I'm taking an instructional design postgraduate certificate, and the word 'gamification' has been bugging me of late. My tutor recently gave me a more cohesive definition, as the following:

"Gamification applies game mechanics — points, badges, leaderboards, progress bars, and challenges — to non-game educational contexts. The overjustification effect, documented in SDT research, describes the finding that introducing external rewards for an activity a person was already intrinsically motivated to do can reduce subsequent intrinsic motivation. The external reward “overjustifies” the activity and shifts motivation from internal to external regulation."

The reason I hate the term and the definition along with it is that it takes the most surface-level elements of game design, that pre-date games by thousands of years, and applies the game label to them such that we cannot use the word game anymore to point to what games actually afford us:

A set of rules within a temporarily adopted closed system where aesthetics of agency can be modeled through play.

What I mean by aesthetics of agency is the procedure by which a person goes about making choices within the rule set. For example:

Chess is the experience of learning to shape your opponent's incentive structures that make them predictable enough for you to control the range of possible choices towards your advantage.

Poker is the experience of learning to assess probabilities and negotiate with uncertain information; controlling your opponent's perceptions through deception and misdirection.

Papers: Please is the aesthetic experience of learning to balance your own incentives within a bureaucracy with your desire for basic human empathy towards vulnerable people while mitigating risk under time pressure.

Of course, the barrier between the game's own ruleset and the rules of the world around it can change your incentive structure inside the game; you might be paid a large sum of money to deliberately lose during a tournament. And such perverse incentives can also occur during writing learning modules; such as deliberately favoring a solution that locates the deficiency within the employee than within management in order to secure future contracts.

Since Bioshock was released in 2007, the game industry has a term called 'ludonarrative' - which refers to the synergy between the player's abilities, game's mechanics, gameplay loops, art direction, narrative writing and dialogue, and the central themes that the game is trying to explore.

Ludonarrative dissonance occurs when two or more of those things are misaligned; a game ostensibly about peace that places the fun within violent actions is dissonant.

Intrinsic motivation is connected to a player's (or learner's) values, which is also connected to their narrative self-identity. This narrative self-identity is about what experiences they've had, the themes connecting them, and a sense of what path lies before them given their values and competencies.

In a sense, a narrative identity creates a framework through which an autonomous individual is likely to act and conduct themselves in the world, given their attention, perceptions, incentives, cultural contexts, and community. It gives people meaning, and informs a person when they're engaging in agentic behavior incoherent with their values; producing what we call cognitive dissonance as it applies in the real world. It's analogous to the ludonarrative dissonance we talked about earlier.

Therefore, the game, or temporary agentic framework that we ask our particular learner profile to step into, needs to create synergy between their values, their incentives, and the way they learn (convert uncertainty into certainty) through a meaningful framework under which all those dimensions are united.

It is unfortunate that gamification simply refers to chucking a bunch of extrinsic rewards into a learning design module, because those extrinsic rewards mean almost nothing as far as actual game development is concerned.

The 'overjustification' effect has existed long before things like high scores, leaderboards, badges in the form of:

1. Employee of the month
2. War medals
3. How much money is in your 401K as of retirement
4. How many promotions you received at work
5. Receiving a pay rise
6. University tuition for Military service

The malaise most of us feel in today's economy is that it runs on the legibility that extrinsic rewards provide, while giving nothing back to us in the form of a kind of ludonarrative synergy between our narrative self-identity, our personal journeys, how that fits into the corporate mission statement, how the businesses structure their incentives to either comport with their mission statement or hide behind it, and the incentive structures the business themselves are subject to given the regulatory and geopolitical environment.

The thing is, video games are the most profitable entertainment industry on the planet precisely because they have precise models of motivation that schools, universities and (apparently) businesses never had cause to adopt because they've always had access to punitive levers such as:

1. Leave without pay
2. Getting fired
3. Losing Marks against the rubric
4. Suspension from school
5. Poor grades and report cards
6. Losing further educational advancement opportunities

Games can never punish you outside of the game's limited context for not understanding their systems well enough; an employer can revoke your ability to provide for a family if you refuse to toe the line. The over justification effect that we apply to game mechanics in learning tools is the entire incentive structure apparatus through which quarterly profit earnings end up mattering more than the ecological stability of the planet; at least until you can make a profit from providing clean air.

Therefore, games have HAD to build coherent models of psychological principles around autonomy, relatedness and competence, and do extremely well at them, because a disengaged player can simply stop playing. A disengaged employee works to spec or slightly below it, but cannot stop working. An employee doesn't need to find their work meaningful to know that if they don't work, rent doesn't get paid. That's why no school or business has managed to accomplish for intrinsic motivation in a thousand years what game developers did in half a century.

And furthermore, the company's mission statement and the image they curate through their marketing could likely not synergize with the agentic frameworks available to their employees; producing the same kind of dissonance. This is why the overjustification effect exists; the 'why' of the company and the 'why' of the learning module are not supported by the way the employee and the learner exercise agency inside the institution or the learning content.

Multiple choice quizzes are highly scalable and cost-efficient; but do they effectively replicate the agency a person exerts when they need to do active listening with a customer, to empathize with their experience, so the customer leaves with a good experience wanting to return? Would adding an achievement badge meaningfully turn the quiz into a game?

Probably not, right?

So I will try and coin the term Agentification for learning design: Creating a safe simulated environment that approximates the same decision making they will encounter on the job, with the goal of improving performance, that enables your learner to play within interacting systems, and derive emergent principles themselves through experimentation.

This is, after all, how chess teaches how to control people through constraining their optimal choices, how poker teaches people to bluff, how Papers: Please teaches someone through play about the impossible positions frontline bureaucrats are put in.

Bonus points if the agency aligns with their narrative self identity, the function the institution serves civilization, as well as the internal and external mission statement of the institution itself.

If you want to talk about gamification, talk about that.

I recently asked when instructional designers investigate an LMS or delivery platform during the design process.

One response stayed with me: In SaaS, content changes so quickly that the topic takes priority over the delivery mechanism.

I understand the pressure behind that approach. When a product changes constantly, teams need to respond quickly.

But I have reached the opposite conclusion.

The faster the content changes, the more important the delivery decision becomes.

If information will change again next week or next month, we should be asking:

• Does this information belong in a course at all?
• What knowledge is durable, and what guidance is likely to change?
• Does someone need to remember this, practice it, or simply find it while working?
• Where is the authoritative source?
• Who owns the update when the product changes?
• Can the delivery format be updated without rebuilding and republishing an entire course?
• Could documentation, in-product guidance, performance support, or another resource serve the learner better?

This is not about allowing an LMS to dictate the learning experience. It is about understanding the environment in which the solution must survive.

After more than 20 years in learning design, I have learned that speed is not only measured by how quickly we publish the first version. It is also measured by how easily the solution can adapt when the work changes.

When we prioritize the topic and treat delivery as an afterthought, we may ship faster today. But we can also create tomorrow’s maintenance problem.

Systems analysis does not have to mean adding weeks to a project. Sometimes it means pausing long enough to decide what should be built, where it should live, and how it will remain useful when the content changes again.

For those designing in rapid-release environments, how do you decide what belongs in structured learning and what should live closer to the workflow?

I saw a few portfolios online. Some featured projects that were around 10 minutes long, while others had short and simple projects lasting only 2–3 minutes. So, what is the ideal duration for a portfolio project?

I assume hiring managers don’t have enough time to go through projects that are over 10 minutes long, but making them too short could also be an issue. I’d appreciate some clarity on this potentially stupid question.

I (22M) recently graduated a few months ago with a psych degree. I've done plenty of extracurriculars with recruitment, project management, and research– but I fell in love with Instructional Design since it gave structure, but enough creative freedom (I love teaching). I enjoy making things people learn from, so believed that ID was the path for me.

Until the plateau came in.

For context, after graduation, to earn some money and start off my ID career, I did some contract work for a university, and, suffice to say, I thought it was decent: flexible hours, okay management, and I really enjoyed the work there; however, once the design work was over, the work was flat– and so, the pay was too. From then on, I continued to built my projects– through an LMS, Rise, heck, even a full website, and, after that, I got back on the job search.

I started looking into the jobs thinking I was the bomb– fresh graduate with an unmatched level of output and experience.

Yeah. Cocky, I know. I was greatly humbled shortly after.

I found myself at the age-old catch-22. Most jobs rejected me from lack of tenure, or not knowing a program that was easily learnable. It's disheartening. I wanna develop as an ID and I'm truly passionate for the field, but, in the current market, there's no breeding grounds to launch my career.

Since I have a psych degree, I can shift into recruitment or other sectors, but I really don't wanna give ID up. It's been a while since I've felt this way about work– even corporate work. Should I keep pursuing ID in my position, take an adjacent role and try to move into L&D later, or pivot entirely?

Do I quit?

I used to be a high school teacher for a couple years, and then COVID forced us to work from home for the rest of the school year. I didn't like most of the eLearning available, so I looked up how to make my own. That led me to learning basic eLearning authoring.

Fast forward to the following school year, and my administrators noticed how well I was able to use tech. They asked me to plan and lead PDs on how to use technology in the classroom, and I realized I really enjoyed teaching adults. This led me to looking up possible careers in adult education.

I was hired by a corporation as an ID shortly after and worked that job for over 4 years. It was amazing how different it was from being a teacher. I was able to work from home, I could go to the bathroom whenever I needed to, I could take an hour for lunch, my boss told us to log off early right before holidays or random summer Fridays, and I didn't need to do extra work just to take PTO.

It felt amazing having all these freedoms, and I thought the work was fine enough, but I gradually became very bored with what I was doing. I was telling myself that it was fine as long as I get paid and I'm not stressed. I even took on a second ID job on a 6-month contract to bolster our savings, but I didn't accept the extension because I hated the work.

Fast forward again to a couple months ago, and my ID salary only increased from $67k to $72k after 4.5 years while my wife's front end data analytics salary went from $60k to $140k after hopping through several jobs. We had our first child last fall, and it was incredibly difficult for both of us to work full-time while also taking care of our son. We considered daycare, but babies his age cost $3k/month for daycare. The daycare teachers don't do much at all with them at that age, and the babies are too young to socialize with each other, so that giant cost didn't feel worth it to us. On top of that, my wife said that I didn't even like my job, so I should quit and stay home with our son. I was very resistant at first because I hadn't been unemployed since I was a teenager, but we couldn't let her work suffer because of my pride.

I ended up quitting my job to stay home with my son and to think about what I want to do with my career. I've had two ID jobs, one that bored me and one that I hated, and I'm wondering if I should go back to teaching or consider other careers.

Every time I reflect on why I was unsatisfied with ID, it came back to the training topics being boring and mundane, feeling like my work was pointless, nobody appreciating the training I developed, the pay being too stagnant, and the growth opportunities being awful.

Teaching in TX had many issues, and now it's actually awful to teach there now, but I moved to Chicago a few years ago, and going back to teaching would mean having union support, better pay, and better politics.

Are my issues with ID normal or should I look for another ID job to see how it goes? Maybe I should return to teaching? I'll appreciate any insight.

TLDR: ID seems boring as shit and doesn't pay well or is that just my experience with the two jobs? Should I go back to teaching since it'd be in Chicago instead of Texas?

Hi Reddit folks, especially those of you who are hiring managers in L&D,

I’m genuinely curious: when you are reviewing applications for a corporate ID role, does seeing that someone currently works in higher education create any assumptions or concerns?

I’ve been in the field for about six years. I spent roughly three years working in corporate instructional design before transitioning into higher ed.

In my current role, a large part of my work involves LMS administration and consulting with departments on learning and system-related needs. I troubleshoot course and LMS issues, conduct UX testing and develop eLearning when needed. I also try to take an end-to-end approach whenever possible, including needs analysis and evaluation. A big part of my role is also consulting with stakeholders, helping them clarify what the actual problem is rather than immediately jumping to “we need a course.”

This year, I’ve been trying to transition back into corporate L&D since I am not huge on keep doing LMS stuff. I have been applying mainly for senior LXD/ID roles. Compared with a few years ago, I’ve had much less luck landing interviews: about 2 responses from 30 LinkedIn applications so far.

For each application, I tailor my resume to the job description, make sure the relevant keywords and skills are represented, use AI as a second set of eyes for ATS, and then manually edit everything so it still sounds natural and accurately reflects my experience.

I feel like I have quite a bit to offer beyond traditional course development, such as consultative needs analysis, stakeholder management, LMS experience, UX testing, accessibility, evaluation, etc.

For hiring managers, I’d love your perspective:

• Does higher-ed experience ever make you hesitate when hiring for a corporate L&D/ID role?
• Are there certain assumptions you make about higher-ed candidates that I should proactively address on my resume?
• Is there anything I could do to position my experience as more obviously transferable to corporate environments?

Thank you in Advance:)

I recently secured a training executive (not a trainer) position with a hospice. I start in a couple of weeks.

I'm somewhat anxious/insecure about my skills and skill gaps now that I'm going to start in this new industry. I have a 3-month probation, and I'm hoping to make an impression so that I can get confirmed as a permanent staff (perm roles are few and far between in my country).

I know that ID is content-agnostic and tool-agnostic, but I was wondering if you guys have any advice for me.

1. What ID skills do I need for palliative medicine?
2. Are there any new tech I need to learn in this industry?
3. What do the 'wins' in this industry look like?

---

Background:

I'm a former educator who transitioned into ID in 2024 after getting a postgrad cert in ID.

For the past 2 years, I was working in higher ed, where I helped lecturers with improving their content (chunking, sequencing, re-writing), doing basic instructional graphics, coming up with storyboards, and converting their teaching material into RISE/Storyline formats.

This role wasn't strictly a 'pure ID' role - I didn't get to do proper, in-depth learning needs analysis or help lecturers design courses from scratch because I was just a temp staff and lacked the clearance. The role leaned more towards being a developer, though I did get to do a bit of work on the content and tailor it to whatever information I could get on the learners e.g. linguistic ability, prior knowledge, etc.

Shockingly and quite fortunately, despite my limited experience and limited knowledge with tech, I was able to help lecturers with their some of their more problematic modules and bring extremely high failure rates for certain topics from 90+% right down to zero, which was unprecedented in the faculty I worked. I count this as a win, but I don't know if I can do it again in my new job.

---

Thank you in advance.

p/s: I would just like to say that I value this community's input a lot: reading the advice here and having private conversations with some of you actually helped land me my job in 2024.

I’m doing a contract project for an organization. They hired a consultant who pitched himself as an expert on AI integration. He wrote up framework documents describing how the organization could integrate AI into a series of lessons. They hired me as the ID to build those lessons, and told me the consultant was the SME and project lead. His frameworks have lots of problems with wordiness, vagueness, and misalignment. I  should have seen those red flags before, but I took the project on in good faith and tried to extract content from them that I could turn into practical learning experiences. Another red flag came when he asked me not to talk with him face to face or on the phone, but instead to have all interactions over email. I know—another red flag. After a month of frustration trying to align his frameworks with the actual goals of the organization I finally got fed up and started feeding his documents into an AI detector. 100% AI. Then I did the same with his emails and got the same result. Now I’m feeling absolutely taken advantage of. I haven’t been interacting with a human at all, but instead have been working for an AI. I told my boss, and she said she’d talk with her boss and get back to me. I'm not sure what to do next. Is this consultant a fraud? Is he an SME? Is any of the work I’ve done so far valid? Can the project continue?

Long post ahead: For context, an acquaintance asked me if i might be interested in a contract opportunity. I told them I'd only be able to contribute 15-20 hrs and they told me they were working on a proposal bidding on a project that would secure 70k for a 20-hr elearning due by January. I voiced some concerns about realistic project deadlines, looking into hiring a team, and the cost amount considering that although they have in-person learning content they have no plan of what should be included in the elearning modules and no knowledge of what goes into elearning design, development, or deployment. It sounded like there might be wiggle room for the budget and timeline so when they asked if I could write up how I would tackle the project with time and cost estimates see what a project like this might actually entail, I thought it would inform the discussion with their prospective client (My mistake #1). Not to mention they asked if I could have it ready in 24 hrs.

Now, It seems they are using my recommendations as their bid proposal rather than informing their own but assuming the same tight deadline and budget. I initially assumed they would be the SME providing guidance for or heading up the content development/curriculum mapping since it is their content but they now want me to edit my recommendation by tomorrow to tell them how much of their involvement is needed and how the deadline can be met if I map the curriculum and an elearning designer is contracted with me helping with development.

Is this a red flag? This seems like a lot for someone (me) who hopped on a call 72 hrs ago to consult and mentioned they could only dedicate 15-20 hrs to help them if they got the project. Thoughts? Should I remove myself from this before it starts?

I have been thinking about how often designers begin outlining content or selecting an authoring tool before thoroughly investigating the platform that will deliver the experience.

That can create obvious problems. The LMS may have file-size restrictions, accessibility issues, limited tracking, poor mobile support, or technical constraints that make the proposed design impractical.

There is also another side to it. The platform may already include discussion, assessment, reinforcement, coaching, integration, or reporting features that the designer could use instead of building something separately.

I do not think the LMS should dictate the entire learning experience. But treating the delivery environment as an implementation detail seems risky when it can affect so many design decisions.

At what point in your process do you investigate the LMS or delivery platform?

Have you ever had to substantially redesign an experience because the platform was examined too late?

The NCAA is hiring an instructional design, e-learning intern as part of their postgraduate internship program. The internship is hybrid in Indianapolis, Indiana and runs from July 2027 - May 2028. No prior experience in athletics required.

I'm giving a 30-minute presentation about Python to a room of 40-50 year olds with zero coding background. The goal isn't to teach syntax, it's to give them a vision of what Python can actually do for them (think: automating boring Excel/repetitive tasks) and get them a little excited about it.

Structure so far:

Intro to programming languages (quick comparison, evolution over time...)

Python basics, but conceptual, not code (functions, classes, loops, libraries, reading a script, terminal)

Python & AI (uses in AI/data, coding with AI tools, prompt engineering)

Installing Python (quick walkthrough)

Useful resources/links

Open slot for something creative/fun to close on

I want real, human ideas here analogies, interactive moments, jokes that land with a non-technical crowd, stories from your own experience presenting to beginners, I'd rather get lived-in advice from people who've actually done this than a pile of AI-generated suggestions....

Thanks in advance!

I have the necessary skills and experience as an instructional designer.

However, I’m struggling at my first corporate job at an insurance company. I am having trouble letting go of my “painter” and perfectionist approach to designer and embrace the design process of widget maker.

I was hired to gamify the elearning. One of my first assignments was to convert a live webinar course into a self-paced course. My approach was to make it interactive make it pretty much like a video game.

But I’m starting to learn that they kind of just want standard e-learning— flip cards, maybe a little voiceover, a video, plus there are massive corporate standards to how the design designing needs to be.

If you have any advice on how to embrace this new approach, it’s to stop and work faster. I’m having a hard time working and designing faster. I guess the approach you’re suggesting is to change my entire approach. I know I have to stop thinking of this as art and really think about it as just getting the job done, even though I’ve been asked to gamify

My thought is that they’re looking for something that’s very rapid and vapid in interaction.

Another part of me is thinking I’m just making it harder for myself. I’m overthinking the job.

Hi everyone. I’m trying to design a security awareness activity for regular office employees, and I could use a sanity check from people who know learning design better than I do.

The idea is simple: people work in teams, read a short workplace scenario, talk through what they would do, choose an answer, and then the facilitator reads a scripted explanation. The facilitator doesn’t need to be a security expert.

The larger theme is “security awareness through the decades” – technology changes, but the same basic security principles and risky behaviors keep coming back in new forms.

I’d really appreciate feedback on one sample scenario: would this kind of approach create a useful discussion, or would it feel too forced?

-------

SAMPLE SCENARIO

Monday, May 5th, 1986. Your green-screen monitor is humming with static, and the
dot-matrix printer in the corner sounds like a screeching chainsaw. Your computer takes
only two full minutes to boot up.

Your friend Mike, the new junior accountant, slides into your cubicle and proudly shows you
a plastic floppy disk he just got in the mail.

"Look at this," Mike says. "I won a game called Zorkblaster 3000 at a tech convention. You
have the computer, I have the game. Let’s try it out!"

What do you do?

CHOICES

A. Let Mike install the game – he seems to know this stuff.

B. The disk looks professional and the sticker on it seems legitimate – you install the
game.

C. You refuse to use the floppy disk on your office computer and tell Mike it's not a good
idea.

D. Although Mike is a good friend, you ask him to try the game on his home computer first.

CORRECT ANSWER & EXPLANATION

Correct answer: C

You made the right call. Mike is disappointed, but his enthusiasm and the professional-looking sticker do not make the disk safe. Installing unknown software on an office computer is a risk that simply isn't worth taking – and testing it somewhere else is just moving the risk, not removing it.

Later that day, Mike ignores your warning and tries the disk at home. He calls you with a shaky voice: “My screen says: ‘Your files are deleted. Muahaha!’”

The disk was infected with a virus.

CORE PRINCIPLE: Zero trust

Never automatically trust files, devices, or software just because they look legitimate or come from someone you know. Unknown input is unknown input – whether it arrives as a floppy disk, a USB stick, a browser extension, or a helpful-looking AI recommendation. If you didn’t go looking for it, be suspicious of it.

BONUS QUESTION

There is one more security principle hidden in this scenario. Which one?

1. Encryption
2. Social engineering
3. Authentication
4. Least privilege

BONUS ANSWER: Social engineering

Someone deliberately constructed a believable story – “a prize won at a convention” – to get the disk installed. Mike wasn't the attacker, he was the victim. Social engineering doesn't attack the system, it attacks the person.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, the idea makes sense to me but I need different opinions on it so basically reps could practice before real conversations and train around the same process they already use, but what I’m still trying to figure out is how this works in practice for a real team, like how easy is it to take your current playbook or training PDFs and turn that into something reps can actually practice with? And more than anything I wonder if reps would use it enough for it to become part of how they train instead of just another tool they try once. Would love any thought you guys have on this

I work as an accout manager in a very niche industry (branded merchandise -- basically producing corporate swag), and it is HEAVILY sales and quota based, albeit in a generally creative field. Work-life balance is slim to nonexistent, and I have felt compelled to get out - I don't like quotas hanging over my head, I hate how many projects there are to manage simultanuously, and it's hard for me to see a path forward that isn't still sales. After about 2 years of deep introspection, hiring a career coach, taking a plethora of personality tests, and talking to people in the field, I determined that what would actually make me happiest is a career in L&D/Enablement. Outside of work, I teach night classes, host facilitations/workshops, and tutor, most of which is for fun, so the L&D/Enablement track made sense.

Here is the issue. L&D/Enablement roles are practically nonexistent in my industry, and so are team roles. We are expected to operate entrepreneurially and independently, and when our business gets bigger, we just get MORE work, not additional people to help us, so the prospect of having a team to develop is...really not a prospect at all. I have been in the industry 9 years and have never had a direct report because that structure doesn't exist in my field. Recently, a company posted a role on LinkedIn that was in the branded merchandise space but operated outside of my industry -- the company needed a branded merchandise expert who could mentor a team and produce materials like templates, playbooks, guides, etc. It sounds EXACTLY like what I wanted, BUT apparently would pay less than anticipated. I currently make around 90K and was trying to break 6 figures. They didn't give me the exact salary, but told me it would be below 6 figures.

My question to you all who work in L&D and Sales Enablement is: knowing that I have 9 years of experience in sales, and a parallel pathed 9 years of informal mentoring, tutoring, and coaching experience, but NO formal people leadership experience (and no real way to get formal people leadership experience without being a sales director in my field, which is a HARD no)...is taking this job, which will come with a team that I lead, eliminate the sales quotas that I hate, and allow me to create enablement materials as this company creates a branded merchandise department actually a good move, even if it means a paycut? Or is having people managment experience not actually necessary? Because I can easily get certificates and create a portfolio on my own. I just don't have the frame of reference.

You are building a course for a client. In Settings there is a toggle for AI Tutor, the in-course chat that answers learner questions. You switch it on because it helps the learners.

To be fair to Articulate, it is grounded in the course content, does not browse the web, and they publish an AI security paper saying customer data is not used for training.

But the switch belongs to the author. So a freelancer can add a live third party processing flow to a client's estate, one that takes free text typed by their staff, and the client's legal and compliance people need never hear about it.

Article 28(10) UK GDPR says a processor who determines the purposes and means of processing is treated as a controller for that processing. Ordinarily I never touch learner data at all. Switch that on uninstructed and have I not just determined a means, and picked up obligations I have not priced and am not insured for?

So I now leave it off unless the client asks in writing. I am not sure that is enough. Written instruction makes me a processor acting on instructions, which is the right place to be, but only if the client understood what they were instructing. If their L and D lead ticks yes and nobody in legal sees it, I am not sure the paper trail helps either of us.

(I build HTML to SCORM courses, so I work in this space.)

Has anyone had a client's DPO look at this properly?

Hi,

I am catching up on reading from a while ago and someone sent me this article about dyanmic enablement the new evolution or direction for L&D.

https://joshbersin.com/2026/03/the-world-of-corporate-training-lurches-toward-enablement/

Has anyone incorporated this into their work?

Hey folks, can anyone confirm if Articulate subscription includes a free number of Reach licenses? In my previous role we received 250 licenses when we purchased.

The course has a ton of animations, graphics, audios, and videos, and I would really like to have a way to save it all for personal use. I think the professor really doesn't care about this and will likely not share the Quick Share link, based on previous experiences, but I would like to keep my access to the content. Please let me know a way... thank you.

I posted on here a while ago for help with an interview for an ID role at a university. I'm on to the second round, so thanks to everyone who replied!

This round will focus on the LMS. The university is transitioning from Blackboard to Canvas this semester. I know Canvas basics (like how to organize modules, add alt-text, embed media, etc.), but what are the other most important things I should be ready to cover, and what major differences between Blackboard and Canvas should I be ready to discuss?

Thanks!

Hi! I am a recent graduate from UCF who just began teaching the 4th grade, literally 2 weeks ago. I have unfortunately been really unhappy and I know it's extremely early on but I can't imagine myself doing this for the rest of my life. I just got hired at this school 3 weeks ago and it's great and I definitely don't want to quit and leave them scrambling to find a new teacher, so I want to stick it out for the next 9 months. I have heard and researched a lot about Instructional Design. It seems like it would be a great fit but I would like some advice. The main thing I don't like about being in the classroom is having 22 kids relying on me while also balancing testing, grading, parents, meetings, and 100000 other things. I want to take this time that I am a teacher to try and build my knowledge about ID so that when school ends I could possibly try and find a job. UCF has an ID certificate that I could take classes for, is this worth it? I've just really been struggling and I want to be proactive and learn as much as I can now. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Hi. For the past 2 months, I've been researching about this career by watching videos, webinars, reading from social media posts of the good the bad, and the ugly from experts working as one and so on.

For a better context, I've been working as an ESL (for, and as one myself, dominicans in the DR) for 3 years for adults in the government program of EIP. I've been finding joy and passion in researching how to make teaching better. Specifically, creating lesson plans, their learning objectives using Blooms taxonomy, PPP method, Neuroscience to make learning more effective for students, etc.

I love planning and strategic learning more than anything, and this job, the more I research, has me enamored.

So I'd like to know a good way to start working as one.

In my program, we use the Cambridge's Interchange book series + Passages level 1 as for the 11 months program for students to go from A1 to B1 by assisting for 4 hours on 5 days of the week.

I've been thinking about redoing all my planners by integrating ID learning theories and so on. But I'd like to hear some advice on what skills to get or even improve to later be working as an ID and upgrade my own work as well. Also, some books start learning broadly about these interesting careers, tech tools, etc.

Also, any recommended master's program, workshop or anything that I could take online since the ones I've been seeing people recommend are to be attending college in USA but as a Dominican woman it's hard to do so financially.

But some suggestions of such would be very appreciated to be doing or (for the master's) to pin after I finish my degree as an educational psychologist since in the DR there aren't any focused ones to this field.

Tl;DR: im in reach for resources, ID programs, and advice on how to start learning from this career to then become an ID.