#instructional-design #online-learning #course-design #pedagogy #teaming > [!summary]+ Summary > This page describes a high-level take on how I think about learning design. I relate this to experience with a strategy map produced by the U.S. military and outline things I consider with learning projects. Final notes highlight other roles important to learning design activities. # Design for learning: My experience My early years teaching in developing China (2003–2007) were quite formative. Each time I stepped in front of a classroom the fundamentals of effective teaching were reinforced: building trust, creating relationships, and actively engaging. During this time, I realized that I wasn’t only passionate about teaching, but that I was also drawn to the challenge of designing meaningful learning experiences and using technology to help learners connect, participate, and succeed. Since then, I’ve intentionally built a cross-industry career at the intersection of learning design, media production, and digital initiatives. Together, these experiences have shaped how I think about learning, learning design operations, and the application of technology. As a result, I value learning design that considers multiple solutions, informed by evidence, and that remains human-centered. Put simply, I have a blended perspective between educational impact and business effectiveness. I approach learning design much like I approach teaching (see: my [[teaching philosophy]]). **I think that _good design_ is produced through leadership, ownership, careful iteration, and allowing opportunities to _think differently_.** It means putting forward ideas, adapting to changing people and project needs, and continuously reflecting to do better. “Perfect” isn’t the target. Rather, the goal is to create learning experiences that are useful, accessible, and inspiring to continued growth. But above all, keeping people at the center is key because helping people improve in what they do is ultimately why we educate. ## Mentorship notes and teaming Over the past few years, I’ve had people approach me about getting into Instructional Design and ask what the work is really like. I often explain that each project is a puzzle: _there are pieces, but they don’t always come neatly labeled_. A key part to the **designer’s job is to make sense of those pieces**. They can do this by clarifying the real problem through research, formulating meaningful questions, understanding project constraints, connecting with people people, and being on-time. These things help teams move toward towards thoughtful solutions when ideating, prototyping, and constructing the learning architecture. I also emphasize the importance of team diversity. In my experience, teams with different specialties and overlapping abilities increase agility, create meaningful checks, balance the load, and strengthen the overall quality of the work. Team diversity can help foster a culture of idea sharing, collaboration, and learning from each other. Additionally, when teams actively design together, human-centered practice becomes easier to sustain because everyone helps keep the focus on the learner and their needs. (For something that inspires me on culture, see [[the team culture of Sark]] page.) > [!check]- Additional qualities of teams > Beyond the operational benefits of teams, I often tell others about my old teams and what made some experiences stand-out more than others. When you drill down, the most important quality was a **shared belief in the mission**. Differences in background, skills, and motivation were simply focused in positive ways because of the mission orientation. And this helped us to be happy to lean on each other to achieve success. > > Another quality was **comfort to put out ideas and to disagree**. I've seen teams that sit in silence and a comfort with that because it is considered *free of conflict*. Alternatively, I've seen teams that keep putting out ideas, saying 'no' but iterating, and together pursue a joint vision. > > Finally, a quality that I have experienced in teams — and makes a big difference — is **how they socialize**. Sharing meals, go out for coffee, making time to chat, these things build friendships, trust, community, and drive an organic culture. ## High-level instructional and learning design In 2021, I supported a project where my role wasn’t to design the course, but to help build a culture of balanced teaming between Instructional Designers and Multimedia Producers. The course centered on [U.S. grand strategy during the Afghanistan conflict](http://www.policyscience.net/afghanistan.hirespowerpoint.pdf), and a central graphic to the instruction was this now-famous strategy map. Ever since then, that visual has stayed with me. Whenever I look at it, it reminds me of my own experiences leading design projects, coordinating interdisciplinary teams, and navigating complex organizational environments. ![[Diagram-of-Afghanistan-conflict-Mail-Foreign-Service-2010-web.png|Center]] For me, instructional and learning design leadership is a puzzle that often feels like an ever-changing ecosystem of interconnected and moving parts. Projects are never linear. They frequently have shifting priorities, multiple perspectives of contributors, evolving constraints, and the constant need to deliver something meaningful, usable, and impactful. If I were to recreate that strategy map for learning design, then it would most likely look something like the outline below. ### Background 1. Context of the institution 2. Strategic importance 3. Constraints and complexities 4. People (previously) involved: goals, interests, needs 1. Stakeholders 2. Instructors 3. Team members 4. Learners ### Existing data insights 1. Historical performance data 2. Participant demographics 3. Participant engagement 4. Participant performance 5. Participant feedback 6. Organizational performance ### The problem 1. What is the problem or problems? 2. Alignments between goals and objectives 3. Are there barriers to success? ### Objectives/goals of these 1. Organizational 2. Instructor (if applicable) 3. Student learning 4. Designer/Developer ### The design and development team 1. Project supervisors 2. Project manager(s) 3. Project content experts 4. Project design/development team 5. Non-project stakeholders 6. External department partners - Department heads - Information technology teams - Marketing teams - Communications teams 7. Additional support - Vendors - Temporary staff - Intern/student staff ### Project management 1. Do we have a charter? 2. Available resources and tools 1. Management software 2. Budget 3. People and loads 4. Capacity 3. Planning elements - Risks - Timeline - Phases - Activities - Milestones - Dependencies - People leave schedules - Holidays - Deadline(s) 4. Joint workflow(s) 5. Artificial Intelligence (AI) use ### Meetings 1. Frequency 1. Weekly department with sharing 2. Weekly project/design sessions 2. Opportunities for (informal) touch-base 3. Ad-hoc team working sessions 4. Coaching sessions 5. Problem resolution sessions 6. Vendor sessions ### Shared tools 1. Project planning tools 2. Design tools 3. Development tools 4. Delivery platform 5. Compatibility issues 6. Availability + Limits 7. Costs ### Data management 1. Cloud storage 2. Access/security rules 3. Project file naming 4. Project folder structure 5. Archiving practices 1. Long-term ownership 6. Sharing – team and partners ### Common design challenges 1. Explaining 'why' to design decisions 2. Breaking/re-defining practices 3. Balancing ambition with feasibility 4. Applying organizational standards 5. Limiting the scope of multimedia 6. Limiting the scope of content 7. Addressing symmetry and flow 8. Introducing new tools/technology ### Instructional/Learning Design 1. People involved - Roles and responsibilities - Accountability structures - Approval paths 2. Phases (DADDIE) - Destruction? - Analysis - Design - Development - Iteration - Evaluation 3. Accessibility 4. Collaboration 1. Meeting spaces 2. Team physical environment(s) 3. Team virtual environment(s) 4. Leadership in meetings 5. Tools/technology 6. Performance metrics 7. Cost ### Multimedia Production 1. People involved - Roles and responsibilities - Accountability structures - Approval paths 2. Phases - Destruction? - Analysis - Design - Production - Iteration 3. Accessibility 4. Collaboration 1. Meeting spaces 2. Team physical environment(s) 3. Team virtual environment(s) 4. Leadership in meetings 5. Recording environment(s) 6. Hardware/technology 7. Performance metrics 8. Cost ### Vendors/Contractors 1. Contracts and cost structure 1. Scope of work 2. Expectations 2. Partnership with design team 3. Tools and services 4. Contracts and cost 5. Training 6. Deliverables 7. Problem resolution ### People growth opportunities 1. Intentional places to use new or developing skills 2. Safe ways to experiment, test concepts, and gather data 3. Opportunities to redefine 'best practices' 4. Spaces to share knowledge and teach 5. Identification of future training ### Project performance 1. Meaningful performance metrics assessment 2. Cost assessment 3. Return on Investment (ROI) **= (G-C)/C** 4. Impact of skill or knowledge gaps 5. Reasons for delays 6. Reflection: 1. What did we do better than before? 2. What should we change next time? 3. What were our pain points? 4. What are we proud of? 5. What did we find exciting? ## Core perspective on learning design When designing for instruction, Instructional/Learning Designers are not meant to do everything, nor should they. **Learning design succeeds when multiple professions, perspectives, and expertise come together around a shared purpose**. Accessibility specialists, multimedia producers, IT professionals, content analysts, researchers, and subject-matter experts all play distinct and overlapping roles that shape the quality of the final experience. Not every team has all these roles available, and that’s okay. What matters is creating conditions where people can lean on each other, share what they know, and collaboratively build something better than any one person could create alone. _Good_ learning design is ultimately a team effort that is grounded in expertise, centered on learners, and strengthened by people working together with intent.