Tag: instructional design

Wrecking ball

11 March 20254 September 2025 · 2 Comments ·

Miley Cyrus’s Wrecking Ball may be an ode to the impact of artificial intelligence on higher education.

Since the launch of ChatGPT in particular, traditional means of assessment – such as essays and assignments – have been usurped by students who use the robot to write it for them.

From what I can gather, the response by educators has been mixed. Some refuse to recognise the problem (head in the sand); some trust their students to act honestly (fingers crossed); others police it with AI detectors (though that’s flawed); while others have admirably taken on the challenge of modernising their pedagogy, either by changing the nature of the assessment or by incorporating the use of AI in the exercise.

Of course cheating is not a new phenomenon in college. Plagiarism is almost as old as publishing itself, while contract cheating is the analog forerunner to generative AI. Impersonators have even been caught taking exams on behalf of someone else.

This has spawned a range of mitigation measures, such as Turnitin, ID checks and live online proctoring.

All of which are moot in the context of easy riding – an insidious practice that not only compromises academic integrity, but also prompts us to recast who’s doing the cheating.

If academic integrity is the foundation of academic credibility, sooner or later those chickens will come home to roost.

Big Bird in a meeting, looking out of place among the humans.

Alas, the higher education sector is a microcosm of society. Its experience proves that when an opportunity to cheat is available, and the incentive is strong enough, a proportion of the population will do so. We’re only fooling ourselves to pretend otherwise.

Another microcosm is the corporate sector, which is certainly not immune to the foibles of the human condition. Here, e-learning is the poster child of dubious behaviour, such as checking your email while a video plays in the background, speed clicking the Next button, brute forcing the quiz (aided by poor question design) and even tricking the LMS with some cheeky code monkeying.

This too has spawned a range of mitigation measures, such as auto pausing the video on blur, gating the navigation, reporting the time spent (though I’ve never seen this enforced), increasing the number of questions (quantity > quality), and even attempting to lock down the browser.

All of which are moot when the robot can complete the module for us.

A humanoid robot working on a laptop.

Clearly, as per our friends in the higher education sector, we in the corporate sector need to evolve our approach.

One way would be to address why people cheat in the first place. The evergreen reason is busyness, among a raft of other extrinsic drivers. So adjusting our instructional design (eg micro-learning) and boosting intrinsic motivation (particularly by improving the relevance and authenticity of our deliverables) are important pieces of the puzzle.

But the great unsaid why some people cheat is, frankly, they’re lazy. I realise some folks may find this notion confronting; in certain circles, students can do no wrong, and a similar brand of progressive parenting is popular in L&D. However I think we’re better off recognising it as an aspect of human nature.

So do we eliminate e-learning altogether? I say no, because its advantages as a mode of delivery make it a valuable ingredient in the L&D blend.

Instead, I think the first step forward is to acknowledge that our online modules can and will be cheated. But I also think the second step is to temper that acknowledgement with an appreciation of the fact that not everyone will cheat.

Hence an online module should be a worthwhile learning experience for anyone who chooses to consume it in the right spirit. Notwithstanding that, it shouldn’t be the be-all-and-end-all of the education. Rather, it should be a contributor to a broader campaign to lift capability.

Having said that, I advocate an even deeper approach to mitigate cheating: adopting a skills-based learning strategy. By that I mean shifting our mindset from one of delivering courses to one of validating skills. Employees who can already demonstrate a learning outcome need not do the course, while for everyone else it becomes a resource.

Heretically, one may say let them cheat. Because in a sense, it doesn’t matter so much whether they do the course or not. What really matters is the rigour of your validation process, which represents the sum total of their skill building experiences. If someone hasn’t bothered to build the skill (via your course or otherwise), they won’t be able to practise it.

In this way, the course becomes a means to an end, not an end in itself.

A slight misnomer

1 August 202328 January 2024 · Leave a comment ·

I confess that whenever I see someone has cited their job title as “Learning Experience Designer” my first reaction is skepticism.

As the joke goes, a data scientist is a statistician who lives in San Francisco. So too at times, it seems a learning experience designer is an instructional designer who lives in Sydney.

Aggrandising one’s title is hardly new, so I’ve been pondering why this title bothers me so much. And I think I’ve cracked it.

According to yours truly, a true learning experience designer applies User Experience (UX) design methodology to their role. Sure, instructional design and solution development remain critical skills, but arguably more important is ensuring the solution meets the needs of the learner in the first place. This is where user-centered approaches such as design thinking come into play.

Thus the term “Learning Experience Designer” is a slight misnomer. Yes, such a person designs learning experiences; but the point is that by looking through the lens of UX, they position the learner as the user.

Hence I propose the term “Learner Experience Designer” as a pedantic yet meaningful adjustment that better represents the nature of the role.

Supercharge your digital training

1 June 202230 May 2022 · 4 Comments ·

We’ve all been there.

The organisation invests an obscene amount of money in a course library, and after much fanfare and an initial spike of excitement, activity steadily dwindles until the platform resembles a ghost town vacated by all but the most enthusiastic of fans.

Similar problems with learner engagement beset other forms of digital training too; whether it’s the famously low completions rates of MOOCs, or the constant chasing up of laggards who are yet to complete their compliance modules.

So when David Swaddle called out for tips to help fight what he described as “zombie digital learning”, I was all too willing to share the Top 3 pieces of advice that I’ve formulated on my quest to transform conventional digital training into blended learning experiences.

Here they are…

Rusty old car in front of a deserted shack.

1. Make time

Everyone’s too busy and they don’t have enough time to devote to their own learning and development. This has been the case ever since I started my career in this field and probably will remain so long after I retire.

So make time.

Add reminders into your participants’ calendars; schedule learning blocks; benchmark progress by declaring where they should be up by now; and host a complementary social networking group to keep the flame alive.

2. Provide context

Digital content can be generic by design, because it’s intended to scale up far and wide. However our audience may struggle to join the dots between what they see on screen and what they do on the job.

By supplementing the generic content with customised content, we can explain the implications of the former in the organisational context.

And by facilitating live interactive sessions that explore that context further, we reinforce it.

3. Assess application

Whether it’s a fair reputation or not, digital training is notorious for being a tick & flick exercise that fails to change behaviour in the real world.

So we need to ensure that the knowledge and skills that are developed via the learning experience are transferred by the employee to their day-to-day role.

By weaving an application activity into the instructional design – and by assessing the evidence of that application – we make it happen.

Electric sports car recharging

These are by no means the only ways to evolve your digital training.

However I hope that by implementing my three tips, you’ll supercharge it.

The 70:20:10 lens

9 February 20169 July 2023 · 28 Comments ·

In 70:20:10 for trainers I advocated the use of the 70:20:10 model by L&D professionals as a lens through which to view their instructional design.

The excellent comments on my post, and insightful blog posts by others – notably Mark Britz, Clark Quinn and Arun Pradhan – have prompted me to think deeper about my premise.

Man's hand holding a camera lens with a forest in the background

I continue to reject the notion that 70:20:10 is a formula or a goal, because it is not a model of what “should be”. For example, we needn’t assign 70% of our time, effort and money on OTJ interventions, 20% on social learning, and 10% on formal training. Similarly, we shouldn’t mandate that our target audience aligns its learning activity according to these proportions. Both of these approaches miss the point.

The point is that 70:20:10 is a model of what “is”. Our target audience does undertake 70% of its learning on the job, 20% via interacting with others, and 10% off the job (or thereabouts). Mark Britz calls it a principle. It’s not right and it’s not wrong. It just is.

Our role then as L&D professionals is to support and facilitate this learning as best we can. One of the ways I propose we do this is by using 70:20:10 as a lens. By this I mean using it as a framework to structure our thinking and prompt us on what to consider. Less a recipe citing specific ingredients and amounts, more a shopping basket containing various ingredients that we can use in different combinations depending on the meal.

For this purpose I have created the following diagram. To avoid the formula trap, I decided against labelling each segment 70, 20 and 10, and instead chose their 3E equivalents of Experience, Exposure and Education. For the same reason, I sized each segment evenly rather than to scale.

Using the framework at face value is straight-forward. Given a learning objective, we consider whether a course or a resource may be suitable; whether a social forum might be of use; if matching mentees with mentors would be worthwhile. Perhaps it would be helpful to develop some reference content, or provide a job aid. When looking through the lens, we see alternatives and complements beyond the usual event-based intervention.

Yet we can see more. Consider not only the elements in the framework, but also the interactions between them. For example, in our course we could assign an on-the-job task to the learners, and ask them to share their experiences with it on the ESN. In the language of the framework, we are connecting education to experience, which in turn we connect to exposure. Conversely we can ask workshop attendees to share their experiences in class (connecting experience to education) or encourage them to call out for project opportunities (connecting exposure to experience). The possibilities for integrating the elements are endless.

Those who see L&D as the arbiter of all learning in the workplace may find all this overwhelming. But I see L&D as a support function. To me, 70:20:10 is not about engineering the perfect solution. It’s about adding value to what already happens in our absence.

70:20:10 for trainers

12 January 201627 February 2024 · 21 Comments ·

Learning & Development Professional has been running a poll on the following question:

Is the 70:20:10 model still relevant today?

And I’m shocked by the results. At the time of writing this blog, over half the respondents have chosen “No”. Assuming they are all L&D professionals, the extrapolation means most of us don’t think the 70:20:10 model is relevant to our work.

But what does this really mean?

In LDP’s article The 70:20:10 model – how fair dinkum is it in 2015? – by the way, “fair dinkum” is Australian slang for “real” or “genuine” – Emeritus Professor David Boud says he doesn’t think there is proper evidence available for the effectiveness of the model.

If this is a backlash against the numbers, I urge us all to let it go already. Others have explained umpteen times that 70:20:10 is not a formula. It just refers to the general observation that the majority of learning in the workplace is done on the job, a substantial chunk is done by interacting with others, while a much smaller proportion is done off the job (eg in a classroom).

Indeed this observation doesn’t boast a wealth of empirical evidence to support it, although there is some – see here, here and here.

Nonetheless, I wonder if the hoo-ha is really about the evidence. After all, plenty of research can be cited to support the efficacy of on-the-job learning, social learning and formal training. To quibble over their relative proportions seems a bit pointless.

Consequently, some point the finger at trainers. These people are relics of a bygone era, clinging to the old paradigm because “that’s how we’ve always done it”. And while this might sound a bit harsh, it may contain a seed of truth. Change is hard, and no one wants their livelihood threatened.

If you feel deep down that you are one of the folks who views 70:20:10 as an “us vs them” proposition, I have two important messages that I wish to convey to you…

1. Training will never die.

While I believe the overall amount of formal training in the workplace will continue to decrease, it will never disappear altogether – principally for the reasons I’ve outlined in Let’s get rid of the instructors!.

Ergo, trainers will remain necessary for the foreseeable future.

2. The 70:20:10 model will improve your effectiveness.

As the forgetting curve illustrates, no matter how brilliant your workshops are, they are likely to be ineffective on their own.

To overcome this problem, I suggest using the 70:20:10 model as a lens through which you view your instructional design.

For example, suppose you are charged with training the sales team on a new product. As a trainer, you will smash the “10” with an informative and engaging workshop filled with handouts, scenarios, role plays, activities etc.

Then your trainees return to their desks, put the handouts in a drawer, and try to remember all the important information for as long as humanly possible.

To help your audience remember, why not provide them with reference content in a central location, such as on the corporate intranet or in a wiki. Then they can look it up just in time when they need it; for example, in the waiting room while visiting a client.

Job aids would also be useful, especially for skills-based information; for example, the sequence of key messages to convey in a client conversation.

To improve the effectiveness of your workshop even further, consider doing the following:

Engage each trainee’s manager to act as their coach or mentor. Not only does this extend the learning experience, but it also bakes in accountability for the learning.
Encourage the manager to engineer opportunities for the trainee to put their learning into practice. These can form part of the assessment.
Set up a community of practice forum in which the trainee can ask questions in the moment. This fosters collaboration among the team and reduces the burden on the L&D department to respond to each and every request.
Partner each trainee with a buddy to accompany them on their sales calls. The buddy can act as a role model and provide feedback to the trainee.

In my humble opinion, it is counter-productive to rail against 70:20:10.

As an L&D professional, it is in your interest to embrace it.