Thinking About the Learning Design: Theories, Models, Frameworks, and Heuristics

  • Shalin Hai-Jew


People have been studying how humans learn and theorizing about ways to support their learning for many years. This chapter addresses the importance of using relevant concepts and empirical-based knowledge of human learning to inform the design and development of the open-shared learning objects and sequences. This chapter may be one of the more challenging ones given the number of potential concepts and data that may inform design practice, and also given that there are many different preferences that open-shared learning designers and developers may have in their selections. The core idea is that designing for learning centeredness benefits from knowledge of human learning and thought-through and informed processes in learning design.


Learning design Analysis Design Development Implementation Evaluation (ADDIE) Models Framework theories Universal design Flow Kolb’s learning styles and experiential learning cycle Bloom’s taxonomy TPACK framework (technological pedagogical content knowledge) 


Keyterms and Definitions

Abductive Reasoning

Observing in-world phenomenon and providing the simplest likely explanation through logical inference


Computational analysis of data


Underlying structure to a phenomenon (defined in this case as a learning resource)


An applied problem-solving technique


A theorized representation of a meso- or micro- system or dynamic in the world, often comprised of entities and relationships and dynamics


A system of interrelated ideas and/or principles explaining an in-world macro phenomenon (often expressed as principles and concepts)


  1. Agrawala M, Phan D, Heiser J, Haymaker J, Klingner J, Hanrahan P, and Tversky B. Designing effective step-by-step assembly instructions. ACM SIGGRAPH ’03. 828 – 837, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. Akondy V, and Murthy S, 2015. From novice to expert instructional design: A training based on cognitive apprenticeship model. In 2015 IEEE Seventh International Conference on Technology for Education. 53 – 60.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, Cruikshank KA, Mayer RE, Pintrich PR, Raths J, and Wittrock MC. A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn and Bacon. 2001.Google Scholar
  4. Bayer NL. Instructional design: a framework for designing computer-based training programs. In the proceedings of the engineered communication (PICC 91). Oct. 30 – Nov. 1, 1991. IEEE Xplore. 1991.
  5. Belcadhi LC, and Ghannouchi SA. An instructional design approach for e-active courses. In TEEM ’13. Nov. 14 – 15, 2013. Salamanca, Spain. 119 – 126, 2013.Google Scholar
  6. Brophy S, and Velankar Y. Work in progress: Cataloging instructional design patterns that facilitate generative learning. In the proceedings of the 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Oct. 28 – 31, 2006. San Diego, California. T2J-3 – T2J-4, 2006.Google Scholar
  7. Chen A., 2018 A neuroscientist explains what tech does to the reading brain: It’s not a zero-sum game. The Verge.
  8. Christensen TK, and Osguthorpe RT. How do instructional-design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly 17: 45 – 65, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Code JR, MacAllister K, Gress CLZ, and Nesbit JC. Self-regulated learning, motivation and goal theory: Implications for instructional design and e-learning. 1 – 3, 2006.Google Scholar
  10. Conole G. Designing for learning in an open world. In the Learning and Teaching Day, University of Suffolk. Slideshow. 2016.Google Scholar
  11. Crawford C. Non-linear instructional design model: Eternal, synergistic design and development. British Journal of Educational Technology 35: 413 – 420, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edelson DC. Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 11: 105 – 121, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellis TJ, Hafner W, and Mitropoulos F. Automating instructional design with eCAD. In the proceedings of the 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Oct. 20 – 23, 2004. Savannah, Georgia. T1H-1 – T1H-6, 2004.Google Scholar
  14. Gibbons AS. A theory-based alternative for the design of instruction: functional design. In the proceedings of DESRIST ’09. May 7 – 8, 2009. Malvern, Pennsylvania. 1 – 5, 2009.
  15. Gibbons AS. What and how do designers design? A theory of design structure. Tech Trends 47: 22 – 27, 2003. Scholar
  16. Hartley R. Active multimodal presentations (AMPs), instructional designs and learner autonomy. In the proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’05): 1 – 2, 2005.Google Scholar
  17. Jin H. A hybrid instructional design model for the combination of motivation theory and constructivism. In the proceedings of 2009 4th International Conference on Computer Science & Education: 1652 – 1656, 2009.Google Scholar
  18. Khalid MFM, and Kameyama W. Instructional-designed strategy for Massive Multiplayer Online M-Learning. In the proceedings of 2008 IEEE International Symposium on IT in Medicine and Education: 781 – 785, 2008.Google Scholar
  19. Kolb D. Experiential learning. Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. 1984.Google Scholar
  20. Koper R, and Olivier B. Representing the learning design of units of learning. Educational Technology & Society 7: 97 – 111, 2004.Google Scholar
  21. Kumar V, Lee S, Manimalar P, Somasundaram T, El-Kadi M, and Sidhan M. Open instructional design. In the proceedings of the International Workshop on Technology for Education (T4E). Aug. 4 – 6, 2009. Bangalore, India. 42 – 48, 2009.Google Scholar
  22. Latiff SA, Ahmad WFW, and Sivapalan S. Design and development process model of converting literature texts into graphical metaphor. In the proceedings of iiWAS 2009 ERPAS. Dec. 14 – 16, 2009. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 613 – 617, 2009.Google Scholar
  23. Mengel SA, Adams WJ, and Hagler MO. Using a hypertext instructional design methodology in engineering education. In the 1997 Frontiers in Education Conference: 648 – 652, 1997.Google Scholar
  24. Merrill MD, Drake L, Lacy MJ, Pratt J, and the ID2 Research Group. Educational Technology 36: 5 – 7, 1966.
  25. Mishra P, and Koehler MJ. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record 108: 1017 – 1054, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mayer RE, and Moreno R. A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology 90: 312 – 320, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moreno R, and Mayer RE. Deriving instructional design principles from multimedia presentations with animations. IEEE: 720 – 725, 1999.Google Scholar
  28. Nasr R, Hall SR, and Garik P. Understanding naïve reasonings in signals and systems: A foundation for designing effective instructional material. IEEE: 720 – 725, 2009.Google Scholar
  29. Nolen SB, and Koretsky MD. Affordances of virtual and physical laboratory projects for instructional design: Impacts on student engagement. IEEE Transactions on Education: 1 – 8, 2018.Google Scholar
  30. Pappas C. Top 7 instructional design theories & models for your next eLearning course. . 1 – 7, 2017.
  31. Reeves TC, Herrington J, and Oliver R. Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 16: 96 – 115, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reigeluth CM. In search of a better way to organize instruction: The elaboration theory. Journal of Instructional Development. 1979.Google Scholar
  33. Reiser R. A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development 49: 57 – 67, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rowland G, and DiVasto T. Instructional design and powerful learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly 26: 9 – 42, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sabin C, and Ahern TC. Instructional design and culturally diverse learners. In the proceedings of 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Nov. 6 – 9, 2002. Boston, Massachusetts. 2002. S1C-10 – S1C-14.Google Scholar
  36. Uden L, and Alderson A. Teaching and learning using instructional design. IEEE: 67 – 70, 2000.Google Scholar
  37. Utschig TT, Elger DF, and Beyerlein SW. Key issues surrounding faculty development of expertise in instructional design. In the proceedings of the 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Oct. 19 – 22, 2005. Indianapolis, Indiana. T3F-18 – T3F-23, 2005.Google Scholar
  38. Visscher-Voerman I, and Gustafson KL. Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research & Design (ETR&D) 52: 69 – 89, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Voulgari I, and Sampson DG. Applying lessons learnt from Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs) to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). In the proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. 14 – 15, 2014.Google Scholar
  40. Wu P. A game programming instructional design model. In the proceedings of the4 CCSC Northeastern Conference. 57 – 67, 2014.Google Scholar
  41. Zaman HB, Mukti NA, Sembok TMT, and Ahmad A. Indigenous multimedia content development for next generation smart schools: A cognitive instructional design approach. In the proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’05). 1 – 2, 2005.Google Scholar

Additional Reading Section

  1. Bruner J. The Process of Education: A Landmark in Educational Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1960, 1977.Google Scholar
  2. Clark RC, and Mayer RE. E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Thinking. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. 2016.Google Scholar
  3. Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: HarperPerennial. 1990.Google Scholar
  4. Lave J, and Wenger E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 1991.Google Scholar
  5. Ozmon HA, and Craver SM. Philosophical Foundations of Education. 7th Ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. 2003, 1999, 1995, 1986, 1981, 1976.Google Scholar
  6. Payne CR. Information Technology and Constructivism in Higher Education: Progressive Learning Frameworks. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Information Science Reference, IGI Global. 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shalin Hai-Jew
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Technology Services (ITS)Kansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations