Section 2
The 37 resources in the trunk
Each entry states what the resource contributes, what grounds it, whether a live page exists, the resources most like it within this set, and the connections that run beyond it.
Telling a Learning Need from a Performance Problem
The question asked before anything is designed
Practised · resource not yet written
A request for training usually arrives attached to a problem training cannot fix — unclear expectations, missing tools, broken incentives, understaffing, a marking load nobody costed, a prerequisite that quietly stopped being taught. Diagnosing which is which, before any design begins, changes the outcome more than any later decision will. It is also the step most often skipped.
Grounding. Behaviour engineering (Gilbert); performance analysis (Mager & Pipe); Rummler & Brache
Sources
- Reference 1: Mager, R. F., & Pipe, P. (1997). Analyzing Performance Problems: Or, You Really Oughta Wanna (3rd ed.). Center for Effective Performance.
- Reference 2: Gilbert, T. F. (1978). Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance. McGraw-Hill. (Tribute edition, Pfeiffer, 2007.)
- Reference 3: Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space on the Organization Chart (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
- Reference 4: Rossett, A. (1987). Training Needs Assessment. Educational Technology Publications.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Scoping and the Decision Gate
Correcting while correction is still cheap
Practised · resource not yet written
Designs get built well past the point where changing them stops being affordable. A named milestone, a defined output, and a structured reassessment before more is committed — whether what is being committed is a budget or someone’s unpaid hours — is what keeps a project correctable rather than merely finishable.
Grounding. Project scoping and staged decision-making
Sources
- Reference 4: Rossett, A. (1987). Training Needs Assessment. Educational Technology Publications.
- Reference 5: Norman, D. A. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things (Revised and Expanded ed.). Basic Books.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Working with Subject-Matter Experts
Surfacing what an expert can no longer see
Practised · resource not yet written
Drawing out tacit knowledge, running review cycles that converge, and holding design integrity when the expert is also the partner who approves the work. Experts forget what was once hard for them, and cannot tell you what they have stopped noticing. Getting that knowledge out takes a deliberate method, not a good conversation.
Grounding. Cognitive task analysis; expert blind spot (Nathan & Petrosino)
Sources
- Reference 6: Clark, R. E., Feldon, D. F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Yates, K. A., & Early, S. (2008). “Cognitive Task Analysis.” In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (3rd ed.). Routledge.
- Reference 7: Nathan, M. J., & Petrosino, A. (2003). “Expert Blind Spot Among Preservice Teachers.” American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 905–928.
- Reference 8: Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The Adult Learner (8th ed.). Routledge.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Onboarding a Partner into Learning Design
How someone learns to commission this work
Practised · resource not yet written
Few partners know what to ask a learning designer for, what they will be asked to supply, or what good looks like when it arrives. That holds for an organization with a procurement process and for a single person with a course, a deadline, and no budget line at all. The intake, the shared vocabulary, and the first engagement are design problems in their own right.
Grounding. Developed in practice; client intake and needs assessment
Sources
- Reference 8: Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The Adult Learner (8th ed.). Routledge.
- Reference 4: Rossett, A. (1987). Training Needs Assessment. Educational Technology Publications.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Minimum Viable Content
Deciding what to cut, before anything is built
Practised · resource not yet written
The instinct to cover everything is the most reliable source of bloated, unfinishable learning. Deciding what genuinely must be present is an editorial judgment made before design begins — distinct from cognitive load, which is a limit on what working memory can hold once material is in front of someone.
Grounding. Editorial scoping before design; cognitive load (Sweller)
Sources
- Reference 9: Sweller, J. (1988). “Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning.” Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. See also Sweller, Ayres & Kalyuga, Cognitive Load Theory (Springer, 2011).
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Modality and Technology Selection
The tool decision comes after the analysis, not before it
Practised · resource not yet written
Modality follows from what the analysis found — who the learners are, what the constraint is, where the work happens. Tool-first decisions, where a platform is procured or centrally supported and then filled, are endemic in large institutions and produce design choices nobody made deliberately.
Grounding. Media selection; analysis before tooling
Sources
- Reference 10: Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
- Reference 4: Rossett, A. (1987). Training Needs Assessment. Educational Technology Publications.
- Reference 11: Clark, R. E. (1994). “Media Will Never Influence Learning.” Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29. See also Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016), e-Learning and the Science of Instruction (4th ed.), Wiley.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
AI-Assisted Design, and Where It Fails
What the tool is good for, and what it invents
Practised · resource not yet written
Where generative tools genuinely accelerate design work — outlining, variant generation, first-pass drafting — and the failure modes that make unreviewed output unusable: fabricated citations, plausible-sounding pedagogy with no evidence behind it, and quiet homogenisation of everything it touches.
Grounding. Developed in practice; documented failure modes in generative tools
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Designing Under Constraint
What good looks like when there isn’t enough
Practised · resource not yet written
Budget, timeline, and capacity are the actual conditions of the work, not deviations from it — and where the partner is a volunteer, the scarcest of them is their attention. What to protect and what to let go when the ideal method is unavailable, which is the honest counterpart to every best-case process on this map.
Grounding. Developed in practice
Sources
- Reference 4: Rossett, A. (1987). Training Needs Assessment. Educational Technology Publications.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
What to Build When the Answer Isn’t a Course
Support placed at the moment the work happens
Practised · resource not yet written
Job aids, checklists, decision aids at the point of care, protocol cards, a worked-example set, a rubric released before the work starts, a clearer brief, a page that answers the question forty people are about to ask. Support available at the moment the task is performed rather than instruction delivered weeks earlier and expected to survive until it is needed — frequently where the measurable effect actually is.
Grounding. Behaviour engineering (Gilbert); job aids (Rossett & Schafer); moments of need (Gottfredson & Mosher); checklist literature
Sources
- Reference 2: Gilbert, T. F. (1978). Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance. McGraw-Hill. (Tribute edition, Pfeiffer, 2007.)
- Reference 12: Rossett, A., & Schafer, L. (2007). Job Aids and Performance Support: Moving from Knowledge in the Classroom to Knowledge Everywhere. Pfeiffer.
- Reference 13: Gottfredson, C., & Mosher, B. (2011). Innovative Performance Support: Strategies and Practices for Learning in the Workflow. McGraw-Hill.
- Reference 14: Gawande, A. (2009). The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right. Metropolitan Books.
- Reference 1: Mager, R. F., & Pipe, P. (1997). Analyzing Performance Problems: Or, You Really Oughta Wanna (3rd ed.). Center for Effective Performance.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Information and Data Visualization for Learning
Making structure visible so it gets read
Practised · resource not yet written
Complex technical content and evaluation findings arrive as prose and spreadsheets and stay unread. Process maps, decision trees, comparative frames, and results a governance or curriculum committee can take in within a minute. Wherever decisions are made by a committee reading on short time, this is often the whole deliverable rather than a garnish on one.
Grounding. Graphical excellence (Tufte); multimedia principles (Mayer); Cairo
Sources
- Reference 15: Tufte, E. R. (2001). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (2nd ed.). Graphics Press.
- Reference 10: Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
- Reference 16: Cairo, A. (2012). The Functional Art: An Introduction to Information Graphics and Visualization. New Riders.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Visual Language and Design Systems for Learning Programs
Making consistency economical instead of heroic
Practised · resource not yet written
Materials produced by many hands drift — inconsistent, off-brand, and inaccessible in the same recurring ways. Templates, type and colour decisions with contrast decided once, a media library, and a house style are what let quality hold without a specialist reviewing every artefact.
Grounding. Design systems practice; WCAG contrast requirements
Sources
- Reference 17: W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.
- Reference 15: Tufte, E. R. (2001). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (2nd ed.). Graphics Press.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Plain Language and Writing for Learning
Reading load as a design decision
Practised · resource not yet written
How hard something is to read is usually the biggest barrier to understanding it, and it has nothing to do with the subject itself. It is also the barrier designers most often leave to chance. Reading load decides whether a patient follows their discharge instructions, whether a public notice meets its plain-language duty, whether a researcher can actually use a method someone has described, and whether a student can tell what an assignment is asking them to do.
Grounding. ISO 24495-1; health literacy (Nutbeam)
Sources
- Reference 18: ISO 24495-1:2023, Plain language — Part 1: Governing principles and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization.
- Reference 19: Nutbeam, D. (2000). “Health Literacy as a Public Health Goal: A Challenge for Contemporary Health Education and Communication Strategies into the 21st Century.” Health Promotion International, 15(3), 259–267.
- Reference 20: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Motion, Video and Multimedia Production
When moving image earns its cost
Practised · resource not yet written
The production craft — scripting, shot planning, capture, edit, captioning and audio description as part of production rather than remediation — and the judgment about when video is the right answer rather than the expected one.
Grounding. Multimedia learning principles (Mayer)
Sources
- Reference 10: Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
- Reference 17: W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
How Learning Works, and Who Can Act on It
Told plainly to learners, and built into the design
Practised · resource not yet written
Most learners have never been told how consolidation works, why re-reading feels productive and isn’t, or that difficulty is often the signal rather than the failure. This makes that knowledge available in plain language as something offered rather than assigned, and builds the regulating into the design — spacing in the schedule, retrieval in the activity, requirements stated plainly — because every strategy in this literature presupposes conditions that unequal circumstances do not distribute equally.
Grounding. Learning How to Learn (Oakley & Sejnowski); desirable difficulties (Bjork); retrieval practice (Roediger & Karpicke); co-regulated and socially shared regulation (Hadwin & Järvelä); scarcity and bandwidth (Mullainathan & Shafir)
Sources
- Reference 21: Oakley, B., Sejnowski, T., & McConville, A. (2018). Learning How to Learn. TarcherPerigee.
- Reference 22: Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2011). “Making Things Hard on Yourself, but in a Good Way: Creating Desirable Difficulties to Enhance Learning.” In Psychology and the Real World. Worth Publishers.
- Reference 23: Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). “Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention.” Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.
- Reference 24: Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2018). “Self-Regulation, Co-Regulation, and Shared Regulation in Collaborative Learning Environments.” In Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (2nd ed.). Routledge.
- Reference 25: Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much. Times Books.
- Reference 26: Flavell, J. H. (1979). “Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive–Developmental Inquiry.” American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Writing Outcomes That Can Be Assessed
Holding outcome, evidence and activity in one line
Practised · resource not yet written
Most outcomes state an aspiration no assessment can reach — appreciate, understand, be aware of — and most activities drift from whatever is finally marked. Naming what someone will be able to do, choosing the evidence that would show it, and building the activity that gets them there is the most-performed move in the craft and the one most often made by habit. It is also what makes a design reviewable by anyone who was not in the room when it was decided.
Grounding. Constructive alignment (Biggs); backward design (Wiggins & McTighe); construct validity (Messick)
Sources
- Reference 27: Biggs, J. (1996). “Enhancing Teaching Through Constructive Alignment.” Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.
- Reference 28: Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (Expanded 2nd ed.). ASCD.
- Reference 29: Messick, S. (1995). “Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences from Persons’ Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning.” American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.
- Reference 30: Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). “The Power of Feedback.” Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Assessment When the Answer Can Be Generated
Designing tasks a model cannot sit in for
Practised · resource not yet written
Detection is unreliable, adversarial, and falls hardest on the people least able to contest it. The durable answers are in the task itself: work anchored to a particular context, a process that leaves a trail, evidence gathered in person at the points where it genuinely matters, and stated expectations about permitted use rather than a blanket prohibition nobody can enforce. The prior question is which capability a task is protecting, and whether it is worth protecting there.
Grounding. Assessment security (Dawson); permitted-use scales (Perkins et al.); construct validity (Messick)
Sources
- Reference 31: Dawson, P. (2021). Defending Assessment Security in a Digital World: Preventing E-Cheating and Supporting Academic Integrity in Higher Education. Routledge.
- Reference 32: Perkins, M., Furze, L., Roe, J., & MacVaugh, J. (2024). “The Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale (AIAS): A Framework for Ethical Integration of Generative AI in Educational Assessment.” Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21(6).
- Reference 29: Messick, S. (1995). “Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences from Persons’ Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning.” American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.
- Reference 28: Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (Expanded 2nd ed.). ASCD.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
When the Consultation Is the Whole Intervention
One conversation, and no project behind it
Practised · resource not yet written
A great deal of this work is not a project. It is an hour with someone who has a course, a deadline, and the option of simply not writing back. What can be diagnosed, decided, and left behind in a single conversation is a different craft from running a scoped build, and it is where most of a practice’s actual reach lives. Designing that hour — what to ask, what to skip, what to leave in their hands — deserves the same attention as designing anything else.
Grounding. Reflective practice (Schön); needs analysis (Rossett); adult learning (Knowles)
Sources
- Reference 33: Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.
- Reference 4: Rossett, A. (1987). Training Needs Assessment. Educational Technology Publications.
- Reference 8: Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The Adult Learner (8th ed.). Routledge.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Quality Assurance as a Documented Practice
Accountable, recorded, and repeatable
Practised · resource not yet written
Review against instructional and accessibility standards, with the criteria written down, the reviewer named, and the result recorded. Distinct from remediating a legacy inventory: this is the check that runs before anything ships.
Grounding. Standards-based review against instructional and accessibility criteria
Sources
- Reference 17: W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.
- Reference 20: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.
- Reference 34: ETSI/CEN/CENELEC (2021). EN 301 549 V3.2.1: Accessibility Requirements for ICT Products and Services. Harmonised European Standard.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Reading Learning Science Without Neuromyths
Telling the evidence from the folklore
Practised · resource not yet written
Learning styles, the retention pyramid, left-brain and right-brain, and the attention-span figures that circulate without a source. Reading primary evidence well enough to tell what is supported from what is merely widespread is a professional obligation, and the myths are most persistent precisely where budgets are decided.
Grounding. Learning styles evidence (Pashler et al.); neuromyth prevalence (Dekker et al.; Howard-Jones)
Sources
- Reference 35: Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). “Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.
- Reference 36: Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). “Neuromyths in Education: Prevalence and Predictors of Misconceptions among Teachers.” Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 429.
- Reference 37: Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014). “Neuroscience and Education: Myths and Messages.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(12), 817–824.
- Reference 38: Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Expanded ed.). National Academy Press.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Source Discipline in Knowledge Products
Can an independent reader confirm this?
Practised · resource not yet written
Citation integrity, fact-checking, and the verifiability test applied to learning materials rather than to research papers. The standard is whether a reader can confirm a claim without contacting the author — which most learning content, including most well-intentioned learning content, cannot meet.
Grounding. Developed in practice; citation integrity and verifiability
Sources
- Reference 39: Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services. Policy Press.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Supporting Indigenous-Led Learning Design
A settler designer’s role, named at its actual size
Practised · resource not yet written
Design craft placed in service of Indigenous-led education and directed by Indigenous knowledge holders — never a claim to Indigenous knowledge, which is held in relationship and community and does not transfer to a portfolio. The scholarship belongs to Ramsden, Kirkness and Barnhardt, Archibald, Battiste, Ermine, and Tuhiwai Smith; what is offered here is process, plain language, accessibility, and production discipline in support of work whose direction is not the designer’s to set.
Grounding. Cultural safety (Ramsden); the Four R’s — respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility (Kirkness & Barnhardt); Indigenous Storywork (Archibald); ethical space of engagement (Ermine); Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor (Tuck & Yang). Instruments: TRC Calls to Action 23 and 24; UNDRIP; BC’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act; the First Nations principles of OCAP®; FNHA cultural safety and humility commitments.
Sources
- Reference 40: Ramsden, I. (2002). Cultural Safety and Nursing Education in Aotearoa and Te Waipounamu. Doctoral thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.
- Reference 41: Kirkness, V. J., & Barnhardt, R. (1991). “First Nations and Higher Education: The Four R’s — Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, Responsibility.” Journal of American Indian Education, 30(3), 1–15 (May 1991).
- Reference 42: Archibald, J. (Q’um Q’um Xiiem) (2008). Indigenous Storywork: Educating the Heart, Mind, Body, and Spirit. UBC Press.
- Reference 43: Ermine, W. (2007). “The Ethical Space of Engagement.” Indigenous Law Journal, 6(1), 193–203.
- Reference 44: Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40.
- Reference 45: Battiste, M. (2013). Decolonizing Education: Nourishing the Learning Spirit. Purich Publishing.
- Reference 46: Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (2nd ed.). Zed Books.
- Reference 47: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action.
- Reference 48: United Nations (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. General Assembly resolution 61/295.
- Reference 49: The First Nations Information Governance Centre. The First Nations Principles of OCAP® (Ownership, Control, Access, Possession).
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Designing for the Update Cycle
Who owns this after handover
Practised · resource not yet written
Content decays, and sustainment is usually retrofitted or never happens at all. Update triggers, review cycles, version control, and a named owner decided during design rather than discovered two years later when the material is quietly wrong.
Grounding. Sustainment planning; knowledge management practice
Sources
- Reference 50: Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.
- Reference 39: Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services. Policy Press.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Designing Where the Work Must Satisfy a Reviewer
The tension between defensible and effective
Practised · resource not yet written
Required training, audit trails, accreditation evidence, and curriculum approval — and the real craft problem underneath, which is that review-driven design usually optimizes for the record rather than the learner. The reviewer may be a regulator, a professional accrediting body, an ethics board, or a curriculum committee. The pressure each puts on the design is the same, and so is the way out of it.
Grounding. Regulatory and accreditation frameworks; competency assurance practice
Sources
- Reference 51: Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
- Reference 52: Accessible Canada Act, S.C. 2019, c. 10.
- Reference 53: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165. Province of British Columbia.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Learner Data, Privacy and Analytics Ethics
What the learning function is actually allowed to hold
Practised · resource not yet written
Platform records, completion tracking, dashboards that identify individuals by accident, retention schedules, and what privacy law requires of a learning function that is usually not staffed to know. It also covers the assessment a third-party tool has to pass before anyone can be required to use it, and the alternative that has to exist when it has not. The default position — collect everything, decide later — is not lawful and not neutral.
Grounding. FIPPA; PIPEDA; PHIPA; privacy impact assessment; learning analytics ethics (Slade & Prinsloo)
Sources
- Reference 53: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165. Province of British Columbia.
- Reference 54: Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5 (Canada).
- Reference 55: Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, S.O. 2004, c. 3, Sched. A (Ontario).
- Reference 56: Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013). “Learning Analytics: Ethical Issues and Dilemmas.” American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1510–1529.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Ethics and Consent in Learner Research
What may be published, and on whose say-so
Practised · resource not yet written
Consent that is informed rather than assumed, anonymization that actually anonymizes in small populations, and a clear line about what may be quoted or published from research with participants. The line matters most when the participants are colleagues.
Grounding. TCPS 2; research ethics practice
Sources
- Reference 57: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (2022). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans — TCPS 2 (2022).
- Reference 49: The First Nations Information Governance Centre. The First Nations Principles of OCAP® (Ownership, Control, Access, Possession).
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Multilingual Design and Localization
The difference between translated and designed
Practised · resource not yet written
Plain language before translation, terminology decided once, cultural adaptation rather than substitution, and the recognition that a translated course carries the structural assumptions of the original. A live requirement wherever services, research, or study run across languages — Canadian health and federal contexts, and any room where much of the group is working in an additional language.
Grounding. ISO 24495-1; localization practice
Sources
- Reference 18: ISO 24495-1:2023, Plain language — Part 1: Governing principles and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization.
- Reference 19: Nutbeam, D. (2000). “Health Literacy as a Public Health Goal: A Challenge for Contemporary Health Education and Communication Strategies into the 21st Century.” Health Promotion International, 15(3), 259–267.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Facilitation and Live Delivery Craft
What happens in the room
Practised · resource not yet written
Technique, timing, group dynamics, reading a room that has gone quiet, and recovering a session that is not working — where most public-sector and higher-education learning still actually happens, and the part least often written down.
Grounding. Adult learning practice (Knowles); facilitation craft
Sources
- Reference 8: Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The Adult Learner (8th ed.). Routledge.
- Reference 58: Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Learning Design Infrastructure
What a practice needs in order to exist
Practised · resource not yet written
Templates, source libraries, a media gallery, working groups, and standards documented where someone other than their author can find them. The scaffolding that decides whether a design practice is a person or a capability.
Grounding. Developed in practice; organizational learning (Senge)
Sources
- Reference 50: Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.
- Reference 39: Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services. Policy Press.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Building Design Capability in Non-Designers
Helping SMEs and faculty make decent materials
Practised · resource not yet written
Most learning content in any institution is made by people whose job is something else. Giving them a small number of decisions that matter, in a form they will actually use, does more for quality at scale than any single well-designed course. Where a small team supports a large institution, this is not a secondary mode of delivery. It is the main one.
Grounding. Adult learning practice (Knowles); behaviour change (Michie)
Sources
- Reference 8: Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The Adult Learner (8th ed.). Routledge.
- Reference 59: Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). “The Behaviour Change Wheel: A New Method for Characterising and Designing Behaviour Change Interventions.” Implementation Science, 6:42.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Competency Development for Learning Designers
What the work requires, on a scale you can use
Practised · resource not yet written
An eight-competency framework with a four-level scale, written for self-review, hiring, and team capability mapping. Peer-facing, and the kind of artefact the field mostly keeps in private documents rather than publishing.
Grounding. Developed in practice; competency frameworks and self-assessment
Sources
- Reference 8: Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The Adult Learner (8th ed.). Routledge.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Arguing for the Work Before the Constraint Is Set
Making the case while there is still something to decide
Practised · resource not yet written
Cost, effort, and how the work is justified — sometimes to somebody holding a budget who has seen learning functions produce very little, and sometimes to a partner being asked for hours already owed to research, teaching, and service. The second argument is the harder one, because there is no line item to point at. Distinct from designing well inside a constraint: this is the case made before the constraint exists, and its strongest version includes recommending against building a course.
Grounding. Evaluation and impact frameworks (Kirkpatrick); practice-derived
Sources
- Reference 51: Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
- Reference 2: Gilbert, T. F. (1978). Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance. McGraw-Hill. (Tribute edition, Pfeiffer, 2007.)
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Reading Course Signals Without Overreading Them
Feedback, evaluations, and platform data
Practised · resource not yet written
Learner feedback, end-of-term evaluation instruments, and platform analytics each answer a narrower question than they appear to. Evaluation instruments carry documented bias by instructor gender; platform data records activity rather than learning; open comments are a self-selected sample in which the unhappy are overrepresented. Knowing what each signal can and cannot support is the difference between a revision that helps and one that chases the loudest few.
Grounding. Bias in student ratings of teaching (MacNell et al.); learning analytics ethics (Slade & Prinsloo); construct validity (Messick)
Sources
- Reference 60: MacNell, L., Driscoll, A., & Hunt, A. N. (2015). “What’s in a Name: Exposing Gender Bias in Student Ratings of Teaching.” Innovative Higher Education, 40(4), 291–303.
- Reference 56: Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013). “Learning Analytics: Ethical Issues and Dilemmas.” American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1510–1529.
- Reference 29: Messick, S. (1995). “Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences from Persons’ Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning.” American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.
- Reference 51: Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Designing Inside a Research Culture
No authority, and a partner whose first obligation is elsewhere
Practised · resource not yet written
In institutions built around producing knowledge, the person being designed with is an expert in their own field first, holds more standing in it than the designer does, and is taking part voluntarily. Nothing can be required. The evidence has to meet the standard they apply to their own discipline, which is higher than the one most learning content is written to. And the design has to survive a term in which teaching is one obligation of three. The craft is influence without authority, and evidence good enough for a sceptical expert.
Grounding. Adult learning (Knowles); expert blind spot (Nathan & Petrosino); evidence use (Nutley)
Sources
- Reference 8: Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The Adult Learner (8th ed.). Routledge.
- Reference 7: Nathan, M. J., & Petrosino, A. (2003). “Expert Blind Spot Among Preservice Teachers.” American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 905–928.
- Reference 39: Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services. Policy Press.
- Reference 33: Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Participation Without Required Disclosure
Taking part without having to account for oneself
Practised · resource not yet written
Activities that ask participants to draw on personal experience place an uneven cost on the people with the most at stake. Offering worked examples, composite cases and observed scenarios as full alternatives, and setting depth of contribution as the participant's choice, keeps the learning available to everyone present without anyone being asked to supply the material.
Grounding. Trauma-informed educational practice (Carello & Butler); SAMHSA framework; stigma and disclosure (Goffman)
Sources
- Reference 61: Carello, J., & Butler, L. D. (2015). “Practicing What We Teach: Trauma-Informed Educational Practice.” Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(3), 262–278.
- Reference 62: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2014). SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4884.
- Reference 63: Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads
Supporting a Participant in Difficulty
What the facilitator does, and where the role ends
Practised · resource not yet written
A facilitator's responsibilities are noticing, adjusting pace, offering a break that anyone may take without explanation, and providing accurate information about the support available. Referral to qualified support is part of the role; assessment and care are not, and knowing exactly where that line falls is what allows a facilitator to respond promptly and well.
Grounding. Trauma-informed educational practice (Carello & Butler); SAMHSA framework; facilitation practice
Sources
- Reference 61: Carello, J., & Butler, L. D. (2015). “Practicing What We Teach: Trauma-Informed Educational Practice.” Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(3), 262–278.
- Reference 62: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2014). SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4884.
- Reference 8: Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The Adult Learner (8th ed.). Routledge.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Describing Practice Within the Designation Held
Claiming the training one has, precisely
Practised · resource not yet written
Terms drawn from clinical and therapeutic practice describe regulated competencies, and using them to describe learning design invites reliance the role cannot support. Naming the actual qualification, describing the design commitments concretely rather than by label, and citing the framework being applied gives participants an accurate basis for the trust they extend.
Grounding. Teaching trauma and trauma-informed teaching distinguished (Carello & Butler); scope of practice; professional designations
Sources
- Reference 64: Carello, J., & Butler, L. D. (2014). “Potentially Perilous Pedagogies: Teaching Trauma Is Not the Same as Trauma-Informed Teaching.” Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 15(2), 153–168.
- Reference 61: Carello, J., & Butler, L. D. (2015). “Practicing What We Teach: Trauma-Informed Educational Practice.” Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(3), 262–278.
- Reference 62: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2014). SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4884.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Sustaining the People Who Deliver Demanding Content
A scheduling and staffing decision
Practised · resource not yet written
Facilitators and designers who work repeatedly with accounts of harm carry a documented cumulative load. The effective responses are structural: rotation across a roster, limits on consecutive sessions, co-facilitation, scheduled debriefs, and access to support arranged before a programme begins rather than after a difficult session.
Grounding. Compassion fatigue and secondary traumatic stress (Figley); vicarious exposure in practice; psychological safety (Edmondson)
Sources
- Reference 65: Figley, C. R. (Ed.). (1995). Compassion Fatigue: Coping with Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder in Those Who Treat the Traumatized. Brunner/Mazel.
- Reference 66: Edmondson, A. (1999). “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
- Reference 61: Carello, J., & Butler, L. D. (2015). “Practicing What We Teach: Trauma-Informed Educational Practice.” Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(3), 262–278.
Most related, by shared theory and theme
Connected contributions
Where this work leads