Testing the waters of Instructional Design/Learning Design

Photo by Kenneth Kuan on Unsplash

This is my first foray into the world of Instructional Design. As an experienced design practitioner, it’s fascinating to dip into another design discipline and get a sense of other perspectives on the design process.

Amazingly, this was my first exposure to the ADDIE design framework – Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate, which is a process often used to underpin many of the design models we have been exposed to. In my nearly 30 years of design practice, I’ve never encountered the ADDIE acronym. I have always undertaken a similar process, but it’s just referred to as “the design process.” Analyze → Design → Prototype → Test [repeat].

“The design process is like breathing for me…
I don’t even think about it. It’s how I work.”

In the model I use (and teach), Analysis is both the beginning and the end, rather than using a separate Analysis stage at the beginning of the process, and Evaluation at the end. By combining Evaluation and Analysis, it allows the design process to function as an iterative loop, with the output from one iteration informing the input stage of the next. The iteration continues until the problem is solved, or at least solved well enough to deliver a first finished version to the client. The design process is like breathing for me… I don’t even think about it. It’s how I work. So it’s interesting to see it rationalized and encoded in this academic context.

I find the concept of design models challenging. Based on my experience, if we ask the right questions and do our due diligence in the analysis or discovery phase of a design project, it leads to the right solution. Relying on an existing “model” to guide the creative and development process seems unnecessarily rigid, and might result in a predetermined outcome that is not the best solution, but the one that fits the chosen model. Although the intent is to add evidence-based rigour to the process, it can have the effect of stifling creativity if the model doesn’t quite fit what we are trying to achieve. 

But Instructional Design (ID) and Learning Design (LD) are new to me, so perhaps models do have a valuable role to play in this discipline.

And on that subject of Instructional vs. Learning Design, I thought the essay by Parchoma et al. (2019) using Van Gogh’s “Yellow Room” as an analogy for a way to bridge ID and LD schools of thought was fascinating and relatable, and gave me hope that hybrid approaches are possible. I’m still figuring out my teaching philosophy (e.g. behaviourist vs. constructivist), and as such, I am open to exploring (and combining) all options.

ID seems more rooted in outcomes and measurement of success, whereas LD is more focused on creating the optimal conditions for learning – the learning experience. I certainly see room for incorporating both views into learning design, particularly where required skills and competencies are being learned. There is a need to quantify the success of learning where certification of a skill or competency is called for. 

However, a truly learner-centric approach would take into account individual learner needs in order to create a positive and productive learning experience driven by intrinsic motivation. Flow theory fascinates me as a model for fostering learner engagement.

This will be an interesting journey. In my exposure to digital Instructional Design / Learning Design I have found much of the learning may be well designed from a pedagogical point of view, but it often falls short in the learner/user experience. Principles of visual design and usability seem like secondary concerns, either being left up to the software/platform to determine the visual form the learning takes, or not being viewed through a critical eye of visual design or UX.

Ultimately, this is an area of interest for me, as it’s one where I think there are opportunities to improve the learning/user experience, by combining sound pedagogical principles of Instructional Design and Learning Design with consistent application of user experience design methodology and applied principles of readability and usability.