Instructional design is commonly referred to as the systematic process of creating consistent and reliable learning experiences (Branch & Merrill, 2011). Built on a foundation of learning theory and instructional design theory, instructional design relies heavily on various process models to guide design practice (Stefaniak & Xu, 2020) and to manage and communicate the process of design (Branch & Dousay, 2015). Despite their use, scholars argue that these models do not accurately represent instructional design practice (Bichelmeyer et al., 2006; Rowland, 1992; Smith & Boling, 2009; Visscher-Voerman & Gustafson, 2004; Wedman & Tessmer, 1993) and remain too focused on high-level processes rather than discrete methods and actions (Gibbons et al., 2014). In recent years, human-centered design (HCD) methods have emerged within instructional design practice, providing more methodological guidance for instructional designers within an empathetic design perspective (Stefaniak & Xu, 2020). HCD includes codesign practices (Steen, 2012)that seek to involve users directly throughout the design process. The current study explores the design experiences of 12 participant designers (e.g., teachers, digital coaches) who were purposely selected to engage in a seven-week codesign experience. Tasked with providing direction on resources designed to support K-12 teachers with online and hybrid teaching, these participant designers worked together to share previous teaching experiences, analyze teacher data, and identify and develop learning prototypes. Interviews with eight participant designers following the codesign experience revealed that participants viewed the project as open and ill-defined, lacking in a clear outcome and identified roles and responsibilities. As the codesign continued, participants described impactful moments that clarified the design project and shifted the design process to a focus on details. While the end product of design was described by participants generally, participants viewed their experiences and perspectives as their major contributions to the design process. Results from this investigation reveal important implications for design practice, education, and research.