Putting Meat in Your Models: Back to the basics

Models. They list steps, key points, features or act as memnotics. To name a few,

RICE: Rest, Ice, Compression, Elevation

ARCS: Attention, Relevancy, Confidence, Satisfaction

SPIN Selling: Situation, Problem, Implication, and Need-payoff

ADDIE: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation

Three body types:

• Ectomorph – Model-thin, without much muscle


• Mesomorph – Muscular, athletic


• Endomorph – Curvy, easily puts on extra pounds

These are all great tools to simplify complex concepts or processes so that key features can be taugh, or to provide a language for basic discussion. Unfortunately, many times models are taught as an end in themselves.

For example, when I was growing up, I learned the three body types and that I was an Ectomorph. What does it really mean that I'm an Ectomorph, besides that I was skinny? What choices should I make based on this information? Did I change body types as I became 30 lbs overweight? I didn’t know; I just knew the model. It was a nice-to-know.

Years later, when I learned about the body types in the context of fat cells and muscle cells, it all became clear. The number of fat cells in your body remains constant: when you get fatter, the fat cells get bigger. Muscles do grow, but each body grows them at a different rate. Endomorphs are naturally “blessed” with a lot of fat cells and less muscle, Mesomorphs are just the opposite: lots of fast-growing muscle cells and fewer fat cells, and Ectomorphs don’t have many of either. Understanding the impact of my natural fat and muscle potential took me beyond the model and into real-life decisions. When I say that I’m an Ectomorph, I’m not saying that I’m thin and don’t have much muscle right now – I might be gaining weight or working out – I’m saying that no amount of working out will give me huge muscles. It also means that it’s a bit harder to gain weight and easier to lose it than some people. This is useful, relevant information: a need-to-know. The model now helps me determine whether my exercise program is successful or whether I should work harder, for instance.

The model allowed me to recognize general body types, but I needed more to apply this knowledge in a useful way. We can't assume that reciting the model gives our students the ability to make more informed choices. We need to explicitly draw the connection between the model and the real world.

Low trust situations are another area where models are misused. The designers and SMEs don’t trust trainers or students. The trainers don’t trust themselves or the students. And the students don’t know any better. In this environment models are easily used to teach basic content regardless of the students’ prior knowledge. In many cases, the model gets between students and the correct performance.

In one workshop, front line managers, who - as a group - knew basic and intermediate communication principles, were unable to apply their existing knowledge on the job. They would yell or close off communication with their employees. To fix this, they were taught four different, new, communication models. While it may have been useful to teach them the Seven Levels of Severity and Urgency (i.e. when it’s really appropriate to yell), it may have been much more effective for the students to build their own model, testing it against a variety of pre-written “difficult” scenarios. Not only would they “own” the model but it would be tailor-made to the participants’ unique job challenges. As a group they had the knowledge and ability to do this, but instead were given yet more knowledge. Though, to be fair, they did role-play with the new knowledge.

The fundamental problem with the workshop was that the trainers weren’t comfortable with “touchy-feely” content; neither were the SMEs, who also felt that the managers wouldn’t be open to unstructured content; and the designers were focused on writing good multiple-choice questions.

To find the answer to both types of model misapplication, lack of relevance and underestimating the learner, we must return to the fundamental principles of instructional design: learning is a change in behavior. It is behavior that will close the performance gap. And that’s what you should test - the performance gap:

• “What results should you expect from a good exercise program?”


• “Your employee forgot to put out a ‘wet floor’ sign for the third time, creating substantial liability for your company. You have less than five minutes to deal with him today. Make sure that this doesn’t happen again.”

The focus on the problem - not the model - and the appropriate testing that goes hand-in-hand with this focus, allows us to trust that our students will develop the "right" answer on their own.

I'm not saying that models are useless. As I stated in the beginning, they can provide missing expertise, speeding our students’ ability to problem-solve in the real world. But without the focus on the performance gap, the testing, and the trust, models become Endomorphs: lots of fat but no meat.