Chapter Summaries

As learning architects, instructional designers (IDs) are also in a position to “shape the culture of their workplace, cultivate new mindsets, develop and change behaviors and drive strategic initiatives” (Adefela, 2022). This aspect of instructional design (ID) has become prominent as more organizations have recognized the value of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Diversity, equity, and inclusion are often thought of in terms of sociology. However, this book is about DEI as they apply to ID.

We present two guiding principles: inclusive design and performance-based learning and development in support of culturally relevant ID practices. After reading this chapter you will be able to:

• Articulate a rationale for incorporating DEI into all components of the ID process.

• Define several basic terms that will be used throughout the book.

• Explain two general principles that can guide the work of incorporating DEI into the ID process.

• Describe the Learning and Performance Support Instructional Design (LeaPS ID) model as a way to work through the ID process with a focus on DEI.

In this chapter we also introduce several ID heuristics relevant to these topics. A case study, based on actual events with the details changed to protect anonymity, and discussion questions are included. The chapter ends with a set of general reflection questions intended to provide opportunities for engaging in a reflective ID practice. Finally, a list of references is provided for further reading.

Organizations undertake instructional design (ID) projects to create, implement, and maintain instructional, learning, and performance support materials. In doing so, individual instructional designers (IDs) often collaborate with other IDs, sponsors, clients, learners, subject matter experts (SMEs) and others. All of this collaboration and coordination requires organizations to manage their projects. An explanation of the role of project management in relation to other ID systems in the Learning and Performance Support ID (LeaPS ID) model is provided. Project management resides within the larger system of the organization. Organizations and the projects they manage exist within the larger systems of government, economy, culture, and society. We present components of a business case for ID projects. In this chapter, we identify and explain project plan components including project scope, budget, and schedule. We consider scope creep, project scale, project tools, professional standards, ethical codes, project managers, and justice in project management. We cover roles and responsibilities of project team members, such as sponsors, clients, learners, SMEs, and stakeholders. By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:

• Describe a few common elements of project management that typically involve IDs and their projects.

• Describe the roles typically involved in ID projects, including their responsibilities and the project management tools they often use.

• Apply ID project management approaches that are culturally relevant and inclusive.

In this chapter, we also introduce several ID heuristics relevant to these topics. A case study, based on actual events with the details changed to protect anonymity, and discussion questions are included. The chapter ends with a set of general reflection questions intended to provide opportunities for engaging in a reflective ID practice. Finally, a list of references is provided for further reading.

The Learning and Performance Support Instructional Design (LeaPS ID) model depicts instructional design as a systematic, systemic, and iterative process. The process is systematic because the work of earlier components informs the work of later ones. For example, deliverables that instructional designers (IDs) create in the Empathize & Analyze component act as inputs for creating deliverables in the Design & Develop component. The model is systemic because it depicts ID as a process that occurs within larger systems:

• Government, economy, cultures, and society.

• Organizational justice.

• Project management and inclusive design

The LeaPS ID model depicts instructional design (ID) as largely an iterative process. It shows that components of the ID process can overlap. For example, experienced IDs create learning and performance support materials with the performance goal in mind. Early in a project, they can envision the deliverables that will comprise the learning experience. When they are working on the Empathize & Analyze component, they are already thinking about implications for the Design and Develop component, and how they will Implement and Evaluate what they create. And as experienced IDs create deliverables, they are continuously looping back to collect feedback (a.k.a. “formative evaluation”) about the deliverables they are creating. As they receive this feedback, they will review and revise their work. For example, IDs could create a mock-up (a.k.a. “prototype”) of a lesson. IDs may then ask clients and subject matter experts (SMEs) to review the prototype. IDs would then revise the prototype based on their feedback. IDs may then ask a representative set of diverse learners to complete the lesson. IDs would then revise this prototype based on the learners’ feedback. This process of creating, reviewing, trying, revising is what makes ID iterative. In short, the LeaPS ID model represents a systematic and systemic process as IDs gather feedback from various stakeholders and iterate better prototype designs to provide more support and function more effectively within organizational systems. After reading this chapter, you will be able to:

• Build an argument for collaborative ID practice that is just, inclusive, and equitable.

• Describe how to manage iterative workflows in ID projects that use feedback from continuous formative evaluation.

• Scale feedback mechanisms.

• Describe why it’s important to find, recognize, and pay collaborators.

• Create formative evaluation loops.

• Recognize what IDs need to do to communicate and coordinate with sponsors, clients, SMEs, and other team members.

• Use and adapt templates for ID project needs.

Using these techniques can help ensure IDs work in ways that lead to creating culturally relevant and inclusive interventions. They can also ensure that the culturally relevant and inclusive interventions IDs create work as expected for all learners and produce work results that stakeholders expect. We provide insight regarding how to support learners who may resist change and why it’s worthwhile to move towards creating effective, engaging, and equitable, or E3+ interventions.

In this chapter we also introduce several ID heuristics relevant to these topics. A case study, based on actual events with the details changed to protect anonymity, and discussion questions are included. The chapter ends with a set of general reflection questions intended to provide opportunities for engaging in a reflective ID practice. Finally, a list of references is provided for further reading.

In chapter three, we considered how to set up an instructional design (ID) process that is iterative and collaborative, one with repeated feedback loops including information from a diverse set of learners, subject matter experts (SMEs), stakeholders, and clients. We also introduced the concept of “affinity groups.” Individuals who feel discriminated against, underrepresented, marginalized, or who desire more connections or support within the workforce often get involved with these groups. The groups can be based on gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, (dis)ability, parental status, veteran status, political affiliation, and so on. In this chapter, we highlight empathy with and analysis of the learners as an essential beginning point for the Learning and Performance Support Instructional Design (LeaPS ID) model.

It’s difficult to create culturally relevant, inclusive, and effective interventions without a clear understanding of the learners and the larger organization in which they work. Gaining this understanding involves more than analyzing data into a few aggregated data points for interpretation. It also requires developing an awareness of and sensitivity to the diverse experiences those learners represent and how they think and feel about those experiences. This will help ensure that the designer’s understanding of the learners incorporates the full range of their experiences. After reading this chapter, you will be able to:

• Build an argument for developing a clear and complete understanding of the learners and the organization.

• Articulate two important assumptions made at the beginning of the LeaPS ID model.

• Explain “Learner and Environmental Analysis” (LEA), “Task Analysis” (TA), and “Learner Requirements Analysis” (LRA), and why they are an important part of the Empathize & Analyze component of the LeaPS ID model.

• Implement workarounds when a needs assessment or adequate sponsorship does not exist.

• Determine what level of detail is required in a task analysis.

• Ensure more socially responsible design.

In this chapter we also introduce several ID heuristics relevant to these topics. A case study, based on actual events with the details changed to protect anonymity, and discussion questions are included. The chapter ends with a set of general reflection questions intended to provide opportunities for engaging in a reflective ID practice. Finally, a list of references is provided for further reading.

In chapter four, we addressed why it’s important to empathize and analyze in instructional design (ID) projects. In this chapter, we will introduce you to ways you can actually do this work. After reading this chapter, you should be able to describe how to:

• Frame organizational and individual cultural diversity as an asset.

• Use empathy mapping and personas to empathize with learners.

• Conduct a learner and environmental analysis (LEA).

• Conduct a task analysis (TA).

• Complete a learner requirements analysis (LRA) and select relevant intervention configurations.

In this chapter we also introduce several ID heuristics relevant to these topics. A case study based on actual events, with the details changed to protect anonymity, and discussion questions are included. The chapter ends with a set of general reflection questions intended to provide opportunities for engaging in a reflective ID practice. Finally, a list of references is provided for further reading.

Instructional design (ID) teams often mine the contents of the Empathize & Analyze (E&A) deliverables or related findings to create Design & Development deliverables. As ID teams undertake the Empathize & Analyze component of the Learning and Performance Support Instructional Design (LeaPS ID) model, they may also begin to create components of learning and performance support materials. These activities occur in the Design & Development component of the LeaPS ID model.

Clearly, the Design & Development component in the LeaPS ID model covers a lot of ground—more than a single chapter in a single book can address. This chapter will focus on some of the design activities of this component. Other chapters will focus on other design activities. And still other chapters will focus on development activities. By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

• Describe the purpose of the Design & Development component deliverables.

• Explain the use of feedback loops in creating output iterations.

• Explain the benefits of a backwards design approach.

• List common design document headings.

• Use critical tasks to create performance requirements (PR).

In this chapter we also introduce several ID heuristics relevant to these topics. A case study, based on actual events with the details changed to protect anonymity, and discussion questions are included. The chapter ends with a set of general reflection questions intended to provide opportunities for engaging in a reflective ID practice. Finally, a list of references is provided for further reading.

In chapter six, we described the synergies of design and development and how instructional designers (IDs) iteratively work through this Learning and Performance Support Instructional Design (LeaPS ID) model component. This chapter describes how you can use backwards design to mine the contents of performance requirements to create assessments. You can mine assessments to select instructional strategies. As you prototype, try out (“test”), and revise, you continue to inform your design, which feeds your development efforts. After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Identify the types of authentic job task decisions learners should demonstrate in authentic performance assessments.

• Identity authentic assessment techniques to determine mastery or competency.

• Create performance assessment instruments.

• Select formal instructional strategies.

• Ensure assessments are culturally relevant, inclusive, and equitable.

In this chapter we also introduce several instructional design (ID) heuristics relevant to these topics. A case study based on actual events, with the details changed to protect anonymity, and discussion questions are included. The chapter ends with a set of general reflection questions intended to provide opportunities for engaging in a reflective ID practice. Finally, a list of references is provided for further reading.

To this point, this text has described culturally relevant and equitable approaches for creating effective instructional and non-instructional solutions that include both learning and performance support materials. We’ve focused on creating learning experiences including classroom training, eLearning, structured on-the-job training, and job aids, among others. These learning experiences all involve instruction. They consist of sets of events or activities presented in a structured or planned way, using one or more media (Dick et al., 2009). This instruction enables learners to achieve prespecified behaviors, such as performing their job tasks.

In contrast, instructional designers (IDs) can also create non-instructional learning solutions. Organizations don’t always employ formal instructional approaches to create learning and performance solutions. Formal instruction may not always meet the learning needs that learners have. At times, learners may turn to informal or even non-instructional learning solutions. Because they don’t use instruction to build learner skills, non-instructional learning solutions typically don’t use assessments. After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Compare formal and informal learning approaches.

• Argue that IDs can use and repurpose informal learning in their formal efforts.

• Identify a variety of informal and formal learning interventions.

• Explore the use of formal non-instructional learning solutions in ID practice.

• Plan for culturally relevant, inclusive, and equitable learning intervention design.

In this chapter we also introduce several instructional design (ID) heuristics relevant to these topics. A case study based on actual events, with the details changed to protect anonymity, and discussion questions are included. The chapter ends with a set of general reflection questions intended to provide opportunities for engaging in a reflective ID practice. Finally, a list of references is provided for further reading.

After you create the performance requirements and performance assessment instruments, you can use them to inform prototypes of interventions. This backwards design process keeps your focus on the desired authentic performance and mastery expectations you have for learners. In this chapter you’ll read about the collaborative process strategies and technical output strategies that you can use to support learners’ critical task development. We’ll also provide several template examples of different job aid types.

To get started, we’ll offer decision support on selecting appropriate collaborative process strategies. Then, we’ll turn to strategies you can use to turn the performance requirements into job aid prototypes and sequencing intervention solution components. At some point, you’ll need to prototype and refine the larger learning system. Thus, the next project pushes will likely include the following design and development work:

• Prototype, test, and iterate learner intervention materials.

• Chunking and sequence plans for the whole intervention.

• Flipping the intervention prototypes into developed materials, technology, and/or embedded systems, in the organization.

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Combine multiple instructional job aid formats to create systems of instruction and performance support.

• Determine when to use a job aid.

• Given an organizational context, select collaborative process strategies to design and develop culturally relevant and inclusive interventions.

• Given learning and performance support needs, select relevant job aid types for intervention development.

• Use templates as a strategy to produce a variety of standardized deliverables that effectively support learners.

• Determine sequencing for different tasks that are included in an instructional event or multifaceted programs.

In this chapter we also introduce several instructional design (ID) heuristics relevant to these topics. A case study based on actual events, with the details changed to protect anonymity, and discussion questions are included. The chapter ends with a set of general reflection questions intended to provide opportunities for engaging in a reflective ID practice. Finally, a list of references is provided for further reading.

This chapter will deal with the menagerie of similar interventions, all related to supporting performance at the moment of need. These interventions include: performance support, electronic performance support systems, performance support systems, mobile performance support systems, and learning and performance ecosystems. These interventions have evolved over time, and different practitioners and authors have used different terms to describe similar approaches to supporting performance. Seen this way, “job aids” have become “performance support.” Online job aids and tools have become “electronic performance support systems” (EPSSs). EPSSs combined with instructor-led learning interventions have become “performance support systems” (PSSs). PSSs delivered over wearable and mobile devices have become “mobile performance support systems.” (MPSSs). And more recently, PSSs and MPSSs delivered over the Internet have become “Learning and Performance Ecosystems.” In our view, these similarities are far more important than their minor differences.

To this point, this text has mentioned the role of job aids in supporting performance. Job aids come in many forms. When combined with introductory training or extended training, job aids can reduce the amount of time learning experiences would otherwise take for learners to complete. This chapter will build on what job aids can do to improve workplace learning and performance. After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Describe performance support.

• Specify different approaches to providing performance support, including electronic performance support systems (EPSSs), performance support systems (PSSs), mobile performance support systems (MPSSs), and learning and performance ecosystems.

• Describe the benefits of these performance support approaches.

• Discuss the design and maintenance of culturally relevant and equitable learning and performance ecosystems.

As always, instructional design (ID) is scalable. Individual instructional designers (IDs) and ID teams may find themselves working with a large cast of other characters from the organization to create large-scale learning and performance ecosystems. Conversely, an ID or small ID team might be responsible for smaller solutions involving the creation of a few performance support solutions.

In this chapter we also introduce several ID heuristics relevant to these topics. A case study based on actual events, with the details changed to protect anonymity, and discussion questions are included. The chapter ends with a set of general reflection questions intended to provide opportunities for engaging in a reflective ID practice. Finally, a list of references is provided for further reading.

In chapter 9, you read about sequencing and chunking at the program level. Sometimes, you don’t need to organize a multifaceted program. In this chapter, you will read about creating materials for a course or single intervention. This includes:

• Sequencing the performance requirements you’ve created for a smaller unit of learning.

• Converting detailed performance requirements into abbreviated learning objectives.

• Sequencing the instruction for each unit composed of one or more objectives. In each unit, your instruction will build on what the learners already know, demonstrate the new tasks they will perform, provide the learners with opportunities to practice, and help the learners integrate their new skills into their on-the-job performance.

• Creating instructor and participant guides to support any instructor-led courses.

To this end, the conditions, performances, and criteria embedded within the instructor guide and other instructional materials you may create (job aids, participant guides, slides, etc.) need to align with the performance requirements, performance assessment instrument, task analysis, learner and environmental analysis, and learner requirements analysis you’ve already created. Any items in the instructional materials that don’t align with these other instructional design (ID) deliverables can produce interventions that are neither efficient nor effective—thereby wasting the time and resources of the client and sponsoring organization.

After reading this chapter, you will be able to:

• Use expanded collaboration to ensure inclusive design.

• Sequence performance requirements.

• Sequence units of instruction.

• Write instructor guides.

• Write participant guides.

In this chapter we also introduce several ID heuristics relevant to these topics. A case study based on actual events, with the details changed to protect anonymity, and discussion questions are included. The chapter ends with a set of general reflection questions intended to provide opportunities for engaging in a reflective ID practice. Finally, a list of references is provided for further reading.

At this point in the instructional design (ID) process, developed learning and performance support materials are ready to roll out. After roll out, instructional designers (IDs) and other stakeholders will likely need to maintain these materials to keep them current over time. After rollout, organizational decision makers could be interested in evaluating them. This chapter will describe the Implement & Evaluate (I&E) component of the LeaPS ID model. Most IDs, clients, and other stakeholders may believe these activities are important. However, Marker et al. (2014) have noted that implementation, evaluation, and maintenance are treated as orphans or afterthoughts in most current performance-based learning and development models.

After reading this chapter you should be able to describe three important elements of the Implement & Evaluate (I&E) components:

• Implementation.

• Summative evaluation and continuous improvement.

• Maintenance.

In this chapter we also introduce several ID heuristics relevant to these topics. A case study based on actual events, with the details changed to protect anonymity, and discussion questions are included. The chapter ends with a set of general reflection questions intended to provide opportunities for engaging in a reflective ID practice. Finally, a list of references is provided for further reading.

In this chapter we focus on three common real world instructional design (ID) challenges:

1. Unreasonable client expectations.

2. Contradictory organizational truths.

3. Moving away from traditional ID approaches, towards a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) -focused process and collaborative consulting.

To support IDs facing these challenges, we provide three solutions:

1. Increasing organizational intelligence.

2. Increasing credibility and trust.

3. Keeping clients happy.

Approaches to engage in “collaborative consulting” require gathering organizational intelligence over time and permission. Consulting is like great choreography. It’s important to learn how to gracefully step forwards, side, or back and in ways that don’t confuse your dance partners. You should also be able to find ways to dance together that are safe and mutually beneficial. Building your credibility can help you obtain the client permission and stakeholder buy-in, that’s required to do great work.

Further, savvy instructional designers (IDs) are often visionaries. Official truth keepers may not yet be ready to implement any change to create a new ground truth. And that’s OK, too. One of the hardest things to learn might be that while savvy IDs generally serve as change agents, they really can’t change clients or the organization overnight. Change is hard, even when it’s wanted. Thus, it can be harder when it’s not your clients’ or other stakeholders’ idea. But, there are approaches you can use to find great opportunities and help build healthy working relationships.

After reading this chapter, you should be able to describes techniques to:

• Grow sources of useful organizational intelligence.

• Grow your own credibility so clients can trust you.

• Keep clients happy (and not annoyed).

In this chapter we also introduce several ID heuristics relevant to these topics. A case study based on actual events, with the details changed to protect anonymity, and discussion questions are included. The chapter ends with a set of general reflection questions intended to provide opportunities for engaging in a reflective ID practice. Finally, a list of references is provided for further reading.

This chapter will address the origins of the Learning and Performance Support Instructional Design (LeaPS ID) model and its future potential improvement. By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

• Describe the the core elements in Gustafson and Branch’s 1997 and 2002 surveys of instructional development models.

• Compare the the Bronco Instructional Design (BID) model, A2DDIE, and LeaPS ID models.

• Identify the unique strengths of the LeaPS ID model.

• Identify opportunities for future research informed by the LeaPS ID model.

• Identify opportunities for future practice advancements informed by the LeaPS ID model.

In this chapter we also introduce several instructional design (ID) heuristics relevant to these topics. A case study based on actual events, with the details changed to protect anonymity, and discussion questions are included. The chapter ends with a set of general reflection questions intended to provide opportunities for engaging in a reflective ID practice. Finally, a list of references is provided for further reading.