To LXD Or Not to LXD, That Is the Question.
By Clark Quinn
Learning Experience Design (LXD) is no longer a new term, but it’s still become prevalent, and has generated some consternation. The short question is, what does it really mean? There are a variety of opinions on that (including my own). Not to say that there’s one right answer, but it is worthwhile exploring what the different conceptions are.
In general, the underlying position is that there’s something missing from instructional design (ID) whether in principle or in practice. The major difference is a focus on engagement. There definitely are reasons to be convinced that engagement matters, as we have evidence that being motivated, and not too anxious, are important components to success in learning.
There are three major positions, at least as I’ve seen it. For one, it’s folks who say it’s nothing new, it’s just what ID does. A second position is that it is something fundamentally new, and that therefore it should draw new attention. A third position is that even if it is the case that ID says to consider appropriate design, most of ID isn’t doing what it should be doing, so a new label can highlight aspects that are being missed. Let’s go through each.
Nothing new
So, the first position is that there’s nothing new. This position is largely based upon the realization that, properly, ID should encompass what’s covered under LXD. That is, there is emphasis as far back as Gagné’s nine elements of instruction that learner’s attention should be invoked. Thus, there is a focus on engagement.
On the other hand, really the only instructional design theorist who’s addressed engagement is Keller, with his ARCS model, addressing the four elements of attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. While it exists, it’s infrequently referred to.
Another element is whether the design process is suitably iterative. Approaches to ADDIE have moved from waterfall to iterative, but substantively new approaches have emerged, such as Allen’s SAM (Successive Approximation Model) and similar approaches such as LLAMA and Pebble in a Pond.
Thus, while it’s technically accurate to say ID should cover emotional engagement, it’s not seen in practice. Of course, in practice learning science should also be seen, meaning sufficiently challenging practice, spaced over time; mental models to guide performance, examples that show the models in context, etc. These aren’t seen either. From this position, however, that’s ID in practice, not in principle, and so we should fix the practice.
Fundamentally new
Another position is that there is something new. That is, ID hasn’t sufficiently encompassed findings from user experience (UX) and customer experience (CX). Thus, there are new things that go into practice that ID doesn’t cover. We could be talking about how we gather data for analysis, our practices in design, and even the products we produce.
A major focus is on a human-focus, integrating learning and design to create experiences that are inclusive in practice. Thus, there’s a greater emphasis on design to achieve learning goals, involving and testing with users. This includes empathy, and iterative approaches.
There has been a revolution in user experience that emphasized human-centered design, and some of the results have taken time to penetrate ID. I personally was steeped in this revolution that occurred in my lab at UCSD when I was a grad student, and I spent considerable effort conveying the approaches to the edtech community, so I’m sympathetic. The open question is whether this is new to ID, or just ignored.
Worth emphasizing, regardless
The final position is less principled and more pragmatic. Here, the view is that whether it’s new or not, what it does do is highlight what’s not happening in ID that should. Thus, LXD is worth using as a label simply to generate discussion and recognition of what learning design should be.
There is considerable evidence that what is being produced by ID, overall, is lacking in important nuances about learning. We see information dumps, knowledge tests, practice until they get it right, and trivial interactions rather than meaningful learning experiences. There is a significant need to lift our game.
I personally believe LXD to be the elegant integration of learning science with engagement. I do believe that a synthesis of ID theories illustrates this. I do also believe that incorporating more explicitly the UX practices can help us do better. I also believe that the status quo isn’t working, and we need something.
Ultimately, I really don’t care which approach yields the necessary result, I just want that result to occur! I’m happy for any one of the positions to prevail: when ID’s done properly, all’s good; that we need a new focus on process; or that we need to instill a recognition of the delicate dance between learning efficiency and effectiveness.
So, where do you fall?
References
Allen, M. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM: An Agile Model for Developing the Best Learning Experiences. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.
Gagné, R., Briggs, L. & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of Instructional Design (4th Ed.). Fort Worth, TX: HBJ College Publishers.
Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational Design for Learning and Performance: The ARCS model approach. New York: Springer.
Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. (1986). User-Centered System Design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Quinn, C. (2022). Make it Meaningful: Taking Learning Design from Instructional to Transformation. Boston: LDA Press.