Blended Learning Models

Accessibility alone does not equal inclusion. We often use the two words like they mean the same thing. Spoiler alert: they don’t. Accessibility is the starting point. Inclusion is the follow-through. Accessibility is having captions. Inclusion is making sure they’re accurate and meaningful. Accessibility is providing a ramp. Inclusion is making sure the event space is easy to navigate and everyone feels welcome once inside. Accessibility is offering a quiet room. Inclusion is making sure people don’t feel judged for using it. Accessibility is creating accessible documents for the meeting. Inclusion is giving disabled people time to read them in advance and contribute meaningfully. Accessibility is planning breaks into your agenda. Inclusion is following the agenda. It’s not enough to tick a box. We need to think beyond compliance and ask – does this actually include people? Because access alone isn’t the goal, it’s the bare minimum. The goal is making people feel like they’re included and that they belong. ID: a purple Robbie Crow reading “Accessibility gets you in the door. Inclusion makes you feel like you belong. Being invited is one thing, being included is another.” My name and a QR code to my profile are in the bottom right-hand corner. #DisabilityInclusion #Disability #DisabilityEmployment #Adjustments #DiversityAndInclusion #Content

*** 🚨 Discussion Piece 🚨 *** Is it Time to Move Beyond Kirkpatrick & Phillips for Measuring L&D Effectiveness? Did you know organisations spend billions on Learning & Development (L&D), yet only 10%-40% of that investment actually translates into lasting behavioral change? (Kirwan, 2024) As Brinkerhoff vividly puts it, "training today yields about an ounce of value for every pound of resources invested." 1️⃣ Limitations of Popular Models: Kirkpatrick's four-level evaluation and Phillips' ROI approach are widely used, but both neglect critical factors like learner motivation, workplace support, and learning transfer conditions. 2️⃣ Importance of Formative Evaluation: Evaluating the learning environment, individual motivations, and training design helps to significantly improve L&D outcomes, rather than simply measuring after-the-fact results. 3️⃣ A Comprehensive Evaluation Model: Kirwan proposes a holistic "learning effectiveness audit," which integrates inputs, workplace factors, and measurable outcomes, including Return on Expectations (ROE), for more practical insights. Why This Matters: Relying exclusively on traditional, outcome-focused evaluation methods may give a false sense of achievement, missing out on opportunities for meaningful improvement. Adopting a balanced, formative-summative approach could ensure that billions invested in L&D truly drive organisational success. Is your organisation still relying solely on Kirkpatrick or Phillips—or are you ready to evolve your L&D evaluation strategy?

Neurodiversity and UX (https://lnkd.in/emrD2Amc), with practical guidelines, tools and resources to understand and design for dyslexia, dyscalculia, autism and ADHD. Kindly put together by Stéphanie Walter. In the design process, neurodivergent needs often gets overlooked. It’s often seen as an exception to the rule, an outlier, an edge case — and as such, considered separately, usually late, and typically only if there is enough time. After all, it doesn’t fit common user journeys and flows for our products or services. But people aren’t edge cases. Every person is just a different person. We all might have similar tasks and fit in the same user journey maps, but we might perform these tasks very differently — and over time, we meticulously adjust those journeys to be more efficient, or more error-prone. As a designer, I often see myself as a path-maker. I’m designing reliable paths for people to navigate to their goals comfortably. Without being blocked. Or confused. Or locked out. That means respecting the simple fact that people’s needs, tasks and user journeys are all different, and that they evolve over time. And: most importantly, it means considering them very early in the process. Better accessibility is better for everyone. Instead of making decisions that need to be reverted or refined to be compliant, we can bring a diverse group of people — with accessibility needs, with neurodiversity, frequent and infrequent users, experts, newcomers — in the process, and design with them, rather than for them. ✤ Accessibility and Neurodivergence I've been putting together a few summaries and resources about inclusive design, so you might find them helpful: ADHD: https://lnkd.in/eUk5PyQs Alzheimer: https://lnkd.in/evHj7jZ9 Autism: https://lnkd.in/eHqG4VhU Children: https://lnkd.in/emYzXPZm Colorblindness: https://lnkd.in/eqjvPgSZ Deafness: https://lnkd.in/epeRUMmc Dementia: https://lnkd.in/ewWj4Dpw Dyscalculia: https://lnkd.in/e8wyMWp4 Dyslexia: https://lnkd.in/ei9mncR7 Legibility: https://lnkd.in/eEarXzD8 Left-Handed Users: https://lnkd.in/eWyzRdy5 Mental Health: https://lnkd.in/eEaXjs9x Older Adults: https://lnkd.in/e54f2FT2 Screen readers: https://lnkd.in/eaviMFkf Stress: https://lnkd.in/ew_65Km4 Teenagers: https://lnkd.in/et3XbUTJ Trauma: https://lnkd.in/eVfS-meA 🍱 Neurodiversity Design System, by Will Soward https://lnkd.in/edBzmUT8 And a HUGE thank-you to everyone who has been writing, speaking and sharing articles, resources and toolkits on neurodiversity. The topic is often forgotten and overlooked, but has an incredible impact and to some people makes a world of a difference. 👏🏼👏🏽👏🏾 #ux #design

Many teams believe they’re being inclusive when they say, “We kept accessibility in mind from the start." But good intentions aren’t the same as meaningful inclusion. I’ve been doing accessibility and inclusive design work for 25 years. Over the last decade, I’ve focused more deeply on what true disability inclusion really means—especially when it comes to power in the design relationship. Again and again, I’ve seen the same pattern: there are levels to inclusion. And only one of them truly shifts power. Here’s how that journey tends to unfold... ranked from least to most inclusive: Level 1: “We kept accessibility in mind.” You didn’t include disabled people. You included the idea of them. This is empathy without participation, and honestly... it’s not enough. Level 2: “We tested with disabled people just before launch.” There’s progress here—real people were involved. But testing at the end only lets you ask: “Do you accept what we built?” It’s too late for meaningful change. This is just late-stage validation. Level 3: “We tested early AND at the end.” Now there’s room for impact. People with disabilities had a chance to shape the work before it was finished. Their feedback could actually change the outcome—and that matters. Level 4: “We included disabled people throughout the process.” Even better. You've moved from on from a "testing" mindset. You brought people in during idea generation, design, development, and launch. You did research. You listened. You adjusted. That’s inclusion in action. Level 5: “We co-created the solution.” ✅ This is the gold standard. You didn’t just include people—you gave them power. They helped shape the goals, question the methods, and guide the direction. It wasn’t just "your" product. It was "ours" -- co-created together. Your greatest power is to give that power away. Inclusive design means shared decisions—not just shared feedback. If you’re not sure where to start, ask yourself: 👉 Where in our process do disabled people have the power to shape what we build? And if the answer is “nowhere”—it’s time to change that. #InclusiveDesign #Accessibility #DesignLeadership #CoCreation #DisabilityInclusion #UXDesign #ProductDesign

Why inclusion and universal design need to come together We often hear organisations talk about diversity and inclusion. Yet inclusion alone isn’t enough if the systems we work within were never designed with difference in mind. A review by Shore and colleagues (2018) (https://lnkd.in/e6vjNAXM) looked at what makes workplaces truly inclusive. They emphasised fairness, authenticity, and equal access to opportunities. Their model shows that inclusion is not just about who is in the workforce, but whether everyone feels respected, valued, and able to participate fully. But here’s the challenge: many workplace practices are retrofits. Adjustments are made once someone discloses a need or points out a barrier. That can work but it’s often costly, time-consuming, and can unintentionally stigmatise the individual. This is where Universal Design (UD) comes in. Instead of waiting to respond, UD builds accessibility, flexibility, and usability into everyday business-as-usual. It reduces the number of case-by-case “fixes” by planning for variation from the outset. For example: Providing captions and transcripts in training as standard helps Deaf staff, those learning English, and anyone re-watching on mute. Clear communication, step-by-step checklists, and structured task tools reduce overload not only for neurodivergent employees but for everyone. Designing sensory-friendly workspaces supports those with sensory sensitivities—and also improves focus and wellbeing for the whole team. So how do the two approaches differ and align? Inclusion models focus on culture: creating fairness, authenticity, and psychological safety. Universal Design focuses on structures: embedding accessibility and flexibility into systems, tools, and environments. Bringing them together means leaders shape workplaces that are both fair and functional, inclusive and accessible. For employers, this isn’t just the right thing to do it’s efficient. Many UD approaches are low or no cost, but they reduce duplication, improve resilience, and make personalised support less stigmatising. 👉 Take away.... Inclusive practices creates the right mindset; Universal Design creates the mechanisms. Together, they help us move from patching barriers to preventing them.

The ultimate guide to creating transformational workshop experiences (Even if you're not a natural facilitator) Ever had that gut-punch moment after a workshop where you just know it didn’t land? I’ve been there. Back then, I thought great workshops were all about cramming in as much content as possible. You know what I mean: - Slides with inspirational quotes. - The theory behind the frameworks. - More activities than a summer camp schedule… Subconsciously I believed that: The more I shared, the more people would see me as an expert. The more I shared, the more valuable the workshop. And participants would surely walk away transformed. Spoiler: they didn’t. They were hit-and-miss. But then on a leadership retreat in 2016, I stumbled onto something that changed everything. Something so obvious it's almost easy to miss. But when you intentionally use them, it took my workshops from "meh" to "mind-blowing": Three simple principles: 1️⃣ Context-based Learning People don't show up as blank slates. They bring their own experiences, challenges, and goals. When I started anchoring my content in their reality, things clicked. Suddenly, what I was sharing felt relevant and useful — like I was talking with them instead of at them. 2️⃣ Experiential Learning Turns out, people don’t learn by being told. They learn by doing (duh). When I shifted to creating experiences, the room came alive. And participants actually remembered what they’d learned. Experiences like roleplays, discussions, real-world scenarios, the odd game... 3️⃣ Evocative Facilitation This one was a game-changer. The best workshops aren’t just informative — they’re emotional. The experiences we run spark thoughts and reactions. And it's our job to ask powerful questions to invite reflection. Guiding participants to their own "aha!" moments to use in the real world. (yup, workshops aren't the real world) ... When I started being intentional with these three principles, something clicked. Participants started coming up to me after sessions, saying things like: "That’s exactly what I needed." "I feel like you were speaking directly to me." "I’ve never felt so seen in a workshop before." And best of all? Those workshops led to repeat bookings, referrals, and clients who couldn’t wait to work with me again. Is this the missing piece to your expertise? - If so, design experiences around context. •Facilitate experiences that evoke reactions •Unpack reactions to land the learning ♻️ Share if you found this useful ✍️ Do you use any principles to design your workshops?

I’ve been posting this week about #ExperientialLearningTheory and how we need to integrate the 4 modes of the cycle: ❣️ EXPERIENCING  👀 REFLECTING  🧠 THINKING  🖐 ACTING    But what if you don’t have time to create 4 distinct activities for each area? The good news is that the debrief and reflection after an experience is essential to activate full cycle learning! As John Dewey said, “'We do not learn from experience... we learn from reflecting on experience.” 💪   The debrief of any experience is key to maximizing learning… when done right. I like to refer to  ✨ The Four F’s of Active Reviewing✨ by Roger Greenaway to structure my debriefs along the #experientiallearning cycle:   ❣️ FEELINGS: emotional reactions to the experience. Example Qs: ❣️How did that feel for you?  ❣️How are you feeling now in one word? ❣️What are some emotions you experienced?    👀  FACTS: Objective observations about what happened. Example Qs: 👀 What happened that caused you to feel that way?  👀 What did you notice or observe? 👀 What struck you?   🧠  FINDINGS: Concrete learning that you can take away from the situation. Example Qs: 🧠 What are you taking away from this?  🧠 Why do you think we did this activity?  🧠 What have you learned here that can help you in your daily life?   🖐 FUTURE: A structured next step / application for how to use your learning in the future. Example Qs: 🖐 How will you use and apply what you learned here?  🖐 What is a challenge or action step you want to set for yourself? 🖐 What change will you commit to moving forward?   Note: I have intentionally switched the original order of Facts and Feelings as I noticed many learners have a hard time starting with objective observations instead of their subjective feelings. I even got Roger Greenaway’s approval to change the order according to the #ExperientialLearningCycle and the way our brains think! 🤔 What questions might you like to ask in your next debrief? Let me know in the comments below 👇 #ExperienceLearningwithRomy

An innovative approach to teaching economics that puts student learning first! As an economics educator, I've redesigned my ECO 100-semester project to embrace Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles, offering students multiple pathways to demonstrate their understanding of macroeconomics. I was encouraged by Jeni Al Bahrani and her summer project on UDL as part of her doctorate degree to bring back this project. Students can choose from three engaging options: * Create a physical art piece interpreting economic concepts through visual expression * Compile an "EconSelfie" diary connecting real-world observations to classroom theories * Write a critical book review analyzing contemporary economic literature. This semester’s choices were Kyla Scanlon’s “In this Economy?” or Scott Galloway‘ “Algebra of Wealth”. This flexible approach: * Accommodates different interests * Empowers student choice and engagement * Maintains academic rigor while fostering creativity * Makes economics accessible and relevant to everyday life The results? Students are more engaged, demonstrate deeper understanding, and develop unique perspectives on economic principles. Seeing how different creative approaches can unlock complex economic concepts is amazing! I'm particularly proud of how this project breaks down barriers in economics education while maintaining high academic standards. Each option requires critical thinking and authentic application of course concepts. I am appreciate the innovative business education environment we have created at NKU Haile College of Business What innovative teaching methods have you implemented in your classroom? Let's share best practices! You can read more about my research in this area in my newsletter. Link in comments. #TeachEcon #UniversalDesign #HigherEducation #TeachingInnovation #StudentSuccess #UDL #EconomicLiteracy

Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction was revolutionary in its time. But that time was nearly 80 years ago. It was built for military training—linear, rigid, objective-driven. It assumes the designer controls everything, the learner starts from zero, and outcomes are best achieved by following a prescribed sequence. That’s not how learning works anymore. Modern learners are rarely blank slates. They come with prior knowledge, personal context, and the ability to access what they need on demand. They’re not sitting passively, waiting for content to be “presented.” They’re navigating ambiguity, asking questions, collaborating, and applying knowledge in complex, unpredictable environments. That’s why I’ve moved away from traditional instructional design models like Gagné—and toward frameworks that reflect how people actually learn. I draw from Learning Experience Design (LXD), which blends learning science, user experience, and accessibility to create more engaging and emotionally resonant learning. I also pull from the 5E model, which prioritizes inquiry and exploration, and Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which builds flexibility and inclusivity into every part of the design. Models like Design Thinking and Agile Learning Design keep me grounded in iteration, learner feedback, and real-world relevance. And Bob Mosher’s Moment of Need Model reminds me that not all learning happens during training—it often happens in the workflow, under pressure, when support is needed most. I don’t follow any of these models religiously. I use what fits. Because the moment we box ourselves into one system, we stop designing for people and start designing for process. Gagné made sense in a world of chalkboards and overhead projectors. Today, we’re designing for mobile, social, immersive, and AI-powered experiences. That requires more flexibility, more empathy, and a willingness to break the mold when it no longer fits. Models are helpful. Dogma is not.

Not all soft skills training is created equal. A few months ago, I was working with a group of managers from a large manufacturing company. They had been through plenty of training programs before- the kind where you take notes and then go right back to doing things the old way. When I walked into the room, I could see it in their faces: Let’s see if this is any different. So instead of starting with slides or theory, I took them straight into a live simulation: - A crisis scenario that could actually happen in their business. - Conflicting priorities, tough personalities, and limited time to decide. - Every move they made in real time had visible consequences. To begin with, I saw a lot of resistance in experimentation, voices which were not too loud and over powering were ignored leading to loss of critical information- the room was tense. People hesitated. Some stuck to their usual patterns. But as it got deeper, they started communicating much more effectively, this led to them collaborating, noticing blind spots, and eventually testing new ways to lead. By the end, they weren’t asking- Will this work? They said that they wanted to cascade it to their teams. Weeks later, I got an email from one of the managers. He told me he used the exact process from our simulation to navigate a real customer crisis and not only avoided a major fallout, but actually strengthened the client relationship through this crisis. That’s the difference between training that’s forgotten by the time you’re back at your desk, and training that rewires how you think, act, and lead. The secret? Immersion. When participants practice real scenarios, solve actual challenges, and see the impact of their decisions in the room, learning sticks. Priya Arora #immersivelearning #trainingdesign #employeeengagement #learningthatsticks #corporatelearning #leadershipdevelopment #upskilling #skillbuilding #workplacetraining #experientiallearning #Learningdeisgn #corporatetrainer #softskillstrainer #simulation #experintialtraining