Intentionality, Ethics, and Learner-centered Design are Non-Negotiables in Instructional Design.
The most impactful reading for me this week was Hodges et al. (2020) and their distinction between emergency remote teaching (ERT) and online learning. I realized that I had been assuming these two terms were interchangeable, shaped by my experience teaching during the pandemic. That assumption reflected a bias toward thinking that if instruction was delivered online, it automatically counted as “online learning.” Hodges et al. challenged me to see that online learning must be intentionally designed, structured, and grounded in pedagogy, while ERT is a temporary response to a crisis. This has consequences; if I conflate the two, I risk excusing poor design choices as inevitable, rather than striving for quality.
I felt a mix of recognition and unease as I read. Recognition, because I have seen firsthand how rushed online transitions left students disengaged. Unease, because I realized I have sometimes relied on ERT-like strategies when pressed for time, without fully considering how that undermines learner experience. This connects to Devlin Peck’s (2024) statistics, which show that well-designed online courses improve retention and engagement dramatically compared to poorly designed ones. That data reinforced my emotional response that quality design isn’t just theory; it has measurable outcomes for learners.
At the same time, Pappas (2025) expanded my perspective by highlighting how AI can accelerate content creation while requiring careful oversight. I had assumed AI might eventually displace elements of instructional design, but Pappas reframed it as a tool that can support designers when used responsibly. This left me reflecting on the balance between speed and intentionality. AI can generate assessments or multimedia quickly, but without human editing and ethical consideration, its outputs can be inaccurate or exclusionary. That tension mirrored my earlier dissonance about ERT; efficiency cannot replace thoughtful design.
Finally, Peck’s (2023) discussion of Learning Experience Design (LXD) and the Virginia Tech (2003) eLearning Theories & Models reminded me that learner experience and accessibility must be central to design. Constructivist theories assume that learners actively participate in authentic, social contexts. If design choices don’t prioritize usability and interaction, those theories can’t hold. Every week now, I am coming back to the same reflection: am I prioritizing learner engagement, or am I sometimes defaulting to what is most efficient for me as a teacher?
The meaning I take from this week is that intentionality, ethics, and learner-centered design are non-negotiables in instructional design. Moving forward, I want to carry Hodges et al.’s warning about ERT with me, using it as a reminder that design should never be reactive when it can be planned. I also want to experiment with AI in ways that save time, but keep me fully engaged in reviewing outputs. My lingering question is how instructional designers can advocate for design practices that honor theory and evidence when institutions often push for efficiency and speed.
