Week 3 Reflection

Chapters 1 and 2 of our book really pushed me to think differently about instructional design. In Chapter 1, Parrish frames it as more than just an engineering or step-by-step process, comparing it to other design fields where creativity and judgment are essential. That stood out to me because I’ve often treated design like following a cut-and-dry set of instructions, when in reality it probably calls for more fluid, creative thinking. In Chapter 2, Bannan dives into how hard it is to really pin down the nature of design, since in practice it’s never neat or linear. That clicked with me too, because I’ve had plenty of times where my carefully laid designs didn’t give me the expected end result or go the way I wanted them to and I had to pivot - and many of these times relate to my experiences as a teacher and while using instructional technology.

What I liked most about both chapters is the reminder that design is just as much about flexibility and context as it is about structure. That’s not easy for me to grasp, because I’m a very structured, detail-oriented planner who likes things to be “just right.” I usually find comfort in clear steps and tidy endpoints, so the idea that design is never truly finished is a big shift in perspective. It’s raised a lot of questions for me: how do I find the balance between structure and adaptability? How much should I rely on established models, and how much should I trust myself to improvise? And maybe the hardest part...how do I get comfortable with the idea that design is always in motion, something I’ll keep reshaping as contexts and learners change?

The more I think about it, the more I realize that this perspective actually lines up with real teaching and learning - it’s always evolving, never “done.” I may never fully lose my need for structure, but I can see the value in leaning into that ongoing process and allowing design to feel more like growth than completion.