Consistency in Instructional Content

#UnpopularPosition post no. 151: Instructor guides should be more than a list of bullet points. The less you have in your instructor guide, the more random the training becomes. Without detail, instructor prompts, activity description, role-play boundaries, etc., you are creating a situation where instructors have to speak between the lines and make it up as they go. This creates inconsistency between instructors, between iterations of courses, and reduces accountability for everyone. Instructor guides should contain everything that a participant needs to know in order to perform the task being trained to a level of acceptable competency. The instructor guide isn't a script, but a new instructor should be able to pick it up, read it, and know exactly what they will be delivering. Instructor experience is used for context in training, instead of becoming the content itself. Which is exactly what happens when an instructor guide doesn't provide content - training delivery becomes war stories and instructor perception, instead of objective steps to task performance. The instructor guide should be exceptionally detailed, so an inexperienced instructor can accomplish the same results that an experienced instructor could expect. Activities need to have explanations, expectations, timing, prompts, and goals stated. Role-play activities need to be scripted, boundaries set, role-player cards created, expectations, and goals. There should be prompts for discussions, expectations, and the purpose of the discussions, as well as prompts to encourage conversation. There should be tactics and prompts for when to share anecdotes to use the instructor's experience to illustrate points being made. I see way too many instructor guides that are, at worst, a list of bullet points, at best, a list of bullet points with a small paragraph of topic. The less content you have in an instructor guide, the more it is dependent on the subjective experience of the instructor. And, the less you can hold employees responsible for their performance. As #InstructionalDesigners, we need to make sure that instructors have EVERYTHING. Instructor guides should be like the teachers edition of a textbook. Anything less requires tribal knowledge and creates succession issues when instructors leave. #LearningAndDevelopment is more than just building training, it is documenting institutional knowledge and institutional history of systems and processes. Without these two things, training always will be reactionary and L&D will never become the performance consulting organization it should be. #InstructionalDesign #TrainingDevelopment #PoliceTraining #LearningStrategy

We often resist standardization in course design, fearing it strips away academic freedom. But students don’t experience freedom; they experience friction. Every course that looks and functions differently adds unnecessary cognitive load. New systems. New rules. New expectations. Every term. Consistency doesn’t mean uniformity of thought. It means predictability of experience. A consistent course layout. Clear instructions. Transparent grading. When the course format is familiar, students can focus on learning, not on figuring out how to learn.

This semester, my son's enthusiasm for swimming lessons took a nosedive. His reason? Despite diligent practice, he felt stuck, unable to progress to a higher level. Curious and concerned, I started attending his classes and soon discovered a significant flaw in the system: inconsistent coaching. Each lesson presented a new coach, each with their unique set of standards and expectations. This carousel of instructors led to a confusing and counterproductive learning environment. One week, the focus was on perfecting his front stroke; we diligently practiced, only to be told the next week that his backstroke was the issue preventing his advancement. This constant shift in focus and feedback left us both bewildered. This experience isn't just about swimming; it reflects a deeper, systemic issue in education. The lack of consistency in coaching styles and standards is a detriment to learning and progress. It's akin to building a house on a shaky foundation - the efforts are there, but the results are unstable and unpredictable. For children, this inconsistency can be particularly demoralizing. It sends mixed messages, dampens their enthusiasm, and hinders their confidence. For parents, it's equally frustrating, as we see our children's potential and effort not receiving the structured guidance they deserve. The solution lies in standardizing coaching methods and maintaining a consistent coaching staff. This would ensure a stable learning environment, where children can build on their skills progressively and with clarity. As parents and educators, we must advocate for such changes. It's crucial for sports academies and educational institutions to recognize the importance of consistency in coaching for effective learning. This situation serves as a reminder that in education, whether in sports or academics, consistency is not just beneficial – it's essential. Let's strive for a system that supports and nurtures our children's growth, providing them with a clear and steady path to success.