I used to think of learning in the same way I approached jigsaw puzzles. I have always been drawn to jigsaw puzzles because, even in the middle of the chaos, there is structure. Once the edges are identified and the border is complete, the rest begins to fall into place. The image is predetermined, the pieces have a defined location, and the goal is clear. For me, that predictability made the process enjoyable. I did not even need to constantly reference the box because the structure guided me forward.
LEGO, on the other hand, never made sense to me. They felt like one of two extremes: either you followed a strict set of instructions or you were expected to build something entirely from nothing. I did not see myself in either space. I did not enjoy following instructions without flexibility, and I did not view myself as someone who could freely create without a clear starting point. As a result, I never fully appreciated what LEGO represented. However, throughout this program, my understanding of learning and design has shifted. I now see LEGO not as rigid or intimidating, but as a space of possibility. Unlike a jigsaw puzzle, where there is only one correct outcome, LEGO allow for multiple paths, iterations, and outcomes. This shift mirrors my growth as a learning experience designer and reinforces the idea that learning is not about arriving at a single correct answer, but about engaging in a continuous process of building, testing, and refining. This realization connects directly to one of the core goals of my program: engaging in a cycle of continuous improvement through researching, planning, implementing, evaluating, and refining. Effective learning design is less about completion and more about creating structures that allow for growth, flexibility, and adaptation over time.
When I discovered the MALXD program, I was in the middle of an eight-month unemployment period and struggling to find a job in the field I had spent the last eight years working in. In fact, I was navigating what many in my generation describe as a Millennial crisis, or a quarter life crisis. I graduated from undergrad in 2015 and began working as an Epic software trainer toward the end of 2016. While I had a few tutoring roles and an assistant position, my primary career growth had been in Epic, but it had stalled. By 2024, I had been training in the classroom for over five years and held four certifications. The next logical step was becoming a training manager. However, after applying to those roles and receiving rejections or no responses, I became discouraged and began questioning whether this was even the right career path for me. I thought I was alone, but like Adam “Smiley” Poswolsky, I realized that, both unfortunately and fortunately, I was not (Poswolsky, 2016).
In all sincerity, I never intended to be a teacher, although my mom would say she knew from the time I was in kindergarten that this was the path I would eventually follow. However, when I reflect on my roles, it was not teaching itself that drew me in, but the opportunity to help people. As I considered what I wanted, not just in my life but in my career, I knew it needed to have meaning and purpose. As a proud millennial, “our generation wants to work with purpose,” and I wanted to “start pursuing what is meaningful to [me]” (Poswolsky, 2016).
As I reflected further, I realized that what mattered most was not teaching itself, but how the learning experience was designed and delivered. I was the type of trainer who instinctively tried to ensure the experience was beneficial for everyone, even before I had the language to describe what I was doing. Looking back, I now see that this approach was shaped by my own experiences as a learner. During many of my foundational educational years, I often felt as though I was not good enough because I could not learn in the same way as others. This led me to question not only my abilities, but also my potential to learn new or complex concepts.
That experience now directly influences how I design. I am constantly asking whether the learning environment I am creating allows multiple ways for learners to engage, understand, and demonstrate knowledge. I now recognize how impactful it would have been if my own learning experiences had been designed to support more than one type of learner. That realization ultimately led me to this program. I wanted to understand how to create learning experiences that are not only effective, but also inclusive and adaptable, ensuring that all learners have the opportunity to succeed. This shift in perspective shaped how I engaged with the program, particularly through the courses that most influenced my thinking and practice.
Throughout this program, my thinking and practice have evolved in several ways, particularly in how I approach assessment, accessibility, and creativity. Three courses in particular have had a lasting impact on how I design learning experiences.
The first course, Electronic Assessment for Teaching and Learning, focused on the design and implementation of assessments. Previously, I viewed assessments as checkpoints placed at the end of learning, but this course showed me that they are integral to the design process and must align with learning objectives. Growing up, I often felt frustrated with tests, not because I did not understand the material, but because the format did not allow me to demonstrate that understanding. This reinforced that engaging instruction means little if the assessment does not reflect the learning itself.
Through this course, I explored different assessment methods and began to rethink what it means to measure learning. Instead of focusing on recall, I now prioritize application. For example, in my work with Epic, learners are expected to navigate complex workflows, troubleshoot issues, and make decisions in real time. A multiple choice test alone cannot capture that level of understanding. Because of this, I now design assessments that require learners to apply knowledge in realistic scenarios, such as navigating a patient workflow or resolving an error within the system. These types of assessments provide a more accurate representation of learner readiness.
Understanding by Design reinforced this shift by emphasizing that educators must first define desired outcomes before designing instruction or assessments (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). This has changed how I approach training development, ensuring that every activity and assessment ties back to a clear and purposeful goal. It has also helped me distinguish between activities that are engaging and those that are effective.
The second course, Accessibility and Design, focused on accessibility and inclusive design and challenged me to reconsider my own experiences as a learner. Growing up, reading was difficult for me, and I often felt anxious during reading based tasks. It was not until after college, when I began using audiobooks and customizable eBooks, that reading became an enjoyable experience. These tools allowed me to engage with the same content in a way that aligned with how I learn best.
This course helped me understand that accessibility is not an accommodation added after the fact, but a fundamental part of effective design. It reinforced the responsibility designers have to create environments that support a wide range of learners. For me, this meant embracing tools such as Speechify and OpenDyslexic without viewing them as a crutch, but rather as tools that enable access.
This understanding has directly influenced how I design training. I now intentionally incorporate multiple ways for learners to engage with content, whether through visual, auditory, or interactive formats. For example, when designing training materials, I consider whether instructions are clear, whether content can be easily navigated, and whether learners have options in how they interact with the material. This ensures that the learning experience adapts to the learner rather than requiring the learner to adapt to the experience.
Accessible design focuses on removing barriers for individuals with disabilities, while inclusive design considers a broader range of human diversity and experiences (UX Design Institute, 2025). Understanding this distinction has allowed me to design more intentionally and ensure that all learners feel supported and included.
The final course, Upskilling in Learning Design, focused on continuous growth and experimentation. Through a series self-directed projects, I explored new tools and approaches to strengthen my design practice. After reading Constraint breeds creativity, I began exploring how constraints could push my thinking beyond its usual patterns, recognizing that the goal was not the ideas themselves, but training the brain to think differently (Gould et al., 2023).
This experience changed how I approach problem solving. Rather than defaulting to familiar solutions, I now take time to explore alternative approaches, even when they initially seem unrealistic. In practice, this means brainstorming multiple ways to deliver content or designing activities that challenge learners to think beyond standard workflows.
In a field where constraints such as time, resources, and organizational expectations are constant, the ability to think creatively within those limitations is essential. By embracing constraints, I have been able to design more thoughtful and effective learning experiences that better meet the needs of learners.
Overall, these courses have changed how I approach learning design. I am more intentional with assessments, more mindful of accessibility and inclusion, and more committed to continuous growth and creativity. These shifts have directly influenced how I design, ensuring that my work is both purposeful and adaptable. In many ways, my approach to learning design has become less like completing a jigsaw puzzle and more like building with LEGO, where there is structure, but also flexibility, and where each experience is an opportunity to build, adjust, and create something more meaningful over time. The possibilities are endless.
Gould, R. K., Saito, T., Allen, K. E., Bonn, A., Chapman, M., Droz, L., Herrmann, T. M., Himes, A., Ishihara, H., Coelho-Junior, M. G., Katsue, F., Kenter, J. O., Muraca, B., Ortiz-Przychodzka, S., Pearson, J., Tadaki, M., Rono, B. J., & Tamura, N. (2023). Constraint breeds creativity: A brainstorming method to jumpstart out-of-the-box thinking for sustainability science. BioScience, 73(10), 703–710. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biad077
Poswolsky, A. S. (2016, November). The quarter-life crisis is real [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddek3gQVt9Y
Vinney, Cynthia. “Accessible vs. Inclusive vs. Universal Design: What’s the Difference?” UX Design Institute. 30 Apr. 2025. www.uxdesigninstitute.com/blog/accessible_design-inclusive_design/
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.