Michael H. Molenda and Deepak Prem Subramony
October 24, 2020
Problematic Constructs
Well-conceived constructs with clearly delineated definitions are the stock-in-trade of every profession. Advancement of knowledge in any field depends on the development of a body of commonly accepted, standard terms. In linguistics, for example, research can be coordinated or accumulated only if researchers agree on the meaning of basic constructs such as indicative mood, phoneme, and preposition. Medical science would be impossible without agreement on terms such as allergen, oncogene, and stem cell.
Pedagogy cannot claim a similar level of standardization of concepts and terms. Hardly any two authors agree on the meanings of terms such as instructional tactics and strategies, discovery learning, constructivism, Socratic dialog, deliberate practice … or even such basic concepts as methods, media, and technology. With some terms left with their meanings implicit, other terms defined in loose, flaccid form, and yet others couched in an author’s private lexicon, it is no wonder that so many debates about instruction yield more heat than light.
Organizations such as the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) have put enormous effort into creating compendia containing thoughtful essays defining key concepts and authoritative glossaries and encyclopedias of key terms (AECT Task Force on Definition and Terminology 1977) (Seels and Richey 1994) (Januszewski and Molenda 2008) (Richey 2013). Unfortunately, these volumes have had minimal impact on terminology usage even within the limited domain of educational technology, much less in the field of pedagogy in general. We remain substantially where we were in 1969 when Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner observed “Eventually, the profession will have to get its names straight so that intelligent discussions can go forward” (Postman and Weingartner 1969, 26).
Need an Overarching Framework
And it’s not just terminology. Pedagogy also lacks one or several grand theories. Most fields of science and social science have widely accepted theoretical frameworks—such as the periodic table provides for chemistry and Newtonian theory provides for traditional physics. These theoretical structures show “where things fit” within the big picture. They provide targets for other theories to try to undermine or supplant. As Robert K. Merton, the pioneer of theory in sociology, put it: the “notion of directed research implies that, in part, empirical inquiry is so organized that if and when empirical uniformities are discovered, they have direct consequences for a theoretic system (Merton 1957, 150-151).” That is, research questions should show some connection with the grand framework. What variables are you dealing with, and where do they fit in the big picture? If research projects cannot be linked to a larger theory, how can they be contributing to the advancement of the field? Just as importantly, development of theory requires both terms that are agreed upon and a theoretical framework in which to place those terms.
The field of pedagogy lacks any such agreed-upon framework. There are some of what Hans Zetterberg (1962) calls “miniature theories,” theories pertaining to how two or three variables are related to each other, but few grand theories and fewer conceptual frameworks. This lack has been noticed by many other scholars. For one example, Reigeluth and Carr-Chellman (2009) have attempted to construct a definitional schema concepts related to instruction. For another, Merrill (2013) proposes an extensive set of terms and definitions pertinent to instructional design. For a third example, Frick (2019) proposes a new set of terms around the concept of educology. However, even these authors do not propose a comprehensive verbal-visual framework within which to place their terms and concepts.
Creating a conceptual framework was not originally an objective of the most recent project of the Elements of Instruction Group; it was to establish some foundational concepts and terminology for the field of pedagogy, based on the visible features of the teaching-learning process. To do this, the authors needed a framework in which to place these concepts, a framework that would depict the major variables in the instructional process and the relationships among them, both those that directly and those that indirectly influence the success or failure of instructional interventions. We began with a search for suitable frameworks in the literature of pedagogy; finding no satisfactory frameworks, we undertook creating our own, based on evidence provided by the major published meta-analyses and mega-analyses of factors associated with learning achievement.
The Molenda-Subramony Framework for Instructed Learning is shown and discussed in depth in Chapter 2 of The Elements of Instruction. It is a bold claim to profess that one diagram could illustrate the cause-and-effect connections among the major factors that influence learning in formal settings, but that is precisely the gap in theory that we are attempting to fill. We do not claim that this is the ultimate depiction of those connections, but we do hope it is a starting point for further debate and continuing revision, as are the other theoretical constructs in other fields.
We are Focused on Instructed Learning
We felt it necessary to explain at some length our assumptions about the learning process; that is the gist of Chapter 3. There we attempt to show that our perspective is a broad and eclectic one, one that we believe adequately accounts for all the major points-of-view about human learning in the arena of what we term instructed learning. That is, this book deals only with the sorts of learning that are pursued through conscious processes of instruction. We now have confirmation from neuroscience research that there are at least two major, different learning processes—one involving the unconscious, effortless learning that occurs constantly through the normal processes of human development, termed implicit learning, and another involving conscious effort, termed explicit or instructed learning.
As it happens, educational institutions, from infant and kindergarten programs through graduate and professional studies, definitely pursue objectives above and beyond mere subject-matter instruction. They attempt to inculcate values of empathy, honesty, and equitable treatment of others; and they also aim to instill respect for law, one’s own community, and the communities of others; appreciation for artistic expressions; and a host of other civic virtues. Most of these are pursued, not by classroom instruction, but by participating in a community with adult and peer role models and with rules of behavior that shape the learner’s attitudes unconsciously.
These implicit learnings, which are popularly summarized as “social and emotional learning,” need their own conceptual framework, which may overlap in part with the framework for instructed learning but will surely depart from it in major ways. This is a topic for further exploration by the Elements of Instruction Group.
Making Sense of “Methods”
One of the problematic constructs in pedagogy is the totally random way terminology has evolved to discuss instructional methods, techniques, modes, or strategies. Every author seems to use a different vocabulary and to cut the pie into different pieces. This problem came to the forefront during the days of the “Clark-Kozma Media vs. Methods Debate” in the 1990s (Clark 2001). These two titans, plus many other leading thinkers of the day, pretty much talked past each other because they never jointly agreed on definitions for media or methods. Molenda began to track this problem early in his career, inspired by an early attempt by Robert Gagné (1965) to create a typology of what he called modes of instruction.
A New Typology
Several prominent researchers (Berliner 1983) (Stodolsky 1988) developed checklists of instructional activities as operational definitions for research on teaching methods. But none of these earlier efforts has led to a widely accepted typology of “methods.” Part of the problem was than none of these earlier efforts was based on a clear, concrete set of components of instructional events. Over a period of over 40 years, Molenda, later joined by Subramony, developed and tested successive approximations of a typology, which now is known as the typology of Communication Configurations—based on a simple observation of who is doing what to whom through what channels when instructed learning is taking place.
The larger part of The Elements of Instruction (Chapters 4-11) is devoted to a consideration, one-at-a-time, of each of the specified configurations: Presentation, Demonstration, Whole-Class Discussion, Small-Group Discussion, Tutorial, Repetition, Study, and Expression. We describe the many different formats in which each configuration may appear—in F2F and distance settings—and suggest “best practices” for getting the most out of each configuration.
We anticipate following up this book—which is primarily intended to be descriptive—with other works that will explore the practical applications of these constructs.
Works Cited
AECT Task Force on Definition and Terminology. 1977. Educational Technology: Definition and Glossary of Terms. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Berliner, David C. 1983. “Developing Conceptions of Classroom Environments: Some Light on the T in Classroom Studies of ATI.” Educational Psychologist 18 (1): 1-13.
Clark, Richard E., ed. 2001. Learning from Media: Arguments, Analysis, and Evidence. Greenwich, CT: IAP Information Age Publishing.
Frick, Theodore W. 2019. “Importance of Educology for Improving Educational Systems.” In Learning, Design, and Technology: an International Compendium of Theory, Research, Practice and Policy: Systems Thinking and Change, edited by J. Michael Spector, Barbara B. Lockee and Marc D. Childress. New York: Springer International Publishing. Accessed June 23, 2020. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4.
Gagné, Robert M. 1965. The Conditions of Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Januszewski, Alan, and Michael Molenda, . 2008. Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Merrill, M. David. 2013. First Principles of Instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Merton, Robert K. 1949. Social Theory and Social Structure . New York: Free Press.
Merton, Robert K. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Merton, Robert K. 1989. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Postman, Neil, and Charles Weingartner. 1969. Teaching as a Subversive Activity. New York: Dell Publishing Company.
Reigeluth, Charles M., and Alison A. Carr-Chellman, . 2009. Instructional-Design Theories and Models: Building a Common Knowledge Base. Vol. III. New York: Routledge.
Richey, Rita C., ed. 2013. Encyclopedia of Terminology for Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Springer.
Seels, Barbara B., and Rita C. Richey, . 1994. Instructional Technology: The Definition and Domains of the Field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Stodolsky, Susan S. 1988. The Subject Matters: Classroom Activities in Math and Social Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zetterberg, Hans L. 1962. On Theory and Verification in Sociology. New York: Bedminster Press.
