Our Philosophy
Learning designs for change
We offer custom course plans, blueprints, learning experiences, and learning objects. Possessing nearly 20 years of collective Instructional Design experience on government, higher education, K-12, and industry projects, it has always been our aim to create highly engaging, attractive, and effective experiences for the end-user.
The focus of Insys Works is to provide our customers with high-quality designs and services. We offer custom course plans, blueprints, learning experiences, and learning objects. We possess nearly 20 years of collective Instructional Design experience on government, higher education, K-12, and industry projects. It has always been our aim to create highly engaging, attractive, and effective experiences for the end-user.
What follows is a little examination of our philosophy of learning design and learning experience.
Design Focus
People and human needs are complicated. We come to each new experience with our own histories and toolsets, for better and for worse. Regardless of the application or scenario, we need affirmation of the value for what we already possess in terms of skills, knowledge, and experience.
This is particularly so in any kind of education because education represents change-sometimes incremental and at other times, a complete overhaul. This can be frightening and perceived as devaluing by many. And people just cannot be made to learn and change. Superficial alterations in behavior and attitudes tend to result in flimsy, non-sustainable progress. And so, training and change may appear successful initially, but revert in the long run. We believe solid instruction aids learners in choosing and making core changes internally in the way they think, behave, and perceive.
What’s interesting is that by the time we even get to primary school we have struggled strenuously to learn and do some pretty difficult things that we begin to take for granted. We have learned to walk, climb, communicate, and incorporate the world around us into a stage for change, growth, and learning. We have done the hardest things first with very little equipment and a lot of falling down and getting back up. And one of the first words that we learn is “no.” With the growth of our abilities, comes the evolution of our individual and collective resistance to more change. This is not a bad thing at all. This is the tool a designer uses to define efficiency, quality, and sustainable outcomes.
We are facing a fascinating juncture in training and education. Many people are learning how to learn online. We cannot forget that we are modeling and teaching these lessons as we train and develop training. To this end we encourage:
- The careful crafting of case studies and that include a macro on-the-job scenario with smaller experiences that guide learners through piecing together solutions. This does employ some game theory.
- Providing a safe place to make mistakes and to learn from them in ways that enhance self-esteem and motivation through self-challenge. Again, game theory is quite useful.
- Providing expert guidance that reminds students where they are going and how far they have come is quite helpful.
- Learning objects and job aids that participants can carry with them to their world of work for the enhancement of transfer.
- The thoughtful use and placement of graphics and manipulatives keeping memory and cognitive load theory in mind.
- A follow-up to see if participants require assistance from a mentor or further training.
Our philosophy of design has evolved as we continuously answer the following questions so that “no” responses become “know” responses. If we are not educable, we cannot educate or design education. We need to work consistently to understand the needs of all learners to help them be successful in efficient, effective, and sustainable ways. The consciousness of our own ignorance is our best technology; our most powerful tool.
Please click on each vertical question tab below from left to right:
It is important to continue asking this question after a learner analysis. Who are all of the people with vested interest in the end product? At every stage, we are confronted with a constellation of customers:
- Subject Matter Experts,
- Our supervisors,
- Learners (and their supervisors and colleagues),
- Our team members,
- The commissioners of the project (board, CEO, etc.)
- Reviewers, and
- Our customers' customers.
We only shine if we have made stars of our stakeholders throughout the project, not just at the end.
"What will it look like?" is the tempting first question that I get asked, before answering "What will it be used for?". I respond frequently by working toward answering: "What is quality?"; "What are the necessary learner outcomes?" and "What is the demand?."
This requires a very productive and efficient drill-down approach. Using the Systematic Approximation Model (SAM) I can produce prototypes that:
- rapidly show product and progress
- enable a titrated feedback process and, therefore, more efficient revisions, and
- demonstrates designer attention to needs and communications.
I tend to rely on Thomas Gilbert's work on "Engineering Human Performance." He defines Worthy Performance (P) as the ratio of Valuable Accomplishment (A) to Costly Behavior (B): P=A/B. Further, Accomplishment = Value (V) and Behavior = Cost (C). So Worthy Performance (P) at all levels = Value/Cost=V/C. Designers need to own this as much as the commissioners of the project and ethically maximize performance at all stages so that stakeholders are not spending resources without product along the way.
Working in this way has led my teams efficiently to more "what" questions that piece together the scope of the final product with mounds of progress along the way.
The artifacts of this process are reusable and easily manipulated.
The answers to "Where" questions lend themselves to opening up usability and sustainability issues.
- "Where will the projects be stored?"
- "Where will they be edited and updated?"
- "Where will projects be utilized by end-users?"
Time is probably a fundamental resource. Wasting time squanders fiscal and human resources. "When?" needs to be answered daily by a designer with the answers of all of the other questions and with usable work product. Taking time every day to mock-up a prototype for review puts the puzzle together more quickly and offers the customer efficient outcomes when they need to be delivered and when they are needed.
The final answer to "When?" questions begs for ethics in design and delivery. For every stakeholder, there will remain improvements that could be made, potentially draining resources with no useable product. Approaching design with SAM, revisiting questions with data, and communicating with ADDIE presents those in need with responses rather than reactions, making a fluid and proactive process that balances efficiency and effectiveness, for all.
Launching prototypes, for review and testing, rapidly demonstrates when learners are meeting and retaining learning outcomes through hard data. Deadlines are met all along the way, often with revenue-generating potential that pays for the project. I set many micro deadlines for myself and with my team.
This complicated question has tendrils in all of the other questions and many siblings. For every discipline and customer associated with a project, "How?" leaps in front of the other questions for designers and their teams. But it defines us in so many ways.
- How do we know what learners need to know and do?
- How will we know they know it and are doing it?
- How will they best learn the material, steps, etc.?
- How will we process the work?
- How will we know we have met our goal?
The "How?" questions marry "What?" questions to define worthy performance outcomes for development and for learning outcomes.
Once answered, more questions arise, or the old answers need to be revisited for clarification. For example, knowing who the learners are, begs the answers to the questions: "What do they need to know and do?" and "How will we know that they know it and can do it?" The questions are as iterative as the design process-as learning, teaching and change itself.
Though I have worked alone as a team of one, I find teamwork is crucial and was missing. Partners must be made of all stakeholders in learning and development. I find that if I use the tools of each side, design and online education, members evolve with new skills and greater empathy for the other stakeholders.