Design process.

Our design journey begins with a virtual coffee with Dr. DeWalt, who shares her vision for the course. "I'm so excited for this! This company has been in need of proper de-escalation training for some time. I've accumulated a wealth of materials over the years, and I can't wait to share them!"

"Great!" I say. "It looks like we have a lot to work with."

But instead of diving into the content, I pivot the conversation with a deceptively simple question: "What should learners be able to do after the course that they can't do now?" This question, which is rooted in Cathy Moore's (2017) action mapping technique and Merrill's (2007) First Principles of Instruction, reframes our focus from information to transformation.

Dr. DeWalt nods at my question, pausing to reflect. I can see the wheels turning.

"Well," she says, "they should be able to manage tough calls without panicking. We’ve had too many escalations lately." That’s our cue to dig deeper. If we want this course to drive real change, we need to understand the root cause(s) of the problem.

Defining the problem.

In this section, I ask Dr. DeWalt focused questions to deepen our understanding of the business problem:

3. "What's causing the problem?"

Now that we know the problem and its significance, it’s time to investigate its causes. I bring together a team lead, a senior crisis counselor, and the training manager to understand what is happening on the job. I guide the conversation using Cropper’s 11 Performance Factors, asking about knowledge, emotional capacity, feedback, and the conditions surrounding performance. The goal is to identify both instructional needs and barriers that training alone may not solve. Select each performance factor tab below to read an example.

Other factors (Cropper): 
Expectations, Resources, Incentives, Skills, Motives, Environment, Structure/Processes, Supervision, Selection

4. "What does successful resolution to the problem look like?"

Now that we understand the problem and what’s driving it, the final part of Step 2 is to define what success looks like. In other words: if this training works, what meaningful business result should we expect? Using Cathy Moore’s approach, we craft a Key Performance Indicator (KPI):

Now that we have the performance problem defined, let's break it down.

What, exactly, do crisis counselors need to do differently during high-stress calls? As my colleague Dr. Tim Stafford (2021) puts it, this phase of the process is guided by one essential question: “How much do we assume?"

Let's get started.

The Whole Task

A whole task is a complete, real-world activity. According to Merrill (2007), a whole task must meet the following requirements:

• Reflect the authentic performance required in professional settings.
• Be problem-centered, such as diagnosing an issue or crafting a solution (e.g., de-escalating a situation).
  

Dr. DeWalt and I work together to form a strong whole task. I call this the 'first how?' in a long list of 'how's' in the instructional design process.

The Subtasks:

Now for the second "how." The next step in task analysis is to break the whole task into subtasks.

Merrill (2007) says that subtasks might describe skills, procedures, or concepts.

Since this level of detail about the topic we're addressing is so specific (I call this being "in the weeds") I rely on Dr. DeWalt's expertise.

I ask Dr. DeWalt "what skills, procedures, or concepts do the learners need in order to [complete the whole task]?" Her answer will define the subtasks:

Dr. DeWalt tells me about the the different things counselors need to do to successfully de-escalate a caller: ensure their safety, remove potential means of harm, and obtaining commitment are important stages of the de-escalation process. In fact, these subtasks describe Gilliland's 6 Step Crisis Intervention Model.

"If you want counselors to de-escalate effectively, they need structure. I recommend Gilliland’s 6-Step Crisis Intervention Model—it’s been used in federal agencies and really works under pressure. Each step matters. Step 2, for instance, is 'Ensure Safety.' You can’t move forward if someone’s in danger."‍‍‍

From a learner's perspective:

I want to make sure you understand how these subtasks work. Put yourself in a learner's shoes. You're working at a crisis hotline. Your goal is to effectively de-escalate a mental health crisis. In order to accomplish that you have perform 6 subtasks:

1. Defining the problem.
2. Ensuring safety.
3. Providing support.
4. Exploring alternatives.
5. Making plans.
6. Obtaining commitment.

Say you've mastered Subtask 3, but you're unsure how to perform Subtask 4. That gap will prevent you from executing the whole task smoothly. Even if you master all the individual subtasks, you might still struggle if you haven’t practiced transitioning between them. It's like learning a piece of music: if you only play the full song without isolating tough spots, you'll keep making the same mistakes. Likewise, if you only practice isolated phrases without stringing them together, you’ll stumble when performing the full piece.

The beauty of Merrill’s approach is that it helps learners master the parts and the transitions; build fluency by layering each phrase until the whole performance becomes seamless.

The Component Skills

Component skills are the smaller pieces that make up each subtask. When Dr. DeWalt identifies a subtask like "defining the problem," we dig deeper to find the specific skills learners need to do that well. These might include gathering information, identifying the mental health condition, understanding the caller’s history, or assessing risk.

Hierarchical task analysis

Task analysis, shown above, allows us to deconstruct the whole task into subtasks, and further break those subtasks into component skills. In action mapping, this granularity is crucial. It enables us to create practice activities that focus precisely on what learners need to perform, rather than just what they need to understand. Without pinpointing component skills, we risk overlooking the true reasons behind performance difficulties.

With the performance gaps defined and the tasks broken down, Dr. DeWalt and I move into the next step: creating opportunities for learners to see the skills in action and try them for themselves.

Merrill (2001) says that learning at this stage hinges on two principles: demonstration and application. Learners need to see how a skill is done before they can apply it in realistic situations.

Our goal is to improve how staff use the 6 Step Crisis Intervention Model at Connect Line, so we organize the content around that model. But instead of building six separate modules (one for each step) I design six scenarios where the skills show up in different ways and at different levels of difficulty.

This matches Merrill’s (2001) recommendation to vary the problems, helping learners apply the same skills in new and more complex situations.

Each scenario targets specific skills. For example, “ensuring caller safety” appears in Scenarios 2, 4, and 6 - each one with a different emotional tone. Seeing the same skill in different situations pushes learners to adjust and deepen their understanding instead of relying on a scripted response.

Varied progression of problems

With Dr. DeWalt's approval of the progression of problems, we are ready to design the storyboard. Our goal is to create realistic scenarios where learners can see the results of their actions—both when they handle the situation well and when they don’t.

In the example below, I take the first set of problems from our crisis response model (the initial response and information-gathering phase) and develop a scenario around them. This allows learners to practice those critical first steps in the crisis intervention process and understand the immediate consequences of their decisions.

Text-based storyboard

Once the storyboard is in place, I develop visual mockups. The course should reflect the seriousness of crisis counseling while feeling supportive and approachable. I work with the subject matter expert to align the visual tone with the content. Calming colors, intuitive icons, and a clear layout help learners focus on each scenario and its decisions. Tools: I use Adobe Color to extract a palette from a photo that captures the intended mood. Then I build the course template in Adobe Express, using that palette as the foundation.

Visual mockup

With the content and design in place, I build the course in Articulate Storyline. Conditional triggers connect learner choices to different outcomes in the branching crisis scenarios. I test the interactions, pacing, and feedback so learners can pause, reflect, and make decisions. Visual transitions support the tone without slowing down the experience. For this example, I host a portfolio version on AWS. In a client project, I would publish an LMS-compatible package, test it in the target system, and confirm that completion and progress data are recorded correctly before rollout.

Branching scenario in Storyline

Hotline caller interaction

To evaluate the course's effectiveness, Dr. DeWalt and I used Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model, aligning it with our KPI of increasing the Caller De-Escalation Rate (CDR) by 5% by January 2026.

Level 1 – Reaction: We gathered feedback from counselors on their experience with the course to ensure it was engaging and relevant.

Level 2 – Learning: We assessed counselors before and after the course to measure improvements in their understanding and application of the 6-Step Crisis Intervention Model.

Level 3 – Behavior: We observed counselors' performance on real crisis calls, tracking how well they applied the learned skills to improve the CDR.

Level 4 – Results: Finally, we tracked the CDR to see if it increased by 5%, directly linking the training to improved outcomes.

Illustrative outcome: In this fictional scenario, imagine the CDR increases by 6.2% within three months of implementation, exceeding the 5% target. Counselor feedback suggests greater confidence during challenging calls, and the training becomes part of onboarding. These results are hypothetical. They illustrate how I would connect evaluation to the original performance goal.