Aligning Design with Recognized Standards: Turning Three Shots into Two

Written by Dr. Toni Dimella

In the world of instructional design, particularly in client-driven environments, it’s easy to feel the pressure of output over outcome. But if our goal is true learner growth, we must remember the fundamental principle that applies to world-class athletes and educators: quality over quantity. As legendary golfer Bobby Jones once said, “The secret of golf is to turn three shots into two.” The same principle applies to effective training: well-designed, focused instruction can reduce learner friction and improve outcomes. Let’s explore how aligning training design with recognized quality standards can help shift the focus from churn to craftsmanship.

Designing for How the Brain Learns

Instructional design is rooted in cognitive science. Our brains are natural pattern-recognition engines that rely on mental shortcuts, known as heuristics like availability, anchoring, and representativeness, not as flaws, but as built-in efficiency tools. Understanding these mental processes is essential for any designer aiming to deliver content that sticks. Instructional designers aren’t content producers. They’re learning architects. Translators of chaos into clarity. Your job is not just to “build a course” but to guide the learner up the mountain of understanding with the lightest possible load. Standards aren’t checklists. They’re trail maps.

Training Design Quality

When it comes to instructional design, many training teams are tasked with building efficient, digestible learning experiences, but efficiency isn’t always effective. Especially in skill-based domains like healthcare, technology, sales, or even sports, aligning training design with recognized quality standards is not only best practice but also the only way to ensure training works.

As instructional designers, curriculum developers, and learning professionals, we are not content creators but environment shapers. Our job isn’t simply to deliver knowledge; it’s to set the conditions for growth, and true growth requires standards.

Why Standards Matter

In golf, it’s easy to think you know where your game stands—until you gather data. That was the lesson from a master’s class at the Keiser University College of Golf this week, when our professor shared a story that revealed a key flaw in even elite-level self-assessment.

He told us about a season during which he meticulously tracked his performance. As a seasoned professional, he assumed his weakness was ball striking. However, when he examined the data—carefully recorded fairways, greens, putts, up-and-downs, and penalties—it turned out his ball striking was among the best in his peer group. The short game, which he believed to be an area in which he excelled, was the issue.

His takeaway: even experts are subject to cognitive bias. The only safeguard is comparison against a reliable benchmark.

In training design, recognized quality standards like Bloom’s Taxonomy, Merrill’s First Principles, Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model, and the standards from the Association for Talent Development (ATD) serve as these benchmarks. Without them, we risk anchoring to our assumptions rather than what the learner actually needs.

From Trainer to Translator

This is why it’s so necessary for instructional designers to ground their process in standards. We are not simply pushing content—we are translating goals into growth. Whether we’re developing for onboarding, compliance, leadership development, or technical training, our job is to bridge the gap between what’s known and what’s needed.

The shift from trainer to translator begins with alignment:

• Needs Analysis: Do our learning objectives match the business needs?
• Outcome Mapping: Are we tracking the right metrics and using the right level of assessment?
• Iterative Feedback: Are we learning from learners?

A training module can look polished and pass all the visual design checks. However, if the outcomes aren’t clear, the application isn’t measurable, and the learner wasn’t challenged, then it’s not quality training—it’s just a PowerPoint with narration.

Collaborative Learning and the Necessity of Struggle

The Brazilian educator and philosopher Paulo Freire argued that “the teacher and the taught together create the teaching” (Freire, 1968). This idea has never been more relevant than now, in an educational climate defined by rapid technological evolution, diverse learner profiles, and a growing awareness of how humans learn.

The future of learning is collaborative, dynamic, and rooted in personalization and resilience. As AI tools, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and culturally responsive pedagogies reshape modern education, it becomes even more critical to remember this: the foundation of effective instruction is built on meaningful struggle.

In both academic and athletic settings, learning cannot occur without difficulty. This is not merely a romantic notion of perseverance, but a scientifically grounded principle of cognitive development.

Freire’s participatory education model speaks directly to modern instruction’s challenges, particularly in skill-based environments like golf. Instructors must shift from transmitters of knowledge to facilitators of discovery. This is where difficulty plays its most transformative role. When struggle is embraced—not avoided—it creates space for autonomy, resilience, and ownership.

As educators adopt more inclusive frameworks like UDL and tools powered by AI to accommodate diverse learning styles (Honey & Mumford, 1992; Fleming, 2006), the goal should not be to eliminate difficulty, but to guide learners through it. Difficulty is not the enemy of engagement—it is its engine.

The Neuroscience of Difficulty and Learning

Modern cognitive science has made one thing clear: learning happens when the brain is stretched (Brown et al., 2014). Retrieving information, applying it under pressure, and receiving feedback builds durable skill. Struggle, when scaffolded appropriately, increases neural pathways and strengthens long-term retention (Bjork & Bjork, 2011).

In other words, desirable difficulties lead to stronger, more adaptable learners. In golf, this may look like resisting the urge to overcorrect a student after one failed swing and instead allowing a period of trial and error.

Our professor, Brad Turner, illustrated this perfectly during class: “Give the player five swings. Let them try. Let them screw it up. Then guide.” This isn’t just pedagogical wisdom—it’s psychological truth. As Turner noted, the coach must evolve alongside the player, moving from director to facilitator. The great instructors understand this. The ones who fail often chase quick fixes or overcoach, stripping students of their internal feedback mechanisms.

The Real Standard is Growth

Whether on the course or in the classroom, aligning training design with quality standards isn’t just about frameworks—it’s about accountability. The best instructional designers don’t avoid difficulty. They build for it.

Because learning doesn’t happen when you make things easy, it happens when you make them matter.

Author Bio
Steven Bradley is a contract copyeditor with eLearningDOC and a master’s candidate in Golf Teaching & Learning at Keiser University. A former journalist, he now focuses on building educational tools and content systems that support long-term skill development. He also teaches golf and believes learning is more about guidance than control.

References

Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society, 56–64.

Brown, P. C., Roediger III, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Belknap Press.

Fleming, N. D. (2006). VARK: A guide to learning styles. Retrieved from http://vark-learn.com

Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Herder and Herder.

Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles. Peter Honey Publications.