Building Training Frameworks

Training is easy. Transformation takes design. Anyone can deliver a great-looking workshop. Slides, activities, energy all of that is important. But none of it guarantees change. Real transformation doesn’t begin in the training room. It starts much earlier in the time spent understanding what truly drives behavior on the ground. Before one of our recent interventions, we didn’t begin with content. We began with conversations diagnostic visits, listening to the people who lived that reality every day. That’s when the gaps became clear. People didn’t need more information they needed a simple way to connect features to value. So, we introduced the FABBING framework (Feature–Advantage–Benefit) and suddenly, selling wasn’t about price; it was about purpose. But we didn’t stop there. Post-session coaching helped participants practice real conversations, share wins, and build confidence one interaction at a time. That’s where the real transformation happened. Because when people start using what they’ve learned, that’s when the learning becomes real. Training changes knowledge. Design changes behavior.  What’s one element you include in your programs to move from ‘great training’ to ‘real transformation’?

A year ago I shared a framework called GROWTH™. It didn’t perform particularly well. Which is funny, because over time it’s become one of the models I rely on most when designing learning experiences. Most training programs are built as courses. But the way people actually develop capability looks very different. Progress happens across a series of experiences—practice, feedback, reflection, and iteration. In other words, it happens through a learning journey, not a single event. The GROWTH framework is a way to design those journeys more intentionally. It breaks the process into six stages: G — Goal Setting R — Research & Empathy O — Outline the Experience W — Work in Layers T — Test & Adapt H — Highlight Progress Over the past year, I revisited the framework, expanded it, and turned it into a practical guide with examples, worksheets, and a full case study on redesigning onboarding as a learning journey. I also realized something interesting. GROWTH is actually one of the foundational pieces behind another model I’ve been developing called The Academy Engine™, which focuses on building scalable learning ecosystems. If the Academy Engine explains how education systems operate, GROWTH focuses on how the learning journey itself should be designed. If you’d like the full guide and templates, you can download it below. Curious how others think about this. When you design learning, do you think in terms of courses or journeys?

“Train-the-trainers” (TTT) is one of the most common methods used to scale up improvement & change capability across organisations, yet we often fail to set it up for success. A recent article, drawing on teacher professional development & transfer-of-training research, argues TTT should always be based on an “offer-and-use” model: OFFER: what the programme provides—facilitator expertise, session design, practice opportunities, feedback, follow-up support & evaluation. USE: what participants do with those opportunities—what they notice, how they make sense of it, how much they engage, what they learn, & whether they apply it in real work. How to design TTT that works & sticks: 1. Design for real-world use: Clarify the practical outcome - what trainers should do differently in their next sessions & what that should improve for the organisation. Plan beyond the classroom with post-course support so people can apply learning. Space learning over time rather than delivering it in one intensive block, because spacing & follow-ups support sustained use. 2. Use strong facilitators: Select facilitators who know the topic & how adults learn, how groups work & how to give useful feedback. Ensure they teach “how to make this stick at work” (apply & sustain practices), not only “how to deliver a session.” 3. Make practice central: Build the programme around realistic rehearsal: deliver, get feedback, & practise again until skills become automatic. Use participants’ real scenarios (especially change situations) to strengthen transfer. Include safe practice for difficult moments (challenge, unexpected questions) & treat mistakes as learning. Build peer learning so participants learn with & from each other, not just the facilitator. 4. Prepare participants to succeed: Assess what participants already know & can do, then tailor the learning. Build confidence to use skills at work (confidence predicts application). Help each person create a simple, specific plan for when & how they will use the approaches in their next training sessions. 5. Ensure workplace transfer support: Enable quick application (opportunities to deliver training soon after the course), plus time & resources to do it well. Provide ongoing support (feedback, coaching, & encouragement) from leaders, peers &/or the wider organisation. 6. Evaluate what matters: Go beyond satisfaction scores - assess whether trainers changed their practice & whether this improved outcomes for learners & the organisation. Use findings to improve the next iteration as a continuous improvement cycle, not a one-off event. https://lnkd.in/eJ-Xrxwm. By Prof. Dr. Susanne Wisshak & colleagues, sourced via John Whitfield MBA

Your learning programs are failing for the same reason most people quit the gym. If your carefully designed learning program has the same completion rate as a January gym membership, you're making the same mistake as every mediocre fitness trainer. You're designing for an "average learner" who doesn't exist. Here's how smart learning designers can apply fitness training principles to create more impactful experiences: 1️⃣ Progressive Overload 🏋️♀️ In fitness: Gradually increasing weight, frequency, or reps to build strength and endurance. 🧠 In learning: Systematically increasing cognitive challenge to build deeper understanding. How to integrate in your next design: - Create tiered challenge levels within each learning module - Build knowledge checks that adapt difficulty based on previous performance - Include optional "challenge" activities for advanced learners - Document the progression pathway so learners can see their growth 2️⃣ Scaled Workouts 🏋️♀️ In fitness: Modifying exercises to match individual fitness levels while preserving movement patterns. 🧠 In learning: Adapting content complexity while maintaining core learning objectives. How to integrate in your next design: - Create three versions of each activity (beginner, intermediate, advanced) - Include prerequisite self-assessments that guide learners to appropriate starting points - Design scaffolded resources that can be added or removed based on learner needs - Allow multiple paths to demonstrate competency 3️⃣ Active Recovery 🏋️♀️ In fitness: Low-intensity activity between intense workouts that promotes healing and prevents burnout. 🧠 In learning: Structured reflection periods that consolidate knowledge and prevent cognitive overload. How to integrate in your next design: - Schedule reflection activities between challenging content sections - Create templates that prompt learners to connect new concepts to existing knowledge - Include peer teaching opportunities as a form of active learning recovery - Design "cognitive cooldowns" that close each module with key takeaway exercises 4️⃣ Periodisation 🏋️♀️ In fitness: Organising training into structured cycles with varying intensity and focus. 🧠 In learning: Cycling between concept acquisition, application, and mastery phases. How to integrate in your next design: - Map your curriculum into distinct learning phases (foundation, application, mastery) - Create "micro-cycles" within modules that alternate between content delivery and practice - Design culminating challenges at the end of each learning cycle - Include assessment "de-load" weeks with lighter workload but higher reflection The best learning experience isn't the one with the most content or the fanciest technology—it's the one designed for consistent progress through appropriate challenge. What fitness training principle will you incorporate in your next learning design?

Most training doesn't fail because employees resist learning. It fails because experts build training for other experts. Not non-experts. I was on a call this week with an L&D leader in the medical field. Her team of learning designers is full of brilliant people. Patient safety specialists. Regulatory compliance experts. Professionals who've been doing this work for decades. But when they create training? Long, content-heavy courses. No clear learning outcomes. Information overload. Little to no behavior change. She said something that stuck with me: "They're highly knowledgeable about compliance and patient safety. But they aren't trained learning designers. So they build courses that teach, but don't actually change behavior." Expertise tells you what to teach. It doesn't tell you how to make it learnable. Here's what's actually happening: Experts suffer from something called the "curse of knowledge." They skip steps without realizing it. They assume context that novices don't have. They compress years of pattern recognition into a single sentence. And they build training the way they would want to learn — not the way a novice actually needs to learn. It's known as the expert-novice gap. Behavior change doesn't happen because content was "covered." It happens when instruction is designed to: → Reduce cognitive load (smaller steps, clearer cues) → Support recall (spaced repetition, retrieval practice) → Build practice into the workflow (not just the classroom) Most training is designed around delivery. The best training is designed around transfer. Those are completely different jobs. One fills a slide deck. The other changes how someone works on Monday. Before your next course review, don't ask: "Is the content accurate?" Ask: "Can a novice use this on Monday without someone standing next to them?" That's the difference between training that informs and training that transforms.

🎓 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

𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝘆𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻’𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿 — 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘀. I recently read Using Learning Science Strategies to Enhance Teaching Practices and Empower Adult Learners, and it reinforces a critical gap I see inside organizations every day: 𝗪𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 — 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹, 𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲. This paper challenges persistent 𝗻𝗲𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗺𝘆𝘁𝗵𝘀 (like learning styles) and highlights 𝘀𝗶𝘅 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲-𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗲𝘀 that actually improve how adults learn: 🔹 𝗥𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 🔹𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 🔹 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 🔹 𝗘𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 🔹 𝗗𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 🔹 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝗘𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲: • Training dollars are wasted when learning doesn’t transfer • Poor retention increases errors, rework, and safety risk • Cognitive overload slows time-to-competency • Employees lose confidence when they “should know this” but can’t recall it 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗜/𝗢 𝗣𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻. I/O Psychology helps organizations: • Design training around how people actually learn and perform • Align learning to job demands, risk points, and performance outcomes • Replace myths with data-backed instructional strategies • Build learner confidence, self-efficacy, and readiness to perform When learners understand how learning works, recall improves, stress decreases, and performance follows. If we want training that sticks, we have to stop designing for preference and start designing for 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝘀. Source: Rehak, K. M., & McGinty, J. M. (2023). Using learning science strategies to enhance teaching practices and empower adult learners. Adult Learning. #WorkplaceEngineer #IOPsychology #TrainingAndDevelopment #LearningThatSticks #ManufacturingExcellence #HumanCenteredDesign

Good instructional design doesn’t start with content. It starts with a business question: “What needs to change? And how will we know it did?” Everything follows from that. Instead of: “What should we include?” It becomes: • What will people do differently? • Where will they apply it? • What happens if they get it wrong? That changes the design completely. You get: • Fewer topics, more focus • Real scenarios, not generic ones • Practice tied to actual decisions And most importantly, you can trace the impact. Not just: “They completed it.” But: • Sales conversations improved • Errors reduced • Customers adopted faster That’s when training stops being a cost center. And starts becoming a performance lever. I’m Jessica, an instructional designer for corporate & academic learning. What’s one example of training you’ve seen that actually changed outcomes and not just knowledge? 👇

Most schools get curriculum training wrong. Here's how to fix it: Schools spend thousands on new curriculum, but here’s what usually happens: Teachers sit through a one-day training before school starts. They get a thick teacher’s guide that no one has time to read. By October, most are picking and choosing what to use. By January, the curriculum is barely recognizable. This isn’t a teacher problem. It’s a training problem. If you want a new curriculum to actually improve student outcomes, here’s how to do it right: 1. Teach the Why First If teachers don’t understand why this curriculum is better, they won’t commit to it. Start by making the case: - What research is behind it? - What student gaps will it help close? - How will it make their job easier, not harder? 2. Focus on Execution, Not Just Exposure A single sit-and-get PD won’t cut it. Training should be: - Ongoing: Built into PLCs, coaching, and planning time. - Practice-Based: Teachers should practice lessons and get feedback. - Modeled: Leaders and coaches should show what strong instruction looks like in execution and planning. 3. Build a Playbook for Intellectual Prep Great execution starts with great preparation. Schools should: - Create unit and lesson planning protocols. - Set clear expectations for lesson internalization. - Provide exemplars of strong student work so teachers know what success looks like. 4. Protect Time for Teachers to Collaborate No teacher should be figuring out a new curriculum alone. Schools should: - Schedule regular co-planning time. - Pair teachers up to internalize lessons together, including video review of how the curriculum looks in execution. - Ensure strong modeling from lead teachers and coaches. Choosing the right curriculum is only half the battle. How you train teachers to use it determines whether it actually improves student learning.

Your 20-hour training program has 12% completion rates. And you're trying to figure out what went wrong with the content. Actually, NOTHING went wrong with the content. You just designed an engineering curriculum for people who aren't engineers. :) Salespeople are not precept learners. They don't want three hours of foundational knowledge so they can access the thing they actually need in week four. They're just-in-time learners. They need the answer now. When the deal is stalling. When the prospect asks a question they can't answer. THAT'S when they learn. In the moment. Under pressure. With immediate application. But enablement keeps designing programs like we're teaching computer science. Module 1 builds to Module 2. Module 2 unlocks Module 3. Precept upon precept. Which works great for marketing teams. For engineers. For finance people. But salespeople? Most of them weren't straight-A students. I know for damned sure that I wasn't. 🕺 They didn't get technical degrees. They're not carving out three hours over the next 45 days to absorb information they might need eventually. They'll memorize enough to pass your assessment. Get their 80% completion certificate. And by Monday, they've forgotten everything because it was never presented in the context of actual need. I've seen companies require 22 hours of training after an acquisition. Everyone passes. Everyone gets certified. Three months later, nobody can actually sell the new product. Because they learned it the way you wanted to teach it, NOT the way they actually learn. Just-in-time content works instead. Searchable. Bite-sized. Delivered at the moment of need. - Stuck at discovery? Three questions that unstick it. - Pushback on price? The objection handling framework. - Need to explain a technical feature? Two-minute explainer. Not a 90-minute course on discovery methodology. Not a full certification program. The specific thing they need right now to move the deal forward. Your LMS should work like Google, not like graduate school. Low adoption rates might just mean you're asking folks to learn the way you learn instead of the way they actually work.