Myth: Good Teaching Equals Good Instructional Design

Welcome & Series Framework

Hello and welcome to the Designing with Love Podcast. I am your host, Jackie Pellegrin, where my goal is to bring you information, tips, and tricks as an instructional designer. Hello, instructional designers and educators. Welcome to episode 137 of the Designing with Love Podcast. Today we're continuing our series called Myths in Instructional Design and Education, where we unpack common beliefs that shape how we design, teach, train, and support learning. In the last episode, we challenged the myth that technology automatically improves learning. We talked about why technology should serve the learning purpose, not drive the design.

The Myth Behind The Confusion

In this episode, we're looking at another common myth. Good teaching equals good instructional design. This myth can show up when we assume that someone who teaches well can automatically design strong courses, trainings, modules, or learning experiences. But while good teaching and good instructional design are connected, they are not the same thing. So grab your notebook, a cup of coffee, and settle in as we explore this topic together. Before we jump in, here's how this series will work. Each episode will focus on one common myth, why it has lasted, what we know instead, and how we can make stronger design decisions moving forward. Today's myth is good teaching equals good instructional design. At first, this idea can sound reasonable. Strong teachers know their learners, explain ideas clearly, ask thoughtful questions, and adjust in the moment. Those are valuable skills. In fact, many instructional designers come from teaching backgrounds, and that experience can be a powerful foundation. But teaching and instructional design ask us to think in different ways. Teaching often happens in real time with a specific group of learners. Instructional design often requires planning the full learning experience before learners ever enter the classroom, course, module, or training. Good teaching can support strong instructional design, but it does not automatically replace the design process. When we assume they are the same, we may overlook the analysis alignment, structure, practice, assessment, accessibility, and evaluation that strong instructional design requires.

Why The Myth Sticks Around

So why has this myth lasted for so long? One reason is that teaching is the most visible part of learning. We see the instructor leading a discussion, explaining a concept, answering questions, and responding to learners. But much of instructional design happens behind the scenes. It includes analyzing learner needs, clarifying goals, sequencing content, designing practice, planning feedback, selecting tools, building assessments, and evaluating whether the learning experience worked. Another reason this myth persists is that teaching experience often does transfer into instructional design. Teachers bring empathy, communication skills, classroom experience, and an understanding of learner challenges. Those strengths matter. But instructional design also requires thinking beyond one live teaching moment. It asks us to create learning experiences that can be used, reused, facilitated, scaled, adapted, or completed independently. This myth also persists because people sometimes reduce instructional design to content creation. If instructional design is seen as putting teaching materials into a course, then it is easy to assume good teaching is enough. But instructional design is not just organizing content. It is designing the conditions that help learning happen. Here's where we need to shift the conversation. The issue is not that teaching skills do not matter, they absolutely do. The issue is that teaching and instructional design are related but distinct practices. A more accurate way to think about it is this. Good teaching can inform good instructional design, but instructional design requires

Teaching Skills Versus Design Work

its own process, decisions, and deliverables. Teaching often focuses on facilitating learning in the moment. Instructional design focuses on designing the full learning experience with intention. A strong teacher may ask, how can I explain this clearly? A strong instructional designer may ask, what do learners need to be able to do and how will this experience help them get there? A strong teacher may adjust when learners look confused. A strong instructional designer tries to anticipate where confusion may happen and designs support before learners get stuck. A strong teacher may give feedback during a class discussion. A strong instructional designer plans where feedback should happen, what it should address, and how learners will use it to improve. Both roles care deeply about learners, but instructional design requires us to think about the system, not just the session. So what does this mean for us as instructional designers, educators, trainers, or learning leaders? It

Shifting From Delivery To Design

means we need to move from delivery-based thinking to design-based thinking. Instead of asking, how will I teach this? We might ask, what should learners be able to do after this experience? Instead of asking, what content should I cover, we might ask what content, practice, feedback, and support will help learners reach the goal. Instead of asking, how can I explain this well? We might ask, how can I design an experience where learners actively work with the concept? This shift matters because strong instructional design is built on alignment. The learning goals, activities, assessments, feedback, tools, and support should all work together. If the goal is for learners to analyze a case, they need practice analyzing cases. If the goal is for learners to make decisions, they need opportunities to make decisions. If the goal is for learners to perform a skill, they need guided practice and feedback. Good teaching instincts can help, but instructional design helps us turn those instincts into a structured learning experience. That structure matters, especially in online, blended, self-paced or scalable learning environments where the instructor may not be present to adjust everything in the moment.

Alignment, Practice, & Feedback

Here's today's myth reset. Instead of believing good teaching equals good instructional design, remember that good teaching can strengthen instructional design, but it does not replace the design process. Teaching helps us understand learners. Instructional design helps us intentionally shape the experience around what learners need to practice, apply, and achieve. This week, look at one course, lesson, module activity, or training experience and ask yourself, am I relying on delivery alone, or have I designed the full learning experience? That question can help us move from simply presenting content to creating conditions for learning. Today, we challenge the myth that good teaching equals good instructional design. We looked at why this belief has lasted, what it gets wrong, and how we can replace it with a more accurate and useful design approach. Your myth reset challenge this week is to review one learning experience you have taught, designed, or supported. Ask yourself, what should learners be able to do by the end? Where do learners get to practice that skill or behavior? How will learners receive feedback? How does assessment get connected to the goal? What support is built in before learners get stuck? Then choose one improvement you can make. Maybe you revise the objective, add a practice opportunity, improve feedback, align the assessment more closely to the goal, or add clearer support. The goal is not to separate teaching from design, the goal is to bring them together with intention. In the next episode, we'll continue the series by looking at another common myth. Learning styles should drive design decisions.

Quote, Next Myth, & Support

Before I conclude this episode, here's an inspiring quote from Grant Wiggins and Jay McTee. Teaching is means to an end. That quote is a helpful reminder for this myth because the goal is not just to teach content well. The goal is to design learning experiences that help learners move toward meaningful outcomes. When we understand the difference between teaching and instructional design, we can honor both. We can value the art of facilitation and the intentional structure of design. If this episode gave you something to think about, I'd love for you to share it with another educator, instructional designer, trainer, or learning leader who is ready to rethink what really works in learning. And don't forget to check out the companion myth reset case file for this episode. It will help you investigate the myth, review the design shift, and apply this week's challenge to your own course, lesson, module, or training experience. Thank you for joining me today as we opened another case in our myths and instructional design and education series. As you move through the week, I hope this episode encourages you to pause before accepting a familiar belief as fact. Sometimes the best design decisions begin when we question what we have always assumed to be true. Until next time, keep learning, keep questioning, and keep designing with love. Thank you for taking some time to listen to this podcast episode today. Your support means the world to me. If you'd like to help keep the podcast going, you can share it with a friend or colleague, leave a heartfelt review, or offer a monetary contribution. Every act of support, big or small, makes a difference, and I'm truly thankful for you.