Week 6: Effective, efficient, engaging instruction

What Makes e3 (effective, efficient, engaging) Instruction? By 

M. David Merrill

Summary

Merrill frames his thesis as an examination of BYU Hawaii’s efforts to increase both the quality of instruction and the number of students who are reached by distance learning. In doing so it is employing three types of instruction: problem-centered, peer-interactive and technology-enhanced.

First, he argues, such instruction has the advantage of making use of mental models for memory processes, which are generally agreed to be more stable (less prone to forgetting) than associative memory, which is related more closely to memorization.  Problem-centered learning allows students to mentally assemble the various dimensions (components, in his words) of a problem into a whole, thus creating a new – or revised/built upon a previous – mental model. Merrill also argues that such learning is highly motivating, in that learners see themselves doing something they could not do previously.  Second, peer interactivity – sharing, collaboration and critique – allow learners to test and refine their mental models, use their knowledge in new situations and employ the sort of teamwork that is required in the real world. Third, technology allows management of instruction to promote problem solving and meaningful interaction.

Merrill describes the steps in problem-centered learning as showing, then doing: Demonstrate the solution to the problem, teach the knowledge and skills (called component skills) needed to solve it, then use peer interaction to involve learners in problem-solving. “Peer interaction is most effective when in the context of solving real problems or doing real tasks,” Merrill argues (p. 4). This takes place at three levels: acquiring knowledge or skills and applying them to a single solution; discussing and defending different solutions to achieve a consensus solution; and “critiquing another solution based on their understanding of the problem and possible solutions.” (p. 4) Merrill argues that a sequence of three or more problems is most effective for learning the needed skills; new skills can be demonstrated and applied in each sequence as needed to complete the whole task, or set of tasks.

As for the instructor, Merrill says his/her role is to develop and implement the course, and shift during course delivery from presenting information to guiding and coaching learners in their interaction.

Critique

It’s easy to assent to Merrill’s thesis, especially his assertions of appealing to mental models and that “problem-centered, peer-interactive instruction is more motivating, produces better learning, and increases learner motivation.” (p. 2) Indeed, his description of problem-centered instruction, especially as compared to problem-based instruction, makes entirely good sense and is inherently appealing; people want to be taught how to solve real problems, especially in business settings. What goes unaddressed in such a short treatment is whether such an approach is best suited for teaching tasks rather than concepts, or is suited at all for addressing ill-defined problems. It does seem, on the surface, to be skewed in favor of task instruction, and offers little clue to its applicability to ill-defined problems and brainstorming. I would tend to think it could be applied across those other domains, but would appreciate a fuller treatment, with examples, that illustrates such uses.

Finally – though to me the differences matter little in the real world – Merrill seems to blur the line between cognitive learning and constructivist learning, appealing both to the construction and use of mental models and to collaborative, social knowledge construction. As a trainer in a corporate setting, I’m inclined to embrace such blurring if it’s proved to work, as apparently is has in Merrill’s setting.