LEARNING TASK

Instructional Theories

Interactive Comparative Chart: Instructional Theories

Learner-Centered

Rhizomatic Learning, Transformative Pedagogy, and Social-Emotional Learning give students 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, without scripting every move.

Reflection

I have become more familiar with Bloom’s Taxonomy, Krathwohl’s Revised Taxonomy, Gagné’s Events of Instruction, and Merrill’s Principles of Instruction over time. These theories frequently surface in classroom planning, and I have written about them in previous IDT courses. They feel familiar, almost second nature at this point.

For this task, I chose to concentrate on different instructional theories: Reigeluth’s Elaboration Theory, the ARCS Model of Motivation, Cognitive Apprenticeship, Social-Emotional Learning, Rhizomatic Learning, and Transformative Pedagogy. I have read Reigeluth’s works, however, I do not recall encountering Reigeluth’s Elaboration Theory or ARCS before, so working with them now feels like entering a previously unexplored area. The remaining theories—Cognitive Apprenticeship, SEL, Rhizomatic Learning, and Transformative Pedagogy—seemed less unfamiliar. I recognized that I might have already applied them without knowing their formal labels. That realization stayed with me. It underscored the idea that terminology often follows practice. The work happens first; the framework comes later.

Speaking of these instructional theories, I’ll admit—it took me a while to sort them out. I had to compare and contrast just to see what sets them apart. That’s how I ended up categorizing them into learner-centered, structured, and contextual anchoring. And no, it’s not context-centered. There’s a difference. Context-centered would suggest that context sits at the core, acting as a static frame. But context-anchoring means instruction stays grounded—it adjusts, responds, and stays hooked to real conditions. It’s active, not fixed.

While working on this for the module, I’ll be honest—I lost momentum. The readings felt endless. And as someone who learns through visuals, I kept zoning out. I needed something that would pull me back in. When I caught myself losing interest in the task, the ARCS Model helped me make sense of what was happening. Just seeing the word “attention” gave me permission to pause and rework my process. Keller (1979, 1983) described how motivation relies on both value and the belief that success is possible—concepts based on expectancy-value theory (Tolman, 1932; Lewin, 1938). That explained my pattern. I lacked a reason to keep going and a belief I could manage everything. The relevance part reminded me to tie the readings back to real teaching scenarios, while confidence pushed me to keep steady progress. It diagnosed the slump and gave it a name. It became clear that motivation is built into how instruction talks to learners like me.

What grounds this reflection is that I still identify as an aspiring instructional designer—and I use that term with intention. In the future, if I join an organization that equates learning performance with success, I won’t rely solely on cognitive apprenticeship, though it remains common in workplace settings. I would design instruction around Rhizomatic Learning and Transformative Pedagogy. These theories support continuous learning loops, where employees connect tasks to lived context and professional identity. In agile environments, like tech teams navigating shifting client demands—Rhizomatic Learning builds adaptive thinking. Paired with Transformative Pedagogy, it fosters critical questioning and ethical reasoning, essential in fields like marketing or public communication. The flexibility in these models allows room for judgment, iteration, and participatory input. In the HR department, Social-Emotional Learning would also serve as a critical foundation. Trainings centered on conflict resolution, empathy, and wellness cultivate emotional literacy. This matters for boosting morales and it mitigates burnout and turnover, both of which affect output. SEL supports the behavioral environment that makes strategic goals possible.

New theories will always emerge. That is the nature of continued inquiry. I do not expect immediate mastery. What I can commit to is asking better questions, testing assumptions, and remaining open to unfamiliar territory. Instructional design requires awareness, adjustment, and the willingness to make space for what is yet to be learned. That is the space I currently occupy—and for now, it feels just right.

References

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (n.d.). Fundamentals of SEL. https://casel.org/fundamentals-of-sel/

Dennen, V. P., & Burner, K. J. (2008). The cognitive apprenticeship model in educational practice. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 425–439). Routledge. https://faculty.weber.edu/eamsel/Classes/Projects%20and%20Research%20(4800)/Teaching%20and%20Learning/Dennen%20&%20Burner%20(2008).pdf

Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10. https://ocw.tudelft.nl/wp-content/uploads/Development-and-Use-of-the-ARCS-Model-of-Instructional-Design.pdf

Keller, J. M. (2016). Motivation, learning, and technology: Applying the ARCS-V motivation model. Participatory Educational Research, 3(2), 1–15. http://www.perjournal.com/archieve/issue_3_2/1-per_16-06_volume_3_issue_2_page_1_15.pdf

Pappas, C. (2014, December 6). Instructional design models and theories: Elaboration theory. eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/elaboration-theory-instructional-design

Reigeluth, C. M. (1979). In search of a better way to organize instruction: The elaboration theory. Journal of Instructional Development, 2(3), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02905780