Translation of Proceedings of a special presentation for JSiSE research meeting on May 27, 2011, Campus Innovation Center, Tokyo(incomplete version)

Around the Review “Around the Birth of three First Principles of Instructional
Design”: Reflection on What I Learned from the Works of Reigeluth
Katsuaki Suzuki
Graduate School of Instructional Systems, Kumamoto University
Email: ksuzuki@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Abstract: I was asked to write an review paper around the birth of three first principles of instructional design, tobe appeared in Vol. 28 No. 2 of Japan Journal of Information and Systems in Education. This presentation is
my personal reflection of what I have learned from the work of Reigeluth, who was often cited when I
discussed the three First Principles. From the first volume of his Instructional Theories and Models,
important key concepts have been proposed, including the distinction of descriptive vs. prescriptive theories.
It also contained the ARCS Model that aims directly at enhancing the appeal of instruction as the third goalof designing instruction. Form Volume II, I learned various theories for postindustrial society, many ofwhich was from the learning sciences background. From Volume III, I learned common knowledge base is
proposed that implies the maturity of the field of instructional design.
Keywords: instructional design, First Principles, Reigeluth, Green Book

1.

Introduction

I was asked to write an review paper around the birthof three first principles of instructional design, to beappeared in Vol. 28 No. 2 of Japan Journal of
Information and Systems in Education. (1)．The three First
Principles are Merill’s First Principles of Instruction(2002), Keller’s First Principles of Learning Motivation(2008), and Parrish’s Aesthetic Principles of Instructional
Design (2009). This presentation is my personalreflection of what I have learned from the work ofReigeluth, who was often cited when I discussed thethree First Principles.
Charles M. Reigeluth is a Professor of College of
Education, Indiana University, USA, majoring
instructional design and technology. His contribution has
been very well known by creating the research area of
instructional design as a discipline within the field of
educational technology. His own Elaboration Theory(2),as known as zoom lens model, pioneered macro designof instruction, as opposed to designing shorter chunks of
instruction (micro design). The trilogy of Instructional
Theories and Models has been widely used as textbooks
throughout the world in graduate programs ofeducational technology. (3) (4) (5)Looking back my graduate school days at Florida
State University, his first volume was soon adopted as a
textbook of an advanced course. Since then, I have beenclosely watching the works of Reigeluth. In June of 2005,
I visited him at his office with a camera crew for aninterview for Human Informatics and e-Learning 2006, a
graduate course offered by Open University Japan(6).
Prof. Reigeluth has never visited Japan, until May
26-31, 2011, as a transit from Korea to Taiwan for 6 daysin Osaka. This presentation has been prepared in place ofan invited keynote speech by Prof. Reigeluth himself,
which didn’t become reality due to the aftershock of theearthquake and precaution for radiation spillover.

2.

The First Green Book and its effects

The trilogy of Instructional Theories and Models has
been of great impact in the field of instructional design
throughout the world. The first volume(3), known as thefirst green book was published in 1987, introducing eight
major theories of instructional design proposed in early
1980’s. Reigeluth, as the editor, selected the eight
theories that were promising as the foundations for the
future advancement of the field, for comparison andevaluation.
Soon after its publication, it was adopted as a textbook
of an advanced course at Florida State University. I still
remember vividly that I was impressed by so many“other” theories existed beside Gagne’s instructional
theory. Gagne was the norm of Florida State at that time,
who was considered to be the god father of the field of
instructional design. The editor’s notes were so extensivethat made readers of the textbook appreciative incomparing similarities and differences among theories.
The First Green Book proposed many key concepts
that had long lasting impacts in the research of
instructional design. At least they had so strong impact
on what I have been doing since then. They include thedistinction of instructional design theories and models
from models for developing instruction (as in ADDIE
Model), the purposes of instruction being effectiveness,
efficiency, and appeal (inclusion of the ARCS Model torepresent the third purpose of instructional design),
distinction of descriptive and prescriptive theory, anddistinction of micro and macro theories(7).
Figure 1 depicts a diagram to explain the differencesof descriptive and prescriptive theories, in relation to thegoals, methods, and preconditions of instruction(7).
Descriptive theories would try to explain what goals
were met when a method was tried out with a set of
preconditions. However, prescriptive theories would set
the goal to be attained first, then try to create a bettermethod, given a set of preconditions. It was claimed thattheories and models should take a prescriptive approachTranslation of Proceedings of a special presentation for JSiSE research meeting on May 27, 2011, Campus Innovation Center, Tokyo(incomplete version)

so that they would be of help for the decision making ofpractitioners.

introducted in the review paper this time, Keller’s First
Principles of Learner Motivation, built on his long
lasting research in this effort, which was introduced to awider audience through the Fist Green Book.

3.

In the interview of June 2005, Reigeluth reflected thatthe term “prescriptive” was used to show the opposite
meaning of “descriptive,” but may not use the term any
more. It is too rigid and deterministic to use the term“prescriptive” in modern time, thus the term “design
theory” is more preferable. In fact the Second Green
Book uses the term “Design-oriented Theory” (p. 7). No
matter which term is used, it seems very important to be
of benefit of educational practice when a decision is to
be made. It is important to conduct experimental
research in search of theory to depict how humanlearning takes place. It is also important to conduct apractical research in search of guiding decisions ofpractitioners so that they can attain predetermined goalsof educational activities.
It is also significant that the First Green Book
recaptured the “appeal” of instruction as one of the threegoals of instructional design. It was based on the scheme
proposed earlier in 1978 by Reigeluth and his mentor M.
David Merrill (who proposed the First Principles ofInstruction) (8). The majority of effort in instructional
design at that time focused on how to make theeffectiveness of instruction higher, so motivation forlearning often thought as a means of instruction, rather
than the end goal of it. It is equally important to finish aperiod of instruction wanting to come back for the next
opportunity (appealing instruction), if not more
important than, finishing the instruction with good grade(effective instruction). It was this point of making learnermotivation higher at the end, or not decreasing theirmotivation from what they brought into the instruction,
to deliberately specify the appeal of instruction as thegoal of instructional design.
Reigeluth emphasized the importance of appeal togain more attention in the research of instructional
design, thus adopted the ARCS Model, which was not
yet at the final form (i.e., ARCS was not used as theacronym that represent the Model). I came to know themodel and the works of John Keller by reading thischapter in the First Green Book. After that, by Keller’s
coming to Florida State University as the big opportunity,
I have been working very closely with Prof. Keller andhis ARCS Model (9)．The second First Principles that I

Constructivist Psychology and the Second
VolumeThe Second Volume of the Green Book was publishedin 1999 (4) ． Reigeluth was approached to publish arevised edition of the first Green Book, but decided to
publish the Second Volume of the Green Book, insteadof the second version of the first Volume. It was he saw
more value in publishing a book with wider varieties ofnewer theories from the perspectives of constructivist
psychology, than revisions of old theories. The second
Green Book became a large book with twenty-threechapters.
The second Green Book was edited by capturing
major shifts of organization from industrialized society
to postindustrial one, as shown in Table 1. Instructional
design theories in industrial society mainly dealt
memories and procedural skills. Although theirimportance would be as important as was before,
stronger demands are for higher order learning. Thus, theinstructional theories of the 21st century should strive formeeting such changes in demands by making learning
experiences made in response to the orders, and using
information technology more extensively.
I wrote a review article for Vol. 22, No. 1 of the
Journal, introducing the second Green Book (10)．In that
article, I described how Component Display Theory, oneof the eight theories in the first Green Book was
expanded to become Instructional Transaction Theory inthe second Volume. It was also introduced in detail theSTAR Regacy Theory, stemming from the Jasper
Project(11) at Vanderbilt University. The review article
was concluded using the seven elements deemed for the
instructional design theories in the next generation,
proposed by Reigeluth.
表１

工業社会と情報社会の組織間の主な違い

工業社会の組織

情報社会の組織

標準化 カスタム化
官僚組織 チームを基礎とした組織
中央集権的制御 責任に裏打ちされた自律敵対関係 協同関係
独裁的な意思決定 共有された意思決定
服従（コンプライアンス） イニシアチブ
画一性 多様性
一方向コミュニケーション ネットワークづくり
区画化 全体論
部品指向の プロセス指向の計画的な陳腐化 トータルな品質
ＣＥＯまたは上司が「王様」 顧客が「王様」
注：Reigeluth, 1999，p.17 を鈴木が訳したTranslation of Proceedings of a special presentation for JSiSE research meeting on May 27, 2011, Campus Innovation Center, Tokyo(incomplete version)

Many of the theories included in the second Green
Book were created by the researchers in the field, known
as Learning Sciences nowadays. For example, it hadlearning community building theory by Allan Collins,
STAR Regacy Model by Daniel Schwarts and John D.
Bransford, and Goal-based Scenario (GBS) Theory by
Roger C. Schank. Instructional design community was
not interacting very much with learning sciences
community at that time, to advance without knowing one
another. However, it was Reigeluth who fond many
important advancement in practical research that should
be included in Instructional Design Theories and Models.
It was way before the time when Educational
Technology made a special issue on dialogue between
the two communities in 2004(10). The special issue
included four articles by researchers who knew both fieldvery well, together with a total of nine reaction papers
from both communities. Reigeluth was one of the writersof reaction papers from instructional systems
community.
I was most influenced by Schank’s GBS theory among
many theories included in the second Green Book. I
encountered with the work of Schank, who was one of
the leading researchers in the field of learning sciencesby reading the chapter in Green Book II, and conducted athorough investigation of his work. During the trip to
USA for the interviews in June 2005, I was lucky to visit
his home in Florida, to meet him for the first time, andgot stimulated so much with direct conversation withhim. Later at my present institution, I obtained an
opportunity to design online graduate program fore-learning specialist. With the financial support by MOE
for good practice in graduate education, I worked
together to redesign the program(12) with one of Schank’s
former graduate students, Kemi Jona of Northwestern
University, who had build with Schank himself the
Story-centered Curriculum at Carnegie Mellon’s West
Campus. The third cohort has been graduated from our
newly re-designed program, for which we have been
conducting a design-based research to accumulate
generalizable concepts, as well as shaping the quality of
our own program. It has been an experimental effort
guided by the direction of “Not integration bytechnology, but transformation by technology” (14)learned from the interview with Reigeluth in 2005.
The theories included in Green Book II varied in many
ways, but all influenced by constructivist psychology. It
was the Green Book II that stimulated Merrill’s First
Principles of Instruction that proposes that there arecommonalities across the varied theories. It has been
having a major impact in the field, after its first
appearance in 2002. I see continuity in Merrill’s First
Principles from Gange’s Nine Events of Instruction, butadding constructivistic features, such as showing anauthentic task when informing learners of learning
objectives. With the First Principles of Instruction as a
guiding scheme, the last volume of Green Book III was
born.

4.

Maturity of Instructional Design and theThird Volume

The third volume of the Green Book was pubished in2009(5), with a subtitle “Building Common Knowledge
Base.” As the last volume in the trilogy(15), it wasco-edited by one of Reigeluth’s former students,
Car-Cellman of University of Pennsylvania, publishedwith longer preparation time than it was planed. It was
positioned to serve as an important basis for educational
system in information age, by reorganizing instructional
design theories and its related knowledge with common
terminologies, in order to form the common ground forthe future. It was limited in the second volume tointroduce variety of theories of the time, one by one
without integrating them, without any particular
guidance of when to use which theories. The third
volume, on the other hand, clearly aimed at proposing acommon scheme to integrate what had been proposed in
the field of instructional design (1)．
Table 2 lists the table of contents of the Green Book
III, with synopses of each chapter (16)．Reigeluth adopted
Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction as the common
rule that can be applied to any situation (Chapter 3),
while calling more specific rules as the situation specificprinciples. This concept is to propose more powerfulknowledge base with grammatical scheme with approach,
instructional elements, and sequencing techniques. Unit
2 introduced situation specific principles in moreadvanced areas, including direct instruction, discussion,
experiential approach, problem-solving approach, andsimulations. In Unit 3, various learning outcomes wereaddressed, including skill development, understanding,affective development, and integrative instruction. The
domain specific principles were not introduced as aseparate chapter for memorization, as it was regarded to
be unsuitable for instruction in information age. It was
proposed to make a flexible learning environment by
combiningvarietyof
instructional
elements
considerately, derived from different value system, inorder to fit the needs and educational goals. To
accomplish that, common principles and situation
specific principles should be used, according toReigeluth.
Unit 4, the last unit in Green Book III, deals with tools
to advance common knowledge base, including layer
structure, domain theory, learning objects, and so on.
Last chapter concludes with important characteristics of
education in information age, inviting the researchersand practitioners for continuing discussion.

5.

Concluding Remarks

This paper described what I have learned from theworks of Reigeluth, in relation to what I have written in
my review paper. It is now apparent, from my personalreflection, how much contributions the trilogy ofReigeluth’s Green Books has served for the advancementof the field of instructional design.

Translation of Proceedings of a special presentation for JSiSE research meeting on May 27, 2011, Campus Innovation Center, Tokyo(incomplete version)

The third First Principle, Parrish’s Aesthetic Principles
of Instructional Design was not touched upon in thispresentation, since I have not found Parrish’s work in thewritings of Reigeluth. The interested readers shouldmake reference to my review paper itself for the
information of Parrish’s work. I would like to ask Prof.
Reigeluth what he thinks of Parrish’s work when I will
have a chance to do so.
References(1) Suzuki, K., & Nemoto, J.: Around the Birth of three First
Principles of Instructional Design (A Reivew Paper).
Japan Journal of Information and Systems in Education,
28 (2), in print to be published in 2011. [In Japanese](2) Suzuki, K. Structuring Techniques and Learner Control(Chapter 7). In E. Nojima, K. Suzuki, & A. Yoshida (Eds.),
Human Informatics and e-Learning. Education Promotion
Agency for Open University Japan, p.114-115（2006）[InJapanese](3) Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.) Instructional-design Theories andModels: An Overview of their Current Status. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale,N.J. (1983)(4) Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.) Instructional-design Theories andModels: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (Vol. II).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1999)(5) Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr, A. (Eds.). Instructional Design
Theories and Models: Building a Common Knowledge
Base (Vol. III). New York: Routledge Publishers (2009)(6) Nojima, E., Suzuki, K., & Yoshida, A. (Eds.). Human
Informatics and e-Learning. Education Promotion Agency
for Open University Japan, Chapters 5, 7, and 8.（2006）[In Japanese](7) Suzuki, K. Trends of research into instructional designmodels in the United State (A Review Paper).
Transactions of Japan Society of Educational Technology,
13(1), 1-14 (1989) [In Japanese](8) Reigeluth, C. M. & Merrill, D. M. A knowledge base for
improving our methods of instruction. Educational
Psychologist, 13: 57-70 (1978)(9) Keller, J.M., & Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner motivation ande-Learning design: A mutinationally validated process.
Journal of Educational Media (Special Issue), 29 (3),229-239.
(10) Suzuki, K.: Current Trends of Instructional Design
Theories and Models for ICT Utilization (A Review
Paper). Japan Journal of Information and Systems in
Education, 22(1)，42-53 (2005) [In Japanese](11) Suzuki, K.: Anchoring Classroom Instruction to a
Realistic Context: The Jasper Project as an Example.
Japan Journal of Educational Media Studies，2(1) 13-27(1995) [In Japanese](12) Suzuki, K., Nemoto, J., Oyamada, M., Miyazaki, M., &Shibata, Y. “Upgrading an online master’s degree program
based on Story-centered Curriculum (SCC): A case study”,
Proceedings of ED-MEDIA2009, pp. 591－598 (2009)(13) Nemoto, J., Kubota, S., Migita, M., Matsuba, R., Kitamura,S., Kita, T. & Suzuki, K. (in print). Design-Based
Research of Authentic Learning: Lessons Learned From
Improving an Online E-learning Specialist Graduate

Program. The Journal of Information and Systems in
Education, 9 (1), to be published in 2011(14) Reigeluth, C. M. : Transforming the Whole Organization
with Learner-centered Design: A message from Prof.
Reigeluth. In E. Nojima, K. Suzuki, & A. Yoshida (Eds.),
Human Informatics and e-Learning. Education Promotion
Agency for Open University Japan, p.121（2006）[InJapanese](15) Reigeluth, C. M. Instructional theory for education in theinformation age (Chapter 18). In C. M. Reigeluth, & A.
Carr, (Eds.), Instructional Design Theories and Models:
Building a Common Knowledge Base (Vol. III). New
York: Routledge Publishers, p.398 (2009)(16) Nemoto, J., & Suzuki, K.: Instructional design theories
and trends of theory construction: Content analysis ofReigeluth’s Instructional Design Theories and Models,Vol. III. A paper presented at the 25th Annual Conferenceof Japan Society for Educational Technology. Universityof Tokyo. Proceedings, 781-782 (2009) [In Japanese]Translation of Proceedings of a special presentation for JSiSE research meeting on May 27, 2011, Campus Innovation Center, Tokyo(incomplete version)

表２「ID 理論とモデル」第三巻の目次と概要
章

各章の概要

ﾕﾆｯﾄ１．ID 理論を理解するためのフレームワーク
1

ID 理論を理解する：ID 理論の構造と用語/ID 分野関係用語/関連分野/新パラダイムの必要性
インストラクションを理解する：インストラクションの構

2

成要素（英語の文法のように、価値・条件・方法を記述する。方法はアプローチ・構成要素・系列で記述する。）

3

Merrill の第一原理（First Principles）：すべてのイン
ストラクションに共通の原理
イ ン ス ト ラ ク シ ョ ン の 状 況 依 存 原 理 （ Situational

4

Principles）：インストラクションの状況ごとに異なる原理。アプローチと学習成果ごとに異なる原理が適用される

ﾕﾆｯﾄ２．異なるアプローチのための理論
直接教授法（Direct approach）：教師が学習全体をしっか5りと管理し，学習した内容を定着させる目的でよく検討されたレッスンを用いて行う授業方法
ディスカッションアプローチ（Discussion approach）：ト

6

ピックの徹底的な調査，クリティカルシンキング，問題解決力などを養うためのアプローチ
経験的アプローチ（Experiential approach）：Kolb によ

7って具体化された経験学習理論から派生した現実的な課
題を与え学習者主体の学びを提供するアプローチ8

問題解決型アプローチ（ Problem-based approach）：与えられた問題に取り組み，可能性のある解決法を考える
シミュレーションアプローチ（Simulation approach) ：9

流動的なシーケンスや状況が変化していく中で複数の複雑な行動で構成される統合的なスキルを培うアプローチ

ﾕﾆｯﾄ３．異なる学習成果のための理論
10
11
12

13

スキル開発（skill development outcomes）：ある特定のタスクと時間や量的・質的などの条件を与え，実行する能力を養うためのインストラクション
理解力（understanding outcomes）：実行能力を育成する
ためのインストラクション
情意的発達（Affective development outcomes）：学習者の感情的知性（emotional intelligence）を養うことを支援するインストラクション
総 合 的 学 習 （ Integrated learning outcomes acrossdomain ）：求心力のある主題に学習目標や活動，リソース
そして評価を直接結び付けて学習能力を高めること

ﾕﾆｯﾄ４．共通知識基盤を作るためのツール
14

15

16

17
18

ID 理論のアーキテクチャ：内容・方略・メッセージ・制
御・表象・メディア論理・データ管理の各階層（レイヤー）に分けて，それをデザインツールとして利用する提案
学習者中心教育を可能にするためのドメイン理論：理論とデータをマッピングすることで学習をカスタマイズし，異なる対象者向けの学習経験を検討するためのツール
ID 理論と学習オブジェクト：古いものと新しいものをう
まく組み合わせながら，その時代に合ったインストラクシ
ョンを提示できるツール
理論構築について：デザイン理論構築のフレームワークとしてデータ駆動・価値依拠・方法依拠・実践駆動型があり、グランデッドセオリー・ＤＢＲ・形成的研究が応用可能
情報時代の教育のための ID 理論：まとめ/ID の社会的役
割、情報社会における教育の特徴、学習者中心主義