Elaboration Theory

Theorist

Charles M. Reigeluth

According to Dr. Reigeluth's Bio (2006), he has published eight books, 38 chapters, and about 78 articles on the subjects of redesigning educational systems. He has developed the 21st century educational system to better meet the needs of learners in the information society (Reigeluth, 2006). He is also the major developer of several instructional design theories, including the elaboration theory and simulation theory (Reigeluth, 2006).

Publication
Reigeluth, C.M., & Duffy, F.M. (in press). Trends and Issues in P-12 Educational Change. In R.A. Reiser & J.A. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Reigeluth, C.M. (in press). New instructional theories and strategies for a Knowledge-Based Society. In J. Spector, C. Ohrazda, D. Wiley, & A. van Schaack (Eds.), Innovations in Instructional Technology: Essays in Honor of M. David Merrill. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (Available June 2005)
Reigeluth, C.M. (2004). Elaboration Theory. In A. Kovalchik & K. Dawson (Eds.), Education and Technology: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio.
Reigeluth, C.M. (2004). Educational Systems Design. In A. Kovalchik & K. Dawson (Eds.), Education and Technology: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio.
Reigeluth, C.M., & Beatty, B.J. (2004). Instructional Systems Design. In M. Mukhopadhyay (Ed.), Educational Technology: Knowledge Assessment, New Delhi: Shipra.
Reigeluth, C.M. (Ed.) (1999). Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Volume II: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Carr-Chelman, A.A., & Reigeluth, C.M. (2002). Whistling in the Dark? ID in the Schools. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Molenda, M., Reigeluth, C.M., & Nelson, L.M. (2003). Instructional Design. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. Vol. 2, pp. 574 - 578. London: Nature Publishing Group.
Martin, B.L., & Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). Affective education and the affective domain: Implications for instructional design theories and models. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. (Volume II). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. (Volume II). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. (Volume II). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Reigeluth, C.M., & Frick, T.W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for improving design theories. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. (Volume II). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Reigeluth, C.M., & Moore, J.A. (1999). Cognitive education and the cognitive domain. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. (Volume II). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Journal Articles
Jenlink, P.M., Reigeluth, C.M., Carr, A.A., & Nelson, L.M. (1998). Guidelines for facilitating systemic change in school districts. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 15(3), 217-233.
Keller, J.B., & Reigeluth, C.M. (2004). Revolutionizing School Reform for Educational Transformation. Educational Technology, 44(5), 17-23.
Reigeluth, C.M. (2004). Comparing beans and potatoes, or creating a balanced diet? Different purposes and different approaches. Educational Technology, 44 (3), 53-56.
Lee, J.Y., & Reigeluth, C.M. (2003). Formative research on the heuristic task analysis process. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51 (4), 5-24.
Reigeluth, C.M. (2003). Knowledge building for use of the Internet in education. Instructional Science, 31(4), 341-346.
Reigeluth, C.M., & Beatty, B.J. (2003). Why children are left behind and what we can do about it. Educational Technology, 43(5), 24-32.
Joseph, R., Jenlink, P. M., Reigeluth, C. M., Carr-Chelman, A., & Nelson, L. M. (2002). Banathy’s Influence on the Guidance System for Transforming Education. World Futures: The Journal of Evolution, 58(5-6), 379-394.
Reigeluth, C.M. (2002). What every AECT member needs to know about systemic change: The beginning of a dialogue. Tech Trends, 46(1), 12-15.
Reigeluth, C.M., & Joseph, R. (2002). Beyond technology integration: The case for technology transformation. Educational Technology, 42(4), 9-13.
Squire, K.D., & Reigeluth, C.M. (2000). The many faces of systemic change. Educational Horizons, 78(3), 143-152.
Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). Visioning public education in America. Educational Technology, 39(5), 50-55.
Reigeluth, C.M., Pershing, J.A., & Park, S.H. (1998). A new paradigm for corporate training. Strategic Human Resource Development Review, 1 (2), 5-50.
Reigeluth, C.M., & Squire, K. (1998). Emerging work on the new paradigm of instructional theories. Educational Technology, 38(4), 41-47.

Terms

Scope is concerned with what to teach and what learners need to learn.

Sequence deals with the order in which the information needs to be taught.

Topical Sequence (simple to complex sequence): A topic (task) is taught in dept before moving to a new topic.
Spiral Sequence (within-lesson sequence): The learner learns the basics of complexity on each topic, before continuing to the next level of each topic, until the necessary depth is obtained on each topic.

Domain Expertise: It defines the process on how a learner becomes an expert in the body of knowledge of a discipline not tied to specific tasks.

Conceptual Elaboration Sequence: “What to teach”
The sequences are used for teaching many related concepts, because people tend to store a new concept under a well-defined conceptual schema. For different kind of expertise we need to sequence different learning episodes differently.

Theoretical Elaboration Sequence: “Why to teach”
The sequences are used for teaching many related principles, because people tend to store a new principle under broader more general to narrower more specific ones. Unlike concepts, the more general inclusive principles are generally simpler than more detailed and less inclusive ones.

Task Expertise:

a. “Simplifying conditions method” (SCM) offers guideline for analyzing, selecting, and sequencing the “what to learn” (content). The sequencing of tasks is holistic compared to the fragmented nature in the hierarchical sequencing. SCM starts with the simplest version of the task and then gradually moves to the complex version. Until the desired level of complexity is reached.

Epitomizing: identifying the simplest version of the task
Elaborating: identifying more complex part of the task.
Procedural Task: “how” Focus on the steps that expert use to decide what to do when.
heuristic (holistic) Task: Focuses on the principles, guidelines, or casual models that experts use to decide what to do when.

b. Hierarchical Task: Learning a task from easiest task to the hardest task in a hierarchical order.

Domain Expertise: Inserting an image on a Dreamweaver page is not a body of knowledge in computer science but a skill related to a certain task. On the other hand, knowledge on the theories of web development is a body of knowledge in information science discipline.
Conceptual Elaboration Sequence: A community college may offer a two year associate degree in computer science the learning outcomes of this two year degree program is different from four years bachelors degree in computer science offered in a private university. Even though the two disciplines are the same the learning outcomes are different. Based on the learning outcomes the sequencing within the course materials is also different.
Theoretical Elaboration Sequence: According to the law of conservation of energy, energy cannot be destroyed it can only be converted from one form to another. Based on the conservation principle Bernoulli defined the relationship between pressure head and velocity head of a fluid flowing through a tube.