Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Guiding the design of lessons by using the MAPLET framework: matching aims, processes, learner expertise and technologies

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper introduces the MAPLET framework that was developed to map and link teaching aims, learning processes, learner expertise and technologies. An experimental study with 65 participants is reported to test the effectiveness of the framework as a guide to the design of lessons embedded within larger units of study. The findings indicate the potential of the MAPLET framework and reinforces the need to take a fresh approach to the design and development of curriculum that makes more effective use of the diminishing time available. It provides a conceptual model and working procedure that places the learner and the process of learning at the forefront of decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48(1), 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airsasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et al. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, K.-H., Sandfuchs, U., & Wiechmann, J. (Eds.). (2009). Handbuch Unterricht (2nd ed.). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, K., & Krapp, A. (2006). Wissenschaftstheoretische Grundfragen der pädagogischen Psychologie. In A. Krapp & B. Weidenmann (Eds.), Pädagogische Psychologie (pp. 33–73). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Philadelphia: SRHE and Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Macmillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosch, K. (2006). Planning classroom management (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromme, R. (1981). Das Denken von Lehrern bei der Unterrichtsvorbereitung. Eine empirische Untersuchung zu kognitiven Prozessen von Mathematiklehrern. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromme, R. (1992). Der Lehrer als Experte: Zur Psychologie des professionellen Wissens. Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatti, M. A., Dyckhoff, A. L., Schroeder, U., & Thüs, H. (2012). A reference model for learning analytics. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5–6), 318–331. doi:10.1504/IJTEL.2012.051815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 1–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. (2010). Students experiences of e-learning in higher education: The ecology of sustainable innovation. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273–305. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Towards a general theory of expertise. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennema, E., & Franke, M. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147–164). Reston, VA: National Council of teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: Drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5/6), 304–317. doi:10.1504/IJTEL.2012.051816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosper, M. (2011). MAPLET—a framework for matching aims, processes, learner expertise and technologies. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Isaias, D. G. Sampson, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on problem solving and learning in the digital age (pp. 23–36). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gosper, M., & McNeill, M. (2012). Implementing game-based learning: The MAPLET framework as a guide to learner-centred design and assessment. In D. Ifenthaler, D. Eseryel, & X. Ge (Eds.), Assessment in game-based learning: Foundations, innovations, and perspectives (pp. 217–234). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gosper, M., Woo, K., Muir, H., Dudley, C., & Nakazawa, K. (2007). Selecting ICT based solutions for quality learning and sustainable practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 227–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, W. (2005). Allgemeine Arbeitspsychologie: Psychische regulation von Wissens-, Denk- und Körperlicher Arbeit. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanke, U., Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2011). Modeling the world of instruction: Creative insight or learnt by advise? The Open Education Journal, 4(Suppl 1), 113–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatano, G., & Oura, Y. (2003). Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 26–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2011). Identifying cross-domain distinguishing features of cognitive structures. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 817–840. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9207-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D., Masduki, I., & Seel, N. M. (2011). The mystery of cognitive structure and how we can detect it. Tracking the development of cognitive structures over time. Instructional Science, 39(1), 41–61. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9097-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Computers as mind tools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Cho, Y. H. (2008). Externalizing mental models with mindtools. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction. Essays in honor of Norbert M. Seel (pp. 145–160). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, B. R., & Harootunian, B. (1964). Teaching as problem solving. Journal of Teacher Education, 15(4), 420–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models. An overview of their current status (pp. 383–434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy. An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S. P. (Ed.). (2000). Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landau, E. (1974). Psychologie der Kreativitaet: Psychologie und Person (Vol. 17). München: Reinhardt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maggioni, L., & Parkinson, M. M. (2008). The role of teacher epistemic cognition, epistemic beliefs, and calibration in instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 445–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merkens, H. (2010). Unterricht. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instructions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mistree, F., Ifenthaler, D., & Siddique, Z. (2013). Empowering Engineering students to learn how to learn: A competency-based approach. Atlanta, GA: In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548–571. doi:10.1002/sce.10032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. G., & Sweller, J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: Using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, W. C., & Gehrke, N. J. (1986). Learning activities and teachers’ decisionmaking: Some grounded hypotheses. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preiser, S. (1986). Kreativitaetsforschung. Erträge der Forschung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Print, M. (1993). Curriculum development and design. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rheinberg, F. (2002). Motivation. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, W. J., & Kazanas, H. C. (1998). Mastering the instructional design process. A systematic approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoppe, K.-J. (1975). Verbaler Kreativitäts-Test. Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung verbal-produktiver Kreativitätsmerkmale. Göttingen: Verlag für Psychologie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuler, H., & Prochaska, M. (2001). Leistungsmotivationsinventar. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, J. R., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In J. R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Lehn, K. (1996). Cognitive skill acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 513–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society the development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2007). Motivational factors influencing teaching as a career choice: Development and validation of the FIT choice scale. Journal of Experimental Education, 75(3), 167–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia

    Dirk Ifenthaler

  2. Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, Australia

    Maree Gosper

Authors
  1. Dirk Ifenthaler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maree Gosper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dirk Ifenthaler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ifenthaler, D., Gosper, M. Guiding the design of lessons by using the MAPLET framework: matching aims, processes, learner expertise and technologies. Instr Sci 42, 561–578 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9301-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9301-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation