Working again in this course with Design Thinking (d.Design, 2016) to produce a learning resource, reaffirmed the assessment I made at the end of LRNT 524 that Design Thinking in training and development needs to be incorporated within an ISD process.

This is because in proficiency-based training environments, such as regulatory or compliance training, the focus is primarily in addressing job tasks and training those to proficiency. Of course, an improved experience using empathic and innovative approaches contributes to enhanced learning. Wallace (2018) suggests that performance thinking using ISD models precedes Design Thinking and defines performance competency as the ability to perform tasks to produce outputs to stakeholder requirements. Notwithstanding, learner experience is also an important factor to take into consideration in the design process where a design thinking process would more appropriate to use. As Wallace (2018) suggests, the more the designer knows about all the aspects that contribute to performance during the Analysis and Design phases, including how to exercise empathy to the learner, the better the designer would capture performance competence requirements. The author concludes that Design Thinking and Analysis Thinking work synergistically, not competitively, and they are both subsets of Systems Thinking. This was also the case in LRNT 527 in which I chose to enhance learning experience using pre-existing material developed based on an ISD methodology. Design Thinking made me think of better delivery methods and support mechanisms to help to learn stick.

One of the key issues I identified in this program, which for me constitutes and backward and unfair approach towards the projects my team member and I sought to evaluate,  was that we had to come up with a rubric/framework to evaluate another team’s DLR. Shouldn’t the rubric be known to the developers prior to designing and developing their DLR to help them set themselves to success? Any thoughts would be appreciated.


Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). A Virtual Crash Course in Design Thinking — Stanford [Website]. Retrieved from

Wallace, D. (2018, December 11). L&D: I don’t want Design Thinking…until after performance thinking [Blog post]. It is a means to an end. Or…ends. Retrieved from

Wallace, D. (2018, December 11). L&D: Performance thinking needs to be at the forefront of Design Thinking. It’s all about performance [Blog post]. Retrieved from