Who threw that pebble in my pond? … my read of Merrill
Background
In M. David Merrill’s 2002 classic paper, he proffers an alternative ISD approach to ADDIE as a means to address some of the shortcomings of the traditional model. Some of those shortcomings include that it can often be too cumbersome and slow and that it may be dated in terms of modern design needs. He further suggests that the process can be criticized for its adherence to a step-wise process that may not be implemented in the most stringent or high-quality fashion as it could be and, therefore, the failings of instruction produced through such a system indeed may miss the mark.
While a variety of ISD methods may be in use, Merrill argues that there are core “first principles” upon which different models agree. These first principles encompass the general phases of effective problem-centered instruction: activation, demonstration, application, and integration. Specifically, Merrill’s First Principles in the article are posed as a series of questions as follows:
- Is the courseware presented in the context of real-world problems? Are learners shown the problem, engaged at the task as well as the operation level, and involved in a progression of problems?
- Does the courseware attempt to activate relevant prior knowledge or experience? Are learners directed to recall relevant past experience or provided relevant experience? Are they encouraged to use some organizing structure?
- Does the courseware demonstrate what is to be learned rather than merely telling information about what is to be learned? Are the demonstrations consistent with the instructional goals? Is learner guidance employed? Do media enhance learning?
- Do learners have an opportunity to apply their newly acquired knowledge or skill? Is the application consistent with the instructional goals, and does it involve a varied sequence of problems with feedback? Are learners provided with gradually diminished coaching?
- Does the courseware provide techniques that encourage learners to integrate (transfer) the new knowledge or skill into their everyday life? Do learners have an opportunity to publicly demonstrate their new knowledge, reflect on their new knowledge, and create new ways to use their new knowledge?
Pebble-in-the-Pond versus ADDIE
In the Pebble-in-the Pond (PITP), the content is central to the process as it addresses or is based on these “first principles.” Shown in Figure 1 below, the approach’s starting point is the center, the pebble tossed into the pond, the real-world problem or task to be learned. The next step is to identify a progression of tasks or problems of increasing difficulty such that if learners master each, they will have mastered the problem or the skill/knowledge to be taught. The third involves describing the component knowledge or skill in the progression. In the fourth ripple, the instructional strategy is described to teach each of the components. The strategy relies on using a diminishing amount of learner guidance as mastery at each step in the instruction is displayed. In the fifth ripple, the interface is designed, with content adapted to the delivery system. The final stage is production, which Merrill states, he prefers to the ADDIE term of “development,” and the content is specified and produced.
The key difference between PITP and ADDIE is in the content centeredness and the treatment of the problem as a whole. However, as Merrill states, the PITP approach “assumes that the designer has already identified an instructional goal (not detailed objectives) and described the learner characteristics.” Generally speaking, PITP combines the analysis and design steps, asking designers to consider the tasks that need to be accomplished, and how those tasks can be broken up into “part-tasks” that can then each be tackled in turn, similar to scaffolding.
There are three general ways in which ADDIE and PITP differ. First, in ADDIE, the instructional objectives are identified early in the process, and Merrill notes that these are “abstract representations of the knowledge to be taught rather than the knowledge itself.” Second, by their nature, these abstract objectives are sometimes changed or abandoned once successive steps in the design process are completed. Third, Merrill argues that the PITP model is a more efficient model than traditional ADDIE ISD approaches in that it develops content first.
Study Example
In his study, Merrill used the PITP method to design a Microsoft Excel course, with increasingly difficult problems to solve and decreasing amounts of instruction. As proof of the model’s success, he compared the performances of 128 students across the same three problem scenarios using three different instructional methods, his, a commercial eLearning course which taught the commands and operations in a guided demonstration, and a control condition wherein there was no prior instruction to tackling the problems (although they did have access to an FAQ). The group utilizing the PITP designed instruction outperformed the guided demonstration group, and, not surprisingly, both groups outperformed the control.
Reflection
In reflecting on Merrill’s paper in general, I get the sense that PITP is not necessarily that different from ADDIE. While it does focus on content first, I feel that the performance of the learners could be used to feed-back to the design and strategy steps such that content and strategy could be continuously improved. Merrill did not state that this was necessarily a terminal point in the process, but it’s the sense I got in proving the method a superior one. He did suggest that one needs to really know what they’re doing with the tools and methods available to them, so the failings of an ADDIE (or even his PITP) process could be in its implementation rather than in its design or appropriateness to the course being created. I also feel that with its focus on the problem as a series of tasks that it is not unlike the task analysis steps involved in ADDIE models.
Additionally, I’m not sure that the proof he decided to use was necessarily a fair comparison. I think a more fair comparison would have involved equal design teams using both methods to design a training and then test constituents on the same problems. My guess is that both methods would have produced viable courses with similar success levels. I think failing to match the empirical method to the hypothesis one makes too often results in a false proof. I’m perfectly willing to admit that I read the paper wrong, though, since Dr. Merrill is a revered figure in the field and his study was published in a peer reviewed journal.
References
Merrill, M.D. (2002). A pebble-in-the-pond model for instructional design. Performance Improvement. 41(7).41-46.
Leave a Reply