ABSTRACT
A transformation in current academic preparation of instructional designers is occurring. There is a growing trend in instructional design to shift from traditional, processoriented conceptions of the field toward a view that aligns instructional design (ID) with the broader design community of practice and cross-discipline design thinking. As the design thinking approach becomes more established in the ID discourse, the field will have to reconsider the professional identity of instructional designers (Tracey, Hutchinson & Gryzbyk, 2014). Rather than passively following models or processes, a professional identity rooted in design thinking calls for instructional designers to be dynamic agents of change who use reflective thinking to navigate the design space and develop solutions to ill-structured problems (Tracey & Hutchinson, 2013). In this view, design is complex and iterative (Visscher-Voerman & Gustafson, 2004), requiring designers to embrace uncertainty as a motivating force; balance abstract principles against concrete details; alternate periods of intense work with relaxation in order to nurture inspiration; use models and prototypes to refine concepts and solutions; and leverage failure as a way to gain information and insight into the design problem (Cross, 2011). Those who view design from this lens, and who study how it occurs in practice, present design not as a smooth systematic process but instead as that designer’s values, belief structures, prior experiences, knowledge and skills, and approach to design affect the final outcome (Nelson & Stolterman, 2003).
