Learning Theories and Instructional Design

Introduction.. 1

A Survey of Learning Theories.. 1

Behaviorist theories. 3

Cognitive theories. 3

Humanist theories. 3

Social/situated learning theories. 3

Cybernetic theories. 4

Models of Instructional Design.. 4

Instructional system design (ISD) 6

Gagné’s instructional events. 6

Rapid prototyping. 7

Situated Instruction Model. 8

Summary.. 10

Introduction

The Association for Educational Communication and Technology (1994) lists design as the first of the five domains of educational technology. Indeed, much of what we do in the field of instructional technology deals with how to design effective instruction (the rest being divided among development, utilization, management, and evaluation). But design is not conceived in a vacuum; rather, instructional designers’ choices of how best to design instruction are greatly influenced by their beliefs about how people learn. Accordingly, our approaches to designing instruction have evolved largely in parallel with the developments in our learning theories. In this paper I examine learning theories and how they influence the choices instructional designers make. First, I identify the learning theories and epistemologies that have been influential within educational technology and then relate them to the instructional design models that have most influenced the practice of instructional design. Finally, I describe my own approach to instructional design in the context of these developmental influences.

A Survey of Learning Theories

“A learning theory is a systematic integrated outlook to the nature of the process whereby people relate to their environments in such a way as to enhance their ability to use both themselves and their environments more effectively”(Bigge, 1982, p.3). Many such theories have emerged over the last several decades—so many, in fact, that one needs a way of categorizing them into manageable groups. Three such categorizations are provided by Bigge (1982), Merriam & Caffarella (1991), and Romiszowsk (1986).

Bigge (1982) provides the simplest grouping, classifying theories into one of two families: (1) S-R (stimulus-response) conditional theories of the behaviorist family and (2) cognitive theories of the Gestalt-field family. This simple dichotomy summarizes two ways instructional designers have traditionally viewed the learner: learner as doer and learner as thinker.

Merriam and Caffarella, (1991) classify learning theories into four orientations: (1) behaviorist, (2) cognitivist, (3) humanist, and (4) social learning. Romiszowski (1986) proposes a similar model, but uses the following categories: behaviorist, cognitive, developmental, humanist, and cybernetic. Table 1 builds on a table from Merriam and Caffarella to include Romiszowski's cybernetic orientation as well as theorists not mentioned in the original table. I have also expanded Merriam’s and Caffarella’s category of social learning to include situated learning as well.

Table 1
Five orientations to learning theories

	Behaviorist	Cognitivist	Humanist	Social/Situated Learning	Cybernetic
Theorists	Thorndike, Pavlov, Watson, Guthrie, Hull, Tolman, and Skinner.	Koffka, Kohler, Wertheimer, Lewin, Piaget, Ausubel, Bruner, Reigeluth, and Gagné	Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Neill, Maslow, and Rogers	Bandura; Rotter; Vigotsky; Argyris; Lave & Wenger; Brandsford; Brown, Collins & Duguid	Weiner, Shannon, Miller, Gibson, Landa, and Pask
View of the Learning Process	Change in behavior	Defined by internal mental process (including insight, information processing, memory, and perception)	A personal act to fulfill potential	Interaction with and observation of others in a social context	Systemic and defined by capacities of memory, throughput, and feedback loops. Learner is ‘wired’ into the environment.
Locus of Learning	Stimuli in the external environment	Internal cognitive structuring	Affective and cognitive needs	Interaction of person, behavior, and environment	Feedback and self-regulating systems in a complex environment
Purpose of Instruction	Produce behavioral change in desired direction	Develop capacity and skills to learn better	Become self-actualized, autonomous	Model new roles and behavior	Develop the learner as ‘information processor’
Role of the Designer	Design stimuli to elicit desired response	Structure content of learning activity	Facilitate development of the whole person	Present models of new roles and behaviors	Design systems that accept student inputs and provide meaningful feedback

Behaviorist theories

The hallmark of the behaviorist theories is that one does not have to delve into the invisible workings of the mind to understand learning. Learning can be completely described and structured in terms of observable behaviors.

Three principles that dominate behaviorist learning are summarized by Kearsley (1994):

1. Behavior that is positively reinforced will reoccur; intermittent reinforcement is particularly effective.

2. Information should be presented in small amounts so that responses can be reinforced (“shaping”).

3. Reinforcements will generalize across similar stimuli (“stimulus generalization”) producing secondary conditioning.

Programmed instruction, i.e., rigid sequences of frames composed of stimuli, responses, and feedback (reinforcement), are examples of instructional design that is modeled on a behaviorist orientation.

Cognitive theories

Cognitive learning theories have their origins with the Gestalt psychologists and their interest in perception of forms, shapes, and procedures. Eventually the primary interest in the field focused on cognitive stages that explained how external stimuli are perceived, recognized, processed into information, and stored in memory.

One influential cognitive theory is Gagné’s Conditions of Learning, (Gagné, Briggs, & Wages, 1992) in which he identifies the following five major categories of learning: (1) intellectual skills, (2) cognitive strategies, (3) verbal information, (4) attitudes, and (5) motor skills. His theory stresses that each type of learning requires different internal and external conditions.

Humanist theories

Perhaps ‘humanist theories’ would be more accurately described as ‘humanist philosophies’ (Romiszowski, 1986). Humanists are concerned with education’s role in the development of the person as a person. Humanistic theories are often found in management and communication training, where topics such as employee motivation, self-actualization, and cultural diversity lend themselves to humanistic perspectives.

Social/situated learning theories

Bandura’s social learning theory was an early bridge between behaviorism and cognitivism and emphasized the social aspect of learning. Bandura (1971) held that people learn by observing and copying the behavior of others. He detailed, however, the cognitive processes involved in this learning: (1) Attention, (2) Retention, (including symbolic coding, cognitive organization, symbolic rehearsal, and motor rehearsal), (3) Motor Reproduction, and (4) Motivation.

As with Bandura’s social learning theory, situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1990) considers social interaction as a critical component of learning. In situated learning, knowledge is derived from the activity, context, and culture in which the learner functions. An important concept of situated learning is ‘authentic activity’, i.e., activity defined by a community of practice and not by academic analysis.

Cybernetic theories

World War II and its emphasis on reliable communications and missile technology fueled both an interest in and funding for the field of cybernetics, i.e. the design of self-regulating control systems. These systems typically rely on error detection and correction (through feedback). An example of a cybernetic system would be the autopilot function on an airplane. This field provided a model for a different view of learning, the cybernetic orientation. The cybernetic orientation to learning packages elements of behaviorism (feedback) with cognition (information processing) within a technology-based metaphor, i.e., a closed-loop servo-controlled system. The cybernetic orientation views the learner as an element in a larger human-machine or a human-computer system. The learner is not merely reacting to external stimuli and not merely processing perceptions internally; the learner reacts to information and processes that information in cooperation with the instructional media. This orientation to learning is most applicable to designers of computer-based instruction.

Next, I describe three models of instructional design that have influenced the practice of many instructional designers and relate them to these learning theories.

Models of Instructional Design

“Instruction is the delivery of information and activities that facilitate learners’ attainment of intended, specific learning goals,” and “instructional design refers to the systematic process of translating principles of learning and instruction into plans for instructional materials and activities” (Smith & Ragan, 1993, p.2). As with learning theories, we find no lack of models to guide designers, and good designers should be adept with a variety of models and able to select the appropriate one for the particular instructional problem being addressed. Again, as with learning theories, some way of analyzing and categorizing the diverse approaches would be helpful. Figure 1 shows a four-level classification scheme used by Edmonds, Branch, and Mukherjee (1994), which I will refer to in describing the models in this section.

Orientation	Prescriptive: Describes how a learning environment can be constructed or altered. Descriptive: Outlines a given environment and implies how the variables of interest will be affected based on practical experiences of learning and instruction.
Knowledge	Procedural: How we reach a goal—emphasis on examples, non-examples, drill & feedback, low verbal load, criterion-referenced evaluation. Declarative: Why we reach a goal—emphasize analogies, discovery-type instruction, and norm-referenced evaluation (Clark, 1989).
Required Designer Expertise	Algorithmic Heuristic Novice Intermediate Expert
Theoretical Origins	Hard Systems: Uses a true systems approach that focuses on the defining and attainment of goals. Soft Systems: Is more systematic than systemic and not goals driven. Intuition: Not based on a systematic or systemic approach at all.

Figure 1: Classification scheme for instructional design models

I next discuss three specific models that have proven useful in my own professional experience: (1) Dick’s and Carey’s ISD, (2) Gagné’s nine events of instruction, and (3) rapid prototyping.

Instructional system design (ISD)

The Instructional System Design model of Dick & Carey (1996) shown in Figure 2 is perhaps one of the best known models of instructional design, and indeed could be described as seminal to the field of instructional technology since so many other models have been derived from it.

Figure 2: Instructional systems design

Edmonds et al. (1994) classify this model as Descriptive/Procedural/Novice-Expert/Hard Systems. The ISD model is strongly oriented toward behaviorism, as evidenced by it emphasis on behavioral performance objectives, criterion-referenced testing, and procedural task analysis. Because of its behavioral orientation, I have found the ISD model especially helpful in developing industrial operation and maintenance training. In these types of applications, the desired outcomes are often fixed procedures or well-defined algorithms, both of which lend themselves to Dick’s and Carey’s method of task analysis and instructional analysis quite well.

Another advantage of the ISD model is that it defines a linear set of developmental stages and can serve as a project management backbone for instructional design and materials development. Milestones can be established for each stage and the process can be planned and its progress monitored through conventional project management techniques and tools. The formative evaluation stage, however, can create recursive loops, and a project manager must be willing to recognize and react to the likelihood that stages checked off as ‘done’ can become ‘undone’ later in the project.

Gagné’s instructional events

Gagne et al. (1992) describe an instructional model that correlates specific events of instruction with cognitive learning processes. See Table 2. In this model, Gagné blends a definite cognitive orientation (drawing on an information-processing model) with a behavioral orientation (emphasizing objectives, practice, and feedback). Similar to Dick’s and Carey’s model, Gagné’s could be classified as Descriptive/Procedural/Novice-Expert/Hard Systems. But where I would describe Dick’s and Carey’s model as a process model, i.e., one that describes steps to design instruction, I would call Gagné’s nine events of instruction a structural model, i.e., one that describes what components the instruction should include—similar to Gustafson’s (1991) classifications of systems focused and classroom focused. Accordingly, Gagné’s model can integrate quite well with Dick’s and Carey’s, using Dick’s and Carey’s model to drive the course development and using Gagné’s model to structure individual lessons.

Table 2
Gagné’s instructional events and their relation to learning processes

Instructional Event	Relation to Learning Process
1. Gaining attention	Reception of patterns of neural impulses
2. Informing learner of the objective	Activating a process of executive control
3. Stimulating recall of the prerequisite learning	Retrieval of prior learning to working memory
4. Presenting the stimulus material	Emphasizing features for selective perception
5. Providing learning guidance	Semantic encoding; clues for retrieval
6. Eliciting the performance	Activating response organization
7. Providing feedback about performance correctness	Establishing reinforcement
8. Assessing the performance	Activating retrieval; making reinforcement possible
9. Enhancing retention and transfer	Providing cues and strategies for retrieval

Rapid prototyping

When instruction is technology-based and the development of that instruction relies on the use of an authoring tool of some type, rapid prototyping, as described by Tripp & Bichelmeyer (1990) can be an effective design model. Figure 3 shows a diagram of the rapid prototyping model. In this approach, development of the instructional materials can start before the objectives are set. Note that most of the stages overlap other stages.

Edmonds et al. (1994) classify this model as a Prescriptive-Descriptive/Procedural-Declarative/Expert/Soft-Intuitive model. Because it lacks the clearly defined, systematic approach of the Dick and Carey and Gagné models, its use should be restricted to experienced instructional designers. Although one could argue that this model is a capitulation to time demands and looming deadlines that make more rigorous models prohibitive (and in more than one of my own projects this accusation would carry some degree of truth), this model has merit in the fact that design is often emergent with the designer’s increasing awareness of the content or the application of that content (Smudde, 1991). In these cases, the development or prototyping tools can serve as cognitive tools in the evolution of the designer’s awareness.

Figure 3: Rapid prototyping

This model suggests a cybernetic orientation, especially from the perspective of designer as learner. I find, for example, that I use this model when developing online documentation for computer-based products and when designing instructional materials to go on the Internet. The cybernetic aspect is that I design an instructional chunk, compile/view it, and then adjust content, organization, and presentation based on what I experience as the instruction comes back at me. This embodies two of Pask’s (1975) principles noted by Kearsley (1994):

1. To learn a subject matter, students must learn the relationships among the concepts. (The sequencing or navigational organization of the topics support this principle.)

2. Explicit explanation or manipulation of the subject matter facilitates understanding (e.g., use of teach-back technique).

Situated Instruction Model

In addition to being heavily influenced by the models I have just described, my own practice as an instructional designer has also been influenced by an emerging constructivist orientation in the field of instructional design and a shift toward situated learning. A constructivist approach holds that “(1) learning is an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge, and (2) instruction is a process of supporting that construction rather than communicating knowledge” (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996, p. 171). Situated learning, then, “contends that knowledge is an active relationship between an agent and the environment, and learning must take place during the time the student is actively engaged with a complex, realistic instructional context” (Young, 1993, p.5).

Since most of my training experience deals with commercial technology products, my approach focuses on creating authentic tasks or problems for the students to solve and then developing the necessary scaffolding and instruction to let the student engage the problem as early as possible. “Rather than ‘teaching’ the skills, the skills are developed through working on the problem, i.e., through authentic activity” (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996).

Figure 4 shows a diagram of my approach. Note that I represent ‘Evaluation’ as a substrate that supports each of the stages. I differentiate at each stage who the evaluators should be.

Figure 4: Model for developing situated instruction

The first stage tracks fairly closely to a traditional needs assessment component similar to what is found in most systematic models. The second stage draws on situated learning principles and most specifically those of Problem Based Learning (PBL) (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). The third stage is a busy one, combining sequencing, designing scaffolding, and developing instruction. I group these into one stage because I develop them in an iterative process, drawing on the rapid prototyping model. Lastly I produce the final package, including instructor guides and student materials. Table 3 describes each stage in detail.

Figure 5 shows a sample exercise from a program developed using this model (Hughes, 1998). One can see elements of behaviorism in the inclusion of objectives, but they are subordinate to the authentic task within which the exercise is situated. The exercise also draws on Gagné’s events of instruction, e.g., informing the student of the objectives, providing guidance, and giving feedback (in this case from running the application in the product itself.) The ‘Principles’ at the bottom of the exercise represent the scaffolding, hints to help the student engage the problem on their own. The use of a simulator in this course to emulate an operating call center also incorporated a cybernetic learning orientation: students could run the application and see the effects of their design in operation.

Table 3
Stages for developing situated instruction

Stage	Activities	Deliverable	Evaluated by...
Assess Situation	· Identify stakeholders · Describe desired performance · Assess current performance · State high-level goals	Situational Assessment Report	Stakeholders
Define and Develop Authentic Activities	· Define job functions of trainees · Identify how product/subject supports job functions · Specify conditions and criteria for job tasks	Defined outcomes and specifications for student exercises and tests	Subject Matter Experts
Define Sequence, Develop Scaffolding and Instruction	· Determine instructional or motivational sequence · Analyze support knowledge needed to perform tasks · Develop scaffolding where possible · Develop preparatory instruction if needed	Exercises (including scaffolding) and student materials.	Users
Package	· Determine the appropriate sequence for activities · Produce instructor and/or administrator guides · Assemble or compile into final format	Final product: software, documentation, instructor and/or administrator materials	Users and Stakeholders

Exercise: Address Update #1

Application Description

You are going to launch a call campaign to update your customer mailing list. You want to build an application that lets your agents update customer addresses using account data that comes in the Call Record.

Objectives

As you build this application, you will learn to do the following:

1. Launch Magellan

2. Define a new application

3. Connect to a Call Record

4. Create and edit the following ‘widgets’

- call record display

- stationary button bar

- script display

- command buttons (to navigate between screens, update data, and terminate calls)

- entry fields (to display and edit data)

- labels

5. Save an application

Principles

· The Call Record Display and Stationary Button Bar are created automatically.

· Select a widget to create by going to Edit|Add Widget.

· Position widgets by holding down the left mouse button and dragging the mouse.

· Edit a widget’s attributes by clicking on it with the right mouse button.

Figure 5: Sample student exercise

Summary

In this paper I have reviewed the learning theories that have influenced instructional technology, ranging from early behaviorism, through cognitivism, humanism, and social learning, and up to the relatively recent orientation of cybernetics. I then discussed three models of instructional design that have influenced the practice of instructional designer: Dick’s and Carey’s ISD, Gagné’s nine events of instruction, and Tripp’s and Bichelmeyer’s rapid prototyping. I discussed how each model related to the learning orientations of behaviorism, cognitivism, and cybernetics. Lastly, I outlined my own model and related it to principles of situated learning as well as to the models and orientations I had previously discussed.

References

Association for Educational Communication and Technology. (1994). The definition of educational technology . Washington: DC: Association for Educational Communication and Technology.

Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. NeW York: General Learning Press.

Bigge, M. L. (1982). Learning theories for teachers. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

Clark, R. (1989). Current progress and future directions for research in instructional technology. Educationall Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 57-66.

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction. (4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Edmonds, G. S., Branch, R. C., & Mukherjee, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for comparing instructional design models. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(4), 55-72.

Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design. (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Javonovich College Publishers.

Gustafson, K. L. (1991). Survey of instructional development. (2nd ed.). Syracuse University: ERIC Clearinghouse on Infromation Resources.

Hughes, M. (1998). Active learning for software products. Technical Communication, 45(3), 343-352.

Kearsley, G. (1994). The theories into practice database. http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/educ/tip/1.htm.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1991). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Pask, G. (1975). Conversation, cognition, and learning. New York: Elsevier.

Romiszowski, A. J. (1986). Developing auto-instructional materials. New York: Michols Publishing Company.

Smith, L. P., & Ragan, T. J. (1993). Introduction to instructional design. In L. P. Smith & T. J. Ragan (Eds.), Instructional Design (pp. 1-24). New York: Macmillan.

Smudde, P. (1991). A Practical model of the document-development process. Technical Communication, 38(3), 316-323.

Tripp, S., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technolgy Research and Design, 38(1), 31-44.

Young, M. F. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 41(1), 43-58.