Addressing the gap between marketing and reality in course creation tools

Instructional Design is Not Content Beautification “Can you just make this look engaging?” That one sentence has probably cost organizations millions in wasted training. SME: “I’ve created 110 slides. Everything is covered. Just add some interactivity.” Instructional Designer: “What should the learner be able to do after this?” SME: “They should understand the process.” Instructional Designer: “Understand… or perform?” SME: “…Well, perform.” Instructional Designer: “Then why are we explaining the process instead of making them practice it?” SME: “…Can we just add a few quizzes and scenarios?” And there it is. The biggest misunderstanding in Instructional Design. Most stakeholders think: - Content = Learning - Interactivity = Engagement - Quizzes = Effectiveness Reality? - Content ≠ Capability - Clicking ≠ Thinking - Quizzes ≠ Behavior Change If your role as an ID is reduced to: Adding icons Breaking text into slides Inserting “knowledge checks.” You’re not designing learning. You’re formatting information. Instructional Design starts where content ends. It asks: What decisions will the learner make differently? What mistakes should they practice safely? What real-world situations should they navigate? I’ve seen beautifully designed courses fail. And I’ve seen raw, simple simulations drive real performance change. Because learning is not about how it looks. It’s about what changes after it. If your learner cannot perform differently after the course… The course didn’t work. No matter how “engaging” it looked. Curious—how often are you asked to “make it interactive” instead of “make it effective”? #InstructionalDesign #LearningExperienceDesign #LXD #CorporateLearning #LearningAndDevelopment #ELearning #LearningScience #Upskilling #FutureOfWork

Bloom’s Taxonomy is the most name-dropped framework in instructional design. And the most misused. Every ID job posting says “must know Bloom’s.” So you memorize the pyramid. Remember. Understand. Apply. Analyze. Evaluate. Create. You learn the action verbs. You stick them on learning objectives. And then nothing changes about how you actually design. Here’s what I see constantly: an objective that says “learners will analyze the policy” paired with a multiple choice quiz that tests recall. That’s not analysis. That’s decoration. Bloom’s is useful. But only when you actually use it — not just reference it. When Bloom’s helps: → Matching assessments to objectives. If your objective says “evaluate,” your assessment better not be a recall quiz. Bloom’s keeps you honest. → Scoping a course realistically. Teaching someone to “remember” a process takes 5 minutes. Teaching them to “create” takes weeks. Bloom’s sets expectations with stakeholders. → Pushing past surface-level learning. If every objective in your course is “understand” or “identify” — you’re building a Wikipedia page, not a course. When Bloom’s is a waste of time: → Using fancy verbs to impress stakeholders but not aligning the actual course content to them. → Spending 30 minutes debating whether an objective is “analyze” or “evaluate.” If it doesn’t change the design, it doesn’t matter. → Treating the pyramid as a ladder you must climb. Not everything needs to reach “create.” Sometimes “apply” is the entire goal — and that’s fine. The real test: look at your learning objective. Now look at your assessment. Do they match? If the verb says “apply” but the quiz says “select the correct answer” — Bloom’s isn’t your problem. Alignment is. Swipe through the carousel for the visual breakdown. ↗ Day 7 tomorrow: Week 1 recap + AMA. Ask me anything about instructional design. #InstructionalDesign #BloomsTaxonomy #eLearning #LearningAndDevelopment #CourseCreation

Five pages of corrections. Five. Pages. I beta tested an eLearning course and came back with enough notes to write a short novella. Packed slides. Random clip art that had no business being there. Animations that seemed personally offended by consistency. Zero white space. Layouts that changed every other screen like the designer was actively trying to confuse people. The content? Totally accurate. The design? A masterclass in how to make learners feel like they're being punished. Management scrapped it. All of it. Started over. Veterans of this field are already nodding. We've all got one of these stories — the course that got killed, the training that went live and absolutely should not have, the redesign that finally worked because someone stopped and actually thought about the learner. But if you're new to Instructional Design? This is exactly what I want you to avoid. I'm writing a book — The Five Pillars of Good Instructional Design — built on real war stories from practitioners in the field. Not theory. Not best practices wrapped in stock photos. The actual stuff we cringe at now so you don't have to learn it the hard way. If you've got a story — a design that missed spectacularly, or one that genuinely moved the needle — I want it. Drop it in the comments or send it to jmiller@tridentelearningcenter.com. Credit or anonymity. Your call. Either way, your pain might just save someone else's course.

What does Dhurandhar have to do with instructional design? . . . More than we might like to admit! Because right now, everyone seems to have an opinion about it - some agree, some strongly don’t - and yet, people are still watching it for hours. In today’s world, that’s not normal. We don’t usually stay. We skim, skip, switch tabs, scroll. So when something manages to hold attention like that, it’s worth looking beyond the content - into the design. What stood out to me wasn’t just what was being said, but how it unfolded. It didn’t feel like one long stretch. It felt like movement. That’s where "micro-learning" shows up - not as short clips, but as structured thinking. Ideas broken into small, complete units. Each one landing cleanly. Each one creating just enough curiosity for the next. You’re not enduring the length. You’re following the flow. And this is where things started connecting for me. While learning and working more deeply in instructional design, these aren’t just buzzwords anymore - they’re very real levers: • Cognitive load --> how much each scene "asks" of you • Chunking --> how the story is "broken" down • Attention cycles --> when to "hold", when to "release" You can almost see them at play here. As my foundation has always been mathematical, breaking things down seems instinctive - structure, sequence, clarity. But instructional design adds another layer: Not just asking, “Is this logically clear? Does this make sense?” But also, “Is this cognitively felt as clear? Does this flow? ” Because those are not always the same. That lens is quietly changing how I look at everything we are building. Where does attention drop? Where does curiosity rise? What makes someone continue… without effort? It’s a different kind of problem-solving. Less about delivering content, more about designing experience. And once you start noticing it, you can’t unsee it. Some things inform you. Some things hold you. The difference is rarely accidental. Because in the end - learning, like cinema, isn’t just about content. It’s about whether you stay till the next scene. ~ #InstructionalDesign #Microlearning #LearningExperience #MathEducation #EdTech #CognitiveScience

I know these two people are going to say what is on their mind. This conversation does not disappoint. The real value of instructional design is not the shiny output, but the behind the scenes work that happens before you touch a tool. #PerformanceFirst #AnalysisMatters

Good instructional design is not just about making content look better. It’s about making learning clearer, more usable, and more meaningful. For me, instructional design always starts with the learner. Every decision I make—whether it’s structuring a module, designing an activity, or choosing a tool—comes back to one question: What does the learner need to succeed here? That means: • Designing with accessibility as a baseline, not an afterthought (clear structure, alt text, captions, color contrast, multiple ways to engage) • Building with alignment in mind (objectives → activities → assessments all working together with purpose) • Prioritizing clarity over complexity (intuitive navigation, consistent weekly structure, streamlined content) • Creating practical, applied learning experiences (real-world scenarios, meaningful discussions, opportunities to apply—not just consume) I don’t design for content delivery—I design for learning outcomes. Because when courses are intentionally designed, learners don’t just complete them… they understand, apply, and carry that learning forward. What principle guides your design decisions most?

Many instructional designers skip analysis. They rush straight to content creation, instead. That’s a big problem for everyone. It’s easy to understand why this happens. Analysis can be painstakingly slow. Creation is exciting and productive. But analysis isn’t just a preliminary step. It’s not some box we have to check. It’s the most strategic process we have. Analysis prevents expensive mistakes. It's where we build alignment. It’s where we reduce risk. It’s the source of our value. When we skip or rush analysis: - Training is misaligned - Performance gaps remain - Business results stagnate That means: - We waste resources - We lose credibility - We bring no value To be strategic, we should ask: - What business outcome is at risk? - What performance behavior is missing? - Is this even a learning problem? If you fail to diagnose the problem, the best design won’t save you. So, before you jump to create your next solution, ask: - Have I truly analyzed the business need? - Am I creating just to look and feel useful? - How valuable will I really be if nothing improves? That difference defines the shift from instructional to strategic.

If I were sitting at a round table with other instructional/content designers right now, here’s where I’d start this conversation: What would it look like if we stopped leading with content… and started leading with alignment? Not in a buzzword way, but in a really practical sense. 🍀What are the actual goals of the organization, school, or district? 🍀What does success look like in someone’s day-to-day role? Because once that’s clear, everything about the design process shifts. Using AI as a thought partner in that space changes the game. Not to create more content, but to pressure test ideas. To generate scenarios that actually sound like real conversations between teachers, staff, or leaders. To help connect learning objectives back to real outcomes instead of just checking boxes. It turns the process into less of a content build… and more of a design conversation. One where we’re asking 🍀Does this reflect reality? 🍀Will this actually help someone do their job better tomorrow? 🍀Are we designing for impact or just completion? That’s where the real “elevation” of instructional design happens 🌈 Not necessarily in the tools we use, but in how intentional we are about aligning learning to what truly matters.

Unpopular opinion: Most instructional design certifications are a waste of money. I know that sounds harsh. But hear me out. When I started my career in Instructional Design, I didn’t have fancy certifications. No expensive bootcamps. No long list of credentials. What I had was: • curiosity to learn • real understanding of how people learn • the ability to structure content clearly • and a simple portfolio that showed my thinking And that was enough to get my foot in the door. Here’s the truth most people don’t say out loud: Hiring managers rarely care about certificates. They care about whether you can: 1. Analyze a learning problem 2. Design a clear solution 3. Structure content logically 4. Show your thinking through real work That’s why a strong portfolio beats certificates every single time. Certificates tell people you attended a course. A portfolio shows you can actually do the work. If you're trying to break into Instructional Design, focus on this instead: • Build 2–3 solid sample projects • Document your design thinking • Show how you solve learning problems That’s what makes you stand out. I’ve actually created a simple Instructional Design Portfolio Starter Guide that shows exactly what to include in your first portfolio. If you'd like it, comment PORTFOLIO below and I’ll send it to you.

Instructional designers (IDs), this might sting a little. “Without forgiveness, there is no future.” — Desmond Tutu Sit with that for a second. Not in a spiritual sense. In a professional one. Because a lot of instructional designers are stuck, not because of skill gaps… …but because they’re carrying old versions of themselves (I do sometimes too). The stakeholder you didn’t manage well The course you rushed and still think about The moment you knew better, and didn’t act And now? You hesitate. You overthink. You play smaller than you should. That’s the real cost. Truth? You cannot grow in this field if you’re still judging past-you with present-you’s knowledge. That’s an unfair standard. That version of you had less context. Fewer reps. Less pattern recognition. Of course it wasn’t clean.🙋🏾♂️ ✅ Good IDs improve their courses. ✅ Serious IDs improve their judgment. So do the work: 👉🏾 Extract the lesson. 👉🏾 Write it down. 👉🏾 Apply it forward. Then … LET. IT. GO. Because if you don’t… You’re dragging yesterday’s mistakes into tomorrow’s work. >>> If you can relate, drop a ⭐️ in the comments. If you have the time, freely share your wisdom about how you’ve grown as an ID. ❤️ >>> Resonated? Follow me 👣 for more. >>> Thanks to the Maestro team for sharing this great quote in a recent edition of their newsletter: Abstract. Not subscribed? Do yourself a favor, go to their website and do so today. 😉