Jumping the Shark: Modern Instructional Design

Jumping the Shark: The Rise and Fall of Modern Instructional Design

The phrase “jumping the shark”—borrowed from a now-infamous moment in television—captures that turning point when quality starts to wane amid over-the-top gimmicks. You could say that modern instructional design has hit its own version of this moment. While new technologies and methodologies have cropped up at a rapid pace, the essence of effective learning may have gotten lost in the shuffle.

The Process Dilemma

Processes like ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) and SAM (Successive Approximation Model) have served as the bedrock of instructional design for decades. They promise structure and clarity in crafting learning experiences.

Yet, the promise doesn’t always match reality. Following a process to the letter can lead to a “checklist mentality,” where each step is checked off without questioning whether it truly elevates learner engagement. Rather than sparking fresh ideas, a rigid reliance on frameworks can trap designers into producing content that feels formulaic and disconnected from real needs. We’ve all seen instances where the analysis is robust, but the solution it’s supposed to inform falls flat because there was no room for creative adaptation.

As design strategies and job requirements shift at lightning speed, the biggest pitfall is letting a process become a shackle rather than a guide. Sticking too tightly to a well-worn path can result in solutions that are outdated the moment they launch.

The Strategy Paradox

Instructional strategies—whether grounded in behaviorism, constructivism, gamification, or microlearning—aim to bring about real change. Ideally, they connect learners with new skills and knowledge in meaningful ways.

The paradox is that while strategies are meant to spark transformation, they don’t always accomplish it. When a trend catches fire (gamification, for instance), it’s easy to adopt it simply because it’s popular. Done poorly, it can devolve into shallow point-collecting rather than deeper comprehension. Microlearning, too, can be a game-changer in delivering bite-sized content—unless it becomes so fragmented that learners lose sight of how pieces fit together.

In short, chasing what’s fashionable can overshadow the fundamental principles of effective learning. Strategies should serve the learner’s context, needs, and motivations—not just the marketplace’s buzz.

The Tool Trap

An ever-growing suite of tools has made it easier than ever to create, distribute, and manage learning content on a massive scale. Learning management systems, authoring software, and analytics platforms streamline production and provide reams of data.

But efficiency doesn’t automatically mean effectiveness. An LMS can handle thousands of learners, but it can’t guarantee they’re receiving meaningful experiences that inspire growth. Sometimes, adopting the latest “shiny” technology can distract from focusing on content quality. If the tool itself becomes the centerpiece rather than the learning goals, the result is often superficial engagement instead of genuine skill building.

Jumping the Shark: What’s Next?

If processes, strategies, and tools alone can’t guarantee success, where does this leave modern instructional design? The key lies in rethinking how we use these elements:

• Adapt Processes: Treat them as adaptable guides rather than rigid frameworks, leaving room to pivot based on real-time insights from participants – and the business.
• Recenter Strategies on Learners: Select or create strategies that align with the actual needs, preferences, and environments of your audience. Trends are secondary to relevance. Stop overdesigning just because you can.
• Use Tools with Purpose: Evaluate technology not just by features, but by how well it supports genuine engagement, motivation, and deeper understanding.

Ultimately, instructional design “jumped the shark” when it became more about the mechanics of design than the performance desired; more about the artifacts of the process than the engagement of those involved. To move beyond that moment, designers should return to what really matters: delivering authentic, relevant learning that drives real-world impact. By balancing the foundational processes, cutting-edge strategies, and powerful tools with a learner-focused vision, we can reclaim the heart of instructional design—making it not just modern and efficient, but truly transformative.

But more importantly, instructional design (specifically corporate ID/ LXD) should shift the focus to producing quality products quickly and cost effectively. The days of taking weeks or months to build an online course are OVER!

There simply is no reason to spend more than a week building an online course.

Does that shock you? It probably does and it shouldn’t.

ID/ LXD have quickly fallen behind the next generation of content developers. Everyone – and I mean everyone – is producing short and long form videos, AI tools create images, and content is as accessible as the air we breathe.

The ultimate role of any ID team is to facilitate the engagement of people needed to consider, suggest, review and approve the online product. Developing yourself and your team to be better at building engagement within the development process will be your biggest challenge.

ID will soon be measured by how well we build engagement and not solely the success of the final product.