Re-Design Teaching Design

For the past two decades, there has been persistent debate around whether there is a difference between the fields of instructional design (ID) and learning design (LD). While differences in the two approaches are certainly apparent, there are cross-over points that can provide ID and LD researchers and practitioners with opportunities for dialogue about the purposes and remit of research-based practices for optimal design. Though potentially disruptive, initiating dialogues among learning and instructional designers could lead to more thorough and critical analyses of both ID and LD repertoires. Should boundary crossings occur, there is a potential for a third space for the contemplation, research, and practice of design. A goal of this article is to use the notion of Van Gogh’s Yellow House as an anchoring metaphor for the third space – a location for shared discourse, inspiration, collaboration, and challenge for a community of designers of/for learning. Using the impressionist and expressionist terminology to help elucidate the ways of thinking of designers of both traditions, this article examines the history, underlying philosophical approaches, methodologies, and design goals of ID and LD. We conclude that the emergence of a third space for design can help us move beyond the LD and ID dichotomies. We suggest that a socio-materialist perspective alleviates issues of incommensurability by acknowledging ontological multiplicity.

There is growing evidence of cross-language transfer in metalinguistic processes related to reading acquisition and development. In particular, phonological awareness is a requisite process that shares similarities across Spanish and English. Through explicit instruction and instructional design analyses, we propose principles to facilitate phonemic awareness development and transfer from Spanish to English for children at risk for early reading difficulties. In this article we (a) profile the early reading performance of English language learners, (b) highlight the role of phonemic awareness in learning to read in alphabetic languages, and (c) propose 4 instructional design principles to accelerate English language learners' acquisition and development of phonemic awareness.

This paper examines the integration of neuroplasticity research into instructional design frameworks to optimize cognitive development and learning outcomes. Through systematic analysis of neuroscientific findings and educational theory, this study proposes a comprehensive model for neuroplasticity-informed teaching that bridges brain science and pedagogical practice. The theoretical framework synthesizes critical periods research, synaptic plasticity mechanisms, and cognitive load theory to establish evidence-based principles for instructional design. Analysis reveals that effective integration requires understanding timing-dependent plasticity, environmental enrichment factors, and individual variability in neural adaptation. The proposed model demonstrates how neuroplasticity principles can inform scaffolding strategies, multimodal instruction, and assessment design. Critical evaluation identifies both promising applications and methodological limitations in translating neuroscientific findings to classroom practice. Implications suggest that neuroplasticity-informed approaches can enhance learning efficiency, support diverse learners, and provide objective measures for instructional effectiveness. This synthesis contributes to the emerging field of educational neuroscience by providing a systematic framework for evidence-based instructional design grounded in brain science.

The origins and evolution of instructional technology and instructional design are treated in this chapter as separate concepts, although having intertwined histories. As with other technologies, their origins can be traced to the scientific discoveries on which they are based. Early in the twentieth century, new discoveries in optics and electricity stimulated educators to the adoption of technological innovations such as projected still pictures, motion pictures, and audio recording. Individuals and, later, groups of affiliated professionals promoted enriching learning by adding visual and, later, audiovisual resources where verbal presentations previously dominated. As radio broadcasting grew in the 1930s and then television in the 1950s, these mass media were perceived as ways to reach audiences, in and out of school, with educative audiovisual programs. In the 1960s, the wave of interest in teaching machines incorporating behaviorist psychological technology engendered a shift in identity from audiovisual technologies to all technologies, including psychological ones. As computers became ubiquitous in the 1990s, they became the dominant delivery system, due to their interactive capabilities. With the global spread of the World Wide Web after 1995, networked computers took on communication functions as well as storage and processing functions, giving new momentum to distance education. Meanwhile, research during and after World War II prompted a technology of planning – systems analysis. In the 1960s, educators adapted the systems approach to instructional planning, starting the development of instructional systems design (ISD). Since the 1980s, ISD has been the reigning paradigm for instructional design, while instructional design has become the central activity of instructional technology professionals.

As we begin the new year, we take the opportunity to introduce two of our colleagues that serve on the ISPI Board of Directors. Dr. Stephanie Johnson serves as our Board Secretary and Marketing Committee Chair. Dr Marsha Parker also serves on the Marketing Committee and has taken the lead in facilitating the design and development of ISPI's new Marketing Plan.I was introduced to ISPI at Wayne State University (WSU) during a class with Dr. James Moseley. He encouraged me to join and brought me to my first ISPI Conference as part of the WSU professor/student cadre.I am very proud of the work I did to support my dissertation. Any time you can increase the efficacy of the military, while ensuring their safety, is important. I am also extremely proud of the work that I am currently doing, as we are directly affecting product quality and helping move goods and services across the planet.I want people to say that I was “one of the good guys.” We teach our children to “do the right thing every time, even when no one is looking.” I'd like to think that I have put my money where my mouth is.Stephanie Johnson, PhD is the Master Black Belt for four divisions at PACCAR, responsible for performance improvement at Quality, Purchasing, DAF Brasil, and ITD (information technology division). She is also responsible for oversight and management of the Six Sigma training program supporting all of PACCAR globally. Prior positions at PACCAR include Continuous Improvement Instructional Designer and National Dealer Training Manager at PACCAR Parts. Prior to her role at PACCAR, Stephanie spent time in positions at the State of Washington, SABIC Innovative Plastics, General Dynamics Land Systems, and O/E Learning. Stephanie has a bachelor's degree in education from Central Michigan University, a Master of Arts in Teaching from Saginaw Valley State University, and a PhD in Instructional Technology from Wayne State University. Stephanie also serves as Director for The International Society for Performance Improvement. She can be reached at Stephanie.johnson@paccar.com or srjohnson@ispi.org.I was attracted to the wealth of knowledge and accessibility to professionals in the field of performance improvement. I had the ability to grow my network, learn from others, present at ISPI conferences, and connect with others at chapter meetings.Transformation of Learning and Development at Ford Motor Company. We started on a journey to transform our instructional designers from order takers to performance consultants using the ISPI 10 standards.“Your limitation isn't what you don't have, it's what you don't use.” Author unknown.Dr. Parker is a learning and development strategist at Ford Motor Company and currently leads the transformation of learning technology platforms for the Global Talent organization. With over 10 years in the field of instructional design and analytics, she is an experienced performance strategist, instructional designer, data scientist, and leadership coach. Having received her PhD from Wayne State University (2014) in instructional technology and design, Dr. Parker is a recognized speaker in the field of digital learning, data and analytics, and learning strategy. Dr. Parker currently serves as an ISPI Board Member. She can be reached by email at mparke91@ford.com or by phone at 248-910-9938.

Philosophical stances and design frameworks, such as value‐sensitive design, manifest in design praxis through enacting specific design approaches and employing a variety of methods by the designers. Although it could overlap with other frameworks and approaches in the Instructional Design and Technology (IDT) field, value‐sensitive design remains a largely unexplored topic in the praxis of instructional design for several reasons. As it focuses on different stakeholders and their values, and by recognizing the contested issue of universal values, we report in this paper on our empirical work that sought to describe the values that instructional designers hold/express in relation to their instructional design work for online courses. In this study, instructional designers communicated their values while discussing their design philosophies and how they manifested in designing human‐computer interactions to promote online authentic learning. Through the theoretical lens of value‐sensitive design, we provide a detailed account of instructional designers' values as well as describe and showcase how their values manifested in specific design artefacts. Through this investigation of instructional designers' values, we contribute to the ongoing discussion on value‐sensitive design and generate implications for instructional design research and education. These implications contribute to the evolution of the instructional design field. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topic Philosophical stances and design frameworks, such as value‐sensitive design (VSD), manifest in design praxis through designers enacting specific design approaches and employing a variety of methods. VSD overlaps with other frameworks and approaches in the Instructional Design and Technology (IDT) field and manifests through different terms/frameworks. VSD is a largely unexplored topic in the praxis of instructional design. Designers' philosophies, values and design judgements play a significant role in design practice, and they are the driving force behind the enactment of frameworks and philosophical stances such as VSD. The IDT field has not sufficiently addressed the role of the designer in carrying out design work. What this paper adds Detailed accounts of instructional designers' values of care toward learners while designing human‐computer interactions to support authentic learning in online learning environments. Specific showcase of examples of how instructional designers' values manifest in their specific designed artefacts that qualify to be value‐sensitive designs. A contribution to the ongoing discussion on VSD in relation to designers' level of design expertise and their overall capacity to evoke strong design judgements. A contribution to the evolution of IDT by focusing on instructional designers themselves. Implications for practice and/or policy IDT scholars need to focus more on designers' professional characters and ethical orientations—as the true guarantors of design—and less on prescriptive design models. Design educators need to focus their design curricula on developing designers' professional characters so that designers can be aware of their values, examine them, cultivate more values and, most importantly, develop the capacity to evoke strong and successful design judgements. To be able to subscribe, enact and even criticize and expand designerly frameworks such as VSD, instructional design students need to develop a design mindset early in their professional journey. Designers need to have the capacity to examine their own values, nurture them and, most importantly, cultivate new values to help them become the true guarantors of design.

This study explored the interaction of multimedia production competencies of expert and novice instructional designers on the design decisions made during the instructional design process / workflow. This multiple measures study used qualitative survey instruments to access and measure the production competencies of participants, then a design aloud protocol to capture and measure the instructional design decision-making process for those same participants. A follow-on interview after the initial design aloud session was conducted in order to triangulate and confirm any trends or findings uncovered during the earlier design aloud session. Ultimately, the objective of this study was to provide some evidence that suggests whether certain production skills are influencing instructional design decision-making. Employer influence on the instructional designer’s decision-making was also explored. Results indicated that a substantial number of instructional designers (n=30) who participated in this study were selecting media as a preliminary step in their workflow process, and were often then using analysis as a measure to confirm the early media selection. Expert instructional designers appeared to be less susceptible to the early media selection behavior, though not immune. Results indicate that one reason the expert instructional designers were less likely to adopt media as a preliminary instructional design step was that the experts conducted a more diverse set of analysis activities. Additionally, results indicated that instructional designers were often experiencing pressure to adopt media based on employer demands, and project constraints such as budget and time.

PurposeInstructional design students’ training may not include game-based learning (GBL). This paper aims to review the literature on GBL to determine the role of the instructional designer who is interested in GBL approaches to enhance learning especially for the novice learner.Design/methodology/approachThe methodology for determining the instructional designers’ roles is based on the comparison of game-based and traditional instructional design and the identification of what is needed to aid instructors and designers in development and evaluation of GBL products.FindingsThe literature reveals that GBL shows learning potential. The existence of slim empirical research cannot posit GBL effectiveness in general, within specific disciplines, or with specific learner types. If GBL is to be effectively included in instructional design, the instructional designers, game designers and educational stakeholders need to collaborate to understand and combine optimal design features that meet both game and education objectives and to develop a common nomenclature so that research and its findings can be effectively communicated.Originality/valueThis review identifies specific digital game-based strategies that align with the learning goals sought in instructional design, differences between game and instructional design and steps needed for the instructional designer to bridge gaps in knowledge or practice between educators, researchers, game designers and instructional designers. These identifications may aid all GBL stakeholders in development of future GBL.

The curriculum implementation in ASEAN countries is interesting to examine, especially in order to achieve the direction of the digital transformation roadmap of the education system. Research on instructional design can be used as one of the parameters to understand how the general description of implementation achieves curriculum goals. This study aims to examine instructional design research in ASEAN countries during the period 2018-2024 on the implementation of the national curriculum towards the digital transformation of the education system through (1) investigating the general description of instructional design research, (2) examining research characteristics from aspects of research objectives, (3) explaining the implications of findings both theoretically and practically. The documentation study was conducted through bibliometric analysis of articles with keywords against article titles containing the phrase "instructional design" in ASEAN countries from the Scopus database, which produced as many as 37 selected articles during the 2018-2024 period. The results show that the general description and direction of instructional design research objectives in ASEAN countries have been presented comprehensively. Besides that, the theoretical and practical implications of instructional design research on the road map for digital transformation of education systems in ASEAN have been considered. AbstrakImplementasi kurikulum di negara ASEAN menarik diteliti khususnya dalam upaya mencapai arah peta jalan transformasi digital sistem pendidikan. Riset tentang instructional design bisa dijadikan salah satu parameter untuk memahami bagaimana gambaran umum implementasi untuk mencapai tujuan kurikulum. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji riset instructional design di negara ASEAN selama periode 2018-2024 pada implementasi kurikulum nasional dalam menuju transformasi digital sistem pendidikan, melalui: (1) investigasi gambaran umum penelitian instructional design, (2) mengkaji karakteristik penelitian dari aspek tujuan penelitian, (3) menjelaskan implikasi temuan baik secara teoritis maupun praktis. Studi dokumentasi dilakukan melalui analisis bibliometrik terhadap artikel dengan kata kunci terhadap judul artikel yang mengandung frasa “instructional design” di negara ASEAN, dari database scopus yang menghasilkan sebanyak 37 artikel terpilih selama periode tahun 2018-2024. Hasil menunjukan bahwa gambaran umum dan arah tujuan penelitian instructional design di negara ASEAN telah tersaji secara komprehensif, selain itu implikasi teoritis dan praktis dari riset instructional design terhadap peta jalan transformasi digital sistem pendidikan di ASEAN sudah dianggap sejalan.Kata Kunci: bibliometrik; desain pembelajaran; kurikulum; pendidikan; transformasi digital

Design is a process and also the result of that process. A design process includes cognitive as well as hands-on activities. In this chapter, we focus on design areas related to the communication of data, information, and instruction. These design areas use words, images, and form as resources. They deal with the design of messages. The information and message design model includes analysis and synopsis, production of draft, production of script, and production of an original and a master. The design process is influenced by both theoretical design principles and applied design guidelines. There are many design areas, such as graphic design, instruction design (instructional design, instructional message design, and interaction design), information design (communication design, document design, and spatial design), persuasion design (advertising, propaganda, and emotional design), visualisation (data visualisation, information visualisation, and educational visualisation), and design thinking. In recent years, we have witnessed many paradigm and culture shifts: most notably, an ongoing change of focus from teaching to learning, and from designing to participatory (co-)designing.

Games have impacted education, research, and industry in multiple ways, altering notions of interaction. Traditionally, instructional design and educational research have dominated academic studies of pedagogy, teaching, and training. There are many parallels between the fields of game design and education, as both draw inspiration from the study of engagement, interaction, and motivation. State-of-the-art research and trends show great potential to cross-pollinate and uplift each area. This chapter synthesizes instructional and game design concepts based on current research, comparing and contrasting key elements. Towards the goal of providing a road map for readers, the chapter demonstrates three active case studies that illustrate how both fields greatly influence each other, leading to positive outcomes. These cases demonstrate that many concepts in both fields have direct parallels. The chapter concludes with a discussion of potential future directions and trends.

This literature review investigates the role of cultural diversity in instructional design within online learning environments. Through a structured review of literature from 2010 to 2023, including seminal works and recent studies, this research examines how culture is defined, researched, and implemented in instructional design. The review was guided by five research questions exploring: definitions of culture in instructional design literature, research approaches to studying culture, implementation in the instructional design process, differences in cultural considerations before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and challenges arising from cultural diversity. Key findings reveal an evolution from static to dynamic definitions of culture in instructional design. While theoretical frameworks for implementing culture in instructional design have matured, practical application remains challenging. The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed both innovations and setbacks in cultural considerations for online learning design. Persistent challenges include creating materials accessible across diverse populations, addressing socioeconomic barriers, and overcoming resource constraints in evaluation practices. This review contributes to the field by synthesizing current knowledge about cultural considerations in instructional design while identifying significant gaps in research and practice. Findings can inform more effective approaches to incorporating cultural considerations in instructional design, particularly in increasingly diverse online learning environments.

Aim/Purpose: The study investigates the factors influencing the acceptance and utilisation of large language models (LLMs) (predictor variables of LLM usage), such as ChatGPT, in Learning design by instructional designers and university-teaching academics from various countries. Background: Large language models (LLMs) have exploded onto the scene, transforming the landscape of learning design. Instructional designers and university teaching academics have been overburdened with content creation for their teaching programmes, and the arrival of LLM models will help in this regard by developing more interactive content that drives student engagement and, in turn, contributes to student success. Since LLMs are a relatively new phenomenon, little is known about the factors influencing their acceptance in learning design; therefore, this research is needed, as learning design principles are the bedrock of student engagement and success. Methodology: A cross-sectional correlational quantitative study was employed. Data was collected using an online questionnaire posted on social media, including LinkedIn, from 203 instructional designers and university teaching academics. Purposive and snowball sampling methods were used to target instructional designers and university teaching academics at colleges and universities worldwide. Participants were asked to share the survey link with fellow instructional designers and university-teaching academics in their communities. The factor structure of the data was determined using exploratory factor analysis. Nonetheless, the factor structure derived from the LLMs did not entirely reflect the original configuration of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT3), as certain predictors appeared to coalesce, indicating LLMs’ unique nature in learning design. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to verify the fit of the data on the measurement model. First-order and second-order structural modelling were used to identify the structural relationships among the variables. Contribution: The study determines significant factors for the acceptance of LLMs by instructional designers and academic teaching staff in learning design, enabling possible opportunities for best practices in the field through interventions to optimize LLM usage. The study applies the technology acceptance model to the emerging LLM technology and extends the technology acceptance model by adding the trust construct as a predictor variable. Findings: The structural analysis results indicated that the ingrained LLM practices, LLM peer-driven expectations, innovative propensity towards LLM adoption, reliability and provider trust in LLMs, and ease of use and support influenced perceived LLM benefits and usage, but community standards and infrastructure had no influence. The second-order structural equation modelling indicated that perceived LLM benefits and usage and ingrained LLM habits contributed most to the learning design. Recommendations for Practitioners: Teaching academics and instructional designers must use LLMs in designing content, assessments, and interactive learning activities, and attend LLM training workshops on prompting and best practices in integrating LLMs into learning and teaching to see their benefits; hence, regular use of LLMs will then lead to trust and innovation in LLMs usage, enhancing learning design and improving student learning outcomes. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers must use mixed methods approaches to have a deeper understanding of the factors influencing LLMs. Since habit and perceived LLM benefits and usage contributed the most variance to learning design, researchers must investigate strategies that optimise these factors in learning design, such as effective intervention strategies that can help form positive LLM habits. In addition, the findings provide researchers with a starting point for future research. Further researchers must investigate interventions that optimise the influence of personal innovativeness and trust that contributed the least variance to learning design, hence unlocking the potential of LLMs in learning design through innovation, responsible, and ethical use. Impact on Society: The use of LLMs in learning design has a high possibility of transforming education, specifically the learning design landscape. Using LLMs will free up more time for teaching academics and instructional designers so that they spend more time on higher-order thinking skill demands. Consequently, the students will be exposed to more engaging and interactive content, resulting in improved learning outcomes. Future Research: Future research must include context-derived external variables in technology acceptance models, such as levels of prompting competencies, to provide a deeper understanding of LLMs. In addition, future research must be based on the application and impact of LLMs on student engagement and success, and their attainment of 21st-century skills.

The purpose of this exploratory research study was to examine the roles instructional designers (IDs) in higher education play in the integration of generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) into their organizations, and how they use GenAI technologies in their own professional practices. Data were collected from 15 participants in the southeastern United States (U.S.) in an ID role or with similar job titles (e.g., educational technologist). Using a general qualitative approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted in Zoom about IDs’ use and integration of GenAI. Our findings resulted in three primary themes related to IDs’ integration of GenAI in online and blended education: (a) use of GenAI for instructional design; (b) collaborative guidance for faculty integration of GenAI; (c) training, resources, and guidelines on the integration of GenAI. A common thread through all the themes and interviews was IDs’ conscientious and cautious approach and ethical concerns about GenAI integration. We unpack these themes while discussing the implications of IDs in higher education integrating GenAI to meet organizational, faculty, and student needs. We provide limitations and a rich discussion about the advancement of GenAI by IDs working in institutions of higher education.

We are currently experiencing the rapid growth of technology-based distance learning courses and programs in higher education, K-12 education, training, and other non-traditional learning contexts. With the proliferation of e-Learning courses and programs, it is important that instructional designers, instructional technologists, and others think critically about the nature of their research and practice. A number of questions and issues need to be addressed. For example, many individuals use the terms virtual space, virtual learning, and virtual learning communities when discussing e-Learning design and development. Do we all attach the same meaning to these terms? Probably not. As we design Web-based courses, should we try and use the structure of the traditional classroom as the metaphor for the “online” classroom? This is certainly an open question, given the criticisms that many students and trainees voice concerning traditional classroom instruction and training. Are the relevant instructional design, development, and policy issues the same for higher education, K-12 education, and training in the private sector? What are the implications and effects of using templates and various server software including WebCT, Blackboard, and other programs when designing and developing e-Learning programs? Finally, what can be learned from those individuals who have made pioneering efforts to design and develop online courses? The contributors to this issue of the Quarterly Review of Distance Education directly address many of these questions.Richard Schwier discusses the concept of learning communities in general and virtual learning communities in particular. Schwier describes three aspects of virtual learning communities including the elements, purposes, and the catalysts of virtual learning communities. The catalysts discussed include alignment, engagement, and interaction. In addition, a number of research issues concerning virtual learning communities are presented.The implications of the rapid growth of e-Learning in training, academic education, and non-traditional learning environments for instructional designers are discussed by Wellesley (“Rob”) Foshay, who argues that each context will place different demands on instructional designers. In particular, Foshay discusses the issues and events that are affecting academic organizations, training organizations, and non-traditional educational settings, and the implications for instructional design research and practice in each of the three environments.The implications of using various server-based courseware tools for developing Web-based courses are discussed by Douglas Harvey and Jung Lee. Certainly, courseware tools can help instructional designers and developers be more efficient when developing online courses. But at what cost? Harvey and Lee provide a critical discussion of how effective template-based approaches are for the development of online learning courses. In particular, some of the specific issues discussed include the pedagogical impact of courseware tools, the visual interface, navigation layout, and interaction implications for online courses. Finally, the instructional design implications when using online development tools and server software are discussed.In the final two articles in this issue, the authors identify some lessons learned from the development and delivery of online courses. Barbara Bichelmeyer, Melanie Misanchuk, and Larissa Malopinsky discuss the adaptation of an existing residential course to a Web-based course. Lessons learned from three different literature bases and results of the adaptation, design, and development processes are also analyzed. Tiffany Koszalka and Mary Beth Bianco focus on the importance of instructors in online learning courses. Specific issues and lessons learned by instructors who have “taught” online courses are described and specific areas and questions for research in online learning environments are presented.Critical issues, both for research and development, that instructional designers and instructional technologists will need to think about as they transition their work to e-Learning environments are identified and discussed in this issue of the Quarterly Review of Distance Education. Much potential as well as problems exist for the design of instruction in an e-Learning environment. Critically important is that individuals in the field of instructional design and technology be actively involved in theory development, research, and the design and development of online learning courses and programs.