Break into Instructional Design with Imperfect Work

Most aspiring instructional designers get one thing completely wrong. They think the biggest problem in this field is competition. I hear it all the time: "The ID market is saturated." "There are too many people trying to become instructional designers." "How do I stand out?" But here’s the reality after working in this field for years. Competition is not the real problem. Execution is. A lot of people like the idea of becoming an instructional designer. They like the idea of: • designing learning • working remotely • building courses • having a creative career But when it comes to actually doing the work — that’s where most people stop. Real instructional design requires things like: • analyzing messy performance problems • interviewing subject matter experts • breaking complex work into teachable steps • designing realistic practice environments • iterating and improving solutions That work is harder than people expect. And that’s where the so-called “competition” disappears. The truth is: Most people don’t follow through long enough to become good at it. The instructional designers who succeed are simply the ones who: • keep practicing • keep building projects • keep refining their thinking • keep improving their design skills Inside IDOL Academy, I see this play out constantly. The designers who consistently show up, build things, test ideas, and improve their work rarely struggle to find opportunities. Because strong instructional designers are always in demand. The barrier isn’t competition. The barrier is doing the work long enough to become excellent. If you’re willing to put in that effort, you’ll discover something surprising: You don’t have to worry about competition at all. You just have to keep getting better.

An instructional design concept that may at first seem small on the surface: Acronyms. I’ve worked on projects where SMEs hand over content that looks like alphabet soup. Every department has its own shorthand. Every process has a three-letter abbreviation. And everyone close to the work assumes the learner already knows what they mean. Learners often don’t…and even when they do, constant acronym overload creates friction. So one of the quieter decisions instructional designers make is: Do we keep the acronym? Spell it out? Or remove it entirely? Unfortunately, there is no universal rule, and sometimes the acronym is essential because employees use it every day on the job. Other times, spelling everything out can improve clarity. And sometimes the best choice is simplifying the language altogether. I’m sure we can all agree that the goal isn’t to impress learners with terminology, but rather it is to reduce unnecessary cognitive load so they can focus on what actually matters. When people are mentally decoding vocabulary every few seconds, they’re spending less energy understanding the learning itself. Tiny design decision. Big impact. Curious how other designers approach this: Do you tend to preserve organizational terminology (and acronyms), or aggressively simplify them?

Instructional design has a dirty secret. Most of it is designed for the designer. Not the learner. I know because I have done it. Built modules that were beautifully structured, logically sequenced, and completely irrelevant to how the learner would actually use the information. Designed assessments that tested recall rather than application because recall is easier to measure. Created learning journeys that made perfect sense on a design document and fell apart the moment a real human with a real job and real time constraints tried to follow them. The shift that changed everything for me was this: Stop designing from the content. Start designing from the moment of use. Not: what do I need them to know? But: what do I need them to do, in what situation, with what level of confidence? Design backwards from that moment and everything changes. The content becomes smaller. The practice becomes larger. The learning becomes real. What is the most learner-centred design decision you have made recently?

Most instructional design portfolios focus on the final product, showcasing polished projects without revealing the thinking behind them. But in today’s hiring market, that’s often not enough to stand out. In this new video, Peck Academy graduate and instructional designer, Daniel Guimont, shares what hiring managers are really looking for when they review your work. Instead of just presenting outcomes, he shows how to communicate your value through the story behind your decisions—starting with the problem, walking through your process, and making your thinking visible. He also breaks down practical ways to use visuals, simplify your write-ups, and highlight growth so hiring managers can quickly understand how you solve problems. The result is a portfolio that doesn’t just look good, but clearly demonstrates how you think, adapt, and contribute. If you’re trying to gain traction as an instructional designer, this is a powerful shift in how you present your work. Watch the video using the link in the comments, and let us know: how are you showing your thinking in your portfolio?

When Instructional Designer work with Subject Matter Experts, it’s not just a content-gathering exercise. It is a design partnership. And the quality of that partnership often determines the quality of the learning solution. A loose operating model I find useful: 1. Align on the performance outcome Start with the business or workflow outcome, not the content inventory. 2. Define the SME role clearly SMEs bring domain depth. Instructional designers translate that expertise into usable learning. 3. Protect SME time Use structured inputs, focused questions, and fewer but sharper review cycles. 4. Review decisions, not just drafts Bring SMEs into the logic behind the design: what was included, reduced, sequenced, or reframed — and why. 5. Make trade-offs visible Not everything important belongs in the learning experience. Some things belong in references, job aids, practice, or manager reinforcement. 6. Hold the learning line A good ID does not simply absorb every SME request. They protect clarity, cognitive load, learner relevance, and transfer. The best SME relationships are not transactional. They are built on mutual respect: their expertise in the subject, your expertise in how people learn, apply, and perform.

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN PROFESSIONALS please give me tips! Over the past year, I’ve been taking a hard look at where my skills naturally align. In nearly every role I’ve held, I’ve been the person volunteering to create standards guides, training materials, process documentation, and simplified systems that help teams work better. Before transitioning fully into digital experience and content strategy work, I also taught proofreading for 3 years, which included building the curriculum, designing the coursework, and writing/printing student workbooks from scratch. I genuinely enjoy translating technical or complex information into something engaging, visual, and easy to understand. The more I research Instructional Design, the more it feels like a natural extension of the work I’ve already been doing. I am specifically interested in learning: • Which certifications or courses are actually respected by hiring teams. • Which software/platforms I should prioritize learning. • What makes candidates stand out in today’s market. If you’ve made this transition yourself or hire for these roles and have any tips, please comment below or send me a message. I’d truly appreciate any insights. [Below is the TOC of a workbook I created in Figma that guides businesses through the complete process of building a brand identity.]

My top 5 tips for creating an effective instructional design portfolio. What else would you add to this list? 1) know your audience; 2) prioritize design, usability, and accessibility; 3) showcase skills and creativity; 4) highlight a featured project; and 5) let your personality show. Click to read > https://lnkd.in/g74a8Tzx Southern Nazarene University

Certainly not the most exciting instructional design post. When discussing "how the omelette is made" you are rarely going to mention best practices on how to communicate your intentions to your boss concerning an ID project. So I made this job aid, to help you remember "four things to mention in an instructional design project email to your boss." I like using numbers as graphic elements.

As I continue growing in instructional design, one thing I’ve personally realized is that many of us spend a lot of time learning theories and models first. Things like: • ADDIE • Bloom’s Taxonomy • Adult Learning Principles And to be clear, they’re valuable. They give structure, language, and a solid foundation for how learning should be designed. But from my experience, that’s only the beginning. The real growth starts when you have to apply those frameworks to real-world projects that are often far from perfect. Because in practice, projects don’t always come neatly packaged with clear goals, enough time, and cooperative stakeholders. Sometimes you’re dealing with: • vague requests • incomplete SME feedback • unrealistic deadlines • shifting priorities • unclear performance gaps I’ve seen that theory may say: Theory may say: Use formative assessments throughout the learning experience. Reality may sound like: We only have time for one final quiz, keep it simple. Now you’re balancing ideal design with business constraints. That’s where the true instructional design skill comes in. You have to pause and ask: • What is the actual business problem? • What do learners really need to do? • Is training even the right solution? • How can I create something effective within constraints? That’s the part no textbook fully teaches. Experience sharpens it. For me, the strongest instructional designers are not just the ones who know the models, they’re the ones who know how to interpret, adapt, and apply them in messy workplace realities. Theory gives direction, practice builds judgment. And the sweet spot is learning how to balance both. If you’re in instructional design, what theory or framework have you found most useful when working on actual projects? What theory do you find most useful in real projects? #instructionaldesign #eLearning

Many people assume instructional design is primarily creative work. Designing slides. Building interactive courses. Writing scripts and storyboards. Those things are visible. But they’re not where most of the work happens. Strong instructional design is actually mostly analytical. Before designing anything, experienced instructional designers spend time analyzing things like: • the tasks employees must perform • the behaviors required for success • the environment where work happens • the constraints people face on the job This process helps answer a critical question: What is preventing people from performing successfully? Only after that analysis can a designer determine: • whether learning is needed • what skills people must develop • what type of practice will help Without analysis, design becomes guesswork. You might create something that looks polished… …but solves the wrong problem. That’s why experienced instructional designers spend a large portion of their time doing something that doesn’t look creative at all. They analyze the work first. Then they design the learning solution. Because good instructional design isn’t driven by creativity. It’s driven by analysis.