This article introduces the concept of pop-up usability labs as a practical and cost-effective solution for conducting usability testing in real-world learning experience design (LXD) contexts. Various configurations of pop-up usability labs are presented, including budget-friendly, portable, semi-permanent, and mobile setups, along with recommendations for hardware and software requirements. The importance of selecting appropriate software packages for usability data analysis is emphasized, with suggestions for low-cost, no-cost, and open-source options for quantitative and qualitative data analyses. Pop-up usability labs offer numerous advantages, such as accommodating limited funding and reaching participants in rural areas. However, they also present challenges that require LXD professionals to become familiar with the equipment and data analysis methods. Despite these limitations, pop-up usability labs provide a viable, resource-efficient approach for LXD professionals to conduct usability testing in real-world settings, identify and address design flaws related to usability, and embrace more human-centered design practices in the development of educational and learning technology products, systems, or services.

This study took an iterative multi-phase learning experience design (LXD) approach to design and evaluate a 3D virtual world game focusing on English language learning. Multiple LXD methods were conducted including empathy interview, heuristic evaluation, cognitive walkthrough, and concurrent think-aloud usability testing, in order to identify usability problems and how learners rated the usability of the intervention. A total of 137 usability problems were identified. Learners rated the game with high overall perceived usability. This study provided evidence for the multi-dimensional usability framework proposed by Jahnke and colleagues and its application at a micro level.

This paper explores the pivotal role of learning experience designers in fostering collective praxis through two design cases, embracing critical pedagogy. In the “Centering Justice” program, they facilitate collaboration among faculty, students, and instructional technologists, for an inclusive and socially just teaching framework. Navigating power dynamics, they promote awareness of privilege and oppression, and encourage dialogue and reflexivity. In the online course on intimate partner violence, they orchestrate interdisciplinary collaboration, ensuring authentic and empathetic content through participatory design. These case studies highlight the central role of learning experience designer in managing stakeholders, power dynamics, and fostering transformative education.

Learning experience design (LXD) builds upon instructional design by incorporating user experience design, user-centered design, and design thinking. While instructional design focuses on creating instruction that meet specific learning objectives, LXD takes a more holistic approach by considering learners' needs, goals, and motivations to create engaging e-courses. Despite e-learning's growing popularity, many online courses employ outdated approaches and technologies that fail to engage modern learners. Using a cognitive apprenticeship approach and Conceição and Howles’ (2021) Integrated Framework for Designing the Online Learning Experience, this design case chronicles the redesign of an online course whereby faculty and students experience LXD through LXD.

Despite being a vital resource for persons who inject drugs (PWID), syringe services programs (SSPs) often face stigma from the general community and medical profession. To de-stigmatize and illustrate the collaborative practices of SSPs, the authors collaborated with three syringe services programs across Connecticut to create an animated video series called “Syringe Services Programs: Community Building, Testing, and Stigma.” This design case describes how the aspects of the learning experience design (LXD) were used to create the animated videos. In addition, the authors discuss how the theory of intersectionality was used to inform the video design.

Despite extensive research into asynchronous online course discussions (AOCDs), there remain unsettled areas and a gap of in-depth qualitative approaches. This study investigated learners’ AOCD experiences throughout their asynchronous online graduate program using an LXD lens. Data included 26+ hours of interviews and think aloud observations with eight participants; four instructor interviews; two course design reviews; and a review of posts. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis and it was found that (1) participants largely experienced their AOCDs as low quality and not “real” discussions; (2) participation requirements were overly prescriptive, constraining authentic dialogue; (3) instructor involvement in the AOCDs was crucial and largely experienced as insufficient; (4) the AOCD user interface was inconvenient and not aesthetically appealing and impeded conversation; and (5) most surprising, all but one participant felt in spite of these challenges that the program should keep AOCDs. Study findings informed a new model for considering AOCDs through an LXD lens comprised of five components: academic culture, course design, AOCD UX, student traits, and time-bound dynamics. This model can be easily modified for other technology mediated educational activities.

We present a design practice paper to explore the power and potential of extended reality (XR) to enable immersive and dynamic learning opportunities within a series of MOOCs focused on the Learning Experience Design (LXD) profession. This project integrates XR-enhanced learning experiences using interactive 360º videos. These media take MOOC learners through a fictionalized design process mapped to key topics of the series. Through a simulated apprenticeship, MOOC learners develop situational awareness and contextual understanding of LXD practice. We use the Developing Instructional Design Professionals for Education through Apprenticeship model to understand the ways these immersive experiences instantiated the four stages of the model.

In this position paper, I argue that Learning Experience Design (LXD) is not different from Instructional Design (ID) but rather another natural evolution of ID. I make this argument through: (1) exploring the history and theory of Instructional Design and Technology (IDT) discipline, and (2) sharing a reflection on my own career as a learning designer, where I describe my journey toward becoming an experienced and expert learning designer through examples of my design work.

This study explores how an aspect of learning experience design (usability) correlated with the learning process as individuals engaged in block coding. Although there were no differences when scaffolded with blocks or no blocks coding condition, the study found weak to moderate correlations with usability and factors of cognitive load (intrinsic, germane, extraneous). Whereas learning experience design literature is often approached from an evaluation perspective, the empirical data suggests learning experience design may be correlated with in situ elements of learning.

When designing learning experiences, instructional designers should engage learners with designs that balance rational and emotional experiences. The Learning Experience Canvas (LXC) is a process model that designers can use individually, with a team, and/or with stakeholders to gather and document learning experience design ideas. The designer can then turn those rational and emotional ideas into one or more “fuzzy visions,” which is a designer’s preliminary vision of the instructional content, methods, media, and sequencing that learners might experience. The LXC aims to deliver a learning experience high in effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal.

In this paper we consider how learning experience design (LXD) improves designers’ capacities to influence learning. We do this by exploring what LXD offers the design of learning environments that help develop learners’ expertise. We discuss how LXD (a) attunes designers to different learning affordances than are emphasized in traditional ID; (b) challenges the universal applicability of common ID techniques; and (c) expands designers’ views of the outcomes for which they can design. These insights suggest that LXD is useful because it refocuses and reframes designers' work around flexible design approaches that are often deemphasized in traditional ID.

Instructional design has been dominated by a philosophy focused on efficiency, effectiveness, and appeal. Learning Experience Design (LXD), emerging recently, offers a different set of values with the potential to enhance and evolve the practice of design for teaching and learning. Using the concepts of knowledge and philosophy from the literature on design theory, we challenge the notion that LXD is a discrete new field separate from instructional design and instead identify LXD as an alternate philosophy of design. We conclude with the opportunity to recognize additional philosophies in the field and consider the impacts of philosophy on knowledge-building practices.

Some proponents of learning experience design (LXD) have set it apart as an alternative to instructional design (ID). This article explores the similarities and differences between LXD and ID and whether the two are really in conflict. It begins by defining learning experience (LX). Then it contrasts LX with what instruction should be like. Next, it focuses on defining LXD and contrasting it with ID. It explores some issues that influence the view of LXD as an evolution of ID or as a new discipline or field. Finally, it offers some suggestions for advancing knowledge in this important area.