User:Dtopman/sandbox

The Elaboration Theory Big text

Information about the person who developed the model
Charles Reigeluth born December 31st, 1946 is an American educational theorist, researcher and reformer. As an educational theorist and researcher, he focuses on instructional design theories and systemic transformation of educational systems, transforming from the teacher-centered paradigm to the learner-centered paradigm. He possesses a Ph.D in instructional Psychology from Brigham Young University and functioned as a professor at the Instructional Systems Technology Department at Indiana University’s School of Education in Bloomington (Northern Arizona University).

Research (the elaboration theory)
Reigeluth, 1999 stated “The paradigm shift from teacher-centric instruction to learner-centered instruction has caused new needs for ways to sequence instruction”. He further acknowledged consequently the Elaboration Theory which is an instructional design model aim to assist in the selection and sequencing of content in a way which will improve realization of learning goals (Reigeluth, 1999). Additionally Bean (2009) suggests when sequencing of content from simple to more complex, one creates an effective instructional experience. In so doing, the learner can “approach the content as building blocks” therefore each phase of the content is a stepping stone to the subsequent level of complexity.

As a portion of instruction, elaboration provides complex knowledge of a part of any content which is to be taught (Reigeluth, Merril, Wilson and Spiller, n.d). According to Walster (1995), the elaboration theory incorporates sequencing strategies to deliver steady recommendations for instruction.

The Elaboration Theory “is an extension of the work of Ausubel (advance organizers) and Bruner (spiral curriculum)” Reigeluth (n.d). As an instructional design theory it is concerned with “telling people how to teach” instead of focusing on “why and how people learn” (Tennyson, 2010). In furtherance, Reigeluth (n.d) theorized, the elaboration theory should be prearranged in “order of complexity” for optimum learning. “For example, when teaching a procedural task, the simplest version of the task is presented first, subsequent lessons present additional versions until the full range of tasks are taught”. According to Reigeluth, et al. (n.d) the elaboration model is prescriptive as it describes methods to attain an end and consequently fluctuate as goals vary. Bean (2009) suggests for creating effective instructional designs, one should sequence content from simple to more complex.

Macro-theory / Zoom lens analogy
Elaboration theory as espoused by Walster (1995) is “a complex macro theory” providing an alternate to the traditional tiered establishment of instruction. According to Reigeluth and Stein (1983) it is exclusively on the macro level as it recommends methods which deal with many connected ideas such as how to sequence them. Moreover, “it is based on a zoom lens analogy”, where an individual begins with a wide-angle outlook that permit him or her to observe the main parts of the image and the foremost relationships between those parts, but deprived of any detail. Furthermore, an individual continues this arrangement of zooming in one level to observe the main subparts of a portion and for context and review zooms back out. A key idea of elaboration theory according to Reigeluth (1987) “is that the learner needs to develop a meaningful context into which subsequent ideas and skills can be assimilated”. Cognition Reigeluth (1987) posits, the elaboration method results in the establishment of stable cognitive structures, providing information on the content that allows for conversant learner control, higher learner motivation by creating meaningful learning perspectives and thus improve retention and transfer.

Use of the theory
The Elaboration theory according to Releiguth (1987) begins the instruction with an overview encompassing the simplest and most essential ideas called the epitome. Then, successive lessons provide intricacy to a section of the synopsis in layers. Furthermore, each lesson reviews the content and communicates relationships among the most recently offered ideas and those offered earlier.

Simple-to-Complex
The continuum of simple-to-complex refers to a range fashioned by adding or eliminating parts of ideas. Simple consists of few parts, while complex has numerous parts. The prescription of simple-to-complex by the Elaboration Theory, assists in ensuring learners is always cognizant of the context and significance of the various ideas being taught. Moreover, it permits the student to learn a level of complexity most suitable and significant to her or him at the present state of one’s knowledge development. Thereby ensuring the learner will not struggle in a sequence of learning prerequisites which are on a “too deep level of complexity” to be meaningful at the preliminary stages of instruction (Reigeluth and Stein, 1983). Therefore, the Elaboration Theory suggests that the nature of simple-to-complex arrangement must vary contingent on the kind of content that is considered to be most important to the goals of the instruction (Releiguth, 1987).

Epitome
A ‘primary-level elaboration’ expounds on a part of the epitome whereas ‘a secondary-level elaboration’ expands on a part of a primary-level elaboration (Reigeluth et al., n.d). An epitome is an advance organizer and it is derived from an orientation arrangement and depicts only the most significant features of the orientation structure (Reigeluth et al., n.d). When using the elaboration theory, the educator is required to commence each course with an epitome, a special outline which identifies critical modules of a course (Walster, 1995). To epitomize therefore is to provide a few of the most necessary and representative ideas at a solid application level (Reigeluth, 1979).

The Elaboration Theory advocates seven (7) major strategy components (Reileguth, 1987):

Elaborative Sequence
A kind of simple-to-complex arrangement is the most significant prescription of the Elaboration Theory. Numerous possible variations of simple-to-complex sequences exists, several of which provide “better effects on learning than others”. Examples of simple-to-complex sequences are; Gagne’s (1985) learning-prerequisite sequence, Bruner’s (1960) spiral sequence, Ausubel’s (1968) subsumptive sequence, Norman’s (1973) web sequence and the shortest-path sequence (Merrill, 1980; Scandura, 1973).

Within-Lesson Sequence
This is concerned with “designing a sequence for all content within each lesson”. Several guidelines are offered by the Elaboration Theory:

According to Reigeluth & Stein (1983) additional macro strategy mechanisms are included within the lesson sequence; they are “summarizers, synthesizers, analogies, cognitive-strategy activators, macro level learner-control options”.
 * Within the conceptual organisation, present the easiest most aware organizing concepts first, for a procedural organisation deliver the steps in the direction of their performance, and in the case of a theoretical organisation bring the simplest organizing content first.
 * Supporting content should be placed immediately following the organizing content “to which it is most closely related”.
 * Each learning prerequisite must be placed directly before “the content for which it is prerequisite”.
 * ‘Coordinate concepts’ must be grouped together.
 * Before a ‘related procedure’, a principle ought to be taught.

Summarizers
These are planned components used to systematically review the lesson(s) learnt (Reigeluth & Stein, 1983). Moreover, “it provides a concise statement of each idea or fact that has been taught”, a classic “easy-to-remember” instance, and some analytical, “self-test practice items for each idea”. Lesson summarizers often appear towards the conclusion of each lesson, however “summarizers summarize all the ideas and facts that have been taught so far in an entire set of lessons”.

Synthesizers
In the main are used to correlate and assimilate ideas. Its plan is to provide the learner with a “valuable kind of knowledge”, enable a profound understanding of the individual ideas, intensify “the meaningfulness and motivational appeal of the instruction” (Ausubel, 1968; Keller, 1983) and strengthen retention. Presently the elaboration theory suggests three types of synthesizers each interconnect ideas of a single content type (Reigeluth & Stein, 1983). Reigeluth, et al. (n.d) identifies and provides a description of the three types - Conceptual Elaboration, Procedural Elaboration and Theoretical Elaboration
 * Conceptual Elaborations progressively leads the student from an overall acceptance of the subject to be taught to the level of complication by the objectives. In this instance each elaboration clarifies concepts which are subsidiary to a broad concept that has previously been taught. Also, regardless of the elaboration type, the quantity of material inside each elaboration ought to be measured by the capability level of the learners. If there is an abundance of material, it will be difficult for students to synthesize and they will be less motivated. For example, “in an introductory course for graduate students, much more material should be included in each elaboration than in an introductory course for junior high school students”. Finally, the quantity of material formulating an elaboration may be regulated either by altering the extent of the elaboration or by shifting the complexity of the elaboration.
 * Respective Procedural Elaboration offers its intricacy on a single step of the procedure epitome (Merrill, 1978). Consequently, the quantity of material contained in an elaboration ought to be regulated only by an alteration in the depth of the elaboration.
 * A Theoretical Elaboration delivers its complexity by teaching values “that are successively more local, detailed and complex”. These elaborative values generally relate to a lone aspect of the simple model in the epitome. Similar to that of the Procedural Elaboration, the quantity of material contained in a theoretical elaboration can be adjusted by the complexity of the elaboration.

Analogies
An analogy is about taking new information and relating it to a more conversant and hence “more meaningful context of organised knowledge which the learner already possess” (Ortony, 1979; Verbrugge & McCarrell, 1977). It is a reminder to the learner of something solid within the learner’s understanding for him or her to prepare for understanding “a more abstract, complex type of idea” (Curtis & Reigeluth, 1984; Reigeluth, 1983).

Cognitive strategies
Occasionally called generic skills contain thinking skills and learning skills used through a wide diversity of content area, “such as creating mental images and identifying analogies” (Reigeluth & Stein, n.d). Cognitive-strategy activators, triggers the learner’s usage of a generic skill and can be employed for any content area. It can be entrenched into the instruction “as is the case when a mnemonic or analogy is presented or it may be detached”, when a learner is only provided with guidelines to practice an earlier learned cognitive strategy (Rigney, 1978), “such as try to come up with a mnemonic”.

Learner control
Can offer the learner choices for the “selection and sequencing of his or her content and instructional strategies”, and thus control just how he or she study and learn (Merrill, 1983: Reigeluth & Stein, 1983). Merrill (1979) added the specific “instructional-strategy components he or she selects and the order in which they are used” and the specific cognitive strategies the learner engages when intermingling with the instruction.

Publications and / or books related to the model

 * A Critical Review of Elaboration Theory. Brent Wilson & Peggy Cole.
 * Lesson Blueprints Based on the Elaboration Theory of Instruction. Charles M. Reigeluth. Syracuse University.
 * The Elaboration Theory of Instruction: A Model for Sequencing and Synthesizing Instruction. Ch 6. Charles M. Reigeluth, M.David Merrill, Brent G. Wilson and Reginald T. Spiller.
 * The Elaboration Theory of Instruction. CH 10. Charles M. Reigeluth & Faith S. Stein. Syracuse University.