Introduction

David Merrill developed the Instructional Transaction Theory (ITT) with the help of his colleagues of the ID2 Research Group at Utah State University.  Since the early 1990’s Merrill has been working to refine the ITT from an earlier instructional design theory, Component Display Theory (CDT) (Merrill, 1983) .  ITT is Merrill’s attempt to make CDT more precise so that it can be automated for use by instructors and learners. 

 

Goal(s)

The goal of the Instructional Transaction Theory is to optimize learning in the cognitive domain.

 

Major Characteristics

  • cognitive learning

  • efficient, automated instructional design

  • automated, adaptive and guided instruction       

ITT involves an instructor and subject matter expert (SME) defining/authoring the knowledge to be learned.  This information makes up the knowledge base.  The information in the knowledge base is then placed into “slots” called knowledge objects.  These knowledge objects contain bits of information pertaining to the following:  entities – characteristics of content, things, people, places that help the learner understand the object; activities – actions that the learner performs to manipulate the entity; and processes – real-world events that change the object that can be triggered by the learner or occur naturally that helps the learner understand the outcomes of their actions and predict future outcomes.  These three parts of a knowledge object interact through out the instruction. 

 

Once the knowledge objects have been organized, the content is delivered to the learner via instructional transactions, or interactions between the learner and the knowledge. These transaction categories were influenced by Gagne’s (1985) conditions of learning.  ITT outlines 13 different classes that belong to three general transaction groups:  component, abstraction and association transactions.  

  1. Component transaction - lowest level of interaction     

  • identifying

  • executing

  • interpreting

  1. Abstraction transaction -  middle level of interaction         

  • judging

  • classifying

  • generalizing

  • deciding

  • transferring

  1. Association transaction - highest level of interaction

  • propagating

  • analogizing

  • substituting

  • designing

  • discovering

The transactions to be used as instruction are organized in the transaction shell.  In the shell, the type of transaction, the knowledge to be delivered and the parameters under which this all happens is defined.  Through the shell, the knowledge is presented and practice and learner guidance is provided.  The learner’s actions through the activity determine the next set of transactions thereby providing tutorial instruction that fits the learner’s needs.

 

Importance to Instructional Design

By using ITT, Merrill believes an instructor and SME can design effective and efficient instruction, open-ended learning environments that adapt to the needs of the learner.  The goal being to automate the design and instruction process to make it easier on the instructor to make knowledge base changes and easier for the learner to be exposed to appropriate effective instruction.  ITT provides an important opportunity for instructional design.  There could be a great reduction in the time needed for instruction and to make instructional changes using ITT and the automation characteristics of the theory.  Because of its structure the theory can be used for many types of content and learning environments, well or ill structured.  This ability to adapt and be used for individualized instruction is an important characteristic in the new paradigm (Reigeluth, 1996) .

 

My two cents

Instructional Transactions while great in theory, are not practical at this time for use in K-12 learning environments.  The resources and initial time commitment necessary is not feasible in the current educational system.  This theory seems a bit futuristic.  I envision students getting up in the morning and walking into their virtual reality Learning Booth that teaches them everything they need to know or want to know based on the transactions "requested" by the learner.  Seems very efficient but I hope it doesn't take away the contact we have now between learners and instructors.

 

References

Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

 

Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component Display Theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 

Reigeluth, C. M. (1996). A new paradigm of ISD? Educational Technology, 36(3), 13-20.