My experience with University-level classes in Instructional Design is that professors are often more concerned with designing their own pet projects than modeling effective instructional design in their classes. Instead of following scientifically-proven methods which increase the comprehension and mastery levels, they fall back on lecture or half-hearted demonstrations, leaving students confused. No wonder designers leave Universities with either a lack of motivation or lack of understanding of how to develop effective designs. All they leave the institution knowing how to do is design "feel-good" instruction which appears to please their customers but does not achieve the desired outcome. Fortunately there are some serious professors who demonstrate effective designs, and a few bright students who catch on, either with or without the instructor's help. The goal of the instructional design should be to approach, as nearly as feasible, this standard: Instruct in a way that not only everyone masters the concept, but also in a way that no one misunderstands.
Several models for effective design have been built on scientifically proven methods of instruction. David Merrill's is only one of the most effective. At the institution with which I am associated there are several professors who are trying to break the mold and practice what they preach. But there are still some who don't. They leave the students out in the cold, puzzled as to where the heat in instructional design is coming from and what it all means.
One way to combat this epidemic of confusion is to make it a requirement that before leaving the University setting, each student develop, with specificity, a written model of what constitutes effective instructional design, based on scientifically proven principles.