When most people hear the title Instructional Designer (ID), they think of the corporate role. Corporate IDs usually handle everything from beginning to end. They meet with subject matter experts, but then they take ownership of the project by writing the content, designing the activities, building the training, and delivering a finished product. Their portfolios are filled with examples of courses or trainings created for different clients, and their discussions often focus on outcomes, efficiency, and learning theory-heavy models.
That is not my world. In higher education, faculty create the content. My role as an ID in higher education has been to take what they produce and make sure it isn’t just a random pile of documents, assignments, or slides uploaded without thought to design. If a faculty member provides me with a PowerPoint crammed with text-heavy lecture notes or an assignment prompt that is so vague students will be left guessing at what’s expected, my job is to step in and shape it so students can actually use it. The PowerPoint gets redesigned into something visually clean, with graphics, signposting, and logical flow so students can follow along instead of zoning out. The assignment gets clarified with structure, criteria, and alignment so students know exactly what they’re working toward. None of that changes the content itself, but it completely changes the student’s experience of learning because my focus is always on the student experience.
So, what really is the difference between ID and LXD?
ID has always been rooted in creating instruction that is clear, efficient, and aligned to specific outcomes. It is systematic and content-driven, with the primary focus on making sure the knowledge is transferred and the objectives are met. A learning experience designer (LXD) on the other hand, takes a step back and looks at the learner’s entire experience. It’s less about the content itself and more about how the learner experiences the content, how it feels, and how engaging and memorable the journey is.
Of course, the best designers pull from both ID and LXD, no one is purely one or the other. Effective design borrows from ID, LXD, and even areas like interface design and interaction design to create learning that is both effective and enjoyable. Some argue that LXD doesn’t really bring anything new to the table, that it’s just a fancier label for what good IDs already do. I don’t agree with that. LXD begins with the learner. It asks about their motivations, interests, and goals, and then designs experiences that feel relevant and engaging to them. ID tends to lead with content and outcomes, but LXD leads with the human side of learning. LXD also puts a strong emphasis on emotional engagement. Storytelling, scenarios, and immersive activities aren’t just nice extras, they’re tools for creating curiosity, empathy, and motivation. ID has traditionally been more comfortable measuring the cognitive side of learning, but LXD insists that the affective side matters too.
Another difference I see between my work and traditional corporate ID is in the design models we lean on. While not every corporate ID strictly follows ADDIE, it still tends to be the default framework in some capacity. ADDIE is structured and linear: analyze, design, develop, implement, and then evaluate. It works, but it can feel rigid and heavy. In higher education, my process feels much closer to the SAM model, which stands for Successive Approximation Model. SAM is built on collaboration, rapid design cycles, and constant prototyping. Instead of waiting until the end to evaluate, you test ideas along the way, refine them with feedback, and make improvements as you go. For example, I might start with a faculty member’s assignment prompt that is long, confusing, or inconsistent. The first version I create is a prototype: I restructure the wording, add clear instructions, and align it with the learning outcomes. We test it with the faculty member, make adjustments, and improve it again. The result is a cleaner, more usable assignment that students can actually understand and engage with. The same applies to a PowerPoint. A dense, text-heavy slide deck might go through several rounds of redesign, where I add visuals, signposting, and structure until it flows in a way that supports students instead of overwhelming them. This back-and-forth, test-and-improve process is exactly what SAM is about, and it matches the LXD focus on learner experience.
In higher education, this is most often my experience in how courses get developed. If you are curious and want to learn more about SAM, check out this video to explore the learning design process in further detail.
The truth is that the identity of ID as a profession is dominated by the corporate side, and the expectations in that world are very different. When I see the larger ID community online, it feels like I’m watching an entirely different profession. Corporate IDs talk about client lists and project portfolios. In higher education, my reality is collaborating with faculty, refining their materials as needed (if they will allow me, grumble grumble academic freedom grumble grumble), and making sure students can connect with the courses they are given. My focus is entirely on the student experience first and foremost; the graphical design and flow, the accessibility of content through WCAG standards, and the overall usability of a course.
And this is why I don't really identify with the title "Instructional Designer" anymore. While ID emphasizes the structure and delivery of instruction, LXD emphasizes the learner. LXD values design that is visually appealing, intuitive, and student-centered. It often pulls from storytelling, gamification, and multimedia to create experiences that aren’t just informative but also memorable and motivating. There is overlap between the two approaches, and both matter in creating effective learning. But the core of my work in higher education aligns with LXD. I rarely develop content from scratch or produce training packages for outside clients and then move on to the next organization. I continuously collaborate with faculty to shape learning experiences that students can access, navigate, and genuinely want to engage with.
I might still call myself an ID when talking with faculty or leadership, but I use it as a blanket term, the same way people say Q-tip instead of cotton swab. At the end of the day, these are just titles, yet “Instructional Designer” carries connotations that don’t match my lived experiences working in higher education. That is why I see myself more clearly as a Learning Experience Designer, because it reflects the heart of my work: creating learning that is accessible, engaging, and centered on the student experience.
Want to learn more about ID vs LXD, feel free to check out this video, it's a great watch.