Instructionaldesign Theories And Models Volume Iii Building A Common Knowledge Base 3 1st Edition Charles M Reigeluth Alison A Carrchellman

Instructionaldesign Theories And Models Volume
Iii Building A Common Knowledge Base 3 1st
Edition Charles M Reigeluth Alison A
Carrchellman download
https://ebookbell.com/product/instructionaldesign-theories-and-
models-volume-iii-building-a-common-knowledge-base-3-1st-edition-
charles-m-reigeluth-alison-a-carrchellman-23170254
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
Instructionaldesign Theories And Models Volume Iv The Learnercentered
Paradigm Of Education Charles M Reigeluth
https://ebookbell.com/product/instructionaldesign-theories-and-models-
volume-iv-the-learnercentered-paradigm-of-education-charles-m-
reigeluth-7018442
Advanced Instructional Design Techniques Theories And Strategies For
Complex Learning Jill E Stefaniak
https://ebookbell.com/product/advanced-instructional-design-
techniques-theories-and-strategies-for-complex-learning-jill-e-
stefaniak-56539338
Instructional Design Exemplars In Ehealth And Mhealth Education
Interventions Suha R Tamim
https://ebookbell.com/product/instructional-design-exemplars-in-
ehealth-and-mhealth-education-interventions-suha-r-tamim-50275518
Instructional Design The Addie Approach Robert Maribe Branch
https://ebookbell.com/product/instructional-design-the-addie-approach-
robert-maribe-branch-50622550

Instructional Designstep By Step Nine Easy Steps For Designing Lean
Effective And Motivational Instruction John S Hoffman
https://ebookbell.com/product/instructional-designstep-by-step-nine-
easy-steps-for-designing-lean-effective-and-motivational-instruction-
john-s-hoffman-51061468
Instructional Design Frameworks And Intercultural Models Premier
Reference Source 1st Edition Patricia A Young
https://ebookbell.com/product/instructional-design-frameworks-and-
intercultural-models-premier-reference-source-1st-edition-patricia-a-
young-2193116
Instructional Design Concepts Methodologies Tools And Applications 1st
Edition Information Resources Management Association
https://ebookbell.com/product/instructional-design-concepts-
methodologies-tools-and-applications-1st-edition-information-
resources-management-association-2452330
Instructional Design For Action Learning Geri Mcardle
https://ebookbell.com/product/instructional-design-for-action-
learning-geri-mcardle-4646426
Instructional Design For Learning Theoretical Foundations Norbert M
Seel
https://ebookbell.com/product/instructional-design-for-learning-
theoretical-foundations-norbert-m-seel-5886576

Instructional-Design Theories and Models
Volume III

Instructional-Design Theories and Models
Building a Common Knowledge Base
Volume III
Edited by
Charles M.Reigeluth Alison A.Carr-Chellman
TAYLOR AND FRANCIS, PUBLISHERS
New York and London

First published 2009
by Routledge
270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016
Simultaneously published in the UK
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2010.
To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of
eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.
© 2009 Taylor & Francis
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereaft er invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Reigeluth, Charles M.
Instructional-design theories and models/Charles M.Reigeluth.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographies and indexes.
1. Lesson planning. 2. Curriculum planning. 3. Learning, Psychology of. I. Charles M.Reigeluth.
II. Title: Instructional-Deisgn theories and models.
LB1025.2 .I646 1983
371.3 19
83014185
ISBN 0-203-87213-4 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 10: 0-8058-6456-3 (hbk)
ISBN 10: 1-4106-1884-6 (ebk)
ISBN 13: 978-0-8058-6456-4 (hbk)
ISBN 13: 978-1-4106-1884-9 (ebk)

Dedication
This book is dedicated to future generations of learners, to the teachers who will inspire and guide them,
to the instructional designers who will provide exciting and effective learning resources for them, and to
the instructional theorists who will inspire and guide the teachers and instructional designers.
—CMR & ACC
This book is also dedicated to my mentor, M.David Merrill, whose brilliant thinking, open mind, and
intellectual curiosity have inspired me greatly.
—CMR
This book is also dedicated to my mentor, Charles Morgan Reigeluth, who has given me the intellectual
capacities to follow him, and mostly to keep up. I am grateful for his continuing to open doors for me
and continuing to invite me to work with him. It is among my greatest intellectual joys.
—ACC

Contents
List of Figures and Tables ix
Preface xi
Unit 1 Frameworks for Understanding Instructional Theory
1 Understanding Instructional Theory
CHARLES M.REIGELUTH AND ALISON A.CARR-CHELLMAN 3
2 Understanding Instruction
CHARLES M.REIGELUTH AND JOHN B.KELLER 27
3 First Principles of Instruction
M.DAVID MERRILL 41
4 Situational Principles of Instruction
CHARLES M.REIGELUTH AND ALISON A.CARR-CHELLMAN 57
Unit 2 Theories for Different Approaches to Instruction
5 Direct Approach to Instruction
WILLIAM G.HUITT, DAVID M.MONETTI, AND JOHN H.HUMMEL 73
6 Discussion Approach to Instruction
JOYCE TAYLOR GIBSON 99
7 Experiential Approach to Instruction
LEE LINDSEY AND NANCY BERGER 117
8 Problem-Based Approach to Instruction
JOHN R.SAVERY 143
9 Simulation Approach to Instruction
ANDREW S.GIBBONS, MARK MCCONKIE, KAY KYEONGJU SEO, AND DAVID A.WILEY 167

Unit 3 Theories for Different Outcomes of Instruction
10 Fostering Skill Development Outcomes
ALEXANDER ROMISZOWSKI 199
11 Fostering Understanding Outcomes
MARTHA STONE WISKE AND BRIAN J.BEATTY 225
12 Fostering Affective Development Outcomes: Emotional Intelligence
BARBARA A.BICHELMEYER, JAMES MARKEN, TAMARA HARRIS, MELANIE MISANCHUK,
AND EMILY HIXON 249
13 Fostering Integrated Learning Outcomes across Domains
BRIAN J.BEATTY 275
Unit 4 Tools for Building a Common Knowledge Base
14 The Architecture of Instructional Theory
ANDREW S.GIBBONS AND P.CLINT ROGERS 305
15 Domain Theory for Instruction: Mapping Attainments to Enable Learner-Centered Education
C.VICTOR BUNDERSON, DAVID A.WILEY, AND REO H.MCBRIDE 327
16 Learning Objects and Instructional Theory
DAVID A.WILEY 349
17 Theory Building
CHARLES M.REIGELUTH AND YUN-JO AN 365
18 Instructional Theory for Education in the Information Age
CHARLES M.REIGELUTH 387
Author Index 401
Subject Index 409

List of Figures and Tables
Figures
1.1 Six Major Kinds of Instructional Design-Theory 9
1.2 Constructs about the Nature of Instructional Theory 24
3.1 An Example of a Task-Centered Instructional Strategy 51
3.2 The Four-Phase Cycle of Instruction 52
5.1 Transactional Model of Direct Instruction 81
7.1 A Graphical Representation of the Three Universal Principles of Experiential Instruction 125
10.1 The Skills Schema 205
10.2 A Four-Stage Performance Cycle 207
10.3 Instructional Strategies for Skills Development 209
10.4 The Extended Skill Cycle: A Powerful Tool for Skills-Performance Analysis 220
11.1 Dimensions of Understanding and Their Features 237
11.2 Relationship between Teaching for Understanding Elements and Merrill’s First Principles 240
13.1 Theme Structure in the ITI Model 284
14.1 Brand’s Layers of Building Design 313
16.1
The Relationship Between the Stand-Alone Instructional Effectiveness of a Learning Object and
the Ease with which an Object May Be Reused 355
17.1 The S Curves of Development for Two Instructional Theories 370

Tables
1.1 Delphi Round 2 Results 20
2.1 Categories of Constructs about Instructional Situations 30
2.2 Categories of Constructs about Instructional Methods 32
3.1 Consistent Information and Portrayal for Categories of Component Skill 45
4.1 A Comparison of Taxonomies of Learning Outcomes 66
9.1
Message Elements that might be Included in a Typical Feedback Message Following a Learner
Action 186
12.1 Typical Path of Development of Emotional Competence 265
13.1 The Five ITI Learning Principles 280
13.2 Multiple Human Intelligences 281
13.3 Relationship between Thematic Instruction Principles and Merrill’s First Principles 289
13.4 The Evolution of Curriculum Integration Approaches 292
14.1
Natural Languages and Design Languages Compared in Terms of Primitives, Syntax, and
Semantics 316
14.2
Analysis of Some Well-Known Instructional Theories to Show the Relationship of Instructional
Theories to the Framework Provided by Layers, Which Have Their Basis in Instructional Design
Theory 320
14.3
Sampling of Work by Theorists or Research Reviewers Attempting to Identify Layer-Specific
Principles 323
17.1 Four Approaches for Constructing Instructional Theory 375
17.2 Kinds of Formative Research Studies 382

Preface
How to help people learn better. That is what instructional theory is all about. It describes a variety of
methods of instruction (different ways of facilitating human learning and development) and when to use
—and not use—each of those methods.
V
olume I of Instructional-Design Theories and Models (1983) provides a “snapshot in time” of the
status of instructional theory in the early 1980s. Its main purpose was to raise awareness of instructional
theories. V
olume II (1999) provides a concise summary of a broad sampling of work in the late 1990s on
a new paradigm of instructional theories for the Information Age. Its main purpose was to raise
awareness of the diversity of theories that provide a customized or learner-centered learning experience
in all different domains of human learning and development. It also raised awareness of the importance
of values in instructional theory.
However, aft er the appearance of V
olume II, we became increasingly concerned about the extent to
which instructional theorists seemed to be working in relative isolation from each other, building their
own view of instruction with little regard to building on what knowledge already exists and what
terminology has already been used for constructs they also describe. We recognized that every area of
knowledge goes through an initial developmental phase in which these differences predominate. We also
saw that, as an area of knowledge matures, it enters a second phase of development in which work
focuses more on contributing to a common knowledge base with a consistent terminology. While it
would be a mistake to push an area of knowledge into phase 2 too soon, we believe that instructional
theory is now ready to begin such a transition.
Therefore, the purpose of this V
olume III is to take some early steps in building a common knowledge
base about instruction with a common use of terms. The primary audience for this volume, like that of the
previous two volumes, is instructional theorists, researchers, and graduate students. An additional
audience is instructional designers, teachers, and trainers who are interested in guidance about how to
design instruction of high quality.
Unit 1 offers some organizational schemes for understanding and developing a common knowledge base
about instruction. We strongly urge you to read the four chapters in this unit before reading any of the
theories that follow. Unit 2 offers a chapter on each of five major approaches to instruction: the
directinstruction, discussion, experiential, problem-based, and simulation approaches. Each of these
chapters synthesizes the current knowledge about that approach as a step toward building a common
knowledge base. Unit 3 offers a chapter on instruction for each of four major outcomes of instruction:
skill development, understanding, affective development, and integrated learning outcomes. Each of
these chapters also synthesizes the current knowledge about that kind of instruction. Finally, Unit 4 offers
ideas that may prove useful for building a common knowledge base about instruction.
Because this volume contains many ideas that may be difficult for all but the most experienced to digest,
we have tried to make it easier for the reader by preparing the same kind of unconventional foreword
for each chapter as was done for V
olume II. Each chapter foreword outlines the major ideas presented in
the chapter. This offers something akin to a hypertext capability for you to get a quick overview of a
chapter and then flip to parts of it that particularly interest you. It can also serve preview and review
functions and make it easier to compare different theories. Furthermore, we have inserted editors’ notes
in most chapters to help you relate elements in a chapter to fundamental ideas presented in other
chapters. Finally, each unit has a foreword that introduces the chapters in that unit.
It is our sincere hope that this book will help to move instructional theory to the next stage of
development—creating a truly common knowledge base with a consistent terminology. We hope it will
help instructional theorists and researchers to contribute to the growing knowledge base about
instruction in a way that acknowledges and builds on prior work, and that it will help instructional
designers and graduate students to understand and utilize the full range of accumulated knowledge about
how to help people learn.

Unit 1
Frameworks for Understanding Instructional
Theory
Unit Foreword
This unit lays the groundwork for a shared language and a set of common understandings in instructional
theory. This unit foreword provides brief descriptions of the primary ideas in each of the chapters in this
unit, which offer some organizational schemes for understanding and developing a common knowledge
base about instruction. We strongly recommend reading this unit before reading any of the other chapters
in this book.
In chapter 1 we (Reigeluth & Carr-Chellman) look at the constructs and terminology used to describe
and understand instructional theory. First, we define instruction as anything that is done purposely to
facilitate learning. Based on this definition and understanding of the entire field of instructional design,
we make the case for the need for a common knowledge base and then relate design theory, instructional
design theory, student-assessment design theory, curriculum design theory, learning theory, and the
learning sciences to instruction. We identify several aspects of instructional design theory, including
event, analysis, planning, building, implementation, and evaluation design theory within instructional
design theory. These aspects are then related to the concept of layers of design (Gibbons & Rogers,
chapter 14). We identify the need for a significantly new paradigm for future change efforts and describe
the need for learner-centeredness in that paradigm. We share the results of a small Delphi study to help
build consensus on common terms, which lays a foundation for a common language in our field.
Chapter 2 takes up the issue of what we mean by instruction itself (as opposed to instructional theory,
which we deal with in chapter 1). Here Reigeluth and Keller take up the issues associated with major
constructs that make up instructional theories. They settle on instructional situations, methods,
approaches, components, and content sequencing as the categories of constructs concerned with
instruction. Built on an analogy to rules of English grammar, these constructs are linked and designers
are advised to carefully consider the relationships among the categories.
In chapter 3 Merrill discusses the principles of good instruction that may be common to all instruction.
Calling these “First Principles,” Merrill lays out the qualifications for inclusion in this list, along with
the principles in brief and in more detail. The principles include the demonstration principle,
application principle, task-centered principle, activation principle, and integration principle. The
chapter takes up the difficult task of elaborating on these principles and relating them to one another to
create a defensible set of principles that Merrill asserts will create effective and efficient instruction.
Chapter 4 (Reigeluth & Carr-Chellman) focuses on the situational principles of instruction—ones that
vary from one situation to another. This chapter describes what situational principles are and links them
to the notion of universal principles through an analogy of the universe and galaxies. In an effort to
increase precision in our language and knowledge base, we elaborate on kinds, parts, and criteria as
ways to make methods more precise. Principles as heuristics, or rules of thumb, are particularly
important for precise descriptions of methods. A review of learning taxonomies leads us to a description
of the instructional theories we have included in units 2 and 3.
—CMR & ACC

1
Understanding Instructional Theory
CHARLES M.REIGELUTH
Indiana University
ALISON A.CARR-CHELLMAN
Pennsylvania State University
Charles M.Reigeluth received a BA in economics from Harvard University. He was a high school
teacher for three years before earning his doctorate in instructional psychology at Brigham Young
University. He has been a professor in the Instructional Systems Technology Department at Indiana
University’s School of Education in Bloomington since 1988, and served as chairman of the department
from 1990 to 1992. His major area for service, teaching, and research is the process for facilitating
district-wide paradigm change in public school systems. His major research goal is to advance
knowledge to help school districts successfully navigate transformation to the learner-centered paradigm
of education. He has published nine books and over 120 journal articles and chapters. Two of his books
received an “outstanding book of the year” award from the Association for Educational Communications
and Technology (AECT). He also received AECT’s Distinguished Service Award and Brigham Young
University’s Distinguished Alumnus Award.
Alison A.Carr-Chellman is a professor of instructional systems at Pennsylvania State University in the
Department of Learning and Performance Systems. She received a B.S. and an M.S. from Syracuse
University. She taught elementary school, community education, and worked as an interactional designer
for McDonnell Douglas before returning to Indiana University to earn her doctorate. She is the author of
more than 100 publications including two books, many book chapters, and a wide variety of refereed
and nonrefereed journal articles. Her research interests are diffusion of innovations, systemic school
change, elearning, systems theory, and design theory.
EDITORS’ FOREWORD

Vision
• To build a common knowledge base and a common language about instruction
Definition of Instruction
• Instruction is anything that is done purposely to facilitate learning.
The Nature of Theories Related to Instruction
• Design theory is goal oriented and normative.
• Instructional design theory is a set of design theories that pertain to various aspects of instruction
and include:
1. Instructional-event design theory (DT)
2. Instructional-analysis DT
3. Instructional-planning DT
4. Instructional-building DT
5. Instructional-implementation DT
6. Instructional-evaluation DT
• Related theories include:
1. Student-assessment design theory
2. Curriculum design theory
3. Learning theory
4. Learning sciences
• Interrelationships among all these kinds of theories are powerful, and it is often beneficial to
integrate them.
• Instructional design theories and layers of design
1. Content layer
2. Strategy layer
3. Message layer
4. Control layer
5. Representation layer
6. Media logic layer
7. Data management layer
The Role of Instructional Theory in Educational Reform

• Why a new paradigm of education is needed and possible
• Relation to paradigm change in education
• Relation to Learner-Centered Instruction
• Learner-centered psychological principles
• The science of learning
• New paradigm of instructional theory (volume 2)
• Cognitive flexibility theory, personalized learning, brain-based learning, and differentiated
instruction
The Nature of Instructional Theories: Constructs and Terms
• Results of a Delphi study
• Recommended constructs and terms
1. Instructional method
1.1. Scope (micro-meso-macro)
1.2. Generality (universal-local)
1.3. Precision (imprecise-precise) based on parts, kinds, or criteria
1.4. Power (low-high)
1.5. Consistency (low-high)
2. Instructional situation
2.1. Values
2.1.1. About learning goals
2.1.2. About priorities (effectiveness, efficiency, appeal)
2.1.3. About methods
2.1.4. About power (learner, teacher, institution)
2.2. Conditions
2.2.1. Content
2.2.2. Learner
2.2.3. Learning environment
2.2.4. Instructional development constraints
—CMR & ACC
UNDERSTANDING INSTRUCTIONAL THEORY

Instructional theory may sound, at first, like a dense and difficult topic, but it is easier to understand than
you might think. Furthermore, this knowledge is central to helping you improve the quality of your
teaching and training. Taking the time to understand the nature of instructional theory will help you to
understand individual instructional theories and even help you make contributions to this growing
knowledge base. Therefore, an understanding of the nature of instructional theory is important to both
your growth and the growth of our field.
Vague and inconsistent language is impeding such growth. Different theorists use the same term to refer
to different things and different terms to refer to the same things. This is confusing for all of us, from
beginning graduate students to expert designers and researchers. When a discipline is young, it is natural
for there to be such inconsistent language. We propose that instructional theory has now reached a level
of development where a common knowledge base with a consistent terminology would greatly facilitate
the future development of knowledge in this important area.
This chapter begins by defining instruction. We then discuss the need for building a common knowledge
base about instruction. We describe several different kinds of theories related to instruction and contrast
them with other related kinds of theories, such as student-assessment theories, curriculum theories, and
learning theories. Then we discuss Gibbons and Rogers’s concept of “layers of design” (see chapter 14)
and their implications for instructional theory. Next, we turn our attention to the role of instructional
theory in educational reform, and specifically discuss the relationship of learner-centered instruction to
this book. Finally, we offer particular constructs and terms for a common knowledge base about
instruction. These terms may be useful as a foundation upon which instructional theorists and researchers
can build, and they should help you, whether a practitioner, a researcher, or a graduate student, to
understand the knowledge available to you about fostering learning more effectively.
A Definition of Instruction
A distinction has been made in the literature recently between “instruction” and “construction,” with the
implication that instruction is necessarily done to learners (i.e., learners are passive), whereas
construction is done by learners (i.e., learners are active). However, a principal tenet of constructivism
is that people can only learn by constructing their own knowledge—that learning requires active
manipulation of the material to be learned and cannot occur passively. Our concern is with how to help
learners learn, which means identifying ways to help learners construct knowledge. Therefore, if
instruction is to foster any learning at all, it must foster construction. Instruction is not instruction if it
does not foster construction. Furthermore, if construction is what the learner does, then we need a
different term for what a teacher (or other agent) does to foster construction, and “instruction” has
commonly been used more than any other term to convey that meaning. Therefore, we define instruction
as anything that is done purposely to facilitate learning. It includes constructivist methods and self-
instruction, as well as more traditional views of instruction, such as lecture and direct instruction.
The Need
V
olume 2 of Instructional-Design Theories and Models (Reigeluth, 1999) was a small sample of the
wide variety of information-age instructional-design theories that had been created by 1998. That book
made it evident that many instructional theories were constructed with little regard for prior theories.
Until theorists begin to build upon each other’s contributions, the field will remain in its infancy. The
main purpose of this volume, then, is to help instructional theorists and researchers to build a common
knowledge base about instruction.
The Nature of Theories Related to Instruction
To build (or to understand) a common knowledge base about instruction, it is helpful to understand the
nature of such a knowledge base. However, there are many important things to know about instruction,
including what an instructional product itself should be like, the process by which it should be designed

and built, how it should be implemented, how it should be evaluated, how its effects (e.g., learning)
should be assessed, what content should be instructed, how people learn, and the interrelationships
among all these kinds of knowledge about instruction. It is also helpful to distinguish between design
theory and descriptive theory. Each of these is discussed next.
Design Theory
Design theory is different from descriptive theory in that it is goal oriented and normative—it identifies
good methods for accomplishing goals—whereas descriptive theory describes cause–effect
relationships, which are usually probabilistic (meaning that the cause does not always result in the
effect), especially in the social sciences. Design theory is aimed at facilitating generative outcomes; that
is, it assists in the creation of something, while descriptive theory seeks to describe what already exists.
We very much agree with Nelson and Stolterman’s (2003) notions of design expertise. They recognize
that there are different fields of design expertise, such as instructional design or engineering or
architecture. But they also indicate that all designers share some similar field experiences:
It is even more important to emphasize that every informally recognized designer has a similar field of
expertise. It goes without saying that every designer needs knowledge and skills concerning materials,
tools, methods, languages, traditions, styles, etc., in his or her specific field. (p. 25)
Their book, The Design Way, is not about the particular knowledge and skills, but is indeed about those
areas that are relevant for all designers, including instructional designers.
Some people do not like the term theory for such goal-oriented or instrumental knowledge. Some of the
terms that they prefer include: method, model, technology, technique, strategy, guidance, and heuristic.
However, none of these terms captures the full scope of this kind of knowledge, which includes not only
methods (or models, techniques, strategies, and heuristics), but also when and when not to use each
method. We have found no other term that fits as well as design theory for capturing methods and when
to use them. Second, these two types of knowledge (descriptive and instrumental) are widely recognized
as the two major kinds (e.g., the famous distinction by Simon, 1996, between the natural sciences and the
sciences of the artificial), and hence are “coordinate” (subordinate to, or kinds of, the same concept—
theory). Third, the term theory has been used for decades to characterize the instrumental knowledge
base in several fields, and in instruction its use goes back at least to Bruner (1966) and Gagné (1985).
For these three reasons, we find it appropriate to refer to each of the two basic kinds of knowledge as
theory, and to the instrumental kind of knowledge as design theory. Consequently, we offer the following
definitions.
Instructional Design Theory
Instructional design theory is a set of design theories that pertain to various aspects of instruction. One
perspective is that those aspects include:
• what the instruction should be like, which could be called instructional-event design theory (DT), or
instructional-program DT, or instructionalproduct DT;
• what the process of gathering information for making decisions about instruction should be like, which
could be called instructional-analysis DT;
• what the process of creating the instructional plans should be like, which could be called
instructional-planning DT;1
• what the process of creating the instructional resources should be like, which could be called
instructional-building DT;2
• what the process of preparing for implementation of the instruction should be like, which could be

called instructional-implementation DT;3
• what the process for evaluating the instruction should be like (summative and formative), which could
be called instructional-evaluation DT.
While these six terms represent a largely new way of referring to the various design theories that inform
our practice, we hope they are sufficiently more intuitive and less ambiguous that they are worth
adopting. We welcome dialogue about these six terms and any changes that might make them more
intuitive and less ambiguous. Since they are all design theories, we could drop “design” from the labels.
A graphic is perhaps a valuable way to represent this new language (see Figure 1.1).
Note that instructional-event theory is the only one that offers guidance about the nature of the instruction
itself. The other five all offer guidance about what is commonly called the instructional systems design
(or development) process (ISD). Also, please note that there are many interrelationships among these six
kinds of instructional-design theory. Obviously, they have input–output relationships with each other.
However, analysis and evaluation each play a far more integrated
1. Sometimes the term instructional design is used with this meaning, and it is one part of the ISD
process.
2. Sometimes the term instructional development is used with this meaning, and it is another part of the
ISD process.
3. Sometimes the terms change or adoption and diffusion of innovations is used with this meaning, and
it is another part of the ISD process. Please note that instructional implementation is not the same as the
instructional event. Rather, it is about the process of preparing for the implementation, rather than the
implementation itself. It includes procuring and installing necessary resources and providing necessary
training for teachers and support personnel.
Figure 1.1 Six Major Kinds of Instructional Design-Theory
role in the other kinds of theory. For example, analysis should be used to provide useful information in
the application of all the other five kinds of instructional– design theory and should be integrated with
each. For example, there is a series of decisions that need to be made for planning an instructional event,
including decisions about scope and sequence, instructional approach, instructional tactics, media selec
tion, media utilization, and so forth. Each of these kinds of decisions requires a different kind of analysis
at a different point in time during the planning process. So instructional-analysis theory must be
integrated with instructional-planning theory. Similarly, different kinds of decisions are made during the
instructional-building process, and different kinds of information are needed for making those decisions.
Therefore, instructional-analysis theory must be integrated with instructional-building theory. The same
applies to instructional-implementation theory and instructional-evaluation theory.
In a parallel manner, evaluation should be conducted on each major decision that is made during the
instructional-planning process, so instructional-evaluation theory must be integrated with instructional-
planning theory. Similarly, it must also be integrated with each of the other four kinds of instructional
theory.
So while it is conceptually helpful to understand that all these different kinds of instructional design-
theory exist, it is essential to understand that useful guidance for practitioners must integrate all of them.

An Analogy
We feel that a good analogy here would be that of the building process that results in homes, offices,
skyscrapers, hospitals, and other buildings. First, there is a body of theory about architecture. These
theories are about the buildings themselves, about the products. They study Gaudí and his use of art in
the form of everyday structures, for example. This is most akin to instructional-event theory. Then there
is a body of literature that looks at theories of architectural process; that is, what architects do, how they
go about the business of creating and producing a blueprint. This is most akin to instructional-planning
theory. Now the architect produces a blueprint, which is given to a builder, and the builder translates
that blueprint into a physical manifestation in the form of a final home, or townhouse, or shopping mall.
This process is guided by design theories as well, which are most akin to instructional-building theory.
Next, people are prepared to use the building. A homeowner may be shown how to use and provide light
maintenance on the furnace, water heater, oven, electrical panel, and so forth. And the utilities will be
connected. These kinds of activities are similar to instructional-implementation theory. Finally, as a
building is lived in, worked in, or shopped in, we and others draw some conclusions about it. Do the air
systems work well, or are some rooms always too hot or too cold? If this can be fixed, we might see this
as formative evaluation. If not, it might be considered, unfortunately, a summative evaluation of the
effectiveness of the building. This, of course, is most like instructional-evaluation theory.
Now we turn to a discussion of several other kinds of theory that are not kinds of instructional-design
theory. They include student-assessment theory, curriculum theory, learning theory, learning sciences,
and instructional science.
Student-Assessment Design Theory
Student-assessment design theory is guidance for assessing student learning. To the extent that student
assessment is integrated with instruction, it would make sense to combine student assessment theory with
all six kinds of instructional theories: integrating guidance about the nature of assessment with guidance
about the nature of instruction, integrating guidance for the process of analysis for assessments with
guidance for the process of analysis for instruction, and so forth for planning, building, implementing,
and evaluating assessments and instruction.
Curriculum-Design Theory
Curriculum-design theory concerns what should be learned, the content of instruction, including higher-
order thinking skills and metacognitive skills, in contrast to instructional-event theory, which concerns
how it should be learned (Snelbecker, 1974; see also Reigeluth, 1999, chapter 1—volume 2 of this
series). For example, a curriculum-design theory may address the inclusion of more racial and gender
diversity in American history. To the extent that “what to teach” is interdependent with “how to teach it,”
it would make sense to combine curriculum theory with all six kinds of instructional theories. It is no
wonder that many departments in schools of education are called “Curriculum and Instruction.”
Learning Theory
Learning theory is descriptive theory rather than design (or instrumental) theory, for it describes the
learning process. For example, schema theory and information-processing theory describe processes that
are believed to occur within learners’ heads. If they identified methods for helping those processes to
occur, they would be instructional-event design theories. Learning theory may provide an understanding
of why a certain method of instruction (in an instructional-event theory) works so well, and hence a
rationale for using it, but an instructional-event theory can as easily lead to the development of learning
theory (to explain that instructional-event theory) as a learning theory can lead to the development of an
instructional-event theory (to apply the learning theory).
Learning Sciences

Learning Sciences is a term that has become popular recently. The term instructional science has also
been used, and there is a journal by that name. Based on those labels, one would expect that the learning
sciences are dedicated to the development of learning theory, and that instructional science is dedicated
to the development of instructional theory. However, in practice most learning scientists are interested in
developing knowledge about both learning (descriptive theory) and instructional events (design theory).
An operational definition of learning sciences would perhaps be a hybrid discipline that includes
learning theory and instructional-event theory. It also seems that most learning scientists are not
interested in instructional-planning theory, instructional-building theory, instructional-implementation
theory, instructional-evaluation theory, or curriculum theory. There is some interest in student-
assessment theory. The field of learning sciences is akin to cognitive science in that it is purposely
multidisciplinary and not so interested in goals as in the use of certain kinds of instructional methods to
shed light on certain kinds of learning processes.
Interrelationships
The interrelationships among all the kinds of theories related to instruction are powerful and systemic. In
many cases, it is most helpful for a theory to be a hybrid of several of these kinds of theories, as we have
already mentioned. Such hybrids have been common from the early pioneers in instructional theory (e.g.,
Dewey, Skinner, Gagné, and Ausubel) to recent theorists (e.g., Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000;
McCombs & Whisler, 1997).
In spite of the importance of all these kinds of theories and the relationships among them, this book
focuses on instructional-event theory, not just because it would be too large an undertaking to do justice
to all of the above theories and their interrelationships, but more importantly because instructional-event
theory is in dire need of a common knowledge base. Since the term instructional theory is commonly
used to refer to what we have called “instructional-event design theory,” we oft en use this simpler term
in the remainder of this book.
Instructional Design Theories and Layers of Design
One additional aspect of the nature of theories related to instruction is the notion of “layers of design”
discussed by Gibbons and Rogers in chapter 14. Their chapter helps us to understand that designing an
instructional system requires considerable attention to the ways in which its parts will interact, wear
out, progress, and be utilized at different rates and in different ways. A good example of this, given by
Gibbons at a recent conference, was that, while many classrooms did not have overhead fixed video
projectors in their ceilings when they were built, the “ceiling layer” of the room was created in such a
way as to afford that change in the delivery system by putting in a drop ceiling with tiles that were easily
removed. This is an example of one layer wearing out or becoming obsolete sooner than others, and
ways that a layer can shift around others without an entire building having to be gutted each time new
wires need to be run, for instance.
In chapter 14 Gibbons and Rogers identify seven layers of design that they believe are important in
designing instruction: content, strategy, message, control, representation, media logic, and data
management layers. Each of these is briefly described next.
Within the content layer a designer specifies the structure of the subject-matter elements. This layer is
most concerned with the many ways content can be structured. For example, instructional theories
related to the content layer of designs might identify subject matter elements divided into sets of tasks,
sets of propositions, sets of if/then rules, or sets of discrete semantic (meaning) elements.
Within the strategy layer a designer specifies the organization and properties of learning events,
including participant roles and responsibilities, goals and times afforded to goals, and instructional
strategies. Theories pertaining to the design at the strategy layer therefore pertain to the setting, the
social organization, the “siting,” and the strategies of instructional interactions.

Within the message layer a designer describes the ways that individual messages are used to
communicate content and other information to the learner. In essence, if the strategy layer describes a
general strategic plan, then the message layer describes the tactical messaging plan for carrying out that
strategy. For example, a designer might define in a messaging plan the elements to be used to construct
feedback messages in terms of individual message units (right/ wrong judgment, error explanation,
remedy explanation, etc.) that will generally comprise feedback messages. There are many classes of
messages used during most typical instructional interactions.
Within the control layer a designer specifies how learners express messages back to the source of
learning. Theories related to control-layer designs describe ways that learners can take actions, ask
questions, make responses, and generally carry out their side of the instructional conversation. An
example might be a theory that specifies ways that the learner can take action during practice in an
interactive medium, such as a computer.
Within the representation layer a designer describes the way or ways in which messages will be
delivered to the learners’ senses, including the media channels that will be used, how messages will be
assigned to those channels, and how individual messages that use multiple channels are synchronized.
Thus, theories used within the design of the representation layer might describe how to visualize certain
kinds of messages, how to maximize the coordination of different media channels, and how to
synchronize the messages within their different channels for best effect.
Within the media logic layer a designer specifies how media mechanisms will be made to deliver
representations, how to carry out communications (through messaging and control operation), how to
implement strategies in a dynamic, unpredictable interaction, how to compute current knowledge model
states, and how to gather and analyze data in ways useful during the instruction. This is the part of the
design that tells us how media will be used to carry out instructional event plans. For example, a theory
related to media logic design might specify ways in which a multimedia computer could be made to
deliver a dynamic visual representation simultaneously with an audio description while teaching how to
prepare a fine soup.
Within the data management layer a designer specifies what we do with data in the system in terms of
capture, archiving, analysis, interpretation, and reporting. An instructional theory related to the design of
the data management layer might specify that the result of each step of the process of adding a fraction be
captured and analyzed for correctness or incorrectness so that errors can be debugged, or might specify
that certain response patterns should be noted as a student executes a tricky procedure so that later
analysis can identify possible sources of errors.4
We believe that there is an interaction between Gibbons and Rogers’s concept of layers (chapter 14) and
the application of the six types of instructional theory (event, analysis, planning, building,
implementation, and evaluation) that we have defined. For example, to be comprehensive, instructional-
event theory should provide guidance for what all seven layers should be like, given the nature of the
situation. Similarly, instructional-planning theory should offer guidance for a process in which all seven
layers will be designed, and instructional building theory should offer guidance for a process in which
all seven layers will be developed, and so forth.
The Role of Instructional Theory in Educational Reform
The major purpose of most instructional theories is to improve learning in P-12 schools (from preschool
through 12th grade), though instructional theories are
4. The authors thank Andrew Gibbons for his contribution to writing the previous seven paragraphs. For
more information about these layers, see chapter 14.
also valuable in many other contexts. Chapter 1 in volume 2 proposed that the industrial-age paradigm
(or factory model) of schooling is obsolete—inadequate to meet learning needs today—and that a new

paradigm of education is needed.
Why Is a New Paradigm Needed?
We know that students learn at different rates, yet the current industrial-age paradigm of education
requires all students to learn the same thing at the same time and rate. This means that slow learners are
forced on before mastering the content, and they accumulate learning deficits that make future learning
more difficult, while fast learners are forced to wait and lose both motivation and the opportunity to
learn more. The alternative to holding time “constant” for all students and thereby forcing achievement
to vary, is to hold achievement constant (at the level specified by the standards), which requires time to
vary—to allow each student the time needed to attain each standard, and allow each student to move on
as soon as the standard is attained (Reigeluth, 1994). Without this change in paradigm, we will
inevitably continue to leave many children behind no matter what reforms we implement, and we will
continue to waste much of our top talent in schools.
Is a New Paradigm Possible?
Two developments allow such a customized, attainment-based paradigm of education to replace the
current standardized, time-based paradigm: (1) the development of advanced technologies and (2) the
advancement of learner-centered psychological principles and methods of instruction, such as active
learning and collaborative problem-based learning. These developments allow a true paradigm shift in
instruction that has the potential for a quantum improvement in learning (Banathy, 1991; Branson, 1987;
Covington, 1996; Duffy, Rogerson, & Blick, 2000; Egol, 2003; Jenlink, Reigeluth, Carr, & Nelson,
1996; Reigeluth, 1994), not just the 5 or 10% improvement found in typical piecemeal educational re
form efforts, including most Comprehensive School Reform programs (American Institutes for Research,
1999; Franceschini, 2002; Holdzkom, 2002; Ross et al., 1997; Wong, Nicotera, & Manning, 2003).
What Areas of Knowledge Need to Be Developed to Make It Possible?
Much remains to be learned about the learner-centered paradigm of instruction (Bransford et al., 2000;
McCombs & Whisler, 1997). However, the major gap in our knowledge for dramatic improvements in
learning is how to help schools transform themselves from the standardized, industrial-age paradigm to a
learner-centered, information-age paradigm of education. The history of fundamental educational reform
has been dominated by classroom-based and school-based efforts to change to a learner-centered
paradigm; but those changes have been incompatible with the larger school systems, communities, and
social systems within which they existed and consequently were gradually forced by those encompassing
systems to transform back into the industrial-age model (Sarason, 1990, 1995; Tyack & Cuban, 1995).
While fundamental changes are needed in the ways teachers and students interact to foster learning, those
changes require changes at the classroom level, which in turn require changes on the school level, which
in turn require changes on the district level. In other words, to be successful, fundamental transformation
of education must occur on the school district level, as well as the school and classroom levels (Duffy et
al., 2000; Squire & Reigeluth, 2000). There is also evidence that related changes are helpful, if not
essential, on the state level (Fullan, 2003).
Therefore, large improvements in learning in public schools require advances in two kinds of
knowledge: knowledge about learner-centered methods of instruction (e.g., Watson & Reigeluth, 2008,
for an overview) and knowledge about how to help school districts transform themselves to an
information-age paradigm of education (e.g., Duffy & Reigeluth, 2008; Reigeluth & Duffy, 2008). This
book focuses on advancing the former: knowledge about the learnercentered paradigm of instruction. We
see this as pivotal to the advancement of the larger agenda of school reform as well as reform of all
organizations in which intentional human learning occurs.
Relation to Learner-Centered Instruction

To make the most valuable contribution to knowledge, this book attempts to synthesize the current
knowledge about effective instruction to formulate a common knowledge base about instruction and a
common terminology about instruction. Toward this end, it may be helpful to briefly summarize current
knowledge about learner-centered instruction (see also Watson & Reigeluth, 2008).
Learner-Centered Psychological Principles
The present knowledge about the learner-centered paradigm of instruction is widely dispersed, but
several noted attempts to synthesize or summarize that knowledge have been published. First, the
American Psychological Association conducted an extensive project to identify research-based, learner-
centered, psychological principles (American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on
Psychology in Education, 1993). Its report identifies 12 such principles and presents the research
evidence that supports each. McCombs and colleagues (Lambert & McCombs, 1998; McCombs &
Whisler, 1997) summarize that work and describe specific features and characteristics of learner-
centered classrooms and schools, along with descriptions of their experiences with learner-centered
teachers and schools. They describe the nature of the shift in focus from teaching to learning, including
ways to customize learning to student differences, how to motivate students to put more effort into
learning, how to help students assume increasing responsibility for directing their own learning (to
prepare them better to be lifelong learners), how to manage the learning process so that faster students
can move on as soon as they reach a standard and slower students are not forced to move on before they
have reached a standard, and much more. Technology plays a central role in all of these aspects of the
learner-centered paradigm. Methods such as these have been proven to significantly advance the ability
of students to reach high standards (American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on
Psychology in Education, 1993; Lambert & McCombs, 1998; McCombs & Whisler, 1997). However,
McCombs and Whisler caution that “learner-centered teaching is as much a way of being, a disposition,
as it is doing one thing or another” (p. 100), and they discuss the qualities that learner-centered teachers
need to have, along with ways to help develop those qualities. These are all important elements of a
comprehensive design theory for learner-centered instruction.
The Science of Learning
A second line of work was undertaken by the National Research Council to synthesize present
knowledge about how people learn (Bransford et al., 2000). This two-year study resulted in a
comprehensive synthesis of research findings that suggest there are new approaches to instruction that
“make it possible for the majority of individuals to develop a deep understanding of important subject
matter” (p. 6). This growing body of knowledge, which the authors called the science of learning,
emphasizes the importance of customizing the instruction to the preexisting knowledge of each individual
learner, helping learners take control of their own learning, and developing deep understandings of the
subject matter. Both design theory and descriptive theory are offered regarding the design of learning
environments that are learner centered, knowledge centered, assessment centered, and learning-
community centered. Technology also plays a central role in such learning environments and in design
theory to guide creation of such environments. There is much overlap between this line of work and the
APA learner-centered psychological principles in terms of the research-based design theory offered by
each.
New Paradigm of Instructional Theory
A third line of work was undertaken by Reigeluth in volume 2 to summarize and compare a broad range
of instructional design theories that fit the learnercentered paradigm of instruction (Reigeluth, 1999).
This included design theories for fostering a wide range of kinds of human learning and development,
namely cognitive, physical, affective, and integrated learning of all those types. It also included a wide
range of methods, such as problem-based, collaborative, selfdirected, individualized, discussion-based,
and much more. Again, there is great overlap between this line of work and the first two.

Other Work
We are particularly impressed with Rand Spiro’s cognitive flexibility theory (Spiro et al., 1992) and his
observation that information-age (or “post-Gutenberg”) technologies both require and facilitate a
different worldview (or frame of mind) and a different style of thinking, through prefigurative schemas
(schemas for the development of schemas). This has important implications for dramatic changes in the
goals of education, as well as the means, as we evolve deeper into the information age. Other lines of
work include personalized learning (Clarke, 2003; Keefe, 2007), brain-based learning (Caine, 2005;
Caine & Caine, 1997), and differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 1999, 2001, 2003). Of course, there is
much additional work that has been done by researchers that contributes valuable elements of a
comprehensive design theory for learner-centered instruction that is frequently made possible only by
advanced technologies. This book attempts to identify and synthesize new work as knowledge that
educators can utilize to improve learning for all students.
The Nature of Instructional Theories: Constructs and Terms
Instructional theorists oft en use different terms to refer to the same constructs and the same term to refer
to different constructs. This is confusing for researchers, practitioners, and graduate students, and it is
the most obvious indicator of the lack of a common knowledge base. Therefore, as a first step to
building a common knowledge base for instructional theory, it would be helpful to reach some consensus
on constructs about the nature of instructional theory and terms for those constructs.
To initiate this first step, we engaged in several rounds of a Delphi process (Adler & Ziglio, 1996) in
which we sent out a list of constructs and terms to a sample of leading instructional theorists to try to
build some consensus. A total of 53 e-mail invitations to participate in the Delphi were sent to authors of
chapters in all three volumes of Instructional-Design Theories and Models, and to other well-known
instructional theorists. The e-mail asked them to read a preliminary version of the terms and definitions
that we felt might be best and to click on a link to answer four questions online about the constructs and
terms they felt were best for the discipline of instructional theory. The Internet was used to ensure
anonymity for their responses, thereby encouraging complete frankness. The response rate on the first
round was low (16%), which we believe was, in part, due to our attaching a 3-page preliminary version
of terms and definitions to the e-mail. We suspect that participants felt it would take too much time to
open and read and review a document prior to taking the survey.
Delphi Results: Round 1
The results of the first round of the Delphi were varied, though most (6 of 9) respondents saw
instructional theory as the best term to represent the knowledge base about ways to facilitate human
learning and development. However, learning and performance technology and instructional model
were also supported. There was a certain amount of criticism of the terms instructional-design theory
and instructional-development design theory as being “unwieldy,” though clearly descriptive. An
alternative term, instructional design principles, was offered during round 1. Suggesting that we link
with other design disciplines was another idea offered by three of the nine participants in round 1. In
some cases, participants felt that the definitions needed to remain somewhat fuzzy and not get too
specific. In other cases, the participants really wanted to narrow the definitions that were seen as too
broad, such as for “instructional situation.” One participant felt uncomfortable about the entire survey,
indicating, “I do not believe in instructional theories of any kind….” There was also a sense that
stronger contrasts were needed among the definitions that were provided for the terms. Finally,
respondents to round 1 generally did not find any additional new terms they thought should be added, but
did caution us about being too ambitious in terms of the possibilities of this Delphi leading to consensus.
As one respondent wrote,
What you are hoping to achieve is consensus. That won’t happen…. Learning is such a complex
phenomenon that shares little common variance with instruction. Micro-macro is overly simplistic (even

if we include meso). They are too arbitrary. Learning aggregates in many ways, depending on activity,
interests, needs. You can use those terms to describe aggregates, but unfortunately, such categories have
a tendency to become self-fulfilling prophecies.
Two respondents were concerned that we were not sufficiently tuned in to the need for, and power of,
localized and flexible definitions.
In general, it is useful to have definitions, but I would add some caution with regard to this task.
Definitions should be regarded with some degree of fuzziness and not held too rigidly. When definitions
prove useful and enlightening, great—when they become burdensome and are used to badger people,
then they have outlived their usefulness.
Delphi Results: Round 2
The second round Delphi took the responses from the first round and carefully represented them to the
same 53 participants, whether or not they had participated in round 1, for further refinement of the terms
and definitions of importance in instructional theory. We sent no attachments, and we achieved a higher
response rate (39%).
A few reasons were given by some of the people who did not participate in either round of the study. A
few challenged the very notion that we, as a field, really need to have further clarification of terms and
constructs. Several stated that they were no longer active in the field and felt that the opportunity to help
define the terms should be reserved for those who are currently engaged in the field. In addition, some
felt that, during the second round, the choices were too narrowly defined or circumscribed. One
respondent who did participate sent feedback indicating that he felt the answers were “predetermined
and restrained” and suggesting that it was impossible to “define an enterprise as complex and dynamic
as ours.”
Despite these few criticisms, we found that a considerable degree of consensus was reached among
those who participated, and therefore we believe that the results are an important step in the process of
reaching some consensus on constructs and terms for a common knowledge base in instructional theory.
In Round 2 the largest number of respondents (n=10 or 45%) again felt that instruction is the proper
term to refer broadly to all ways of facilitating human learning and development (see Table 1.1).
However, the term education also enjoyed some support (n=5 or 22%). Most of the respondents felt that
the term design theory (n=12 or 54%) was the appropriate term to characterize sets of goal-oriented,
normative, artificial-science principles. However, the term instructional theory only enjoyed 18%
(n=4) support, while there was strong support for learning sciences as a more appropriate alternative to
instructional theory (n=7 or 32%). During the initial round of the Delphi there was a suggestion that
there was no need for “design theories” to be part of the label for different kinds of instructional theory
(e.g., instructional-development design theories), but rather to make things less awkward by simply
saying “instructional development theories.” There was mild support for this by the broader round 2
Delphi respondents, with an average of 3.1 (meaning “neutral”) on a Likert scale of 1–7 (with 1 being
strongly agree). There was broad support for greater recognition of the ways the word design has been
used in related fields (average 2.5 agreement on the Likert scale). Similarly, there was support for
explicit recognition of the evolutionary nature of definitions themselves as changes in technology and
context accompany definitional refinement (average 2.3) (see Table 1.1).
Thus, while this Delphi study did not enjoy as high a response rate as we might like, there was
consensus among respondents around some terms for use in our field. There was also clear support for
flexible definitions and giving greater importance to design theories in the field.
Recommended Constructs and Terms
Following is the description of constructs and terms that resulted from this process, though we hasten to

add that these are offered as a suggestion to theorists, and we encourage those who believe they have a
better term or definition to propose it to the community of instructional theorists. Furthermore, we expect
that some of these constructs and terms, even if accepted now, will evolve over time. Examples of the
following constructs are identified with editors’ notes in the theory chapters that follow (chapters 5–9
and 10–13).
Perhaps the most important construct is defined as “all things that are done
Table 1.1 Delphi Round 2 Results
to facilitate learning,” for those are the tools that an instructional theory offers to accomplish its goals.
The next most important construct is defined as “all factors that help one to decide when each of those
tools should and should not be used.” All elements of any instructional theory can be categorized as one
or the other of these two constructs.
1. Instructional method: Anything that is done purposely to facilitate learning or human development.
Other terms oft en used for part or all of this construct include strategy, technique, tactic, and approach.
2. Instructional situation: All aspects of an instructional context that are useful for deciding when and
when not to use a particular instructional method. Each individual aspect of the context is referred to as
a “situationality.” Collectively, they are the “situation.”5
Other terms oft en used include context and condition.
Instructional methods can vary in several ways, each of which is an important construct for
instructional theories. They are as follows.
1.1 Scope of a method: The amount of instruction with which a method deals.
While this is really a continuum, it is oft en divided into three major levels (van Merriënboer, 1997):
1.1.1. Micro: Instruction on an individual skill or understanding, such as a sequence of examples and
practice.
1.1.2. Meso: Instruction on a single unit (or cluster of related skills and understandings), such as a
sequence of types of cases for a complex cognitive task.
1.1.3. Macro: Instruction on a course (or even a curriculum), such as a sequence of different types of
complex tasks.
1.2. Generality of a method: The breadth of instructional situations in which a method should be used.
This is a continuum that ranges from high to low or universal to local. Other descriptors include
pervasive, common, restricted, rare, narrow, and local.
1.3. Precision of a method: The level of detail of the description of a method.
Precision is a reflection of the componential nature of methods. A description of a method typically can
be broken down or elaborated into more precise descriptions of the method for facilitating learning.
While this characteristic is commonly referred to as a general-versus
5. The situations in which a whole instructional theory should be used are referred to as “preconditions”
(see Reigeluth, 1999, chapter 1).
detailed distinction among descriptions of a method (or a generaltodetailed continuum of descriptions of
a method), “general” can be confused with the generality of a method itself (versus its description; see
1.2), so we prefer the term precision of a description of a method (imprecise-to-precise continuum). The

level of precision is influenced by three constructs:
1.3.1. Parts: More precise descriptions that describe pieces that, when combined, make up the
method.
1.3.2. Kinds: More precise descriptions that describe alternatives from which one must choose in
using the method.
1.3.3. Criteria: More precise descriptions that provide criteria for making a decision regarding the
method.
1.4. Power of a method: The amount a method contributes toward the attainment of the learning goal for
which it was selected.
Using any particular instructional method does not ensure that the learning goal will be attained, for
there are many factors that influence whether or not learning occurs. Some methods are more powerful
than others in fostering learning. Every method contributes a certain amount to the probability that
learning will occur. The power contribution of any given method can vary from very low (or even zero)
to very high (though never reaching a probability of 1.0).
1.5. Consistency of a method: The reliability with which a method contributes its power toward the
attainment of the learning goal for which it was selected within the situations for which it is appropriate.
Whereas power is similar to the concept of between-group variance in statistics, consistency is related
to the concept of within-group variance. A method may be highly consistent in contributing a given
amount of power toward the attainment of a learning goal within the situations for which it is
appropriate, or it may be highly inconsistent in the amount of power (or probability) it contributes. In
other words, the probability that the method contributes toward learning may be very high in some
situations, but only moderately high in other situations for which it is still appropriate to use. The
consistency of a method (or the variability of its power) within appropriate situations may range from
low to high. Regarding generality and precision, it is helpful to note that the more precise (or detailed) a
method, the less general (or more situational) it is.
Instructional situations, like instructional methods, can vary in several ways, each of which is an
important construct for instructional theories. They are as follows.
2.1. Values: The elements of instruction that are deemed important by an instructional theory but are a
matter of opinion rather than a matter that can be empirically verified.
The complete set of values underlying a theory of instruction represents a philosophy of instruction. It is
helpful to ensure alignment of values about instruction across all stakeholders. Therefore, values about
instruction should be made explicit for every instructional theory, to aid in selection of an appropriate
instructional theory. The values of the designer are less important than the values of the “owners” of the
instruction, the teachers, the learners, and the other beneficiaries (e.g., employers and communities). We
have identified four major kinds of instructional values.
2.1.1. Values about learning goals: Statements about which learning outcomes are valued
philosophically (opinion). These stand in contrast to identifying goals empirically through a needs
analysis.
2.1.2. Values about priorities: Statements about which priorities should be used to judge the success of
the instruction. These were formerly called “instructional outcomes” in volumes 1 and 2 (Reigeluth,
1983, 1999), but that term led to a misunderstanding of the construct. Values about priorities address the
relative importance of the effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal of the instruction as criteria for judging
how good the instructional methods and guidelines are.

2.1.3. Values about methods: Statements about which instructional methods are valued from a
philosophical point of view (opinion). These stand in contrast to selecting methods empirically based on
research results.
2.1.4. Values about power: Statements about who is given the power to make decisions about goals,
priorities, and methods.
While values about power could be viewed as subcategories of the three other kinds of instructional
values, we believe power is such an important issue that it deserves a category of its own. Learner
empowerment is an integral part of the whole concept of an information-age, learner-centered paradigm
of instruction (see Reigeluth, 1999), but different amounts of empowerment are oft en appropriate for
different situations, making empowerment a method variable (that spans goals, priorities, and methods),
as well as a value.
2.2. Conditions: All other factors that influence the selection or effects of methods.
The word context has a similar meaning, but not all aspects of context influence when a method of
instruction should and should not be used. For example, one could find oneself in a context of low
socioeconomic standing (SES) and find that this situation has a major impact on what instructional
method should be used, or it may not have such an impact, as many things are taught in similar ways
regardless of student SES or community poverty. On the other hand, there are times when context is very
important and should affect our instructional choices. We have identified four major kinds of
instructional conditions.
2.2.1. Content: The nature of what is to be learned, defined comprehensively to include not only
knowledge, skills, and understandings, but also higher-order thinking skills, metacognitive skills,
attitudes, values, and so forth.
2.2.2. Learner: The nature of the learner, including prior knowledge, learning styles, learning strategies,
motivations, interests, and so forth.
2.2.3. Learning environment: The nature of the learning environment, which includes human resources,
material resources, organizational arrangements, and so forth.
2.2.4. Instructional development constraints: The resources available for designing, developing, and
implementing the instruction, including money, calendar time, and person hours.
Figure 1.2 shows a summary of these constructs. While each of these constructs can and should be
further broken down into additional constructs, if instructional theorists would use these constructs and
terms in describing their instructional theories, that would represent an important step in building a
foundation, or common knowledge base, to which instructional theorists and researchers could add, and
it would help practitioners and graduate students understand the knowledge available to them. Yet, as
our Delphi study pointed
Instructional method
Scope of a method (a continuum from micro through meso to macro)
Generality of a method (a continuum from universal to local)
Precision of a method (a continuum from highly precise to highly imprecise)

Parts of a method (categories that are more precise)
Kinds of a method (categories that are more precise)
Criteria for a method (categories that are more precise)
Power of a method (a continuum from low to high)
Consistency of a method (a continuum from low to high)
Instructional situation
Values (categories)
Values about learning goals
Values about priorities
Values about methods
Values about who has power
Conditions (categories)
Content
Learner
Learning environment
Instructional development constraints
Figure 1.2 Constructs about the Nature of Instructional Theory
out, it is important to always keep in mind that an evolving field must have evolving constructs and
evolving terminology. These terms and constructs are offered as a beginning point for building an ever-
evolving consensus on terms and constructs.
In this chapter we offered a definition of instruction and have started the signifi cant task of creating a
common knowledge base and language about instruction. We described six different kinds of theories

related to instruction (event, analysis, planning, building, implementing, and evaluation theories) and
contrasted them with other related kinds of theories (student-assessment, curriculum, and learning
theories, as well as learning science and instructional science). Then we discussed Gibbons and
Rogers’s concept of “layers of design” (see chapter 14) and their implications for instructional theory.
Next, we turned our attention to the role of instructional theory in educational reform, and discussed the
relationship of learner-centered instruction to this book. Finally, we presented the results of a Delphi
study and offered particular constructs and terms for a common knowledge base about instruction. These
terms may be useful as a foundation upon which instructional theorists and researchers can build, and
they should help you, whether you are a practitioner, a researcher, or a graduate student, to understand
the knowledge available to you about fostering learning more effectively.
References
Adler, M., & Ziglio, E. (1996). Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to
social policy and public health. London: Kingsley.
American Institutes for Research. (1999). An educator’s guide to schoolwide reform. Washington, D.C.:
Author. (ED460429)
American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Psychology in Education. (1993).
Learner-centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school redesign and reform. Washington,
D.C.: American Psychological Association and the Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory.
Banathy, B.H. (1991). Systems design of education: A journey to create the future. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Educational Technology.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy.
Branson, R.K. (1987). Why the schools can’t improve: The upper limit hypothesis. Journal of
Instructional Development, 10(4), 15–26.
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Caine, R.N. (2005). 12 brain/mind learning principles in action: The fieldbook for making
connections, teaching, and the human brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Caine, R.N., & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, V
A: ASCD.
Clarke, J. (2003). Personalized learning and personalized teaching. In J. DiMartino, J. Clarke, & D.
Wolk (Eds.), Personalized learning: Preparing high school students to create their futures. Lanham,
MD: Scarecrow Press.
Covington, M.V
. (1996). The myth of intensification. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 24–27.
Duffy, F.M., & Reigeluth, C.M. (2008). The school system transformation (SST) protocol. Educational
Technology, 48(4), 41–49.
Duffy, F.M., Rogerson, L.G., & Blick, C. (2000). Redesigning America’s schools: A systems approach
to improvement. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Egol, M. (2003). The education revolution: Spectacular learning at lower cost. Tenafly, NJ: Wisdom
Dynamics.
Franceschini, L.A., III. (2002). Memphis, what happened? Notes on the decline and fall of comprehen
sive school reform models in a flagship district. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 1–5, 2002.
Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. New York: Routledge.
Gagné, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Holdzkom, D. (2002). Effects of comprehensive school reform in 12 schools: Results of a three-year
study. Charleston, WV: AEL. (ED473723)
Jenlink, P.M., Reigeluth, C.M., Carr, A.A., & Nelson, L.M. (1996). An expedition for change. Tech
Trends, 21–30.
Keefe, J. (2007). What is personalization? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(3), 217–223.
Lambert, N.M., & McCombs, B. (Eds.). (1998). How students learn: Reforming schools through
learner-centered education. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
McCombs, B., & Whisler, J.S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies for
increasing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nelson, H.G., & Stolerterman, E. (2003). The design way. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology.
Reigeluth, C.M. (1983). Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 1. An overview of their current
status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reigeluth, C.M. (1994). The imperative for systemic change. In C.M. Reigeluth & R.J. Garfinkle (Eds.),
Systemic change in education (pp. 3–11). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Reigeluth, C.M. (Ed.). (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 2. A new paradigm of
instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reigeluth, C.M., & Duffy, F.M. (2008). The AECT FutureMinds initiative: Transforming America’s
school systems. Educational Technology, 48(3), 45–49.
Ross, S.M., Henry, D., Phillipsen, L., Evans, K., Smith, L., & Buggey, T. (1997). Matching restructuring
programs to schools: Selection, negotiation, and preparation. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 8(1), 45–71.
Sarason, S.B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before it’s
too late?. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sarason, S.B. (1995). Parental involvement and the political principle: Why the existing governance
structure of schools should be abolished. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Simon, H.A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Snelbecker, G.E. (1974). Learning theory, instructional theory, and psychoeducational design. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R.L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility,
constructivism and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in
illstructured domains. In T.M. Duffy & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of
instruction: A conversation (pp. 57–74). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Squire, K.D., & Reigeluth, C.M. (2000). The many faces of systemic change. Educational Horizons,

78(3), 145–154.
Tomlinson, C.A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.
Alexandria, V
A: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.)
Alexandria, V
Tomlinson, C.A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools
for responsive teaching. Alexandria, V
Tyack, D.B., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform.
Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
Van Merrienboer, J. (1997). Training Complex Cognitive Skills; a four-compenent instructional
design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Watson, S .L., & Reigeluth, C .M. (2008). The learner-centered paradigm of education. Educational
Technology, 48(5), 42–48.
Wong, K., Nicotera, A., & Manning, J. (2003). Synthesis of the research conducted in the first three
years of the comprehensive school reform demonstration program. Washington, DC: Institute of
Education Science. (ED483041)

2
Understanding Instruction
CHARLES M.REIGELUTH
Indiana University
JOHN B.KELLER
Indiana Department of Education
Charles M.Reigeluth received a B.A. in economics from Harvard University. He was a high school
teacher for three years before earning his doctorate in instructional psychology at Brigham Young
University. He has been a professor in the Instructional Systems Technology Department at Indiana
University’s School of Education in Bloomington since 1988, and served as chairman of the department
from 1990 to 1992. His major area for service, teaching, and research is the process for facilitating
district-wide paradigm change in public school systems. His major research goal is to advance
knowledge to help school districts successfully navigate transformation to the learner-centered paradigm
of education. He has published nine books and over 120 journal articles and chapters. Two of his books
received an “outstanding book of the year” award from Association for Educational Communications
and Technology (AECT). He also received AECT’s Distinguished Service Award and Brigham Young
University’s Distinguished Alumnus Award.
John B.Keller is currently serving the Indiana Department of Education in the Center for Information
Systems where he collaborates on the development of teacher productivity soft ware and contributes to
the creation of longitudinal data systems. John has also worked in the nonprofit sector on grants for
designing, developing, and implementing a teacher productivity portal. Teaching endeavors have
included six years of elementary school and a variety of courses as an adjunct professor for several
Indiana teacher preparation institutions. John completed his doctoral work at Indiana University in the
Instructional Systems Technology Department in the School of Education.
EDITORS’ FOREWORD

Vision
• To help build a common knowledge base by offering a flexible framework for organizing constructs
about instruction (in contrast to constructs about instructional theory, discussed in chapter 1).
Instructional Approaches (macrostrategies)
• They are bundles of instructional methods (components).
• Each has some required components and some optional components.
• Each can be broken down into (eventually) elements of instruction.
Instructional Components (meso- and microstrategies)
• They are more “atomic” than “molecular.”
• They can be selected individually or in bundles with other component methods.
• Variable components should be chosen aft er an approach has been chosen.
Content Sequencing
• Sequencing can be done with chunks of content that are very small or very large.
• It can be used with many different approaches to instruction.
• Some sequencing strategies can be large enough to be considered approaches.
Grammar Rules and Rules of Thumb
• Just as a subject and a verb are needed in every sentence, so an approach, components, and
sequences are needed in all instruction.
• The careful analysis of situational constructs aids in selecting and combining instructional
methods.
• The priority of highly appealing instruction is particularly important for the information-age
paradigm of education
—CMR & ACC
UNDERSTANDING INSTRUCTION
Chapter 1 described the nature and importance of instructional theory and presented the results of a
Delphi study to reach consensus among many instructional theorists about terminology for the major
constructs that make up all instructional theories. However, in addition to those constructs about theory,
there are also constructs about instruction—the particular instructional methods and situations that may
be used in any given theory. Examples of constructs about instruction include: practice, demonstration,
collaboration, analogy, problem-based instruction, simple-to-complex sequencing, and many more. The
major difference between constructs about instructional theory and constructs about instruction is that the
former apply to all instructional theories, whereas the latter may or may not be used in any given theory.
This chapter focuses on constructs about instruction.
There have been numerous attempts to prescriptively arrange a set of constructs about instruction (e.g.,
Gagné’s Nine Events) but few efforts to develop a descriptive schema to accommodate the numerous

constructs of instruction. Prescriptive arrangements such as Gagné’s (1985) Nine Events of Instruction
provided a useful framework for selecting instructional constructs for use in an archetypal instructional
sequence. As part of building a common knowledge base about instruction, we believe that a flexible
framework is needed to organize the constructs about instruction and to illustrate their relationships. We
think of this framework as a “grammar of instruction.” Just as the grammar of the English language is
based on eight parts of speech, so it is possible to trace the many constructs of instruction to a discrete
number of sufficiently flexible categories and descriptions. It is our hope that this categorization scheme
will sharpen communication about instruction and instructional design. The remainder of the chapter
will lay out a set of categories for organizing constructs about instruction with example constructs to
illustrate each.
Categories of Constructs about Instruction
Chapter 1 proposed that all constructs of importance to instruction fall into two major categories:
instructional methods (what the instruction should be like) and instructional situations (when it should be
like that). This chapter will focus on methods, but first we will briefly review what chapter 1 said about
situations.
Categories of Instructional Situations
Chapter 1 proposed that instructional situations fall into two main categories: values about instruction
and conditions of instruction. Values are about learning goals, criteria, methods, or who has power.
Conditions are about the nature of the content, the learner, the learning environment, or the instructional
development constraints. Table 2.1 provides an overview of these categories.
Categories of Instructional Methods
Methods of instruction are more difficult to organize into a single conceptual scheme, partly due to their
rich variety. This is good news and bad news. The major benefit of the variety of instructional methods
is that they can be combined in a nearly infinite number of permutations as appropriate for the
instructional situation. The major challenge with this variety is in organizing the profusion of methods in
a scheme that is powerful and useful for practitioners.
Table 2.1 Categories of Constructs about Instructional Situations
Many classifications of instructional methods are possible, such as the classifi cations explicated in
volume 1 (Reigeluth, 1983, chapter 1):
• Organizational strategies (micro to macro)
• Delivery strategies (media selection and utilization)
• Management strategies
Other ways of classifying methods include those presented in volume 2 (Reigeluth & Moore, 1999,
chapter 3):
• The type of learning they promote (memorize information, understand relationships, apply skills, apply
generic skills, affective development, or so forth; see volume 2, Reigeluth & Moore, 1999, Table 3.2),
• who controls the learning (the learner, teacher, or instructional designer),
• the focus of the learning (a topic or a problem; a single domain or interdisciplinary),
• the grouping for the learning (individuals, pairs, small groups, or large groups),

• the interactions for the learning (with humans: student-teacher, studentstudent, or student-other; with
nonhumans: student-tool, student-information, student-environment/manipulatives, or student-other),
• the support for the learning (cognitive support or emotional support).
Still other potentially useful categorizations for methods include:
• the authenticity of the instructional tasks (a continuum from artificial or fantasy to authentic),
• the instructional approach used (drill-and-practice, tutorial, simulation, experiential learning, direct
instruction, problem-based instruction, discussion, and so forth),
• the purpose of the method (to motivate, to provide information, to build linkages, to empower the
learner, to generalize skills, to automatize performance of skills or recall of information, and so forth),
• the role that technology can play in supporting the method (offering interactivity, showing motion,
providing sound, facilitating communications, and so forth).
Each of the categorizations above applies in some contexts and may be useful in helping instructional
designers think about the alternatives available to them. However, we would like to propose three
categories that could be useful across contexts and help in classifying most instructional methods:
instructional approaches, instructional components, and content sequencing. These are discussed next.
Instructional Approaches
Instructional methods that fit this category are macrostrategies. Instructional approaches set a general
direction or trajectory for the instruction and are comprised of more precise or detailed components.
Consider the terms, problembased learning, experiential learning, direct instruction, and
instructional simulation. These terms refer to general instructional approaches in which other
instructional methods (components) are bundled. This notion of bundling is related to the precision of a
method, which is the level of detail of description of a method (a construct introduced in chapter 1). For
example, problem-based learning is comprised of many smaller methods, and describing each of those
smaller methods provides a practitioner with more detail (precision) about the larger (less precise)
method.
For any given approach, some components are required and some are optional. When optional
components are bundled, they comprise a major “flavor” of the approach. For example, there are several
flavors of problem-based learning (PBL), each of which is oft en referred to as a different strategy for
PBL, and the component methods that make up each strategy are oft en called instructional tactics. One
can envision bundles within bundles within bundles, and so forth until one reaches what might be
considered the “elements” of instruction.
Instructional Components
As implied above, instructional components are more atomic than molecular. Such methods can be
selected individually, depending on the instructional situation, but are oft en selected in concert with
other methods as parts of an instructional approach. For example, practice is a method that is included in
nearly every instructional approach because of its importance in helping learners grasp the knowledge,
skills, or attitudes that are the focus of instruction.
These categories, approach and component, are useful to instructional designers in that a designer should
choose an approach first, and then choose variable components for the approach, depending on the
situation.
Content Sequencing

This third category of instructional methods deserves particular attention, because such methods are
used with both approaches and components, because the chunks of content that are sequenced can range
from very large to fairly small. As an example, a procedural elaboration sequence (the simplifying
conditions method; see volume 2, Reigeluth & Moore, 1999, chapter 18) entails starting the instruction
with the simplest real-world version of a complex task and progressing to ever more complex versions
until all important versions have been learned. The task on which this sequencing method is used could
range from very large to quite small. Also, this kind of sequence can be used with many different
approaches to instruction, including problem-based instruction, direct instruction, simulation-based
instruction, discussion-based instruction, and so forth. At the component level, examples of content
sequencing methods include an easy-to-difficult sequence to present examples of a concept and a
concrete-to-abstract sequence in mathematics instruction when the instructor utilizes manipulatives to
portray an abstract concept in the first steps of learning the symbolic representations of numbers and
mathematical operations. To further complicate matters, some sequencing strategies are broad enough to
be considered “approaches” to sequencing, while others are components of larger sequencing methods.
To summarize this section about the organization of instructional methods, we have shown that there are
many ways to classify methods. We proposed three general categories for classifying most instructional
methods (see Table 2.2). While the categories are not mutually exclusive, we believe they are
sufficiently broad that most instructional methods fit into at lease one of these categories, and we believe
they provide a useful organizing scheme for instructional designers.
Table 2.2 Categories of Constructs about Instructional Methods
Grammar Rules and Rules of Thumb
Chapter 1 presented a set of constructs related to instructional situations:
Values
• about learning goals
• about priorities
• about methods
• about power
Conditions
• the content
• the learner
• the learning environment
• the instructional development constraints
When combined with the constructs about methods just presented (Table 2.2), these constructs might
prove useful to practitioners by implying a set of questions for analyzing an instructional situation and
selecting appropriate methods.
Questions about Instructional Situations
• What are the valued learning goals or outcomes from the instruction?

• What are the priorities in the instruction?
• Which methods are most valued in the instructional context?
• How should power be distributed among those in the instructional interaction?
• How is the nature of the content likely to influence the selection of instructional methods?
• How is the nature of the learner likely to influence the selection of instructional methods?
• How is the instructional environmental likely to influence the selection of instructional methods?
• How are instructional development constraints or limitations likely to influence the selection of
instructional methods?
Questions about Instructional Methods
• What instructional approach should be used?
• What variable instructional components are most appropriate within that approach?
• How should instruction be sequenced?
These questions can act as a preliminary guide to analysis and design efforts of the instructional
designer. They also serve as issues for instructional theorists to address in their theories.
Returning to the analogy of English grammar presented at the beginning of this chapter, the eight parts of
speech are combined according to rules of grammar on which we depend for effective communication.
The various categories we have proposed for organizing constructs about instruction are analogous to
the parts of speech. Guidelines for combining these constructs to achieve effective instructional design
depend largely on a set of heuristics that are learned as expertise develops.
The categories above do suggest a few rules of thumb for thinking through instructional design. Just as a
sentence requires a subject and a verb, so instruction requires an approach, components, and sequences.
Few English sentences employ all parts of speech. Similarly, designing effective instruction is not as
easy as using all the categories described earlier as a checklist of considerations.
There is an understanding about the internal relationships among the categories that is critical to
effective instructional design. Specifically, a thorough understanding of the instructional situation helps a
theorist (or designer) to select and combine instructional methods to the best effect. These constructs
about instruction are not meant to be so many ingredients in whole-grain instruction. Rather, the careful
analysis of situational constructs aids in selecting and combining instructional methods. The selection
heuristics may be offered by specific instructional theories, but they may also be developed by each
instructional designer as insights about the instructional utility of methods in varying instructional
situations accrue from experience. While the categorization of instructional methods is descriptively
useful, it offers little in the way of prescription, since the selection depends on the grasp that an
instructional theorist (or designer) has developed regarding the utility of each instructional method,
including its advantages and disadvantages in particular instructional situations.
A final rule of thumb for designing instruction is to pay close attention to the priorities for selecting
instructional methods that were described in chapter 1. They strongly influence a method’s desirability.
One of the most important priorities for the information-age paradigm of education in both K-12 and
higher education contexts is how motivating the method is for learners, since learning is a constructive
process that requires considerable student effort. As Schlechty (2002) puts it, the challenge for a teacher
is to design engaging work for students. Student engagement and the relevance of learning are key factors

in designing instruction for information-age learners.
Effectiveness and efficiency are additional priorities for selecting instructional methods. For example,
to learn a skill, demonstrations of the performance of the skill and practice in performing the skill (with
immediate feedback) have been well proven to make the instruction more effective and efficient. Recent
policy at the federal level spotlights the importance of instructional programs that are evidence-based;
that is programs shown to be effective through research (Slavin, 2008). Instructional theorists and
designers should continually cultivate their knowledge of the effectiveness and efficiency of
instructional methods.
Conclusion
To conclude, we have described categories of constructs about instructional situations and instructional
methods. We hope that these categories provide designers with useful tools for classifying instructional
constructs as well as a framework for analyzing and designing instruction. We believe that the use of this
grammar will help to build a common language and knowledge base if these basic notions are applied.
To this end, the appendix to this chapter provides a list of common instructional methods organized in
these categories.
Utilizing an instructional method from each category will not lead to elegant and effective instructional
designs. Insight into the relationships among the categories is still required, along with knowledge of key
characteristics of instructional methods, including their motivational potential and situationdependent
effectiveness and efficiency. The value of this organizational scheme is its broad embrace of all
constructs of instruction and its small number of generally useful categories that can be used to order the
rich array of terms important to the field.
References
Engelmann, S., Becker, W .C., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1988). The direct instruction follow through
model: Design and outcomes. Education and Treatment of Children, 11(4), 303–317.
Gagné, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Reigeluth, C.M. (1983). Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 1. An overview of their current
status. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reigeluth, C.M., & Moore, J. (1999). Cognitive education and the cognitive domain. In C.M. Reigeluth
(Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 2. A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp.
51–68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schlechty, P. (2002). Working on the work. New York: Wiley.
Slavin, R. (2008). Perspectives on evidence-based research in education what works? Issues in
synthesizing educational program evaluations. Educational Researcher, 37, 5–14.
Appendix Sample List of Instructional Methods

3
First Principles of Instruction
M.DAVID MERRILL
Consultant
M.David Merrill makes his home in St. George, Utah. He is an instructional effectiveness consultant, a
visiting professor at Florida State University, Brigham Young University—Hawaii, and professor
emeritus at Utah State University. Since receiving his PhD from the University of Illinois in 1964 he has
served on the faculty of George Peabody College, Brigham Young University—Provo, Stanford
University, the University of Southern California, and Utah State University. He is internationally
recognized as a major contributor to the field of instructional technology, has published many books and
articles in the field, and has lectured internationally. Among his principle contributions: TICCIT
authoring system (1970s), component display theory and elaboration theory (1980s), instructional
transaction theory, automated instructional design, and ID based on knowledge objects (1990s), and
currently first principles of instruction. He was honored to receive the AECT Life Time Achievement
Award. He and his wife Kate together have nine children and 37 +4 (by marriage) grandchildren which
he claims as his most important accomplishment.
EDITORS’ FOREWORD
Vision
• To distill a set of interrelated prescriptive instructional design principles
Demonstration Principle
• Instruction should provide a demonstration of the skill consistent with the type of component skill:
kinds-of, how-to, and what-happens.
• Instruction should provide guidance that relates the demonstration to generalities.
• Instruction should engage learners in peer discussion and peer demonstration.
• Instruction should allow learners to observe the demonstration through media that are appropriate
to the content.
Application Principle
• Instruction should have the learner apply learning consistent with the type of component skill:
kinds-of, how-to, and what-happens.
• Instruction should provide intrinsic or corrective feedback.

• Instruction should provide coaching, which should be gradually withdrawn to enhance application.
• Instruction should engage learners in peer collaboration.
Task-Centered Principle
• Instruction should use a task-centered instructional strategy.
• Instruction should use a progression of increasingly complex whole tasks.
Activation Principle
• Instruction should activate relevant cognitive structures in learners by having them recall,
describe, or demonstrate relevant prior knowledge or experience.
• Instruction should have learners share previous experiences with each other.
• Instruction should have learners recall or acquire a structure for organizing new knowledge.
Integration Principle
• Instruction should integrate new knowledge into learners’ cognitive structures by having them
reflect on, discuss, or defend new knowledge or skills.
• Instruction should engage learners in peer critique.
• Instruction should have learners create, invent, or explore personal ways to use their new
knowledge or skill.
• Instruction should have learners publicly demonstrate their new knowledge or skill.
Four-Phase Cycle of Instruction
• The four principles of activation, demonstration, application, and integration form a four-phase
cycle of instruction.
• At a deeper level there is within this cycle a more subtle cycle consisting of structure-guidance-
coaching-reflection.
A Scale for Rating Instructional Strategies
• The quality of the instruction will improve with each principle that is added: demonstration,
application, task-centered, activation, and integration.
—CMR & ACC
FIRST PRINCIPLES OF INSTRUCTION
I systematically reviewed instructional design theories, models, and research. From these sources I
abstracted a set of interrelated prescriptive instructional design principles (Merrill, 2002). A subsequent
paper (Merrill, 2007) quoted similar principles that have been identified by other authors and supported
by research.
For purposes of this work a principle is defined as a relationship that is always true under appropriate
conditions1 regardless of the methods or models which implement this principle. Principles are not in
and of themselves a model or method of instruction, but rather relationships that may underlie any model

or method. These principles can be implemented in a variety of ways by different models and methods
of instruction. However, the effectiveness, efficiency, and engagement of a particular model or method of
instruction is a function of the degree to which these principles are implemented.
To be included in this list, the principle had to be included in most of the instructional design theories
that the author reviewed. The principle had to promote more effective, efficient, or engaging learning.
The principle had to be supported by research. The principle had to be general so that it applies to any
delivery system or any instructional architecture (Clark, 2003). Instructional architecture refers to the
instructional approach, including direct methods, tutorial methods, experiential methods, and exploratory
methods. The principles had to be design-oriented; that is, they are principles about instruction that have
direct relevance for how the instruction is designed to promote learning activities, rather than activities
that learners may use on their own while learning.
From this effort five principles were identified. Following is an abbreviated statement of these
principles:
• The demonstration principle: Learning is promoted when learners observe a demonstration.
1 Editors’ note: The “always true” part of this statement implies universality, whereas the “under
appropriate conditions” part implies situationality. This issue is discussed in some depth in chapter
4.
• The application principle: Learning is promoted when learners apply the new knowledge.
• The task-centered principle: Learning is promoted when learners engage in a task-centered
instructional strategy.
• The activation principle: Learning is promoted when learners activate relevant prior knowledge or
experience.
• The integration principle: Learning is promoted when learners integrate their new knowledge into
their everyday world.
In this chapter I elaborate these five principles and their interrelationships. Please refer to previous
papers for a brief identification of some of the theories and research that supports these principles
(Merrill 2002, 2007).
Demonstration Principle
• Learning is promoted when learners observe a demonstration of the skills to be learned that is
consistent with the type of content being taught.
• Learning from demonstrations is enhanced when learners are guided to relate general information or an
organizing structure to specific instances.
• Learning from demonstrations is enhanced when learners observe media that is relevant to the content.
• Learning from demonstrations is enhanced by peer discussion and peer demonstration.
Demonstration Consistency
First principles are most appropriate for generalizable skills. A generalizable skill is one that can be
applied to two or more different specific situations. Remembering the name of a specific object or
naming the parts of a specific device is not a generalizable skill. The demonstration principle is most
appropriate for three types of generalizable skill: concept classification (or kinds-of); carrying out a
procedure (or how-to); and predicting consequences or finding faulted conditions in the execution of a

process (or what-happens). A generalizable skill is represented by both information and portrayal.
Information is general, inclusive, and applicable to many specific situations. Portrayal is specific,
limited, and applicable to one case or a single situation.2 Information can be presented (tell) and
recalled (ask). A portrayal can be demonstrated (show) and submitted to application (do). The
demonstration principle emphasizes the use of specific cases (portrayal). Failure to provide sufficient
demonstration is a common problem in much instruction. While the demonstration principle emphasizes
portrayal, effective and efficient instruction involves both presentation of information3 and
2 Editors’ note: Information and portrayal correspond to Merrill’s earlier distinction between
generality and instance.
3 Editors’ note: Presentation of information is universal, for it is useful for fostering other kinds of
learning, such as remembering, naming, and understanding, as well as for generalizable skills.
Table 3.1 Consistent Information and Portrayal for Categories of Component Skill
demonstration with portrayal.4 Table 3.1 indicates information and portrayal that are consistent for each
category of generalizable skill. A presentation and demonstration must be consistent if they are to
promote effective, efficient, and engaging learning.
Learner Guidance
Learner guidance helps focus the learner’s attention on critical elements of the information and relate
these critical elements to the portrayal. The following paragraphs list steps for presenting and
demonstrating each kind of generalizable skill (Merrill, 1997). The learner guidance that enhances the
demonstration is indicated by hollow bullets.
Kinds-of Kinds-of or concept classification occurs when learners must discriminate among members of
two or more related categories of objects or events. An effective presentation/demonstration for concept
classification (kinds-of) requires the following instructional activities.
• Tell learners the name of each category or alternative procedure.
• Show learners an example of each category.
• Provide learners with a definition for each category. (A definition is a list of discriminating properties
that determine class membership.)
4 Editors’ note: In contrast, demonstration with portrayal is not universal, for it applies primarily to
generalizable skills.
• Emphasize the discriminating properties for each category.
• Show learners additional examples of each category. (Portrayals for examples must illustrate the
discriminating properties.)
• Call attention to the portrayal of each discriminating property for each example.
• Show matched examples among categories—examples which have similar nondiscriminating
properties.
• Show divergent examples within a category for which nondiscriminating properties are different.
• Show increasingly difficult-to-discriminate examples among categories.
How-to How-to or procedure learning occurs when learners must carry out a series of steps. A

Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content

eenigzins zonderlinge omstandigheden, dat haar echt met Frederik Hendrik
had plaats gehad. Prins Maurits stond met eenen voet in ’t graf en nu voor ’t
eerst scheen hy berouw te gevoelen, dat hy geen wettigen nakomeling
achterliet, op wien de waardigheden, door hem bekleed, konden overgaan.
Voor een dergelijk berouw wilde hy zyn broeder bewaren, en hem, zelfs
zyns ondanks, dwingen, de glansrijke stelling, die hem wachtte, door een
huwlijk te bevestigen. Intusschen, de zaak had bezwaren: Frederik Hendrik
had zich tot nog toe van ’t huwelijk afkeerig betoond: onderhandelingen
over het sluiten van een echtverbond met de dochter van eenig uitheemsch
Vorst zouden wellicht lang slepende worden gehouden, en, werd het
huwelijk niet voltrokken zoo lang Maurits nog leefde, dan stond, dit wist
deze, uitstel met afstel gelijk. Er was dus geen tijd te verliezen. Gelukkig
behoefde de Prins niet verre te zoeken wat hy in zijn onmiddelijke nabyheid
vinden kon. Immers te ’s Gravenhage was, met zijn nicht, de verdreven
Koningin van Boheme, de nu drie-en-twintigjarige Amelia van Solms
verschenen en had er terstond dien opgang gemaakt, welken jeugd,
schoonheid, vernuft en geest onmisbaar te weeg brengen, vooral wanneer
die hoedanigheden in een Vorstin vereenigd zijn. Reeds zes malen hadden
de Huizen van Nassau en van Solms zich door huwelijken met elkander
verbonden, en een zevende verbintenis kon dus door niemand onvoegzaam
worden geoordeeld. Wel bleef Frederik Hendrik, wien een andere liefde
geboeid hield, nog een wijl weêrbarstig; doch de reden van Staat en de wil
zijns broeders zegevierden, en hy gaf zijn toestemming. Zoo veel spoed
maakte nu Maurits, die wellicht voor een terugtreden vreesde, met de zaak,
dat hy door de Gekommitteerde Raden ontslag van de huwlijksgeboden
verleenen deed en binnen een tijdsverloop van weinige dagen de verbintenis
bepaald en voltrokken werd. Geen drie weken waren er na de plechtigheid
verloopen, of Maurits was ten grave gedaald; maar met het bewustzijn, dat
hy het geluk zyns broeders gevestigd had. En, inderdaad, zoo deze niet dan
schoorvoetende tot den stap was overgegaan, die van hem gevorderd werd,
dankbaar mocht hy zich later verblijden, wanneer hem, na de woelingen van
den krijg of de beslommeringen van het staatsbewind, in den omgang met
een beminnelijke en beminnende gade, met een aanvallig en bloeiend
kroost, verademing en rust ten deele vielen. Weinig moge er bekend zijn
aangaande de verrichtingen der edele Princes zoo lang haar echtgenoot
leefde, doch uit de wakkerheid, welke zy, toen, eerst hy zelf, en naderhand

haar groothartige zoon, haar ontvallen waren, tot op vergevordenden
ouderdom aan den dag legde in ’t voorstaan der aanspraken en belangen van
haar doorluchtigen kleinzoon, is licht af te meten, dat zy, ook in de twee-en-
twintig jaren, die zy aan Frederik Hendriks zijde doorbragt, hem niet alleen
een teedere, zorgende huisvrouw strekte, maar ook, in netelige gevallen,
meermalen in staat was, hem, met dien vluggen blik, die snelle
bevattelijkheid, den vrouwen eigen, den weg te wijzen, dien hy te volgen
had. Alles afdoende is toch ten dezen opzichte de getuigenis van Temple,
die van haar verklaarde, dat zy een vrouw was, zoo kloek van verstand als
hy er immer eenige ontmoet had. Gewis, aan een zoodanige alleen voegde
het, den eersten rang te bekleeden gedurende het tijdvak, waarop Nederland
het toppunt zijner grootheid had bereikt.
En, was zy door haar zedelijke en geestvermogens dien rang ten vollen
waardig, zy was het niet minder door de wijze, waarop zy dien ook in ’t
uiterlijke wist te handhaven. Noch Willem de Eerste, die tot aan zyn uiterste
met bezwaren van geldelijken aart te worstelen had, noch Maurits, die
ongehuwd en van praal en pracht afkeerig was, hadden een eigenlijk
gezegde hofhouding gehad. Maar sints de Republiek rijk en machtig
geworden was, sints voegde het ook, dat hy, die aan haar hoofd stond niet
alleen, maar ook haar tegen over de buitenlandsche Mogendheden
vertegenwoordigde, door uiterlijk vertoon de glansrijke stelling ophield,
welke hy bekleedde. Om hem hierin te doen slagen, daartoe was Amelia als
geboren. Van nature geneigd om zich te omgeven van al wat lieflijk,
welstandig en bekoorlijk was, aan zucht tot weelde een fijn gekuischten
smaak parende, de schoone kunsten beminnende en beschermende, wist zy
de lusthuizen, door haar gade gesticht, in tooverpaleizen te herscheppen,
waar de keurigste gewrochten, die de kunst uit doek, uit hout, uit goud en
gesteenten wist voort te brengen, in kwistigen overvloed den verbaasden
bezoeker in de oogen flikkerden, en waar een weelde heerschte, wier gelijke
een Engelsche Gezant getuigde nergends aan deze zijde van Perziën te
hebben gezien.
Gewis, zoo ergends, voegde die weelde aan ’t hof van den Stadhouder, door
wien de Munstersche vrede werd voorbereid; en vergelijken wy den
toestand van dat hof, gelyk dit was toen hy geboren werd, met dien waarin

het zich bevond, toen hy, op den 14den
Maart 1647, het hoofd ter ruste leide,
dan zien wy daarin een sprekend zinnebeeld van de verschillende
toestanden der Republiek zelve op die beide tijdperken. Brengen wy, met
een terugslag op hetgeen wy in den aanvang zeiden, die tijdperken
nogmaals in vergelijking, en wat vertoont zich voor onze oogen?—In stede
van verbrokkelde, verarmde, uitgeputte gewesten, van buiten door talrijke
legers bedreigd, van binnen alom nog uit steden en sterkten door
vyandelijke roofbenden bestookt, door wantrouwen, bekommernis en schrik
tot moedeloosheid vervallen, geen uitkomst ziende dan in de afgebedelde
bescherming van vreemde Mogendheden, zich zelve als een koopwaar
aanbiedende, doch vergeefs een kooper zoekende, zien wy thands een fieren
en machtigen Staat, die, groot door eendracht, orde, welvaart, zich vrij en
onafhankelijk beweegt op het grondgebied, dat hy van vyanden gezuiverd
heeft, die, ver van gunsten en bescherming af te smeeken, ze uitdeelt op
zijne beurt, zich in macht en aanzien met de grootste Mogendheden van
Europa gelijk stelt, en, in de overige waerelddeelen, door zijn kooplieden
aan vorsten en volkeren de wet laat voorschrijven: een Staat, waar handel,
zeevaart, nyverheid, tot een vroeger nergends gekende hoogte zijn gestegen,
en wiens vlaggen tot in de verste zeeën met eerbied worden aanschouwd:
een Staat, waar letteren, kunsten, wetenschappen, als nimmer te voren
bloeien, in een woord, een Staat, wiens gelijke op dat tijdstip de waereld
niet aanbiedt!—en vestigen wy dan tevens onzen blik op dat trotsche
Spanje, by den aanvang van den worstelstrijd het rijkste en machtigste
onder de Rijken van Europa, nu door dien strijd verarmd, ja uitgeput, en
dankbaar, dat het den vrede sluiten mag met de Nederlanders, die het als
verachtelijke slaven had beschouwd, en die het, door vervolging,
verbanning, plundering, verbeurdverklaring en moord, gedwongen had,
door wanhoop vrij, door vrijheid op zijne beurt rijk en machtig te worden.
Wel beleefde Frederik Hendrik dien vrede niet, door de Natie, aan wier
hoofd hy gestreden had, verkregen, maar toch hy had dien voorbereid, en de
voorspelling in allen deele vervuld, drie-en-twintig jaren te voren door
Vondel omtrent hem uitgesproken:
Ick zie ’t verbont gemaackt, het volk wordt goedertieren,
Ick zie de vredefeest op speeltooneelen vieren.

Ick zie de vredevlam die drift van wolcken leckt.
Ick zie hoe als een schat de vrede ’t land bedeckt.
Ick hoor Vorst Frederik van alle tongen roemen.
Ick hoor hem vrederijck en Vredevader noemen.
Ick smaack zijn goedigheid. Ick voel zijn heuschen aart.
Ick rieck den zoeten reuck van vrede, dien hy baart.
Bekrachtig Frederik dan ’t geen wy ons verbeelden.
En gewis, de Vorst, die aldus het werk voltooid had, waarvan de
grondslagen door zijn vader gelegd waren, had het recht, met eenige
zelfverheffing terug te zien op den arbeid, door hem volbracht, maar tevens
aanleiding om God te danken, die hem tot zulk een taak geroepen en daarby
hem de kracht geschonken had, ten einde toe, gestand te doen aan de
zinspreuk, welke hy zich gekozen had:
PATRIAEQUE, PATRIQUE.

PIETER PIETERSZOON HEIN.
Pieter Pieterszoon Hein opent de rij van doorluchte zeehelden, waar het
tijdvak van Frederik Hendrik zich op beroemt. In 1578 te Delftshaven uit
eenvoudige burgerlieden geboren, had hy reeds vroeg het zeemans-bedrijf
gekozen, aan menigen verren tocht, aan menigen zeetriomf deel genomen.
Maar het was niet alleen door zijn vlugheid in ’t want, of door de
onversaagdheid, waarmede hy den enterbijl zwaaide, dat hy zich
onderscheidde; het was ook door die stipte en strenge plichtsbetrachting, die
van een vroom gevoel—het was door dien yver en die oplettendheid, die
van een weetgierig en schrander brein getuigen. Was het wonder, dat hy de
opmerkzaamheid wekte van zijn meerderen, en eerlang ook hun
genegenheid en achting? Was het wonder, dat, op een tijd, toen in
Nederland ware verdiensten niet vruchteloos naar de gelegenheid zochten
om aan den dag te komen, Piet Hein—gelijk tijdgenoot en nageslacht hem
by voorkeur noemden—niet voor den mast bleef, maar al spoedig, als
stuurman, als schipper, als kommandant van een eskader, in dienst kwam?
In 1623 treffen wy hem aan als Vice-Amiraal by de vloot, door de W.
Indische Maatschappy uitgerust en waarover Jakob Willekens als Amiraal
gebood. Men hechte intusschen niet te veel aan dien tytel van Vice-Amiraal.
Dan alleen duidde die tytel een rang aan by ’t Zeewezen, wanneer hy
gevoerd werd krachtens een aanstelling by eene der Amiraliteiten. Voor ’t
overige gaven de benamingen Amiraal, Vice-Amiraal, Schout-by-Nacht,
doorgaans alleen de betrekking te kennen, welke iemand, tijdelijk, by een
zeetocht, op een vloot, zelfs op een smaldeel, vervulde. Ja, al gold het een
koopvaardy-vloot, of ook maar een drietal te samen varende schepen, dan
werd, zoolang de reis duurde, hy, aan wien het hoofdbestuur was
opgedragen, Amiraal genoemd: die den voortocht gebood heette Vice-
Amiraal, en die over de achterhoede of ’t achterste schip ’t bevel had,
Schout-by-Nacht. Was men aan wal terug gekeerd, dan legden zy, die deze
tytels gevoerd hadden, ze af om eenvoudig weder Kapitein, Schipper of
Stuurman te heeten.—Met dit al werden niet zelden voor hen die tijdelijke
kommandementen over byzondere uitrustingen de eerste aanleiding, om hen

later een werkelijke aanstelling by ’t Zeewezen te bezorgen. Zy behoefden
daartoe zich slechts te onderscheiden, en, in een tijd, toen maar zelden een
schip zijn reis over zee volbracht, zonder een vyand ontmoet te hebben, was
daartoe, als wy reeds aanmerkten, gelegenheid genoeg: vooral by Oost en
Westindische Maatschappyen. Haar zeemacht was de kern, waaruit de
meeste bekwame zeelieden voor ’s Lands vloot ontsproten, de kweekschool,
waarin de beroemdste zeehelden gevormd en opgeleid werden. Het was
door de verheffing van zulke wakkere mannen als die in den dienst der
Kompagniën een onschatbare ondervinding opgedaan en alle denkbare
gevaren getrotseerd hadden, dat ’s Lands zeemacht een zedelijke kracht
bekwam, welke zy tot dien tijd niet bezeten had.—Na deze uitweiding, niet
onnoodig wellicht om by sommige lezers een misverstand weg te ruimen,
dat zich lichtelijk voordoet, keeren wy tot onze schets terug.

Herman ten Kate, Ft Steend. P. W. v. d. Weijer, Utrecht.
Pieter Pieterszoon Hein.
Het doel der onderneming, van welke wy thands gaan gewagen, en dat zelfs
aan den Vlootvoogd, naar de gewoonte van die dagen, eerst in volle zee,

door het openen van den lastbrief van Bewindhebberen bekend mocht
worden, was het bemachtigen der Allerheiligen-Baai op de kust van Braziel.
—Op den 8sten
Mei 1624 had de vloot de plaats harer bestemming bereikt.
De baai was verdedigd door een sterkte, die den ingang bestreek, en door
eenige Portugesche schepen. Maar Willekens achtte, om het geschut der
sterkte tot zwijgen te brengen, en de schepen te vernielen, drie zijner
vaartuigen genoeg, mits Piet Hein die gebood. Veertienhonderd-veertig man
werden aan wal gezet: meer zoû Allart Schouten niet behoeven, om de stad
Sint Salvador te winnen. Het vertrouwen van den Amiraal werd niet
beschaamd gemaakt. Terwijl Schouten de stad binnen rukt en er rijken buit
behaalt, maakt Piet Hein zich meester van de schepen, die in de baai liggen,
en van de menigte koopwaren, welke zy bevatten: en, met roem bedekt,
keeren de Vlootvoogden naar het Vaderland, Joan van Dorth als
bevelhebber over de veroverde vesting achter latende.
Twee jaren later werd aan Piet Hein, nu als Amiraal, het bevel gegeven over
een vloot, uit acht groote schepen en vijf jachten bestaande. Na gedurende
eenige weken met afwisselende fortuin in de West-Indische zeeën en langs
de Barbarijsche kusten gekruist te hebben, zeilde onze Vlootvoogd
nogmaals naar die baai, die, sedert zijn vertrek, ten gevolge van het
sneuvelen van Van Dorth en van het verwaarlozen van ’t bewind door zijn
opvolgers, weder in handen der Portugezen gevallen was. Het was in
January 1627, dat Piet Hein voor Sint Salvador verscheen, onder het
geschut van welke stad zes-en-twintig groote en twee-en-twintig kleine,
doch alle sterk bemande en welgewapende schepen lagen, die Spaansche of
Portugesche vlaggen voerden. Door zulk een macht en bovendien door een
kustbattery van twee-en-veertig stukken verdedigd, meende ’s Konings
Stadhouder, Don Diëgo Louis de Oliveyros, tegen elken aanval
gewaarborgd te zijn: maar hy had er niet op gerekend, dat, by de Hollanders
van die dagen, een hunner schepen er, in doorslag, drie van den vyand voor
zijn rekening nam. Piet Hein geeft den zijnen het voorbeeld: hy zeilt
tusschen het vyandelijk Amiraal- en Vice-Amiraalschip in, ankert op een
musketschot van de stad en opent zijn vuur aan beide zijden. Nog twee
schepen volgen hem en werpen mede hun anker uit: de overige worden
door den wind belet op te komen. Doch ook dezen tegenspoed weet de
Zeevoogd te herstellen. Terwijl de drie geänkerde schepen den strijd

doorzetten, schrik en verwoesting brengen onder ’s vyands vloot, en door
hun geschut diens Vice-Amiraalschip in den grond boren, laat hy van zijn
mast den topstander waaien. Op dat sein werpt de manschap uit de overige
schepen zich in de boots, roeit op den vyand aan, beklimt en entert diens
schepen, en drijft er het volk uit, dat, van doodsche vreeze bevangen, alom
over boord springt, en met zwemmen zijn behoud zoekt. Geen drie uren zijn
verloopen, of de overwinning is bevochten, en, moet het schip van Piet
Hein, dat op het drooge geraakt en geheel vernageld is, worden achter
gelaten, was een ander door zijn eigen vuur in de lucht gesprongen, dat
verlies wordt ruim vergoed door het bemachtigen van twee-en-twintig
groote en rijk beladen vaartuigen, die hy met zich naar zee sleept en naar ’t
Vaderland zendt als sprekende getuigen zijner viktorie.
Maar nog kon het behaalde voordeel den Zeevoogd niet voldoen. Zijn vloot
in Spirito Santo ververscht en van water voorzien hebbende, verdeelt hy die
in drieën, zendt een smaldeel naar Rio de la Plata en een naar Rio Janeiro,
en keert met vier schepen van oorlog en vier jachten naar de baai terug,
welke hy den 10den
Juny binnenstevent. Hy zeilt de stad voorby, verovert,
plundert en verbrandt twee van ’s vyands schepen, die op ’t drooge liggen,
en toen, met een pinas, een jacht en een fregat, de rivier opvarende, vervolgt
hy een tiental met suiker geladen schepen, die voor hem terug geweken
zijn. ’t Gelukt hem, twee daarvan op te sporen, die zich veilig achten in een
naauwe kreek, waar geen diepgaand vaartuig hen kan bereiken. Maar, is de
rivier niet verder bevaarbaar voor de schepen, zy is het nog steeds voor de
booten. Twee malen laat Piet Hein die af, om een aanval te beproeven op de
Portugesche schepen; doch beide reizen vruchteloos. De aanvallen worden
afgeslagen, en de koopvaarders, al hooger en hooger op wijkende,
vereenigen zich met de andere vaartuigen en worden eerlang versterkt door
een vendel krijgsvolk, hun van Sint Salvador toegezonden door den
Kommandant Oliveyros. Het was niet de eerste maal, dat de aanvoerder dier
bende, de Hopman Padilla, de Hollanders had bestreden. Hy was het, die,
drie jaren te voren, Van Dorth in een hinderlaag gelokt en omgebracht had,
en hy vleidde zich, thands, door een dergelijk wapenfeit, zijn roem te
voltooien. Doch de dood van den voormaligen bevelhebber van Sint
Salvador zoû deze reis gewroken worden: de aanval der onzen, op den
derden dag meer krachtdadig hervat, was ditmaal onwederstaanbaar: een

kogel, door Padillaas kuras gedrongen, berooft hem van ’t leven: het schip,
waar hy zich op bevindt, wordt stormenderhand veroverd; de bemanning,
twee-honderd-vijftig man sterk, neder gehouwen. Nu ontzonk op de overige
schepen den vyand den moed, en hy zocht zijn redding in de vlucht. Nog
twee, insgelijks rijk beladen vaartuigen, werden bemachtigd, en het was
alleen de onmogelijkheid om de rivier, die al naauwer en naauwer en al
meer met geboomte bezet was, verder op te varen, die Piet Hein
verhinderde, grooter buit te behalen. Reeds was de taak hachelijk genoeg,
om de veroverde schepen met zich naar zee te voeren; immers, terwijl de
hier vermelde wapenfeiten in de rivier plaats grepen, had Oliveyros, ter
plaatse, waar zy in de baai uitliep, een der schepen, die op den 11den
uitgeplunderd en verlaten waren, dwars in het vaarwater laten zinken, en
langs de geul, welke alleen voor de afzakkende schepen overbleef, op den
oever een borstweering opgeworpen en met musketiers voorzien. Zoo
meende hy de onzen als in een fuik gevangen en hun alle ontkoming
onmogelijk gemaakt te hebben: en daar zoû hy hun nu de vroegere en
thands geleden verliezen betaald zetten. Te meer gegrond scheen zijn hoop,
omdat er byna geen water in de rivier stond, en de wind den onzen tegen
was, zoodat de schepen niet dan langzaam, en met behulp van werpankers,
konden worden uitgebracht;—welk laatste, naar Oliveyros meende, wel
onmogelijk zoû wezen, uithoofde de schepen langs den oever moesten
houden, waar ’t volk, dat in de booten de ankers moest uitbrengen, aan het
moordend geweervuur der musketiers was blootgesteld. Doch het woord
„onmogelijk” stond in het woordeboek van Piet Hein niet geschreven.
Naauwlijks is hy van de gevaren, die hem bedreigen, onderricht, of hy zendt
eerst eenige matrozen in de booten de rivier af, die ’t gezonken schip by
laag water in brand steken en uiteen doen springen. Vervolgens laat hy al de
huiden, die in de gemaakte prijzen te vinden zijn, voor den dag halen en
doet daarmede de schepen, maar vooral de booten, beschansen. Aldus tot
afweer gereed, zakt hy de rivier weder af, laat al de veroverde schepen
uitwerpen, en vaart den vyand, die ’t met spijt moet aanzien, voorby, zonder
een man te verliezen; want de bootsgezellen, die de ankers uitbrachten,
zaten veilig achter hun borstweer van huiden, waar de kogels der
Portugezen in smoorden. Met geen minder voorspoedigen uitslag brengt
Piet Hein nu zijn eigen vaartuigen uit en raakt daarmede op den 16den
weder

by zijn smaldeel, waarvan hy sints den 6den
gescheiden was, en dat, kort by
Sint Salvador geânkerd, alsnu, in ’t gezicht van den vyand en tot diens
ergernis, de prijzen overneemt, die hy door zijn moed verworven, maar door
zijn vernuftig beleid had weten te bewaren. Een en ander werd dan ook
dankbaar erkend, en hy, in October in ’t Vaderland teruggekeerd, door
Bewindhebberen met een gouden keten beschonken.
Met ongelijk minder moeite verkregen, doch oneindig meer beroemd, om
de voordeelen, welke zy opleverde, was de overwinning, welke Piet Hein in
1628 behaalde. Met een-en-dertig meest groote schepen uitgezeild, en
vooral met den toeleg, om, zoo mogelijk, de vloot, die de schatten uit
Amerikaas zilvermijnen naar Spanje bracht, te onderscheppen, had hy een
tijd lang in de West-Indische zeeën gekruist, toen, in Augustus, omtrent de
Havana een hevige storm zijn vloot uit den koers dreef, welken hy meende
te houden. Reeds had hy de hoop, om den verwachten buit te winnen,
opgegeven, dewijl de tijd, waarop hy de Spaansche vloot had gerekend te
ontmoeten, verstreken was, toen het bleek, dat hetgeen hy voor een
tegenspoed gehouden had, alleen had moeten dienen, om hem in zijn
oogmerk te doen slagen. Een zeil, op drie mijlen afstands ontdekt, wekt de
aandacht van Witte Corneliszoon de With, die op het schip van Piet Hein
het bevel als schipper voerde: hy vraagt en bekomt verlof het te vervolgen,
stapt in zijn sloep, roeit naar de onbekende bark, vermeestert die, en
ontdekt, dat zy gezonden was ter waarschuwing van de Spaansche vloot.
Dit stoute feit was alzoo de aanleiding, dat de zilvervloot onkundig bleef
van het lot dat haar dreigde, en zy de onze dwars in den mond liep. Vergeefs
zocht zy een toevlucht in de baai van Matanza: zy werd daar achtervolgd en
op den 9den
September zonder veel tegenstand veroverd.
„Hoe moest,” zong Vondel, toen hy, in zijn Zegezang op het innemen van
den Bosch, in ’t voorby gaan de zegepraal van Piet Hein herdacht,
Hoe moest, Havaen! uw hart bezwijcken,
Toen ghij uws Konings zeil zaeght strijcken
Voor ’s Prinsen vlaggen al benout?
Toen ghy het zilver en root gout
Zaeght plondren, en de purperoegsten

Die Hollant dreighden te verwoesten?
De schim van Attabaliba
Vernam ’t, en huppelde om uw scha,
Omdat men hem de zenuw kerfde,
Die niet door deught zijn scepters erfde,
Maar schoot, met voordeel van geweir,
In ’t moedernaeckt en weerloos heir.
Dat heet den draeck op ’t harte trappelen,
Den wachter der Hesperische appelen,
En na ’et verovert Indisch Vlies,
Hem zuchten doen om ’t Boschverlies.
De vloot van Piet Hein kwam eerst in ’t laatst van 1628 en in ’t begin des
volgenden jaars terug. De meeste buit, in vele kisten van zilver, voorts in
goud en paerlen, edelgesteenten en kostbare koopmanschappen bestaande,
en op ruim elf en een half millioen guldens begroot, werd te Amsterdam in
’t Huis der Kompagnie opgeslagen. Men hield een plechtigen dankdag en
brandde vreugdevuren wegens deze verovering. De aandeelhouders in de
Kompagnie kregen een uitdeeling van vijftig ten honderd: Piet Hein zelf
slechts ƒ 1000: de With, zonder wiens wakker bedrijf die rijke buit nooit
verkregen ware, geen penning: de matrozen niet meer dan zestien maanden
gaadje: was het wonder, dat zy, met die schrale belooning kwalijk tevrede,
den buit poogden te plunderen? Was het wonder mede, dat Piet Hein niet
ongaarne de dienst der Kompagnie verliet, om een luisterrijker betrekking
te aanvaarden, de hoogste namelijk, die by ’t zeewezen te bekomen was, die
van Luitenant-Amiraal van Holland, opengevallen door den dood van
Willem van Nassau, doorschoten voor Grol?—Slechts kort na zijn
terugkomst in ’t Vaderland door de Staten tot deze waardigheid verheven,
had Piet Hein niet lang van zijn verheffing genot. In April van ’t zelfde jaar
1629, met een vloot naar zee gezonden, om de Duinkerker kapers te
tuchtigen en onze kusten schoon te houden, ontmoette hy op den 17den
Juny
in de Cingels eenige vyandelijke schepen, die hy vervolgde en op den
volgenden morgen achterhaalde. Volgens zijn gewoonte brak hy dadelijk
door de linie des vyands heen, en, na een hevigen strijd, gelukte het den
onzen, het Duinkerker smaldeel op de vlucht te drijven, en drie veroverde
schepen als trofeën met zich naar ’t Vaderland te voeren. Maar kon men die

overwinning wel een voordeel noemen? Want met dien buit voerden zy ook
het lijk mede van hun Amiraal, wien reeds de derde kogel, die van ’s vyands
zijde gelost werd, zielloos op het dek had nedergeworpen. Zijn dood was
een groot verlies voor het Vaderland in ’t algemeen, maar in ’t byzonder
voor het Zeewezen. Met hem toch moest het Vaderland den kloeken
aanvoerder derven, die in deze oogenblikken meer dan iemand in staat zoû
zijn geweest, de rooveryen der Duinkerkers te beteugelen, en de zeeën
schoon te houden. Het Zeewezen zag zich verstoken van een bekwamen
Opperbevelhebber, die, wanneer men oordeelen mag uit de veelvuldige
verbeteringen, door hem, gedurende zijn twee-maandelijksch bestuur, of
ingevoerd of voorgesteld, den heilzaamsten invloed op de zeemacht zoû
hebben uitgeoefend, om daarin de heerschende misbruiken en
ongeregeldheden door orde en tucht te doen vervangen. Te recht werd
daarom zijn verlies algemeen betreurd, en, hadden zijn krijgsmakkers by
den strijd, waarin hy sneuvelde, zijn dood op glansrijke wijze gewroken, de
Staten zorgden voor de vereering zijner nagedachtenis. Plechtig werd hy op
hun last te Delft ter aarde besteld, en een gedenkteeken, op zijn graf
geplaatst, getuigt nog heden van zijn onvergankelijken roem.

JACOB CATS.
Mag de eeuw van Frederik Hendrik zich verhoovaardigen op den grooten
lier- en treurspeldichter, aan wiens onsterfelijken naam een eereplaats
beschoren is in den tempel des roems nevens die van Homerus, Maro,
Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Racine, Byron, Schiller, Goethe, Bilderdijk,—
zy boogt tevens op den man, die, als schrijver, zich voorstellende niet te
schokken, maar te roeren, niet te verblinden, maar te overtuigen, niet te
betooveren, maar te overreden, niet tot de verbeelding, maar tot het hart te
spreken, geen bewondering op te wekken, maar nut te stichten: op den
volksdichter, die, zich tot geene hooge vlucht wagende, maar er zich boven
alles op toeleggende, voor ieder verstaanbaar te zijn, juist daardoor dan ook
meer algemeen begrepen werd, en een meer uitgebreiden, meer duurzamen
invloed op zijn landgenooten uitoefende—Jacob Cats.

W. P. Hoevenaar, del Steend. P. W. v. d. Weijer, Utrecht.
Jacob Cats.
Dat Cats geen dichter was in de meer verhevene beteekenis van het woord,
bewijst de omstandigheid, dat, toen hy zijn eerste rijmvrucht uitgaf, hy een

leeftijd bereikt had, op welken de groote mannen, hierboven door ons
genoemd, zich reeds een naam verworven hadden. In 1578 geboren, zond
hij niet voor 1618 zijn eerstelingen in ’t licht. Maar voor hem was de poëzy
geen hoofdzaak, gelijk voor Vondel, gelijk voor de genoemde schrijvers; zy
was op zijn best een verpoozing van zoogenaamd meer gewichtigen arbeid:
zijn vaerzen waren nimmer het gevolg van dat opbruischend zielsgevoel,
waaraan geen wederstand te bieden is, van die behoefte om hetgeen uit
hoofd of hart opwelt in zangen uit te storten: zy waren niet meer dan een
vorm of inkleeding, boven ’t proza verkieslijk, om een gunstig onthaal te
doen vinden aan de nuttige lessen en wenken, welke hy aan zijn
landgenooten wilde geven. Wie daarom de werken van den geleerden
Pensionaris beöordeelt naar den maatstaf, aan welken men gewoon is,
poëtische voortbrengselen te toetsen, handelt dwaas en onbillijk. „Waar
vindt men schilders,” vraagt van Effen in zijn Spectator, „die eene
keukenmeid met fluweel bekleeden of eene vischvrouw, met paerlen,
diamanten en goudlaken opgepronkt, baars en karper doen schoonmaken?
Is het derhalve niet oogschijnlijk, dat hoogdravenheid van Cats te vorderen
en stoffen als de zijne daartoe te willen verheffen, de dwaaste pedanterie is,
die ooit beschimpt kan worden.” Cats heeft nimmer naar den roem des
dichters gestreefd, maar alleen naar dien van den moralist, en dit is juist wat
hem onderscheidt b. v. van La Fontaine. Beiden hebben meer dan eens
dezelfde fabel, dezelfde vertelling, behandeld; maar de laatstgemelde let by
voorkeur, zoo niet by uitsluiting, op het poëtische, dat zijn stof hem
aanbiedt, of dat, zoo ’t er oorspronkelijk niet in lag, zijn scheppend genie
weet aan te brengen; terwijl hy zich van de zedeles, die er uit voort moet
vloeien, in een of twee regels afmaakt: Cats daar-en-tegen vat de zaak
bestendig uit een ernstig oogpunt op: de leering, daarin gelegen, is by hem
de hoofdzaak: aan de ontwikkeling dier leering besteedt hy zijn voorname
zorg, en laat niets na wat volgends zijn meening dienen kan om haar by den
lezer in te prenten. Hy wil niet meer zijn dan moralist, doch, om zijn lessen
gereedelijker ingang te doen vinden, geeft hy ze op rijm en licht zijn betoog
met poëtische beelden toe.
Gewis zal de lezer, die Cats uit zoodanig oogpunt bestudeert, zich te-leur-
stelling gespaard vinden, en daar-en-tegen meer dan eene aangename
verrassing zien bereid. Hem zal de eentoonige dreun niet hinderen dier

vaerzen, waarby de snede altijd zoo juist is in acht genomen, dat zy ons by
’t hooren doen denken aan droppels, die, by een lekkaadje, met gelijke
tusschenpozen van het dak vallen,—noch dat gestadig aanwenden van
stopwoorden en stoplappen, die aan het geheel wel naïviteit maar ook op
den duur vrij wat platheid by zetten;—neen, hy zal een wezenlijk genot
smaken, als hy ondervindt, hoe vloeiend, bevallig, schilderachtig, vooral
natuurlijk, de schrijver zich meermalen weet uit te drukken, welk een schat
van kennis en ervaring hem ten dienste staan en hoe mild daaruit geput is
om de zaak, die behandeld wordt, van elke harer tallooze zijden te doen
bezien: welk een overvloed van nieuwe, altijd welgekozen en volkomen
passende beelden gebezigd worden ter toelichting van de redeneering: hoe
duidelijk de bewijzen voor elke stelling worden voorgedragen: hoe
menschkundig ’s mans beschouwingen zijn: en hoe overal tot het hart
gesproken wordt.
Wy herinneren ons niet wie het was,—misschien deden wy ’t zelve wel—
die Cats den Kristelijken Ovidius noemde. In de daad, het is vooral de
schrijftrant van dezen, dien men zoû zeggen dat Cats ten voorbeeld gekozen
had, waarvan hy althands de verdiensten zoo wel als de gebreken heeft
overgenomen. Als Ovidius is hy eentoonig, omslachtig en weelderig; doch
by hem als by Ovidius is die weelderigheid somtijds bekoorlijk en zijn
verbeelding is, als die van Ovidius, onuitputtelijk. Maar zoo min de
Hollandsche als de Latijnsche schrijver weet grenzen aan die verbeelding te
stellen, en geen van beiden is voldaan, zoo lang hy niet alles over zijn
onderwerp gezegd heeft wat er van gezegd kan worden.
Is echter beider trant gelijk, te meer verschilt de inhoud. Cats schrijft om te
onderwijzen, niet om te vermaken; overal toont hy zich de brave, eerlijke,
godvruchtige man. Ook dan zelfs, wanneer hy stoffen behandelt, welke
onze preutsche eeuw als onkiesch verwerpen zoû, weet hy zorg te dragen,
door zijn wijze van voorstelling allen aanstoot te vermijden, en hy doet dit,
niet door het omsluieren der naaktheid—doorgaands een prikkel te meer ter
opwekking eener verhitte verbeelding—; niet door het half verzwijgen van
hetgeen hy te zeggen heeft: niet door het bezigen van dubbelzinnige
uitdrukkingen:—neen, hy schroomt geenszins de zaken by haren naam te
heeten en zelfs over byzonderheden uit te weiden;—maar hy stelt nimmer

de ondeugd behagelijk voor: hy schertst nimmer met boosheid en zonde: hy
verzuimt nimmer, onmiddelijk op haar treurigen nasleep te wijzen. Hy durft
verhalen wat Aretino of Boccacio voor hem verhaald hebben; maar het
onreine vuur, dat in hun vertellingen blaakt en schendige lusten in de ziel
des lezers ontbranden doet, heeft in de zijne zijn verderfelijk vermogen
verloren: het is niet langer het vuur der verleiding, dat de zinnen bekoort;
het is het vuur der hel, dat ontzetting en afschrik baart.
Verdient Cats onzen lof als zedeschrijver, vooral om den weldadigen
invloed, dien hy als zoodanig op de Natie heeft uitgeoefend; wy mogen dien
ook aan Cats als regent niet onthouden. ’t Is waar, ook een grooter
staatsman dan hy was, zoo kort na Oldenbarneveldt en zoo kort voor Jan de
Witt aan ’t roer komende, zoû moeite hebben gehad, zijn licht te doen
schijnen tusschen de schitterende stralen, die van beide zulke sterren der
eerste grootte uitgingen; maar Cats achtte zich niet—gelijk de twee groote
mannen, hier genoemd—in zijn betrekking geroepen het land te regeeren;—
neen, gedreven door denzelfden geest, die hem als schrijver bezielde, zocht
hy, eerst als Pensionaris van Dordrecht, later als Raadpensionaris,
eenvoudig den plicht, hem door zijn instruktie opgelegd, naar behooren te
vervullen, en zich daarby te onderscheiden door naauwgezetheid,
eerlijkheid en trouw. Dat hy zulks deed, daarvoor verdient hy onze hulde:
en toch mogen wy het misschien bejammeren, dat hy zich, door zijn
geboorte en door de omstandigheden, tot hooge eerambten geroepen zag.
Had hy zich in nederiger kring bewogen, en in zijn jeugd, in stede van op
meer praktische studiën, zich op de beöefening der dichtkunst met nadruk
toegelegd, zijn weelderig vernuft leeren besnoeien, den aanleg die zich
openbaart in zijn Galatee, en in zoo vele zijne Zinne- en Minnebeelden,
zorgvuldig aangekweekt, zijn stijl leeren zuiveren van de onnutte
stoplappen die hem ontcieren, hy had wellicht den rang kunnen innemen
onder de eerste dichters, die hem thands niet mag worden toegekend.
Misschien zal aan sommigen deze beweering vreemd voorkomen: zy zullen
wijzen op het gedenkteeken, dat te Brouwershaven, ’s mans geboorteplaats,
werd opgericht, en ons vragen, of de omstandigheid, dat hy tot heden de
eenige onder onze dichters is, aan wiens nagedachtenis eene zoo openbare
hulde is aangeboden, niet het luidst sprekende bewijs oplevert, dat de Natie

in ’t algemeen een andere meening koestert omtrent Cats dan die wy hier
geuit hebben. Wy geven dit toe niet alleen; maar wy hebben hier boven er
reeds op gewezen; wy zullen er zelfs byvoegen, dat ook in Belgiën nog
altijd de meerderheid der Vlaamsche bevolking in het gevoelen deelt van
den Aartsbisschop van Mechelen, Jacob Boonen, die tot Vondel zeggen
dorst: „awiel sinjeur Vondel! ghy rijmt zeer aardig; maar ghy zijt nog lang
gienen Cats.”—Doch wy zien ook in onze dagen, dat aan Tollens een
standbeeld wordt opgericht, terwijl Bilderdijk er nog vergeefs op wacht; en
wy gelooven met eenigen grond de vraag te mogen stellen, of niet de Natie,
by de hulde, welke zy tweewerf by voorkeur aan den minst verhevene van
twee beroemde tijdgenooten bracht, niet telken reize door andere
beschouwingen geleid is geworden dan door deze: „wie was, als dichter, in
de eerste plaats een gedenkteeken waardig?”
Ware onze taal ook buiten ’s lands bekend, de vreemdeling zoû ons wellicht
leeren het genie van Vondel en dat van Bilderdijk te schatten, gelijk hy ons
is voorgegaan in het toekennen aan Rembrand van den rang, die hem
behoort.

JOHAN PIETERSZOON EN DIEDERIK SWELINCK.
Is in andere landen de nagedachtenis van beroemde kunstenaren vaak
vereeuwigd door standbeelden, te hunner eere opgericht, dan moet het
verwondering baren, dat er geen van metaal of steen oprijst ter eere van een
kunstheld als Joan Pietersz. Swelinck, (musicus et organista toto orbe
celeberrimus, gelijk onder zijn door Muller in staal gegraveerd portret te
lezen staat), noch in zijn geboorteplaats Deventer (1540), noch te
Amsterdam, waar hy leefde en werkte. Het kolossale beeld van Orlandus de
Lassus prijkt wel binnen Bergen in Henegouwen, waar deze ’t eerste
levenslicht aanschouwde, en een prachtige medalje werd te zijner
vereeuwiging geslagen; maar aan het brengen eener hem waardige hulde
aan onzen waereldberoemden Swelinck werd tot hiertoe niet gedacht. En
toch, welk een groot en te recht hoog vermaard man was hy! Weten wy van
zijn vroegste jeugd slechts dit, dat hy reeds toen een buitengewone vlugheid
op klavier en orgel bezat en op die speeltuigen uitmuntte, zijn latere
levensjaren getuigen van wat hy als kontrapuntist en organist verrichtte, en
hoe hy om zijn voortreffelijke begaafdheden en leerwijze alom geächt en
geroemd werd. Vermoedelijk had hy het eerste onderwijs in de gronden der
muzyk genoten by zijn vader, mede, als wy straks zullen zien, organist te
Amsterdam. In de kennis der kompozitie zich verder wenschende bekwaam
te maken, reisde hy in den jare 1557 naar Italiën, waar hy zich, te Venetiën,
onder Josef Zerlino, leerling van den Nederlander Willaert, zoo zeer in de
kunst volmaakte, dat hy, by zijn terugkomst in zijn vaderland, zich reeds
den naam had verworven een der treffelijkste organisten te zijn, en, by het
openvallen van de betrekking als zoodanig in de Oude Kerk te Amsterdam
door den dood zijns vaders, tot diens opvolger werd aangesteld. Den
roemvollen naam, die van hem was uitgegaan, mogen wy dan ook als een
gewichtige oorzaak beschouwen, waarom vooral Duitschers, die tot
kundige organisten wenschten te worden opgeleid, zich naar Amsterdam
begaven, om van onzen Swelinck lessen in het orgelspel en kontrapunt te
ontfangen, en zich naar zijn voorbeeld te vormen. In Hamburg werd hy niet
anders dan de organistmaker genoemd, en werkelijk riep hy een orgelschool

in ’t leven, waaruit de kundigste mannen van dien tijd te voorschijn
kwamen, als de beroemde Melchior Schildt van Hanover, Paul Seiffert van
Dantzig, Samuel Scheidt van Halle, Jacob Schultz of Praetorius en Heinrich
Scheidemann, beiden van Hamburg, welke stichters werden van de zoo
beroemde Noord-Duitsche orgelschool.

Herman ten Kate, del Steendr. P. W. v. d. Weijer, Utrecht.
Dirk Swelinck.
Zijn leerlingen achtten hem niet alleen hoog als kunstenaar, maar vereerden
hem ook als een vader, inzonderheid Schultz en Scheidemann, die ’s mans

beeltenis uit Holland met zich voerden, welke tot het einde huns levens
hunne kamer moest vercieren, opdat zy den zoo beminden meester steeds
voor oogen zouden hebben: voorwaar een bewijs, dat Swelinck niet alleen
als voortreffelijk kunstenaar schitterde, maar ook als mensch door een
beminnelijk karakter en voorbeeldige zielshoedanigheden uitmuntte, waarin
wy bevestigd worden, wanneer wy mede onder zyn reeds genoemde
afbeelding lezen: Vir singulari modestia ac pietate, cum in vita tum in morte
omnibus suspiciendus. En hoe men dien Nederlandschen kunstenaar hier
beminde, getuigt de edele handelwijze van eenige muzykliefhebbers,
handelaren te Amsterdam, die, zijn tijdelijke omstandigheden wenschende
te verbeteren, hem voorstelden, hun een som van 200 guldens af te staan,
waarmede zy tot zijn voordeel zouden werken, en wel zoo, dat zy daarvan
alleen het verlies zouden dragen, en hy de winst. En met welke uitkomsten
werd dit contractus leoninus van een gands ongewonen aart bekroond? Na
verloop van eenige jaren deed men rekening en verantwoording, en werd
meester Jan Pietersz. in het bezit gesteld van de (voor dien tijd vooral)
aanzienlijke som van ƒ 40,000, waardoor hem, tot aan zijn dood, een
onbezorgd leven ten deel viel.
Hoe rijk en onuitputtelijk zijn fantazy was, hoe weinig hy, in een
vriendenkring voor het klavier gezeten, en daaraan heerlijke toonen
ontlokkende, zich om tijd of uur bekommerde, vinden wy by Baudartius
opgeteekend: „Deze Apollo,” zegt hy, „heeft gehat ten deele van meest alle
musicanten, daarvan een Latijnsche poët aldus spreekt:
Omnibus hoc vitium est cantoribus inter amicos,
Ut numquam inducant animum cantare rogati,
Jnjussi numquam desinant,
„dat is te zeggen: dat men de liefelyke musiciens niet lichtelyck aen het
singen of spelen en kan brenghen, maer als men se daeran gebracht heeft, so
kunnen sy qualyck ophouden. My gedenckt dat ik eens met eenige goede
vrienden by meyster Jan Peter Swelinck, mynen goeden vriend, gegaen
zynde, met noch andere goede vrienden, in de maend Mey, ende hy aen het
spelen op zyn clave-cymbel gecomen zynde, hetzelfde continueerde tot
omtrent middernacht, spelende onder anderen het liedeken: „Den

lustelicken Mey is nu in zynen tydt,” dewelcke hy, sal ick goede memorie
daervan hebbe, wel op vyf ende twintigerley weysen speelde, dan sus, dan
soo. Als wy opstonden, ende ons afscheyt wilden nemen, so badt hy ons wy
souden toch dit stuck noch hooren, dan dat stuck niet kunnende ophouden,
also hy in een zeer soet humeur was, vermaeckende ons, syne vrienden,
vermaeckende ook hemselven.”
Omtrent den juisten tijd van ’s mans dood zijn de opgaven eenigzins
uiteenloopend, minder betreffende het jaar en de maand, dan wel den dag
zijns overlijdens. Die alle hier aan te voeren achten wy overtollig, maar de
opgave onder Swelincks beeltenis, door Muller gegraveerd: „obiit
MDCXXI. XVI Octobris Aet. LX.” zeer aannemelijk.
Moge er op dit punt onder zijn tijdgenooten verschil van meening zijn
ontstaan, omtrent Swelincks grootheid als kunstenaar, organist en
komponist, stemmen allen overeen. Hooren wy, in de eerste plaats, wat
Hooft en Vondel van hem getuigen. De eerste schreef op hem het
navolgende grafschrift:
Hier leit, die stelde wyz’ den koninklyken woorde,
En Sion galmen deed, dat men ’t in Holland hoorde.
Vondel vervaardigde op zijn beeltenis het navolgende byschrift:
Op meester Johan Pieterszoon Zweling
Fenix der Muzycke en Orgelist van Amsterdam.
Dit ’s Zwelings sterflyk deel, ten troost ons nagebleven.
’t Onsterflyk hout de maet by Godt in eeuwig leven.
Daar streckt hy, meer dan hier kan vatten ons gehoor,
Een goddelycke galm in aller Englen oor.
Hooren wy nu Baudartius: „Mr. Joan Peters Swelinck, seer constich en
vermaert organist, ja beroemd voor den allercloeksten en constichsten
organist deser eeuw. Welcken lof de constrycke Organist ende Musicien

Pedro Philippi, Organist binnen Brussel, en alle andere hem geern gheven,
hem eerende als eenen Phoebus ofte Apollo. De treffelijcke musyckstucken
welke hy aen den dach gegeven heeft, zoo als die in de Gereformeerde
kerken gesongen worden, gheven getuychenissen van den musikalen geest,
daermede hy is begaeft gheweest, ghelyck oock doen alle andere
Musyckstucken by hem gecomponeert en aen den dach gegeven.”
Nog meer bepaald zijn de narichten, ons door Sweertius over ’s mans arbeid
gegeven, en welke wy, uit het latijn vertaald, hier laten volgen, „Joan
Pietersz. Swelinck, een Nederlander, met my zeer bevriend, was het wonder
der toonkunstenaars en organisten. Verwonderlijk was te Amsterdam de
dagelijksche toeloop om hem het orgel te hooren bespelen. Niemand, die er
geen roem in stelde, den man gekend, gezien en gehoord te hebben. Hy
schreef drie-, vijf-, zes- en achtstemmige muzyk van gewijde en
waereldsche zangen en voor al de Psalmen Davids.”
Ook Wassenaer spreekt in zijn historisch verhaal van „den wijdberoemden
organist Jan Pieterszoon Swelingh, die door syn uitnemende konsten voor
een Prince der Musiciens mach geacht werden, ghelyck aan de wercken
blyckt, die by syn leven zyn uitghegaen, en die nog niet uitghegaen zyn. Hy
was een uytghenomen konstenaer in ’t orghelspelen, so dat men syns
ghelyck niet veel en vondt, waerdoor hy van de liefhebbers der Musycke,
maer bysonders van syne medeborgers in groote waerden ghehouden
wiert.”
Hoe zijn werken gezocht waren, kan men opmaken uit de spoedige
verschijning van een tweeden druk, vooral uit de voorrede van zyn
beroemde Psalmen, (livre des Pseaumes de David, nouvellement mis en
musique, a 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 parties) waarin hem de hoogste lof toegezwaaid en
hy nu eens „l’Amphion divin et doux sonnant Harpeur,” dan „l’unique
Phoenix de nostre Pays” genoemd wordt, terwijl in hetzelfde werk (Livre
troisième) het volgende klinkdicht op Swelincks muzyk der psalmen Davids
gedrukt staat.
„Tout ravi hors de moy, ars d’une douce flamme,
Espris d’un sainct amour par ces divins accords,

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Instructionaldesign Theories And Models Volume Iii Building A Common Knowledge Base 3 1st Edition Charles M Reigeluth Alison A Carrchellman

More Related Content

Similar to Instructionaldesign Theories And Models Volume Iii Building A Common Knowledge Base 3 1st Edition Charles M Reigeluth Alison A Carrchellman (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Instructionaldesign Theories And Models Volume Iii Building A Common Knowledge Base 3 1st Edition Charles M Reigeluth Alison A Carrchellman