Robert M. Gagné

Bio: Robert M. Gagné is an academic researcher from Florida State University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Instructional design & Experiential learning. The author has an hindex of 20, co-authored 41 publications receiving 10846 citations.

Principles of Instructional Design

Abstract: PART I: INTRODUCTION TO INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS. 1. Introduction to Instructional Design. 2. Designing Instructional Systems. 3. The Outcomes of Instruction. 4. Varieties of Learning: Intellectual Skills and Strategies. 5. Varieties of Learning: Information, Motor Skills, and Attitudes. 6. The Learner. PART II: BASIC PROCESSES IN LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION. 7. Defining Performance Objectives. 8. Analysis of a Learning Task. 9. Designing Instructional Sequences. 10. The Events of Instruction. 11. Technology Affordances. 12. Designing the Individual Lesson. 13. Assessing Student Performance. 14. Group Learning Environments. 15. Online Learning. 16. Evaluating Instruction.

Conditions of Learning

Abstract: Robert Gagné was an American educational psychologist who's ideas of conditions of learning and instructional design implications were first introduced in 1965. Gagné assumed that there are different types of learning outcomes, each of which is best achieved through its specific instructional design, but also that there is a set of steps required in every learning environment (sometimes also known as the Gagné Assumption).

The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance.

Abstract: because observed behavior is the result of interactions between environmental factors and genes during the extended period of development. Therefore, to better understand expert and exceptional performance, we must require that the account specify the different environmental factors that could selectively promote and facilitate the achievement of such performance. In addition, recent research on expert performance and expertise (Chi, Glaser, & Farr, 1988; Ericsson & Smith, 1991a) has shown that important characteristics of experts' superior performance are acquired through experience and that the effect of practice on performance is larger than earlier believed possible. For this reason, an account of exceptional performance must specify the environmental circumstances, such as the duration and structure of activities, and necessary minimal biological attributes that lead to the acquisition of such characteristics and a corresponding level of performance. An account that explains how a majority of individuals can attain a given level of expert performance might seem inherently unable to explain the exceptional performance of only a small number of individuals. However, if such an empirical account could be empirically supported, then the extreme characteristics of experts could be viewed as having been acquired through learning and adaptation, and studies of expert performance could provide unique insights into the possibilities and limits of change in cognitive capacities and bodily functions. In this article we propose a theoretical framework that explains expert performance in terms of acquired characteristics resulting from extended deliberate practice and that limits the role of innate (inherited) characteristics to general levels of activity and emotionality. We provide empirical support from two new studies and from already published evidence on expert performance in many different domains.

Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research

Abstract: 1. Introduction 2. The emergence of learning activity as a historical form of human learning 3. The zone of proximal development as the basic category of expansive research 4. The instruments of expansion 5. Toward an expansive methodology 6. Epilogue.

Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.

Abstract: Even a casual reading of the extensive literature on student development in higher education can create confusion and perplexity. One finds not only that the problems being studied are highly diverse but also that investigators who claim to be studying the same problem frequently do not look at the same variables or employ the same methodologies. And even when they are investigating the same variables, different investigators may use completely different terms to describe and discuss these variables. My own interest in articulating a theory of student development is partly practical—I would like to bring some order into the chaos of the literature—and partly self-protective. I and increasingly bewildered by the muddle of f indings that have emerged from my own research in student development, research that I have been engaged in for more than 20 years. The theory of student involvement that I describe in this article appeals to me for several reasons. First, it is simple: I have not needed to draw a maze consisting of dozens of boxes interconnected by two-headed arrows to explain the basic elements of the theory to others. Second, the theory can explain most of the empirical knowledge about environmental influences on student development that researchers have gained over the years. Third, it is capable of embracing principles from such widely divergent sources as psychoanalysis and classical learning theory. Finally, this theory of student involvement can be used both by researchers to guide their investigation of student development—and by college administrators and

Testing for Competence Rather Than for "Intelligence"

Abstract: The testing movement in the United States has been a success, if one judges success by the usual American criteria of size, influence, and profitability. Intelligence and aptitude tests are used nearly everywhere by schools, colleges, and employers. It is a sign of backwardness not to have test scores in the school records of children. The Educational Testing Service alone employs about 2,000 people, annually administers Scholastic Aptitude Tests to thousands of aspirants to college, and makes enough money to support a large basic research operation. Its tests have tremendous power over the lives of young people by stamping some of them "qualified" and others "less qualified" for college work. Until recent "exceptions" were made (over the protest of some), the tests have served as a very efficient device for screening out black, Spanish-speaking, and other minority applicants to colleges. Admissions officers have protested that they take other qualities besides test achievements into account in granting admission, but careful studies by Wing and Wallach (1971) and others have shown that this is true only to a very limited degree. Why should intelligence or aptitude tests have all this power? What justifies the use of such tests in selecting applicants for college entrance or jobs? On what assumptions is the success of the movement based? They deserve careful examination before we go on rather blindly promoting the use of tests as instruments of power over the lives of many Americans.