Instructional design	99

Merrill’s instructional transaction theory

Description and intended use

Merrill et al. (1990a; 1990b) define the aims of ‘second generation instructional design’ as building on Gagne´’s principle that different learning outcomes require different conditions of learning (Gagne´, 1965; 1985), but with much greater attention to conditions which support learners in constructing mental models. He and his colleagues seek to help learners acquire integrated sets of knowledge and skills through interactive pedagogic strategies. They argue that both organisation and elaboration during learning lead to better understanding and retention, and that both are facilitated by instruction that explicitly organises and elaborates the knowledge being taught.

When Merrill speaks about knowledge frames he is referring to ways in which course information is organised, for example in the form of software. Knowledge frames are believed to correspond to mental models or schemas. There are three types of knowledge frame: entities (e.g. which draw attention to a name, feature or function); activities (e.g. where the learner executes steps); and processes external to the learner (e.g. where a causally-connected chain of events is presented).

For each type of knowledge frame there are three types of elaboration, each being designed to facilitate cognitive change through a type of instructional transaction. The three types (fully specified by Merrill, Jones and Zhongmin Li, 1992) are:

1.component transactions (corresponding to the internal structure of a single knowledge frame):

•identify

•execute

•interpret

2.abstraction transactions (content from a class frame and two or more instance frames in an abstraction hierarchy):

•judge

•classify

•generalise

•decide

•transfer

100Frameworks for Thinking

3.association transactions (meaningful links to other frames):

•propagate (a tool or a method)

•analogise

•substitute

•design

•discover.

These transactions can take any form and include one-way transmission, discussions and conversations, tutoring, simulations and micro-worlds. Discovery learning can be accommodated, especially through the use of simulations and in microworlds, but Merrill believes that this approach has been over-used, especially where learners are already experienced in a related domain or have virtually no knowledge of a subject.

Here we have an outline specification for instructional design which uses the language of cognition. Although the aim is to produce an open and flexible computerised system capable of adapting strategically to the needs of learners (including their developing knowledge and level of motivation), Merrill acknowledges that human pedagogic expertise will still be required.

Evaluation

Merrill is a key figure in a tradition of instructional design in which Gagne´ and Reigeluth have also made major contributions. Gagne´’s early work on instructional prerequisites and conditions of learning (Gagne´, 1965), Merrill’s ‘Component display theory’ (Merrill, 1983) and Reigeluth’s ‘Elaboration Theory’ (Reigeluth and Stein, 1983) were part of what Merrill et al. (1990a) describe as ‘first generation instructional design’. A common feature of these approaches is detailed analysis of the components of content and instruction, with the learner often a passive recipient.

With ‘second generation instructional design’ Merrill claims to have embraced a cognitivist rather than a behavioural approach, a stance also taken by Reigeluth (1996; 1997) and van Merrie¨nboer (1997). He shares many ideas with these theorists, as he acknowledges in a paper where he sets out five ‘First Principles of Instruction’ (Merrill, 2002). Learning is facilitated when students are given real-world problems, but especially when prior knowledge is activated and new knowledge

Instructional design	101

demonstrated, before being applied and ‘integrated into the learner’s world’ (p. 45). Yet the language used here is still in the passive voice for the learner, betraying the fact that it is the instructional designer who is active, constructing ever-more-complex multi-path systems behind the scenes. Indeed Merrill (Merrill et al., 1990b) admits that, as little is known about how cognitive structure is organised and elaborated, the instructional designer has to analyse knowledge in other ways.

Merrill’s approach lies between Ausubel’s ‘meaningful learning’ (Ausubel, 1978) and Jonassen’s conception of constructivist learning environments (Jonassen, 1999). He does offer scope for creative thinking under the headings ‘design’ and ‘discover’, but does not portray the learner as being capable of self-regulation.

The three types of transaction appear to be distinguished in terms of complexity (as measured by the number of ‘frames’ involved). The cognitive process terminology used to classify ‘transactions’ is close to that used by many other theorists who have been influenced by Bloom (1956), and refers to components within various forms of knowledge utilisation more than to complete problem-solving processes. The selection appears to be arbitrary, with equivalents of Bloom’s ‘comprehension’ being most strongly represented and ‘analysis’ appearing only under the term ‘execute’.

Summary: Merrill

		Relevance for teachers
Purpose and structure	Some key features	and learning
Main purpose(s):	Terminology:	Intended audience:
• to help learners	• clear definitions,	• designers of
acquire integrated	but it is not always	instruction and
sets of knowledge	easy to determine	assessment
and skills	whether Merrill is
	referring to mental
	models or to the
	content and process
	of instruction