Since the earliest stages of human development, people have cultivated the ability to observe their surroundings, recognize patterns and cycles, and interpret their circumstances to adapt, improve, and expand their horizons. This ongoing process has shaped insights into how we learn and has driven the continuous refinement of instructional practices in our lifelong pursuit of knowledge. This paper examines Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction (FPI) from a practical perspective, beginning with an analysis of several prominent instructional design models, theories, and frameworks, including ADDIE, the Successive Approximation Model (SAM), Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction, Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, Kirkpatrick’s Training Evaluation Model, Merrill’s Pebble-in-the-Pond, and AGILE. The discussion then explores the extent to which these models align with FPI. Through comparative analysis, the paper highlights the distinct contributions of Merrill’s framework while also underscoring its potential for integration with other models, thereby enhancing its relevance and applicability across diverse educational and training contexts.
Keywords: Merrill, First Principles of Instruction, FPI, ADDIE, SAM, Gagné, Bloom, Kirkpatrick, Pebble-in-the-Pond, PIP, AGILE, instructional design model
The shared purpose of these models is to facilitate instruction and enhance learning. In practice, some models can benefit from the structures of others, creating a mutually supportive and symbiotic relationship. (Interactive Guide of Instructional Models)
Merrill's First Principles of Instruction (FPI)
Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction (FPI) provide a set of foundational, evidence-based guidelines that underpin effective teaching and learning (Merrill, 2021). These principles serve as the benchmark for the present analysis. FPI comprises five interrelated principles:
1. Task-Oriented (Problem-Centered): Learning is most effective when learners engage in solving authentic, real-world problems. This principle functions as the central hub around which the other four principles are organized.
2. Activation: Learning is facilitated when prior knowledge is activated and used as a foundation for acquiring new knowledge. Effective instruction deliberately connects what learners already know with what they are about to learn.
3. Demonstration: Learning is strengthened when new knowledge is clearly demonstrated to learners. Rather than simply being told, learners benefit from seeing knowledge in action through strategies such as case studies, simulations, or worked examples.
4. Application: Learning is reinforced when learners actively apply new knowledge in authentic contexts. Instruction should provide opportunities for practice that require problem-solving and skill use, supported by timely and constructive feedback.
5. Integration: Learning becomes lasting when learners integrate new knowledge into their daily lives. This principle emphasizes transfer of learning, encouraging learners to personalize, reflect on, and apply new skills beyond the instructional setting.
Image credit: Gerard Friel – Merrill’s Instructional Design
The ADDIE model
The ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) model is a widely used instructional design framework that provides a systematic approach to creating effective educational programs (Peterson, 2003). It has been successfully applied in various contexts, including library instruction (Reinbold, 2013) and multimedia course development (Peterson, 2003). The model's simplicity and cyclical nature allow for a holistic overview of the instructional design process (Crawford, 2004). Recent research has focused on integrating technology within the ADDIE framework, demonstrating its adaptability and positive impact on diverse educational settings (Abuhassna et al., 2024).
Image credit: Gemini
The SAM (Successive Approximation) Model
The Successive Approximation Model (SAM) is an agile and iterative approach to instructional design, offering an alternative to the traditional ADDIE model (Jung et al., 2019). SAM consists of three main phases: preparation, iterative design, and iterative development (Abengoza et al., 2025). This model has shown effectiveness in various educational contexts, including e-learning content development (Jung et al., 2019), online medical education (Szabo, 2022), and numeracy instruction (Abengoza et al., 2025).
Image credit: Gemini
Gagne’s 9 events of Instruction:
Gagné's 9 Events of Instruction have been shown to significantly improve teaching effectiveness and learning outcomes in various educational settings. Multiple studies have demonstrated that implementing this framework leads to higher learner approval rates and increased academic performance compared to traditional teaching methods (Ullah et al., 2015; Habib, 2024). In medical education, postgraduate residents taught using Gagné's model showed substantial improvements in test scores, with increases of up to 14.8% (Habib, 2024). The framework has also proven effective in online microlearning environments, with students experiencing eight out of nine of Gagné's events during a focused activity (McNeill & Fitch, 2022).
Image credit: Gemini
Bloom's revised taxonomy
Bloom's Taxonomy, originally developed in 1956, has been revised to enhance its relevance for 21st-century education (Näsström & Stenlund, 2006). The revised version features two dimensions: Knowledge and Cognitive Process (Bümen, 2010). The main changes include shifting from nouns to verbs in category names and reorganizing the hierarchy (Tutkun, 2013). This updated taxonomy aids in curriculum development, instructional planning, and assessment (Bümen, 2010). It helps educators examine curriculum alignment, identify missed opportunities, and improve teaching strategies (Bümen, 2010; Clark & Ernst, 2010).
Image credit: Gemini
Kirkpatrick 4-Levels Evaluation Model
Kirkpatrick's 4-Level Evaluation Model, introduced in 1959, remains a widely used framework for assessing training effectiveness (Alliger & Janak, 1989). The model comprises four hierarchical levels: reaction, learning, behavior, and results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2005). Recent research supports the model's hierarchical structure, with each level influencing subsequent ones (Bauer & Goehlich, 2020). However, some assumptions, such as positive intercorrelations between levels, have been questioned (Alliger & Janak, 1989). The model has been applied beyond corporate training, including teacher performance evaluation in schools (Naugle et al., 2000).
Image credit: Gemini
Merrill's Pebble-in-the-Pond Model
Merrill's Pebble-in-the-Pond Model is an instructional design approach that emphasizes concept teaching through critical attributes, matched examples and non-examples, and practice with feedback (Warren et al., 1984). This model, along with other instructional design theories, is based on behavioral objectives, pretests, instructional activities, posttests, and empirical revisions (Merrill & Boutwell, 1973).
Image credit: Gemini
The "AGILE" Instructional Design Model
The AGILE instructional design model is an adaptive approach to course development that incorporates principles from software engineering. It emphasizes iterative cycles, collaboration, and flexibility (Erickson, 2018; Gawlik-Kobylińska, 2018). AGILE can be integrated with traditional models like ADDIE to create hybrid approaches suitable for dynamic educational environments (Gawlik-Kobylińska, 2018; Fernández et al., 2019). This methodology redefines the role of teachers, promotes transparency, and enhances cooperation among team members (Lembo & Vacca, 2012).
Image credit: Gemini
Initial Thoughts
Education, learning, and instruction are interconnected concepts that form the foundation of educational processes. Learning is defined as a process of behavioral change resulting from interactions with the environment, characterized by continuous, functional, and directed changes (Hanafy, 2014). Instruction, on the other hand, is a deliberate process designed to facilitate learning, involving planning, implementation, and evaluation (Hanafy, 2014; Rink, 2012). The effectiveness of instruction depends on the interaction between students, educators, and learning resources (Hanafy, 2014). Over time, the focus has shifted from examining external instructional forms to investigating internal learning processes stimulated by external stimuli (Grabowski, 2013). This shift has led to the development of learning models based on cognitive functioning and memory structure. While both instructional and learning environments contain information, the key difference lies in who manipulates that information, with learning environments prioritizing learners and their processes, and instructional environments emphasizing the materials provided (Grabowski, 2013).
Key Instructional Models Through the Lens of Merrill's First Principles of Instruction
Merrill's First Principles of Instruction (FPI) provide a foundational framework for evaluating and enhancing a wide range of instructional models. Process models such as ADDIE, SAM, and AGILE offer the structure and iterative design needed to embed FPI effectively. Frameworks like Gagné’s Nine Events, Bloom’s Taxonomy, and Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels serve as complementary lenses, aligning specific instructional events, cognitive processes, and evaluation criteria with FPI. Merrill’s own Pebble-in-the-Pond model represents the most direct application of FPI, beginning with a real-world problem (the pebble) and expanding outward through ripple-like tasks that emphasize demonstration, application, and integration, all supported by instructional resources.
FPI principles emphasize activation, demonstration, application, and integration, and can be applied across a wide range of teaching contexts. Research has shown that the application of FPI positively correlates with instructional quality, as evidenced by studies that developed instruments to identify their use in blended learning environments (Truong et al., 2019).
Empirical findings further indicate that FPI can significantly enhance student outcomes. For instance, in three graduate-level courses, the implementation of FPI resulted in measurable improvements in mastery, satisfaction, and perceptions of course tasks. These results suggest that embedding FPI within instructional design enhances the effectiveness of models focused on media, interactivity, and learning management systems (McBride et al., 2024).
Merrill’s work also underscores the dynamic interplay between structure, guidance, coaching, and reflection within instructional design. This balance is crucial for supporting a simple-to-complex progression in problem identification and resolution—an approach central to both problem-based and task-based learning (Demetrion, 2024). Differences in emphasis across Merrill’s earlier and later works reveal the adaptability of FPI, further reinforcing their applicability across diverse instructional strategies.
In sum, Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction provide a powerful lens for examining and enhancing instructional models. Their adaptability and focus on learner engagement improve educational outcomes and also deepen understanding of effective teaching practice.
Instructional Models that Align with Merrill's First Principles
FPI has been associated with several prominent instructional design models that emphasize effective teaching and learning strategies. Among these, the ADDIE model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) is frequently highlighted in instructional design literature as a structured process that readily incorporates FPI (Valiathan, 2022). Similarly, Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction and Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model support the activation, demonstration, application, and integration phases central to Merrill’s framework (Valiathan, 2022).
Studies confirm that the effective application of FPI enhances instructional quality. For example, research on blended learning validated an instrument designed to measure the use of FPI, establishing both its reliability and the positive relationship between FPI and instructional outcomes (Valiathan, 2022). These findings emphasize the importance of rigorous application and assessment of FPI to maximize their effectiveness across varied contexts (Merrill et al., 2008).
Thus, while models such as ADDIE, Gagné’s framework, and Kolb’s cycle align closely with Merrill’s principles, the literature stresses that their impact depends on intentional and systematic application.
Implementing Merrill's First Principles in Practice
According to Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction (FPI), these principles foster instruction that is effective, efficient, and engaging (Merrill et al., 2023; Molenda, 2002). Implementation begins with activation, connecting new content to learners’ prior experiences to build a foundation for understanding. The demonstration phase follows, where clear examples, visualizations, or simulations help students grasp new concepts (Molenda, 2002; Mendenhall, 2012). During application, learners practice in structured settings that encourage experimentation, feedback, and refinement of skills. Finally, integration allows learners to connect new knowledge to authentic contexts, supporting transfer beyond the classroom (Molenda, 2002; Hoffman, 2014).
Educators should also remain mindful of challenges that may affect implementation, such as institutional requirements, available resources, and learner readiness (Mendenhall, 2012). Ongoing reflection and feedback are essential to refining practice and ensuring that FPI are applied effectively (Reigeluth, 1987).
In short, by deliberately and consistently applying Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction, educators can foster deeper engagement, strengthen learning outcomes, and better prepare students for real-world challenges.
SOURCES AND REFERENCES:
Abengoza, G. B., Agubang, J. C., Bagayawa, M. L. S., Berjuela, M. H., Calagoyo, E. I., & Montales, C. L. B. (2025). Use of SAM in developing instructional numeracy materials. American Journal of Education and Technology, 4(1), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajet.v4i1.4256
Abuhassna, H., Alnawajha, S., Awae, F., Adnan, M. a. B. M., & Edwards, B. I. (2024). Synthesizing technology integration within the Addie model for instructional design: A comprehensive systematic literature review. Journal of Autonomous Intelligence, 7(5), 1546. https://doi.org/10.32629/jai.v7i5.1546
Alliger, G. M., & Janak, E. A. (1989). KIRKPATRICK’S LEVELS OF TRAINING CRITERIA: THIRTY YEARS LATER. Personnel Psychology, 42(2), 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00661.x
Bümen, N.T. (2010). Program Geliştirmede Bir Dönüm Noktası: Yenilenmiş Bloom Taksonomisi.
Clark, A.C., & Ernst, J.V. (2010). Engineering and Technical Graphics Education; Using the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy.
Bauer, M., & Goehlich, M. (2020). 60 years later - Testing Kirkpatrick’s 4-Level evaluation model on an Extra-Occupational Master Program. Journal of Education and Human Development, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v9n4a3
Crawford, C. (2004). Non‐linear instructional design model: eternal, synergistic design and development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 413–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00400.x
Demetrion, G. (2024). Critical Probes into the Instructional Design Literature : Reading M. David Merrill from an Outsider’s Perspective (2024th edition). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57069-8
Demetrion, G. (2024). First Principles of Instruction. In: Critical Probes into the Instructional Design Literature. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57069-8_5
Erickson, A. (2018). Agile Development in Instructional Design: A Case Study at BYU Independent Study.
Fernandez, M. G., Guglielmone, M. V. G., Mariño, S. I., & Barrios, W. G. (2020). Agility in instructional design. Strengthening of digital skills in incoming students at FACENA-UNNE. In Communications in computer and information science (pp. 124–136). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48325-8_9
Gawlik-Kobylinska, M. (2018). Reconciling ADDIE and Agile instructional design models—case study. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(3), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.18844/prosoc.v5i3.3906
Grabowski, B.L. (2013). Generative Learning Contributions to the Design of Instruction and Learning. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609519-39
Habib, S. (2024). EFFECT OF GAGNE’S EVENTS OF INSTRUCTION ON ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF POSTGRADUATE FCPS RESIDENTS IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY. Journal of Ayub Medical College Abbottabad, 36(4 (Suppl 1)), 855–858. https://doi.org/10.55519/jamc-s4-14168
Hanafy, M. S. (2014). Konsep Belajar Dan Pembelajaran. Lentera Pendidikan Jurnal Ilmu Tarbiyah Dan Keguruan, 17(1), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.24252/lp.2014v17n1a5
Hoffman, E. S. (2014). Beyond the Flipped Classroom: Redesigning a Research Methods Course for e[superscript3] Instruction. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (Littleton, Colo.), 7(1), 51.
International Journal on E-learning, 18(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.70725/962362dtwhzr
Jaesam Chung. (2014). Why Are First Principles of Instruction? 한국교육공학회 학술대회발표자료집, 2014(2), 123.
Kirkpatrick, D.L. (2009). Evaluating Training Programs : The Four Levels.
Mendenhall, A. M. (2012). Examining the use of First Principles of Instruction by instructional designers in a short-term, high volume, rapid production of online K--12 teacher professional development modules. The Florida State University.
Merrill, M. D., Barclay, M., Schaak, A. van, Spector, J. M., van Merriënboer, J., & Driscoll, M. P. (2008). Prescriptive Principles for Instructional Design. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (3rd ed., pp. 173–184). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880869-16
Mendenhall, A. M. (2012). Examining the use of First Principles of Instruction by instructional designers in a short-term, high volume, rapid production of online K--12 teacher professional development modules. The Florida State University.
Merrill, M. D., Zumbach, J., Narciss, S., Bernstein, D. A., & Marsico, G. (2023). First Principles of Instruction Revisited. In International Handbook of Psychology Learning and Teaching (pp. 1201–1233). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28745-0_56
Mcbride, R., Meeder, R., Bentley, J., & Cropper, M. (2024). Reflections on how M.
David Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction (FPI) Can Transform Student Learning. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design. https://doi.org/10.59668/1269.15631
McNeill, L., & Fitch, D. (2022). Microlearning through the Lens of Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction: A Qualitative Study. TechTrends, 67(3), 521–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00805-x
Molenda, M. (2002). A New Framework for Teaching in the Cognitive Domain. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology, Syracuse University.
Näsström, G., & Stenlund, T. (2006). Bloom’s revised taxonomy. In ECTS assessment in higher education: Conference proceedings (pp. 106–107). Umeå University. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-14508
Jung, H., Kim, Y. R., Lee, H., & Shin, Y. (2019). Advanced Instructional Design for Successive E-learning: based on the Successive Approximation Model (SAM).
Peterson, C. (2003). Bringing ADDIE to Life: Instructional Design at Its Best. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12, 227-241.
Reinbold, S. (2013). Using the ADDIE Model in Designing Library Instruction. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 32(3), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2013.806859
Rink, J.E. (2012). Instruction from a Learning Perspective. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203487150-16
Reigeluth, C. M. (1987). Introduction. In Instructional Theories in Action (1st ed., pp. 1–10). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203056783-1
Szabo, D. A. (2022). Use of digital e-learning technologies through the application of the SAM instructional design model in online medical education. Geosport for Society, 16(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.30892/gss.1604-082
Truong, M. T., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2019). Implementing Merrill’s first principles of instruction: Practice and identification. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 9(2), 14–28. https://research.ebsco.com/c/5k6qp7/viewer/pdf/gk5s5joaln?route=details
Tutkun, Ö. (2013). AN OVERVIEW ON BLOOM'S REVISED TAKSONOMY. DergiPark (Istanbul University). https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.47552
Ullah, H., Rehman, A.U., & Bibi, S. (2015). GAGNÉ'S 9 EVENTS OF INSTRUCTION - A TIME TESTED WAY TO IMPROVE TEACHING. Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal, 65, 535-539.
