The three most prevalent views/theories of learning and instruction are Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism.  Other theories of learning include the social aspects of learning (including Social Cognitive Theory and Socio-historical Development Theory) and motivation theories (i.e., Attribution Theory).  This site seeks to represent the three prevalent theories, as well as specific instances of some of those theories (i.e., operant conditioning, schema theory, etc.), as well as to discuss specific theories relating to social learning and motivation that have helped to inform all of the three most prevalent theories.

Theories of learning and instruction are relevant to instructional designers because instructional designers need to apply what is known about learning theories and models to effectively and efficiently design systems to support learning.  Early in this century, John Dewey called for a "linking science" to bridge theories of learning with instructional practice.  Instructional Systems Design seeks to bridge the gap.  As many instructional designers will confirm, theory must drive practice.  Bednar et al (1992) caution that instructional design and development must be based on some theory of learning.  What are the theoretical bases that underlie the design?  Learning theories and Instructional Design theories can be distinguished from each other in that Instructional Design Theories are design oriented rather than description oriented.  But, regardless, Instructional Design Theories, oriented towards design, are still based on learning theory.  

Some instructional designers proclaim that instructional designers must firmly root themselves in one philosophical camp and that their instructional systems must reflect that philosophy.  Bednar et al suggest that “Instructional design and development must be based upon some theory of learning and/or cognition; effective design is possible only if the developer has reflexive awareness of the theoretical basis underlying the design. (p. 101)”  They posit that developers need to be aware of their own beliefs about the nature of learning and therefore select concepts and strategies from those theories that are consistent with their beliefs. Other designers suggest that the particular situation (learning goal, environment, learners, community, etc.) can dictate the type of learning that must occur.

Paradigm debates over the nature of knowledge, reality and truth are thought to ground assumptions that affect instructional goals, strategies and methods.  Bednar et al (1992) suggest that designers should: (1) be aware of personal beliefs about the nature of learning, (2) select concepts and strategies from theories consistent with these beliefs, (3) be guided by the theoretical framework or paradigm from which the theory was abstracted, (4) reflect your epistemology in your instructional methods, and (5) do not mix epistemologies in an instructional program.  While I agree that an instructional designer will have certain theories, beliefs, and biases, I think that the primary role for the instructional designer is to provide a solid instructional system that is firmly rooted in learning theory that supports the goals and objectives outlined in the analysis. 

The three most prevalent learning theories are often juxtaposed or represented as fixed.  In fact, behaviorism and constructivism are often represented as opposites, with cognitivism sharing similarities with both. For example, cognitivism and constructivism share the analogy of comparing the processes of the mind to those of a computer. Pea (1991) insists that constructivist theories have added to the analogy of the computer model by suggesting that the information processeor must be viewed as not simply shuffling data, but as wielding it flexibly during learning by making hypotheses, testing interpretations, etc.  At the same time, behaviorism and cognitivism share a more objectivist outlook of knowledge and reality that the constructivist have shied away from.  But, as Jonassen indicates "objectivism and constructivism are often described as polar extremes on a continuum in order to contrast their assumptions however most designers fall somewhere between the extreme views."  

Clearly, learning theory has developed on a continuum, where one theory has grown out of a perception by new theorists that the previous theories did not account for certain aspects of learning.  Thus, these three learning theories are best represented on a continuum.

What are the epistemological beliefs that ground learning theories?  Jonassen (1991) presents the grounding assumptions of both objectivism and constructivism in a matrix.  Driscoll (1999) provides a table of various epistemologies or learning and a matrix comparing three epistemological traditions. Driscoll's discussion of epistemologies has three features; whereas Jonassen's has just two: objectivism and constructivism.  Driscoll, however, presents objectivism, pragmatism, and interpretivism.  Interpretivism is similar to the constructivism depicted by Jonassen.  Pragmatists, according to Driscoll, emphasize theories of meaning - of what works - with the understanding that what works may not reflect reality, but to the extent that it can, it should.  Leahey and Harris (1997) suggest that pragmatism is the working philosophy of most psychologists, although others see objectivism as the dominant epistemology in psychology.