AP Learning

In this article, I’d like to highlight some common pitfalls people often fall into when building a learning environment.

Pitfall 1: Losing Sight of the Goal (What vs. How)

Just like a house needs a strong foundation, a learning program also needs a solid base: robust analysis. If the research is weak, whatever you build on top will end up shaky.

One of the biggest traps is starting off with only a shallow analysis of the problem. If the foundation is weak, the goals will also be weak.

A classic example in corporate training is when insufficient research leads to a poor understanding of the current situation. The result? Vague goals like, “Well, let’s just put together a leadership program so they understand it better.” But goals like this are often not measurable. You might get the feeling that something has improved, but that’s about it.

As a result, objectives often remain stuck at the knowledge level—such as “understanding X” or “knowing Y.” Even after the training, behavior in the workplace doesn’t change, and that means no real business impact.

Instructional Design (ID) to the Rescue

From an ID perspective, the aim is to set performance-based objectives. During the research phase, you connect learners’ current skill levels with the specific actions the organization expects after training.

Take the leadership training example again. Suppose the research shows: “Learners already have enough leadership knowledge, but they aren’t applying it on the job. Some even say they don’t know how to put it into practice.”

In this case, the goal could be reframed as: “Enable learners to apply their knowledge in real situations.” That goal then points you toward practical training methods, such as case studies or role-plays, instead of just abstract discussions.

To make this happen, the research phase has to clearly capture the current state and gather the right information. The goal should always be defined as a measurable post-training behavior: “What specific actions will learners be able to perform at work once they’ve reached the target level?” Once this is nailed down, the real value of the training becomes clear.

Summary

In this article, we looked at one common pitfall: “losing sight of the goal” caused by weak research—the very foundation of instructional design.

When setting objectives, it’s essential to ground them in solid research: Is the target simply knowledge-level (What), such as “understanding” or “knowing”? Or should it go deeper, down to specific, measurable actions (How) that learners can perform after training? Without that clarity, training risks becoming a cost with no return, rather than an investment with impact.

Avoiding this pitfall at the research stage is the first step to turning your training from a cost into an investment.

Now, I just need to decide which ID pitfall to cover next 🙂

【For Corporate Training & ID Solutions, connect with us below.↓↓↓】

→ [Contact Us]

→ [Free Consultation Request Form]