So tell us, what model do you use?
Over the years, I have worked with just about every instructional design framework that circulates in our field. If you spend enough time in digital learning, you will encounter them all: the 4MAT Learning Model, the ADDIE Model, The SAM, Design Thinking for Learning, Action Mapping, LLAMA, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle, and countless others that promise to explain how people learn.
At first, these models can feel incredibly useful. They provide structure, language, and a sense that instructional design is grounded in a solid body of theory. For those entering the field, they help prevent the most common mistake in training design: presenting large volumes of information without helping learners understand, apply, or use it.
But after years of designing and governing digital learning systems, something becomes obvious. Most of these frameworks are saying the same thing. My professor always likened this practice to “arrows in a quiver.” Instructional models are tools, not rules. Each one exists to help solve a particular design problem.
A good instructional designer doesn’t pledge loyalty to one model the way a religion follows doctrine. Instead, they select the approach that best fits the situation. In practice, different projects require different arrows.
The terminology changes. The diagrams look different. The academic language becomes more elaborate. Yet underneath it all, the instructional logic remains remarkably consistent. Every model, in one form or another, describes a cycle that moves learners from relevance to understanding, then into practice and ultimately into application.
Once you notice that pattern, the landscape of learning theory suddenly becomes much simpler.
After working across multi-country digital learning initiatives, accessibility governance, and complex e-learning ecosystems, I eventually stopped worrying about which theoretical model a course was “following.” Instead, I began designing around a much simpler operational logic:
Problem → Context → Concept → Practice → Transfer
This sequence has become my internal compass for instructional design.
The first step is always the problem. Too many learning programs begin with content rather than performance. A course should not exist simply because information is available or because someone believes a topic is important. It should exist because there is a real gap in knowledge, behavior, or capability that needs to be addressed.
Once the problem is clear, the next step is context. Learners need to see where the problem occurs in their real working environment. Without context, training becomes abstract and disconnected from reality. Context anchors learning in situations that professionals actually face.
Only after those two elements are established does the concept enter the picture. This is where the framework, principle, or body of knowledge is introduced. The concept provides the mental model that helps explain why the problem occurs and how it can be addressed.
But knowledge alone does not create capability. Practice is where learning begins to take shape. This is the stage where learners test ideas, apply methods, make decisions, and begin to develop competence through doing rather than observing.
Finally, transfer ensures that learning moves beyond the training environment and into real work. If a learner cannot apply what they have learned in their own context, the course may have been interesting but it has not truly succeeded.
Interestingly, when this sequence is compared with many well-known instructional models, the overlap becomes clear.
| Practical Design Logic | Similar Idea in Established Models |
|---|---|
| Problem | Analysis in the ADDIE Model |
| Context | “Why” stage in the 4MAT Learning Model |
| Concept | Understanding levels in Bloom’s Taxonomy |
| Practice | Experimentation in Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle |
| Transfer | Application and performance improvement across most adult learning theories |
This alignment is not accidental. Many learning theorists were observing the same fundamental process: people learn best when they understand why something matters, grasp the underlying idea, practice using it, and then apply it in meaningful situations.
In digital learning environments, this sequence becomes even more important. Too often, online courses fall into a familiar pattern of slides followed by a short quiz. Information is delivered, but capability is never developed.
A more effective structure begins with a real scenario or challenge, introduces the concept needed to address it, provides opportunities to practice decisions or actions, and then encourages learners to apply what they have learned to their own environment. This approach transforms training from passive consumption into active learning.
The longer I work in this field, the more convinced I become that instructional design is not about choosing the right model. It is about solving the right problem and creating the conditions for learners to build real capability.
Theories and frameworks have their place. They provide valuable intellectual foundations for the discipline. But in the day-to-day practice of designing learning experiences—especially in complex systems and international contexts—clarity often matters more than complexity.
Sometimes the most powerful design frameworks are the simplest ones.
And sometimes the real skill of an instructional designer lies not in knowing every model, but in recognizing that many of them are describing the same learning journey from different angles.