February 7, 2005
Learning Theory Does NOT = Instructional Design Theory
I saw this article listed on elearningpost and had to make a comment. The link to the learning principles is appreciated but I have to take issue with the statement on elearningpost.com that: "These can also be viewed as design principles."
NO THAT IS NOT CORRECT! Learning theory does not equate directly to design theory. They are quite different entities, though one can and should inform the other.
I think the person who did the best job of clarifying this difference for me is Dr. Molenda in IST at Indiana University (his retirement this year will leave a void in the field).
He used analogy to the medical field that I have thought about quite a bit and tried to add to with my own examples. A doctor has a theory on how a disease progresses or is transmitted. This theory would inform the doctor about prognosis, likelihood of passing the disease to someone else, etc. This is analogous to learning theory.
The doctor also has theories about how to treat the disease. These treatments may or may not have a direct relationship to the disease theory but might be the most effective treatment in a given context. Treatment theories would be analogous to design theories.
For example, telling someone to take a couple of aspirin and a decongestant to treat a cold has very little direct relationship with how a cold virus infects a person or how it multiplies once inside the body. It is, however, an effective treatment for most people because it alleviates symptoms until the body rids itself of the virus. There are other possible remedies for a cold that might include anti-viral medications, antibiotics (for non-viral infections), zinc, echinacea tea, or even chicken soup. Any of these might be appropriate given the state of the illness.
Similarly, many instructional designs can be used to affect a particular learning objective. If you were to look at principle 2 in the article:
Principle Two: The brain is a social brain. "For the first year or two of life outside the womb, our brains are in the most pliable, impressionable, and receptive state they will ever be in" (Zen Physics, P.18). We begin to be shaped as our immensely receptive brain/minds interact with our early environment and interpersonal relationships. Vygotsky was partially responsible for bringing the social construction of knowledge to our awareness. It is through this dynamic interaction with others that therapy works, for instance. It is now clear that throughout our lives, our brain/minds change in response to their engagement with others - so much so that individuals must always be seen to be integral parts of larger social systems. Indeed, part of our identity depends on establishing community and finding ways to belong. Learning, therefore, is profoundly influenced by the nature of the social relationships within which people find themselves.
It tells us nothing about how to develop instruction to facilitate social interaction or even what we mean by social interaction. More importantly, it does not tell us the conditions and situations under which various type of social interaction would be most useful (c.f. Reigeluth, 1999). In a given situation, it might be possible that reading a book can get to the same learning objective more efficiently than a group exercise (unlike many people, I would argue that reading is a social interaction between the author and the reader).
A good instructional design theory would help us make decisions about appropriate methods in particular situations while a good learning theory helps us understand the processes that occur within the person. I recommend taking a look at the principles but had to put two-cents in on the pointer 
Reference
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional design theory and how is it changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Posted by Rovy at February 7, 2005 10:58 PM
Comments
Good observation. I think a major difference between learning theory and instructional theory goes something like this:
Learning occurs every minute you are awake.
Effective instruction occurs in those rare moments when you learn what someone else wants you to learn.
When instruction fails, it is rarely the case that the participants didn't learn anything. However frequently the lessons learned are not the lessons that instructors would appreciate.
Posted by: kirkjobsluder at February 8, 2005 1:19 AM
Dr. Andy Gibbons, formerly of Utah State, now department chair at BYU, wrote an interesting paper about this debate: The Practice of Instructional Technology
Posted by: Will at February 8, 2005 4:43 PM
Will, Thanks for the comment and link to the article. I have been reading Gibbons' work on design for sometime now and find it to be an excellent guide although this paper was one I had not seen.
Rovy
Posted by: Situativity ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.situativity.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 9, 2005 6:52 AM