Thinking About Instructional Design

Having been in the training field for most of my adult life, and having had the opportunity to learn from some of the best, I occasionally like to reflect on what makes for effective instructional design. Here are some of those thoughts:

Thank you, Mr. Pareto.
In 1906, as the story goes, Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, observed that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population, and that 20% of the pea pods in his garden contained 80% of the peas. From these observations, Joseph Juran and others developed the Pareto Principle, otherwise known as the 80/20 rule.

In the case of instructional design, the rule is simple—80% of what someone needs to know to perform a job is contained in 20% of the available learning content. It is therefore incumbent on training designers/developers to sift through the 100% of information our clients present to identify the 20% the participants need to know. Included in that 20% is where they can find the other 80% if they need it. Once we identify that key content, we can design a course intended to teach it.

They may not be listening.
Trainers love to hear themselves talk, and they usually believe that the participants are absorbing every word they say. But the truth is that only about 25% of participants learn best that way, and those people might be thinking about something else at the time. The key to effective instruction—and this has been well-documented for years—is to vary the instructional approaches to address different learning styles. There are multiple models and terminology for these styles, some of which require a course just to understand. I prefer to think of them in this fashion:

• Auditory: Learning by listening/hearing.
• Visual: Learning by seeing models or other visual stimuli.
• Reading Comprehension: Learning through the written word.
• Kinesthetic: Learning by doing.

I tried to come up with an adjective for “reading comprehension,” but I couldn’t (feel free to send me suggestions). In any event, each of us has one or two primary learning styles, and effective training uses all of them. Here’s an example of how to present content in a way that addresses all four styles:

1. Show a slide or flip chart with a model (visual).
2. Describe the model and its key components (auditory).
3. Have the participants read about the model (reading comprehension).
4. Practice using the model (kinesthetic).

This approach should be used with every important sub-set of content, and it should always be followed by a debrief to help the participants internalize the learning. If you’ve done your 80/20 analysis and determined that the topic is worth covering in training, you need to teach it in a way that addresses all of the learning styles.

Build a 1970s Toyota.
I used to just say, “build a Toyota,” but the events of the past year have forced me to modify that statement. The point is that in the 1970s, the US auto makers often designed cars by taking a body from one car, an engine from another, a suspension from another, etc. and slapping it together with a new name. Toyota, having learned the lessons of Edwards Deming and other process gurus, built their cars from scratch, making sure the body, engine, suspension, etc. worked together to support the intended functions of that car.

Training is very similar. You can “design” a course by mixing and matching things that might have worked in other courses and force-fitting them to different learning objectives, or you can build it from scratch, making sure that each activity is exactly right for its intended objective. This does not mean you always have to reinvent the wheel—if you have a similar object, you can use a similar exercise. It just means that you don’t just use an activity because it is expedient or because you already know how to run it. Make sure it fits the content and learning objective.

What do you mean, I can’t do that?
This is one of my pet peeves…I’m working with a client and come up with a great idea for a learning activity, and the client says, “You can’t do that here,” because of some arcane dictum, preconception, or an individual’s dislike of a certain approach. My advice is that if you think it is the right thing to do, try to convince the client with evidence of the approach’s effectiveness and how it can be done correctly to enhance the learning. Of course if the client is insistent about not using it, you have to back off, then decide afterward if you want to work with that client again.

I don’t own it.
Understand that you are not designing/developing the course for yourself, or your blog, or your personal portfolio. Once you hand it over to the clients, it belongs to them. If they want to mess it up (as they often do), it’s their prerogative to do so. Occasionally, they actually improve it (and you have to be open to that possibility). In any event, they paid for it, and they are the ones who have to implement it, so they have the right to change it or ask you to change it. If you can’t live with that, get out of the business.

Successful Training Interventions

Someone recently asked me to comb through my nearly 30 years of experience and come up with the actions that lead to successful training interventions. I thought it was a great question, so I’d like to offer my answer here in the form of seven key points:

1. Obtain High-Level Support: In the hundred or so projects with which I’ve been involved over the years, this factor stands out above all else—the top of the house, no lower than the VP level, has to actively support the initiative. Without such a “sponsor,” no matter how good a course you develop, it will not succeed in achieving its objectives. There are two reasons for this. First, the people at the higher levels are more linked into the company goals and strategy and will be able to guide the training intervention toward supporting that strategy. The second reason for high-level support is that without it, the people who have to implement the training will not see the importance of getting behind it, therefore leaving it to die on the vine.
   
2. Work with the Right People: The people on the design/development/implementation team have to be committed to the training goal and objectives, rather than merely fostering their own opinions or careers. You might find this odd, but as a consultant, I’ve been in several situations where I realized that the only reason the clients hired a consultant was so that they could have someone to blame when the training failed. I’ve since learned how to weed out most of those clients in advance by paying attention to the “warning bells” in my head.
   
3. Make Sure the Systems Support the Training: The biggest mistake that training professionals make is rolling out a course or curriculum that is not supported by the company’s internal systems. This seems obvious, but in our zeal to introduce state-of-the-art approaches, we often neglect to update the very systems supporting those approaches. For example, if you tell a salesperson that he or she has to enter an order using a particular program but that program does not work properly on his or her laptop, you have a problem. And this doesn’t just refer to computer systems…it could also relate to filing systems, ordering processes, staff meetings, reporting structures, or even the physical plant. I had a client where the training sessions often went into the evening, but the air conditioning shut off promptly at 5:00 PM. That was a clear-cut case of the systems not supporting the training.
   
4. Train the Managers First: Does this sound familiar? The participants attend your course and are enthused about putting what they’ve learned into action, until they return to the office where their manager says something like, “That’s all well and good, but it’s not the way we do things here.” The fact is that the best way to overcome this problem is by getting key managers—those who tend to shape opinion—involved from the beginning, even if possible in the design and development of the workshop. Then, train the rest of the managers before you roll it out to their employees. Doing so will go a long way toward ensuring the success of the training effort.
   
5. Design the Training for the Participants, Not for Yourself: I was recently contracted to design and develop a sales course, and the client company assigned me to work with an in-house training professional, whom I will refer to as Dan. Throughout the design process, Dan kept saying stuff like, “You know, I saw an article online about _________. I think we should include that reading in the course because if I were a participant, I’d like to know about that.” After about 20 of these recommended additions to the course, I finally explained to Dan that he was not a participant and that the type of people who go into sales are often very different from someone who becomes a trainer—trainers like to read and analyze books and long cases whereas salespeople prefer fast-paced, competitive activities. Unfortunately, he took offense to the comment and the relationship never recovered, but the fact remains that you always have to consider your audience and build the course to their needs, learning styles, biorhythms, etc.
   
6. Make the Training Part of a Larger Effort: One of the companies with which I work is Learning Paths International, whose concept it is that training is only a part of an overall learning path that will bring an employee to proficiency. That learning path may include everything from how-to guides to job shadowing to structured meetings, and training plays its part when appropriate. Whatever approach you use to bring employees up to speed and keep them there, it should include more than attending an occasional workshop and storing the workbook on a shelf. It needs to include pre- and post-workshop activities that reinforce the training and help the participants put it into context.
   
7. Consider that the Problem May Not Require a Training Solution: As a training consultant, I find this point to be the hardest because it often means I am walking away from work. However, if training is not the right answer, it will assuredly fail. Only after you’ve fixed everything else—management, systems, work process, compensation, recognition, etc.—are you ready to implement a training solution. Otherwise, you are simply wasting time and money on an effort doomed to failure.

Episodes

An Episode is defined as an occurrence that is distinctive and separate although part of a larger event, series, or story. When applied to training, an episode is designed to provide and enhance opportunities for adult learning using existing events and technology.

Let's start by looking at the training model with which most of us are familiar. In that model, you bring people to central location for a workshop or seminar lasting one to five days, related to a specific topic or topics, using lectures, readings, role-plays, etc.

However, in today's business environment, that is not what many clients want. They want cost-effective learning options that are delivered either onsite, close by, or electronically, and use existing resources. They want this training to produce results in terms of improved skills/capabilities and their effect on the bottom line. It is the opinion of Dr. Michael Maginn and myself that the best way to meet these requirements is by using assignment-based training that is linked to strategy, leverages existing technology, and includes roles for experts as coaches and for managers as facilitators. That's why we've come up with a new approach to training which we call the Learning Story.

It begins with Assess Content by gathering performance data and pinpointing learning gaps. You can then Identify Available Opportunities by optimizing time during already scheduled events such as sales meetings, annual meetings, conferences, etc. You can also use webinars or virtual classrooms. Next, you Design Learning Experiences that are interesting and relevant, while including clear step-by-step instructions, built-in debrief questions and structured follow-up activities. Finally, you Implement Episodes using a four-step process comprising each episode:

A key to the implementation is that each individual content area (i.e., "Questioning and Listening" or "Discussing Team Roles") adheres to the same process, with its own structured activities and follow-up. By doing this, you enable the learners to internalize and solidify their use of the skills, processes, or knowledge.

Additionally, the delivery of each episode by a manager or someone else from within the organization, as opposed to a trainer from outside, helps to ensure greater management commitment and better employee acceptance of the training. Use of this Episodes process will go a long way to ensuring content retention while meeting the needs of the modern business environment.