If you are a government employee, or an employee of a large organization, you have undoubtedly encountered some form of “canned” training, probably in the form of a sexual assault module or EEO awareness offering.

There is much that falls under the umbrella of training. Physical fitness, First-aid, New Employee On-boarding, all come to mind as areas where a “trainer” might ply her or his craft. As E-Learning and Online training modules have become extremely popular, so too has the concept of training modules for compliance. Many organizations and governmental agencies employ compliance officers to oversee the legalities of employment, competency, best practice and the like.

Rather than turning to education professionals, organizations have built teams of technicians skilled at authoring tools such as Adobe Captivate, Camtasia, and Articulate Storyboard, and paired them with Subject Matter Experts. Their charge, to build interactive and engaging training modules, fulfills the legal requirements of training and shifts liability from the organization to the individual. That’s the theory, at least.

Does this type of training lead to organizational change? Does this type of training lead to the desired outcomes that initiated the need for training in the first place? These are difficult questions to answer, but judging on the prevalence of workplace sexual assault and harassment cases litigated each year, the likely answer is no.

Educators in top performing schools around the country have known for more than a decade, that in order to garner true understanding, and thereby effect change, learning events must enable learners to think deeply about the concepts presented; conceptual understanding. Enabling learners to grapple with concepts in a typical training course is not easy, but it’s also not impossible. It requires knowing what questions to ask of your subject matter experts. It requires planning and a full knowledge of desired outcomes. Conceptual understanding, as Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe point out in Understanding by Design (2000), is a complex process that requires educators and curriculum writers to determine what must be understood, and what questions lead to that understanding.

Solid conceptual understanding must be accompanied by authentic assessment. In other words, what does understanding look like when it is attained? What measurable or observable behaviors indicate understanding? Once these are determined, authentic assessments can be developed. Authentic assessments tend to be based in practice and demonstrate the new understanding. For example, an authentic assessment for a training on a new Electronic Medical Record system might be specific documentation of patient care within a practice or staging version of the software. Once your assessments are designed it is easier to design your learning events geared towards your end result; that which you will assess.

The analysis phase of ADDIE system design is the perfect time to uncover your essential understandings and authentic assessments. This will enable you to move into developing the learning events that will lead to deeper understanding.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2000). Understanding by design study guide. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.