European Journal of Education Studies
ISSN: 2501 - 1111
ISSN-L: 2501 - 1111
Available on-line at: www.oapub.org/edu
Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.437906
A CONVERSATION ON INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN WITH
ROBERT GAGNÉ AND DAVID MERRILL
NO:4
Necmi Esgi1i, Omer Arslan2
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Gazi Osman Pasa University,
1
Comp. and Instructional Tech Dep. Tokat, Turkey
Res. Asst. Gazi Osman Pasa University,
2
Comp. and Instructional Tech Dep. Tokat, Turkey
Abstract:
The purpose of the study is to bring in the fourth part of diachronic conversation on
instructional design with Robert Gagné and David Merrill to trancripts. This
conversation was hosted by Utah State University, in the United States of America, in
July 10, 1989. Throughout the history of instructional design, these two scientists are
considered as the pioneers of the field and in these sessions, they summarize and
compare their studies.
Keywords: Gagné, Merrill, conversation, instructional design
1. Instruction
Robert Gagné was the most important name in the field of instructional design area. He
followed by many researchers and scientists. Like David Merrill ve Charles Reigeluth.
Merrill’s Component Display Theory, Reigeluth’s Elaboration Theory have some marks
from Gagné s work.
Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved.
© 2015 – 2017 Open Access Publishing Group
485
Necmi Esgi, Omer Arslan
A CONVERSATION ON INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN WITH ROBERT GAGNÉ AND DAVID MERRILL
NO:4
2. Method
Conversation videos are not commercial. Utah State University made open acccess to
find
them
at
https://archive.org/details/ConvInstDesign.
So
those
videos
are
dowloaded. Transcripts are created.
3. Findings
I am Don Smellie, professor of education and head of
Don Smellie:
the Instructional Technology department at Utah State University. Recently we hosted a
conversation on instructional design with Doctor Robert Gagné from Florida State
University and Doctor M. David Merrill at Utah State University. Now, neither of these
individuals needs an introduction. Doctor Gagné is among the most prominent names
in our field and considered by many as the father of instructional design as we know it
today. Objectives, hierarchies, and the conditions of learning form the theoretical
foundation upon which many have built in designing and developing instructional
products. Doctor Merrill has based much of his efforts on Doctor Gagné's work. He has
elaborated areas which he felt needed more detail. Component display theory and
elaboration theory are recognized as major contributions to the field of instructional
technology. Together Doctor Gagné and Doctor Merrill represent fundamental
theoretical focal points upon which much of what we know about instructional design
is based. These two prominent theorists have cooperated and shared their
views before but never before in such a lasting and personal way as you are about to
see. This is a video transcription with minimal editing. It is not a commercial studio
production but a working transcription of the live proceedings. You should have also
received a graphics package which contains the visuals used with other supporting
materials that were distributed during the conference. As you will see the agenda acted
as a guide rather than a blueprint. Now don't be alarmed that many of the graphics and
agenda
items
are
not mentioned
are used
during
the
discussion.
We
are
richly rewarded by the content that they choose to address. Session four is a look
towards the future of instructional design. Here doctor Gagné and doctor Merrill
exchange ideas on how they see expert systems will be used to further the effectiveness
and efficiency of the instructional design process. Doctor Gagné shares his ideas about
the roles of both instructional design and technology in the schools. Now let's look in
on this final session.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017
486
Necmi Esgi, Omer Arslan
A CONVERSATION ON INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN WITH ROBERT GAGNÉ AND DAVID MERRILL
NO:4
Gagné:
Instructional design issues for the future. Well I don't know, I suppose we
need to say something about ICAI hee? I'm a little skeptical about ICAI. I see a lot of
ideas that come partly from AI and partly from cognitive psychology that seem to me
be very good; for example, the design instruction that takes into account the
knowledge background of the student. You know all of the or many of the research
studies on experts versus novices have been very interesting, and I think they've
discovered some relatively important things. One of the things that you can say what
they have discovered it in a number of ways. First of all the negative way to say it is
that well
you
know
there
really
isn't
any
difference
in
logic
or
an
intellectual functioning between the expert and the novice, that is not much different at
all. Whatever's different is learned and what is different usually comes down to a sort of
set of problem specific knowledge. If you say what is a difference between a novice
physicist and an expert physicist, for example, what the research says is the difference is
the physicist knows enough about this particular problem, so he is able to, let’s say,
conceptualize it in terms of kinetic energy, whereas the student the real novice might
very well, think it has to be looked at in terms of force see not energy, and there are
number of examples like that. Generally speaking it seems to me that what had come
out of these studies is that the difference between novices and experts is knowledge,
see. The expert has a lot more knowledge about the particular problem, particular field,
particular set of ideas that are being worked with, and therefore is better able because of
that knowledge to formulate the problem in a way that makes it more readily soluble.
Now that's fine, so I think we need to know what this knowledge is and we need to
make the attempt to teach it to students, of course it's perfectly true is that you know
but is that intelligent CIA is will perhaps put that's a rather simple one among notion
that seems to me. The other idea that has come from various studies like this is that we
must activate task relevant strategy. I have spoken about this before and I think that's a
good idea, too. If you want to teach somebody troubleshooting electronic equipment,
you teach him about the strategies as well as about the components of this equipment,
the nature of the system, how it's connected, and particularly you teach him those
things rather than I would say the principles of electronics whatever that means. So you
do teach strategies, you teach strategies like you want it is very familiar to me because I
used to work on these things what's called to have split strategy if you want to find the
trouble in a series circuit, you look in the middle first and then you go from there see or
another strategy is has to do with how difficult is it to make this test or this check or this
replacement whatever has to be done with this equipment, how difficult is it. Well you
take that into account, you sort of way the probabilities of what would happen if you
made that check versus some other check which may be easy to make, maybe like
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017
487
Necmi Esgi, Omer Arslan
A CONVERSATION ON INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN WITH ROBERT GAGNÉ AND DAVID MERRILL
NO:4
replacing a bulb or something like that you see. So these are strategies, they are
troubleshooting strategies, see, they're not general problem-solving strategies, they are
troubleshooting strategies specifically. That is another idea that has come from various
studies of experts and novices things like that and I think that is a find thing to be
incorporated into instruction. Now if you do those things are out what gives you
intelligent CAI, well I doubt it, I don't think so. Well I won't say so if you stop right
there I think of course if you want to develop some good computer aided instruction
and you want to get funded for it, you call it CAI and you get some funds. There are
verbs to use and they need to know where to put the subject and the predicate. All of
those things very basic kinds of mechanics of writing, should I think be taught and
automatized in the first grade. You know what is the result of this, why it doesn't
happen now and what is a result of that the result of it is that we have remedial
programs or reading and writing and arithmetic beginning with the grade five it go all
away up to the university and in some high schools in many high schools 30 percent of
the instructional time is spent on remediation. I don't think they should be any
remediation at all. And there wouldn't have to be if kids learn the basic skills by at least
the most grade three no reason why they can’t do that, people have said this for years,
no kids can learn these things, how did they learn them? Well teachers don't like to
teach these things because they require a lot of practice. Now practice I think can be doll
if you want or it can be interesting, it can be designed so that it captures the kids’
interest and so on but that really requires having the kids were on the computer, what
does he do with the computer, he does nothing but practice. That is all. He doesn't learn
to logo and do all these other things just practices and that's where the computer is very
well designed to do in order enable him to practice, well designed programs of
practices that are interesting for him or her and you know that, don't take up too much
time with of the school day, but in which at the end of the time we could say okay these
are the kids who know the basics of reading the basics writing, the basics arithmetic and
that's it. And whether they know anything else or not they know all those things. That
is why are the computer as its greatest use in the schools, that's what I'd like to see
happen but I don't know that I'm going to see it. I'm trying.
Merrill:
What you say is barriers to that happens?
Gagné:
Well I think barriers one is an attitude about computers, the idea is you
get one for a class and that is enough, that isn’t. You have to start by saying I'm you
know I've got a class of thirty kids; I have to have at least 20 computers that is it you
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017
488
Necmi Esgi, Omer Arslan
A CONVERSATION ON INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN WITH ROBERT GAGNÉ AND DAVID MERRILL
NO:4
know. They don’t cost so terribly much, do they, you know or maybe Apple will give
them to you or something I don't know but...
Merrill:
I'll give you one if you buy the other 29.
Gagné:
Ohm well, but I think that's one attitude that is wrong. The other attitude
is that you know somehow they do magical things; I don't think they do magical things,
but I think they're terribly useful machines and you know it’s not a new idea that kids
can practice these necessary basic skills, let's say each kid taking something like
20 minutes a day or half an hour a day if you want to go to a computer room and go
through and practice these skills. The teacher doesn't want to do this, the teacher in the
elementary school has too many things to do and is being, you know the secretary of
education is piling more things on her all-time to do, civic education and values and
everything else at the same time what's happening to reading, writing and arithmetic.
Well I don't know. I mean they are not being talked to the point to the extent of
automaticity that they need to be.
Merrill:
In your opinion are there existing programs in those areas that do this job
or is that those programs yet to be developed and I guess the second part of that
questions if they are yet to be developed, you should do them, you think they're going
to come from the commercial sector or we're going to have to have government funding
or how do we get the kinds of programs we need to, I mean I suspect one problem is
getting the computers, I expect in via the computers there of really answering the
question .
Gagné:
Well, there are some programs you see which do these things, but they are
very scattered and they are incomplete, you see. For example the programs that are
good I mean that do this well are more like programs that are sort of they're almost like
demonstration programs. So they don't do the whole job you see. If you're going to
teach kids decoding the words, you have to teach them all the sounds of English words,
not just some that you happen to select, but you have to teach all of them. Then you
need to teach all of them.
Merrill:
We did what.
Gagné:
Well I didn't know but. No I would like to hear more about it. But the ones
I've seen and some of them are verbs in the sense that they do the right things
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017
489
Necmi Esgi, Omer Arslan
A CONVERSATION ON INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN WITH ROBERT GAGNÉ AND DAVID MERRILL
NO:4
but they're more like demonstrations, they teach the kids how to pronounce you know
combinations of others like b u t and I u t and so on but then they stop there, see. R I T
and B I T won't do that.
Merrill:
What do you think we're going to get these? As is going to be developed
bycommittees in public schools, they are going to develop and the government grants,
private enterprise; I mean it is obvious there is not a market there. I mean that the
demonstration has been pretty clear in the past few years that they we are all these
companies have come and created educational software. Now you can't find a single at
anywhere for educational software. They are obviously not making any money. Most of
them out of business even the big ones that is making word processors.
Gagné:
You know a lot more about that than I do.
Merrill:
Yeah, any feelings on that.
Gagné:
I don't know you have actual experiences so I don't but I would think that
it would be possible, well here is one possibility. It is possible seems to me for
somebody to develop a set of things that I guess I call shells and get the teachers to fill
them in. Yeah, I think that's one approach that I think might work well and it means
you know all the teacher has control over this and teacher can do with it what he or she
wishes and also it is a way of decentralizing the whole effort and so I have some hope
for that I think. I don't know how else to say but. You know government doesn't like to
support these things any longer and yet it seems to me that this is as important an issue
of national security as is selling arms to the Iranians.
Merrill:
And sending the money to the conference. Besides that for the amount of
money they said to the conference with support educational research for a long long
time.
Gagné:
Indeed that's true, yes that is true.
Merrill:
One bomber would go for a long long time.
Gagné:
Well, this is the problem then you know come back down to convincing
schools that this is what they should do, that this is what they need, this is what they
should be or you know others. It's white cat or something similar I don't know but I
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017
490
Necmi Esgi, Omer Arslan
A CONVERSATION ON INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN WITH ROBERT GAGNÉ AND DAVID MERRILL
NO:4
mean is that the problem, mean the things is all developed we're being told, okay fine
I'm glad, I'm delighted to hear that you know I really am, but now what.
Merrill:
How did we get out there? You are waiting for us to tell you how to do
there, you know.
Gagné:
I am trying to tackle it, well I shouldn't say much about this but because I
am not really too hopeful about it, but I think of tackling it perhaps through teacher
education. I am trying to advise a group of people in my college who want to establish a
teacher education program for teachers of basic skills and I think that's a good idea you
know just as there are teachers of special education or teaches of this and that, there
have to be a program, teacher education program for teachers of basic skills that's what
we're interested in and I'd like to see that happen, but obviously if they going to be
teachers of basic skills they going to have to use computer programs to get this job
done.
Merrill:
I like to shift to topic because our time is running. I want to dress another
topic in the last 15 minutes we have. What do you say Bob, you know we've talked a
little bit about instructional design theory, we've talked about some reconciliation
between some of the differences and things and I think that might be an important step
but what do you see from your perspective as you know really I suppose the key leader
in developing instructional design theory. What you see is the future you know do we
know what we need to know, if not in this room I know because I know some of these
people are some budding instructional design theorists, who are likely to going to
academic positions and to write and do research in this area. Where should they be
going, what's the future, what needs to be developed, what are the burning questions or
where should we be ten years from now in instructional design theory, should we still
be using the conditions of learning addition four or what else needs to be done, where
should the next generation take this kind of theory and what should they do with that.
Gagné:
Well before I forget to mention that I feel that the area of research that I
would want to pitch into if I were going to do any more research is what you call the
content structure. I think really to conceive that as the schema of whatever kind and
they are maybe different kinds of course and what it takes to develop in the learner a
new scheme or a revised to our tuned schema or whatever and to take that as the aim of
instructional design and to work out the things that you have in the first column of
your table that apply to all the others, I think that's what if I were going to be a
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017
491
Necmi Esgi, Omer Arslan
A CONVERSATION ON INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN WITH ROBERT GAGNÉ AND DAVID MERRILL
NO:4
researcher you know. What's your student do with a dissertation, I think he should
grab onto, he or she should grab onto those ideas and run with them and say okay
that's what we're trying to do, what we mean by a content structure is a schema, I don't
mean I do not care what you call yeah but it is what kind of organization do we need to
have for the concepts, the facts whatever it is that we are trying to teach, what kind of
organization do we need to have which will assure that we get the kind of outcome
that we want to see in students and even perhaps what we want to see later on when
they try to use their knowledge in in practical ways. I still think that, what I'm trying to
say is that it seems to me that in David’s presentation of that notion of the content
structure and the aim of the notion that this is the aim of learning and not the objective
itself but this structure. That could take a lot of research, so if we go in the research,
that's where I would say to go. Now, if one is going into instructional design, then I still
feel that there are many many things that can be learned about how to design
instruction for the computer and that's where I would kind a put emphasis if I were a
student, I think, I would like to see things going in that direction. It involves all the
questions, many of the things we have talked about including you know where these
images come into that. We know that you know the computer can present schematics
and diagrams of one sort or another and we know that we have the video disk, all of
these things can be connected together and they're all kinds of questions to be asked
about what is the best way to design instruction within its some of the general rules that
we talked about.
Merrill:
Let me describe some the effort, I know you're aware of this, but some of
the people in audience may not be, some of the effort that we're doing in trying to
design an instructional design expert system because and to get you to respond to its
methodology and I really like to characterize this not so much that I'm interested in this
specific rules that we've come up with at this point in time but really as a methodology
for instructional design theorizing. Let me describe briefly so the members in the
audience will be with us not like to hear your response, your reaction to it. Very
basically what we're trying to do is we're trying to identify first particular kinds of
content structure and at this point we've identified how to instantiate a kinds of
taxonomy, parts of taxonomy we're also working now with some procedural thing.
We're trying to develop a computer program which actually queries and naive
instructional design user so it ask them questions, the result of those questions is that it
creates on the computer a content structure and instantiates that with their content.
Then we've tried to develop a set of rules now I’m talking now expert system rules
inside the computer which can take the information they've gathered from the
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017
492
Necmi Esgi, Omer Arslan
A CONVERSATION ON INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN WITH ROBERT GAGNÉ AND DAVID MERRILL
NO:4
instructional designer and make decisions about these are the modules that we
recommend, we being this computer program, this is the sequence in which those
modules should occur, this is the point at which there could be branching between
modules, these are the rules we think that those decisions should be made on and that
be the next set of output. Than the next set is to say based on some additional
information we gather from the instructional designer or subject matter expert these are
the transactions that we think implement this particular module or should be used to
implement it, this is the content representation, these are the points at which you make
decisions to jump from one's transaction to another. Now at this point in time just so
you know this isn't completely pie in the sky we actually have operational computer
code for kinds of taxonomy of a limited sort, will actually make these decisions and
make these recommendations in fact my colleague John Manley is sitting up here from
University Southern California he's been working with me on this doing a lot of the
actual programming as we actually have computer code that'll do this. Now I sight this
you know we could spend a day talking about this particular project but I sight this in
this context because several things have happened to me toas a result of doing that. I
started out to do this as kind of a challenge from the intelligent tutoring people who
had thrown so many rocks at that they find is trying to get back in and said you know
what are the rules and what I started try to identify the rules, I find that the way we
ride is pretty vague when your computer programmer and if you try to hand that to
somebody who doesn't know instructional design and say translate this into production
rules for an expert system they say what, and so that's how it came about. In the
process, however, I have to confess that the whole notion of content structure kind of
evolve because I wanted to know how do I decide what the modules are, and in the in
the process of trying to decide what the modules rice and where do we start from and
that worked back to this notion of spelling out the content structure. And the other
thing as a methodology that I find is that the discipline of trying to be very very precise
about what are all the factors that enter into deciding what goes into a module given
this content structure and making those explicit and spelling those out has created a
whole level of design theory that’s previously was not within my cam. I mean I just
previously had not thought about making specific some of these things which seem to
be in the realm of art, but which now seem less that way to me. It seems that you can
spell these things out. So I guess in this kind of a context in a short you know kind of
thing here. I like to hear your reaction to the building of expert systems. I mean I start
out to do this I really want to build instructional design theory and my funders around.
This could be untapped, we edit this by part. I started to build this, I want a build
instructional design theory and but nobody's in a fun to do that at but there will find to
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017
493
Necmi Esgi, Omer Arslan
A CONVERSATION ON INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN WITH ROBERT GAGNÉ AND DAVID MERRILL
NO:4
build an expert system and so I said okay I will go an expert system. Now I'm kind of
the other way around. I think as a result of having been forced into that from the
funding situation I find building an expert system and expert an excellent methodology
for theorize and that the theorizing I'm now doing is far more precise, far more detailed
and as some other comments this morning making instruction even more complex than
it was before by also giving the tools to deal that complexity than before. So I guess I
like your reaction is you see this is a fruitful methodology, is this you think type of
thing we're doing is a reasonable way to proceed to develop the next generation of
instructional design theory.
Gagné:
Well, instructional design theory is something that one wants to teach to
instructional designers and if it gets too complicated then I don't know that it's
worthwhile, because I think a lot of instruction will be designed well because we've
been told today that a lot of instruction gets designed without instructional design,
there's anyway, so I don't know I think there's a certain level of complexity I guess with
which I think it is comfortable. For a design of instruction to deal, and I don't know
whether the level that you are talking about goes beyond that but I think it may.
Merrill:
I think it does but also I think it provides the tools and...
Gagné:
I would not say it is not possible I think that is.
Merrill:
Well, I think it may not be possible you know I'm just thinking of the
system that we will piece of which we have at this point. For example, in making the
decision about how to go what transactions might be involved in a given module,
there's probably I don't know, I mean about the number rules but it is a lot, isn't it,
several hundred or more. So maybe two hundred rules for a given module to decide
which transactions to go. Now I know full well as a practicing instructional designer
that if that was written on the page of a book there is no way on this earth I'm going to
pay attention to two hundred rules. I mean I'm just going to say I think we ought to do
it back but I have done this. We sat in a room and we say how we going to teach this
thing on story problems and remember Benny Larry my colleague and I would sit
down and I'd say well we could do it this way and I stand up and draw staff on the
blackboard. It's, well no I don't like this not like this the subject matter experts say no I
don't like this. After a day of that with have a design and then from then on we were
crashing down the road implementing that design. Now I suppose that in doing that
we're taking into account lots and lots of things, but I've gone back and looked at some
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017
494
Necmi Esgi, Omer Arslan
A CONVERSATION ON INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN WITH ROBERT GAGNÉ AND DAVID MERRILL
NO:4
of those designs which I think you really need and other pieces of them I say I don't
know why we did that if I was doing it over I do it this way, but now with an expert
system we now have all of these rules built in and now as a designer I don't have to
think about all those rules anymore, what I do is I say okay I make this assumption and
I make this assumption, the computer goes for more and says I recommend these
transactions. And I've already had this experience having created the system a look at
and say oh I hadn't thought about doing that, but that's a perfectly reasonable thing to
do or the other experience I've had even more often in this that's a stupid thing to do
why would we do that, then we go back and we go back and say what's wrong with the
rules, why did this come out this way and we adjust the rules, but it seems to me that
in a way this gives us, it's kind of the instructional spreadsheet notion; that is if I have
all these rules built in and let's think about these systems having two ports, two levels
of interaction; one is kind of the instructional design theorist level of interaction which I
can change the rules to get more reasonable decisions but the other is the practice,
practicing instructional designer. This I do not want to change rules I just want to get
the job done, who was it somebody was saying Fred you're saying you had so many
thousand lessons the do the overwhelming, 450 lessons. If I am an instructional
designer, I look at 450 lessons I don't want to think too much about theory and I mean I
want to get down I want to say how am I going to do this if I could print this and say
okay I'm making this assumption I get this kind of students I get this instances. We
think you need these modules yup that looks good to me and it is OK when I need this
and this, you need these transactions I say that looks good is it okay here's a shell fil
them in that would really facilitate your job and in fact I could look at it and somebody
.......level and look at and say no nono those that look like very good modules, I don't
like those and he say what were the assumption you said this this and he says wait a
minute, you can't make that assumption about our students is also a changes of value, it
reorganizes everything this is ohm now that's better. That's the kind of thing we're
trying to move.
Gagné:
I think it's a fine thing, I'm glad you're doing it and I think that you know
we have to wait and see what comes out.
Merrill:
Well, that's a good point. Garbage in garbage out.
Gagné:
Well no, you say you only have a little bit. I think it's very promising all I
can say about it. If it does what you say allows an instructional designer to sit down
at the terminal say this is you know this is what I want to teach and so on and the
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017
495
Necmi Esgi, Omer Arslan
A CONVERSATION ON INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN WITH ROBERT GAGNÉ AND DAVID MERRILL
NO:4
computer will then tell him about the transactions on so on needs to that need to be
devised I think that's fine. Very good!
Merrill:
And it's time for questions.
References
https://archive.org/details/ConvInstDesign. retrived on 14 November, 2016.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017
496
Necmi Esgi, Omer Arslan
A CONVERSATION ON INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN WITH ROBERT GAGNÉ AND DAVID MERRILL
NO:4
Creative Commons licensing terms
Author(s) will retain the copyright of their published articles agreeing that a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) terms
will be applied to their work. Under the terms of this license, no permission is required from the author(s) or publisher for members of the community
to copy, distribute, transmit or adapt the article content, providing a proper, prominent and unambiguous attribution to the authors in a manner that
makes clear that the materials are being reused under permission of a Creative Commons License. Views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this
research article are views, opinions and conclusions of the author(s). Open Access Publishing Group and European Journal of Education Studies shall
not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability caused in relation to/arising out of conflicts of interest, copyright violations and
inappropriate or inaccurate use of any kind content related or integrated into the research work. All the published works are meeting the Open Access
Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017
497