Learning Theories
| Key Concepts | Learning results from associations between stimuli and responses. Repetition, conditioning, and reinforcement are central processes. |
|---|---|
| Assumptions | Focuses on the learner’s grasp of the “what” through memorization, identification, and association. |
| Assumes learning is fully driven by external, environmental stimuli. | |
| Relies on repetition and reinforcement to build consistent, desired behaviors. | |
| Strengths | Ensures consistency, promotes structured delivery, and allows for easy tracking of performance outcomes. |
| Weaknesses | Ignores learner cognition, internal motivation, and the possibility of varied interpretations of tasks. |
| Applications | Emphasizes clear goals, step-by-step instruction, and measurable outcomes. Designers focus on sequencing content, reinforcing correct responses, and structuring tasks in a way that promotes consistent behavior across learners. |
| Sequenced instruction, behavior modeling, immediate feedback, task breakdown, reinforcement schedules. |
| Key Concepts | Cognitivism treats learning as an internal, active process where learners organize information, connect ideas, and build mental strategies. |
|---|---|
| Assumptions | Learners use prior knowledge (schema) to process new content. Instruction should activate what learners already know and connect it to new goals. |
| Strengths | Supports structured sequencing, comprehension, and retention through organized content and strategies. |
| Weaknesses | May overlook emotional, cultural, or environmental influences on learning. |
| Applications | Design supports attention, memory, and recall through organized instruction and purposeful sequencing. |
| Advance organizers, scaffolding, chunking, schema-based design. |
| Key Concepts | Learning is constructed through experience, inquiry, and collaboration. Social and cultural context matters. |
|---|---|
| Assumptions | Outcomes and methods vary per learner. Planning must account for the learning environment and learner goals. |
| Strengths | Encourages engagement, agency, and authentic problem-solving. |
| Weaknesses | Can feel less structured and harder to assess with uniform measures. |
| Applications | Projects, scenarios, inquiry tasks, group work, real-world problem solving. |
Pull Chart: Major Learning Theories
Different learning theories support instructional design in distinct ways, depending on learner needs, context, and intended outcomes.
Behaviorism, grounded in the work of Pavlov (1960), Watson (1913), Skinner (1938), and Thorndike (1898), remains applicable in structured training environments where performance must be consistent and observable. Their view centered on stimulus-response associations helped establish a system where instruction follows sequenced steps, uses immediate feedback, and reinforces desired behavior. Instructional designers who draw from this theory prioritize measurable objectives, repetition, and task breakdown, especially in settings where consistent performance is critical.
Cognitivism, developed through contributions from theorists like Gagné (1985), Bruner (1966), and Ausubel (1968), shifted attention toward mental processes such as memory, attention, and recall. Rather than observing actions alone, this theory considers how learners receive, organize, and retrieve information. It emphasizes schema activation and instructional strategies like chunking and advance organizers. For instructional designers, this theory supports decisions that align content with learners’ existing knowledge and cognitive structure, helping them move through increasingly complex tasks with intention and clarity.
Constructivism, influenced by Piaget (1972), Vygotsky (1978), and Dewey (1938), positions the learner as an active participant who constructs meaning through experience, collaboration, and context. It argues against instruction as passive delivery, proposing instead that learners engage with tasks, apply prior knowledge, and interpret meaning concerning their environment. IDs working with this theory set up open-ended activities, real-world scenarios, and inquiry-based strategies that promote interpretation and analysis. While this model requires careful scaffolding and goal clarity, it allows more flexibility in how learners engage and respond.
Each theory aligns with particular conditions. For example, behaviorism supports skill mastery and procedural training; cognitivism informs lessons that build conceptual clarity; and constructivism supports learner-driven discovery and collaboration. Though overlaps may exist, tension can arise when elements of one theory contradict the assumptions of another. These distinctions urge instructional designers to match their instructional strategies with purpose, guided not just by convenience, but through theoretical clarity and contextual awareness.
References
McLeod, G. (2003). Learning theory and instructional design. Learning Matters, 2, 35–43. https://eddl.tru.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/McLeod_from-learningmatters02durh.pdf
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. (2018). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations of learning and instructional design technology. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/behaviorism_cognitivism_constructivism
Oyarzun, B., & Conklin, S. (2021). Learning theories. In J. K. McDonald & R. E. West (Eds.), Design for learning: Principles, processes, and praxis. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/id/learning_theories
National University. (2018). Instructional behaviorism in education: What is behavioral learning theory? https://www.nu.edu/blog/behaviorism-in-education/
Michela, E. (2020). Cognitivism. In R. Kimmons & S. Caskurlu (Eds.), The students’ guide to learning design and research. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/studentguide/cognitivism
Leave a Reply