Based on a study of a variety of instructional design theories and models, Merrill (2002) puts forward five ‘first principles of instruction’ which uphold that learning is promoted when:

1.      learners are engaged in solving real-world problems,

2.      existing knowledge is activated as a foundation for new knowledge,

3.      new knowledge is demonstrated to the learner, 

4.      new knowledge is applied by the learner and,

5.      new knowledge is integrated into the learner’s world.

According to these principles, good instructional materials should consist of prior knowledge activation strategies (principle 2), (modelling) examples/demonstrations (principle 3), and practice of realistic learning tasks (principle 1 and 4) in a realistic context (principle 5). This symposium questions the value of a search for basic principles of instructional design and, more in particular, the five first principles of Merrill. Questions to be answered include: Are important principles missing? Are some principles superfluous? Does the listing of principles makes any sense or should we be looking at integrated sets of principles? Is the effectiveness of principles not actually mediated by learner-related characteristics such as expertise? And, last but not least, are first principles of instruction helpful to the field of instructional design or should we take another route?

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 43-59.

The basic problem of instructional design is how to link developments in learning and instruction to principles of designing education. Depending on the view on a learning environment, instruction-driven versus learner-driven parameters can be distinguished. In a tradition where instruction is the main paradigm (‘instructional’ design) it is expected that both quality and effectiveness of learning environments depend on instructional endeavours. Instructional designers build environments taking into account expected effectiveness principles that are highly dependent on the learning paradigm they adopt. In the ‘learning design’ paradigm, learners do not only play a leading role in their adaptation to the already designed learning environment but they are designers or co-designers of their own environment. Evidently, in more open and learner-directed environments, more is needed than instructional principles. Mental models and skills of learners in designing environments are needed as well. This is exemplified by the concept of ‘learner communities’ that, in their functioning, require more than instructional design principles.

The basic problem of instructional design is how to link developments in learning and instruction to principles of designing education. Depending on the view on a learning environment, instruction-driven versus learner-driven parameters can be distinguished. In a tradition where instruction is the main paradigm (‘instructional’ design) it is expected that both quality and effectiveness of learning environments depend on instructional endeavours. Instructional designers build environments taking into account expected effectiveness principles that are highly dependent on the learning paradigm they adopt. In the ‘learning design’ paradigm, learners do not only play a leading role in their adaptation to the already designed learning environment but they are designers or co-designers of their own environment. Evidently, in more open and learner-directed environments, more is needed than instructional principles. Mental models and skills of learners in designing environments are needed as well. This is exemplified by the concept of ‘learner communities’ that, in their functioning, require more than instructional design principles.

The basic problem of instructional design is how to link developments in learning and instruction to principles of designing education. Depending on the view on a learning environment, instruction-driven versus learner-driven parameters can be distinguished. In a tradition where instruction is the main paradigm (‘instructional’ design) it is expected that both quality and effectiveness of learning environments depend on instructional endeavours. Instructional designers build environments taking into account expected effectiveness principles that are highly dependent on the learning paradigm they adopt. In the ‘learning design’ paradigm, learners do not only play a leading role in their adaptation to the already designed learning environment but they are designers or co-designers of their own environment. Evidently, in more open and learner-directed environments, more is needed than instructional principles. Mental models and skills of learners in designing environments are needed as well. This is exemplified by the concept of ‘learner communities’ that, in their functioning, require more than instructional design principles.

The basic problem of instructional design is how to link developments in learning and instruction to principles of designing education. Depending on the view on a learning environment, instruction-driven versus learner-driven parameters can be distinguished. In a tradition where instruction is the main paradigm (‘instructional’ design) it is expected that both quality and effectiveness of learning environments depend on instructional endeavours. Instructional designers build environments taking into account expected effectiveness principles that are highly dependent on the learning paradigm they adopt. In the ‘learning design’ paradigm, learners do not only play a leading role in their adaptation to the already designed learning environment but they are designers or co-designers of their own environment. Evidently, in more open and learner-directed environments, more is needed than instructional principles. Mental models and skills of learners in designing environments are needed as well. This is exemplified by the concept of ‘learner communities’ that, in their functioning, require more than instructional design principles.

The basic problem of instructional design is how to link developments in learning and instruction to principles of designing education. Depending on the view on a learning environment, instruction-driven versus learner-driven parameters can be distinguished. In a tradition where instruction is the main paradigm (‘instructional’ design) it is expected that both quality and effectiveness of learning environments depend on instructional endeavours. Instructional designers build environments taking into account expected effectiveness principles that are highly dependent on the learning paradigm they adopt. In the ‘learning design’ paradigm, learners do not only play a leading role in their adaptation to the already designed learning environment but they are designers or co-designers of their own environment. Evidently, in more open and learner-directed environments, more is needed than instructional principles. Mental models and skills of learners in designing environments are needed as well. This is exemplified by the concept of ‘learner communities’ that, in their functioning, require more than instructional design principles.

In this contribution, Merrill's five first principles of education will be applied on a project, The Sparkling School, in which students, teachers, and researchers collaborate in a community of learners fostering the development of inquiry skills and subject-matter knowledge. The role of this learning environment as a testbed for student-teachers will be explored.

In this contribution, Merrill's five first principles of education will be applied on a project, The Sparkling School, in which students, teachers, and researchers collaborate in a community of learners fostering the development of inquiry skills and subject-matter knowledge. The role of this learning environment as a testbed for student-teachers will be explored.

In this contribution, Merrill's five first principles of education will be applied on a project, The Sparkling School, in which students, teachers, and researchers collaborate in a community of learners fostering the development of inquiry skills and subject-matter knowledge. The role of this learning environment as a testbed for student-teachers will be explored.

In this contribution, Merrill's five first principles of education will be applied on a project, The Sparkling School, in which students, teachers, and researchers collaborate in a community of learners fostering the development of inquiry skills and subject-matter knowledge. The role of this learning environment as a testbed for student-teachers will be explored.

In this contribution, Merrill's five first principles of education will be applied on a project, The Sparkling School, in which students, teachers, and researchers collaborate in a community of learners fostering the development of inquiry skills and subject-matter knowledge. The role of this learning environment as a testbed for student-teachers will be explored.

In this contribution, Merrill's five first principles of education will be applied on a project, The Sparkling School, in which students, teachers, and researchers collaborate in a community of learners fostering the development of inquiry skills and subject-matter knowledge. The role of this learning environment as a testbed for student-teachers will be explored.

In this contribution, Merrill's five first principles of education will be applied on a project, The Sparkling School, in which students, teachers, and researchers collaborate in a community of learners fostering the development of inquiry skills and subject-matter knowledge. The role of this learning environment as a testbed for student-teachers will be explored.

In this contribution, Merrill's five first principles of education will be applied on a project, The Sparkling School, in which students, teachers, and researchers collaborate in a community of learners fostering the development of inquiry skills and subject-matter knowledge. The role of this learning environment as a testbed for student-teachers will be explored.

In this contribution, Merrill's five first principles of education will be applied on a project, The Sparkling School, in which students, teachers, and researchers collaborate in a community of learners fostering the development of inquiry skills and subject-matter knowledge. The role of this learning environment as a testbed for student-teachers will be explored.

In this contribution, Merrill's five first principles of education will be applied on a project, The Sparkling School, in which students, teachers, and researchers collaborate in a community of learners fostering the development of inquiry skills and subject-matter knowledge. The role of this learning environment as a testbed for student-teachers will be explored.

In this contribution, Merrill's five first principles of education will be applied on a project, The Sparkling School, in which students, teachers, and researchers collaborate in a community of learners fostering the development of inquiry skills and subject-matter knowledge. The role of this learning environment as a testbed for student-teachers will be explored.

In this contribution, Merrill's five first principles of education will be applied on a project, The Sparkling School, in which students, teachers, and researchers collaborate in a community of learners fostering the development of inquiry skills and subject-matter knowledge. The role of this learning environment as a testbed for student-teachers will be explored.

In this contribution, Merrill's five first principles of education will be applied on a project, The Sparkling School, in which students, teachers, and researchers collaborate in a community of learners fostering the development of inquiry skills and subject-matter knowledge. The role of this learning environment as a testbed for student-teachers will be explored.

In this contribution, Merrill's five first principles of education will be applied on a project, The Sparkling School, in which students, teachers, and researchers collaborate in a community of learners fostering the development of inquiry skills and subject-matter knowledge. The role of this learning environment as a testbed for student-teachers will be explored.

Without a comprehensive framework for a theory of learning and

instruction, and without empirical evidence for that theory, principles of instruction are “pedagogical folklore”. In this contribution to the symposium, David Merrill’s “first principles of instruction” are reviewed against the background of a growing body of sound research on learning with multimedia. It is asked whether Merrill’s principles are in line with “multimedia learning principles” and whether recent empirical evidence that questions the generalizability of some of these principles - across different domains of learning and across different types of learners - might question the search for instructional “principles” in general.

Without a comprehensive framework for a theory of learning and

instruction, and without empirical evidence for that theory, principles of instruction are “pedagogical folklore”. In this contribution to the symposium, David Merrill’s “first principles of instruction” are reviewed against the background of a growing body of sound research on learning with multimedia. It is asked whether Merrill’s principles are in line with “multimedia learning principles” and whether recent empirical evidence that questions the generalizability of some of these principles - across different domains of learning and across different types of learners - might question the search for instructional “principles” in general.

Without a comprehensive framework for a theory of learning and

instruction, and without empirical evidence for that theory, principles of instruction are “pedagogical folklore”. In this contribution to the symposium, David Merrill’s “first principles of instruction” are reviewed against the background of a growing body of sound research on learning with multimedia. It is asked whether Merrill’s principles are in line with “multimedia learning principles” and whether recent empirical evidence that questions the generalizability of some of these principles - across different domains of learning and across different types of learners - might question the search for instructional “principles” in general.

Without a comprehensive framework for a theory of learning and

instruction, and without empirical evidence for that theory, principles of instruction are “pedagogical folklore”. In this contribution to the symposium, David Merrill’s “first principles of instruction” are reviewed against the background of a growing body of sound research on learning with multimedia. It is asked whether Merrill’s principles are in line with “multimedia learning principles” and whether recent empirical evidence that questions the generalizability of some of these principles - across different domains of learning and across different types of learners - might question the search for instructional “principles” in general.

Without a comprehensive framework for a theory of learning and

instruction, and without empirical evidence for that theory, principles of instruction are “pedagogical folklore”. In this contribution to the symposium, David Merrill’s “first principles of instruction” are reviewed against the background of a growing body of sound research on learning with multimedia. It is asked whether Merrill’s principles are in line with “multimedia learning principles” and whether recent empirical evidence that questions the generalizability of some of these principles - across different domains of learning and across different types of learners - might question the search for instructional “principles” in general.

Without a comprehensive framework for a theory of learning and

instruction, and without empirical evidence for that theory, principles of instruction are “pedagogical folklore”. In this contribution to the symposium, David Merrill’s “first principles of instruction” are reviewed against the background of a growing body of sound research on learning with multimedia. It is asked whether Merrill’s principles are in line with “multimedia learning principles” and whether recent empirical evidence that questions the generalizability of some of these principles - across different domains of learning and across different types of learners - might question the search for instructional “principles” in general.

Without a comprehensive framework for a theory of learning and

instruction, and without empirical evidence for that theory, principles of instruction are “pedagogical folklore”. In this contribution to the symposium, David Merrill’s “first principles of instruction” are reviewed against the background of a growing body of sound research on learning with multimedia. It is asked whether Merrill’s principles are in line with “multimedia learning principles” and whether recent empirical evidence that questions the generalizability of some of these principles - across different domains of learning and across different types of learners - might question the search for instructional “principles” in general.

Without a comprehensive framework for a theory of learning and

instruction, and without empirical evidence for that theory, principles of instruction are “pedagogical folklore”. In this contribution to the symposium, David Merrill’s “first principles of instruction” are reviewed against the background of a growing body of sound research on learning with multimedia. It is asked whether Merrill’s principles are in line with “multimedia learning principles” and whether recent empirical evidence that questions the generalizability of some of these principles - across different domains of learning and across different types of learners - might question the search for instructional “principles” in general.

Without a comprehensive framework for a theory of learning and

instruction, and without empirical evidence for that theory, principles of instruction are “pedagogical folklore”. In this contribution to the symposium, David Merrill’s “first principles of instruction” are reviewed against the background of a growing body of sound research on learning with multimedia. It is asked whether Merrill’s principles are in line with “multimedia learning principles” and whether recent empirical evidence that questions the generalizability of some of these principles - across different domains of learning and across different types of learners - might question the search for instructional “principles” in general.

In the final presentation of this symposium the presenter's answers to the following questions are synthesized:  Are important principles missing? Are some principles superfluous? Does the listing of principles makes any sense or should we be looking at integrated sets of principles? Is the effectiveness of principles not actually mediated by learner-related characteristics such as expertise? And, last but not least, are first principles of instruction helpful to the field of instructional design or should we take another route?

In the final presentation of this symposium the presenter's answers to the following questions are synthesized:  Are important principles missing? Are some principles superfluous? Does the listing of principles makes any sense or should we be looking at integrated sets of principles? Is the effectiveness of principles not actually mediated by learner-related characteristics such as expertise? And, last but not least, are first principles of instruction helpful to the field of instructional design or should we take another route?

In the final presentation of this symposium the presenter's answers to the following questions are synthesized:  Are important principles missing? Are some principles superfluous? Does the listing of principles makes any sense or should we be looking at integrated sets of principles? Is the effectiveness of principles not actually mediated by learner-related characteristics such as expertise? And, last but not least, are first principles of instruction helpful to the field of instructional design or should we take another route?

In the final presentation of this symposium the presenter's answers to the following questions are synthesized:  Are important principles missing? Are some principles superfluous? Does the listing of principles makes any sense or should we be looking at integrated sets of principles? Is the effectiveness of principles not actually mediated by learner-related characteristics such as expertise? And, last but not least, are first principles of instruction helpful to the field of instructional design or should we take another route?

In the final presentation of this symposium the presenter's answers to the following questions are synthesized:  Are important principles missing? Are some principles superfluous? Does the listing of principles makes any sense or should we be looking at integrated sets of principles? Is the effectiveness of principles not actually mediated by learner-related characteristics such as expertise? And, last but not least, are first principles of instruction helpful to the field of instructional design or should we take another route?

In the final presentation of this symposium the presenter's answers to the following questions are synthesized:  Are important principles missing? Are some principles superfluous? Does the listing of principles makes any sense or should we be looking at integrated sets of principles? Is the effectiveness of principles not actually mediated by learner-related characteristics such as expertise? And, last but not least, are first principles of instruction helpful to the field of instructional design or should we take another route?

In the final presentation of this symposium the presenter's answers to the following questions are synthesized:  Are important principles missing? Are some principles superfluous? Does the listing of principles makes any sense or should we be looking at integrated sets of principles? Is the effectiveness of principles not actually mediated by learner-related characteristics such as expertise? And, last but not least, are first principles of instruction helpful to the field of instructional design or should we take another route?

In the final presentation of this symposium the presenter's answers to the following questions are synthesized:  Are important principles missing? Are some principles superfluous? Does the listing of principles makes any sense or should we be looking at integrated sets of principles? Is the effectiveness of principles not actually mediated by learner-related characteristics such as expertise? And, last but not least, are first principles of instruction helpful to the field of instructional design or should we take another route?

In the final presentation of this symposium the presenter's answers to the following questions are synthesized:  Are important principles missing? Are some principles superfluous? Does the listing of principles makes any sense or should we be looking at integrated sets of principles? Is the effectiveness of principles not actually mediated by learner-related characteristics such as expertise? And, last but not least, are first principles of instruction helpful to the field of instructional design or should we take another route?