Category: Change

Instructional Design Isn’t Dying. It’s Evolving.

You may have read dire predictions that instructional design is dead. The eLearning Guild just published a report titled “Is instructional design a dying art?” One of the guild’s recent surveys asked participants if ID is a dying field. Is it really?

Recently emerged monarch butterfly

No, It’s Not Dying; It’s Evolving

Instructional design is not dead or dying. That’s clickbait. This is a perennial hand wringing exercise. Marc Rosenberg wrote about it in 2004, and even 13 years ago he mentioned that this pops up every few years.

Instructional design isn’t dying; it’s evolving. Instructional design previously evolved from only classroom training to classroom plus online training. Now the field continues to evolve and expand. In fact, in the Guild report mentioned above, all 13 industry thought leaders agreed that instructional design is changing rather than dying.

As the field evolves, the name may change from instructional design to learning design, learning experience design or something else. I now call myself a “learning design consultant” rather than instructional designer. Regardless of the name, the core skills of instructional design will continue to be valuable and needed in the workplace.

Fragmentation and Diversification

I think instructional design will continue to fragment and diversify. Formal training isn’t disappearing; workers have too many skills they need and switch careers too often. In fact, I think ongoing formal training may even increase. Formal training will be accompanied by more informal training and performance support.

We will continue to have more potential skills than any single person can learn, so we will work more often in teams with specialists in particular skills.

New Technology and More Options

New technologies will give IDs new options. New technology often won’t completely replace old technology, but old and new will exist side-by-side. Sometimes how we use older technology will change. When TV became prevalent, radio didn’t disappear, but we listen in our cars now. Physical books haven’t vanished due to ebooks, but how we buy them has changed. Our future will likely include computers, mobile, AR, and VR. VR will be fantastic in certain situations, but it’s not going to be the right solution for every learning need.

Karl Kapp has noted that new technology is one reason the job outlook for instructional designers is still good.

Google Trends

One reason for the concern about instructional design dying is that it has been trending down on Google for a number of years. The trend has mostly flattened out, but it is much lower than it was in 2004. Brent Schlenker observed this trend in 2016.

Google Trends for "instructional design" 2004-2017

If you compare instructional design and learning design (the red line), you’ll see that learning design is now searched more often than instructional design. Learning design has also trended down, but not quite as far as instructional design.

Google trend comparing "instructional design" and "learning design"

While instructional design and learning design have trended down, elearning is trending up. I don’t believe the interest in online learning overall is likely to diminish, although it will evolve. Traditional self-paced elearning may decrease, but not all online learning.


Google trends showing elearning increasing

Looking Ahead

I see a fairly rosy future for instructional designers and learning designers, especially those who focus on lifelong learning and reflective practice. We will have to evolve to continue to be successful, but that need to constantly learn is part of what makes this field so rewarding. We will have to give up some of our old ways, but we can learn to change and be amazing.

“How does one become a butterfly?” she asked.
“You must want to fly so much that you are willing to give up being a caterpillar.”

—Trina Paulus, Hope for the Flowers

What do you think? Is instructional design doomed, or will we survive in a changed form?




Tapping At My Cubicle (With Apologies to Poe)

Quoth the raven,
Quoth the raven, “Nevermore.”

Several years ago, I collected several e-learning horror stories for a now-inactive group blog.  I took a bit of artistic license with this, but this is based on a true story shared by Jeff Goldman.  Jeff’s was by far the best (or worst!) story people shared with me, and I’m grateful that he inspired me to this creativity. As we approach Halloween, I thought this was an excellent time to share this poem again.

With deepest apologies to Edgar Allen Poe

Tapping At My Cubicle

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious module of forgotten lore,
While I designed, my objectives mapping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of someone gently rapping, rapping at my cubicle door.
“Tis some visitor,” I muttered, “tapping at my cubicle door —
Only this, and nothing more.”

Ah, distinctly I remember, seven years ago December,
And each separate service center spread out upon the map
Eagerly I wished to prove, and vainly I had sought to move
Our onsite courses to online — online would be a snap
We’d learn across the distances, converting would be a snap.
We’d fill our knowledge gap.

Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,
Confidently I marketed this superb online course.
Who should take the online course, what to learn in an online course,
Such convenience as a benefit of the online course,
Why not take this online course?

Back in my Baltimore cubicle, I prepared for this pinnacle
Of online learning. But there, the tapping, louder than before.
“Surely,” said I, “surely that is someone from my local office.”
But I see, then, who is there, and confused I do implore,
“Why is a colleague from Virginia here at my door,
Traveling to tap on my cubicle door?”

This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing
To the woman whose voice now started somewhat hoarse.
This and more I sat divining, with my head confused reclining
Her answer I was pining: “I’m here for my online course.

I’m here for my ONLINE COURSE.”

Image credit: cc licensed flickr photo shared by J. Heinisch

Learning Experience Design: A Better Title Than Instructional Design?

How many times have you told people, “I’m an instructional designer,” only to be met with a blank stare? How many people are thoroughly confused about what we do for a living?

Last month, Connie Malamed proposed a new name for the field of instructional design: Learning Experience Design or LX Design. This moves the focus away from “instruction” and more to learning. Instead of focusing on the instruction or the materials, our starting point is thinking about the learners and how they will experience what we design. Connie argues this may help us focus more on learning science as well as being deliberate about designing valuable experiences.

Calling ourselves Learning Experience Designers acknowledges that we design, enable or facilitate experiences rather than courses. This gives us a broad license to empower people with the tools and information they need to do their jobs, regardless of the chosen format.

This isn’t an entirely new idea. Back in 2007, I wrote What Does An Instructional Designer Do? In that post, I used this as my definition:

What does an instructional designer do?: Design and develop learning experiences

I’m emphasizing “experiences” here deliberately, even though that isn’t always how others would describe the job. I think one of the crucial things instructional designers can (and should!) do is make sure that students have opportunities to actively practice what they are learning.

This is still the most popular post on my blog, averaging about 100 views a day. Based on the traffic, it seems there are a lot of people confused about the title instructional designer. It doesn’t immediately convey meaning. While I think learning experience design would still require explanation, I suspect that more people have an immediate positive association for the word “learning” rather than “instructional.”

Learning Experience Design or Instructional Design

Change Is Hard

Realistically, changing this in the field as a whole would be challenging, if not impossible. “Learning Architect” has a lot of advantages over “Instructional Designer,” but it never really caught on. And although we use instructional design as a generic term, actual titles in the field are quite varied. James Tyer collected a list of over 65 L&D job titles. Although that list includes training and other jobs, many of those could apply to instructional designers/LX designers too.

Besides the general challenge of rebranding a whole industry (as if that wasn’t enough), we have the added challenge of being quite varied in what we actually do for our work. Instructional design is used as an umbrella term for a wide range of skills. People who just tweak PowerPoint slides, wizards at rapid development tools with no writing skills, and fabulous designers and writers who rely on research to guide their decisions, and those who do a little of everything are all lumped into the same category. That’s another whole topic (and perhaps a post in the future), but a new title might help differentiate people who work on the entire learning experience from start to finish from those who focus solely on development. I think the field has become so varied that one title can’t cover everything, so LX Design won’t be the only solution; we need to talk about e-learning developers, multimedia developers, or other titles too.

Your Thoughts?

This topic generated some great discussion on LinkedIn, so I’m hoping for more thoughtful comments here. What do you think of this title? Would you use it? Would you recommend something else instead? Do you think we should stick with instructional design and try to reclaim the title?

Debunker Club Works to Dispel the Corrupted Cone of Learning

A new group called The Debunker Club is working to dispel myths and misinformation in the learning field. From their website:

The Debunker Club is an experiment in professional responsibility. Anyone who’s interested may join as long as they agree to the following:

  1. I would like to see less misinformation in the learning field.
  2. I will invest some of my time in learning and seeking the truth, from sources like peer-reviewed scientific research or translations of that research.
  3. I will politely, but actively, provide feedback to those who transmit misinformation.
  4. At least once a year, I will seek out providers of misinformation and provide them with polite feedback, asking them to stop transmitting their misinformation.
  5. I will be open to counter feedback, listening to understand opposing viewpoints. I will provide counter-evidence and argument when warranted.

This year, coinciding with April Fool’s Day 2015, the Debunker Club is running an experiment. We’re making a concerted effort to contact people who have shared the Cone of Experience (also known as the Cone of Learning or the Pyramid of Learning).

Many iterations of this cone exist. A Google image search for “cone of learning” returns dozens of results, most of which are false. If you’ve seen something like this that said, “People remember 10% of what they read, 20% of what they hear, 30% of what they see” etc., you’ve seen a variation on this theme.

Image search results for Cone of Learning

The original cone was developed by Edgar Dale and didn’t include any numbers. The later versions are the “corrupted cone” with fictitious statistics added.  Will Thalheimer’s post from 2009 debunking these claims is where I learned it was incorrect. Common sense might give you a hint that these numbers aren’t really based in research though. Think about it–how many times have you see research where all the categories broke into even 10% segments?

As part of the Debunker Club’s efforts, I discovered a post on Dane’s Education Blog called A Hierarchy of Learning. Although this post cites a great debunking article (Tales of the Undead…Learning Theories: The Learning Pyramid), the blog author only says that he “appreciate what it conveys.”

I left the following comment on his Learning Pyramid post.

Thanks for collecting so many resources on your blog. I can see that you’ve worked really hard to share many links and ideas with your readers.

However, the information above, though it may appear to have scientific support, has been exhaustively researched and found to have no basis in science. In fact, the “Tales of the Undead” link you cite debunks it.

An article from the scientific journal Educational Technology shows no research backing for the information. (Subramony, D., Molenda, M., Betrus, A., and Thalheimer, W. (2014). The Mythical Retention Chart and the Corruption of Dale’s Cone of Experience. Educational Technology, Nov/Dec 2014, 54(6), 6-16.)

The information presented is likely to produce more harm than good, promoting poor learning designs and hurting learners.

While we might abstract some beneficial notions from the percentages portrayed in the misleading information — namely that encouraging realistic practice has benefits — there are numerous faulty concepts within the bogus percentages that can do real harm. For example, by having people think that there are benefits to seeing over hearing, or hearing over reading, we are sending completely wrong messages about how learning works.

Most importantly, recent advances in learning science have really come together over the last two decades. The misleading information was first reported in 1914, with no research backing. It’s better to follow more recent findings than information that has no scientific basis. See, for example, the book Make it Stick by Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel. Julie Dirksen’s Design for How People Learn is another great selection.

I’m part of a larger community of folks called the Debunker Club who are attempting to encourage the use of proven, scientifically-based learning factors in the learning field.

I’m going to be posting about this misleading information on my blog. I hope you’ll comment and respond to my post if you wish. I (and the debunker community in general) want to learn how other people feel about the issues and ideas surrounding the original information and our approach to debunking myths and sharing evidence.

If you’re interested in dispelling misinformation and improving the learning field, please join the Debunker Club and participate in the conversation.

Best and Worst ID Projects

What are your most successful and least successful ID projects? Two graduate students have asked me this in interviews, and it’s a good question for reflection.

Most Successful

One of my favorite courses was an online graduate course on cultural competence for K-12 teachers. The evaluation for that course asked if it was a “transformative” experience for students. I knew I was setting a high bar when I wrote the evaluation, and I expected that most students would say that they learned from the course but that it didn’t really transform their teaching. However, about two thirds of the students said this course was truly transformative; it made them completely rethink their approach to teaching.

It was a challenging course, and it really pushed people out of their comfort zones. That’s where the real learning happens regarding diversity though. We used storytelling successfully in that course to bring the theory to life and help people make emotional connections. Students also told many of their own stories and shared experiences in the discussion forums. I consider this one of my most successful projects because it really inspired people to change.

Screenshot from the diversity course
Part of a story used to teach identity development in the cultural competence course

Least Successful

One of my very first freelance projects was not successful, although it was an excellent learning experience for me. I made a number of mistakes that I now know to avoid. It was a subcontracted project, but I didn’t have a detailed Statement of Work (Mistake #1). I briefly discussed a scenario-based approach with the owner of the contracting company, and I thought he understood what I planned (Mistake #2). The client reviewed and approved the storyboard, but the owner never looked at anything until I had the full Captivate course completed. I didn’t make sure I got sign-offs from the owner at each stage (Mistake #3).

He was aghast that I hadn’t created a traditional “click next” page turner course and demanded (in all caps) that I scrap everything and completely recreate the whole course over a weekend. Since I couldn’t complete that amount of work in his time frame, I offered to either do a smaller revision over the weekend or a full revision in two weeks. He wouldn’t accept that his demand was impossible, so I didn’t get paid for the rest of the project. I know now to have better agreements in place, especially regarding reviews and revisions. If the owner had reviewed the course at the storyboard stage or we’d had a better definition of the course in the agreement, I’m sure we could have come up with a solution that worked for everyone.

Your Best and Worst?

What are your best and worst ID projects? What have you learned from those experiences?