I believe in and desire to follow responsible instructional design. I enjoy the iterative processes of planning outcomes, selecting effective strategies for teaching and learning, choosing relevant technologies, identifying educational media, and measuring performance (Branch & Kopcha, 2014).
One of the least appealing aspects of instructional design is the reality that many designers face in the workplace. Many in the field are popped into the work without instructional design history, philosophy, or theory to ground them. Rather, the business side and immediate needs of an overwhelmed institute seem to take precedence over preparing a designer correctly from the start. Tracey and Boling (2014) stress that “design is a systematic process, represented by models, based on theory and grounded in data while focused on problem solving (p.653).” Instructional designers who enjoy such a systematic process that is represented and grounded by models and theories are fortunate. Studio education, by which instructional designers are prepared and educated in design theories and models as they are actually practiced to determined effective adaptations limits the field (Tracey & Boling, 2014).