Learning Theory, Instructional Theory, and Instructional Design Model

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 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

Effective instructional design depends on how learning occurs, how teaching actions guide learning, and how planning unfolds (Schott & Driscoll, 1997). Learning theory explains how people process information. Instructional theory offers strategies for guiding learning. Instructional design models support organization, planning, and evaluation.

Together, these foundations support sound judgment and flexibility. They allow instructional designers to make informed decisions grounded in theory and refined through practice.

Reflection

Practice clarified how often learning theories operate without explicit naming. Earlier teaching work focused on meeting objectives. If outcomes appeared acceptable, methods seemed justified. Rarely did I pause to examine whether decisions aligned with theory.

Design work sharpened that awareness. Learning theories guide decisions through evidence, learner analysis, and task alignment. This understanding changed how I evaluate instructional choices.

Teaching experience already involved instructional design actions. Sequencing tasks. Aligning outcomes with assessment. Adjusting based on feedback. These activities mirror instructional design practice. I once questioned whether classroom teachers could claim the role of instructional designer. Practice resolved that question. The work already reflected design thinking.

I identify as an instructional designer in active practice. Applying theory differs from recognizing it. The work now centers on deliberate alignment between theory, context, and constraints. Honebein and Honebein (2014) noted that theory often operates quietly in practice. Yanchar et al. (2010) described uncertainty among practitioners about theory’s role in daily work. Honebein and Reigeluth (2020) emphasized deliberate use of theory to support coherence and relevance.

This understanding reframed my view of instructional designers. The role involves informed judgment, adaptation, and grounded reasoning. Design decisions rest on theory while responding to real conditions. That balance defines my practice.

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