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.