Elizabeth Boling

Positions Learning Experience Design (LXD) not as a separate field but as a distinct philosophical stance within instructional design. Using concepts of design knowledge and philosophy, the article discusses how LXD can enrich ID practice and scholarship while coexisting with other philosophies.

Presents a design case tracing a photography assignment’s evolution from a Taiwanese communications design course to media development and design studio courses at Indiana University. Discusses adaptations, student experience, and pedagogical insights as the assignment matured across contexts.

Reports a survey (n=100) and interviews with 10 practicing instructional designers on the tools they use. Findings show a wide mix of analog and digital tools and reveal two main rationales—rationalist (e.g., appropriateness) and situational (e.g., personal preference). The study highlights instrumental judgment and implications for ID education.

Through a survey of 100 instructional designers and follow‑up interviews with 10 practitioners, the study catalogs the wide array of digital and analog tools used in practice and examines why designers choose them. Interview analysis revealed rationalist and situational explanations for tool use, with appropriateness and individual preference most frequently cited. Findings highlight the role of instrumental judgment in instructional design practice and suggest implications for preparing instructional designers.

Using interviews with 11 practicing instructional designers and phenomenological analysis, the study investigates designers’ “core judgments”—tacit beliefs affecting judgments made across the design process. Results show that designers bring complex, often unarticulated core judgments to bear during designing. The authors argue that such judgments are not accounted for in rational models and warrant greater attention in research and education.

Introduces and examines “core judgments”—tacit beliefs shaping designers’ decisions—through phenomenological analysis of interviews with 11 practicing instructional designers. Results show designers consistently bring complex core judgments to bear, suggesting limitations of purely rational models and the need to address judgment in designer preparation.

The paper argues for a heightened view of designer responsibility and design process in an ethical framing within instructional design and technology. Drawing on methods and frameworks of ethical responsibility from the broader design community, the authors analyze design cases to demonstrate how ethical concerns frequently arise in authentic practice. They propose increased documentation of design precedent and the use of critical designs to foreground ethical and value-related concerns in instructional design education, research, and practice.

An exploratory field study observed eight practicing instructional designers at two consulting firms to characterize design practice on its own terms. Using Nelson and Stolterman’s design judgment framework, the analysis shows judgments occur frequently, often in clustered or layered ways rather than as discrete events. Judgments were shaped by firm context, designer role, and project/client factors.

Compares an instructional designer’s intentions with learners’ perceptions of the instructional functions of visuals within a specific e‑learning lesson. While each visual was intended to serve multiple psychological, cognitive, and affective purposes, learners’ interpretations varied; only four of eight visuals showed congruent intentions and perceptions. The study underscores the semiotic nature of visual design for learning.

Defines the instructional design case as a specialized form of design knowledge that documents real artifacts or experiences and the decisions behind them. Distinguishes design cases from other scholarly forms and argues for developing rigorous, transparent cases to build precedent that supports design education and practice across fields.

With participants from grade 3 through adult across two countries, the study examines how learners interpret simple instructional illustrations that incorporate graphical devices (e.g., arrows, bubbles) intended to extend meaning. Across groups, correct interpretations rarely met high thresholds, indicating that graphical devices are not consistently understood as intended and should be used with care in instructional materials.