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, its time to learn about its causes. This will help us design instruction that pinpoints specific gaps.

To get a full picture of what’s going on, I bring together a small panel: a team lead, a senior crisis counselor, and the training manager.

I guide the conversation using Cropper’s 11 Performance Factors, asking targeted questions about areas like knowledge, emotional capacity, and feedback. Our goal isn't just to identify gaps in knowledge, but to gain a comprehensive understanding of what is going wrong.

Select each performance factor tab below to read a detailed 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.

Demonstration and application.

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 begin working on the visual mockups for the course. This is where the design starts to take shape. I want the course to feel professional but approachable—something that reflects the seriousness of crisis counseling while still being engaging and user-friendly.

We decide on a clean, modern look that helps learners stay focused while reinforcing the tone of the training: supportive and professional.I collaborate with Dr. DeWalt to ensure the design aligns with the tone of the content.

We keep things simple—calming colors, intuitive icons, and a layout that guides learners naturally through each scenario. The goal is to create a visual environment that supports learning without overwhelming it.

‍Tools: I use Adobe Color to extract a palette from a photo that captures the mood we’re going for. Then, I build the course template in Adobe Express, using that palette as the foundation for the design.

visual Mockup

With the design and content fully in place, I shift gears into the technical build. I use Articulate Storyline to bring the course to life, making sure the interactive elements (especially the branching crisis scenarios) feel smooth and meaningful. Each scenario is programmed with conditional triggers, so learner choices lead to different outcomes, just like in real-life crisis calls.

Because of the sensitive nature of the material, I pay extra attention to pacing. A simple 2-second fade-in throughout the course helps create a calm, supportive tone. These small design touches reinforce the emotional weight of the content and give learners space to pause and reflect before making a decision.

Once the build is complete, I upload the course to Amazon Web Services (AWS) and set it up with SCORM to track learner progress. After testing everything to make sure it works smoothly, I deploy the course in Canvas. This setup makes it easy for counselors to access the training—and for us to track engagement and completion.

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.

Outcome: Within three months of implementation, Connect Line reported a 6.2% increase in the Caller De-Escalation Rate (CDR), a marked improvement over the 5% KPI target. Staff feedback was overwhelmingly positive, with counselors reporting greater confidence and clarity during high-stakes calls. The training is now part of onboarding for all new hires.