The very intent of ISD, however, is its weakness – namely making explicit intended learning and planning clear, concise approaches to achieving intended outcomes. Clearly defining learning assumes “things won’t change” (content, nature of interactions, changes in related disciplines which impact the information being discussed) between the point of design and the point of learning. This may work for many fields – especially where change is not significant – but models which neglect the adaptive nature of learning and the emergent structure of interactions are less appropriate to today’s work environments than they were in the past.

<p>As stated, instructional design needs to make two substantial changes:</p> <blockquote> <p>1. Stop seeing learning design as a task that occurs in advance of the intended learning, and begin to see it as a part of the learning process itself<br> 2. Begin to focus more on the context of learning (designing environments of learning) and less so on the intended content of the learning activities (course, workshop, or program)</p></blockquote>

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.

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 &nbsp;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>