Instructional Theories and Instructional Design

Learner-Centered

Rhizomatic Learning, Transformative Pedagogy, and Social-Emotional Learning give learners more control over how they learn. These theories place the students at the center, where they ask questions, share experiences, and take part in decisions.

Rhizomatic Learning sees knowledge as something people grow and connect, like roots spreading in different directions. Cormier (2010) pointed out that the “community is the curriculum,” which means people learn through conversations, shared challenges, and curiosity. For example, in a literature class, students might choose their own topics on social justice, pulling from blog posts, journal articles, or podcasts, depending on what speaks to them.

Transformative Pedagogy asks educators to guide learning in a way that supports change. Sentini (2020) explained that teachers are expected to help learners think for themselves, speak up, and take responsibility for learning. Schools and teachers may have to let go of strict teaching routines and try new ways that involve everyone more actively. Imagine a science teacher letting students investigate local environmental problems, bringing in both digital tools and peer collaboration to study their findings.

Social-Emotional Learning (SEL), as described by Elias et al. (1997) and CASEL (2003), focuses on how students manage emotions, build friendships, and make sound decisions. It treats emotions and relationships as part of the learning process. A teacher using SEL strategies might start the class with a check-in, giving students a chance to share how they feel or what’s been going on. From there, lessons flow more easily because students feel heard, and that trust helps them work better together.

Each of these theories works in different ways, but they all center around the learner—how they feel, how they connect, and how they grow through real experiences.

Structured design

Reigeluth’s Elaboration Theory, the ARCS Model of Motivation, and Cognitive Apprenticeship fall under structured design theories because they offer procedural scaffolds that organize learning into intentional, sequenced experiences. These theories assist instructional designers in maintaining progression, focus, and direction across tasks and content.

Reigeluth’s Elaboration Theory (1979) proposes that instruction should begin with the simplest concepts and gradually extend toward more complex material. This progression, combined with supportive summaries, allows learners to build clarity and retain coherence as difficulty increases.

The ARCS Model of Motivation, developed by Keller (1987), breaks motivation into four designable variables: attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. Each variable links directly to instructional decisions through relatable content, reward structures, or confidence-building activities. In one application, a customer service training program uses real complaints to maintain attention, embeds feedback to reinforce confidence, and includes mock calls that simulate workplace reality.

Cognitive-Apprenticeship, discussed in the work of Dennen and Burner, emphasizes how novices acquire thinking strategies through social interaction with more experienced practitioners. It relies on modeling, coaching, and articulation of internal reasoning. The structure emerges through phases—initial modeling, guided practice, and gradual release of responsibility—anchoring learning in authentic work.

These theories help move instruction from guesswork to design judgment. Each one anchors decision-making to sequenced models that reduce ambiguity and promote learner continuity.

Contextual anchoring

Contextual anchoring refers to theories that demand relevance and situate learning in applied, real-world conditions. Cognitive Apprenticeship, Rhizomatic Learning, and Transformative Pedagogy view knowledge as something enacted—formed through active roles, situated judgment, and evolving contexts. These theories assign value to participation that reflects authentic social or professional activity.

In vocational training, for instance, Cognitive Apprenticeship allows an intern to observe, practice, and adapt while working alongside a senior electrician. The process unfolds through modeling and gradual transfer of responsibility, offering instruction without abstract detachment.

Connections across theories reflect convergence. Transformative Pedagogy intersects with Social-Emotional Learning through emotional reasoning and ethical responsibility. Its alignment with Rhizomatic Learning becomes clear where student autonomy and social critique combine. It even shares territory with structured theories where scaffolded inquiry guides the process.

A teacher who applies Transformative Pedagogy might ask students to analyze how digital media manipulates opinion. Instead of delivering conclusions, the teacher facilitates peer critique, poses ethical questions, and supports learners in testing their insights.

Reflection

I work regularly with Bloom’s Taxonomy, Krathwohl’s Revised Taxonomy, Gagné’s Events of Instruction, and Merrill’s Principles of Instruction. These theories surface often in planning work and learning design tasks. I apply them across projects. They feel familiar and easy to use.

For this task, I focused on a different set of instructional theories: Reigeluth’s Elaboration Theory, the ARCS Model of Motivation, Cognitive Apprenticeship, Social-Emotional Learning, Rhizomatic Learning, and Transformative Pedagogy. I had encountered Reigeluth’s work before, yet Elaboration Theory and ARCS felt new in application. Working with them placed me in unfamiliar territory. The remaining theories felt more recognizable. I saw patterns from prior teaching and design work, even without formal labels. Practice came first. Language followed.

Sorting through these theories took time. I relied on comparison to clarify how each one functions. That process led me to group them into learner-centered, guided, and context-anchored categories. I use the term context-anchored deliberately. Context-centered implies a fixed frame. Context-anchored instruction stays grounded in real conditions. It adapts. It responds. It stays connected to lived experience.

Midway through the module, my momentum dropped. The readings felt long. Sustained text drained my focus as a visual learner. I needed something to re-engage my attention. The ARCS Model helped explain that lapse. The attention component alone clarified what went wrong. Keller’s work on motivation links value with belief in success. That lens explained my experience. I lacked a clear reason to continue and doubted my capacity to manage the workload. Relevance pulled the material back into real teaching scenarios. Confidence supported steady progress. The model labeled the slump and explained it. Motivation sits inside how instruction communicates with learners.

This reflection reflects how I work today. I identify as an instructional designer. In organizations that equate learning performance with measurable outcomes, I do not rely on a single theory. Cognitive Apprenticeship remains useful in workplace learning, yet it does not stand alone. I lean toward Rhizomatic Learning and Transformative Pedagogy. These theories support continuous learning cycles. Learners connect tasks to real work and professional identity. In fast-moving environments such as technology teams responding to shifting demands, Rhizomatic Learning supports adaptability. Transformative Pedagogy encourages questioning and ethical judgment, which holds value in fields like marketing and public communication.

Social-Emotional Learning plays a key role in people-centered functions such as human resources. Training focused on empathy, conflict resolution, and well-being strengthens emotional awareness. This work supports morale. It reduces burnout and turnover. SEL helps create conditions where organizational goals remain attainable.

New theories continue to emerge. Inquiry remains constant. I do not pursue immediate mastery. I commit to asking better questions, testing assumptions, and staying open to unfamiliar ground. Instructional design requires awareness, adjustment, and sustained learning. This is where I work now.