Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Critical ID/LXD Differences?

14 June 2022 by Clark 4 Comments

I’ve argued both that Learning Experience Design (LXD) is an improvement on Instructional Design (ID), and that LXD is the  elegant integration of learning science with engagement. However, that doesn’t really unpack what are the critical ID/LXD differences. I think it’s worth looking at those important distinctions both in principle and practice. Here, I’m talking about the extensions to what’s already probably in place.

Principle

In principle, I think it’s the engagement part that separates the two. True, proper ID shouldn’t ignore it. However, there’s been too little attention. For instance, only one ID theorist, John Keller, has really looked at those elements. Overall, it’s too easy to focus purely on the cognitive. (Worse, of course, is a focus purely on knowledge, which really  isn’t good ID).

I suggest that this manifests in two ways. First, you need an initial emotional ‘hook’ to gain the learner’s commitment to the learning experience. Even before we open them up cognitively (though, of course, they’re linked)! Then, we need to manage emotions through out the experience. We want to do thinks like keep challenge balanced, anxiety low enough not to interfere, build confidence, etc.

We have tools we can use, like story, exaggeration, humor, and more to assist us in these endeavors. At core, however, what we’re focusing on is making it a true ‘experience’, not just an instructional event. Ideally, we’d like to be transformational, leaving learners equipped with new skills and the awareness thereof.

Practice

What does this mean in practice? A number of things. For one, it takes creativity to consider ways in which to address emotions. There are research results and guidance, but you’ll still want to exercise some exploration. Which also means you have to be iterative, with testing. I understand that this is immediately scary, thinking about costs. However, when you stop trying to use courses for everything, you’ll have more resources to do courses right. For that matter, you’ll actually be achieving outcomes, which is a justification for the effort.

Our design process needs to start gathering different information. We need to get performance objectives; what people actually need to do, not just what they need to know. You really can’t develop people if you’re not having them perform and getting feedback. You also need to understand  why this is needed, why it’s important, and why it’s interesting. It is, at least to the subject matter experts who’ve invested the time to  be experts in this…

Your process also needs to have those creative breaks. These are far better if they’re collaborative, at least at the times when you’re ideating. While ideally you have a team working together on an ongoing basis, in many cases that may be problematic. I suggest getting together at least at the ideating stage, and then after testing to review findings.

You’ll also want to be testing against criteria. At the analysis stage, you should design criteria that will determine when you’re ‘done’. When you run out of time and money is  not the right answer! Test usability first, then effectiveness, and then engagement. Yes, you want to quantify engagement. It doesn’t have to be ‘adrenaline in the blood’ or even galvanic skin response, subjective evaluations by your learners is just fine. If you are running out of time and money before you’re achieving your metrics, you can adjust them, but now you’re doing it on consciously, not implicitly.

I’m sure there more that I’m missing, but these strike me as some critical ID/LXD differences. There are differences in principle, which yield differences in practice. What are your thoughts?

Comments

  1. Matt Crosslin says

    14 June 2022 at 8:39 AM

    AS an instructional designer, I have been using engagement, humor, performance objectives, focusing on the experience for decades, I have been teaching that to my instructional design students for decades. Its in the ID textbooks we use. I know hundreds of IDs that do all of this. And probably just as many that can’t because the systems they work in won’t allow it (or more specifically, the instructor they work with doesn’t want it). It still seems to me that LXD is a sub-set of ID that focuses on the part of ID that you describe here. But I have never really heard of these aspects of engagement being outside of ID. Engagement as described here is all over the Community of Inquiry framework, and even covered in QM courses. Maybe this all comes from the fact that everything was called ID if it related to course design at some point. I like LXD, I just see it as one part of my work as an ID rather than a difference.

  2. Clark says

    14 June 2022 at 9:48 AM

    Interesting that it’s been more a part of your experience than I see in much of what we do. As I said: “True, proper ID shouldn’t ignore it. ” Glad to hear that it’s not always lost ;).

  3. Les Howles says

    17 June 2022 at 12:06 PM

    This is an important topic worthy of broader discussion throughout the learning design professional community.
    It seems that many instructional designers will be inclined to approach LXD through their existing ID mental model and naturally see it as a part of their current ID practice. Too often though, LXD is seen as a set of discrete strategies and techniques for increasing learner engagement. I think what Clark is getting at runs much deeper. For example, his new book represents a significant milestone in fleshing out an underlying component of learning engagement, something Don Norman has referred to as emotional design. This remains sorely lacking in most learning design work I’ve seen. It’s seldom prioritized and discussed in depth by most instructional designers in their design process. Clark provides a framework and an integrated set of evidence-based principles that constitute a new, more holistic, and rejuvenated approach to learning design. I’ve come to see LXD as representing a shift or evolution in the field of instructional design. Granted it is still in a formative stage, but the shift is happening and deserving of a new label. Instructional designers who have fully embraced an LXD mindset, who actually do it, and teach it, like Matt, seem to be the minority, based on my observations. Learning design thought leaders might consider framing LXD at least as a stretch goal to bolster what the often-forgotten eLearning Manifesto is all about.

  4. Alex Enkerli says

    22 June 2022 at 9:36 AM

    Came here through Downes’s link, which excerpted this:
    “what we’re focusing on is making it a true ‘experience’, not just an instructional event. Ideally, we’d like (it) to be transformational.”

    Yes!

    As a (former) Senior LXD who’s never done traditional ID, I find this approach to experience to be key to the conversation. In fact, it’s been involved in a misunderstanding with UX experts. Particularly this one colleague who kept insisting that LXD is a mere subset of UXD, and what counts are the products/services we create for others.

    The analogy which keeps coming back to my mind is health (or wellbeing, more generally) as an experience. If there’s such a thing as Health Experience Design, people probably work on medical devices and procedures by health professionals. Yet what matters most, in the end, is the transformative experience of becoming healthier. Sure, there are caregiving events. Bedside manners do matter a lot. There’s a lot of affect involved. In the end, we need a deep understanding of what it means to live healthily.

    As Learning Pros, we need a deep understanding of what it means to learn. From informal learning to schooling and from corporate learning to Communities of Practice and the fifth discipline.
    It’s tempting to reduce learning to a transaction (which would please web3 enthusiasts and other people who treat others like walking wallets). One might claim that each skill developed is a “transformation”… and miss what’s transformative about it.
    There’s obviously nothing at all wrong with, say, creating modules helping people train themselves in handwashing. Those sure came in handy during the pandemic and they were already a classic in Instructional Design. Some of these modules evoke emotional experiences, which goes well with the “UX+ID” concept. Yet there’s something much deeper when these modules are brought to a larger context. Including that of workplace identities and organizational structure. The modules themselves are useful and there’s a huge effort spent on creating them, often with very high production value. Having taken an Air France flight, recently (because of Open Education Global), I have a strong memory of their version of the safety drill clip, as it was a very elaborate production with jokes and high quality cinematography. Yet I don’t think this video has done anything to make me a safer passenger, compared to the usual drill.

    At some point, LXD can help us pay more attention to *how* people often learn together. That’s closer to Systems Design than to designing products and services. I do realize that seasoned instructional designers occasionally talk about these learning processes. Thing is, though, the outcome is the same. They’ll still focus on “designing a thing” which can be used by people as they learn together… instead of implementing meaningful change which will enhance this learning.

    That’d be about transformational experiences, not instructional events.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Clark Quinn

The Company

Search

Feedblitz (email) signup

Never miss a post
Your email address:*
Please wait...
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

Pages

  • About Learnlets and Quinnovation

The Serious eLearning Manifesto

Manifesto badge

Categories

  • design
  • games
  • meta-learning
  • mindmap
  • mobile
  • social
  • strategy
  • technology
  • Uncategorized
  • virtual worlds

Blogroll

  • Charles Jennings
  • Christy Tucker
  • Connie Malamed
  • Dave's Whiteboard
  • Donald Clark's Plan B
  • Donald Taylor
  • Harold Jarche
  • Julie Dirksen
  • Kevin Thorn
  • Mark Britz
  • Mirjam Neelen & Paul Kirschner
  • Stephen Downes' Half an Hour

License

Previous Posts

  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006

Amazon Affiliate

Required to announce that, as an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Mostly book links. Full disclosure.