Basically, ID as it is currently taught is just following the process, step by step. It's not rocket science. What IS rocket science (or at least a lot harder) is to figure out how to apply process with the endless number of variables that affect any learning need. This is where ID falls short. Instructional designers in too many instances are so tied to the models and the process that the variables and subtleties of  good design are sacrificed.

Call it education or instructional design...its all learning. So where do ID's fall short? To a certain extent, its following the "process" too closely. People are complex, learning is complex, motivation is complex--and no process is going to address all of these complexities. Good IDs know this and aren't afraid to go "off the reservation" when they need to. Most IDs don't.

<div>Ok, so what does this all mean? It means that designing effective, motivating learning is actually really hard. It means that instructional designers need to be really good critical thinkers. It means that as a profession, instructional designers need to be trained to not only know the process, but also how to recognize the limitations of process.&nbsp;<br></div><div><br></div><div>More than anything, if instructional design is going to survive and thrive as a profession, we need to be leaders--leaders in research, leaders in our organizations, and leaders in our field, not accepting the mediocre. Otherwise, instructional design is dead.</div>

<p> The expert/novice literature within cognitive psychology reaches similar conclusions about the nature of expertise. Researchers have found that expertise is </p><p> --largely intuitive and inaccessible to direct reflection (e.g., Bloom, 1986) </p><p> --more pattern-matching than rule-following (Suchman, 1987, Bereiter, 1991) </p><p> --more qualitative than quantitative (White &amp; Frederiksen, 1986) </p><p> --highly context- and domain-dependent (Brandt, 1988-89). </p><p> Such a view of expertise seems also to fit the field of ID.</p>

The role I am advocating for analysis is fairly modest. Analysis provides an overall framework for instruction, and provides extra help on some tricky parts, such as identifying likely misconceptions or previous knowledge that may undercut students' efforts to understand the content. The role of the designer is then to design a series of experiences-interactions or environments or products-intended to help students learn effectively. Neither the instruction nor the assessment of learning can be as confidently dictated as thought to be possible in the past. But the important point to keep in mind is that the design role is not lost in such a revised system; the design still happens, only it's less analytical, more holistic, more reliant on the cooperation of teachers and materials and learners to generously fill in the gaps left gaping by the limitations of our analytical tools. Instruction thus construed becomes much more integrally connected to the context and the surrounding culture. ID thus becomes more truly <i>systemic</i> in the the sense that it is highly sensitive to the conditions of use.

Two major sets of affordances offered in online learning are not found in traditional learning. First, online, communication occurs not through a channel, but through a network. And second, communication flows not merely through a passive medium but through a computational environment.

The theory of distributed representation has a profound implication for pedagogy, as it suggests that learning (and teaching, such as it is) is not a process of communication, but rather, a process of immersion. Put loosely, it suggests the idea of teaching not by telling or even demonstrating but rather through the creation (or identification) of an environment into which a learner may be immersed.