You can't really design learning (or 'what is learnt'). You can design the experience (or 'opportunity') within which people learn. So I'm going with LXD. Maybe you can do something on why we should lose the 'D' in 'L&D'
It seems the point has eluded most of the commenters here--probably because most "instructional design" is not really very engaging, and doesn't elicit critical thinking. Since so much of ID is for corporations or organization that are doing it purely for compliance reasons, there isn't much real learning going on. Basically just a bunch of information and then multiple choice questions. The point is not so much to change the name but to change the default, mediocre norms of the vast majority of ID.
To me, instructional design is more appropriate, we should note that learning is the desired response, instruction entails setting-up of stimuli that can trigger desire response while teaching is the implementation of instruction. Instruction in education context is not only entail verbal command, it encompasses all stimuli put in place for learning to take place. Technology only takeaway/modify the role of teachers (content delivery) it does not take away the role of instructional design. Thank you.
Agreed. And it's been called Instructional Design for years so repackaging it is is simply a way that 1) universities can charge for 'new' majors 2) employers will be dazzled by seeming new approaches (when it's the same approach under a new skin) and pay higher rates since it's 'new' and 3) people like to show why they are 'more special' than someone else and creating a shiny new title accomplishes this. It's all nonsense. Like UX which says it's different from ID but all the content mentioned is exactly what is taught in traditional ID courses.
Great video! You are exactly right. LEARNING should be engaging, exploratory and even fun! I chuckle when I hear others pull out all the technical jargon and definitions. I really appreciate folks like you making a distinction and pushing for LEARNING as the target goal. I have seen miles and miles of "instruction". Real learning is what makes me think of my most inspiring teachers. Thank you for your inspirations!!
I realize that I am responding late to this thread, but I personally believe that Instructional Design is the more appropriate term. Learning is a process, a journey the student embarks on, in their quest for new knowledge. On the other hand, instruction is presumed to be in the correct processes and thereby taking away the right learning outcomes. Oftentimes, students "learn" incomplete or flat-out erroneous information. Hence, the need for a subject matter expert's input and evaluation of what the student should have learned as compared to what the student actually learned. In the end, I believe it is mostly a matter of semantics but if I were forced to choose the more appropriate term, its Instructional Design.
This is just opinion right? Learning also makes it less specific which means you don't have to show effectiveness or measure specifically. Keep it ambiguous and you can keep making it pretty.
@Bianca Raby your perspective is accurate but, what then do you think of Program Design... some even say e-Learning designer as a term reduces the role of HR in L&D who aren't tech-savvy, Teachers have an advantage here but the existing gatekeepers seem like a generalist conventional occupations who are the real issues in a world of pluralized occupational nomenclature.
Yes, I also like that term! Although, if we understand that learning is an experience by default then the word becomes superfluous. That is why I chose to stick to just "Learning Design".
@@biancaraby The need to call it "learning experience" lies in the difference between knowledge transfer (passive action of the student) and learning (the need to go through an experience of practicing the transfer of acquired knowledge to achieve learning). In addition, there are many types of experiences (immediate, relational or spiral) for this reason it is necessary to mention it as a "learning experience". You can take a course to ride a bike, but if you don't go through the learning experience, you never really get to ride the bike.
It’s not really. Words are tools. You are thinking from your experience and are blind to the eyes of a newcomer, whether it is a professor or a student. As tools, words can either be a bridge or a wall. That’s the difference.
I would Instructional Designer because I don’t always develop traditional learning/training for process or system changes, as it may simply be a set of other resources, such work instructions, qrgs or procedural guides provided to end users. I would also think there is sometimes a need for an Instructional Designers and sometimes a Learning Experience Designer or for some projects both skills could apply.
I prefer LED, turning the light on learning as a Learning Experience Designer. But, MIT uses Learning Architect. Others like Learning Engineer (Bror Saxberg founder of LearningForge). Instructional Design is the term most known, and IF it were integrated with ADDIE + Design Principles then = LED for all intents and purposes.
I don't think there are two roles - just a change in name. Nor do I think learners will be aware of the difference. There's also value in videoing a lecture and putting notes up - eg for people who can't attend. For me, it's always been horses for courses - what's the best available medium for the task. BTW I don't think you can actually design learning unless you change the meaning of learning - see here ruclips.net/video/qir0vQJquDs/видео.html
Thanks for your insights. I agree that sometimes lectures being posted online can be helpful, however, I would not sell that as an online course. To me, it is more of a 'bonus' if you are enrolled in a face-to-face program. What do you believe the definition of learning is?
At Shapers we've designed e-learning for employees who were used to coursed made by instructional designers. I can asure you they noticed the difference. Their feedback was clear: this is much better, more engaging and more enjoyable than what we had before. ID and LXD are two very different approaches to solving similar problems. They both have their strengths and weaknesses as each has their own perspective, methodology, toolkit and skillset. The main reason why the distinction is not always made is due to the fact that people use the term LXD loosely and quite a few instructional designers simply change their title to learning experience designer without really changing anything.
@@biancaraby "I would not sell that as an online course." You probably would if you worked at a university. "What do you believe the definition of learning is?" I think you have to work it out for yourself - but it's not training materials.
I appreciate the content of your videos but please, could you avoid using this type of background music? it's quite distracting, :( I have a hard time to get through the video because of this music. Thanks in advance.
This is even more problematic in Spanish speaking countries. Here instruction is not equivalent to teaching. Safe for very technical training. Oh dear. I support the learning designer concept and might even go further: Education designer. For it is as necessary to design the teaching or instruction.
I just watched this video a few minutes ago and have already become bored with the term "Learning Design." It just fails to capture the active participation of real people in the process. I prefer the term "Learning Experience Design." Oh shit, now I'm bored with that. I sure hope something else comes along in the next couple of minutes so I can keep pretending that it matters what we call it.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
You can't really design learning (or 'what is learnt'). You can design the experience (or 'opportunity') within which people learn. So I'm going with LXD.
Maybe you can do something on why we should lose the 'D' in 'L&D'
Thanks Gerrit, yes great idea. I love talking about the design process!
Can you design an experience?
It seems the point has eluded most of the commenters here--probably because most "instructional design" is not really very engaging, and doesn't elicit critical thinking. Since so much of ID is for corporations or organization that are doing it purely for compliance reasons, there isn't much real learning going on. Basically just a bunch of information and then multiple choice questions. The point is not so much to change the name but to change the default, mediocre norms of the vast majority of ID.
To me, instructional design is more appropriate, we should note that learning is the desired response, instruction entails setting-up of stimuli that can trigger desire response while teaching is the implementation of instruction. Instruction in education context is not only entail verbal command, it encompasses all stimuli put in place for learning to take place. Technology only takeaway/modify the role of teachers (content delivery) it does not take away the role of instructional design. Thank you.
Agreed. And it's been called Instructional Design for years so repackaging it is is simply a way that 1) universities can charge for 'new' majors 2) employers will be dazzled by seeming new approaches (when it's the same approach under a new skin) and pay higher rates since it's 'new' and 3) people like to show why they are 'more special' than someone else and creating a shiny new title accomplishes this. It's all nonsense. Like UX which says it's different from ID but all the content mentioned is exactly what is taught in traditional ID courses.
Great video! You are exactly right. LEARNING should be engaging, exploratory and even fun! I chuckle when I hear others pull out all the technical jargon and definitions. I really appreciate folks like you making a distinction and pushing for LEARNING as the target goal. I have seen miles and miles of "instruction". Real learning is what makes me think of my most inspiring teachers. Thank you for your inspirations!!
I find learning design as a jargon used by the people in the academe. On the other hand, instructional design sounds corporate or industrial.
Perhaps instructional design focuses on the learning bit not so much on the experiences surrounding and driving it
I realize that I am responding late to this thread, but I personally believe that Instructional Design is the more appropriate term. Learning is a process, a journey the student embarks on, in their quest for new knowledge. On the other hand, instruction is presumed to be in the correct processes and thereby taking away the right learning outcomes. Oftentimes, students "learn" incomplete or flat-out erroneous information. Hence, the need for a subject matter expert's input and evaluation of what the student should have learned as compared to what the student actually learned. In the end, I believe it is mostly a matter of semantics but if I were forced to choose the more appropriate term, its Instructional Design.
Yes , I agree with you. Thank you very much for sharing with us. it is very useful for us teaching TVET training
This is just opinion right? Learning also makes it less specific which means you don't have to show effectiveness or measure specifically. Keep it ambiguous and you can keep making it pretty.
@Bianca Raby your perspective is accurate but, what then do you think of Program Design... some even say e-Learning designer as a term reduces the role of HR in L&D who aren't tech-savvy, Teachers have an advantage here but the existing gatekeepers seem like a generalist conventional occupations who are the real issues in a world of pluralized occupational nomenclature.
What are the different types of learning design?please answer 🙏🙏
Thank you very informative 👍 ❤
i think Learning Experiences design is the best title for the instructional designer to migrate to new LXD
Yes, I also like that term! Although, if we understand that learning is an experience by default then the word becomes superfluous. That is why I chose to stick to just "Learning Design".
@@biancaraby The need to call it "learning experience" lies in the difference between knowledge transfer (passive action of the student) and learning (the need to go through an experience of practicing the transfer of acquired knowledge to achieve learning). In addition, there are many types of experiences (immediate, relational or spiral) for this reason it is necessary to mention it as a "learning experience". You can take a course to ride a bike, but if you don't go through the learning experience, you never really get to ride the bike.
The learner doesn't care if the learning was designed by an instructional designer or a learning designer, so it's just semantics in the end.
It’s not really.
Words are tools. You are thinking from your experience and are blind to the eyes of a newcomer, whether it is a professor or a student.
As tools, words can either be a bridge or a wall. That’s the difference.
I would Instructional Designer because I don’t always develop traditional learning/training for process or system changes, as it may simply be a set of other resources, such work instructions, qrgs or procedural guides provided to end users. I would also think there is sometimes a need for an Instructional Designers and sometimes a Learning Experience Designer or for some projects both skills could apply.
I totally agree! There is a need for both, depending on the outcomes intended!
I prefer LED, turning the light on learning as a Learning Experience Designer. But, MIT uses Learning Architect. Others like Learning Engineer (Bror Saxberg founder of LearningForge). Instructional Design is the term most known, and IF it were integrated with ADDIE + Design Principles then = LED for all intents and purposes.
This is an excellent perspective!
Thank you! Glad you resonated :)
Great Insight
Thanks :) What resonated the most?
I don't think there are two roles - just a change in name. Nor do I think learners will be aware of the difference. There's also value in videoing a lecture and putting notes up - eg for people who can't attend. For me, it's always been horses for courses - what's the best available medium for the task. BTW I don't think you can actually design learning unless you change the meaning of learning - see here ruclips.net/video/qir0vQJquDs/видео.html
Thanks for your insights. I agree that sometimes lectures being posted online can be helpful, however, I would not sell that as an online course. To me, it is more of a 'bonus' if you are enrolled in a face-to-face program. What do you believe the definition of learning is?
At Shapers we've designed e-learning for employees who were used to coursed made by instructional designers. I can asure you they noticed the difference. Their feedback was clear: this is much better, more engaging and more enjoyable than what we had before. ID and LXD are two very different approaches to solving similar problems. They both have their strengths and weaknesses as each has their own perspective, methodology, toolkit and skillset. The main reason why the distinction is not always made is due to the fact that people use the term LXD loosely and quite a few instructional designers simply change their title to learning experience designer without really changing anything.
@@shapers7644 I couldn't agree more! Thanks for your input :)
@@biancaraby "I would not sell that as an online course." You probably would if you worked at a university.
"What do you believe the definition of learning is?" I think you have to work it out for yourself - but it's not training materials.
I think I concentrated more on your music
I was dancing and couldn’t concentrate
I didn’t learn anything 😢
I appreciate the content of your videos but please, could you avoid using this type of background music? it's quite distracting, :( I have a hard time to get through the video because of this music. Thanks in advance.
Thank you for this feedback! We will address it for sure :) Sometimes one slips through a bit louder than it should. Thanks for your support!
This is even more problematic in Spanish speaking countries.
Here instruction is not equivalent to teaching. Safe for very technical training.
Oh dear. I support the learning designer concept and might even go further: Education designer.
For it is as necessary to design the teaching or instruction.
Your tone is exactly the same.Every second of this video you need to work out that
Freedom for innocent Kabyles unjustly condamned
I just watched this video a few minutes ago and have already become bored with the term "Learning Design." It just fails to capture the active participation of real people in the process. I prefer the term "Learning Experience Design." Oh shit, now I'm bored with that. I sure hope something else comes along in the next couple of minutes so I can keep pretending that it matters what we call it.
What are the different types of learning design?please answer 🙏🙏
What are the different types of learning design?please answer 🙏🙏