Training Program Implementation

Instructional design is one of the most misunderstood careers online. Most people think the job is creating courses. It isn’t. Courses are just one tool. The real job of an instructional designer is diagnosing performance problems inside organizations. Before designing anything, good instructional designers ask different questions: Where does work actually break down? What are employees struggling to do? Why isn’t the current process producing the right results? Only after those answers become clear do you decide whether training is even the right solution. Sometimes the answer is training. Often it isn’t. Sometimes the real issue is: • unclear expectations • poor systems • broken workflows • lack of feedback • leadership gaps Courses can’t fix most of those problems. That’s why strong instructional designers think like analysts first and creators second. They investigate before they design. They diagnose before they build. Because instructional design isn’t about making content. It’s about improving performance. And that’s a very different job.

The most useful design lesson I got this week came from a 100-year-old building. 👇 This weekend, I visited the Bauhaus Museum in Dessau, and surprisingly, I came away with insights that felt deeply relevant to my work in instructional design. Bauhaus (1919–1933) was more than just a design school. It was a revolution in thinking. They were among the first to unite art, technology, and practicality — shaping a design philosophy that still speaks to us today. Here’s how I’m rethinking some of their core ideas through the lens of modern learning design: 1️⃣ Form follows function — Design isn’t about decoration. It’s about making the purpose visible and usable. In learning, that means cutting the fluff and putting outcomes first. 2️⃣ Honesty of materials — A course should be a course. Let’s not dress it up as a game or a show unless that’s part of the goal. Learners value clarity. 3️⃣ Unity of disciplines — Bauhaus embraced the synergy of different crafts. In ID, it’s the collaboration between designers, SMEs, and AI that brings learning to life. 4️⃣ Simplicity through intention — Less isn’t just more — it’s stronger. Well-structured simplicity improves both focus and retention. 5️⃣ Design as process — Iteration was central to Bauhaus thinking. It’s also at the heart of effective learning design: test, adjust, evolve. 💬 Bauhaus didn’t give us answers. It gave us a mindset, one that prioritizes clarity, coherence, and conscious choices. 👉 Which of these ideas resonate with you most in your learning design practice? #instructionaldesign #learningexperience #bauhaus #LXD #designthinking #elearning

Transitioning into Instructional Design - my thoughts.  I frequently receive DMs from transitioning teachers asking: “How do I break into Instructional Design?” The honest answer is this: everyone’s journey into ID is different. Some people move through corporate training. Some start with freelance work. Some build a portfolio first. Some learn tools before they fully understand the design process. But there are a few practical steps that can make the transition much clearer. My top tips: Start by creating an e-learning course from existing material. Take a lesson, policy, presentation, worksheet, or training document and redesign it as a short digital learning experience. This helps you practise transforming content into learning. Learn the tools — but do not let the tools lead the design. Get comfortable with tools such as Canva, Articulate Rise, iSpring, PowerPoint, H5P, or Moodle. But remember: tools help you build. Instructional design helps you decide why and how learning should happen. Build a portfolio that shows your thinking Do not only show the final product. Show your process: the learning problem, target audience, design decisions, storyboard, interaction choices, assessment strategy, and reflection. Translate your teaching skills into ID language. Teachers already understand learners, scaffolding, engagement, feedback, assessment, and reflection. The shift is learning how to apply those strengths in workplace, digital, and performance-based learning contexts. Keep learning the foundations. Read about learning outcomes, adult learning, cognitive load, accessibility, assessment design, scenario-based learning, and evaluation. Strong ID is not just beautiful content — it is purposeful learning design. My biggest advice? Do not wait until you feel “ready.” Start building. Start reflecting. Start sharing your work. Your teaching experience is not something you leave behind. It is something you build from. #InstructionalDesign #LearningDesign #Elearning #TransitioningTeachers #TeacherToInstructionalDesigner #LearningAndDevelopment #IDPortfolio #DigitalLearning #AdultLearning #EdTech

Which of these is the biggest killer of digital health startups in Africa? a) Pricing b) Regulation c) Adoption d) Competition Most founders guess wrong. They assume it's regulation because bureaucracy feels like the obvious villain. Or competition because that's what kills startups in saturated markets. My observation of 50+ failed African health tech ventures reveals a different pattern. Adoption failure dominates. Not user acquisition, but adoption depth. Users download but never integrate your solution into their healthcare workflow. Classic death spiral: initial enthusiasm, rapid usage decline, product abandonment. And the root cause? Founders confuse product-market fit with problem-solution fit. You built what users say they want, not what they'll actually use consistently in resource-constrained healthcare environments. Pricing misalignment runs second. Regulation creates delays, not deaths. Competition barely registers in markets with massive unmet demand. The adoption killer isn't your UX. It's workflow misalignment with existing healthcare delivery patterns. Your app requires behavior change in systems designed for survival, not optimization. Successful African health tech solving problems in remote regions doesn't disrupt workflows, it amplifies existing ones. I am talking about SMS over apps, or USSD over web portals. Integration with paper systems, not replacement. Curious about your specific risk profile? I've built a free assessment that measures adoption likelihood across 6 critical factors. Check yours here: https://lnkd.in/dZPjcZme

Whether you’re designing a new curriculum or leading a high-performance technical team, understanding the "What" vs. the "How" of learning is a game-changer. I’ve often used the metaphor of a sound engineer’s mixing board for leadership—balancing different faders to get the best output. Instructional design is no different. It requires balancing two distinct, yet complementary, frameworks: Bloom’s Taxonomy and Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction. 🎯 Bloom’s Taxonomy: The "What" Bloom’s is our compass for outcomes. It focuses on what the learner should achieve, moving from foundational recall to complex creation. The Goal: Thinking levels, learning objectives, and assessment. The Question: What do we want them to be able to do by the end of this? 🛠️ Merrill’s Principles: The "How" Merrill’s is our blueprint for experience. It focuses on the instructional steps required to make learning "stick" through problem-centered engagement. The Goal: Course design, instructional steps, and active learning. The Question: How do we design the experience so the knowledge is actually integrated? The Synthesis: Think Outcomes + Design Experiences True mastery happens at the intersection. You use Bloom’s to set the bar (e.g., "Analyze a complex AI infrastructure") and Merrill’s to build the bridge (e.g., "Demonstrate via a real-world DGX H200 case study"). When we combine the Thinking Levels of Bloom with the Instructional Steps of Merrill, we move beyond passive information sharing and into true capability building. Which framework do you lean on more when designing your team's growth roadmap? #InstructionalDesign #LearningAndDevelopment #EdTech #HigherEducation #LeadershipDevelopment #BloomsTaxonomy #MerrillsPrinciples #ContinuousLearning

𝗦𝗼𝗳𝘁𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 Software design defines a system's architecture to meet requirements, creating blueprints for development teams. Over time, reusable architecture patterns have emerged that reduce complexity, increase maintainability, and speed development. The most crucial software architecture patterns are: 𝟭. 𝗟𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲: Divides applications into logical layers (Presentation, Business, Data Access) with specific responsibilities. Promotes separation of concerns and easier maintenance. 𝟮. 𝗠𝗶𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀: Decomposes applications into small, independent services communicating via APIs. Each implements a single business capability and can be independently deployed, enabling team autonomy and continuous delivery. 𝟯. 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁-𝗗𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻: Uses events for asynchronous communication between components. The system doesn't wait for event handling to complete before continuing, making it ideal for real-time applications requiring high scalability. 𝟰. 𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲-𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱: Uses independent "spaces" as autonomous units across multiple servers. Eliminates single points of failure in high-volume systems and overcomes data bottlenecks and network latency. 𝟱. 𝗠𝗶𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗹 (𝗽𝗹𝘂𝗴-𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲): Provides minimal core functionality with additional services as separate modules. Developers can modify components without impacting core functionality, which is ideal for applications requiring customization. 𝟲. 𝗖𝗤𝗥𝗦 (𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱-𝗤𝘂𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗦𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻): Separates read and write operations into distinct models. Improves performance and scalability in complex domains by optimizing each path independently. 𝟳. 𝗛𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗴𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 (𝗣𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀): Isolates business logic from external concerns. Allows applications to be driven by various sources and developed independently from runtime dependencies. Selecting the correct pattern depends on your specific requirements and constraints. Real-world applications often combine multiple patterns to address different aspects of system design. #technology #softwareengineering #programming #techworldwithmilan #softwarearchitecture

The Invisible Barrier to Digital Health in Africa: Is #Trust More Important Than #Technology? What if I told you that the biggest challenge in scaling digital health in Africa isn’t technology or funding, but trust?🤝 In recent years, we’ve seen a surge in digital health innovations: AI-driven diagnostics, mobile health apps, telemedicine platforms. But here’s the hard truth: without trust, even the most advanced solutions will fail. 📌 Case in Point: #MomConnect, South Africa When South Africa launched MomConnect, an SMS-based platform for maternal health, it didn’t just roll out new tech - it built community trust from the ground up. The government partnered with midwives, clinics, and local leaders, ensuring that pregnant women saw the messages as reliable. The result? Over 2.7 million users in its first five years and currently over 5million users. Contrast this with many digital health interventions during COVID-19: rushed, tech-driven, but often met with public skepticism and privacy concerns, limiting their effectiveness. What Can We Learn ✅ Community-first, Tech-second: Don’t just introduce new tools; embed them in existing healthcare structures and cultural contexts. ✅ Trust through Transparency: Users need to understand how their data is collected and used, or they won’t engage. ✅ Co-Creation Over Imposition – Solutions designed WITH communities, not FOR them, stand a greater chance of adoption. The Big Question 💡 Are we overestimating the power of technology in healthcare while underestimating the importance of trust? Let’s discuss! How can we build trust-first digital health solutions that truly make an impact in Africa? Drop your thoughts below! 👇🏾 #DigitalHealth #TrustInTech #HealthcareInnovation #AfricaHealth #CommunityEngagement #DigitalTransformation #UserCentredDesign

I’ve been getting a lot of DMs asking how to start a career in Instructional Design. After 8+ years in this field, one thing I’ve learned is that many people focus too much on tools in the beginning and too little on learning design itself. Yes, tools like Storyline, Rise, Captivate, etc. are important. But tools alone won’t make someone a strong Instructional Designer.🤷♀️ What actually makes a difference is learning how to: • simplify complex information • think from the learner’s perspective • structure content clearly • reduce cognitive overload • make learning practical and engaging A person who understands learning experience design can learn tools faster than someone who only knows tools but struggles with learning strategy. If you’re starting out, don’t wait until you “know everything.” Start practicing with real content.👩🏫 Take a boring PDF, PPT, or policy document and try redesigning it into something engaging and learner-friendly. That exercise alone teaches more than many tutorials online. And most importantly, build a portfolio, even if it’s self-made projects. In Instructional Design, showing your thinking matters more than just listing tools on a resume. Also, if experienced IDs here have more suggestions or advice for beginners, please add them in the comments. Would love to hear different perspectives from the community 😇 #InstructionalDesign #ELearning #LearningAndDevelopment #CareerAdvice

🎓 Why I Stopped Designing Around “Learning Styles” This might surprise some people in L&D, but I used to be a big believer in learning styles. You know the idea — some people learn best by seeing, others by hearing, others by doing. It felt intuitive. It made sense. And it became a staple in how we thought about training design. But here’s the kicker: the science doesn’t back it up. Researchers have found no solid evidence that matching learning delivery to someone’s preferred “style” actually improves learning. What does matter is matching the method to the content — for example, using visuals for geometry, or discussion for leadership development. So, if learning styles aren’t the magic formula, what really makes a difference? Here’s what I’ve learned (and seen work time and time again): 💡 Structure building – helping learners connect the dots and see how new information fits into the bigger picture. 🧩 Rule learning – teaching people how to apply principles, not just memorize examples. 🚀 Active learning – using retrieval practice, spacing, and reflection so learning actually sticks. 🧠 Dynamic testing – focusing less on “what do I know now?” and more on “what can I get better at next?” It’s freeing, actually. We don’t need to label people. We need to design learning that stretches everyone — visual, verbal, hands-on, or otherwise. Real learning isn’t about preference. It’s about progress. What about you? Have you noticed a shift away from learning styles in your organization? #LearningAndDevelopment #LearningScience #InstructionalDesign #GrowthMindset

Design for Learning From my experience working as an instructional designer and leading #instructional_design projects, I’ve seen how often the success of a learning experience depends less on the content itself and more on how that content is structured and evaluated before it reaches a full launch. That’s why in my faculty support sessions I’ve always emphasized the importance of having a clear outline grounded in how learners actually process information, not just how we want to present it. For example, instead of organizing a course by topics or modules alone, I help faculty structure it, so learners first build foundational concepts (like basic terminology) before moving into applied tasks or case-based problem solving. This is where the soft launch becomes especially important. Evaluation at this stage is not just a final check. It’s a critical design moment. It allows us to examine whether the flow of information is truly supporting layered learning. I’ve seen cases where content technically “covered everything,” but cognitively it jumped too quickly between levels, leaving learners confused or disengaged because the progression wasn’t intentional. That’s where frameworks like Bloom’s Taxonomy and well-defined action verbs move beyond theory and become practical scaffolding tools. In practice, they help ensure learners build foundational skills before moving into higher-order thinking tasks. At the same time, I don’t believe learning has to be strictly linear. It can be messy and exploratory, but that messiness still needs an intentional structure underneath it. This is exactly why a soft launch is so valuable in real practice. It gives both subject matter experts and representative learners a chance to experience the flow firsthand. We can then see whether the course feels navigable, cognitively accessible, and whether learners can move through it without unnecessary friction. Over time, I’ve found that the insights from this stage are often more valuable than anything we can fully predict during design. They shape not only content improvements, but also how we think about learning flow itself before the hard launch ever happens. How do you evaluate whether your course structure truly supports learners’ cognitive progression? #LearningDesign #HigherEducation #EdTech #LearningExperience #BloomTaxonomy #CourseDesign #FacultyDevelopment #OnlineLearning #Pedagogy