This paper was prompted by recent discussion among instructional designers suggesting that instructional design (ID) may be able to stand quite independent of its learning-theory foundations. Two conference papers deserve mention. Tripp (1994) argued that instructional theory need not be tied to any particular learning theory; indeed, instructional theory could be derived directly from observation of successful instructional practice. To make his point, he referred to Pacific islanders using informal and formal instructional techniques to learn how to navigate on the open seas. Then based on this case, he articulated a number of instructional principles that re-affirm traditional ID theory and call into question some of the claims of situated-ID theorists. Table 1 summarizes the instructional approach of the islanders and several of Tripp's resulting principles.

In another panel presentation, Dick (1994) discussed changes he was incorporating into his popular text in instructional design (Dick & Carey, 1990). These changes incorporated certain procedures and steps--e.g., analyses of the environment and the performance context) but avoided learning theory. A search of the book's index, he explained, would not include direct discussion of behaviorism, cognitivism, or constructivism. The differences between different learning theories were seen to be irrelevant to the basic practice of instructional design. As a listener and participant on the panel, the only inference I could draw was that Dick perceived a rather loose coupling between learning theory and instructional design--Yes, they were related, but one could be taught independent of the other.

In a paper aimed at the "situated" movement in ID, Tripp (1994) describes both on-the-job and in-class instruction of Pacific islanders who learn how to navigate on the open seas. Citing Lewis (1978), Tripp describes the education of a young navigator, Piailug:

From the age of six to eighteen, Piailug received informal instruction at sea. However, this instruction did not make him a navigator. At age eighteen he entered the poa, a four to six month course of systematic instruction. Poa is an initiation into the navigators' arts. Students live together in the men's house. Special food is prepared for them. They make take no water, nor may they wash in water. They drink only coconut milk. They must remain celibate. The course begins with a ceremony and a prayer. The head navigator then discourses on the secrets of navigation all night and through the next day. This continues for weeks with relays of navigators serving as instructors. Each stage is initiated by the drinking of a special potion. When the fifth stage is completed the boys may return home, but they must remain celibate. (Tripp, 1994, p. 3)

In this highly systematic, ritualized instruction, instructors use a number of teaching aids that bear a resemblance to traditional, didactic instruction, including:

--a star compass, where stars and paths are represented by pebbles, squares, and sticks;

--mnemonic techniques to help students assimilate the vast amounts of information required for navigation

--visualization techniques, such as asking students to use an imaginary pole to "pull back" all the stars from a particular point of reference;

--stories are told in which the stars become people, thus establishing dynamic story schemas for different star patterns;

--occasional role-play, where students play different stars in re-enacting their stories.

Tripp draws a number of generalizations from the islanders' navigation instruction, most aimed at re-affirming traditional models of direct, controlled instruction as an effective means of conveying expertise, including:

--In all cases, formal classroom training followed, not preceded, actual on-sea experience....[Therefore,] begin instruction with applied knowledge, in a simplified form.

--Reality is not necessarily superior to artificiality.

--Physical acts such as imagining yourself 'pulling in' islands under a star are used to help students remember and organize vast quantities of information.

--Embed knowledge in meaningful context....Attach physical actions to the meaning...

--Affective factors are crucial to the mastery of skills that are difficult and time- consuming. Give students a sense of the importance of their work. Wait until students are mature enough to appreciate it. Compress the training into as short a period as possible. (Tripp, pp. 3-4, reformatted)

My initial impulse was to "deconstruct" the current Dick and Carey (1990) text, revealing the learning theory implicit in its models and procedures. There is a learning theory hiding in the text, and it is largely an objectivist, behaviorally-based theory of learning, I would have argued. Indeed, the Dick and Carey text is representative of the field in this respect--historically the assumptions underlying ID discourse have been consistent with an objectivist, transmission model of knowledge, and an objectives-based, control model of how teachers and learners should interact.

However, I decided against doing the book critique: It would be an obvious exercise and would shed little new light on the subject. Nonetheless, I became interested in understanding why Tripp and Dick seemed deliberately to distance themselves from learning theory. Is learning theory thought to be a diversion from the specific issues of design? Would a theory of learning have anything useful to say to ID? Or is this a simple matter of competition between two fields, too close to be quite comfortable with one another?

My purpose in this paper, then, is to consider the relationship between learning theory and instructional design. I believe that theories of learning serve as a foundation for instructional prescriptions, yet in other ways, they are inadequate as guides for practice. I will argue that the two fields of ID and psychology should depend upon each other to fill important specialized roles, and that dialogue should continue between designers and psychologists as they both address problems of practice.

I would like to first clarify what we mean when we use the term 'instruction.' All definitions make reference to learning outcomes. However, rather than a single definition, consider the following metaphors for instruction:

--Time and place definitions suggest that instruction is what goes on in classrooms during 50-minute intervals.

--The product delivery metaphor suggests an information-processing and transmission model of instruction.

--Systems and process definitions of instruction tend to emphasize the steps or stages, inputs and outputs, interlocking mechanisms, and control of flow.

The constructivism movement has heightened our awareness of how our underlying views of knowledge influence practice, as shown in Table 2.

If you think of knowledge as...	Then you may tend to think of instruction as...
--a quantity or packet of content waiting to be transmitted	--a product to be delivered by a vehicle.
--a cognitive state as reflected in a person's schemas and procedural skills	--set of instructional strategies aimed at changing an individual's schemas.
--a person's meanings constructed by interaction with one's environment	--a learner drawing on tools and resources within a rich environment.
--enculteration or adoption of a group's ways of seeing and acting	--participation in a community's everyday activities.

Table 2. How our views of knowledge influence our views of instruction.

The table suggests that viewing instruction as a learning environment is related to a meaning-construction view of knowledge. A learning environment is a place where people can draw upon resources to make sense out of things and solve problems. Adding 'constructivist' to the front end of the term is a way of emphasizing the importance of meaningful, authentic activities that help the learner construct meaningful understandings and skills relevant to solving problems.

Thinking of instruction as an environment gives emphasis to the "place" or "space" where learning occurs. At a minimum, a learning environment contains:

--the learner;

--a "setting" or "space" wherein the learner acts, using tools and devices, collecting and interpreting information, interacting perhaps with others, etc.

This metaphor holds considerable potential because instructional designers like to think that effective instruction requires a degree of student initiative and choice. An environment wherein students are given "room" to explore, and determine goals and learning activities seems an attractive concept. Students who are given generous access to information resources--books, print and video materials, etc.--and tools--word-processing programs, e-mail, search tools, etc.--are likely to learn something if they are also given proper support and guidance. Under this conception, learning is fostered and supported, but not controlled or dictated in any strict fashion. For this reason, we tend to hear less about "instructional" environments and more about "learning" environments--instruction connoting more control and directiveness, being replaced by the more flexible idea of learning. A learning environment, then, is a place where learning is fostered and supported.

In summary, a number of metaphors may be appropriate for thinking about instruction, depending on the situation. Process, product, and systems metaphors of instruction continue to dominate the field. The metaphors of environment and community have an important contribution to make to thinking in instructional design. Rather than looking for the one "true" way to think about instruction, we should be seeking for the right time and place for viewing instruction in different ways. For example, I may need to yield to an environment metaphor when designing multipurpose, multimedia programs. I may need to think of learning communities when considering learning on the Internet. In contrast, I would tend to think of instruction as a product when delivering training to accompany a new office technology, or as a system when analyzing the multiple components of a school's organization. Most helpfully, we should try out different metaphors for all of the above scenarios and see where we are led. This plurality of perspectives can be confusing at times, but along with the multiple metaphors, we are developing tools and frameworks for managing the complexity.

Many people fail to realize how close the fields of instructional psychology and instructional design really are (Dick, 1987; Merrill, Kowallis, & Wilson, 1981). Instructional psychologists like Gagné and Glaser have always shown an interest in issues of design (Gagné, 1968; Glaser, 1976); indeed, they helped establish instructional design as a field of study (Gagné, 1987; Lumsdaine & Glaser, 1960). Table 3 presents an overview of this historical relationship:

Time period	1960-75	1976-1988	1989-present
Dominant paradigm	Behavioral psychology	Information processing psychology	Knowledge construction/ Social mediation
Status of ID	ID emerging	ID engaged in theory/model development	ID engaged in redefinition
Status of instructional psychology	Behaviorist	Moves toward cognitive mainstream	Follows mainstream towards constructivism
Relationship between ID and instructional psychology	ID and instructional psychology closely aligned	ID and instructional psychology diverge	ID and instructional psychology engaged in more dialogue

The field of instructional design developed in the 1960s and early 1970s at a time when behaviorism still dominated mainstream psychology. ID shared those behaviorist roots and at the time was closer to mainstream psychology in the U. S. ID theorists such as Gagné, Briggs, Merrill, and Scandura all were educational psychologists. With the cognitive revolution of the 1970s, instructional psychology differentiated itself from ID and drifted more to the cognitive mainstream, leaving ID relatively isolated with concerns of design. In a review of instructional psychology in 1981, Lauren Resnick (who only a few years earlier had been developing Gagné-style learning hierarchies) observed:

An interesting thing has happened to instructional psychology. It has become part of the mainstream of research on human cognition, learning, and development. For about 20 years the number of psychologists devoting attention to instructionally relevant questions has been gradually increasing. In the past 5 years this increase has accelerated so that it is now difficult to draw a clear line between instructional psychology and the main body of basic research on complex cognitive processes. Instructional psychology is no longer basic psychology applied to education. It is fundamental research on the processes of instruction and learning. (Resnick, 1981, p. 660)

In her review, Resnick acknowledged that mainstream instructional psychologists had focused on issues of performance modeling and cognitive task analysis, neglecting the challenge of devising effective instructional strategies, models, and interventions. Even so, she did not look to the ID community to fill the need because "Instructional design theory..., which is directly concerned with prescribing interventions, has developed without much reference to cognitive psychology" (Resnick, 1981, p. 693). Hence, she excluded ID theory entirely from her review. Of course, the ID community was active during this time, with even some attempt at integrating cognitive psychology into their methods (e.g., Low, 1981; Merrill, Wilson, & Kelety, 1981; Merrill, Kowallis, & Wilson, 1981)--Resnick and other mainstream psychologists just weren't reading them! This polarization between ID and psychology continued through the 1980s. In spite of efforts to move ID into the cognitive mainstream, psychologists and designers continued to move in different circles and speak somewhat different languages. Psychologists viewed designers with suspicion because of the eclectic and ad hoc nature of the ID theory base and because of the field's concern for stimulus design over cognitive processes. Likewise, the ID literature often ignored developments in cognitive theory, resulting in theory that was generally divorced from state-of-the-art learning theory.

Only recently, with the vigorous dialogue on constructivism and situated learning, have psychologists and designers resumed a substantive conversation (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992; Educational Technology, April 1993 special issue on situated learning; Wilson, in press a). Psychologists such as Bransford, Perkins, Scardamalia, and Lesgold, who have taken on the challenge of design, have run up against many of the same problems addressed by traditional ID theories. At the same time, the perspectives of psychologists have stimulated reflection and renewal within the ID community. The net result of this interplay is a renewed recognition of the importance of design, as well as an array of new designs that take into account new technologies and theories of learning. While there is still room for improved communication, much progress has been made.

TEACHING MODELS AS A FORM OF INQUIRY

Like other scientists, instructional psychologists develop theories and models describing the world, then use accepted methods of inquiry to test and revise those theories. Examples of appropriate research methods include controlled experiments in laboratory settings as well as ethnographic and qualitative studies in field settings. Another legitimate method of testing out concepts and strategies is to develop a prototype teaching model and assess its overall effectiveness in different settings. A teaching model incorporates a complex array of learning/instructional factors into a single working system. For example, John Anderson tested out his ideas of procedural learning by developing intelligent tutoring systems in LISP programming, geometry, and algebra (Anderson, 1987; Lewis, Milson, & Anderson, 1988); Ann Brown and her colleagues (Brown, Campione, & Day, 1981; Brown & Palincsar, 1989) developed reciprocal teaching as a means of testing their work on metacognition and reading.

The development and tryout of practical teaching models would not normally come to mind as a method of "research," yet surely such design and implementation efforts yield important new knowledge about the viability of cognitive theories and models. Perhaps such practical projects could be termed "inquiry" even if they do not fit the traditional connotation of research. When researchers become interested in the problem of how people learn complex subject matters in realistic learning settings, practical tryout of programs and methods fills a role that no amount of theorizing or isolated-factor research can provide.

Like Tripp's instructional principles, psychologists' teaching models can derive from direct empirical observation. Collins and Stevens (1983) closely observed teachers who used a Socratic dialogue approach and, based on the observed patterns, developed an instructional framework for inquiry teaching. Such "bottom-up" approaches can complement the heavy influence of "top-down" learning theory as a basis for the design of teaching models.

Thus psychologists' development of teaching models constitutes a unique combination of theory construction and empirical testing. Theoretical abstractions must be carried to a new level of specificity as they become instantiated into an effective teaching program. At the same time, promising theory must be tested against the demands of real-world settings. The development and testing of teaching models helps triangulate findings from more traditional research methods and assures a relevance to the practice of teaching.

In contrast, what is an ID theorist trying out when she/he develops an instructional theory? Instructional theories are less instantiations than syntheses of prescriptions and principles, intended to stand on their own. Many of the principles admittedly are derived or influenced from learning theory and psychology, but they may also come directly from empirical observation (e.g., Tripp's islanders) or other sciences, including communications, sociology, anthropology, education, management, information science and technology. In my opinion, educational psychology has been the single most important influence in the development of instructional theories, but even so, learning theory is thrown into the mix and combined with other ideas to yield a coherent theory or model of instruction that can serve as a guide to practice.

In summary, the differences between instructional psychologists' teaching models and those of ID theorists can be characterized by their purposes and emphases:

--The psychologist develops a teaching model in order to try out, validate, confirm, or observe the effects of a particular theory or scheme for learning; the model may be owe a debt to a variety of sources, but secondary influences are seen as "noise" or part of the "error term" in studying the primary artifact of interest: the learning theory.

--The ID theorist develops an instructional theory or model, and the model itself is the object of interest. The many branches of sciences, design, and technology that inform the theory are given credit but are not ends in themselves; the question is how useful is the theory in the hands of design practitioners?

For a number of years, John Sweller, an Australian psychologist from the University of New South Wales, has examined instructional implications of a model of memory called "cognitive load theory." A description of cognitive load theory is included here because it crosses boundaries between learning theory and instructional theory and serves as a good case study of both. Based on a straightforward reading of information-processing concepts of memory, schema development, and automaticity of procedural knowledge, the model works from the following premises:

--Human working memory is limited--we can only keep in mind a few things at a time. This poses a fundamental constraint on human performance and learning capacity.

--Two mechanisms to circumvent the limits or working memory are:

--Schema acquisition, which allows us to chunk information into meaningful units, and

--Automation of procedural knowledge.

The first mechanism deals primarily with processing and understanding information; the second deals with the acquisition of skills. Each mechanism helps us overcome the limits of working memory by drawing on our long-term memories, which are very detailed and powerful.

Sweller's model of instructional design is based upon these concepts:

1. Our limited working memories make it difficult to assimilate multiple elements of information simultaneously.

2. When multiple information elements interact, they must be presented simultaneously. This imposes a heavy cognitive load upon the learner of the information and threatens successful learning.

3. High levels of element "interactivity" and their resulting cognitive load can be inherent in the content--e.g., learning language grammar inherently involves more element interactivity than simple vocabulary learning. However, weak methods of presentation and instruction may result in unnecessarily high overhead. An example would be to present a student a figure whose understanding requires repeated consultation of the text. The extra work required in decoding and translating the figure competes with the content for precious working-memory resources as the learner attempts to comprehend the material.

Cognitive load theory leads to some specific predictions for student learning:

--Simple content--i.e., content with relatively few intrinsic interactive elements--is not threatened by weak instructional methods. Learners are generally able to fit the demands of content and instruction within their working memories in such cases.

--Content containing high levels of interactivity among its elements cannot be learned effectively through weak instructional methods--that is, methods that require extra processing by learners. The demands of content and/or the method exceed the limits of the learner's working memory and learning does not occur.

Sweller's cognitive load theory includes a number of instructional prescriptions, including:

--Carefully analyze the attention demands of instruction. Sweller's method defines "elements" and then counts the number of elements in instructional messages. Processing troubles arise when the learner must attend to too many different elements at the same time.

--Use single, coherent representations. These should allow the learner to focus attention rather than split attention between two places, e.g., between a diagram and the text or even between a diagram with labels not located close to their referents (Chandler & Sweller, 1991; see discussion in Sweller & Chandler, 1994, pp. 192-193).

--Eliminate redundancy. Redundant information between text and diagram have been shown to decrease learning. (See Saunders & Solman, 1984; Reder & Anderson, 1982; Lesh, Landau, & Hamilton, 1983; and Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990 for research on redundant information on other tasks.)

--Provide for systematic problem-space exploration instead of conventional repeated practice (Pierce, Duncan, Gholson, Ray, & Kamhi, 1993).

--In multimedia instruction, present animation and audio narration (and/or text descriptions) simultaneously rather than sequentially (Mayer & Anderson, 1991, 1992; Mayer & Sims, 1994).

--Provide worked examples as alternatives to conventional problem-based instruction (Paas & Van Merriënboer, 1994; Carroll, 1994; in the area of analogical reasoning tasks, see Robins & Mayer, 1993; and Pierce et al., 1993).

--Use worked examples as an alternative to repeated practice (Sweller & Cooper, 1985; Sweller, 1989).

These instructional prescriptions are consistent in spirit with traditional instructional theories. Because they come from a cognitive psychologist, however, they are tightly coupled with a specific learning theory. Conceivably, they could conceivably be taught to designers as rote rules to apply, but they make much more sense when grounded in information-processing terms.

Compared to traditional ID theories, Sweller has the advantage of closely grounding his prescriptions in both a theory of learning and in supporting empirical research. Seen in that light, his arguments are very persuasive, but still need to be placed into the proper context of a full-blown theory of instruction. By appropriating Sweller's recommendations and fitting them into existing ID theories, the rough edges are smoothed out. That is, instead of seeing all instruction in terms of rule-following skills, we can make a place for this kind of learning, but at the same time, we acknowledge learning outcomes that may not be well-addressed by Sweller's strategies. By itself, Sweller's model is too narrow to fit all situations; placed within an overall instructional theory, his recommendations become extremely valuable for the design of rule-based instruction.

There has not been room to address a number of important points about the relationship between theory and practice, and between learning and instruction. Both designers of instruction and people who write about ID participate on professional communities. The same is true for learning psychologists: They conduct research, write for their colleagues, attend conferences, and teach their students. Occasionally, they interact with teachers, who serve as both object and (hopefully) audience of their research. Theorists of both varieties make a category error when we think that the knowledge is "found" in the literature, which practitioners (designers or teachers) then take and "apply" to their work. It would also be a mistake to say that professional knowledge is the exclusive property of field practitioners. Both practitioners and researchers have some form of knowledge about the subject--in the one case the knowledge is personal (Polanyi, 1958), in the practitioner's hands, feet, head, tools, and environments; in the case of the researcher, it's also in their writings and lecture notes.

In my own personal work in ID theory, I have been enormously influenced by advances in our understanding about how people learn individually and in groups. Most recently, I have been influenced by sociocultural perspectives and the situated-cognition movement. I am seeing applications to these ideas as I work with students and other professionals on the Internet, a grand learning community within a virtual environment. I appreciate the dialogue and interplay between psychologists or basic researchers and the applied yet general orientation of ID theorists.

I recently encountered an article by a research psychologist that held potent implications for ID theory and practice. Bill Clancey (1993) is a respected architect of intelligent tutoring systems or ITS. His major career accomplishment was the development of the Guidon-Manage tutor to aid medical diagnoses. In a remarkable example of self-reflection, Clancey concludes: "After more than a decade, I felt that I could no longer continue saying that I was developing instructional programs for medicine because not a single program I worked on was in routine use..." (p. 7). What did Clancey learn from his research? Apart from his contribution to intelligent tutoring technologies, he learned that research in a laboratory differs from research in the field. "[R]esearchers must participate in the community they wish to influence... (p. 9, italics retained). "As ITS matures, some members of our research community must necessarily broaden their goals from developing representational tools to changing practice--changing how people interact and changing their lives... (p. 9, italics retained). Clancey then reflects on how he might approach the Guidon-Manage research differently today:

--participating with users in multidisciplinary design teams versus viewing teachers and students as my subjects,

--adopting a global view of the context...instead of delivering a program in a...box,

--being committed to provide cost-effective solutions for real problems versus imposing my research agenda on another community,

--facilitating conversations between people versus only automating human roles,...

--relating...ITS computer systems to...everyday practice...versus viewing models...as constituting the essence of expert knowledge that is to be transferred to a student, and

--viewing the group as a psychological unit versus modeling only individual behavior. (Clancey, 1993, p. 17)

In spite of their psychology origins, these insights may well have been written by an instructional designer. The parallels between Clancey's confessional article and my experience in ID are striking (e.g., Wilson, in press b). I can complement Clancey's theoretical work by developing specific models and technologies for accomplishing "participatory" or "situated" design, and by finding ways to use technologies to support learning communities.

A particularly important debt we owe psychology is in the articulation of what is to be taught. Somebody has to try and define what is to be learned in our programs. Learning specialists--i.e., experts in learning theory and nowadays epistemology as well--can inform the discussion and help us avoid pitfalls.

David Perkins (1992), a learning psychologist with a philosophy background, argues for the primacy of deciding what we want to teach, contradicting the claim that: "What we need is a new and better method. If only we had improved ways of inculcating knowledge or inducing youngsters to learn, we would attain the precise...outcomes we cherish" (p. 44). Instead, Perkins believes that "given reasonably sound methods, the most powerful choice we can make concerns not method but curriculum--not how we teach but what we choose to try to teach" (p. 44).

Just as an architect would say that form follows function, the design of instruction needs to follow our intentions for learning. Of course, this lesson was not lost on even the authors of programmed instruction, and is a key ID tenet. A basic lesson learned from observing schools is that two teachers may be covering the same ostensive curriculum while what really is taught differs radically between them.

At its base, the constructivist movement in education involves curriculum reform, a rethinking of what it means to know something. Thus, if a commitment is made toward rethinking curriculum to expand the roles of knowledge construction and learning communities, then a corresponding commitment needs to be made in rethinking learning activities.

As Reigeluth (1983) acknowledges, curriculum and instruction cannot be completely separated. There is a tendency among many institutions to give lip service to higher-order outcomes while maintaining teaching methods that specifically suppress such outcomes. Medical schools that teach students to simply memorize and take tests are an example. Another example is a military school whose mission statement prizes "creativity" in students, yet whose teaching methods and authoritarian culture strictly reinforce conformity and transmission of content.

Learning theory is an obvious source for inspiration, insight, and new perspectives on instruction and its design. In addition, management and systems sciences have contributed insights about the development process. The study of human group processes, including anthropology, sociology, and social psychology, are also becoming increasingly important for the design of learning technologies and instruction in general (e.g., Grief, 1988). In short, ID draws upon a whole host of knowledge bases in the construction of its models and theories. This is particularly important because as a field, we are small and young, and tend to lack rigorous methods for testing and improving our models.

Some instructional theories are tightly linked to specific learning theories; the Collins-Brown cognitive apprenticeship model is an example. Other instructional theories hold no obvious debt to any specific learning theory. I have argued that no instructional theory can completely ignore learning processes, and should be supported by reference to current learning literature.

If an ID theory or model is intended to be a "black box" within which can fit a number of different learning philosophies, then I would imagine that such a theory would not specifically address instructional processes, but more the management functions needed in the development process. Principles of formative evaluation, for example, may be used by designers holding a variety of views about learning. The general concept of formative evaluation is derived from systems theory and feedback loops. The moment, however, that the designer makes a choice about how to gather data--from surveys, observations, or posttests--and how to interpret the data and what to do with it--at that moment, some kind of implicit theory of knowledge and learning has come into play. That implicit, personal theory may relate to formal theories in a very indirect way, but it is nonetheless critical to guide the designer in making decisions about learners, learning needs, learning processes, and learning outcomes.

The specific roles of psychologists and ID theorists are both valuable to the community of practice. Psychologists ask: "What's going on here; how is learning happening?" Design theorists ask: "How can we develop procedures, conventions, and ways of seeing so that good instruction will get designed?" These two questions are closely related yet complementary in the end. The challenge for both psychologists and ID theorist is to continue to find the connection to practice. "Praxis" is sometimes used to denote the interface between theory and practice; researchers, theorists, designers, and teachers should all look for that interface.

Anderson, J. R. (1987). Methodologies for studying human knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Science, 10, 467-477.

Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from texts. Educational Researcher, 10 (2), 14-21.

Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carroll, W. M. (1994). Using worked examples as an instructional support in the algebra classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (3), 360-367.

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332.

Clancey, W. J. (1993). Guidon-Manage revisited: A socio-technical systems approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 4 (1), 5-34.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Collins, A., & Stevens, A. L. (1983). A cognitive theory of inquiry teaching. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 247-278). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Dick, W. (1987). A history of instructional design and its impact on educational psychology. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning (Eds.), Historical foundations of educational psychology (pp. 183-200). New York: Plenum Press.

Dick, W. (1994, April). So how do you implement constructivism into instructional design? Panel presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1990). The systematic design of instruction (3rd ed.). Glenview, IL; Scott, Foresman & Co.

Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.). (1992).Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation . Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Gagné, R. M. (1968). Learning hierarchies. Presidential Address of APA Division 15. Educational Psychologist, 6 (1), 1-9.

Gagné, R. M. (Ed.). (1987). Instructional technology: Foundations. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Glaser, R. (1990). The reemergence of learning theory within instructional research. American Psychologist, 45 (1), 29-39.

Glaser, R. (1976). Components of a psychology of instruction: Toward a science of design. Review of Educational Research, 46, 1-24.

Greif, I. (Ed.), Computer-supported cooperative work: A book of readings . San Mateo CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Lesh, R., Landau, M., & Hamilton, E. (1983). Conceptual models and applied mathematical problem solving research. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematical concepts and processes (pp. 263-343). New York: Academic Press.

Lewis, M. W., Milson, R., & Anderson, J. R. (1988). Designing an intelligent authoring system for high school mathematics ICAI: The teacher apprentice project. In G. P. Kearsley (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and instruction: Applications and methods (pp. 269-301). New York: Addison-Wesley.

Low, W. C. (1981). Changes in instructional development: The aftermath of an information processing takeover in psychology. Journal of Instructional Development, 4(2), 10-18.

Lumsdaine, A. A., & Glaser, R. (1960). Teaching machines and programmed learning. Washington D. C.: National Educational Association.

Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (4), 484-490.

Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (4), 444-452.

Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (3), 389-401.

Merrill, M. D., Kowallis, T., & Wilson, B. G. (1981). Instructional design in transition. In F. Farley & N. Gordon (Eds.), Psychology and education: The state of the union. Chicago: McCutcheon.

Merrill, M. D., Wilson, B. G., & Kelety, J. C. (1981). Elaboration theory and cognitive psychology. Instructional Science, 10, 217-235.

Morrison, D., & Collins, A. (1995). Epistemic fluency and constructivist learning environments. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (1), 122-133.

Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds. New York: The Free Press (MacMillan).

Pierce, K. A., Duncan, M. K., Gholson, B., Ray, G. E., & Kamhi, A. G. (1993). Cognitive load, schema acquisition, and procedural adaptation in nonisomorphic analogical transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (1), 66-74.

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Reder, L., & Anderson, J. (1982). Effects of spacing and embellishment on memory for main points of a text. Memory and Cognition, 10, 97-102.

Resnick, L. B. (1981). Instructional psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 659-704.

Robin, S., & Mayer, R. E. (1993). Schema training in analogical reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (3), 529-538.

Saunders, R., & Solman, R. (1984). The effect of pictures on the acquisition of a small vocabulary of similar sight-words. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 265-275.

Schooler, J., & Engstler-Schooler, T. (1990). Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 36-71.

Sweller, J. (1989). Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (4), 457-466.

Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59-89.

Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12 (3), 185-233.

Tripp, S. (1994, February). Reverse engineering the "Stone Canoe" (learning from designs). Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Nashville TN.

Wilson, B. G. (Ed.). (in press a). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Wilson, B. G. (in press b). Constructivism. In C. Dills & A. Romiszowski (Eds.), Advances in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Wilson, B. G., & Cole, P. (in press). Cognitive teaching models. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research in instructional technology. New York: Scholastic.

Brent Wilson (bwilson@carbon.cudenver.edu) is associate professor of information and learning technologies at the University of Colorado at Denver. His current interests include complexity theory, systems and change, and sociocultural approaches to instruction. Portions of this paper are excerpted from two sources: B. Wilson & P. Cole, Cognitive teaching models, in D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research in instructional technology, New York: MacMillan; and B. G. Wilson, What is a constructivist learning environment?, in B. G. Wilson, Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design, Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publications, 1996. Thanks to Peggy Cole who served as a co-author to the first paper, and to Martin Tessmer as an AERA session collaborator.