Final Reflection for EDU 654

A Critical Analysis of the Similarities and Differences Between Gagne’s 9 Events of Instruction and Merrill's First Principles of Instruction

In our EDU 657 course, we are discussing instructional design and the approach taken by various models.

Robert Gagne developed a model for instructional design following a sequence called Gagne’s 9 Events of Instruction.  The diagram is from https://www.mnsu.edu/its/academic/mavlearn/models/gagne.html and lists each step with details explaining the outcomes along the path.

The instructor begins by gaining the attention of the learner.  This could be as simple as changing the tone in your voice to showing a video clip related to the lesson.  The next step is to state the objectives or goal of the lesson followed by linking the learning to prior knowledge.  The next three steps are presenting the lesson content, providing guided practice to learn the material, and promoting independent practice to apply the new material in context.  Feedback to the student is provided in step seven.  The last two steps are assessing performance and enhancing retention and transfer of knowledge.

The process Gagne designed has nine separate components, however, they are dependent on each other and the sequence is linear. It is like working through a recipe – you check off each ingredient and move to the next. So it is a very comfortable process, but rigid in design with each step being very learner focused. The instructor gets the attention of the learner, explains objectives to the learner, activates prior knowledge of the learner, teaches the lesson, gives guided practice, etc.  The steps also seem to be very engaging, especially steps one through five. The instructor is grabbing the student’s attention at the very beginning, letting the student know what is getting ready to happen, connecting to prior learning, and guided them through the lesson and practice. The specific step for providing feedback is an especially strong component of the nine events. Two way communication with students about their strengths and weaknesses in a learning objective is critical for the learner taking ownership and is unfortunately quite often overlooked. Sometimes this is even due to time constraints as k-12 teachers are trying to cover so much territory.  The linear process also has limitations. As the steps are stated, there seems to be no avenue for differentiation or pathways to address individual needs. If one step is unsuccessful, do you just keep moving on to the next one?

One example I read used Gagne’s approach to teach doctors how to insert a peritoneal drain. It helped me to break away from just my K-12 paradigm and understand how well this model works in other learning environments. The process stated on the website is summarized below in the flow chart.

In comparison to Gagne’s 9 Events of Instruction is another instructional design model Merrill's First Principles of Instruction.  Dr. Merrill explains his thoughts in this video as to why he developed his model of instruction.  Merrill describes online courses as ineffective “shovel-ware” where vast amounts of information is dumped for people to read and try to absorb.  He feels showing people and allowing them to perform a “real-world” task achieves true learning. The diagram and following discussion reflects the information from our course as well as excerpts from the reading assignment.

The instruction in this model focuses on a problem and the four phases of integration, activation, application, and demonstration take the learning from abstract to concrete. When I first saw this model, I wanted to set a path through the four phases similar to rigid “paths” I had seen in other models.  The literature suggests the order of activation, demonstration, application, and integration. However, I could easily understand the instructor demonstrating to achieve activation – if that makes sense. The diagrams such as the one I included suggest the Problem reaches out to all four phases interchangeably.

As I read through First Principles of Instruction, I again related the information to how it would look in a K-12 setting. This model could easily be a chunk of a unit or several chunks using problem solving when appropriate and incorporating other methods to teach components not easily seen as a real-world problem.  Specifically, math has many little building blocks necessary to reach a stage supported by a problem-centered approach. This model could be implemented during a math unit where a real-world problem would enhance the learning opportunity.  One element that stood out to me and was referenced in the literature was the lack of stated objectives to begin the lesson. In higher level math especially, students often hear stated objectives and immediately glaze over because it has no relevance to them.  However, there is much greater connection and engagement in trying to solve a “problem” connected to prior knowledge and supported by demonstration and application. During the application phase, students are able to dig deeper into the original problem, receive feedback during the process, and make deeper connections.  A downside to the phases is in a lack of differentiation until possibly application and integration at the end where students could take different directions.  In the age of pre-tests and post-tests, it is a welcome diversion to review a model that leaves those rigid processes behind and immediately involves the students with an intriguing problem and ongoing discovery. This video by Michelle Bowen helped me by seeing a classroom example of how this model would be effectively used. Her activation was asking students about roller coaster and she move through the other three phases with students finally creating their own.

Where do Gagne and Merrill have similarities and differences? Both models are very focused on the learner and activate prior knowledge to make the content more meaningful. Both models use demonstration as a component, but not necessarily with the same meaning. The demonstration step in Gagne’s model is not stated to be real-world and could be direct instruction with various examples. Merrill’s plan focuses on real-world problems with very concrete processes. Merrill of course does not list objectives, but gains attention of the learner by the activating prior knowledge and providing a content specific demonstration. They both promote feedback as an important element for long-term retention of new material. Gagne is a very linear process with each step depending on the one before, whereas, the four phases are not necessarily performed in a strictly defined manner and can intermingle during the process. I enjoyed studying these models and see them both as relevant components in a mash up of models.