1989;Kerr,1989;Martin,1990).While
Branson(1987)argues that trainingteachers
to use instructionaldesign models will have
littleimpacton education,othersindicatethat
our field can help improveeducationby training teachersin instructionaldesign (Kerr,1989;
Shrock& Byrd1987;Snelbecker,1987). Even
though many individualsbelieve that the instructionaldesign communityshould takean
active role in teacherpreparation,most students of educationdo not receiveformaltraining in instructionaldesign (Kerr,1981;Reiser,
1986;Schiffman& Gansneder,1987).
While teachersmay not learn instructional
design models, they do learn models of
instructionalplanning. Accordingto RosalesDordellyand Short(1985),the most common
model of instructionalplanning taughtin college curriculumcourses is Tyler'sapproach.
Tyler (1949)suggested that teachers should
plan instructionby (1) identifying goals and
objectives, (2) selecting learning activities,
(3)organizinglearningactivities,and (4)developing evaluationprocedures.
Researchershave found that most teachers
do not followTyler's"objectives-first"
model.
A majority of teachers begin planning by
selecting instructional activities (Clark &
Yinger,1979;Macdonald,1965;Yinger,1980),
83
84
by considering requiredmaterialsand available resources (Taylor,1970), or by deciding
on content to be covered(Zahorik,1975).
Whilenot as widespreadas the Tyler(1949)
model, othersystematicapproachesto instructionalplanninghavebeen developedforclassroom teachers(Dick & Reiser,1989;Sullivan
& Higgins, 1983). One such model is called
"competency-basedinstruction," which includes writingobjectives,designing effective
instruction,and developingassessmentinstruments (Sullivan& Higgins, 1983). Researchers examiningcompetency-basedinstruction
have reported that preservice and inservice
teachersare successfulin learningthis model
(Higgins, Reiser,& Bebeau, 1976;Higgins &
Sullivan, 1982;Reiser& Higgins, 1975).
It is unclear whether teachers who are
trainedto use systematicplanningmodelswill
actually use these models. Neale, Pace, and
Case (1983)found that experienced teachers
who were trainedto use systematicmodels indicated positive attitudestowardthe models;
however,manyteachersuse systematicmodels
only informallywhile planning instructionor
as part of mental planning. Experienced
teachersbelievethatsystematicplanningmodels are useful for student teachers and inexperiencedteachers,but even preserviceteachers who are trainedto use these models don't
alwaysfollowthem (Nealeet al., 1983).In contrast, in a case study on teacherplanning by
Cain (1989), it was found that a preservice
teacher trained to use a systematicplanning
model used this modelextensivelywhile planning a month-longunit of instruction.
The purpose of the current study was to
examine preserviceteachersuccess in acquiring and applying principlesof learning and
instructionaldesign.Thestudy was conducted
to ensure that the preservice teachers had
these skills beforethey left their trainingprogram. While studies have been conducted to
determinepreserviceteachersuccess in learning isolatedskillsof systematicplanningmodels (Higgins & Sullivan, 1982),little research
has been done to examinepreserviceteachers'
ability to use planning models such as the
competency-basedinstructionmodel. Inaddition, few studieshaveexaminedteacherknowledge of the principlesof learningthat underlie
ETR&mD,
tl.39, No.3
instructional design models. According to
Blumenfeld,Young,and Pokay(1991),knowledge of learningprinciplesmight help teachers develop comprehensivelearningplans.
METHOD
Subjects
Participantsin the study were 105preservice
teachersenrolled in their first semester of a
professionalteacher preparationprogramat
a largesouthwesternuniversity.Demographic
data collected from each subject at the first
class meeting indicated that: 75 females and
30 males participatedin the study; the age
range for the group was 20-52 years, with a
median age of 27; 14 participantswere Early
ChildhoodEducationmajors,51 wereElementary Education majors, 27 were Secondary
Educationmajors,and 13 were Special Educationmajors.
CourseDescription
Instructional
GoalandObjectives
A systems approachto instructionwas used
to develop the course. The instructionalgoal
was forparticipantsto use conceptsand principles of learningand instructionaldesign to
planclassroominstruction.Instructional
objectives for the course focused on the essentials
of learning (i.e., internalprocesses of learning, outcomesof learning,externalconditions
of learning, motivation)and on competencybasedinstruction(i.e., instructionalobjectives,
elements of effective instruction, criterionreferencedtesting). A list of specific course
objectivesis given in Figures1 and 2.
CourseMaterials
Materialsused in the courseconsisted of a set
of lecturenotes and overheadtransparencies,
a participantworkbook, two textbooks, two
criterion-referencedtests, and a lesson plan
checklist. The lecture notes contained unit
objectives, procedures for recalling prior
85
TEACHER
USEOFID
PRESERVICE
knowledge and for establishing motivation,
and information/examplesdirectlyrelated to
the courseobjectives.The overheadtransparencies were used to supplement the lecture
by providingkey informationand concepts.
The participantworkbookincluded lesson
objectives,an advanceorganizer,a list of activities, practiceexercises, and supplemental
readings for each unit. The workbook also
included a detailed description of requirements forthe lesson planproject.In addition,
participantsused the textbooks Essentialsof
Learning
forInstruction
by Gagn4and Driscoll
(1988)and Teaching
forCompetence
by Sullivan
and Higgins (1983).Both of these textbooks
were selected because they provide informationand practicedirectlyrelevantto the course
objectives.
Two criterion-referencedtests were developed to determinethe degree to which participantshad attainedthe informationand skill
objectives.One test measured attainmentof
1 ] Objectivesforthe Essentialsof Learning
FIGURE
* Identifythe internalprocesses that occurat each stage of the informationprocessing model
of learning.
* Definethe five majorcategoriesof learningoutcomes.
* Classifyexamplesof learningoutcomesaccordingto Gagn's taxonomy.
* Generateclassroomexamplesof learningoutcomesin each of the five majorcategories.
* Identifythe actionverbsused to describeeach of the categoriesof learningoutcomes.
* Givenspecificexamplesof learningoutcomes, generateinstructionalactivities(externalconditions)thatwill help studentsacquirethe outcome.
* Given examplesof instructionalactivities, identify what learningoutcome each is designed
to help students learn.
* Describeeach of the fourcomponentsof the ARCSModelof Motivation.
* Givenexamplesof motivationalstrategies,classifywhich componentof motivationis being
addressed.
* Generatemotivationalstrategiesto enhancethe learningof specificoutcomesand objectives.
2 D ObjectivesforCompetency-based Instruction
FIGURE
betweeninstructionalobjectivesand instructionalactivities.
ADistinguish
* Identifyworthwhileinstructionalobjectives.
* Identifywell-writteninstructionalobjectives.
* Writea three-partinstructionalobjectiveforeach of the five types of learningoutcomes.
* Describethe five elements of effectiveinstruction.
* Classify instructionalexamples according to Sullivan and Higgins' five elements of effective instruction.
* Identifyand writeappropriateinstructionalinformationforgiven instructionalobjectives.
* Identifyand writeappropriatestudent practiceactivitiesforgiven instructional
objectives.
* Identify appropriateproceduresfor providing knowledge of results in given instructional
situations.
* Generatea lesson plan using the five elements of effectiveinstruction.
* Identifyappropriateassessmentitems forgiven instructionalobjectives.
* Statethe threecriteriaforgood test construction.
* Identifywell-writtentest items and tests.
* Generateappropriateand well-writtenassessment items forinstructional
objectives.
86
ETR&D,\
Vol,39, No.3
the essentialsof learningobjectives,while the
other assessed attainment of competencybased instruction(CBI)objectives.The test on
the essentialsof learningincluded15 multiplechoice items, and the CBItest consisted of 25
multiple-choiceitems.Inaddition,participant
performancewas assessed on a lesson planning project.Thisprojectrequiredparticipants
to plan a lesson using principlesof learning
and instructionaldesign.
For their lesson plans, participants were
requiredto selecta topic, list the learningoutcomes, describethe targetpopulation,include
externalconditions of learning, explain how
the externalconditionsfacilitatedthe internal
processes of learning,and select motivational
strategies.Participantswere also requiredto
generate instructionalobjectivesfor the lesson, develop an assessment instrument to
measuremasteryof the objectives,and use elements of effectiveinstructionas the formatof
the plan. Accordingto Sullivanand Higgins
(1983),the elements of an effectivelesson are:
(1)introducethe activity,(2)provideinformation, (3) provide practice,(4) provideknowledge of results, and (5) review the activity.
Upon completion of the lesson plan, one
of two teachingassistantsassessed the extent
FIGURE
3 O LessonPlanChecklist
Topicof thelesson(2points)
* Canthelessonreasonably
bedeliveredin anhour?
* Isit adequateforthespecifiedpopulation?
Intendedlearningoutcome(s)
of thelesson(2points)
* Giventhetopic,do theoutcome(s)
match?
* Aretheyadequategivenonehourforthelesson?
conditionsforlearning(9points)
External
* Areatleastthreeconditionsincluded?
* Dotheyrelateto theintendedoutcomesof thelesson?
* Dotheyfacilitate
theinternalprocess(es)
of learning?
Targetpopulationof the lesson (2 points)
* Does the descriptionadequatelyaddressall relevantstudent characteristics?
Instructionalobjectivesof the lesson (9 points)
* Are at least threeobjectivesincluded?
* Does each objectiveinclude the threeelements of performance,condition,and standard?
* Does each objectivecorrespondto the learningoutcome(s)?
Formatof the lesson plan (10points)
* Are the five elementsof effectiveinstructionused?
* Are each of the elementsappropriatelyaddressedin the plan?
Motivationalstrategies(6 points)
* Are at least threestrategiesincluded?
' Do they fit into the formatof the lesson?
* Does each strategyaddressa motivationalcondition?
Assessment Instrument(10points)
* Does each item requirethe same performanceas statedin the objective?
* Does each item providethe same conditionsas statedin the objective?
* Haveenough items been developed foreach objectiveso students can meet the standard?
* Iseachitemclearlywrittenandfreeof prompts?
* Does the instrumentmeet the criteriaforgood tests?
87
PRESErnICE
TEACHER
USEOFID
to which it included the above-mentioned
components and assigned a score ranging
from 0-50 points using the lesson planning
checklist (see Figure 3). Three lesson plans
were assessed by both ratersto determinethe
reliabilityof this procedure.Interraterreliability of the assessment procedurewas .95. The
checklistwas consideredto havecontentvalidity, since it directlymeasuredthe skillstaught
in the course.
Procedures
Over the durationof a 16-weeksemester,participantsweretaughtthe principlesof learning
and instructionaldesign using a combination
of large group lectures and small group discussions. Eachweek, a 50-minute,largegroup
lecturewas presentedby the instructorto provide participantswith informationand concepts directlyrelatedto the courseobjectives.
For example, during the week that participants learnedabout the elements of effective
instruction,theyall attendeda largegrouplecture. During this lecture, the instructorused
a set of lecturenotes to providedetailedinformationand exampleson each of the elements
of effectiveinstruction.Overheadtransparencies were used during the lecture to summarize key points.
In additionto the lectures,discussiongroup
activities were designed to provide practice
and feedback directly related to the course
objectives.Eachweek, participantsattended
one of several 50-minute discussion groups
that were led by a teaching assistant. During
the week that participantslearned about the
elements of effective instruction, they were
providedwith practiceand feedbackon how
to incorporatethe elementsinto a lesson plan.
Participantsalso were required to complete
assignedreadingsand practiceexercisesin the
textbooksas homework.
RESULTS
ofthe Essentials
of Learning
Attainment
Acquisitionof knowledgeand skillsrelatedthe
essentials of learningwas measured using a
15-itemmultiple-choicetest. The overallmean
forthe essentialsof learningtest was 12.4(SD
= 1.82). Resultsindicate that 100 out of 105
participantsattainedan overallscoreof at least
70%.Approximatelya thirdof the participants
attained90-100%of the knowledgeand skills
relatedto the essentials of learning.The overall level of performanceattainedby the participants on the essentials of learning test is
shown in Table1.
Attainmentof Competency-Based
Instruction
Skills
Attainmentof competency-basedinstruction
skills was measuredusing a 25-itemmultiplechoice test. The overallmean for the competency-based instruction test was 19.81 (SD
= 3.01). Thelevel of performanceattainedby
the participants on the competency-based
instruction test is shown in Table 2. These
resultsindicatethat 90 out of 105participants
scored70%orbetteron the competency-based
instructionskillstest.
TABLE
1 1 Levelof Performanceon Essentials
of LearningTest
2 O Levelof Performanceon
TABLE
Test
Competency-basedInstruction
L~evel
of
Performance
90-100%
80-89%
Levelof
Performance
90-100%
80-89%
70-79%
60-69%
0-59%
70-79%
60-69%
0-59%
Numberof
Participants
33
40
27
3
2
Number
of
Participants
18
45
27
11
4
Vol.39,No.3
ETR&D,
88
LessonPlanningPerformance
In addition to the two tests, the participants
were requiredto plana lesson using the esseninstructialsof learningand competency-based
tion. Performance on the lesson plan was
assessed using a checklist.The range of possible scores on the lesson plans was 0-50. The
overall mean for the lesson plans was 46.73
(SD = 4.86). Results indicate that 103 out of
105 participantsscored 70% or more of the
possible 50 points on the lesson plan. A large
number of participants(87) scored 90-100%
of the possible 50 points on theirlesson plan.
The overalllevel of performanceattained by
the participantson the lesson plan is shown
in Table3.
CorrelationAnalysis
In addition to determiningthe success of par
ticipantsin attainingand applying principles
of learning and instructionaldesign, a correlation analysiswas conductedto examine the
relationshipamong the essentialsof learning,
competency-based instruction, and lesson
plan performance.Whileall of the correlations
were statisticallysignificantat the .01 level,
all were of moderatestrength(see Table4).
DISCUSSION
The results of this study indicate that preservice teachers can be successful in acquiring and applying learning and instructional
design skills. Foracquisitionobjectives,95%
of all participantsacquiredthe essentials of
3 O Levelof Performanceon
TABLE
LessonPlan
Levelof
Number
of
Performance
Participants
90-100%
80-89%
70-79%
60-69%
0-59%
87
10
6
0
2
TABLE
4 O CorrelationsforEssentialsof
Learning,Competency-based
and LessonPlanning
Instruction,
Performance
Variable
1
2
-
-
.50*
-
1. Essentials
of
Learning
2. Competency-based
Instruction
3. LessonPlanning
Performance
.30**
.45*
*p< .001
"p< .01.
learningskillsand 85%acquiredcompetencybased instruction skills. In addition, almost
all of the participants(n = 103) scored 70%
or more of the possible 50 points on the lesson plan, with a large number (n = 87) per
formingat 90%or better.
The large number of partcipantswho performed at 70% or better on all three performance measures is not surprising, since the
course was designed using a systems approach. In addition, participantswere provided with objectives and lesson planning
requirementsin writing.Underthese circumstances,one would not expectscoresto be normally distributed.
It is somewhat surprisingthat 87 out of the
105 participantsachieved a 90-100% level of
performance on the lesson plan, while far
fewer achieved this level of performanceon
the essentials of learning test (n = 33) and
the CBItests (n = 18). If performanceon both
tests had been prerequisiteto performanceon
the lesson plan, scores on these measures
would havecorrelatedmorestronglywith one
another. However, the relationshipbetween
test scores and lesson planning performance
was only moderate. Participantsmay have
scored better on the lesson plan than on the
tests because they were allowed to use any
resource while working on this plan (other
than a human consultant),but were required
to complete the tests without the use of
resources.Anotherpossible reasonis that the
lesson planning checklist may have allowed
for a certaindegree of subjectivityin assigning points, while the tests were scored using
89
USEOFID
PRESERVICE
TEACHER
entirely objectivecriteria.The nature of the
checklistmight also explainwhy the relationship between lesson plan performanceand
CBIscores was strongerthan the relationship
between lesson plan performanceand essentials of learning scores. Of the possible total
of 50 pointson the lesson plan, approximately
70%was relatedto CBIskills and 30%to the
essentials of learning.
The resultsof this study should be encouraging to instructionaltechnologistsconcerned
with improving education through teacher
training.Whileexperiencedteachersuse systematic models only informally,they report
thatsystematicplanningmodels areuseful for
student teachers or inexperienced teachers
(Neale et al., 1983). Overall, most of the
preserviceteachersin the currentstudy were
highly successful in acquiringand applying
designskills,regardlearningand instructional
less of theirareaof teachingspecialization.This
suggests that teacherswith differentsubject
matter and grade level concentrations can
learn and apply instructionaldesign models.
Furtherresearchis required to determine if
and how preserviceteacherswho are trained
to use systematicplanningmodels will implement these models in theirclassrooms. O
REFERENCES
P.(1991,April).
Blumenfeld,
P.,Young,D., &Pokay,
as a vehiclebfor
teaching
psychology
Usingeducational
andproblems.
instructional
planning:Promises
Paper
presentedat the annualmeetingof the American EducationalResearchAssociation,Chicago.
Branson, R. K. (1987). Why the schools can't
improve:The upper limit hypothesis. Journalof
Instructional
10(4),15-26.
Development,
Cain, B. N. (1989).With world making, planning
models matter.EnglishEducation,
21, 5-29.
Clark, C. M., & Yinger,R. J. (1979). Researchon
teacherplanning:A progressreport.Journal
ofCurriculumStudies,11(2),175-177.
Dick, W., & Reiser,R. A. (1989). Planningeffective
instructional
Paperpresentedat the meetprognmms.
forEducational
Commuing of the Association
nicationsandTechnology,
Anaheim,CA.
Higgins,N., &Sullivan,H. (1982).Preparing
speinstruccialeducationteachersforobjectives-based
tion. Teacher
Education
andSpecialEducation,
5(4),
51-55.
Kerr,S. T.(1981).Howteachersdesigntheirmatedesign.Instrucrials:Implications
forinstructional
tionalScience,10, 363-378.
Kerr,S. T. (1989).Technology,
teachers,and the
search for school reform.Educational
Technology
andDevelopment,
Research
37(4),5-17.
Macdonald,J. B. (1965).Myths aboutinstruction.
Educational
Leadership,
22(8),609-617.
Martin,B. L. (1990).Talkabout teaching:Instructional systems design within teachereducation.
Educational
30(7),32-33, 56.
Technology,
Neale, D. C., Pace,A. J., &Case,A. B. (1983,April).
Theinfluenceof training,experience,
andorganizationalenvironment
on teachers'
useof thesystematic
planningmodel.Paperpresentedat the annual
meeting of the AmericanEducationalResearch
Association,Montreal.
Reiser,R. A. (1986).Somequestionsfacingacademic
programsin instructionaltechnologyand some
means foransweringthem. Journal
of Instructional
8(3),20-23.
Development,
Reiser,R. A., & Higgins, N. C. (1975,April).Competencybasedinstruction.Paperpresented at the
meetingof the AssociationforEducationalCommunicationsand Technology,Dallas,TX.
Rosales-Dordelly,C., & Short, E. (1985). Curriculumprofessors'
StateCollege,
specialized
knowledge.
PA:NittanyPress.
S. S., &Gansneder,
B.M. (1987).GradSchiffman,
uate programsin instructionaltechnology:Their
andinvolvement
characteristics
in publiceducation. Journalof Instructional
Development,10(3),
22-28.
Shrock,S. A., & Byrd,D. M. (1987).An instructional
developmentlookat staffdevelopmentin the public schools. Journalof Instructional
Development,
10(4),45-53.
G. E.(1987).Instructional
Snelbecker,
designskills
forclassroomteachers.Journal
Develoflnstructional
opment,10(4),33-40.
Sullivan,H., & Higgins, N. (1983).Teaching
forcom-
NewYork:
Teachers
petence.
CollegePress.
Taylor,P. (1970). How teachersplan theircourses.
London: National Foundation for Educational
Research.
instruction.
and
Cliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Tyler,R. W. (1949).Basicprinciples
Englewood
ofcurriculum
instruction.
of
Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Gagne,R.M., &Driscoll,M. P.(1988).Essentials
instruction
(2nded). EnglewoodCliffs,
Yinger,R. J. (1980).A study of teacherplanning.
learning
fobr
SchoolJournal,80, 107-127.
NJ:PrenticeHall.
Elementary
Zahorik,J. A. (1975).Teachers'planning models.
Higgins, N., Reiser, R. A., & Bebeau, M. (1976,
todevelop
Educational
teachers
March).Teaching
33(3),134-139.
Leadership,
competency-based