firsttry

The Four-Component

Instructional Design Model

An Overview of its Main Design Principles

Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer

Maastricht University

The Netherlands

The Four-Component

Instructional Design Model

An Overview of its Main Design Principles

Author

Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer

Publisher

School of Health Professions Education

Faculty of Health, Medicine and

Life Sciences

Maastricht University

The Netherlands

2019

ISBN

978-94-6380-600-8

License

This work is licensed under a Creative

Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0

International License.

Design

Jimmy Frerejean

Fonts: Fira Sans / Merriweather

Cover graphic: ‘hand painted circle’

he four-component instructional

design model (4C/ID) receives a lot of

attention because it nicely ts cur-

rent trends in education: (a) a focus on the

development of complex skills or profes-

sional competencies, (b) increasing trans-

fer of what is learned in school to new

situations including the workplace, and (c)

the development of 21

century skills that

are important for lifelong

learning.

The 4C/ID model has been extensively de-

scribed in scientic articles (e.g., van Mer-

riënboer, Clark, & de Croock, 2002;

Vandewaetere, Manhaeve, Aertgeerts,

Clarebout, van Merriënboer, & Roex, 2015)

and two books in the English language:

Training Complex Cognitive Skills (van

Merriënboer, 1997) and Ten Steps to Com-

plex Learning (van Merriënboer &

Kirschner, 2018).

The aim of this report is to give a concise

description of the main characteristics of

the 4C/ID model. First, a description will be

given of the four components from which

competence-based education is build. Sec-

ond, it will be briey explained how an inte-

grated curriculum based on the four

components helps to reach transfer of

learning. Third, a description is given of the

systematic 4C/ID design process, with a fo-

cus on the main instructional design princi-

ples that are prescribed by the model. The

report ends with a short discussion posi-

tioning the 4C/ID model in the eld of edu-

cational sciences.

The Four

Components

The 4C/ID model aims to help instructional

designers with the development of educa-

tional programs for teaching complex skills

or professional competencies. It describes

educational programs as being built from

four components: (1) learning tasks, (2)

supportive information, (3) procedural in-

formation, and (4) part-task practice (see

Figure 1).

Component 1: Learning Tasks

Learning tasks are treated as the backbone

of an educational program (see the large

green circles in Figure 1). They can be cases,

projects, professional tasks, problems or

assignments that learners work on. They

will perform these tasks in a simulated task

environment and/or a real-life task envi-

ronment (e.g., the workplace). A simulated

task environment can have a very low -

delity, for example, when a case is pre-

sented on paper (“suppose you are a doctor

and a patient is coming into our room….”)

or when a role play is performed in the

classroom, but it can also have a very high

delity, like a high-delity simulator of an

aircraft for training pilots or an emergency

room for training trauma care teams.

Learning tasks are preferably based on

whole tasks that make an appeal on knowl-

edge, skills and attitudes that are needed for

performing tasks in the future profession or

in daily life. In addition, they require both

non-routine skills such as problem solving,

reasoning and decision making, and routine

skills which are always performed in the

same way (van Merriënboer, 2013). Learn-

ing tasks drive a basic learning process that

is known as inductive learning – students

learn by doing and by being confronted with

concrete experiences.

Variability. Eective inductive learning will

only be possible when there is variability

over learning tasks (indicated by the small

triangles in the learning tasks in Figure 1).

That is, learning tasks must be dierent

from each other on all dimensions on which

tasks in the later profession or in daily life

are also dierent from each other. Only

then, it will be possible for students to con-

struct cognitive schemas that generalize or

abstract away from the concrete experi-

ences; such schemas are critical for reach-

Procedural Information

• Is prerequisite to the learning and performance of routine

aspects of learning tasks

• Precisely species how to perform routine aspects of the task,

e.g., through step-by-step instruction

• Is presented just in time during work on the learning tasks

and quickly fades away as learners acquire more expertise

Supportive Information

• Supports the learning and performance of non-

routine aspects of learning tasks

• Explains how to approach problems in a domain

(cognitive strategies) and how this domain is

organized (mental models)

• Is specied per task class and always available

Part-task Practice

• Provides additional practice for selected routine

aspects to reach a very high level of automaticity

• Provides a huge amount of repetition

• Only starts after the routine aspect has

been introduced in the context of the whole task

Learning Tasks

• Aim at integration of (non-routine and routine) skills,

knowledge, and attitudes

• Provide authentic, whole-task experiences based on real-life tasks

• Are organized in simple-to-complex task classes and have

diminishing support in each task class (scaffolding)

• Show high variability of practice

Figure 1: The four components.

ing transfer of learning (van Merriënboer,

2012). They represent which features of a

learning task do not aect the way it should

be performed (i.e., surface features) and

which features do aect the way it should be

performed (i.e., structural features).

Levels of Complexity. To prevent cognitive

overload, students will typically begin to

work on relatively simple learning tasks

and, as their expertise increases, work on

more and more complex tasks (van Mer-

riënboer & Sweller, 2005, 2010). There are

thus levels of complexity with equally di-

cult tasks (see the dotted dark green lines

encompassing a set of equally complex

learning tasks in Figure 1). But tasks at the

same level of complexity must dier from

each other on all dimensions on which real-

life tasks also dier from each other. Con-

sequently, there must be variability of prac-

tice on each level of complexity. At the rst

level of complexity, students will be con-

fronted with learning tasks that are based

on the easiest tasks a professional might

encounter; at the highest level of complex-

ity, students will be confronted with the

most dicult tasks a beginning profes-

sional must be able to handle, and addi-

tional levels of complexity may be added in

between in order to guarantee a gradual in-

crease of complexity over levels.

Support and Guidance. Students will often

receive support and guidance when they are

working on the learning tasks (see the ll-

ing of the large circles in Figure 1). When

students start to work on more complex

tasks, thus, progress to a higher level of

complexity, they will initially receive a lot

of support and guidance. On one particular

level of complexity, support and guidance

will gradually decrease in a process known

as ‘scaolding’ – as an analogy of a scaold

that is broken down when the building is

constructed (van Merriënboer, Kirschner, &

Kester, 2003). When students are able to

perform the last learning tasks at a particu-

lar level of complexity independently,

without any support or guidance (i.e.,

‘empty’ learning tasks without any lling in

Figure 1), they are ready to progress to a

next level of complexity. Then, the process

of scaolding will start all over again,

yielding a saw-tooth pattern of support and

guidance throughout the whole educational

program. Support can be given through

dierent types of learning tasks, for exam-

ple, on one particular level of complexity,

students can rst study worked-out exam-

ples or case studies, then complete increas-

ingly larger parts of given incomplete

solutions, and only at the end fully perform

the tasks by themselves (Renkl & Atkinson,

2003). Guidance can be given by a teacher

who guides the students through the

process of performing the task, or by exter-

nal aids such as process worksheets in

which ‘leading questions’ are asked to

guide the students through the process of

performing the tasks (Nadolski, Kirschner,

& van Merriënboer, 2006).

Component 2:

Supportive Information

Learning tasks typically make an appeal on

both non-routine and routine skills, which

might be performed simultaneously. Sup-

portive information (indicated by the blue

L-shaped forms in Figure 1) helps students

with performing the non-routine aspects of

learning tasks, which require problem solv-

ing, reasoning and/or decision making.

Teachers often call this information ‘the

theory’ because it is typically presented in

study books, lectures and online resources.

It describes how the task domain is orga-

nized and how problems in the domain can

be approached in a systematic fashion (i.e.,

how the actions of the task performer are

organized in the domain).

The organization of the task domain is rep-

resented by the learner in cognitive

schemas known as mental models. In the

medical domain, for example, it pertains to

knowledge of symptoms of particular dis-

eases (conceptual models – what is this?),

knowledge of the build of the human body

(structural models – how is this built?), and

knowledge of the working of the heart-lung

system and other organ systems (causal

models – how does this work?). The organi-

zation of own actions in the task domain is

represented by the learner in cognitive

schemas known as cognitive strategies.

Such strategies identify the subsequent

phases in a systematic problem-solving

process (e.g., diagnostic phase – treatment

phase – follow-up phase) as well as the

rules-of-thumb or heuristics that can be

helpful for successfully completing each

phase.

Supportive information provides the link

between what students already know (i.e.,

their prior knowledge) and what they need

to know in order to perform the non-rou-

tine aspects of learning tasks. Instructional

methods for the presentation of supportive

information facilitate the construction of

cognitive schemas in a process of elabora-

tion. That is, the information is presented

in such a way that it helps learners to estab-

lish meaningful relationships between

newly presented information elements and

the knowledge they already possess in

memory (van Merriënboer, Kirschner, &

Kester, 2003). This is a form of deep pro-

cessing, yielding rich cognitive schemas

(i.e., mental models and cognitive strate-

gies) that enable the learner to understand

new phenomena and to approach unfamil-

iar problems. The provision of cognitive

feedback plays an important role in this

process. This feedback stimulates learners

to critically compare their own mental

models and cognitive strategies with those

of others, including experts, teachers and

peer learners.

The supportive information is identical for

all learning tasks at the same level of com-

plexity, because these tasks are equally

dicult and thus make an appeal on the

same knowledge base. Therefore, the sup-

portive information in Figure 1 is not con-

nected to individual learning tasks but to

levels of complexity; it can be presented be-

fore learners start to work on the learning

tasks (under the motto ‘rst the theory and

only then start to practice’) and/or it can be

consulted by learners who are already

working on the learning tasks (under the

motto ‘only consult the theory when

needed’). The supportive information for

each next level of complexity is an exten-

sion or enrichment of the previously pre-

sented information – the additional

information allows students to perform

more complex tasks they were not able to

complete before. The organization from

simple to more and more complex tasks,

coupled to increasingly more detailed

knowledge of the domain, has also been

called the ‘spiral curriculum’ (Bruner,

1960).

Component 3:

Procedural Information

Procedural information (in Figure 1, the

yellow beam with arrows pointing upwards

to the learning tasks) helps students with

performing the routine aspects of learning

tasks, that is, aspects that are always per-

formed in the same fashion. Procedural in-

formation is also called just-in-time

information, because it is best provided

during the performance of particular learn-

ing tasks. It typically has the form of ‘how-

to’ or ‘step-by-step’ instructions that are

given to the learner by a teacher or user

guide, telling how to perform the routine

aspects of the task while doing it. The ad-

vantage of a teacher over a user guide is that

the teacher can act as an ‘assistant looking

over your shoulder’ and give instructions

and corrective feedback on precisely the

moment it is needed by the learner for cor-

rectly performing the task. Procedural in-

formation for a particular routine aspect is

preferably presented to the learner the rst

time he or she must perform this aspect as

part of a learning task. For subsequent

tasks, the presentation of procedural infor-

mation is gradually faded because the need

for it diminishes as the learner is slowly

mastering the routine.

Procedural information is always specied

at a basic level that can be understood by the

lowest ability learners. Instructional meth-

ods for the presentation of procedural in-

formation aim at a learning process that is

known as rule formation: Learners use

how-to instructions to form cognitive rules

that couple particular – cognitive – actions

to particular conditions (e.g., IF you work

on an electrical installation THEN rst dis-

connect the fuses). After extensive practice,

cognitive rules become automated schemas

that enable learners to perform routine as-

pects fast, errorless and without conscious

control (Anderson, 1987). Rule formation is

facilitated when knowledge that is prereq-

uisite to the correct use of how-to instruc-

tions is presented together with those

instructions (e.g., prerequisite knowledge

for the presented rule is: You can probably

nd the fuses in the meter board). Thus,

when a learner is performing a learning

task that contains routine aspects in the

perceptual motor domain, a good teacher

will tell the learner just-in-time what to

look at and how to operate instruments and

objects, and also make sure that the learner

has the knowledge that is prerequisite to

correctly following the how-to instruc-

tions.

Component 4:

Part-task Practice

Learning tasks make an appeal on both

non-routine and routine aspects of a com-

plex skill or professional competency; as a

rule, they provide enough practice for

learning the routine aspects. Part-task

practice of routine aspects (the small yellow

circles in Figure 1) is only needed when a

very high level of automaticity of routine

aspects is needed, and when the learning

tasks do not provide the required amount of

practice. Familiar examples of part-task

practice are practicing the multiplication

tables of 1 to 10 in primary school (in addi-

tion to whole arithmetic tasks such as pay-

ing in a shop or measuring the area of a

oor), practicing the musical scales when

playing an instrument (in addition to whole

tasks such as playing musical pieces), or

practicing physical examination skills in a

medical program (in addition to whole

tasks such as intake of patients).

Instructional methods for part-task prac-

tice aim at the strengthening of cognitive

rules by extensive repetitive practice.

Strengthening is a basic learning process

that ultimately leads to fully automated

cognitive schemas (Anderson, 1993). It is

important to start part-task-practice in a

fruitful cognitive context, that is, after

learners have been confronted with the

routine aspect in the context of a whole,

meaningful learning task. Then, the learn-

ers will understand how practicing the rou-

tine aspects might help them improve their

performance on the whole tasks. The pro-

cedural information specifying how to per-

form the routine aspect can be presented in

the context of whole learning tasks, but in

addition it can be presented again during

part-task practice (in Figure 1, see the long

upward pointing arrow from procedural in-

formation to part-task practice). Part-task

practice is best mingled with the work on

the learning tasks (intermix training;

Schneider, 1985), yielding a highly inte-

grated knowledge base.

The Integrated

Curriculum and

Transfer of Learning

The four components are aimed at four ba-

sic learning processes: (1) Learning tasks

facilitate inductive learning, (2) supportive

information facilitates elaboration, (3) pro-

cedural information facilitates rule forma-

tion, and (4) part-task practice facilitates

strengthening of those rules. In an inte-

grated curriculum, the relationships be-

tween the four components and associated

learning processes take a central position.

The supportive information is coupled to

sets of equally complex learning tasks that

show variability over surface and structural

features and it is available to students be-

fore and/or during their work on the learn-

ing tasks; the procedural information is

coupled to individual learning tasks and

preferably presented to students just-in-

time, precisely when they need it to cor-

rectly perform the routine aspects of tasks;

part-task practice is only presented for

routine aspects that need to become fully

automated, it is introduced after the routine

aspect has been introduced in the context of

a meaningful learning task and is best

mixed with the work on subsequent learn-

ing tasks. An integrated curriculum can best

be seen as a skeleton: The learning tasks

serve as its backbone and the other three

components are coupled to this backbone in

such a way that they best support the devel-

opment of the complex skills or profes-

sional competency taught. Suboptimal

relationships between the four components

will jeopardize the coherence of the educa-

tional program and thus hamper students’

schema construction and schema automa-

tion.

According to the 4C/ID model, an integrated

curriculum is a prerequisite for reaching

transfer of learning, that is, to ensure that

learners are able to apply the things they

have learned to new situations inside and

outside the educational program (in partic-

ular, the workplace). There are three rea-

sons for this (van Merriënboer, Kester, &

Paas, 2006). First, whole meaningful learn-

ing tasks that aim at the development of

knowledge, skills and attitudes (i.e., ‘inte-

grative objectives’, Gagne & Merrill, 1990)

help learners construct a rich, integrated

knowledge base, which increases the

chance that useful knowledge can be found

in memory when facing new situations.

Second, the ordering of learning tasks from

simple to complex, in combination with a

gradual decrease of support and guidance

on each level of complexity, helps students

learn to coordinate the dierent aspects of

performance; such coordination is also

needed to strategically combine acquired

skills, knowledge and attitudes in new

problem situations. Third, the distinction

between non-routine and routine aspects of

complex skills enables learners to perform

the selected routine aspects, after part-task

practice, fast and eortlessly; as a result,

they have more cognitive resources avail-

able to deal with the non-familiar aspects

of new problem situations (reasoning,

problem solving, decision making) and to

reect on the quality of found solutions

(van Merriënboer, 2013).

Design Process and

Principles

Five clusters of activities can be distin-

guished when designing educational pro-

grams from the four components. For each

activity, 4C/ID prescribes a number of evi-

dence-informed design principles. The ac-

tivities are:

1. Design learning tasks (green elements in

Figure 2). Learning tasks are typically de-

signed on the basis of real-life tasks from

the profession or daily life. Design princi-

ples relate to level of realism, delity, vari-

ability, support, and guidance. Dierent

types of learning tasks can be distin-

guished, such as conventional tasks (where

learners must nd a solution), completion

tasks (where learners must complete a par-

tially given solution) or worked-out exam-

ples (where learners must study a given

solution).

2. Set standards for acceptable perfor-

mance (darker green elements). Students

who work on learning tasks need feedback

and their performance will be assessed.

Performance objectives are based on a skills

hierarchy, and describe for all dierent as-

pects of performance the standards (crite-

ria, values, attitudes) that must be reached

by the learners. Assessment instruments

contain scoring rubrics for all those stan-

dards.

3. Sequence learning tasks (darkest green

elements). Learning tasks are ordered from

simple to increasingly more complex levels,

using either a whole-task or part-task ap-

proach. If assessment information is avail-

able on student progress (step 2 above), this

can be used to develop individualized learn-

ing trajectories or to give self-directed

learners advice on the learning tasks they

should best select.

Sequence

learning

tasks

Design

performance

assessments

Design

learning

tasks

Whole

tasks

Analyze

mental

models

Analyze

cognitive

strategies

Design

supportive

information

Non-routine

aspects

Analyze

prerequisite

knowledge

Analyze

cognitive

rules

Design

part-task

practice

Design

procedural

information

Routine

aspects

Figure 2: Five clusters of activities in the 4C/ID design process.

4. Design supportive information for non-

routine aspects (blue elements). Supportive

information helps learners to perform non-

routine aspects of learning tasks and pro-

vides them with domain models (aimed at

the development of mental models), sys-

tematic approaches to problem solving

(aimed at the development of cognitive

strategies), and cognitive feedback. Some-

times, an in-depth analysis of to-be-ac-

quired mental models and cognitive

strategies is necessary.

5. Design procedural information and

part-task practice for routine aspects (yel-

low elements). Procedural information tells

learners how to perform routine aspects of

learning tasks and provides them with

how-to instructions (aimed at the develop-

ment of cognitive rules) and corrective

feedback. Sometimes, an in-depth analysis

of to-be-acquired cognitive rules and pre-

requisite knowledge is necessary. Part-task

practice is designed when a very high level

of automaticity of selected routine aspects

is required.

Design Learning Tasks

Table 1 presents the main principles for the

design of learning tasks. First, real-life

tasks from the profession or from daily life

should be taken as a starting point for the

design of learning tasks. Such real-life

tasks typically make an appeal on skills,

knowledge as well as attitudes and thus

help the learners develop complex skills or

professional competencies. Second, learn-

ing tasks will typically be performed by the

learners in either a simulated or the real

task environment. In order to provide a safe

environment for learning and to protect

novice learners from processing too many

irrelevant details, one might work from

low-delity environments (e.g., paper

based cases, role play), via higher delity

environments (computer-based simula-

tion, high-delity simulation) to real-life

task performance at the workplace. Third, it

is critical that learning tasks in the educa-

tional program dier from each other on all

dimensions on which real-life tasks also

dier from each other, thus, the learning

tasks must be representative for all tasks a

professional encounters in the real world.

LT1

Realism

Take meaningful whole tasks from the profession or from daily life as a start-

ing point for the design of learning tasks; preferably, these tasks make an

appeal on knowledge, skills and attitudes.

LT2

Fidelity

Throughout the educational program, there is a smooth transition from

working in a safe simulated task environment, via task environments with in-

creasingly higher delity, to real-life practice.

LT3

Variability

Learning tasks in an educational program must differ from each other on all

dimensions on which real-life tasks also differ from each other, thus, the

whole set of learning tasks must be representative for real-life task perfor-

mance.

LT4

Support

Provide learners support by giving them learning tasks that do not require

them to independently perform the total task, for example, have them study

examples or demonstrations or let them complete partially given solutions.

LT5

Guidance

Provide learners guidance for performing the learning tasks by providing

them with a systematic approach to problem solving, rules of thumb, or

process worksheets.

LT6

Scaffolding

Gradually decrease the amount of given support and guidance as students

acquire more expertise, until they are able to perform the learning tasks

without any support and guidance.

Table 1: Design Principles for Learning Tasks.

This is true for both surface features, which

do not aect the way the task is performed,

and structural features, which do aect the

way the task is performed. Fourth and fth,

learners who work on learning tasks should

initially receive sizable support and/or

guidance. Support is ‘built into’ the tasks

and relates to the use of worked out exam-

ples or case studies, completion tasks,

goal-free problems, reverse tasks, imita-

tion tasks, and so forth. Guidance is ‘added’

to the task and relates to guidance provided

by a teacher or a process worksheet with

leading questions. It helps the learner to

apply an eective cognitive strategy by fol-

lowing a systematic approach to problem

solving. Finally, there should be a process of

‘scaolding’ on each level of complexity,

meaning that there is a gradual decrease of

support and guidance as students acquire

more expertise, until they are able to per-

form the learning tasks independently,

without any support and guidance. But

then, learners might continue to work on

tasks at a higher level of complexity, and

the process of scaolding starts all over

again – yielding a saw tooth pattern of sup-

port and guidance throughout the whole

educational program.

Set Standards for Acceptable

Performance

Table 2 presents the main principles for

setting standards for acceptable perfor-

mance. Such standards are necessary to as-

sess learners’ performance on learning

tasks and to provide them with feedback.

First, a skills hierarchy or competence map

is drawn up to identify all constituent skills

that make up eective task performance;

non-routine constituent skills will be at the

top of the hierarchy and routine constituent

skills might appear in the bottom of the hi-

erarchy. This hierarchy or map provides an

overview of all aspects on which student

performance can be assessed. Second, per-

formance objectives are formulated for all

identied constituent skills: They contain

an action verb to characterize the selected

aspect of performance, the conditions un-

der which this performance takes place, ob-

jects and tools that are used by the task

performer, and standards for acceptable

performance. Third, these performance ob-

jectives can be classied as non-routine,

meaning that they relate to schema-based

problem solving and reasoning and need

the presentation of supportive information;

ST1

Skills hierarchy

Make a hierarchy or map of constituent skills enabling the complex skill or

professional competency that is taught. This provides an overview of all rele-

vant aspects of performance.

ST2

Performance

objectives

Formulate performance objectives for all constituent skills in the skills hier-

archy, containing an action verb, conditions, tools/objects used, and stan-

dards for acceptable performance.

ST3

Classify

objectives

Classify objectives as non-routine (requiring supportive information), rou-

tines (requiring procedural information), or fully automated routines (also

requiring part-task practice).

ST4

Specify

standards

For each objective, specify the standards for acceptable performance in

terms of criteria (e.g., allotted time, accuracy), values (e.g., according to par-

ticular conventions), and attitudes.

ST5

Performance

assessment

Develop an assessment instrument with scoring rubrics for all standards, al-

lowing you to measure student performance on (learning) tasks as well as

progress over tasks.

Table 2: Design Principles for Setting Standards for Acceptable Performance.

routine, meaning that they relate to the ap-

plication of rules or procedures and need

the presentation of procedural information,

or to-be-automated routine, meaning that

they not only need the presentation of pro-

cedural information but also of part-task

practice. Fourth, standards are further

specied and may relate to hard criteria

(time, errors), values (according to particu-

lar regulations or conventions) and desired

attitudes. Finally, scoring rubrics can be de-

veloped for all identied standards and

combined in an assessment instrument

such as a development portfolio. A develop-

ment portfolio makes it possible to assess

the performance of a learner on all aspects

that are relevant for a particular learning

task, and to monitor learner progress over a

series of learning tasks (van Merriënboer &

van der Vleuten, 2012).

Sequence Learning Tasks

Table 3 describes the main principles for the

sequencing of learning tasks from simple to

complex. First, by default, a form of whole-

task sequencing is used. Then, even the

simplest learning tasks at the lowest level of

complexity are based on the simplest tasks

a professional might encounter in the real

world. In the ‘simplifying conditions ap-

proach’, all conditions that simplify task

performance are identied and applied to

tasks at the lowest level of complexity; for

increasingly higher levels of complexity,

the conditions are relaxed. Second, if it

proves impossible to nd whole tasks that

are simple enough to start with in the edu-

cational program, part-task sequencing is

used. According to 4C/ID, the preferred

part-task sequencing approach is ‘back-

ward chaining with snowballing’. Suppose

that students learn computer programming

which consists of three constituent skills:

A = program design, B = coding, and C = de-

bugging. At the lowest level of complexity,

learners would then debug ready-made

computer programs given their design and

code (C

); at a medium level of complexity,

they would code and debug computer pro-

grams given their design (BC

), and only at

the highest level of complexity, they would

design, code and debug computer programs

from scratch (ABC). Third, sequencing of

learning tasks need not be identical for all

learners. Given assessment results, it is

possible to create individualized learning

trajectories. Learners who quickly reach the

standards will then receive more complex

tasks with less support and guidance than

learners who need more time to reach those

standards, and they will thus also proceed

more quickly through the series of learning

tasks and reach the nal attainment level

after a shorter period of time/number of

CL1

Whole-task

sequencing

Identify conditions that simplify task performance, and use these conditions

to sequence learning tasks from the simplest level to increasingly more com-

plex levels.

CL2

Backward

chaining

If necessary, use backward chaining with snowballing; if the whole task is

ABC, learners rst practice C given results of A and B, then practice BC given

results of A, and nally practice ABC.

CL3

Individualization

Use student assessment results to set up individualized learning trajectories;

learning tasks are selected on a level of difculty and with a level of support

/guidance tting individual learning needs.

CL4

Self-directed

learning

Give learners control over the selection of learning tasks; second-order scaf-

folding gradually shifts the responsibility over task selection from the

teacher to the student.

Table 3: Design Principles for Sequencing Learning Tasks on Complexity Levels.

learning tasks (Salden, Paas, & van Mer-

riënboer, 2006). Fourth, assessment results

may also be used to support a process of

self-directed learning, which is a key 21

century skill. Then, learners are free to se-

lect their own learning tasks but receive ad-

vice on the selection process given their

assessment results (van Merriënboer &

Sluijsmans, 2009).

Design Supportive Information

for Non-routine Aspects

Table 4 describes the main principles for

designing supportive information, which

helps learners to perform and learn non-

routine aspects of learning tasks. First, a

distinction is made between necessary do-

main models, systematic approaches to

problem solving, and cognitive feedback.

Second, with regard to domain models, a

further distinction is made between con-

ceptual models, which describe what things

are important in the domain and how they

are named (what is this?), structural mod-

els, which describe how things are orga-

nized or structured in the domain (how is

this built?), and causal models, which de-

scribe how things work in the domain (how

does this work?). Domain models are illus-

trated with concrete examples or cases. Of-

ten, descriptions of domain models and il-

lustrations of them will be available in

existing instructional materials. But if not,

it may be necessary to analyze the mental

models of experts in the task domain in a

process of cognitive task analysis (CTA; see

Clark, Feldon, van Merriënboer, Yates, &

Early, 2008) in order to dene the domain

models that must be presented to learners.

Third, with regard to systematic ap-

proaches to problem solving or SAPs, a de-

scription is given of the phases a task

performer goes through when systemati-

cally performing the task. For each phase,

rules-of-thumb or heuristics are provided

that might help to successfully complete

this phase. SAPs are illustrated with so-

called modeling examples, that is, an expert

showing how to systematically approach a

problem and explaining why he is doing

what he is doing; here, it is important to

make hidden problem-solving processes

explicit to the learners (van Gog, Paas, &

van Merriënboer, 2006). Again, descrip-

tions of SAPs and illustrative modeling ex-

amples might already be available in

existing instructional materials, but if not,

CTA will help to identify them. Fourth, cog-

nitive feedback needs to be provided to the

learners. It is seen as part of supportive in-

SI1

Supportive information

Supportive information helps students perform non-routine aspects of

learning tasks. It contains domain models, systematic approaches to

problem solving (SAPs), and cognitive feedback.

SI2

Domain models and

mental models

Domain models describe how the learning domain is organized and in-

clude conceptual models, structural models and causal models. The

specication of domain models may require the analysis of mental

models of experts in the task domain.

SI3

SAPs and cognitive

strategies

SAPs describe successive phases in task performance and the rules-of-

thumb that may help to successfully complete each phase. The speci-

cation of SAPs may require the analysis of cognitive strategies of ex-

perts in the task domain.

SI4

Cognitive feedback

Cognitive feedback stimulates learners to critically compare their own

mental models and cognitive strategies with given domain models or

SAPs, or with the mental models and cognitive strategies of other per-

sons, including teachers, experts and peers.

Table 4: Design Principles for Supportive Information.

formation because it aims at elaboration as

the main learning process, which is con-

necting new information to what the

learner already knows. Well-designed cog-

nitive feedback stimulates learners to criti-

cally compare and contrast their own

mental models with presented domain

models or with the mental models of others

(experts, teachers, peers), and it stimulates

them to critically compare and contrast

their own cognitive strategies with pre-

sented SAPs or with the cognitive strategies

of others.

Design Procedural Information

and Part-task Practice for

Routine Aspects

Table 5 describes the main principles for

designing procedural information, which

helps learners perform and learn routine

aspects of learning tasks, and part-task

practice, which helps learners fully auto-

mate selected routine aspects. First, a dis-

tinction is made between necessary how-to

instructions and corrective feedback. Sec-

ond, with regard to how-to instructions, a

further distinction can be made between the

presentation of single rules, which specify

what to do under particular conditions, and

the presentation of procedures, which

specify how to perform a series of steps (of-

ten in the form of an algorithmic ow-

chart, which should not be confused with a

heuristic SAP). How-to instructions need to

be given just-in-time, precisely when the

learner needs them, by a teacher acting as

an ‘assistant looking over your shoulder’, a

manual, a quick reference guide or, nowa-

days, instructions on a smartphone. The in-

structions may need to include prerequisite

knowledge, that is, things the learner needs

to know in order to correctly perform the

rule or procedure. For example, when the

rule is ‘IF you start the procedure THEN

push the power button’ it may be necessary

to add: ‘the power button is red and can be

found on the back of the machine’. How-to

instructions are exemplied with concrete

demonstrations. How-to instructions and

demonstrations will often be available in

existing instructional materials, but if not,

CTA is used for their identication. Third,

corrective feedback needs to be given to

learners. If a rule or procedure is not cor-

rectly applied by them, immediate feedback

is provided that signies the error, explains

its cause, and provides hints on how to re-

cover from the error and continue with the

task. Fourth, if full automaticity of particu-

lar routine aspects is required, part-task

practice needs to be provided to the learn-

PP1

Procedural information

Procedural information helps students perform routine aspects of

learning tasks. It contains how-to instructions and corrective feedback.

PP2

How-to instructions,

cognitive rules, and

prerequisite knowl-

edge

How-to instructions tell just-in-time how to perform routine aspects of

learning tasks. The specication of how-to instructions may require the

analysis of cognitive rules used by experts in the task domain and the

knowledge prerequisite to the correct use of those rules.

PP3

Corrective feedback

Corrective feedback immediately signies an error, explains the cause

of the error, and provides hints on how to recover from the error and

continue with the task.

PP4

Part-task practice

Part-task practice helps to fully automate routine aspects of learning

tasks. It rst focuses on accuracy, then speed, and nally time-sharing

with other tasks.

Table 5: Design Principles for Procedural Information and Part-Task Practice.

ers. In part-task practice, learners rst

practice until they can perform the routine

without errors, then continue practicing

under increasing time pressure, and nally

continue practicing under time-sharing

conditions (i.e., they perform the routine

together with other tasks).

Discussion

This report provided a very short descrip-

tion of the main elements of the 4C/ID

model. The model is rooted in the early

1990s (van Merriënboer, Jelsma, & Paas,

1992). By that time, traditional objectives-

driven instructional design models were in-

creasingly criticized because students often

experienced their educational program as a

disconnected set of topics and courses, with

implicit relationships between them and

unclear relevance to their future profession.

This complaint prompted a new interest in

instructional design for integrative goals

(Gagné & Merrill, 1990), for example, when

complex skills or professional competen-

cies are taught. The traditional atomistic

approach, where complex contents and

tasks are reduced into simpler elements up

to a level where the single elements can be

transferred to learners through presenta-

tion and/or practice, was replaced by a

holistic approach, where complex contents

and tasks are taught from simple-to-com-

plex wholes in such a way that relationships

between elements are retained. The 4C/ID

model shares this perspective with other

whole-task instructional design models,

such as Cognitive Apprenticeship Learning

(Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989) and Mer-

rill’s First Principles of Instruction (Merrill,

2012; for an overview of whole-task mod-

els, see van Merriënboer & Kester, 2008).

Around the same time, in the 1990s, a so-

cial-constructivist approach to learning

became more and more popular, and it still

is today. The 4C/ID model adopts a moder-

ate constructivist approach. The basis for

an educational program is whole-task

practice, oering non-trivial, realistic and

increasingly more complex tasks (prob-

lems, projects, cases) to learners, and often

these tasks will be performed collabora-

tively. Schema construction by inductive

learning and elaboration are the main

learning processes. These processes are un-

der strategic control of the learners: They

actively construct meaning or new cogni-

tive schemas that allow for deep under-

standing and complex task performance.

Yet, the 4C/ID model also has some clear

‘instructivist’ features. These are readily

visible in the how-to instructions and cor-

rective feedback for routine aspects of

learning tasks, and in part-task practice for

routines that need to be developed to a very

high level of automaticity. In my view, the

learning sciences should acknowledge that

social constructivist and traditional ‘in-

structivist’ approaches rest on a common

psychological basis and should comple-

ment each other. The 4C/ID model aims to

combine the best of both worlds.

References

Anderson, J. R. (1987). Skill acquisition:

Compilation of weak-method problem

situations. Psychological Review, 94(2),

192–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-

295X.94.2.192

Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and

learning. American Psychologist, 48, 35–

44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-

066X.48.1.35

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P.

(1989). Situated cognition and the

culture of learning. Educational

Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. https://

doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Clark, R. E., Feldon, D., van Merriënboer, J.

J. G., Yates, K., & Early, S. (2008).

Cognitive task analysis. In J. M. Spector,

M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, &

M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of

research on educational communications

and technology (3

ed., pp. 577–593).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Gagné, R. M., & Merrill, M. D. (1990).

Integrative goals for instructional

design. Educational Technology Research

and Development, 38(1), 23–30. https://

doi.org/10.1007/BF02298245

Merrill, M. D. (2012). First principles of

instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeier.

Nadolski, R. J., Kirschner, P. A., & van

Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2006). Process

support in learning tasks for acquiring

complex cognitive skills in the domain

of law. Learning and Instruction, 16, 266–

278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learn-

instruc.2006.03.004

Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003).

Structuring the transition from example

study to problem solving in cognitive

skill acquisition: A cognitive load

perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38,

15–22. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532-

6985EP3801_3

Salden, R. J. C. M., Paas, F., & van

Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2006). Personalised

adaptive task selection in air trac

control: Eects on training eciency

and transfer. Learning and Instruction,

16, 350–362. https://doi.org/10.-1016/

j.learninstruc.2006.07.007

Schneider, W. (1985). Training high-

performance skills: Fallacies and

guidelines. Human Factors, 27, 285–300.

https://doi.org/

10.1177/001872088502700305

van Gog, T., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J.

J. G. (2006). Eects of process-oriented

worked examples on troubleshooting

transfer performance. Learning and

Instruction, 16, 154–164. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.003

van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training

complex cognitive skills: A four-component

instructional design model for technical

training. Englewood Clis, NJ:

Educational Technology Publications.

van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2012). Variability

of practice. In N. M. Seel (Ed.),

Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning

(pp. 3389–3390). https://doi.org/10.10-

07/978-1-4419-1428-6_415

van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013).

Perspectives on problem solving and

instruction. Computers & Education, 64,

153–160. https://doi.org/10.10-16/

j.compedu.2012.11.025

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & de

Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for

complex learning: The 4C/ID-model.

Educational Technology Research and

Development, 50, 39–61. https://doi.org/

10.1007/BF02504993

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Jelsma, O., & Paas,

F. G. W. C. (1992). Training for reective

expertise: A four-component

instructional design model for complex

cognitive skills. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 40(2), 23–43.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02297047

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kester, L.

(2008). Whole-task models in

education. In J. Michael Spector, M. D.

Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P.

Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on

educational communications and

technology (3

ed, pp. 441–456).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum/Routledge.

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kester, L., & Paas,

F. (2006). Teaching complex rather than

simple tasks: Balancing intrinsic and

germane load to enhance transfer of

learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology,

20, 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/

acp.1250

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A.

(2018). Ten steps to complex learning: A

systematic approach to four-component

instructional design (3rd ed.). New York:

Routledge.

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., &

Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load o a

learner’s mind: Instructional design for

complex learning. Educational

Psychologist, 38, 5–13. https://doi.org/

10.1207/s15326985e-p3801_2

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sluijsmans, D.

M. A. (2009). Toward a synthesis of

cognitive load theory, four-component

instructional design, and self-directed

learning. Educational Psychology Review,

21, 55–66. https://doi.org/10.10-07/

s10648-008-9092-5

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J.

(2005). Cognitive load theory and

complex learning: Recent developments

and future directions. Educational

Psychology Review, 17, 147–177. https://

doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J.

(2010). Cognitive load theory in health

professional education: Design

principles and strategies. Medical

Education, 44, 85–93. https://doi.org/

10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03498.x

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & van der Vleuten,

C. P. M. (2012). Technology-based

assessment in the integrated

curriculum. In M. C. Mayrath, J. Clarke-

Miruda, D. H. Robinson, & G. Schraw

(Eds.), Technology-based assessments for

century skills: Theoretical and practical

implications from modern research (pp.

345–370). Charlotte, NC: Information

Age Publishing.

Vandewaetere, M., Manhaeve, D.,

Aertgeerts, B., Clarebout, G., van

Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Roex, A. (2015).

4C/ID in medical education: How to

design an educational program based on

whole-task learning: AMEE Guide No.

93. Medical Teacher, 37, 4–20. https://

doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.928407