Shubham Pal’s Post

An instructional design concept that may at first seem small on the surface: Acronyms. I’ve worked on projects where SMEs hand over content that looks like alphabet soup. Every department has its own shorthand. Every process has a three-letter abbreviation. And everyone close to the work assumes the learner already knows what they mean. Learners often don’t…and even when they do, constant acronym overload creates friction. So one of the quieter decisions instructional designers make is: Do we keep the acronym? Spell it out? Or remove it entirely? Unfortunately, there is no universal rule, and sometimes the acronym is essential because employees use it every day on the job. Other times, spelling everything out can improve clarity. And sometimes the best choice is simplifying the language altogether. I’m sure we can all agree that the goal isn’t to impress learners with terminology, but rather it is to reduce unnecessary cognitive load so they can focus on what actually matters. When people are mentally decoding vocabulary every few seconds, they’re spending less energy understanding the learning itself. Tiny design decision. Big impact. Curious how other designers approach this: Do you tend to preserve organizational terminology (and acronyms), or aggressively simplify them?

Certainly not the most exciting instructional design post. When discussing "how the omelette is made" you are rarely going to mention best practices on how to communicate your intentions to your boss concerning an ID project. So I made this job aid, to help you remember "four things to mention in an instructional design project email to your boss." I like using numbers as graphic elements.

Most instructional design portfolios focus on the final product, showcasing polished projects without revealing the thinking behind them. But in today’s hiring market, that’s often not enough to stand out. In this new video, Peck Academy graduate and instructional designer, Daniel Guimont, shares what hiring managers are really looking for when they review your work. Instead of just presenting outcomes, he shows how to communicate your value through the story behind your decisions—starting with the problem, walking through your process, and making your thinking visible. He also breaks down practical ways to use visuals, simplify your write-ups, and highlight growth so hiring managers can quickly understand how you solve problems. The result is a portfolio that doesn’t just look good, but clearly demonstrates how you think, adapt, and contribute. If you’re trying to gain traction as an instructional designer, this is a powerful shift in how you present your work. Watch the video using the link in the comments, and let us know: how are you showing your thinking in your portfolio?

I’ve seen a lot of debate lately about templates— specifically, the idea that using them isn’t “real” instructional design. I disagree. In my experience, templates exist for a reason: they make development work more efficient without sacrificing quality. Many templates are already: well-structured clean and visually sound flexible enough to support different types of content And honestly—my clients have loved them. Not because they’re generic. But because they’re effective. I also use templates as a starting point for inspiration. Over time, I’ve become an expert at customizing them— applying branding, adjusting layouts, refining interactions— To the point where the final product looks completely different. And more importantly, it meets the client’s need without starting from scratch every time. Because sometimes the goal isn’t to build something flashy. It’s to deliver something: clear functional on time Especially when timelines are tight and the ask is straightforward. Using templates doesn’t make you less of a designer. If anything, it means you understand when to work smarter, not harder. Where do you stand on using templates in learning design? #InstructionalDesign #Elearning #LearningAndDevelopment #DesignThinking #WorkplaceLearning

The Art of Asking the Right Questions in Instructional Design One of the most powerful skills an Instructional Designer can develop is not design. It’s asking the right questions. Because the quality of your solution depends on the quality of your understanding. And understanding comes from questions. But not just any questions—the right ones. Why is this so important? Because most training requests come with: • Incomplete information • Assumptions • Surface-level problems If you don’t question them, you risk designing a solution for the wrong problem. Strong Instructional Designers ask questions like: • What is the actual business problem? • What are employees doing wrong today? • What should they do differently? • Why is the current approach not working? • What does success look like? These questions help you: • Identify real performance gaps • Avoid unnecessary content • Align learning with business goals • Build more effective solutions But there’s another benefit. Asking the right questions builds: • Credibility • Trust with stakeholders • Clarity in communication You are no longer seen as someone who “creates courses.” You are seen as someone who understands problems. And in Instructional Design, that’s where the real value lies. Because better questions don’t just lead to better answers. They lead to better outcomes. #InstructionalDesign #LearningAndDevelopment #PerformanceConsulting #WorkplaceLearning #LearningStrategy

I’m currently transitioning into instructional design and building out my portfolio (using Articulate Rise now, with Storyline next). One thing I’m trying to get right early: Not just having artifacts… but having the right ones. I’d love insight from experienced IDs and L&D professionals: 👉 What are 1–2 MUST-HAVE portfolio artifacts you expect to see from a new instructional designer? And just as important: 👉 What’s something you see in beginner portfolios that feels overdone or outdated? I’m especially interested in building artifacts that reflect how people actually design for performance — not just “check-the-box” projects. Appreciate any perspective you’re willing to share — this would be incredibly helpful as I build.

A lot of people ask what instructional designers actually do… Here’s what that looks like in my work 👇 ✔️ E-learning modules ✔️ Interactive scenarios ✔️ Microlearning experiences ✔️ Learner-centered design It’s not just content—it’s designing how people learn.

AI-generated visuals are transforming instructional design especially when it comes to speed and quality. The challenge that I personally face has to do with consistency. Creating one good image is easy. However, creating a full learning experience with consistent shades of colors, visuals, characters, and style across slides and modules takes far more time than expected. A lot of the process now goes into regenerating, adjusting prompts, and fixing inconsistencies. This is also why I truly believe in the value of graphic designers collaborating closely with instructional designers. AI is powerful, but in instructional design, consistency is everything.

Instructional designers have always used a hybrid set of skills. • HTML to structure content. • UX to create intuitive flows. • Data analysis to refine learning. • Visual design to communicate ideas. • Project management to keep timelines. • Learning methodology to shape outcomes. • Accessibility to make learning usable for everyone. • Technical writing to translate complexity into clarity. • Storytelling to turn concepts into memorable learning experiences. AI prompting is nothing new to an experienced Instructional Designer. It only accelerates the ideation, prototyping, and iteration, but it still needs a skilled Instructional Designer to make it happen.

This perfectly captures something I’ve been learning through my journey in instructional design. Design thinking helps us understand the real problem. Instructional design helps us solve it effectively. Without both, training often misses the mark. I’ve been especially interested in how combining empathy, structure, and iteration can turn training into real behavior change; not just content delivery.