Ioon negret-dobridor

TEORII

ale INSTRUIRII

-documentar ptr. studenii facultilor din

Universitatea din Bucureti

CLARIFICRI I DISTINCII CONCEPTUALE

1

 INSTRUCTIONAL THEORY is a discipline that focuses on how to structure

material for promoting the education of human beings, particularly youth. Originating in the
United States in the late 1970s, instructional theory is typically divided into two categories:
the cognitive and behaviorist schools of thought. Instructional theory was spawned off the
1956 work of Benjamin Bloom, a University of Chicago professor, and the results of his
Taxonomy of Education Objectives one of the first modern codifications of the learning
process. One of the first instructional theorists was Robert M. Gagne, who in 1965 published
Conditions of Learning for the Florida State University's Department of Educational
Research.
Renowned psychologist B. F. Skinner's theories of behavior were highly influential on
instructional theorists because their hypotheses can be tested fairly easily with the scientific
process. It is more difficult to demonstrate cognitive learning results. Paulo Freire's Pedagogy
of the Oppressed had a broad influence over a generation of American educators with his
critique of various "banking" models of education and analysis of the teacher-student
relationship.[citation needed]
In the context of e-learning, a major discussion in instructional theory is the potential of
learning objects to structure and deliver content. [citation needed] A stand-alone educational
animation is an example of a learning object that can be re-used as the basis for different
learning experiences. There are currently many groups trying to set standards for the
development and implementation of learning objects. At the forefront of the standards groups
is the Department of Defense's Advanced Distributed Learning initiative with its SCORM
standards.[citation needed] SCORM stands for Shareable Content Object Reference Model.
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN (also called Instructional Systems Design (ISD))
is the practice of maximizing the effectiveness, efficiency and appeal of instruction and other
learning experiences. The process consists broadly of determining the current state and needs
of the learner, defining the end goal of instruction, and creating some "intervention" to assist in
the transition. Ideally the process is informed by pedagogically and andragogically (adult
learning) tested theories of learning and may take place in student-only, teacher-led or
community-based settings. The outcome of this instruction may be directly observable and
scientifically measured or completely hidden and assumed. There are many instructional
design models but many are based on the ADDIE model with the phases analysis, design,
development, implementation, and evaluation. As a field, instructional design is historically
and traditionally rooted in cognitive and behavioral psychology.

History
Much of the foundation of the field of instructional design was laid in World War II, when the
U.S. military faced the need to rapidly train large numbers of people to perform complex
technical tasks, from field-stripping a carbine to navigating across the ocean to building a
bomber see "Training Within Industry (TWI)". Drawing on the research and theories of B.F.
Skinner on operant conditioning, training programs focused on observable behaviors. Tasks
were broken down into subtasks, and each subtask treated as a separate learning goal.
Training was designed to reward correct performance and remediate incorrect performance.
Mastery was assumed to be possible for every learner, given enough repetition and feedback.
After the war, the success of the wartime training model was replicated in business and
industrial training, and to a lesser extent in the primary and secondary classroom. The
approach is still common in the U.S. military.[1]
2

In 1956, a committee lead by Benjamin Bloom published an influential taxonomy of what he

termed the three domains of learning: Cognitive (what one knows or thinks), Psychomotor
(what one does, physically) and Affective (what one feels, or what attitudes one has). These
taxonomies still influence the design of instruction.[2]
During the latter half of the 20th century, learning theories began to be influenced by the
growth of digital computers.
In the 1970s, many instructional design theorists began to adopt an information-processingbased approach to the design of instruction. David Merrill for instance developed Component
Display Theory (CDT), which concentrates on the means of presenting instructional materials
(presentation techniques).[3]
Later in the 1980s and throughout the 1990s cognitive load theory began to find empirical
support for a variety of presentation techniques.[4]
In education, INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY is "the theory and practice
of design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation of processes and resources
for learning," according to the Association for Educational Communications and Technology
(AECT) Definitions and Terminology Committee. [1] Instructional technology is often referred
to as a part of educational technology. While instructional technology covers the processes and
systems of learning and instruction, educational technology includes other systems used in the
process of developing human capability.

History
The first use of instructional technology cannot be attributed to a specific person or time.
Many histories of instructional technology start in the early 1900s, while others go back to the
1600s. This depends on the definition of instructional technology. Definitions that focus on a
systems approach tend to reach further back in history, while those definitions focused on
sensory devices are more recent.
The use of audio and visual instruction was boosted as a military response to the problems of
a labor shortage during WWII in the United States. There was a definitive need to fill the
factories with skilled labor. Instructional technology provided a methodology for training in a
systematic and efficient manner.
With it came the use of highly structured manuals, instructional films, and standardized tests.
Thomas Edison saw the value of instructional technology in films but did not formalize the
science of instruction as the US military did so well.

Current status
Instructional technology is a growing field of study which uses technology as a means to
solve educational challenges, both in the classroom and in distance learning environments.
While instructional technology promises solutions to many educational problems, resistance
from faculty and administrators to the use of technology in the classroom is not unusual. This
reaction can arise from the belief - or fear - that the ultimate aim of instructional technology is
to reduce or even remove the human element of instruction. However, most instructional
3

technologists would counter that education will always require human intervention from
instructors or facilitators.
Many graduate programs are producing instructional designers, who increasingly are being
employed by industry and universities to create materials for distance education programs.
These professionals often employ e-learning tools, which provide distance learners the
opportunity to interact with instructors and experts in the field, even if they are not located
physically close to each other.
More recently a new form of Instructional technology known as Human Performance
Technology has evolved. HPT focuses on performance problems and deals primarily with
corporate entities.

Relation to learning theory

The purpose of instructional technology, of course, is the promotion of learning. Learning
theory (education) has influenced Instructional design and Instructional designers (the
practitioners of Instructional Technology). Instructional Technologies promote
communication and interactivity. These two come together under the general heading of
Interaction.
Moore (1989) argues that there are three types of learner interaction (learner-content, learnerinstructor, and learner-learner interactions). In the years since Moore's article, several
philosophical views have surfaced that relate Instructional technology to these types of
interaction.
Most traditional researchers (those subscribing to Cognitivism) argue that learner-content
interaction is perhaps the most important endeavor of Instructional technology. Some
researchers (those subscribing to constructivism) argue that Moore's social interactions,
(learner-instructor and learner-learner interactions), are as useful as learner-content
interaction.

Areas
Razavi (2005) advocates that educational technology covers instructional technology. It
includes instructional technology and the field study in human teaching and learning. So
educational technology is broader than instructional technology. Instructional technology
itself is consisted from two major parts. One is teaching technology and another is learning
technology. In the education industry, the term "instructional technology" is frequently used
interchangeably with "educational technology."
Human Performance Technology (HPT) has a focus on corporate environments. Learning
sciences are a growing area of focus dealing instructional techniques and learning theories
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY (also called learning technology) is the
study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating,
using and managing appropriate technological processes and resources." [1] The term
educational technology is often associated with, and encompasses, instructional theory and
learning theory. While instructional technology covers the processes and systems of learning

and instruction, educational technology includes other systems used in the process of
developing human capability. Educational Technology includes, but is not limited to, software,
hardware, as well as Internet applications and activities.

Explanation and meaning

Educational technology is most simply and comfortably defined as an array of tools that
might prove helpful in advancing student learning. Educational Technology relies on a broad
definition of the word "technology". Technology can refer to material objects of use to
humanity, such as machines or hardware, but it can also encompass broader themes, including
systems, methods of organization, and techniques. Some modern tools include but are not
limited to overhead projectors, laptop computers, and calculators. Newer tools such as
"smartphones" and games (both online and offline) are beginning to draw serious attention for
their learning potential.
Those who employ educational technologies to explore ideas and communicate meaning are
learners or teachers.
Consider the Handbook of Human Performance Technology.[2] The word technology for the
sister fields of Educational and Human Performance Technology means "applied science." In
other words, any valid and reliable process or procedure that is derived from basic research
using the "scientific method" is considered a "technology." Educational or Human
Performance Technology may be based purely on algorithmic or heuristic processes, but
neither necessarily implies physical technology. The word technology, comes from the Greek
"Techne" which means craft or art. Another word "technique", with the same origin, also may
be used when considering the field Educational technology. So Educational technology may
be extended to include the techniques of the educator.[citation needed]
A classic example of an Educational Psychology text is Bloom's 1956 book, Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives.[3] Bloom's taxonomy is helpful when designing learning activities to
keep in mind what is expected ofand what are the learning goals forlearners. However,
Bloom's work does not explicitly deal with educational technology per se and is more
concerned with pedagogical strategies.
According to some, an Educational Technologist is someone who transforms basic
educational and psychological research into an evidence-based applied science (or a
technology) of learning or instruction. Educational Technologists typically have a graduate
degree (Master's, Doctorate, Ph.D., or D.Phil.) in a field related to educational psychology,
educational media, experimental psychology, cognitive psychology or, more purely, in the
fields of Educational, Instructional or Human Performance Technology or Instructional
(Systems) Design. But few of those listed below as theorists would ever use the term
"educational technologist" as a term to describe themselves, preferring terms like "educator".
[citation needed]
The transformation of educational technology from a cottage industry to a
profession is discussed by Shurville, Browne, and Whitaker.[4]

History
Theories and practices

Three main theoretical schools or philosophical frameworks have been present in the
educational technology literature. These are Behaviorism, Cognitivism and Constructivism.
Each of these schools of thought are still present in today's literature but have evolved as the
Psychology literature has evolved.
Behaviorism
This theoretical framework was developed in the early 20th century with the animal learning
experiments of Ivan Pavlov, Edward Thorndike, Edward C. Tolman, Clark L. Hull, B.F.
Skinner and many others. Many psychologists used these theories to describe and experiment
with human learning. While still very useful this philosophy of learning has lost favor with
many educators.
Skinner's Contributions
B.F. Skinner wrote extensively on improvements of teaching based on his functional analysis
of Verbal Behavior,[5] and wrote "The Technology of Teaching",[6] an attempt to dispel the
myths underlying contemporary education, as well as promote his system he called
programmed instruction. Ogden Lindsley also developed the Celeration learning system
similarly based on behavior analysis but quite different from Keller's and Skinner's models.
Cognitivism
Cognitive science has changed how educators view learning. Since the very early beginning
of the Cognitive Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, learning theory has undergone a great
deal of change. Much of the empirical framework of Behaviorism was retained even though a
new paradigm had begun. Cognitive theories look beyond behavior to explain brain-based
learning. Cognitivists consider how human memory works to promote learning.
After memory theories like the Atkinson-Shiffrin memory model and Baddeley's Working
memory model were established as a theoretical framework in Cognitive Psychology, new
cognitive frameworks of learning began to emerge during the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. It is
important to note that Computer Science and Information Technology have had a major
influence on Cognitive Science theory. The Cognitive concepts of working memory (formerly
known as short term memory) and long term memory have been facilitated by research and
technology from the field of Computer Science. Another major influence on the field of
Cognitive Science is Noam Chomsky. Today researchers are concentrating on topics like
Cognitive load and Information Processing Theory.
Constructivism
Constructivism is a learning theory or educational philosophy that many educators began to
consider in the 1990s. One of the primary tenets of this philosophy is that learners construct
their own meaning from new information, as they interact with reality or others with different
perspectives.
Constructivist learning environments require students to utilize their prior knowledge and
experiences to formulate new, related, and/or adaptive concepts in learning. Under this
framework the role of the teacher becomes that of a facilitator, providing guidance so that
6

learners can construct their own knowledge. Constructivist educators must make sure that the
prior learning experiences are appropriate and related to the concepts being taught. Jonassen
(1997) suggests "well-structured" learning environments are useful for novice learners and
that "ill-structured" environments are only useful for more advanced learners. Educators
utilizing technology when teaching with a constructivist perspective should choose
technologies that reinforce prior learning perhaps in a problem-solving environment.
Connectivism
Connectivism is "a learning theory for the digital age," and has been developed by George
Siemens and Stephen Downes based on their analysis of the limitations of behaviourism,
cognitivism and constructivism to explain the effect technology has had on how we live, how
we communicate, and how we learn. Donald G. Perrin, Executive Editor of the International
Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning says the theory "combines relevant
elements of many learning theories, social structures, and technology to create a powerful
theoretical construct for learning in the digital age."
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNIQUE AND TECHNOLOGIES Problem
Based Learning and Inquiry-based learning are active learning educational technologies
used to facilitate learning. Technology which includes physical and process applied science
can be incorporated into project, problem, inquiry-based learning as they all have a similar
educational philosophy. All three are student centered, ideally involving real-world scenarios
in which students are actively engaged in critical thinking activities. The process that students
are encouraged to employ (as long as it is based on empirical research) is considered to be a
technology. Classic examples of technologies used by teachers and Educational Technologists
include Bloom's Taxonomy and Instructional Design

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS

1. ADDIE model
Perhaps the most common model used for creating instructional materials is the ADDIE
Model. This acronym stands for the 5 phases contained in the model:

Analyze - analyze learner characteristics, task to be learned, etc.

Design - develop learning objectives, choose an instructional approach

Develop - create instructional or training materials

Implement - deliver or distribute the instructional materials

Evaluate - make sure the materials achieved the desired goals

Most of the current instructional design models are variations of the ADDIE model. [17]

2. Rapid prototyping
7

A sometimes utilized adaptation to the ADDIE model is in a practice known as rapid

prototyping.
However, rapid prototyping is considered a somewhat simplistic type of model. At the heart of
Instructional Design is the analysis phase. After you thoroughly conduct the analysisyou
can then choose a model based on your findings. That is the area where most people get
snaggedthey simply do not do a thorough enough analysis. (Part of Article By Chris Bressi
on LinkedIn)
Proponents suggest that through an iterative process the verification of the design documents
saves time and money by catching problems while they are still easy to fix. This approach is
not novel to the design of instruction, but appears in many design-related domains including
software design, architecture, transportation planning, product development, message design,
user experience design, etc.[18] [19] [20]

2. Dick and Carey

Another well-known instructional design model is The Dick and Carey Systems Approach
Model[21] . The model was originally published in 1978 by Walter Dick and Lou Carey in their
book entitled The Systematic Design of Instruction.
Dick and Carey made a significant contribution to the instructional design field by
championing a systems view of instruction as opposed to viewing instruction as a sum of
isolated parts. The model addresses instruction as an entire system, focusing on the
interrelationship between context, content, learning and instruction. According to Dick and
Carey, "Components such as the instructor, learners, materials, instructional activities,
delivery system, and learning and performance environments interact with each other and
work together to bring about the desired student learning outcomes"[21]. The components of
the Systems Approach Model, also known as the Dick and Carey Model, are as follows.

Identify Instructional Goal(s)

Conduct Instructional Analysis

Analyze Learners and Contexts

Write Performance Objectives

Develop Assessment Instruments

Develop Instructional Strategy

Develop and Select Instructional Materials

Design and Conduct Formative Evaluation of Instruction

Revise Instruction

Design and Conduct Summative Evaluation

With this model, components are executed iteratively and in parallel rather than linearly[21].

4. Instructional Development Learning System (IDLS)

Another instructional design model is the Instructional Development Learning System
(IDLS)[22] . The model was originally published in 1970 by Peter J. Esseff, Ph.D. and Mary
Sullivan Esseff, Ph.D. in their book entitled IDLSPro Trainer 1: How to Design, Develop,
and Validate Instructional Materials][23].
Peter (1968) & Mary (1972) Esseff both received their doctorates in Educational Technology
from the Catholic University of America under the mentorship of Dr. Gabriel Ofiesh, a
Founding Father of the Military Model mentioned above. Esseff and Esseff contributed
synthesized existing theories to develop their approach to systematic design, "Instructional
Development Learning System" (IDLS).
The components of the IDLS Model are:

Design a Task Analysis

Develop Criterion Tests and Performance Measures

Develop Interactive Instructional Materials

Validate the Interactive Instructional Materials

Other models
Some other useful models of instructional design include: the Smith/Ragan Model, the
Morrison/Ross/Kemp Model and the OAR model.
Learning theories also play an important role in the design of instructional materials. Theories
such as behaviorism, constructivism, social learning and cognitivism help shape and define
the outcome of instructional materials.

ADDIE MODEL
The ADDIE model is the generic process traditionally used by instructional designers and
training developers. The five phasesAnalysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and
Evaluationrepresent a dynamic, flexible guideline for building effective training and
performance support tools.
It is an Instructional Systems Design (ISD) model. Most of the current instructional design
models are spin-offs or variations of the ADDIE model; other models include the Dick &
Carey and Kemp ISD models. One commonly accepted improvement to this model is the use
of rapid prototyping. This is the idea of receiving continual or formative feedback while
instructional materials are being created. This model attempts to save time and money by
catching problems while they are still easy to fix. For example, the ADDIE model was used in
the framework for helping create new research topics in learning technology (Liu, 2008).
Instructional theories also play an important role in the design of instructional materials.
Theories such as behaviorism, constructivism, social learning and cognitivism help shape and
define the outcome of instructional materials.
9

Step Process
In the ADDIE concept, each step has an outcome that bleeds into the subsequent step.
Analysis > Design > Development > Implementation > Evaluation

Analysis Phase
In the analysis phase, the instructional problem is clarified, the instructional goals and
objectives are established and the learning environment and learner's existing knowledge and
skills are identified. Below are some of the questions that are addressed during the analysis
phase:

Who are the learners and what are their characteristics?

What is the new behavioral outcome?

What types of learning constraints exist?

What are the delivery options?

What are the online pedagogical considerations?

What are the Adult Learning Theory considerations?

What is the timeline for project completion?

Design Phase
The design phase deals with learning objectives, assessment instruments, exercises, content,
subject matter analysis, lesson planning and media selection. The design phase should be
systematic and specific. Systematic means a logical, orderly method of identifying,
developing and evaluating a set of planned strategies targeted for attaining the project's goals.
Specific means each element of the instructional design plan needs to be executed with
attention to details.
These are steps involved in design phase:

Document the project's instructional, visual and technical design strategy

Apply instructional strategies according to the intended behavioral
outcomes by domain (cognitive, affective, and psychomotor).

Design the user interface and user experience

Create prototype

Apply visual design (graphic design)

Development Phase
10

The development phase is where instructional designers and developers create and assemble
the content assets that were blueprinted in the design phase. In this phase, storyboards and
graphics are designed. If elearning is involved, programmers develop and/or integrate
technologies. Testers perform debugging procedures. The project is reviewed and revised
according to the feedback received.

Implementation Phase
During the implementation phase, a procedure for training the facilitators and the learners is
developed. The facilitators' training should cover the course curriculum, learning outcomes,
method of delivery, and testing procedures. Preparation of the learners includes training them
on new tools (software or hardware) and student registration.
This is also the phase where the project manager ensures that the books, hands-on equipment,
tools, CD-ROMs and software are in place, and that the learning application or website is
functional.

Evaluation Phase
The evaluation phase consists of two parts: formative and summative. Formative evaluation is
present in each stage of the ADDIE process. Summative evaluation consists of tests designed
for domain specific criterion-related referenced items and providing opportunities for
feedback from the users which were identified

References

Liu, G. Z. (2008). Innovating research topics in learning technology: Where

are the new blue oceans?.British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4),
738-747.

Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance

improvement, 42(5), 34.

Strickland, A.W. (2006). ADDIE. Idaho State University College of Education

Science, Math & Technology Education. Retrieved June 29, 2006.

MASTERY LEARNING
Mastery Learning is an instructional method that presumes all children can learn if they are
provided with the appropriate learning conditions. Specifically, mastery learning is a method
whereby students are not advanced to a subsequent learning objective until they demonstrate
proficiency with the current one.
Mastery learning curricula generally consist of discrete topics which all students begin
together. Students who do not satisfactorily complete a topic are given additional instruction
until they succeed. Students who master the topic early engage in enrichment activities until
the entire class can progress together. Mastery learning includes many elements of successful
tutoring and the independent functionality seen in high-end students. In a mastery learning
11

environment, the teacher directs a variety of group-based instructional techniques, with

frequent and specific feedback by using diagnostic, formative tests, as well as regularly
correcting mistakes students make along their learning path.
Teachers evaluate students with criterion-referenced tests rather than norm-referenced tests.
Mastery learning has nothing to do with content, merely on the process of mastering it, and is
based on Benjamin Bloom's Learning for Mastery model, with refinements made by Block.
Mastery learning may be implemented as teacher-paced group instruction, one-to-one
tutoring, or self-paced learning with programmed materials. It may involve direct teacher
instruction, cooperation with classmates, or independent learning. It requires well-defined
learning objectives organized into smaller, sequentially organized units. Individualized
instruction has some elements in common with mastery learning, although it dispenses with
group activities in favor of allowing more able or more motivated students to progress ahead
of others and maximizing teacher interaction with those students who need the most
assistance.
Most experiments that compared mastery learning to conventional instruction have shown that
mastery learning is more effective. In one meta-analysis (Kulik, Kulik & Bangert-Drowns,
1990), the mean effect size (Cohen's d) of 103 studies was 0.52 standard deviation units,
which is considered a moderately large effect size.

CARROLL'S MODEL OF SCHOOL LEARNING

In 1963, John Carroll proposed a model to account for school learning. His major premise was
that school learning is a function of time. To be more specific, Carroll proposed that
School Learning = f(time spent/time needed).
Carroll defined time spent as a function of (i.e., resulting from or composed of) opportunity
and perseverance. The measure he proposed for opportunity was allocated time or the
amount of time the classroom teacher made available for school learning. The measure Carroll
proposed for perseverance was engagement rate or the percentage of the allocated time that
students were actually on task. Allocated time was multiplied by engagement rate to produce
engaged time or time on task which is defined as the number of minutes per school day that
students were actually engaged in school work.
opportunity, perseverance
---------------------------------------------------------------------------aptitude, ability to understand instruction, quality instruction
Carroll defined time needed as a function of aptitude, ability to understand instruction,
and quality of instruction. By aptitude Carroll meant the ability to learn academic material.
One measure of this variable would be IQ. By ability to understand instruction, Carroll meant
the preparedness of the student for understanding the specific material to be learned. Bloom, a
colleague of Carroll's at the University of Chicago, later proposed a measure of prerequisite
knowledge as the best measure of ability to understand instruction. Carroll proposed a wide
variety of instruction methods and techniques that he believed should be present in quality
instruction. Later research identified a system of instruction labeled "direct instruction" as
12

the best definition of quality instruction when the desired outcome is scores on standardized
tests of basic skills.
Carroll's model was the basis for a number of other attempts to identify and organize the
primary variables associated with school learning. Keeping the concept that educators should
focus on variables under their control, Squires, Huitt, & Segars (1981) proposed that both
classroom- and school-level variables should be addressed. They adopted Carroll's student
behavior variable of "Perseverance" and relabeled it "Involvement." However, they added
Coverage (the overlap of content taught to content tested) and Success (the rate at which
students were successful on assigned academic tasks). Carroll's teacher behavior variable of
"Quality Instruction" was used as a subcategory within classroom processes and the
subcategories of "Planning" and "Management" were added. While planning was not
addressed by Carroll, management incorporates the variable "Opportunity" in that one aspect
of Management is to use all available classroom time for instruction purposes.

A significant addition in the Squires et al. model is the inclusion of school-level processes.
These were classified in three categories: Supervision (direct interaction with teachers to
improve classroom practice), School Climate (developing the ethos of the school), and
Leadership (setting direction and maintaining focus on important issues). These and other
variables were late incorporated in models of school learning developed by Proctor (1984)
and Cruickshank (1985).
Slavin (2006) took a different approach. His QAIT model redefines Carroll's variables in
terms of teacher behavior, thereby focusing on the classroom teacher as the sole influence on
school learning. Q stands for Quality of Instruction and is the same variable proposed by
Carroll. A stands for Appropriate Levels of Instruction and redefines the student characteristic
variables of Aptitude and Ability to Understand Instruction as a teacher behavior variable.
These two variables are incorporated in the Instruction subcategory of the Squires et al.
model. I stands for Incentive and is a redefinition of the student behavior variable of
Perseverance into a teacher behavior variable. T stands for Time and is essentially equivalent

13

to the Carroll variable of Opportunity. These two variables are incorporated in the
Management subcategory in the Squires et al. model.
The model of the teaching/learning process presented in this class is derived from these and
other model's related historically to Carroll's model (McIlrath & Huitt, 1995). While Carroll
proposed very specific variables related to school learning, which have since been equated
with scores on standardized tests of basic skills, the systems or transactional model presented
at this site focuses on categories of variables with the expectation that the selection of
important outcome variables or what is meant by "school learning" will dramatically
impact the selection of important context, input, and process variables. For example, if
student optimism or social skills were selected as the most important outcome measures, the
context, input, and output variables that would predict changes in these "school learning"
variables would likely be different than those that would predict changes in scores on a
standardized test of basic skills achievement. In addition, to omitting important variables
related to teacher characteristics and classroom planning, there were important context
variables that were not considered in Carroll's model. One reason Carroll omitted these
variables was his intention to focus on those variables most directly related to school learning;
the inclusion of family and community variables were considered by him to be "indirectly"
related to school achievement. However, the changes in the global economy of the last 30
years and the need to focus on additional outcome measures beyond achievement in basic
skills, point to the need to broaden the scope of important variables.

Using Carroll's terminology, according to my model of the teaching/learning process

Learning (Output) = f(Context, Input and Process).
14

Output includes the specific measurement or measurements of learning (e.g., student

achievement, social skills, cognitive development, etc.). Context includes the environmental
or situational factors such as home environment and changing global conditions that influence
the definition and measurement of important educational outcomes as well as levels of
important input and process variables. Input includes the characteristics of teachers and
students that they bring to the teaching/learning process. Process includes the thinking,
feelings, commitments, and actions of teachers and students within the classroom or learning
situation as well as the interaction patterns and descriptions of the learning environment that
result from those interactions.
Academic Learning Time
Academic Learning Time (ALT) is the variable that has replaced "time spent" or "engaged
time" identified in Carroll's (1963) model. It is defined as "the amount of time students are
successfully covering content that will be tested." ALT is a combination of three separate
variables: content overlap, involvement, and success. Content overlap is defined as "the
percentage of the content covered on the test actually covered by students in the classroom"
(Brady et al., 1977; Cooley & Leinhart, 1980) and is sometimes referred to as Time-onTarget (Squires, Huitt & Segars, 1983). Involvement is the "amount of time students are
actively involved in the learning process" and is often referred to as Time-on-Task (Stallings
& Kaskowitz, 1974). Success is defined as the "extent to which students accurately complete
the assignments they have been given" (Fisher et al., 1978). A high level of Academic
Learning Time means that 1) students are covering important (tested/evaluated) content; 2)
students are "on-task" most of the class period; and 3) students are successful on most the
assignments they complete.
Research has demonstrated that ALT is the most appropriate time variable on which to focus
(e.g., Berliner, 1978). While changes in ALT are most directly impacted by the teacher's
classroom performance in terms of planning, management, and instruction, it is ultimately the
result of many decisions about how time is spent in schools and classrooms, as depicted in the
graph below. Small increases in a number of these factors can lead to large increases in ALT.

15

References

Berliner, D. (1978). Changing Academic Learning Time: Clinical interventions in four

classrooms. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and
Development.
Brady, M., Clinton, D., Sweeney, J. Peterson, M., & Poynor, H. (1977). Instructional
dimensions study. Washington, DC: Kirschner Associates, Inc.

Carroll, J. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.

Cooley, W. W., & Leinhardt, G. (1980). The instructional dimensions study.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2, 7-26.

Cruickshank, D. (1985). Profile of an effective teacher. Educational Horizons, 90-92.

Fisher, C., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., Dishaw, M., Moore, J., and Berliner, D.
(1978). Teaching behaviors: Academic Learning Time and student achievement: Final
report of Phase III-B, Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study. San Francisco: Far West
Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.

McIlrath, D., & Huitt, W. (1995). The teaching/learning process: A discussion of

models. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retruieve May 1996 from
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/files/modeltch.html

Proctor, C. (1984). Teacher expectations: A model for school improvement. The

Elementary School Journal, 469-481.

Slavin, R. (2006). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (8th ed.) [277-279].
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. (First edition published in 1986).
16

Squires, D., Huitt, W., & Segars, J. (1981). Improving classrooms and schools: What's
important. Educational Leadership, 39(3), 174-179. Retrieved September 2006, from
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/papers/squires_etal.pdf

Squires, D., Huitt, W., & Segars, J. (1983). Effective schools and classrooms: A
research-based perspective. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development. [See Chapter 1:
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/papers/squires_etal1.pdf]

Stallings, J., & Kaskowitz, D. (1974). Follow Through classroom observation

evaluation, 1972-1973. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute.

THE TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESS: A

DISCUSSION OF MODELS
Deborah A. McIlrath and William G. Huitt
Citation: McIlrath, D., & Huitt, W. (1995, December). The teaching-learning process: A
discussion of models. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State
University. Retrieved [date], from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/papers/modeltch.html

Many researchers have tried to put together classroom- or school-based models that describe
the teaching-learning process. A model is a visual aid or picture which highlights the main
ideas and variables in a process or a system. The models presented in this paper include
words or diagrams intended to give an understanding of the variables associated with school
learning, especially as measured by scores on standardized tests of basic skills. The main
models discussed and compared are by Carroll (1963), Proctor (1984), Cruickshank (1985),
Gage and Berliner (1992) and Huitt (1995).
The major question addressed in educational psychology is, "Why do some students learn
more than other students?" Unfortunately, the possible answers to this question are enormous.
Oftentimes research findings and theories of teaching and learning seem to contradict one
another. What is an educator to do?
In this paper we will explore several models of teaching and learning. Gage & Berliner (1992)
state that the use of models as learning aides have two primary benefits. First, models provide
"accurate and useful representations of knowledge that is needed when solving problems in
some particular domain" (p. 314). Second, a model makes the process of understanding a
domain of knowledge easier because it is a visual expression of the topic. Gage and Berliner
found that students who study models before a lecture may recall as much as 57% more on
questions concerning conceptual information than students who receive instruction without
the advantage of seeing and discussing models. Alesandrini (1981) came to similar
conclusions when he studied different pictorial-verbal strategies for learning:
Research on the effectiveness of pictorial learning strategies indicates that learning is
improved when pictures supplement verbal materials, when learners draw their own pictures
while studying, and when learners are asked to generate mental pictures while reading or
17

studying...the factor of sex was also included in the analysis due to its observed (although
unexpected) effect (pp. 358, 363).
Interestingly, the females in this study had a tendency to benefit more than males if they
related the specifics of their pictures to the whole concept.
Models have been used extensively in educational psychology to help clarify some of the
answers researchers have found that might shed light on such questions as, "How do students
learn effectively?" Or, "What is happening in this classroom that facilitates learning better
than in another classroom?"
1. John Carroll's Model
Most current models that categorize the variables or explanations of the many influences on
educational processes today stem from Carroll's (1963) seminal article defining the major
variables related to school learning. Carroll specialized in language and learning, relating
words and their meanings to the cognitive concepts and constructs which they create
(Klausmeier & Goodwin, 1971). In his model, Carroll states that time is the most important
variable to school learning. A simple equation for Carroll's model is:
School Learning = f(time spent/time needed).
Carroll explains that time spent is the result of opportunity and perseverance. Opportunity
in Carroll's model is determined by the classroom teacher; the specific measure is called
allotted or allocated time (i.e., time allocated for learning by classroom teachers.)
Perseverance is the student's involvement with academic content during that allocated time.
Carroll proposed that perseverance be measured as the percentage of the allocated time that
students are actually involved in the learning process and was labeled engagement rate.
Allocated time multiplied by engagement rate produced the variable Carroll proposed as a
measure of time spent, which came to be called engaged time or time-on-task.
Carroll (1963) proposed that the time needed by students to learn academic content is
contingent upon aptitude (the most often used measure is IQ), ability to understand the
instruction presented (the extent to which they possessed prerequisite knowledge), and the
quality of instruction students receive in the process of learning. Carroll proposed that these
specific teacher and student behaviors and student characteristics where the only variables
needed to predict school learning; he did not include the influences of family, community,
society and the world that other authors discussed below have included.
The principles of this model can be seen in Bloom's (1976) Mastery Learning model. Bloom,
a colleague of Carroll's, observed that in traditional schooling a student's aptitude for learning
academic material (IQ) is one of the best predictor's of school achievement. His research
demonstrated that if time is not held constant for all learners (as it is in traditional schooling)
then a student's mastery of the prerequisite skills, rather than aptitude, is a better predictor of
school learning. Mastery Learning's basic principle is that almost all students can earn A's if
1) students are given enough time to learn normal information taught in school, and
2) students are provided quality instruction.
By quality instruction Bloom meant that teachers should:
18

(1) organize subject matter into manageable learning units,

(2) develop specific learning objectives for each unit,
(3) develop appropriate formative and summative assessment measures, and
(4) plan and implement group teaching strategies, with sufficient time allocations, practice
opportunities, and corrective reinstruction for all students to reach the desired level of
mastery.
2. Proctor's Model
Prior to the sixties the research on important school- and classroom-related variables was
directed toward the best traits or characteristics of teachers in an attempt to identify good
teaching and the important characteristics of schools and communities that support good
teaching. Proctor (1984) provides a model that updates this view by including important
teacher and student behaviors as predictors of student achievement. It is derived from other
teacher- and classroom-based models but is redesigned to emphasize teacher expectations.
Proctor states that it is possible for a self-fulfilling prophesy (as researched by Rosenthal &
Jacobson, 1968) to be an institutional phenomenon and the climate of a school can have an
effect on the achievement of its learners. The attitudes, the norms, and the values of an
educational faculty and staff can make a difference in achievement test scores. The paradigm
most influencing Proctor's model is that of a social nature and not of a teacher/student one-onone relationship. The other models include the variables that provide the focus for this model,
but show these variables in a more subordinate manner.

Proctor's (1984) model begins with the factor of the School's Social Climate. Some of the
variables included in this would be attitudes, norms, beliefs, and prejudices. This school
climate is influenced by a number of factors, including such student characteristics as race,
gender, economic level, and past academic performance.
The student characteristics also influence teacher attitudes and teacher efficacy. More
recent studies support Proctor's (1984) position that student self-image and behavior are
affected by teacher efficacy (e.g., Ashton, 1984; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990).
The next category of variables is the interaction among the individuals involved in the
schooling process. This includes the input of administrators as well as that of teachers and
students. If expectations of learning are high (i.e., the school has good, qualified teachers and
students who can learn) and there is high quality instructional input, corrective feedback, and
good communication among students, parents, and educators, then the intermediate outcomes
of student learning and student self-expectation goes up. On the other hand, adverse or
negative attitudes on the part of instructors and administrators will cause student self-esteem,
and consequently, student achievement to spiral downwards.

19

The interactions in Proctor's (1984) model include the school's overall policy on allowing
time for children to learn or promoting other forms of student-based help when needed. This
could include quality of instruction (as in Carroll's (1963) model above) or teacher
classroom behaviors (as in Cruickshank's (1985) model below). These behaviors have an
effect on student classroom performance (especially academic learning time and curriculum
coverage) and self-expectations .
Finally, the student's achievement level in Proctor's (1984) model is an outcome of all
previous factors and variables. It is hypothesized that there is a cyclical relationship among
the variables. In Proctor's model, the main concept is that achievement in a specific classroom
during a particular school year is not an end in itself. It is refiltered into the social climate of
the school image and the entire process begins all over again. Proctor's model implies that
change can be made at any point along the way. These changes will affect school
achievement, which will continue to affect the social climate of the school.
3. Cruickshank's Model
The model by Cruickshank (1985) is more classroom- and teacher-based; he was heavily
influenced by models created by Mitzel, Biddle, and Flanders. Mitzel contributed the concept
of classifying variables as "product, process, or presage" (Cruickshank, p. 17). Product is
learning on the part of the student (change in behavior or behavior potential) while process
involves interaction between student and teacher. Presage is the teacher's intelligence, level of
experience, success and other teacher characteristics. Presage is supposed to affect process
and then, of course, process will affect the product.

Biddle (as cited in Biddle & Ellena, 1964) showed a relationship between specific learning
activities and teacher effects. In his model, Biddle offers seven categories of variables related
to schooling and student achievement: school and community contents, formative
experiences, classroom situations, teacher properties, teacher behaviors, intermediate effects,
and long-term consequences. This provides the foundation for Cruickshank's (1985) model.

Biddle also contributed a model of the transactional process of the classroom by analyzing the
structure and function of the communication process. This is reflected in Cruickshank's model
through the use of arrows depicting the interaction between teacher and pupil classroom
behavior.
20

Biddle constructed his models to help answer questions he thought parents might ask, such as:
"How often does my child get individual attention from the teacher?" Or, "Does the teacher
really understand Junior's special problem?" (Adams & Biddle, 1970, p. 6). Biddle also
helped define non-cognitive variables which contribute to the affective domain (i.e., selfconcept and self-esteem of the students). An example of these variables would be teacher
genuineness, "teacher-offered conditions of respect...and modification of low self-concept"
(Good, Biddle & Brophy, 1975, p. 195).
Flanders (as cited in Cruickshank, 1985) offered the variables of teacher- and studentclassroom-talk and devised an instrument which focused on this behavior. "His was the most
frequently used instrument. It permitted observation of teachers' use of 'verbal influence,'
defined as 'teacher talk' and 'pupil talk,' in a variety of classroom situations" (Cruickshank, p.
17). Cruickshank put them all together and added additional presage variables such as pupil
characteristics, properties (abilities and attitudes) and school, community and classroom
climate.

4. Gage and Berliner's Model

Gage and Berliner (1992) developed a model of the instructional process that focuses on those
variables that must be considered by the classroom teacher as she designs and delivers
instruction to students. This model attempts to define more precisely what is meant by
"quality instruction" and presents five tasks associated with the instruction/learning process.
The model is classroom- and teacher-based and centers around the question, "What does a
teacher do?"
A teacher begins with objectives and ends with an evaluation. Instruction connects
objectives and evaluations and is based on the teacher's knowledge of the students'
characteristics and how best to motivate them. If the evaluations do not demonstrate that the
desired results have been achieved, the teacher re-teaches the material and starts the process
all over again. Classroom management is subsumed under the rubric of motivating students.
Gage and Berliner suggest that the teacher should use research and principles from
educational psychology to develop proper teaching procedures to obtain optimal results.
21

5. Huitt's Model
The most recently developed model to be discussed (Huitt, 1995) identifies the major
categories of variables that have been related to school achievement. The model is not only
school-, classroom-, teacher-, and student-based, but includes additional contextual influences
as well. Huitt's model attempts to categorize and organize all the variables that might be used
to answer the question, "Why do some students learn more than other students?" This is a
revision of a model by Squires, Huitt and Segars (1983) which focused only on those
variables thought to be under the control of educators. This earlier model focused on schooland classroom-level processes that predicted school learning as measured on standardized
tests of basic skills. One important addition in this model is the redefinition of Academic
Learning Time. It had long been recognized that Carroll's conceptualization of time spent
measured the quantity of time engaged in academics, but was lacking in terms of the quality
of that time. As discussed in Proctor's (1984) model, Fisher and his colleagues (1978) had
added the concept of success as an important component of quality of time spent and coined
the term Academic Learning Time (ALT) which they defined as "engaged in academic
learning at a high success rate." Brady, Clinton, Sweeney, Peterson, & Poynor (1977) added
another quality component--the extent to which content covered in the classroom overlaps to
content tested--which they called content overlap. Squires et al. used the more inclusive
definition of ALT proposed by Caldwell, Huitt & Graeber (1982)--"the amount of time
students are successfully engaged on content that will be tested."

Huitt's (1995) model adds variables related to context and student and teacher
characteristics, some of which were the focus of the models by Proctor (1984) and
Cruickshank (1985). It is an interactive model along the lines of Biddle and Ellena (1964),
Cruickshank, and Laosa (1982).
6. [Laosa Model]
Huitt advocates that important context variables must be considered because our society is
rapidly changing from an agricultural/industrial base to an information base. From this
perspective, children are members of a multi-faceted society, which influences and modifies
the way they process learning as well as defines the important knowledge and skills that must
be acquired to be successful in that society. Huitt's model shows a relationship among the
categories of Context (family, home, school, and community environments), Input (what
students and teachers bring to the classroom process), Classroom Processes (what is going on
in the classroom),and Output (measures of learning done outside of the classroom). These
22

categories appear superimposed in the model since it is proposed they are essentially
intertwined in the learning process.

This model shows Input and Output as the beginning and end of the teaching/learning process.
Huitt (1995) believes that educators must first identify or propose an end result (as stated by
Gage & Berliner, 1992) because how you identify and measure the end product (Output) will
influence the selection of important predictor variables (e.g., What You Measure Is What You
Get, Hummel & Huitt, 1994). Until the outcome objectives are known, nothing else can be
considered. Once outcome measures are selected, educators can begin to focus on those
variables that can explain fluctuation or variability in those measures. Considering or
changing specific goals or objectives may change the predictor variables from each of the
other three categories. Thus, the Output or Outcome category is the most important and the
focus of Huitt's model.
In the United States, the most often cited Output measures are scores on standardized tests
of basic skills such as reading, language arts, and mathematics as well as science and social
studies. Since the United States is ranked 14th out of 15 countries in mathematics knowledge
and 13th in science (Office of Policy and Planning, 1992), we need to take a very close look
at how we can improve achievement on these measures. For example, the federal government
focused on the task of increasing the Output measurements of students when it adopted Goals
2000 (Swanson, 1991).
However, student achievement in basic skills is not the only desired outcome of American
education. The Secretary of Labor presented additional requirements in the report by the
Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS; Whetzel, 1992). The
SCANS report focuses on the skills necessary for students to find work in the information
economy. It addresses two categories of skills: foundations (basic skills, thinking skills and
personal qualities) that provide the platform on which the other skills will be built and
competencies (handling resources, interpersonal skills, informational skills, system skills,
and technology utilization skills) that more closely describe what workers will actually be
doing. [Note: Huitt (1997) provides a critique of the SCAN report that addresses important
outcomes that were omitted.]
The most direct impact on important measures of school learning are those variables related to
Classroom Processes. This category includes two major subcategories (Teacher Behavior
and Student Behavior), and an Other (or miscellaneous) subcategory that includes such
variables as classroom climate and student leadership roles..
The category of Teacher Behavior includes the subcategories of planning (getting ready for
classroom interaction), management (getting the class under control), and instruction
(guiding the learning process). In general, planning activities have little predictable
relationship to student achievement (Gage & Berliner, 1992). Both management and
instructional variables are moderately related to achievement, but the lack of a strong
23

relationship may be due to be a factor of teacher inconsistency (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986).
That is, teachers often change their management and instructional practices based on the time
of day or the characteristics of a particular group of students. Three single variables, teachers
providing corrective feedback (e.g., give an explanation of what is correct or incorrect and
why), teachers' use of reinforcement, and level of student-teacher interaction (a variable
developed from the work of Flanders, as cited in Cruickshank, 1985) seem to be the best
single classroom predictors of student success (Rosenshine & Stevens). Direct or explicit
instruction (Rosenshine, 1995) appears to be the best model of instruction when scores on
standardized tests of basic skills is used as the outcome measure.
Huitt supports Proctor's (1984) position that intermediate outcomes, or more specifically
Academic Learning Time (ALT) is one of the best Classroom Process predictors of student
achievement. As stated above ALT is defined as "the amount of time students are successfully
involved in the learning of content that will be tested." There are three components to ALT
and each is as important as the other. The first is Content Overlap, defined as "the extent to
which the content objectives covered on the standardized test overlaps with the content
objectives covered in the classroom." This variable has also been labeled as "time-on-target."
The idea is simple: if an objective or topic is not taught, it is not likely to be learned, and
therefore we cannot expect students to do well on measures of that content. In fact, to the
extent the content is not specifically taught, the test becomes an intelligence test rather than an
achievement test. The fact that many educators do not connect instructional objectives to
specific objectives that will be tested (Brady et al., 1977), is one reason that academic aptitude
or IQ is such a good predictor of scores on standardized tests. Both tests measure the same
construct: the amount of general knowledge an individual has obtained that is not necessarily
taught in a structured learning setting.
The second component of ALT is Student Involvement, defined the same way that Carroll
defined engaged time or time-on-task (allocated time X engagement rate). If the students are
not provided enough time to learn material or are not actively involved while teachers are
teaching they are not as likely to do well on measures of school achievement at the end of the
year.
The last element is that of Success, defined as "the percentage of classwork that students
complete with a high degree of accuracy." If a student is not successful throughout the year on
classroom academic tasks, that student will likely not demonstrate success on the achievement
measure at the end of the year.
Huitt proposes that these three components of Academic Learning Time should be considered
as the "vital signs" of a classroom. Just as a physician looks at data regarding temperature,
weight, and blood pressure before asking any further questions or gathering any other data,
supervisors need to look at the content overlap, involvement, and success before collecting
any other data or making suggestions about classroom modifications. Classrooms where
students are involved and making adequate progress on important content are reasonably
healthy and quite different from those classrooms where students are not.
In addition to the teacher's classroom behavior, other time components such as the number of
days available for going to school (the school year), the number of days the student actually
attends school (attendance year), and the number of hours the student has available to go to
school each day (school day) can influence ALT (Caldwell et al., 1982). None of these
additional time variables were included in Carroll's (1963) model.
24

What teachers and students do in the classroom will depend to some extent on the
characteristics or qualities they bring to the teaching/learning process. In Huitt's (1995) model
these are labeled Input variables. The subcategory of Teacher Characteristics includes such
variables as values and beliefs; knowledge of students and the teaching/learning process;
thinking, communication and performance skills; and personality. While each of these is
important to the classroom environment, teacher efficacy is one of the best predictors of
student success from this subcategory (Proctor, 1984; Ashton, 1984). If a teacher believes
that, in general, students can learn the knowledge or skills, and that, specifically, he can teach
them, then that teacher is more likely to use the knowledge and skills he has and the students
are more likely to learn.
A second subcategory of Input is Student Characteristics. This includes all of the
descriptions of students that might have an influence on the teaching/learning process and
student outcome. Study Habits; Learning Style; Age; Sex/Gender; Race/Ethnicity;
Motivation; and Moral, Socioemotional, Cognitive, and Character Development all become
important in the relationship of classroom processes/behavior and school achievement (Huitt,
1995). However, student aptitude and/or prerequisite skills are probably the best student
characteristic predictors (Bloom, 1976). If time is held constant, then intelligence or ability to
learn academic content will be a better predictor than prior knowledge because the amount of
content learned in the classroom is allowed to vary. That is, if everyone has the same amount
of time in which to learn, then the speed at which one learns (aptitude) will be the best
predictor of achievement. However, if we vary the time students have to learn and keep the
content to be learned constant (such as in Mastery Learning), then prior knowledge is more
salient. Though we do not initially modify the student characteristics that each student brings
to the classroom, as Proctor (1984) pointed out the teacher can arrange the teaching/learning
process and modify each student's experience. This results in different Outcomes, which in
turn becomes the Input for the next learning cycle.
Finally, Huitt (1995) includes the category of Context that includes such subcategories as
School Processes and Characteristics, Family, Community, State and Federal
Government, TV/Movies, and the Global Environment. For example, research shows that
student achievement is impacted by class size (e.g., Bracey, 1995) and school size (e.g.,
Fowler, 1995; Howley, 1996). While all of the variables in these subcategories are important
and influence variables in the other three major categories, probably the two most important
are Family and the Global Environment. Mother's education and family expectations for
student achievement have been shown to be excellent predictors of student achievement (e.g.,
Campbell, 1991; Voelkl, 1993; Zill, 1992) as well as the amount of technology in the home
(Perelman, 1992). Perhaps even more significant is the movement from the industrial age to
the information age (Perelman; Toffler & Toffler, 1995). This is because it is redefining the
outcomes that ought to be the focus of schooling and is providing new technologies that can
radically alter the teaching/learning process.

25

An simple example of how some of these variables might interact is shown in the following
model. The size and region of the community combine with family characteristics and
processes to impact teacher and student characteristics. School and state policies combine
with teacher and student characteristics to impact teacher behavior, while student
characteristics and teacher behavior influence student behavior. Student classroom behavior
then influences teacher classroom behavior in an interactive pattern that eventually results in
student achievement as measured by instruments influenced by state policies. Student
achievement at the end of one school year then becomes a student characteristic at the
beginning of the next.

Summary and Conclusions

Each of the above models identifies important factors related to school learning and
contributes important information as we attempt to answer the question "Why do some
students learn more than others?" Over a period of years, the models have been examined,
reviewed, revised and edited to fit into today's modern society. Beginning with Carroll (1963)
and ending (at least as far as this review is concerned) with Huitt (1995), we see teachers and
school systems, families, communities and entire countries having an influence on students'
school learning. None of the variables appears to be so influential that we need only pay
attention to that particular factor in order to produce the kinds of educational changes we
desire. For example, an individual teacher could project his self-fulfilling prophesies on a
student (as seen in Cruickshank's 1985 model), but so also could the institution itself (as seen
in Proctor's 1984 model). Or the school may be successful in developing students' basic skills,
but students could still not be successful in life because other important outcomes were not
developed (Whetzel, 1992).
Understanding all the variables and the relationships among each other and to student success
may be more than we can expect of any educator. We may never fully grasp the significance
of the entire process, but we can make every effort to understand as much as possible as we
develop the teaching/learning processes appropriate for the information age. We can also
identify the most important variables within a category or subcategory and make certain we
attend to a wide variety of variables across the model.
Models are useful tools to better understand not only the learning processes of students, but
ourselves as educators. At a glance the models might provide only more questions, but a
careful study of the models can provide starting points to begin developing more appropriate
educational experiences for our society's next generation.
References

Adams, R., & Biddle, B. (1970). The classroom scene. Realities of Teaching. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Inc.
26

Alesandrini, K. (1981). Pictorial-verbal and analytic-holistic learning strategies in

science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 358-368.

Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher

education. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(5), 28-32.

Biddle, B., & Ellena (1964). Continued research on teacher effectiveness. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Inc.

Bloom, B. (1971). Mastery learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Inc.

Bracey, G. (1995, September). Research oozes into practice: The case of class size.
Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1), 89-91.

Brady, M., Clinton, D., Sweeney, J., Peterson, M, & Poynor, H. (1977). Instructional
Dimensions Study (IDS). Washington, DC: Kirschner Associates, Inc.

Caldwell, J., Huitt, W., & Graeber, A. (1982). Time spent in learning: Implications
from research. The Elementary School Journal, 82(5), 471-480.

Campbell, F., & others.(1991). Parental beliefs and values related to family risk,
educational intervention, and child academic competence. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 6(2), 167-182.

Carroll, J. (1963). A model for school learning. Teacher College Record, 64, 723-733.

Cruickshank, D. (1985). Profile of an effective teacher. Educational Horizons, 90-92.

Fowler, W. (1995). School size and student outcomes. Advances in educational

productivity, 5, 3- 26.

Gage, N., & Berliner, D. (1992). Educational psychology (5th ed.), Princeton, New
Jersey: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Good, T., Biddle, B., & Brophy, J. (1975). Teachers make a difference. New York:
Holt Rhinehart and Winston.

Howley, C. (1996). The Matthew principle: A West Virginia replication? Education

Policy Analysis Archives, 3(1). Retrieved October 1995, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v3n18.html

Huitt, W. (1995). A systems model of the teaching/learning process. Educational

Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: College of Education, Valdosta State
University. Retrieved October 1995, from
http://teach.valdosta.edu/whuitt/materials/tchlrnmd.html

Klausmeier, H., & Goodwin, W. (1971). Learning and human abilities. New York:
Harper & Row Publishers.

Laosa, L. M. (1982). School, occupation, culture, and family: The impact of parental
schooling on the parent-child relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(6),
791-827.

27

Perelman, L. (1992). School's out: Hyperlearning, the new technology, and the end of
education. New York: William Morrow.

Proctor, C. P. (1984). Teacher expectations: A model for school improvement. The

Elementary School Journal, 469-481. Retrieved May 2009, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001371

Rosenshine, B. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. The Journal of

Educational Research, 88(5), 262-268.

Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),

Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (376-391). New York: Macmillan.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.

Squires, D., Huitt, W., & Segars, J. (1983). Effective classrooms and schools: A
research-based perspective. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Toffler, A.,& Toffler, H. (1995). Creating a new civilization. New York: Turner
Publishing.

Voelkl, K. (1993). Achievement and expectations among African-American students.

Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27(1), 42-55.

Whetzel, D. (1992, March). The Secretary of Labor's Commission on Achieving

Necessary Skills. ERIC Digest. [ERIC Document: ED 339749]. Retrieved October
1995, from http://teach.valdosta.edu/whuitt//files/scansrpt.html

Woolfolk, A., & Hoy, W. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs
about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81-91.

Zill, N. (1992). Trends in family life and children's school performance. Washington,
DC: Child Trends, Inc. (ERIC Reproduction No. ED378257).

Mastery
A fundamental change in thinking about the nature of instruction was initiated in 1963 when
John B. Carroll argued for the idea of mastery learning. Mastery learning suggests that the
focus of instruction should be the time required for different students to learn the same
material. This contrasts with the classic model (based upon theories of intelligence ) in which
all students are given the same amount of time to learn and the focus is on differences in
ability. Indeed, Carroll (1989) argues that aptitute is primarily a measure of time required to
learn.
The idea of mastery learning amounts to a radical shift in responsibility for teachers; the
blame for a student's failure rests with the instruction not a lack of ability on the part of the
student. In a mastery learning environment, the challenge becomes providing enough time and
employing instructional strategies so that all students can achieve the same level of learning
(Levine, 1985; Bloom, 1981).
28

The key elements in matery learning are: (1) clearly specifying what is to be learned and how
it will be evaluated, (2) allowing students to learn at their own pace, (3) assessing student
progress and providing appropriate feedback or remediation, and (4) testing that final learning
critierion has been achieved.
Mastery learning has been widely applied in schools and training settings, and research shows
that it can improve instructional effectiveness (e.g., Block, Efthim & Burns, 1989; Slavin,
1987). On the other hand, there are some theoretical and practical weaknesses including the
fact that people do differ in ability and tend to reach different levels of achievement (see Cox
& Dunn, 1979). Furthermore, mastery learning programs tend to require considerable
amounts of time and effort to implement which most teachers and schools are not prepared to
expend.
The mastery learning model is closely aligned with the use of instructional objectives and the
systematic design of instructional programs (see Gagne, Merrill). The Criterion Referenced
Instruction (CRI) model of Mager is an attempt to implement the mastery learning model. In
addition, the theoretical framework of Skinner with its emphasis on individualized learning
and the importance of feedback (i .e., reinforcement) is also relevant to mastery learning.
References:
Block, J. H. (1971). Mastery Learning: Theory and Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Block, J. H., Efthim, H. E., & Burns, R.B. (1989). Building Effective Mastery Learning
Schools. New York: Longman.
Bloom, B.S. (1981). All Our Children Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.
Carroll, J.B. (1989). The Carroll model: A 25 year retrospective and prospective view.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 26-31.
Cox, W.F. & Dunn, T. G. (1979). Mastery learning: A psychological trap? Educational
Pyschologist, 14, 24-29.
Levine, D. (1985). Improving Student Achievement Through Mastery Learning Programs.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Slavin, R.E. (1987). Mastery learning reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 57(2),
175-214.

29

CONDITIONS OF LEARNING
(R. GAGNE)
Overview:
This theory stipulates that there are several different types or levels of learning. The
significance of these classifications is that each different type requires different types of
instruction. Gagne identifies five major categories of learning: verbal information, intellectual
skills, cognitive strategies, motor skills and attitudes. Different internal and external
conditions are necessary for each type of learning. For example, for cognitive strategies to be
learned, there must be a chance to practice developing new solutions to problems; to learn
attitudes, the learner must be exposed to a credible role model or persuasive arguments.
Gagne suggests that learning tasks for intellectual skills can be organized in a hierarchy
according to complexity: stimulus recognition, response generation, procedure following, use
of terminology, discriminations, concept formation, rule application, and problem solving.
The primary significance of the hierarchy is to identify prerequisites that should be completed
to facilitate learning at each level. Prerequisites are identified by doing a task analysis of a
learning/training task. Learning hierarchies provide a basis for the sequencing of instruction.
In addition, the theory outlines nine instructional events and corresponding cognitive
processes:
(1) gaining attention (reception)
(2) informing learners of the objective (expectancy)
(3) stimulating recall of prior learning (retrieval)
(4) presenting the stimulus (selective perception)
(5) providing learning guidance (semantic encoding)
(6) eliciting performance (responding)
(7) providing feedback (reinforcement)
(8) assessing performance (retrieval)
(9) enhancing retention and transfer (generalization).
These events should satisfy or provide the necessary conditions for learning and serve as the
basis for designing instruction and selecting appropriate media (Gagne, Briggs & Wager,
1992).
Scope/Application:
While Gagne's theoretical framework covers all aspects of learning, the focus of the theory is
on intellectual skills. The theory has been applied to the design of instruction in all domains
(Gagner & Driscoll, 1988). In its original formulation (Gagne, 1 962), special attention was
given to military training settings. Gagne (1987) addresses the role of instructional technology
in learning.
Example:
30

The following example illustrates a teaching sequence corresponding to the nine instructional
events for the objective, Recognize an equilateral triangle:
1. Gain attention - show variety of computer generated triangles
2. Identify objective - pose question: "What is an equilateral triangle?"
3. Recall prior learning - review definitions of triangles
4. Present stimulus - give definition of equilateral triangle
5. Guide learning- show example of how to create equilateral
6. Elicit per formance - ask students to create 5 different examples
7. Provide feedback - check all examples as correct/incorrect
8. Assess performance- provide scores and remediation
9. Enhance retention/transfer - show pictures of objects and ask students to identify
equilaterals
Gagne (1985, chapter 12) provides examples of events for each category of learning
outcomes.
Principles:
1. Different instruction is required for different learning outcomes.
2. Events of learning operate on the learner in ways that constitute the conditions of learning.
3. The specific operations that constitute instructional events are different for each different
type of learning outcome.
4. Learning hierarchies define what intellectual skills are to be learned and a sequence of
instruction.
References:
Gagne, R. (1962). Military training and principles of learning. American Psychologist, 17,
263-276.
Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
.
Gagne, R. (1987). Instructional Technology Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Assoc.
Gagne, R. & Driscoll, M. (1988). Essentials of Learning for Instruction (2nd Ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gagne, R., Briggs, L. & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of Instructional Design (4th Ed.). Fort
Worth, TX: HBJ College Publishers.

31

CRITERION REFERENCED INSTRUCTION

(R. MAGER)
Overview:
The Criterion Referenced Instruction (CRI) framework developed by Robert Mager is a
comprehensive set of methods for the design and delivery of training programs. Some of the
critical aspects include: (1) goal/task analysis -- to identify what needs to be learned, (2)
performance objectives -- exact specification of the outcomes to be accomplished and how
they are to be evaluated (the criterion), (3) criterion referenced testing -- evaluation of
learning in terms of the knowledge/skills specified in the objectives, (4) development of
learning modules tied to specific objectives.
Training programs developed in CRI format tend to be self-paced courses involving a variety
of different media (e.g., workbooks, videotapes, small group discussions, computer-based
instruction). Students learn at their own pace and take tests to determine if they have mastered
a module. A course manager administers the program and helps students with problems.
CRI is based upon the ideas of mastery learning and performance-oriented instruction. It also
incorporates many of the ideas found in Gagne's theory of learning (e.g., task hierarchies,
objectives) and is compatible with most theories of adult learning (e.g., Knowles, Rogers)
because of its emphasis on learner initiative and self-management.
Scope/Application:
Criterion referenced instruction is applicable to any form of learning; however, it has been
applied most extensively in technical training including troubleshooting.
Example:
CRI has been applied to a workshop that Mager gives about CRI. The workshop consists of a
series of modules (mostly print materials) with well-defined objectives, practice exercises,
and mastery tests. Participants have some freedom to choose the order in which they complete
the modules, provided they satisfy the prerequisites shown on the course map. For example, in
one module on Objectives, the student must learn the three primary components of an
objective, recognize correctly formed objectives (practice exercises), and be able to draft
correct objectives for specified tasks. This module has one pre-requisite and is the prerequisite to most other modules in the course.
Principles:
1. Instructional objectives are derived from job performance and reflect the competencies
(knowledge/skills) that need to be learned.
2. Students study and practice only those skills not yet mastered to the level required by the
objectives.
32

3. Students are given opportunities to practice each objective and obtain feedback about the
quality of their performance.
4. Students should receive repeated practice in skills that are used often or are difficult to
learn.
5. Students are free to sequence their own instruction within the constraints imposed by the
pre-requisites and progress is controlled by their own competence (mastery of objectives).
References:
Mager, R. (1975). Preparing Instructional Objectives (2nd Edition). Belmont, CA: Lake
Publishing Co.
Mager, R. & Pipe, P. (1984). Analyzing Performance Problems, or You Really Oughta Wanna
(2nd Edition). Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing Co.
Mager, R. (1988). Making Instruction Work. Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing Co.

Algo-Heuristic Theory (L. Landa)

Overview:
Landa's theory is concerned with identifying mental processes -- conscious and especially
unconscious -- that underlie expert learning, thinking and performance in any area. His
methods represent a system of techniques for getting inside the mind of expert learners and
performers which enable one to uncover the processes involved. Once uncovered, they are
broken down into their relative elementary components -- mental operations and knowledge
units which can be viewed as a kind of psychological "atoms" and "molecules". Performing a
task or solving a problem always requires a certain system of elementary knowledge units and
operations.
There are classes of problems for which it is necessary to execute operations in a well
structured, predefined sequence (algorithmic problems). For such problem classes, it is
possible to formulate a set of precise unambiguous instructions (algorithms) as to what one
should do mentally and/or physically in order to successfully solve any problem belonging to
that class. There are also classes of problems (creative or heuristic problems) for which
precise and unambiguous sets of instructions cannot be formulated. For such classes of
problems, it is possible to formulate instructions that contain a certain degree of uncertainty
(heuristics). Landa also describes semi-algorithmic and semi-heuristic problems, processes
and instructions.
The theory suggests that all cognitive activities can be analyzed into operations of an
algorithmic, semi-algorithmic, heuristic, or semi-heuristic nature. Once discovered, these
operations and their systems can serve as the basis for instructional strategies and methods.
The theory specifies that students ought to be taught not only knowledge but the algorithms
and heuristics of experts as well. They also have to be taught how to discover algorithms and
heuristics on their own. Special emphasis is placed on teaching students cognitive operations,
algorithms and heuristics which make up general methods of thinking (i.e., intelligence).
33

With respect to sequencing of instruction, Landa proposes a number of strategies, the most
important of which is the "snowball" method. This method applies to teaching a system of
cognitive operations by teaching the first operation, then the second which is practiced with
the first, and so on.
Scope/Application:
While this is a general theory of learning, it is illustrated primarily in the context of
mathematics and foreign language instruction. In recent years, Landa has applied his theory to
training settings under the name "Landamatics" (Educational Technology , 1993)
Example:
Landa (1976) provides the following example of an algorithm for teaching a foreign speaker
how to choose among the English verbs "to offer", "to suggest" and "to propose":
Check to see whether something that one presents to another person is a tangible object or
viewed as tangible. If yes, use "offer". If no, it is an idea about some action to be performed.
Check to see if this idea is presented formally. If yes, use "propose", otherwise use "suggest".
Applying the snowball method would involve teaching the student the action of checking the
first condition and then the action of checking the second condition followed by practice that
requires both conditions to be checked. Landa explains that after sufficient practice the
application of the algorithm would become automatic and unconscious.
Principles:
1. It is more important to teach algo-heuristic processes to students than prescriptions
(knowledge of processes); on the other hand, teachers need to know both.
2. Processes can be taught through prescriptions and demonstrations of operations.
3. Teaching students how to discover processes is more valuable than providing them already
formulated.
4. Break processes down into elementary operations of size and length suitable for each
student (individualization of instruction).
References:
Educational Technology (1993). Landamatics ten years later. Educational Technology, 33(6),
7-18.
Landa, L. (1974). Algorithmization in Learning and Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology Publications.
Landa, L. (1976). Instructional Regulation and Control: Cybernetics, Algorithmization, and
Heuristics in Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

34

Anchored Instruction
(John Bransford & the CTGV)
Overview:
Anchored instruction is a major paradigm for technology-based learning that has been
developed by the Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV) under the leadership
of John Bransford. While many people have contributed to the theory and research of
anchored instruction, Bransford is the principal spokesperson and hence the theory is
attributed to him.
The initial focus of the work was on the development of interactive videodisc tools that
encouraged students and teachers to pose and solve complex, realistic problems. The video
materials serve as "anchors" (macro-contexts) for all subsequent learning and instruction. As
explained by CTGV (1993, p52): "The design of these anchors was quite different from the
design of videos that were typically used in education...our goal was to create interesting,
realistic contexts that encouraged the active construction of knowledge by learners. Our
anchors were stories rather than lectures and were designed to be explored by students and
teachers. " The use of interactive videodisc technology makes it possible for students to easily
explore the content.
Anchored instruction is close ly related to the situated learning framework (see CTGV, 1990,
1993) and also to the Cognitive Flexibility theory in its emphasis on the use of technologybased learning.
Scope/Application:
The primary application of anchored instruction has been to elementary reading, language arts
and mathematics skills. The CLGV has developed a set of interactive videodisc programs
called the "Jasper Woodbury Problem Solving Series". These programs involve adventures in
which mathematical concepts are used to solve problems . However, the anchored instruction
paradigm is based upon a general model of problem-solving (Bransford & Stein, 1993).
Example:
One of the early anchored instruction activities involved the use of the film, "Young Sherlock
Holmes" in interactive videodisc form. Students were asked to examine the film in terms of
causal connections, motives of the characters, and authenticity of the settings in order to
understand the nature of life in Victorian England. The film provides the anchor for an
understanding of story-telling and a particular historical era.
Principles:
1. Learning and teaching activities should be designed around a "anchor" which should be
some sort of case-study or problem situation.
2. Curriculum materials should allow exploration by the learner (e.g., interactive videodisc
programs).
35

For more about anchored instruction, visit the web site of John Bransford or the Jasper
Woodbury project at Vanderbilt University.
References:
Bransford, J.D. et al. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can
help. In D. Nix & R. Sprio (Eds), Cognition, education and multimedia. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum Associates.
Bransford, J.D. & Stein, B.S. (1993). The Ideal Problem Solver (2nd Ed). New York:
Freeman.
CTGV (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational
Researcher, 19 (6), 2-10.
CTGV (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisted. Educational Technology,
33 (3), 52- 70.

Cognitive Dissonance (L. Festinger)

Overview:
According to cognitive dissonance theory, there is a tendency for individuals to seek
consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions). When there is an inconsistency
between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the
dissonance. In the case of a discrepancy between attitudes and behavior, it is most likely that
the attitude will change to accommodate the behavior.
Two factors affect the strength of the dissonance: the number of dissonant beliefs, and the
importance attached to each belief. There are three ways to eliminate dissonance: (1) reduce
the importance of the dissonant beliefs, (2) add more consonant beliefs that outweigh the
dissonant beliefs, or (3) change the dissonant beliefs so that they are no longer inconsistent.
Dissonance occurs most often in situations where an individual must choose between two
incompatible beliefs or actions. The greatest dissonance is created when the two alternatives
are equally attractive. Furthermore, attitude change is more likely in the direction of less
incentive since this results in lower dissonance. In this respect, dissonance theory is
contradictory to most behavioral theories which would predict greater attitude change with
increased incentive (i.e., reinforcement).
Scope/Application:
Dissonance theory applies to all situations involving attitude formation and change. It is
especially relevant to decision-making and problem-solving.
Example:
Consider someone who buys an expensive car but discovers that it is not comfortable on long
drives. Dissonance exists between their beliefs that they have bought a good car and that a
36

good car should be comfortable. Dissonance could be eliminated by deciding that it does not
matter since the car is mainly used for short trips (reducing the importance of the dissonant
belief) or focusing on the cars strengths such as safety, appearance, handling (thereby adding
more consonant beliefs). The dissonance could also be eliminated by getting rid of the car, but
this behavior is a lot harder to achieve than changing beliefs.
Principles:
1. Dissonance results when an individual must choose between attitudes and behaviors that
are contradictory.
2. Dissonance can be eliminated by reducing the importance of the conflicting beliefs,
acquiring new beliefs that change the balance, or removing the conflicting attitude or
behavior.
References:
Brehm, J. & Cohen, A. (1962). Explorations in Cognitive Dissonance. New York: Wiley.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Festinger, L. & Carlsmith, J.M. (1959). Cognitive Consquences of Forced Compliance.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-210.

37