Our instructional designers have been developing education and training programs for more years than they may like to admit, and in a wide variety of media and subject matter. How many of us go back to the days when self-paced, individualized, competency-based training programs were delivered on that new technological marvel known as the slide-tape (pulsed with Wollensak)? Or how about that new invention in the late 70’s known as videotape? Wow! And you thought the computer changed our world.

While technologies and media have significantly changed over the years, the learning theories put forth by researchers, educators, and visionaries have remained as cornerstones for designing and developing good instruction. And there are a few of them with which most of us are familiar, like Robert Mager, Donald Kirkpatrick, Robert Gagne, Malcolm Knowles, Benjamin Bloom, Edgar Dale, and Jack Phillips. There are many others, of course, that pre- and post-date these authors, such as Confucian philosophies of the differences between adult and child learning, but we don’t go back quite that far.

As a customized instructional design house, our primary objective is to customize solutions that achieve your goals. For us, this is not just customizing your deliverables, but also customizing the process and approach to meet your needs. For example, you’ll notice in our Development Processes section that we use the words “typically” and “usually” a lot. This is because our clients are from different ends of the spectrum (and everything in between). Some clients are large, multinational corporations with training departments who’ve been around for a while, and have processes, methods, and templates of their own within which we work. Other clients have never done this before and look solely to us to implement the process and approach to fit their needs. The same is true, we believe, with applying a specific learning theory or evaluation strategy. One size doesn’t fit all. For instance:

	Mager presents all sound principles in “Ways to Ignite Interest in Learning” to “Making Instruction Work,” but we don’t always apply all of Mager’s steps in development, like developing skill hierarchies and criterion-referenced tests before beginning design…unless it is appropriate to the course design.
	We understand Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains, but don’t necessarily organize lessons according to those domains just because we can (as we’ve seen in some curriculum designs).
	Where appropriate, we understand application of Gagne’s nine learning events to each program and Knowles’ four principles of andragogy for adult learning to designing engaging, instructionally sound programs that may be scenario-based and highly interactive with elements such as demonstrations, practice, feedback, and evaluation.
	And, we understand the value of program evaluation, whether it’s Kirkpatrick’s 4 levels or Phillips’ 5 levels; but we also understand that your organization may use none of these, or at least not at all levels.

No, we’re not a “cookie cutter” manufacturer with our one-size 10-step approach, but do understand, respect, and apply these sciences of learning to craft solutions that work for you.