For this assignment, I propose seven design principles aligned with social constructivist pedagogies based on compassion, ethics, and benevolent values.
Culture eats strategy for breakfast.
While this is an old governance idiom incorrectly attributed to management theorist Peter Drucker, the perspective applies intensely to instructional design, particularly for initiatives involving fundamental change, social justice, and compassionate learning design. A hospitable organizational culture is critical to successfully implementing any instructional design project that proposes fundamental change. Take the time to understand the culture within which a design activity is being proposed. The most ambitious design will fail in a hostile environment.
Design for compassion.
Going beyond empathy, the compassionate learning design model proposed by Gachago et al. in 2022 seeks to develop a deeper understanding of our actual learners and their needs, wants, expectations, and motivations in practice. This principle challenges designers to consider issues of positionality between educators and learners and between the learners themselves and to reflect on our biases. Compassionate learning design aims to create a psychologically safe space for addressing issues of inequity and exclusion and applying trauma-informed approaches to pedagogy. Incorporating Ikeda et al.’s 2022 principles of anti-racist instructional design reinforces considerations for situational and representational awareness and the importance of accountability to BIPOC populations.
Embrace Indigenous worldviews and ways of knowing.
This is an important concept as it recognizes that Indigenous worldviews and ways of knowing are parallel and distinct from Western philosophies derived through different cultural paths with intersecting but unique ontologies and epistemologies. The purpose of this principle is not to set these perspectives in opposition or infer othering of Indigenous peoples. Instead, it is an understanding of difference and the need to make space for these perspectives and to foster belonging, especially when designing learning for Indigenous populations. See Gabrielle Lindstrom’s 2022 work for the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning at the University of Calgary.
Move slowly and handle with care.
This is an intentional rebuttal of the techno-optimist mantra of “move fast and break things.” We live in a world where the unintended externalities of such behaviour have cumulated into self-terminating trajectories. While the instructional design sphere is not nearly as big as the problems of the global meta-crisis, the same concepts are relevant here. What we do matters; what we don’t do also matters. Without intentional, deliberate thought to the potential harms of our actions, we risk perpetuating problems of colonialism, racism, and inequity, further marginalizing learners who need compassion most. Important supporting themes include confronting embedded bias and perverse incentives, employing an ethical approach, and applying the Precautionary Principle.
No significant difference.
This principle is a nod to the work of DETA Research and Richard E. Clark et al.’s Fifteen Common but Questionable Principles of Multimedia Learning (2021). As a design principle, this is a reminder to apply a critical lens to the claims surrounding educational technologies, particularly in instructional design. While this intersects with “Move slow and handle with care,” which centres on avoiding learner harms, it differs in that the focus is on recognizing the tendency for the education technology sector to make unverified claims that may produce no significant difference in outcomes compared to prevailing methodologies. This is also a reminder to contribute to scholarship and participate in the peer review process.
Nothing about us without us.
This core principle of policy design and healthcare research applies equally well to instructional design. It fundamentally recognizes people’s need for autonomy, agency, and involvement in the activities affecting them, especially learning. The idea invokes concepts of social constructivism and social justice. This is particularly important when designing learning solutions for diverse learner groups or working with equity-deserving and marginalized groups.
See the spectrum.
Understanding the nature of the instructional design and learning environments is vital. While constructivist and cognitivist instructional design models are often discretely classified, the learning environments within which they are implemented interconnect, inter-affect, and function as a dynamic spectrum of baselines, approaches, goals, and outcomes. Nan Wehipeihana’s (2019) To-For-With-By-As framework is a practical instrument for reflecting on this fluid environment and further considering positional, situational, and representational dynamics alongside potential limitations to participatory co-creation of learning.
References
Foust, D. (2024, March 4). Peter Drucker never said, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast”*. Medium. https://medium.com/@deanfoust_94519/peter-drucker-never-said-culture-eats-strategy-for-breakfast-0fe87beeb357
Gachago, D., Bali, M., & Pallitt, N. (2022). Compassionate learning design as a critical approach to instructional design. In J. Quinn, M. Burtis & S. Jhangiani (Eds.), Toward a critical instructional design. Pressbooks. https://pressbooks.pub/criticalinstructionaldesign/
Ikeda, R., Nham, K., Armstrong, L., Diec, F., Kim, N., Parada, D., Sanchez, D., & Robinson, V. (2021). Designing for liberation: A case study in antiracism instructional design. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(4), 25-45. https://doi.org/10.59668/329.5267
Lindstrom, G. (2022, January). Ethical space of engagement in curriculum development processes: Indigenous guiding principles for curriculum development projects [website]. Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning, University of Calgary. https://taylorinstitute.ucalgary.ca/resources/indigenous-guiding-principles-for-curriculum-development-projects
Feldon, D. F., Jeong, S., & Clark, R. E. (2021). Fifteen common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 25–40). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-handbook-of-multimedia-learning/fifteen-common-but-questionable-principles-of-multimedia-learning/09CA15BC1928C79A2CDDA787E1EFDAD9
Distance Education and Technological Advancements (DETA) Research. (2019). Welcome to DETA. detaresearch.org. https://detaresearch.org/
Wehipeihana, N. (2019). Increasing cultural competence in support of Indigenous-led evaluation: A necessary step toward Indigenous-led evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 34(2), 368-384. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.68444
Hi Chris,
Your blog post highlights organizational culture and instructional design, particularly in contexts of fundamental change and social justice. The adage about culture’s domination over strategy remains deeply relevant to our field. I value your focus on creating a welcoming environment. A supportive culture provides a productive ground for innovation, while a resistant one can crush even the most carefully crafted ideas. This reminds me of the importance of conducting a thorough cultural analysis before proposing or implementing changes. Understanding the values, norms, and power dynamics of an organization can help us adjust our approach to fit or subtly challenge its culture. Your point about compassionate learning design resonates strongly, especially in initiatives focused on equity and inclusion. Compassion not only shapes the design but also the strategies we use to introduce and sustain it within an organization. Change can be unsettling, and a culture that prioritizes empathy and collaboration will likely adapt more readily to new instructional frameworks. I’m curious about how you think designers can cultivate a hospitable culture if they encounter resistance. I’m curious about how you think instructional designers can create a welcoming culture when they face resistance. Are there strategies you’ve found effective in bridging the gap between ambitious design goals and a less-than-welcoming environment?
Thank you for your reflection about Indigenous worldviews, it shows a clear understanding of the relationship between Indigenous and Western worldviews in education. I appreciate how you focus on recognizing the uniqueness and equality of these perspectives instead of putting them against each other. This approach helps create a learning environment that respects and values different ways of knowing and understanding.
You offer a strong critique of the “move fast and break things” mindset, particularly in instructional design. I appreciate how you focus on the ethics of our work and encourage addressing biases and harmful incentives that can reinforce systemic inequalities. Your argument underscores the moral responsibility we bear as instructional designers to ensure that our work uplifts and supports all learners, especially those who have been historically marginalized. You also provide an in-depth perspective on the importance of critically examining the claims of educational technology. It’s amazing how you connect this to the principle of “Move slow and handle with care,” drawing attention to the ethical responsibility of designers to prevent learner misuse while also emphasizing the need for evidence-based practice. Your point about the ed tech sector often failing to demonstrate significant improvements over existing methodologies is especially relevant.
You clearly highlight the importance of autonomy, agency, and involvement in instructional design, especially when supporting diverse and equity-seeking groups. The way you connect these ideas with social constructivism and social justice is both thoughtful and convincing. Moreover, your reference to equity-deserving groups highlights the importance of creating spaces where learners feel empowered and respected. Instructional design must prioritize culturally responsive methodologies that recognize and address barriers.
You point out how instructional design models interact with changing learning environments and highlight the connection and flexibility of these models instead of seeing them separately. Also, you brought up the idea that baselines, approaches, goals, and outcomes can change, which gives us a chance to look at how instructional designers can manage and balance these factors. I am curious about your thoughts: how can the framework adapt to ensure inclusivity and co-creation when factors like limited technology access or time constraints affect participation? Thanks, Chris, for once again a most epic blog….
Kym
Thanks Kym! I sincerely appreciate the review and formative feedback.
Regarding your first question: “I’m curious about how you think instructional designers can create a welcoming culture when they face resistance. Are there strategies you’ve found effective in bridging the gap between ambitious design goals and a less-than-welcoming environment?”
Honestly, I haven’t researched primary literature about this topic, but I am familiar with concepts from Risk and Change Management. That said, there is much information about succeeding in hostile environments if you look. In my experience, a vital minimum element is to have sustained support from the relevant leadership for any challenging environments. If leadership does not align with the proposed values of such a project, it’s doomed to fail. Beyond that, finding like-minded people (aka “Champions”) willing to adopt, promote, and disseminate can help sustain momentum and dispel myths. It’s essential to recognize that in these situations, much of the work will be political as opposed to the work implementing an actual solution. Culture change is hard.
Regarding your second question: “I am curious about your thoughts: how can the framework adapt to ensure inclusivity and co-creation when factors like limited technology access or time constraints affect participation?”
Using Gachago et al.’s approach of adapting Wehipehana’s To-For-With-By-As is an excellent start. Wehipehana’s original work is intended for use in evaluating the participation of Māori peoples in policies that affect them. However, Gachago et al. adapted these principles for use as more generalized principles for assessing participation in the co-creation of education. The framework itself is not predicated on ed-tech, so a lack of technology access or a short timeframe are just factors that need to be identified as part of the analysis phase. It may mean that a plan might move the participatory nature of an education program from “To” to “With” but may not be able to achieve “By” or “As” due to those constraints. However, positive outcomes can also drive future change. Success is an excellent argument for requesting resources to support changing those conditions. Also, consider Clark’s work and the “no significant difference” phenomenon. Sometimes, an educational solution can use older but proven methodologies to achieve an equivalent outcome. Finally, when time is a challenge, consider an iterative approach with narrower, achievable goals. The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle from the Quality Improvement world is a great way to drive progressive, iterative change (and as we learned in this class, many ID models also use this approach).
Hi Chris,
Your proposed design principles are insightful and deeply rooted in compassionate and ethical instructional design. You have effectively integrated diverse perspectives and theories, creating a robust framework. Below are some suggestions to enhance your work:
Strengths:
1. Cultural Sensitivity: Your emphasis on understanding organizational culture and Indigenous worldviews is commendable. It adds depth to your framework and aligns well with social constructivist principles.
2. Compassion and Ethics: Highlighting the importance of compassionate learning design and addressing biases showcases your commitment to equity and inclusion.
3. Practical Considerations: Principles like “Move slowly and handle with care” and “No significant difference” reflect a balanced and realistic approach to design.
4. Scholarly Support: The references and citations lend credibility and provide readers with avenues for further exploration.
Areas for Improvement:
1. Clarity and Accessibility: Some principles, such as “See the spectrum,” could benefit from simplified language or examples to ensure they are accessible to a wider audience.
2. Practical Applications: While the principles are thoughtful, including more actionable examples (e.g., specific activities or strategies) would help readers translate theory into practice.
3. Organization: Consider grouping similar principles (e.g., those addressing cultural considerations and those focusing on process) to enhance readability and flow.