LEARNING TASK

Accordion Chart: Learning Theory, Instructional Theory, and Instructional Design Model

Instructional designers are responsible for translating principles into instructional plans that guide learning. Smith and Ragan (1993) emphasized the need to clarify how these principles connect with real-world constraints, such as learner differences, delivery settings, and what instructors are willing to accept. To carry out this task, a designer must identify what learners need, analyze what the situation allows, and make decisions that support learning across contexts. These decisions rest on a system of knowledge built from three foundations: learning theory, instructional theory, and instructional design models. Learning theories offer tested strategies and clarify which methods suit for specific tasks and learners. Instructional theories guide how to teach well, while design models give structure to the planning process itself. Keller (1979) viewed instructional design as a system—each part working with the others to support the learner. Richey (1986) argued that theories support prediction, and prediction supports better design. Over time, these ideas gave the field its foundation—from the efficiency-driven training needs of the Second World War to the research-driven frameworks of the 1960s and beyond. With that context in mind, it’s important to begin where design thinking starts—with how people learn. Now, let’s define what is learning theory.

Learning Theories

Current learning theories did not emerge independently—they draw from long-standing philosophical debates about how people come to know. For centuries, scholars have argued over whether knowledge stems from direct experience or from reasoning. This tension between empiricism and rationalism continues to influence learning theory today. Empiricism, with roots in Aristotle’s work, treats experience as the starting point for knowledge. From this perspective, learning begins through sensory input, which builds into ideas through repeated associations. Instructional designers who align with this view often analyze how to guide learners using the environment and structuring sensory-rich tasks. In contrast, rationalism positions the mind as the origin of knowledge. Plato’s view, later refined by other thinkers, described knowledge as something people uncover through reflection. IDs influenced by this belief often ask how new material can be organized to help learners retrieve and link it to what they already know. These opposing perspectives led to the development of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. And because instructional design evolved alongside behaviorist theory in the mid-20th century, it makes sense to begin there as we examine how theory guides design.

Instructional Theory

Instructional theory provides the foundation for deciding how to guide learning through purposeful strategies. Its origins go back to early educational psychologists who aimed to connect theory with classroom practice. John Dewey (1910) envisioned a system that linked psychology and instruction, while Edward Thorndike (1913) identified patterns in how people learn, such as the law of effect, and applied these findings to how teachers could structure their lessons. During and after World War II, instructional theory gained traction as psychologists worked with the U.S. military to design systematic training programs. These efforts led to the development of Instructional Systems Design (ISD), which emphasized careful task analysis, planning, and the use of technology to guide learners toward specific outcomes. Later, thinkers like Gagné, Ausubel, and Bruner added to the conversation by identifying how sequencing, organization, and complexity influence the learner’s process. Their work clarified that instruction works best when the strategies match both the learner and the goal. For example, problem-based learning allows learners to analyze a challenge and respond through action, while mastery learning requires them to show they’ve grasped something before moving on. Instructional theory, then, helps IDs and educators evaluate their decisions with judgment and structure instruction that supports learning in both flexible and systematic ways. Think of teaching someone to drive—you wouldn’t just explain the rules. At some point, you’d hand them the keys and guide them as they learn through doing.

Instructional Design Model

Instructional design models guide the process of planning instruction through structured steps. These models offer a clear system that helps designers analyze what needs to be taught, decide how to organize the content, and evaluate whether the instruction works. Unlike instructional theory, which focuses on strategies for teaching, models give direction for the overall design—from identifying the goal to measuring if the goal was achieved. ADDIE, one of the most familiar frameworks, breaks this process into five phases: Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate. Each phase clarifies decisions, allowing the designer to focus on what the learner needs and how instruction should be delivered. Models like SAM offer a more flexible cycle, where designers test and adjust quickly through repeated feedback loops. Others, like the Dick and Carey model, treat instruction as a system made up of interrelated parts—goals, learners, content, delivery, and assessment—all connected through analysis and planning. These models do more than provide steps; they guide decisions with structure, especially when working within constraints.

conclusion

To design instruction that works, we need a system that clarifies how learning happens, how teaching should be guided, and how instruction should be built. Learning theory gives us an idea of how to analyze how people process and make sense of information. Instructional theory supports this by offering strategies that guide how content can be taught purposefully. Instructional design models then structure the process, helping IDs to organize, plan, and adjust based on goals, learners, and context. These three provide a foundation that supports judgment, structure, and flexibility in design. They allow instructional designers to make thoughtful decisions, as part of a process grounded in theory, refined through practice, and built to guide learners toward meaningful outcomes.

REFLECTION

Before this course, I encountered the term learning theories and, in practice, applied several of them without recognizing their theoretical roots. Like many teachers, I often equated instructional success with meeting lesson objectives, assuming that if results were delivered, the method was justified. I seldom paused to analyze whether my instructional decisions aligned with theory. As an IDT student, I’ve started to clarify how learning theories serve as a guide to the process of designing instruction through evidence-based strategies, learner analysis, and task alignment. The material challenged me to think more carefully about how theory connects with decision-making and how that connection often remains unnoticed in daily instructional practice.

Coming from a teaching background, I now recognize that I’ve consistently engaged with learning theories, instructional strategies, and planning frameworks. However, I rarely identified those actions as formal design decisions. I used to question whether a teacher could be considered an instructional designer. After all, I had structured content, selected methods, and adjusted based on learner needs—all aligned with what IDs do. I once mapped out a curriculum, sequenced tasks, and matched outcomes with appropriate assessments. At the time, I viewed this as routine work, not realizing it reflected core elements of instructional design. I often describe myself as an aspiring instructional designer, although I now realize that I have already applied key concepts from the field. What I have not yet done is construct or revise a complete instructional model. That task requires more than familiarity with theory; it calls for the ability to analyze context, align theoretical foundations with practical constraints, and guide decisions with precision. This distinction echoes Honebein and Honebein’s (2014) observation that theory is often applied tacitly, without conscious recognition. Yanchar et al. (2010) noted similar uncertainty among designers about the role of theory in everyday practice. Honebein and Reigeluth (2020) emphasize the need for deliberate use of instructional theory frameworks to ensure coherence and relevance in instructional planning. This has clarified my view of instructional designers—not as passive users of tools but as professionals who make informed, adaptive decisions supported by theoretical knowledge anchored in structured reasoning.

I intend to strengthen future design work through more deliberate alignment with theory. Instead of relying on familiar routines, I plan to clarify the reasoning behind each instructional choice—from the initial analysis of learner needs to the strategies selected to meet defined goals. I’ve also become more conscious of how different learning conditions require different instructional responses. One area I hope to examine further is adult learning theory, especially given the possibility of transitioning into a higher education or corporate training environment. Learners in these settings bring distinct goals, life experience, and expectations that require a different kind of structure and judgment. I’m looking forward to encountering more readings on this topic, as they will help extend both my practical strategies and theoretical grounding. I also plan to revisit constructivist principles, particularly those that support collaborative problem-solving and learner-directed inquiry. These plans will help refine how I analyze situations, guide instruction with purpose, and structure decisions that respond to real-world learning conditions.

references

Dousay, T. A. (2018). Instructional design models. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations of learning and instructional design technology. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/instructional_design_models

Honebein, P. C., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2021). Making good design judgments via the instructional theory framework. In J. K. McDonald & R. E. West (Eds.), Design for learning: Principles, processes, and praxis. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/id/making_good_design

McDonald, J. K., & West, R. E. (2021). Sources of knowledge. In Design for learning: Principles, processes, and praxis. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/id/sources_of_design_kn

Raible, J. (2020). Learning theories. In Introduction to instructional design. Pressbooks. https://pressbooks.pub/itec51602/chapter/learning-theories/

Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 5–29). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292733090_What_is_Instructional_Design_Theory_and_How_Is_it_Changing_93

Tennyson, R. D. (2010). Historical reflection on learning theories and instructional design. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/5958