Foreword

Preface

Walter Wager and Marcy Perkins Driscoll

Authors’ Biographical Sketches

1. Contributions of Learning to Human Development

Robert M. Gagné

Models of Human Behavioral Development

The Cumulative Learning Model

Examples of Cumulative Learning

A Cumulative Learning Sequence in Conservation

Generalization and Transfer

Summary

References

2. Learning Hierarchies

Robert M. Gagné

Characteristics of Learning Hierarchies

Intellectual Skills

Evidence Relevant to Learning Hierarchies

Concluding Statement

References

3. Domains of Learning

Robert M. Gagné

The Need for Domains of the Learning Process

Learning Domains

Generalizability and the Domains of Learning

Age and Learning

Conclusions

References

4. Mastery Learning and Instructional Design

Robert M. Gagné

Mastery Learning

What About Instructional Systems Design?

Instructional Design

Instructional Tactics and Their Sources

Information Processing for Learning

The Events of Instruction

How These Events Relate to Mastery Learning

Differences in the Two Systems

Taxonomic Differences

Different Learning Conditions for Different Outcomes

A Noteworthy Area of Agreement

Conclusion

References

5. Integrative Goals for Instructional Design

Robert M. Gagné and M. David Merrill

Integrating Multiple Objectives

Categories of Integrative Goals

Denoting

Manifesting

Discovering

Integrative Goals and Single Objective Categories

Denoting

Manifesting

Discovering

The Enterprise Scenario in Learning Transfer

Discussion

References

6. The Impact of R.M. Gagné’s Work on Instructional Theory

Patricia L. Smith and Tilman J. Ragan

Status of Instructional Theory Before Gagné

Applied Learning Theory
Curriculum Theory

Precursors to Instructional Theories

Instructional Theory Contributions

Development of Types of Learning
Development of the Learning Hierarchy Concept
Development of the Events of Instruction

The Relationship of Gagné’s Work to Learning Theory

The Influence of Gagné’s Theory on Instructional Design Models

The Influence of Gagné’s Theory on Curriculum Design

Conclusion

References

7. The Impact of Gagné’s Theory on Instructional Design Practice

Dennis C. Fields

The Relationship Between Theory and Practice

The Impact of Gagné’s Theories on Curriculum Development

Practice

School Program Design
School Lesson Design
Training Curriculum Design
Private Sector

Impact of Gagné’s Instructional Design Theories on  Instructional Design  Practice

Gagné’s Influence on the Transfer of Learning

Summary and Conclusions

References

8. Gagné’s Influence on Military Training Research and Development

J. Michael Spector

A Review of Gagné’s Military Research and Development

Research at Military Research Laboratories
Guided Approach to Instructional Design Advising (GAIDA)
Training Research Journal

Illustrative Encapsulations

Individual Differences
Learner Engagement Story

Conclusion

References

9. Gagné and the New Technologies of Instruction

Wayne A. Nelson

Technology, Instructional Technology, and the New

Technologies of Instruction

Knowledge Sources

Current Practice

Design Models: The Design of Computer-Based Instruction
Design Tools: The Automation of Instructional Design and
Development

Hardware

Software

Intelligent Tutoring Systems

Conclusions

References

10. The Future Role of Robert M. Gagné in Instructional Design

Rita C. Richey

The Continuing Domination of Gagné Doctrines in

Design Theory

The Emerging Tension Between Learner-Centered and Content-Oriented Instruction
The Emerging Role of Context in Instructional Design Theory
The Stability of the Gagné Orientation to Theory

The Continuing Domination of Gagné Doctrines in Design Practice

The Continuing Dominance of Outcomes-Based Design
The Continuing Dominance of Pre-Design Analysis
The Continuing Dominance of the Events of Instruction
The Stability of the Gagné Orientation to Practice

Conclusion

References

 Although it is not unusual for R.M. Gagné’s work to be considered in a volume addressing learning theories, his contributions can most appropriately be considered as an “instructional theory.”  An instructional theory is an integrated set of principles, based upon learning theory, other relevant theories, and sound replicable research, that permits one to predict the effects of specific instructional conditions on a learner’s cognitive processing and the resulting learned capabilities. Gagné (1985) described the nature of an instructional theory as an “attempt to relate the external Events of Instruction to the outcomes of learning by showing how these events lead to appropriate support or enhancement of internal learning processes. . . The province of an instructional theory is to propose a rationally-based relationship between instructional events, their effects on learning processes, and the learning outcomes that are produced as a result of these processes” (p. 244). How does instructional theory relate to learning theory, instructional psychology, and instructional design models? In contrast to instructional theories that tend to be predictive and prescriptive, learning theories are typically descriptive and explanatory. According to Driscoll (1994) a learning theory is “a set of constructs linking observed changes in performance with what is thought to bring about those changes” (p. 9). Instructional psychology is the study of the facilitation of human learning through instruction and can result in instructional design theories and models. Instructional design models employ instructional theories to prescribe types and levels of instructional support to optimize the achievement of identified learning goals.

Snow and Swanson (1992) suggested that the components of an instructional theory are: “a) description of desired end states or goals of instruction in a domain; b) description of goal-relevant initial states of learners prior to instruction; c) explication of the transition processes from initial to desired states; d) specification of instructional conditions that promote this transition; e) assessment of performance and instructional effects” (p. 584). If we compare Gagné’s instructional theory to this description, we find that Gagné’s theory does have these components. For example, Gagné describes potential end goal states in his categorization of learning capabilities. These goal states are generic in that they can apply across a variety of content areas. For each of the goal types Gagné described goal-relevant initial states, prerequisite relationship of intellectual skills and relationships of other types of learning. Gagné interpreted information processing theory to explicate the transition processes from initial to goal states for each type of learning. Gagné’s greatest impact on instructional theory may be his thoroughness in specifying instructional conditions to support this transition process. He described these instructional conditions both as generalized events of instruction and as specific conditions of learning for each type of learning capability (Conditions of Learning, 1965, 1970, 1977, 1985).  Finally, Gagné and his colleagues extended his thorough explication of learning outcomes into recommendations for assessment within each category (Gagné & Beard, 1978; Gagné, Briggs, & Wager, 1992).

Although Gagné was the first theorist to bring these elements together into an instructional theory, as with all learning/instructional theorists, his work was strongly influenced by theorists who preceded him. Consequently, to gain an adequate perspective of Gagné’s influence on instructional theory, we must first survey the status of instructional theory prior to Gagné’s influence.

The need for instructional theory has long been recognized, and as early as 1899, William James pointed out that, as important as psychology is to education, it is not something from which the nature of the instruction may be directly induced:  “You make a great, a very great mistake, if you think that psychology, being a science of the mind’s laws, is something from which you can deduce definite programs and schemes and methods of instruction for immediate schoolroom use” (James, 1899/1958. p. 23). Instructional theory remained an elusive topic before Gagné’s contributions of the early 1960s. Two primary avenues of thought regarding instructional theory in the decade or so prior to Gagné’s major contributions were a focus on: a) sequence and content concerns from within a curriculum theory frame of reference; and b) application of learning theory, particularly applications within a programmed instruction frame of reference.

Curriculum Theory

Much work that characterizes the status of instructional theory before Gagné is seen in the work of curriculum theorists. People such as Bruner and Tyler are among those whose work concentrated on matters of sequence and the content of learning. Bruner’s (1960) concept of the spiral curriculum and Tyler’s conception of the “rationale” for a course as its design beginning point (1950) are examples of curriculum thinkers’ contributions to instructional thinking.

Historically, the persistent pattern in curriculum thinkers’ approaches to instruction is to place primary emphasis upon teaching. Hosford (1973), for example, defined curriculum, instruction, and teaching much as an instructional systems specialist or instructional technologist might, but he insisted on placing teaching at the center of his conception of instruction and, in subsequent treatment of a theory of instruction, made the continued assumption that teaching and teachers would be the primary (or only) means of implementation. Such a focus on teaching, it appears, prevented some curriculum theorists from thinking vigorously and directly about instruction itself. Nonetheless, for better or worse, the more philosophical contributions from curriculum thinkers formed a substantial proportion of instructional theory.

Bruner’s widely recognized work in instructional theory (1968) proposed four criteria that an instructional theory should meet. An adequate theory of instruction, according to Bruner, would provide the basis for specification of: a) experiences which will induce motivation to learn, b) optimal structures of knowledge for learning, c) optimal sequences of encounter; and d) the nature and pacing of rewards and punishments. In many regards Bruner’s widely heralded work seems now naive and quaint. His concentration on structures of knowledge within disciplines reflects a teaching-centered view of instruction. This structure of knowledge approach groups the “treatment of form of encounter” and “treatment of intrinsic motivation” within a category labeled “rewards and punishments”

Before Gagné’s work had become widely recognized (and, of course, remaining conventional in many education specialties today) many authorities believed that the most important instructional considerations lay within the structures of subject matter disciplines, and with the interface between those structures and the broad developmental characteristics of learners. The structures of knowledge within the various disciplines—such as science, mathematics, or history—were (and are) seen to vary radically from discipline to discipline in conceptual, syntactical, and substantive ways (Ford & Pugno, 1964; Phi Delta Kappa, 1964). Gagné brought scholarship to questions of learning from instruction that arise from the psychological requirements of learning tasks, as opposed to questions which arise from parent disciplines from which subject matter comes. Therefore, Gagné’s influence yielded prescriptive principles which—though not universally adopted in educational theory—have had a substantial impact upon the theory and research that examines educational practice.

In a less widely recognized but at least equally valuable work that was contemporary to Bruner’s, Gordon (1968) presented a relatively mature view of instruction and instructional theory. Gordon defined a theory of instruction as “a set of statements, based on replicable research, which would permit one to predict how particular changes in the educational environment (classroom setting) would affect pupil learning” (p. 3). Gordon differentiated the terms “instruction” and “teaching” by noting that teaching “refers primarily to the human interaction between teacher and pupil” (p. 3) and instruction as the more encompassing term, referring to “the activity which takes place during instruction and within the classroom setting. The term includes both material and human variables” (p. 3). The distinctions that Gordon made between instruction and teaching are useful ones, as the study of instruction and the study of teaching are reflected as separate bodies of literature as well as distinct traditions of interest and inquiry. However, reflecting the curriculum and teaching methods orientation, Gordon restricted his conception of instruction to classroom activities, a restriction that might be viewed as limiting by current instructional theorists.

Applied Learning Theory

Although typically involving itself with animal conditioning experiments, the mainstreams of learning psychology in the first half of the twentieth century, exemplified by Guthrie, Skinner, and Hull, were deeply concerned with human learning. Guthrie’s association-centered theory (Guthrie, 1935, 1942) gave rise to Sheffield’s (1961) work in learning complex sequential tasks and Lumsdaine’s (1961) training research on effects of cueing. Skinner’s operant conditioning saw application by Skinner (1954) and Holland (1960). Hull’s detailed, systematic, and quantified approach to learning based on drive-reduction led to instructionally relevant research on feedback by Miller and Dollard (1941).

Clearly, learning theory was in disarray when Hilgard wrote the concluding chapter to Theories of Learning (Hilgard, 1948):  “We need a more careful delineation of the kinds of learning which take place This search for the appropriate concepts is not merely an exercise in definition or classification. It requires a high order of theory construction, based on open-minded acceptance of demonstrable relationships” (p. 326–327). Almost 30 years later, the concluding chapter in the fourth edition of that work (Hilgard & Bower, 1978) was entitled “Instructional Theory.”  The first reference cited in that chapter is the first review of instructional psychology in Annual Reviews by Gagné and Rohwer (1969). Hilgard and Bower described Gagné’s work to that time as one of three models that provide “indications of what is to come” (1978, p. 614). In addition to Gagné’s “hierarchical theory,” Bruner’s “cognitive-developmental theory” and Atkinson’s “decision-theoretic analysis for optimizing learning” are described. Of these, although all three did important subsequent work, Gagné appears to have gone the furthest toward development of a full instructional theory.

A great deal of interest in the 1950s was generated by the innovation called “programmed instruction.” Embodied in both teaching-machine and text-based forms, programmed instruction carried with it ideas of far greater importance than the competing specific forms and rules dictating format that were matters of heated debate at the time. With programmed instruction, an agency other than a person was seen as an instrument of instruction. Previously, all non-human tools including books, television, and the various forms of audiovisual media, were conceptualized as aids or resources for a teacher’s use. Even the powerful medium of motion pictures (and later television) was viewed as something that had “classroom” uses, which required a teacher’s introduction and follow-up for meaningful learning to anticipated.