As we near the summit of our countdown of the biggest lies in Learning & Development, we arrive at #3—the dangerous confusion of methodological orthodoxy with actual effectiveness.
“We can’t do that—it’s not instructionally sound!”
I love instructional designers. They bring rigor, structure, and evidence-based thinking to learning design. But sometimes, the pursuit of instructional purity becomes the enemy of practical effectiveness.
The lie isn’t that instructional soundness doesn’t matter. It’s the belief that adherence to established instructional design models automatically equals effective learning. It’s the confusion of process orthodoxy with outcome excellence.
The Instructional Design Orthodoxy
The field of instructional design has developed sophisticated models and frameworks over decades: ADDIE, SAM, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction, Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels, and countless others.1 These frameworks provide valuable structure and evidence-based principles.
The problem arises when these models become rigid doctrines rather than flexible tools. When “instructionally sound” becomes code for “follows the approved methodology,” regardless of whether it actually helps people learn or perform better.
This orthodoxy manifests in several ways:
- Rejecting simple solutions because they don’t follow complex models
- Prioritizing methodological purity over learner outcomes
- Treating instructional design frameworks as immutable laws rather than guidelines
- Confusing academic rigor with practical effectiveness
The Youtube Problem
Consider this uncomfortable reality: millions of people successfully learn complex skills from YouTube videos that would make instructional designers cringe. These videos often lack:
- Formal learning objectives
- Systematic needs analysis
- Structured evaluation methods
- Progressive skill building
- Assessment mechanisms
Yet somehow, people successfully learn to:
- Repair car engines
- Play musical instruments
- Master software applications
- Cook gourmet meals
- Perform complex mathematical calculations
My chainsaw works fine, my pool is crystal clear, and I learned both skills from YouTube videos that an instructional designer might critique as “unsound.” Meanwhile, I’ve sat through many “instructionally sound” corporate training programs that were immediately forgettable.
The Research Reality Check
The evidence suggests that instructional design orthodoxy doesn’t always correlate with effectiveness:
- A meta-analysis published in Educational Technology Research and Development found that informal learning approaches often produce better retention and transfer than formally designed instruction.2
- Research from MIT found that peer-to-peer learning, which rarely follows formal instructional design models, can be more effective than expert-designed curricula for certain types of skills.3
- Studies of online learning platforms show that user-generated content often receives higher engagement and satisfaction ratings than professionally designed courses.4
- The Corporate Executive Board found that 70% of successful workplace learning happens through informal channels that would fail most instructional design rubrics.5
This doesn’t mean instructional design principles are worthless. It means they’re tools, not laws.
When “Instructionally Sound” Becomes Destructive
The obsession with methodological purity can actively harm learning in several ways:
- It Slows Response Time: Business needs change rapidly. By the time an “instructionally sound” solution goes through full analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation, the problem may have evolved or disappeared entirely. Sometimes a quick-and-dirty solution that addresses 80% of the need immediately is better than a perfectly designed solution that arrives six months late.
- It Increases Costs Unnecessarily: Not every learning challenge requires a comprehensive instructional design approach. Sometimes a simple job aid, a short video, or a peer mentoring conversation is more cost-effective than a full-scale training program.
- It Prioritizes Process Over Outcomes: When adherence to methodology becomes more important than learner results, we’ve lost sight of our purpose. The goal isn’t to create instructionally pure experiences—it’s to help people perform better.
- It Stifles Innovation: Strict adherence to established models discourages experimentation with new approaches that might be more effective but don’t fit traditional frameworks.
The False Dichotomy
The “instructionally sound” orthodoxy creates a false choice between rigorous methodology and practical effectiveness. It suggests that learning solutions must either follow established models perfectly or be dismissed as unprofessional.
This dichotomy ignores the reality that effectiveness depends on context:
- Audience: What works for experienced professionals may not work for novices, and vice versa
- Content: Technical skills might require different approaches than behavioral change
- Environment: Workplace learning operates under different constraints than academic learning
- Urgency: Crisis situations may require different solutions than long-term development
- Resources: Available time, budget, and expertise affect what’s possible
A More Nuanced Approach
Instead of rigid adherence to instructional orthodoxy, consider these principles:
- Start with Outcomes, Not Process
Ask “What needs to change?” before “Which model should we use?” The methodology should serve the outcome, not the other way around. - Match Rigor to Risk
High-stakes learning (surgical procedures, safety protocols) may justify extensive instructional design. Teaching someone to use a new software feature probably doesn’t. - Embrace “Good Enough”
Sometimes a quick, imperfect solution that helps people immediately is better than a perfect solution that takes months to develop. - Test Early and Often
Rather than designing the perfect program upfront, create rapid prototypes and test them with real learners. Let evidence, not theory, guide your decisions. - Learn from “Unsound” Success
When informal learning works well, study why. What principles can you extract and apply to more formal programs?
Case Study: When “Unsound” Beats “Sound”
A software company needed to train their sales team on a new product feature launching in two weeks. The instructional design team proposed a comprehensive approach:
- Formal needs analysis (3 weeks)
- Systematic curriculum design (4 weeks)
- Professional content development (6 weeks)
- Pilot testing and refinement (2 weeks)
Timeline: 15 weeks. The product would launch without trained salespeople.
Instead, they tried an “instructionally unsound” approach:
- The product manager recorded 10-minute video explaining the feature
- Early adopter sales reps shared their experiences in short clips
- A simple FAQ document addressed common questions
- Weekly 30-minute Q&A sessions allowed ongoing problem-solving
Result: The sales team started selling the new feature immediately. Revenue from the new feature exceeded projections by 23% in the first quarter.6
Was this approach instructionally sound? Probably not by traditional standards. Was it effective? Absolutely.
The User-Generated Content Phenomenon
One of the most powerful challenges to instructional design orthodoxy is the success of user-generated learning content. Platforms like Stack Overflow, Reddit, and specialized forums consistently outperform professionally designed training for many topics.
Why? Because user-generated content often provides:
- Real-world context and examples
- Solutions to actual problems people face
- Multiple perspectives and approaches
- Just-in-time availability
- Peer validation and discussion
None of this follows traditional instructional design models, yet it’s often more effective than formal training.
What This Means For You
If you’re an instructional designer:
- Question your assumptions: Is this model necessary, or is it just familiar?
- Focus on evidence: What works for your specific audience and context, regardless of what the textbooks say?
- Embrace experimentation: Try approaches that might not be “sound” but could be effective.
- Speed matters: Sometimes fast and helpful beats slow and perfect.
If you’re a business leader:
- Don’t be impressed by methodology name-dropping: Judge solutions by results, not by how many instructional design models they reference.
- Consider informal alternatives: Before commissioning formal training, explore whether simpler solutions might work.
- Value speed: In rapidly changing business environments, timing often matters more than methodological purity.
- Encourage experimentation: Create space for learning approaches that might not fit traditional models.
The Real Test
Here’s the question that matters more than instructional soundness: Does it help people perform better?
If the answer is yes, then methodological purity is secondary. If the answer is no, then no amount of instructional rigor will save it.
The best instructional designers I know treat models and frameworks as tools in a toolkit, not as sacred texts. They understand that different situations require different approaches, and that effectiveness trumps orthodoxy.
Looking Forward
The future of workplace learning belongs to those who can balance rigor with agility, who can apply instructional design principles without being enslaved by them, and who understand that “instructionally sound” is meaningless if it doesn’t translate to real-world performance improvement.
In our penultimate installment, we’ll explore Lie #2: “We should adhere to the 70-20-10 model”—another comfortable framework that’s treated as gospel despite questionable foundations. Until then, take a hard look at your learning initiatives and ask whether they’re instructionally sound or just instructionally orthodox.
Click here to follow Josh on LinkedIn:
Josh LeFebvre on LinkedInJosh is the founder of Kay/Allison - a firm solving corporate learning and talent development challenges. He provides strategic advisory, interim/fractional leadership, and complex project management services in the learning and development field. His 25 years of experience has demonstrated a focus on business impact and clarity punctuated by thoughtful analysis and plain-spoken recommendations. He is a long standing collaborator with Smartfirm and can be reached through our team or directly at josh@kayandallison.com.
The opinions expressed in this article are Josh’s and do not necessarily reflect the official views or positions of Smartfirm. This content is provided for informational purposes only.
References
[1] Clark, R. C. (2008). Building Expertise: Cognitive Methods for Training and Performance Improvement. Pfeiffer.
[2] Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 25-34.
[3] Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Prentice Hall.
[4] Coursera. (2019). Global Skills Index 2019. Coursera Inc.
[5] Corporate Executive Board. (2006). Driving Employee Performance and Retention Through Engagement. CEB, Inc.
[6] This case study is a composite based on several real-world examples, with identifying details removed
