Instructional Design Is Not Peanuts. Confessions of a Practitioner. Slaying DragonsAn Interview With. Elementary Principles of Design Languages and Design. Design Science as a Frame for Evaluation of Technology. Validating Instructional Design and Development Models. Michael Spector , M.
Also covered are procedures for designing instructional strategies and evaluation. Innovations in instructional technology: David Merrill by J. Michael Spector 11 editions published between and in English and held by WorldCat member libraries worldwide M. David Merrill has been active in the field of instructional technology for almost 40 years.
His contributions range from basic instructional principles and instructional design theory to development and implementation of learning environments. Innovations in Instructional Technology is a collection of original essays written by leading scholars and practitioners who have worked with and been inspired by Professor Merrill.
The chapters in this book represent a sampling of key innovations in the instructional technology field and include knowledge of how people learn, how people solve problems, how designers conceptualize learning spaces, how teachers implement learning activities, and how evaluators assess outcomes. David Merrill Book 10 editions published in in English and held by WorldCat member libraries worldwide.
First principles of instruction: David Merrill 10 editions published in in English and held by WorldCat member libraries worldwide "This handy resource describes and illustrates the concepts underlying the "First Principles of Instruction" and illustrates First Principles and their application in a wide variety of instructional products. The book introduces the e3 Course Critique Checklist that can be used to evaluate existing instructional product. It also provides directions for applying this checklist and illustrates its use for a variety of different kinds of courses. This checklist enables instructional designers to design and develop instructional products that more adequately implement First Principles of Instruction" Instructional design theory by M.
David Merrill Book 7 editions published in in English and held by WorldCat member libraries worldwide. Writing complete affective objectives: David Merrill Book 2 editions published in in English and held by WorldCat member libraries worldwide. Extended task analysis procedure ETAP: It is a handy reference for anyone who has already completed training in the use of ETAP.
David Merrill Book 6 editions published between and in English and held by 39 WorldCat member libraries worldwide This paper proposes that instruction consists of four relatively independent facets: The purpose of this paper is to develop a taxonomic vocabulary and a model for portraying instructional strategies. ITT simulations both can be built from reusable components and can automatically teach, coach, and assess learners. However, wonderland is quite a conceptual distance from where mainstream educators are right now, and very few have proven willing to jump down the rabbit hole.
The next section describes some reasons why. Educational Usefulness The educational usefulness of a learning object is not guaranteed by its strictly following a design template e. Conforming to an architectural standard does not guarantee that an artifact like a learning object will be educationally useful. This would be like implying that a piece of music that conforms to the sonata structure will be good art, and is simply not the case. There are many compositions that conform to the sonata structure which are not particularly artful at all. On the other hand, there are many artful compositions that do not follow the sonata structure at all.
The reader may quickly desire to point out that art is to some extent in the eye of the beholder, and indeed it is so. However, if a resource relates directly to a topic a learner has an immediate desire to learn, then the resource will likely be educationally useful to the learner, despite its architecture. Likewise, an online catalog of song lyrics and guitar accompaniments will not likely satisfy the needs of the graduate chemistry professor. Complete Self-Containment Assuming that learning objects are completely self-contained educational resources implies that, aside from their use, nothing else is necessary for student learning—including social interaction.
This rejection of the importance of hu- 4 WILEY man interaction is extremely problematic for teaching and learning. For example, a learner does not need to engage in small-group negotiation activities to learn memorize the capitals of the 50 states. Individual drill and practice exercises will provide effective, efficient mastery.
However, we would not expect students to learn to make complex ethical decisions evaluations through isolated drilling with flashcards. We would generally imagine this type of outcome being learned in a small-group setting where discussion, argument, and debate played key instructional roles. This may be one reason why learning objects have not been used widely in higher education. Higher educators like to believe that their role is to teach problem solving, critical thinking, and complex reasoning skills.
Whether or not this occurs in classroom practice is a separate issue. In the many talks and workshops I have given on learning objects, my experience has been that when faculty members first encounter the idea, many intuitively grasp this weakness of the conventional learning objects approach to reuse and balk on grounds that the paradigm does not provide sufficient pedagogical flexibility.
Chunks of Content The term learning object is synonymous with content. His analogy went like this: Roschelle and colleagues pointed out that we should not expect to find that learning objects are highly reused, because research has shown that the struc- 1. Although Roschelle accurately called to our attention that significant reuse of educational components is not occurring, this need only be a problem for instructional technologists if we confine our conception of learning objects to content. The issues that public school and university educators have with learning objects, like those just described, are in some ways unsurprising.
A great need exists for individuals to step forward and rethink learning objects in terms of the conventions of public and higher education. Changing the Conventional View of Learning Objects For public and higher education audiences, we need to at least enable the kind of reuse that is already occurring in offices around the world.
Going back to the list from the beginning of the chapter, none of the journal articles, lecture notes, slides, textbooks, overheads, lesson plans, stories, visual aids, or construction-paper bulletin-board letters are made up of an objective coupled with instruction coupled with an assessment. Public and higher education need a definition of learning object that encompasses the types of resources they already use—not one that excludes them as the conventional definition does.
Wiley and Edwards suggested another definition for learning object: Any digital resource that can be reused to mediate learning is a learning object. Although teachers may not be currently using digital versions of the resources in the list given earlier, they could be. There are compelling reasons to encourage them to make this one change to their practice. South and Monson explained why it is important to encourage faculty to get their materials out of their filing cabinets and onto servers—if an individual faculty member gets such great benefit from reusing their materials, could not another faculty member get similar benefits from those materials?
As Wiley and Edwards suggested, and as Downes and others have echoed, public and higher education need to move away from the highly foreign notion of learning objects specifically structured per the conventional view of international standards bodies and arrive at something more familiar—a notion of reusable resources, which happen to be digital. We need to help teachers understand that there will be quality learning objects and poor learning objects, just as there are quality books and articles and poor books and articles.
The existence of poor-quality learning objects is not a problem with reusable digital resources; it is a problem common to all educational resources. Teachers will need to vigilantly study learning objects to determine their appropriateness for their learners. No group of all-knowing learning-objects reviewers will be able to tell teachers which resources they should use in their courses any more than all-knowing book or article reviewers can tell teachers which books or articles they should use in their courses.
More recently, his work on the first principles of instructional design elaborated what he believes is instruction—activation of prior knowledge, demonstration of information, opportunities for application and practice with feedback, and purposive scaffolding of integration of new knowledge to promote transfer, all of which are wrapped around a real-world problem Merrill, Although these five principles together are significantly better than information dumps, I must argue that there is more to facilitating learning.
I have recently been saying that there is a reason why libraries evolved into universities. This evolution did not occur because one day it was discovered that resources, materials, and content became unimportant; indeed, a quality library is a necessary condition for having a quality university—necessary, but not sufficient. There comes a time when, 1. Even though one has access to the syllabus, schedule of assignments, problem sets, and video of every lecture for an MIT course on linear algebra, there will come a time for serious students of these materials when they will have a question.
To whom do users of a library, be it digital or otherwise, turn? Of whom may they ask their question? This need to ask and to be answered—this need to interact—is at the core of why libraries grew into universities. A view of learning objects more appropriate for public and higher education will retain this value.
Learners need to interact to discuss, interpret, and argue over learning objects just as they do journal articles, textbooks, and the other resources teachers traditionally use in the classroom. However, it has also been my experience as a programmer and I believe this to be typical as well that I reuse algorithms regularly. If you were to examine the source code of any but the most trivial programs, you would see the source code begins by making reference to a variety of libraries of programming algorithms—routines for calculating basic math operations, functions for printing to the screen or accepting input from the keyboard, and so on.
Almost every programming language has a collection of libraries or modules of reusable functions, which programmers constantly use to speed up and improve the quality of their development. For the time being, we need a definition and practice of learning objects that realizes that most teachers combine con- 8 WILEY tent and strategy and sometimes even presentations in one tangled pile, just like the other resources currently used in the classroom. However, we cannot get there all at once. A logical next step toward the promised future world of learning objects is not to ask educators to leap from current practice to fully automated instruction built from reusable parts by intelligent systems.
The logical next step is to enable and support all of the things teachers already do in a digital form. Because doing it online is so much cooler? If we can create that curiosity in normal public and higher educators, then we have made another simultaneously small step and giant leap toward realizing the potential of instructional technology that Merrill and others have pioneered.
Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23 3 , 4— Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Education, 5. Special Issue on the Educational Semantic Web. Psychology of learning for instruction. The conditions of learning 4th ed. The nature and origin of instructional objects. Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Retrieved April 2, , from http: Group theory and group skills 6th ed. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50 3 , 43— Educational Technology, 31 6 , 7— A new paradigm of instructional theory. Numerical recipes in C: The art of scientific computing 2nd ed.
Cognitive development in social context. Reusability and interoperability of tools for mathematics learning: Theory, research, and Practice. A university-wide system for creating, capturing, and delivering learning objects.
Retrieved April 2, from http: The coming collision between automated instruction and social constructivism. Online self-organizing social systems: The decentralized future of online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3 1 , 33— Chapter 2 Authoring Discovery Learning Environments: Veermans University of Twente J. It is difficult because authoring of such learning environments requires a combination of domain expertise, instructional design skills, and technical skills. It is time-consuming because each and every aspect of a learning environment needs to be designed from both a content and an instructional perspective and needs to be implemented in software.
Often, estimates of hours devoted to production time in 11 12 2. Tannenbaum , for example, asserted that in the early days of computer-based instruction, to of hours of authoring time were required to create 1 hour of instructional time. Merrill and the ID2 Research Group mentioned hours of authoring time for 1 hour of instruction. Nowadays, according to Tannenbaum , the costs are as high or even higher due to the more advanced interfaces and multimedia that are available. Although these estimates cannot be regarded as very reliable they are too dependent on unknown factors such as expertise of the designer, available tools, type of learning environment involved, etc.
Therefore, it is not surprising to see that there has been a search for tools that help to reduce production time and at the same time maintain or improve the instructional design quality Merrill, b. Reuse of existing learning environments is one of the mechanisms to support time efficiency and quality assurance Murray, Reuse basically means that existing components are used again in some form in a newly authored learning environment.
Reuse may refer to the content of a learning environment or to the instructional design or to both. When the content and instructional design have been taken into account adequately, reuse may also refer to the technical realization of a learning environment. This means that components can be reused more or less directly in an ICT-based learning environment without additional programming. Duncan , for example, described the idea that components can be shared or traded so that an author has access to a large set of resources for reuse.
Standardization plays an important role to facilitate the search process for appropriate reusable components. There are many different standardization bodies see http: Reuse also implies that a component was designed for reuse, meaning that both at technical implementation and system and conceptual pedagogical and content levels reuse is possible. At a technical level it must be possible to isolate the component from the learning environment for which it was originally designed.
At the conceptual level, a component must have some kind of closure, meaning that it can be viewed relatively independent of the context in which it is actually used. Often, authors have a need to adapt the selected components to their own wishes. Reusability and adaptability go hand in hand. Murray explicitly mentioned customization, extensibility, and scriptability as key characteristics of proficient authoring systems.
With respect to content, authors and teachers quite often have specific ideas about what should be included in a course or lesson, which creates a demand for adaptability. Adaptation of instructional design components will, for example, be possible by setting parameters in the component e. Components that are reused may differ in size or granularity, as it is sometimes called.
Reused material may be quite global e. Finally, the reusable components should be designed in such a way that they can be combined in the new learning environment. This means that content needs to be consistent and coherent over the different components, that there should be an overall instructional strategy over the different components, and that the components need to interact smoothly at a technical level.
Until now we have been using the general term component to indicate something that can be reused. The more widely used term is learning object. One of the earlier definitions of a learning object was given by the IEEE: This definition is such a broad one that it is hard to exclude anything from being a learning object Friesen, Wiley also recognized this problem and discussed the different usages of the term learning object, and concluded that there is a proliferation of definitions, each taking a different route in making the term more specific.
He continued by saying: This definition includes anything that can be delivered across the network on demand, be it large or small. Examples of smaller reusable digital resources include digital images or photos, live data feeds like stock tickers , live or prerecorded video or audio snippets, small bits of text, animations, and smaller web-delivered applications, like a Java calculator.
Examples of larger reusable digital resources include entire web pages that combine text, images and other media or applications to deliver complete experiences, such as a complete instructional event. In this chapter, we describe how we have designed an object-oriented authoring tool called SimQuest for the design and delivery of simulation-based discovery learning environments. In SimQuest, building blocks are offered as reusable components for simulation-based discovery learning environments. In his component design theory CDT2 , Merrill a used a whole set of so-called knowledge objects to describe what in the previous section has been indicated with the term content.
These knowledge objects are grouped by Merrill into four main groups of objects: In this overview, properties, take a special place, because they give descriptors for the first three types of objects.
Learning cultures vary significantly. More recently, his work on the first principles of instructional design elaborated what he believes is instruction—activation of prior knowledge, demonstration of information, opportunities for application and practice with feedback, and purposive scaffolding of integration of new knowledge to promote transfer, all of which are wrapped around a real-world problem Merrill, Learning Objects in Public and Higher Education. One might go on to say that whiteboards replaced chalkboards, personal computers replaced mainframe terminals, and digital projectors replaced overhead projectors. Working memory denotes the memory capable of transient preservation of information and is functionally different from the memory that stores historical information the long-term memory. Whether or not this occurs in classroom practice is a separate issue. Investigating the relationship between two approaches to verbal information processing in working memory:
Placed together in structures, knowledge objects of different kinds can be used to describe complete domains. In Merrill a these knowledge objects are combined with instructional strategy components. Primary instructional strategy components are low-level instructional actions. Instructional design combines instructional components together with knowledge objects into instruction.
The type and sequence of primary instructional components are determined by the overall instructional strategy chosen. Merrill called this strategy the instructional transaction shell. Traditionally, the optimal strategy to use is determined from an analysis of the instructional goals and characteristics of the learner Romiszowski, The aspects of reuse that were mentioned in the introductory section can be identified in the work by Merrill.
The content or domain is represented by the knowledge objects, and the instructional design is represented by the primary instructional components and the instructional transaction shells. In ID Expert the uncoupling of the domain and the instructional design is realized in a software tool. In ID expert, information in the knowledge base of the system can be linked to an instructional transaction, so that this part of the domain is included in a lesson. Merrill and the ID2 Research Group presented a simple example of a lesson in which a map of Europe needs to be learned.
New countries to be learned can easily be added in the instruction by creating links to a description of the specific knowledge in the knowledge base. Also, the combination of instructional transactions making up the instructional strategy is included. In ID Expert, adaptability is covered by changing so-called instructional parameters. In our own work we have concentrated on the authoring design and delivery of simulation-based learning environments for discovery learning. In the following sections an overview is given of the specific characteristics of simulation-based discovery learning.
On the basis of this analysis, requirements are listed for simulation-based learning environments. This brings us to present general architectural characteristics for simulation-based learning environments, which are then made concrete by presenting the way this was realized for SimQuest learning environments. This architecture makes object-oriented design a natural approach for the SimQuest authoring tool. Finally, we describe how different actors authors, teachers, developers, and learners use the SimQuest approach for reuse of components.
One of the requirements for scientific discovery learning to occur is that learners have a sufficient level of control over the domain in order to perform the experiments they see as needed for discovering the properties of the domain. First, simulations have a number of practical advantages.
They are safe, increase the availability of systems that are scarce, use minimal resources, are adjustable, and allow for experimentation with systems that normally cannot be physically manipulated. Second, simulations offer new instructional opportunities. For example, simulations visualize processes that are invisible in natural systems by, for instance, showing animations of probability distributions or graphs of quantities like energy or impulse.
In this way, multiple views and multiple representations of the simulated system can be offered see, e. These advantages of learning with simulations contribute to their suitability for providing an environment for discovery learning.
The freedom that is offered to learners for safe and flexible experimentation provides ample opportunity for discovery of the underlying model and, hence, for genuine knowledge construction. The new instructional opportunities help to provide learners with facilities that support specific discovery learning processes. However, in spite of the aforementioned advantages, learners have considerable difficulties with simulation-based discovery learning.
De Jong and van Joolingen provided an extensive overview of these problems and indicate how simulations can be extended to help prevent or overcome these problems.
The basic idea is to embed the simulation in an instructional environment that supports the processes of discovery learning. In such a supportive environment the behavior 16 2. This leads to the concept of integrated simulation learning environment. The next section introduces the structure of integrated simulation learning environments and the way they can be built out of individual components, providing a basis for reuse. This is a simulation-based learning environment on the physics topic of dynamics: Example of a part of an integrated learning environment.
The simulation interface must thus provide an accessible interface to relevant variables in the simulation model. The simulation interface also provides the external representations of the model state. This may include graphs, drawn in real time as the simulation proceeds, and animations that display visual representations of model states. Instructional support measures scaffold learners in the discovery learning processes. Typically, in a simulation-based discovery environment, different kinds of these measures are available to support the various stages of the learning process and the various learning processes within these stages.
As a rule, assignments provide the learner with feedback after the assignment has been done. In the example assignment given in Fig. This instructional support measure, given to the learner as a practice task, needs to be able to: The first of these three requirements is that the instructional support measure controls the simulation model; the second requires that the assignment reads information from the simulation model during run time; and the third requirement implies that the simulation model can control the instructional measure in the learning environment.
Even more complex interaction between the simulation model, the interface, and the instructional support measures is necessary when feedback is given that is based on an analysis of the learners behavior and that is tailored to the needs of the learner. For instance, Veermans, de Jong, and van Joolingen presented an instructional support measure that provides feedback on the experimental behavior of the learner. In order to enable this kind of feedback, the instructional support measure must have access to: Merrill b described the importance of separating content knowledge objects and instructional design instructional strategy components.
This principle can be readily applied in simulation-based discovery learning. By defining in a domain independent way, for instance, an optimization assignment such as the one described for Fig. In SimQuest we define simulation models that can be combined and reused in new learning environments, but the instructional support measures do not get their information automatically from a knowledge representation.
Instead, the author fills the instructional measures with content and links them to the simulation model. The same mechanism also applies to the design of the simulation interface. A major question that we faced was how to realize the level of interaction with the simulation model required by the various instructional support measures. Simulations may differ in model, structure, computational formalism, and many other aspects. In order to facilitate interaction between different parts of the simulation learning environment, the learning environment must represent the relevant information in a format that can be handled by the instructional measures while providing access to simulation commands such as setting the value of a variable and starting or stopping the simulation.
Because of the possible variance in simulation models, the necessary access to the simulation model must be abstracted, providing uniform access to the simulation model by different kinds of support measures. For this abstraction the simulation context was introduced.
The simulation context is a part of the SimQuest architecture that provides access to the necessary details of the simulation in a uniform way. At the time of authoring a simulation-based learning environment, the simulation context provides the instructional measures with general information about the simulation model: In this way the author of the learning environment is able to specify the behavior of the instructional measures, such as which variables the instructional measure should control or watch, or which variables to use in generating feedback to the learner, at an abstract level.
In the example of the box on the slope see Fig. In this example, this means that the author needs to provide the building block with information on: All the information needed to enable the FIG.
The state might be set in terms of expressions like: The optimal state as: The main target groups of reusers are authors and teachers. Authors instantiate and specialize SimQuest building blocks to create learning environments, which in turn can be modified by teachers for their special needs. The separation between authors and teachers is not strict; basically, teachers can perform the same activities as authors, but in practice they will show a more restrictive use of the SimQuest reuse facilities. Two other groups of users are distinguished as well.
The SimQuest developers reuse existing components within and outside SimQuest to build new ones, and learners also can reuse SimQuest building blocks. Reuse by Authors Authors use the SimQuest authoring environment to build new SimQuest learning environments or to modify existing ones for a large r group of teachers or learners. Van Joolingen and de Jong presented an extensive overview of the SimQuest authoring process. Authors are the primary target users of the SimQuest authoring environment. The author is often a domain expert, who is not necessarily a programmer or an expert in the didactics of discovery learning.
To cope with the latter, an author may cooperate with an instructional designer. Reuse of Building Blocks From the Library. In the authoring process the author uses a library of building blocks see Fig. Each building block contains a specific template in which the author can specify properties of the building block. In an assignment template the author might, for instance, need to specify a question, possible answers, number of attempts, and the state of the simulation model when the assignment opens.
Templates contain open fields e. An author can also reuse an already specified building block, copying it and changing the content where needed. Copied building blocks may be used with the same simulation model, with a different simulation context within the same SimQuest application or even within another SimQuest application. The author may create and maintain his or her own library of partially instantiated building blocks. SimQuest automatically takes care of the technical aspects involved with moving building blocks from one simulation context to another.
SimQuest contains a wizard that offers the author specific layouts of interfaces and characteristic sequences of instructional support, consisting of multiple building blocks. These structures are reusable components of a larger grain size than the individual building blocks in the library. For example, the wizard component experiment consists of these building blocks: The experiment component automatically provides a control structure for these building blocks that, for example, automatically opens the simulation interface when the assignment opens, and closes the simulation interface when the assignment closes.
Authors can reuse these structures, but also have the freedom to step out of the wizard and adapt the structures to their specific needs. Reuse of Simulation Models. SimQuest models can easily be reused and extended. SimQuest simulation models are specified through a text editor as equa- FIG. Example of assignment template. A syntax help file supports the author in building the simulation model see Fig.
This allows the author to reuse almost any simulation model available, inside or outside SimQuest. Each SimQuest simulation context has its own model or set of models. All SimQuest building blocks within a particular simulation context make use of the simulation model connected to it. Changes in a simulation model are immediately available in all building blocks. Simulation models can easily be reused for other simulation contexts and learning environments.
Reuse by Teachers Teachers usually do not author completely new SimQuest learning environments. Their reuse typically, but not necessarily, invokes the reuse of a complete environment by adapting it to a specific context. To provide learners with coherent and dedicated instructional material, teachers have to be able to adapt learning environments to their own needs. SimQuest offers teachers the possibility to do this. The SimQuest components that teachers can easily modify are the building blocks, instructional strategies, and visualizations. Reuse of Instantiated and Specified Building Blocks.
When teachers want to modify the instruction, they can do so by modifying the content of assignments or explanations or by adding assignments or explanations. Adapting the content of the environment to specific situations, for instance, includes FIG. Changing an assignment or explanation text can be done by selecting the appropriate building block shown in the application view and opening an editor on it see Fig. The text can now easily be changed on the tab sheet labeled Question assignments or Explanation explanations. After saving the assignment and explanation, the new text is immediately ready for use.
Reuse of an Instructional Strategy. SimQuest allows for implementing an instructional strategy by using a modifiable control mechanism. Changing the control structure of a learning environment changes the way the learner interacts with the system. For example, a teacher can make the choice between opening assignments in a fixed order or leaving this choice to the learner. Strategies as such are not reusable; they are tied to the building blocks.
A teacher, however, may adapt a strategy to her or his liking. The SimQuest library contains several static and dynamic interface elements that can be used for the visualization of the simulation model. Teachers rarely build new interfaces but do make small modifications to existing ones. By copying and then modifying these visualization, easy reuse by teachers is possible. For instance, if an existing interface is too complex for learners, elements from it can be deleted. Conversely, elements can also be added from the library.
Most interface elements are directly usable after connecting it to the right variable see Fig. Already specified interface elements can easily be copied and reused for other interfaces.
Reuse by Developers Developers basically create the building blocks that are subsequently used by SimQuest authors and teachers. At the same time, developers themselves are also reusers. SimQuest itself is a product of reuse. The system reuses visualizations and tools for creating them from Visual Works, the programming platform for Smalltalk in which SimQuest was developed. Also other components in SimQuest are reused, either from other SimQuest components or from external parties.
Reuse of the Design and Implementation of Building Blocks. The objectoriented design of SimQuest, especially the building blocks that make up the SimQuest library, allows for relatively easy extension of the system with new building blocks based on existing ones. The functionality that is shared with the existing learning object can be reused while new functionality is added. This is especially valuable in cases where the ideas for new building blocks were inspired by already existing ones.
We started SimQuest, for example, with four types of assignments. During the development of SimQuest, one additional type of assignment was added, and subsequent project work led to several more. A great deal of the code for editing and execution of assignments is shared by all assignments. Connecting a variable to an interface element. Reuse of External Components. This project required two learners to be able to establish a connection between their computers for the collaboration.
Once this connection is established, the two learners share one learning environment, can take control over the learning environment, and can communicate through chat. For this purpose, the library has been extended with a new building block, which drew quite extensively on reuse. At the design level, this extension is inspired by theory about collaborative learning, whereas at the implementation level an existing external collaboration tool Netmeeting is reused, which lowered the implementation efforts and costs.
Reuse of External Representations for Modeling. The idea is that by constructing a computer model, learners will gain more understanding about the phenomenon that they are trying to model. This new tool subsequently replaced the old modeling tool for authors as well. This illustrates a form of reuse in which the design and parts of the implementation of a learner tool were reused in the redesign of an author tool.
Reuse by Learners Learners typically are using learning environments developed specifically for them.