Allen Avner's conclusions are not surprising given that the level of instructional design achieved by the experienced designers he studied could probably be described as "creativity"
[quoting Avner, 15 Apr 95] In instructional design, theory guided construction of materials for those with minimal practical experience but guided mostly the explanatory language of those with a lot of practical experience. The experience itself seemed to be what guided the design for those who had practical design and production experience.
Inexperienced or apprentice painters, writers, composers, film makers, etc., who follow the rules are normally quick to explain (at length and in boring detail) the underlying ideology, philosophy, symbolism, and semiology of their creations. True artists refuse to interpret and insist that the viewer judge a creation in its own terms. They find it hard to say just why they painted the sky red, or used a diminished seventh minor chord, or edited the sequence in such a fashion.
"It works."
There's not enough respect given to that phrase.
Critics and researchers won't leave it alone and begin worrying at it like a mongoose with a snake until there's blood all over the front porch. We need to pay more attention to creativity in education, don't you think?