Learning Experience Design vs Instructional Design (Part 2)

7 min readApr 14, 2024

In the previous edition of “The Saturday Designers Club”, I started talking about the age-old topic “LXD vs ID”.

Let’s do a bit of a recap.

I started by breaking down each of the terms, i. e looking at each of them separately.

For example, I found the Oxford definition of “instruction” and “experience”, so that there is a better understanding of each of the standout words in the title.

I then looked into what the experts, such as Tim Slade and Neils Floor, are saying and, how they have defined each of these job titles.

This provides a basic understanding of the job roles and gives us something to work with when determining what “your title/role” is, or could be.

However, we did not get to the bottom of things, and in Part (ii), I want to take things a little further.

In Real Life (IRL)

Ever since Part (i) was published on Saturday, last week, I’ve been thinking about Part (ii).

Why?

After a brief chat in the comment section with Niels Floor, and he offered me a new lens with which to view this topic.

Sidenote: More on that later, because Niels really got me out here in these streets doing lots of homework.

After breaking down the terms LXD and ID, looking at definitions all over the internet, I still felt conflicted. I would consider myself an LXD (as I mentioned last week), but all of this information left me even more confused.

I was baffled because I truly thought that LXD and ID were probably the same thing, give or take a few skills, methods or theories here and there….

So, by Sunday evening (7 April 2024), I took myself back to the days when I called myself and elearning designer and thought about the reasons behind it.

Let’s Go Way Back

I realised that as an elearning designer, I was thinking about learning in a very different way than I do now. My perspective on creating learning solutions was based on the science, and what I had been taught.

The word “taught” is very indicative of where I am going with this.

As an elearning designer, technically I was “ID”, and what I was taught came from the field of learning.

This is confirmed by Tim Slade, when he says, “Defining instructional design from a theory point of view is where we start paying close attention to the science behind how people learn, andragogy vs. pedagogy, and how we can use those theories to design and develop meaningful training experiences”.

And that folks, is what I was doing! Using the theories and processes of Instructional Design to create training.

The best example I think of here is that I have created many training courses, that show learners a certain process, i. e the steps you follow to log your time off in the HRS.

In this training, the learner simply follows the steps to log their PTO, and the training I created shows them how to do that step-by-step. I probably did not even create a scenario (simulation, game, etc), for the learner to engage or interact with.

I would most likely have created the training in PowerPoint or Adobe Captive at the time. Because my approach and perspective to creating learning was different then, these tools made the most sense to me.

It is a very analytical approach I would say, and personally, that ain’t really my style. I do like a bit of analytics, but I’m creative at heart.

My creativity was definitely stifled because I was not allowed to use my design skills.

Now, having said all of this, as an ID, I was at the top of my game. Okay, maybe not always (we will get into that story later), but I was good at my job.

If I take a look at the theories and processes involved in creating training as an ID, I was killing it!

What I have said here are not bad things related to being an ID. This is just my perspective when I think back to my time as an instructional designer.

The sun will come out tomorrow…

After spending all of Sunday, wrecking my brain to find out what I was doing when I was working as an ID, I was finished, my brain was fried, and I was looking forward to rest.

On Monday morning (8 April 2024), I woke with one thought…

“What did/do I do as a LXD?”

This question consumed my mind until I had to sit down and plot it out like I did with the ID work.

If I compare all the above to my time as a learning experience designer (LXD), I have to admit that fundamentally, my perspective when creating learning solutions has changed. They are more focused on the learner/user, with set outcomes. I was also coming at it from a “field of design” perspective.

As a LXD, I bring forth my experience within UX/UI and AGILE/SCRUM, and this is way less “science-based” learning creation.

Another difference is that I was able to use different tools to create learning. I had a different view of how to create engaging learning experiences, and it meant other tools.

I did not simply have to rely on PowerPower, RISE or Storyline.

I think the main difference, for me, is that as a LXD I get to approach learning from a creative stance. There is room to flex and experimentation.

Again, I’m not saying any of this is good or bad, right or wrong. It’s just different.

The Confrontation…I mean, conclusion

Remember I told you Niels had me doing homework?

Yes, I had to learn about American Football, and European Football.

I know nothing about either. And quiet as it’s kept, I don’t even know what “off-side” is.

Niels offered a different lens from which to view LXD and ID. And…instead of throwing it away, I used it! It gave me such a new and fresh perspective on the topic.

The way I understood him is like this, the scenario:

American Football is LXD, and European Football is ID.

Both pitches/fields kind of look the same, the way they play the game is sort of similar, player heights, physique, on-pitch/field temperament is oddly somewhat linked between the two.

Buuuuuut……something is just a little off.

When you look closer, the pitch/field is completely different, the way they play the game is not similar at all, and although physically there are similarities, fundamentally it’s all different.

And just like I killed it at being an ID (European Footballer) all those years ago, I only killed it in my lane. As a LXD (American Footballer), I excelled too, but only when competing with others in my field.

Makes me think of the saying, “you can’t compete, where you can’t compare.”

What I am saying is this. My opinion is, that there is a difference between LXD and ID, and they differ in how you approach learning creation, analytic (ID) vs creative (LXD). The tools used, the experience and knowledge they both draw from.

Again, as you can imagine, by Tuesday (9 April 2024), I was extremely tired. I thought the article was done and it was all over with.

No, I was wrong. It was not over.

So…is this it?

On Wednesday (10 April 2024), I got tagged in a comment by Tim Slade which caught my eye, he said, “Job titles are meaningless and unstandardized in our industry. Instead, focus on the responsibilities of the role”.

It took me back to last’s week article in which I said the same thing… “even in the L&D community the math ain’t mathin’…”

This made me think about what the root of all the confusion is around the topic of LXD vs ID. The industry itself? Are they the ones causing all this conflict perhaps? I feel like Tamron Hall going undercover….

Because I worked both as an ID and LXD, and worked as a LXD, with other IDs and vice versa, I offer a unique perspective into this world.

References:

Floor, N. Fundamentals of learning experience design. LXD.org. Retrieved April 12, 2024, from https://lxd.org/news/learning-experience-design-vs-instructional-design/

Slade, T. What is instructional design. eLearning Academy Community. Retrieved April 12, 2024 from https://community.elearningacademy.io/c/knowledge-base/what-is-instructional-design

Learning Experience Design vs Instructional Design (Part 2)

References:

Written by Lee Hippolite