APPLICATION OF COMPONENT DISPLAY THEORY IN DESIGNING AND DEVELOPING CALI Soo-Young Choi ABSTRACT Component Display Theory(Merrill 1983;

Merrill, Kowallis, and Wilson 1981) has been developed to be an analytical theory-based instructional design guide. It was the rationale underlying the design of the TICCIT computer-assisted learning system. It forms also a major foundation for hundreds of hours of instruction designed by Courseware, Inc. This paper discusses step-by-step procedures of its use in designing a goal-oriented Computer Assisted Language Instruction (CALI), and in quantifying the effectiveness of the instruction as a preliminary evaluation tool. KEYWORDS: Component Display Theory, instructional design, generality, example, practice
During the past decade there has been an increased emphasis on the systematic design of instruction and programs (e.g., Baker 1973; Dick and Carey 1978; Briggs 1977; Gagne and Briggs 1979). As the result of the efforts, a body of systematic knowledge has been accumulated so that the art of instructional design can move toward the science of instructional design. However, there is still great need to translate the accumulated knowledge of scientific instructional design into operational step-by-step procedures easily useable by practicing instructional designers. M. David Merrill and his associates (Merrill 1983; Merrill, Reigeluth, and Faust 1979; Merrill et al. 1977) have integrated much of the body of accumulated knowledge of instructional design and have developed a scientific and practical instructional development guide, which is called "Component Display Theory."1 The Component Display Theory (CDT) provides the needed operational procedures, along with prescriptions for its optimal use, for an instructional designer to use in the process of developing an effective, efficient, and appealing instruction. CDT is particularly applicable in designing computer assisted instruction. CDT has been used in a significant amount of applied instructional design. It was the rational underlying the design of the TICCIT computer-based instructional system (Merrill, Schneider, and Fletcher 1979; Hendricks et al. 1983), and has been a major theoretical framework for the design of hundreds of hours of instruction designed by Courseware, Inc. The prescriptive principles of CDT have received considerable research support in both laboratory and filed experiments (Merrill, Olsen, and Coldeway 1976). The purpose of this paper is to examine some critical areas of the CDT highly applicable in CALI, and to demonstrate how the principles of CDT can help in designing professional goal-oriented CALI that would eliminate much of the tedious tryout and testing that is done traditionally and intuitively. In other words, this paper attempts to show how the CDT can help in converting the art of CALI based on tradition and intuition to a more scientific theorybased CALI, which can have predictable results, without much of the trial-and-error finding procedures. Propositions of Component Display Theory CDT has identified valid instructional and performance variables and suggests a taxometric organization for relating these variables in a way which facilitates a systematic theory-based approach to instructional design. Primary Presentation Forms CDT postulates that any instructional presentation consists of a series of discrete displays. The fundamental displays which characterize all instruction of the cognitive level are called the primary presentation forms. There are four primary presentation forms formed by combining the two elements of instructional content, Generality ("G"the main ideas or general case) and Example ("e.g."instances or specific cases), with the two modes of presentation, Tell ("T"telling or showing the student) and Question ("Q"asking the student). The resulting primary presentation forms (PPFs) are tell-via-generality (TG), question-via-generality (QG), tell-via-example (Teg) and question-via-example (Qeg). (See Figure 1.)

CALICO Journal, Volume 3 Number 4

40

INSTRUCTIONAL MODE INSTRUCTIONAL ELEMENT (HOW IS IT PRESENTED?) (WHAT IS PRESENTED?) T Tell G Generality eg Example TG Tell Via Generality ("Generality") Teg Tell Via Example ("Example") Q Question QG Question Via Generality ("Generality Practice") Qeg Question Via Example ("Practice")

Figure 1: The four primary presentationforms as a function of "what is presented" and "how is it presented." CDT prescribes that certain secondary elaborations when added to a primary presentation at a given task level will facilitate student performance on the posttest. For example, the generality can be presented in a verbal form, and a secondary elaboration can be added by a form of a diagram, algorithm, mnemonic, or just a simplified form of the generality in a box so that students can easily and efficiently review the generality. Based on the postulation of PPFs and the assumption that some secondary elaborations, when added to the PPFs, will enrich the instructional presentation, CDT suggests, stated generally and without qualifications and limitations, the following eight propositions for instructional display. Eight Propositions of Component Display Theory 1. Primary Presentation Forms. A segment of instruction should include all three of the primary presentation forms: generality, example, and practice. A segment is defined as that instruction designed to teach a given generality or coordinate sets of such generalities. 2. Primary Presentation Form Sequence. The primary presentation forms for a given segment of instruction should be sequenced in some variation of generality-example-practice. Acceptable variations include the use of a reference example simultaneous with or previous to the presentation of the generality. Such presentations should include additional examples following the presentation of the generality. 3. Primary Presentation Form Isolation. The primary presentation forms for a given segment of instruction and accompanying elaboration should be identified and isolated in such a way that a student can easily locate, skip, or review any given form. It is common experience that typical instruction includes generality with much elaboration in such a way that it may be difficult for students unacquainted with the subject matter to separate the main ideas from the elaborated material. This situation is called instructional hide-and-seek because the student must look for the key ideas that are embedded in the more elaborate textual presentation. The isolation proposition indicated that generality, example, and practice should be clearly separated and identified for the student by means of some type of graphic or auditory convention. 4. Learner Control. The student should be able to alter the primary presentation form sequence by returning at will to previously presented forms after having studied subsequent displays. In other words, the student should be able to return to the generality after studying an example or practice display, skip to a practice display before studying the generality, etc. Research on learner control (Merrill 1983) indicates that merely providing the opportunity for student choice and a rich array of displays from which to choose are not enough. An adaptive instructional management system that assists the student to use those displays from the available array should be provided. 5. Generality Representation. The generality should be restated, represented in other than verbal form, and/or be elaborated via a mnemonic or an algorithm. Often generality is usually presented by verbal/written form only. However, the generality may be displayed in three ways: (a) by presentations of the actual object or enactment of an event, (b) by a pictorial representation, and (c) by a written or mathematical representation. The generality display should have more than one form, and should include other helps such as memory aid devices (e.g., mnemonic, heuristics, and algorithm) or a brief summary in a box. 6. Instructional Help. Example displays should be elaborated via instructional help prompting (such as underlining, bold print, color, exploded diagrams, or other kind of attention-focusing devices), and more than one form of representation (e.g., a simplified verbal description and a visual representation). Practice displays should include instructional help or simplified representation on feedback, in addition to the correct answer or right/wrong knowledge of results. 7. Attribute Matching. Example displays should include matched nonexamples (i.e., nonexamples that are as similar as possible to, and are presented simultaneously with, the examples that are provided). The nonexamples should be

CALICO Journal, Volume 3 Number 4

41

selected in such a way that it enhances the student's ability to discriminate between characteristics that are relevant and those that are not relevant. Practice displays should be randomly sequenced and unmatched to nonexamples. A matched example-nonexample pair for which the student is asked to classify which is the example and which is not, or is asked to recognize which is the correct execution of a procedure and which is not, provides an unintentional prompt for the student. Therefore, it is desirable in most cases to present instances in the practice mode in random order so as to avoid the potential presentation of matched examples and nonexamples. 8. Instance Sampling. Instances in both example and practice displays should be divergent, range in difficulty, be presented in an easy-to-difficult sequence, and/or include a variety of representation forms. For most instructional situations, it is adequate to make a conscious effort to informally include a range of difficulty and a range of divergence rather than to systematically sample all the potential instances. These propositions can be a guide in the designing and development of instruction, and also allow the designer to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of his or her instruction even before experimenting with it. The strength of CDT is that it allows us to quantify and predict the degree of effectiveness and efficiency of instruction, by stating these propositions in question form and defining conventions for assigning index values for various questions or sets of questions for a given segment of instruction. Consistency of Instruction The propositions of CDT are valid only within certain boundaries and contexts. The display of PPFs with their rich elaborations must be consistent with the goal and objectives of the instruction. Otherwise the rich instructional presentations would be fancy and glamorous displays without much real substance. CDT provides sets of the conditions and boundaries in which the propositions can function in a right way and for right reasons. CDT prescribes that instructional display or presentation should be consistent with the goal or objectives of the instruction no matter whether the goal or objectives are stated as a part of instruction or not. In most cases, the instructional designer does not state the objectives as part of instruction. Then the posttest is the operational expression of the intended objectives, and the instruction must provide consistent and valid information the learner should know on the test. The task-content classification table (Figure 2) allows an instructional designer to classify the kinds of instruction he is working with. This classification provides a means for judging how the designer can make his presentation to be consistent with the objectives and test items. Figure 2: Task-Content Classification Table for classifying instructional objectives/test items and presentation. Acco Content Type rding to CDT, any Fact Concept Procedure Principle objectives, Why are sounds always Change the following Read the following any test acquired before fricatives in active voice (newly paragraph: Identify the child language acquisition? encountered) into Use sentence that best item, and Why do children say 'mama' or passive form. Conjugate Generality represents the emotion any piece of 'papa' instead of 'koko' or 'lulu'? the following verb into of the speaker language past tense. instruction (Explain why or predict) (Identify or Classify) (Demonstrate how to) can be In conjugating verbs into past Describe the steps of What are the classified as tense in XX language, why changing active voice to characteristics of verb one of the should the correct procedures passive. Remember final languages? task-content be followed? Generality According to the combination List in correct order the dialogue, why was the Which of the following explains steps necessary to girl upset? s. Therefore the reason your textbook gives change the active voice there are for XX language being less to passive voice. What is the definition of only ten prominent in passive voice? topic? kinds of (State steps) (State relationship) (State or define) objectives Translate the following Generally, how do the past Who invented the What are the steps for that can be sentence into Chinese. tenses in English incorporate Korean Alphabet? changing the verb 'to written for the past participle? study' into the past any Which is the past What is 'school' in participle? participle of the verb Is xx language different? Remember Chinese? language 'go'? Make a complete Change the following Example instruction, sentence by typing in Explain why the post-positions How do you say active sentence (already and when the correct sequence of discussed in the class may or "Good morning' encountered example) the three the following scrambled may not be used in the in Japanese? into passive form. phrases. following sentences. components (Recall or (Recall or recognize (objectives, (Recall or recognize (Recall or recognize principles recognize) steps or example) test items, definition or example) or examples) and instruction) are in the same cell they are consistent (see Figure 2). It is common experience that although an objective of typical language instruction is often at the use-generality level (e.g., the student should be able to understand the directions to reach a certain destination given by a native

CALICO Journal, Volume 3 Number 4

TASK LEVEL

42

speaker), the test items are often at the remember-generality or remember-example level (e.g., how do you say or translate "Go straight and turn right at the next stop light" in XX language). At other times instruction provides practice at a remember level (e.g., teaching the student to remember some words and phrases on traffic or travel), when the corresponding test is at the use-generality level (e.g., reporting a traffic accident). Teachers or instructional developers often rationalize this inconsistency by professing to teach students how to synthesize and apply what the students have learned. If it is one of the goals of the instruction, then it should be included in the instructional objectives and it should be taught, complete with appropriate instruction on how to synthesize and apply what was learned. The task-content classification table shows how the instructional designer and the teacher can develop consistent instruction in respect to instructional objectives and corresponding tests. Therefore, a design team of CALI may classify the objectives of an instruction using the task-content classification table, and develop consistent instruction to the objectives with respect to both task level and content type, having in mind which segments should be displayed on computer and how. Then the team may develop test items at the same task-content level as the objectives so that all of the three components can be in the same cell. Efficiency of Instructional Presentation Efficiency and quality of instruction depends on teaching what we intend to test. CDT hypothesizes that task level is very important for deciding which primary presentation forms are required in a given presentation. For each task level there is an appropriate combination of primary presentation forms that ought to be used in the presentation. These combinations form the task-primary presentation form matrix, and the matrix is used to aid in the selection of appropriate presentation forms for any given task level. Furthermore, the matrix is used to determine whether the presentation contains the information necessary for the student to learn how to perform as required by the testthat is, the matrix is used to determine the test-presentation consistency. According to the matrix, instruction does not always require a generality, example, and practice sequence. This means that if we want students to memorize something that they would not use in any other way (e.g., common expressions, basic greetings, and idioms), we need to present and test only that example. This makes the instructional presentation much simpler and more efficient. Checklist for Quality of Instructional Presentation After making sure that each instructional presentation contains the necessary primary presentation forms for teaching at the desired task level, it is necessary to enrich the PPFs with appropriate elaborations so that the instruction can be rich and the students can learn well at the desired task level. For instance, for the use-generality task level, the required PPFs are generality, example, and practice; and the elaborations for each PPF can be as follows (compare the list with Figure 4). For other task levels, an appropriate subset of this checklist can be used (see Merrill et al. 1977 for the detailed description). Generality (TGtell-via-generality): (1) isolation of generality from the other display forms in the presentation, and identifying/leveling clearly as a generality by means of some type of graphic or auditory convention; (2) providing another representation, other than verbal form, such as algorithm, diagram, flowchart, mnemonic (memory aid devices such as songs, rhymes, schematics, chunking devices, acronyms, etc.), simplified representation, or a brief summary of the generality in a box. Example (Tegtell-via-example): (1) isolation of example from the other display forms in the presentation, and identifying/leveling clearly as an example (e.g., noticeable pause on audio tape, a noticeable fadeout in motion pictures or video, or a box of printed materials); (2) "helps" such as underlining, bold print, color, arrows, exploded diagrams, or other kinds of attention-focusing devices; (3) another form of representation such as a verbal and a visual description or a simplified representation; (4) matched example and nonexample pairs (e.g., correct and incorrect sentences with explanations); (5) divergent sampling on variable attributes and on range in difficulty, presenting an easy-to-difficult sequence. Practice (Qegquestion-via-example): (1) isolation of practice from the other display forms in the presentation, and identifying/leveling clearly as a practice; (2) separate feedback display with identification; (3) no "helps" with the question display (no clues to answer another item) except the feedback display; (4) random sequence with respect to nonexample, divergence, and difficulty; (5) a range of divergence and difficulty. According to comprehensive research (Choi 1981), the example is the most important and beneficial component in student learning among the three components, and the generality is the least. This means that students learn better and more through examples than generalities. Therefore, it is necessary that instructional developers focus their effort more to rich elaborations on examples than detailed and comprehensive presentation of generalities. Furthermore, practice items with only final correct-answer feedbacks do not help much in student learning. The practice items need expanded feedback on critical concepts so that "the inevitable overload of imposed search strategy" on the student's part can be reduced. Limitations of Component Display Theory There are at least four different aspects of instruction that influence student performance. These include: (1) ways of organizing the instruction, such as sequencing and formatting the subject-matter content; (2) ways of delivering the instruction, which is usually a matter of media selection; (3) ways of motivating students; and (4) ways of managing the interaction between the student and the instruction. Instructional organization can be further divided into two categories: (1) ways of organizing the instruction on a single topic and (2) ways of organizing instruction that interrelates sets of

CALICO Journal, Volume 3 Number 4

43

topics such as sequencing the topics, the use of overviews, advance organizers, and various kinds of sequencing (Reigeluth 1979; Reigeluth and Merrill 1978). CDT only analyzes the organization of the instruction on a single topic. Even though CDT covers only one narrow aspect of instruction, its detailed operational procedures provide an instructional designer to produce effective instructionswithin its limited domain. Conclusion PRIMARY PRESENTATION FORM The contribution of CDT in instructional design is Question Via Tell Via Tell Via Example Question that it provides not only the Generality Generality Via step-by-step operational (Generality Practice) (Generality (Example) Example procedures, but also practical (Practice) procedures for analyzing and Use quantifying the quality of Generality Remember instruction in relation to its Paraphrased objectives and test items. It Generality provides a checklist for the Remember designer to diagnose and Verbatim quantify the effectiveness of Generality the instruction without any Remember extensive formative Paraphrased evaluation. Using CDT as a Example design guide provides Remember instruction that should already Verbatim (i.e., without formative Example Figure 3: The task-primary presentation form matrix shows which primary presentation forms should evaluation) have a high degree be included in an instructional presentation in order for it to be consistent with its test item(s). The of effectiveness because of the shaded boxes indicate which primary presentation forms are now applicable in the instructional previous validation of most of presentation for each task level. the principles that constitute CDT. However, it is recommended that the instruction designed according to the principles of CDT be tested in a real world situation in order to validate a particular application of the principles in a particular setting. It should not be necessary, however, to conduct as extensive an evaluation or extensive revisions as would be required for a more intuitive approach to the design and development process.
Previous publications on the CDT referred to it as the Instructional Strategy Diagnostic Profile (Merrill et al. 1977), and the Instructional Quality Profile (Merrill, Reigeluth, and Faust 1979). Author's Note: This is a revised version of the paper read at the Seventh International Conference on Computers and Humanities, 26-28 June 1985, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. The author expresses his appreciation to Dr. M. David Merrill, Professor of Instructional Technology at the University of Southern California, for permission to write a paper about his CDT. Bibliography Baker, E. L. 1973. The technology of instructional development. In Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Ed. Robert M. W. Travers. Chicago: Rand McNally. Briggs, L. J. 1977. Instructional Design. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications. Choi, S.-Y. 1981. Empirical Validation of the Instructional Quality Profile as an Analytical Curriculum Evaluation and Design Tool. Ph.D. diss., Brigham Young University. Dick, W., and Carey., L. 1978. The Systematic Design of Instruction. Glenview: Scott Foresman. Gagne, R. M., and Briggs, L. J. 1979. Principles in Instructional Design. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Hendricks, H., Bennion, J. L., and Larson, J. 1983. Technology and language learning at BYU. CALICO Journal 1 (December): 23-27. Merrill, M. D. 1983. The Component Display Theory. In Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status. Ed. C. M. Reigeluth. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Merrill, M. D., Kowallis, T., and Wilson, B. G. 1981. Instructional design in transition. In Psychology and Education: The State of the Union. Ed. F. H. Farley and N. J. Gordon. Vol. 80 of NSSE Yearbook. Berkeley: McCutchan. Merrill, M. D., Olsen, J. B., and Coldeway, N. A. 1976. Research Support for the Instructional Strategy Diagnostic Profile. Technical Report, no. 3. Provo: Courseware, Inc. Merrill, M. D., Reigeluth, C. M., and Faust, G. W. 1979. The instructional quality profile: A curriculum evaluation and design tool. In Procedures for Instructional Systems Development. Ed. H. A. O'Neil, Jr. New York: Academic Press. Merrill, M. D., Richards, R. E., Schmidt, R. V., and Wood, N. D. 1977. The Instructional Strategy Diagnostic Profile Training Manual. San Diego: Courseware, Inc. Merrill, M. D., Schneider, E. W., and Fletcher, K. A. 1980. TICCIT: The instructional design library. Educational Technology 40. Englewood Cliffs: New Jersey. O'Neil, H. F., Jr., Ed. 1979. Procedures for Instructional Systems Development. New York: Academic Press. Reigeluth, C. M. 1979. In search of a better way to organize instruction: The elaboration theory. Journal of Instructional Development 2 (3): 8-15. Reigeluth, C. M., and Merrill, M. D. 1979. Classes of instructional variables. Educational Technology (March): 5-24. Reigeluth, C. M., and Merrill, M. D. 1978. A knowledge base for improving our methods of instruction. Educational Psychologist 13: 57-70. Reigeluth, C. M., Merrill, M. D., Wilson, B. B., and Spiller, R. T. 1980. The elaboration theory of instruction: A model for sequencing and synthesizing instruction. Instructional Science 9: 195-219.
1

CALICO Journal, Volume 3 Number 4

TEST ITEM TASK LEVEL

44

Sari, I. F., and Reigeluth, C. M. 1982. Writing and evaluating textbooks: Contribution from instructional theory. In Technology of Text: Principles for Structuring, Designing, and Displaying Text. Ed. D. Jonassen. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications. Author's Address Soo-Young Choi Assistant Professor of Korean Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602

CALICO Journal, Volume 3 Number 4

45