My analysis of my client, his training needs, and his learners’ needs have been enlightening. A visit with the client allowed me to learn about the history of the business, the learners, the learning environment, and the problems they are experiencing. Based on what we discussed, we agreed that this design project should focus on helping the business improve optical sales, which are currently down due to a lack of familiarity with lens options. There are several different lens options, each having its pros and cons. Remembering all of the information and then being able to match specific options with individual customer profiles is a challenge. I’m planning on improving existing job aids and creating an online training module to allow learners more practice with lens options information.

In brainstorming about which activities to include in the design of the lesson, I used Cathy Moore’s action mapping process. I began with the business goal:  to increase optical sales by ten to fifteen percent. Then I asked, “What do the learners need to do to meet this goal?” To increase sales, the learners must select the appropriate lens options based on a customer’s prescriptions, preferences, and daily activities and communicate the appropriate lens options based on the customer’s personality type.

According to the action mapping process, the next step is to design practice activities to go with each action. Therefore, I will be writing mini-scenarios, where learners will be able to practice applying lens options information to realistic situations requiring them to select and communicate appropriate lens options. Learners will have access to the actual job aids they will have access to in real occurrences, and the job aids will have the necessary information they need to succeed.

Analysis and design are interrelated. Although I am in the analysis phase, I am already envisioning the design process and how I can implement what I am imagining will solve the issues of my client. The design process cannot happen without an analysis, and an analysis is worthless without the design process. In designing the training, I may even realize that I need further analysis. As Piskurich (2006) states in Rapid Instructional Design, the instructional design process is “like a web with all of the aspects interconnected and leading to parts of each other” (xvii). The Information R/Evolution video describes the interconnectivity of the web well. Just as digital information is linked as a web, so is each phase of the instruction design process.

Piskurich, G. M. (2006). Rapid instructional design: Learning ID fast and right (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.


Personal Theory of Learning

I agree with Driscoll’s (2002) perspective on how learning takes place. Learning takes place by using context. In other words, learners take what they see and combine it with what they already know in order to draw conclusions. Without the appropriate context, it is difficult for a learner to learn a new concept. For example, a student can begin to grasp the meaning of a new word when given a definition, but understanding really takes place when he or she sees how the word is actually used in context (e.g., in an actual sentence).  Learning also takes place by doing. Learners can read about how to tie a shoe and can be shown how to tie a shoe, but they won’t learn how to tie a shoe unless they actually try doing it. Learning takes place as a community. Knowledge cannot spread unless it is shared. Whether it’s through a teacher, a parent, a peer, or a book (written by an expert), we all learn together as a human race, by communicating and giving and receiving feedback. Finally, learning takes place through reflection. After all, information must be held in short-term memory in order for it to make it into long-term memory. Reflection allows a learner to take new information (e.g., in the form of feedback) and revise current perceptions of a new concept if needed.

Based on this knowledge of how learning takes place, the best way for someone to teach is to apply instructional design using “the tried-and-true five-component design model of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation” (Piskurich, 2006, p. xvii). The components do not have to be applied in that exact order and can be applied cyclically with different iterations as needed.  At some point (or certain points), however, a good teacher will analyze the situation (taking into account the student(s), the content, and the objectives), design and develop the instruction by selecting the appropriate instructional methods and tools based on the analysis, implement the instruction, and then evaluate the instruction to determine whether reanalysis, redesign, and reimplementation are necessary in order for successful learning to take place.

Because there are so many different types of learners and so many different things to learn, I cannot say that only one learning theory fits my world view. As Leidner and Jarvenpaa (1995) state, “No particular model is the best approach; indeed, different learning approaches will be appropriate depending on the circumstances—course content, student experience, maturity, intelligence, and instructor goals, skills, and preferences, among others” (p. 271). Ertmer and Newby also agree. In their article on behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism, they state, “We believe that the critical question instructional designers must ask is not ‘Which is the best theory’ but ‘Which theory is the most effective in fostering mastery of specific tasks by specific learners?’” (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 69). For example, behaviorism is useful when dealing with novice learners and content involving basic facts. Constructivism is best for advanced learners and tasks requiring exploratory problem-solving.


Driscoll, M. P. (2002). How people learn (and what technology might have to do with it). ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology Syracuse NY, September 7, 2014.

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-71.

Leidner, D. E., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). The use of information technology to enhance management school education: A theoretical view. MIS Quarterly, 19(3), 265-291.

Piskurich, G. M. (2006). Rapid instructional design: Learning ID fast and right (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.