EPISODE 05: What Makes a High-Quality Learning Program?

Posted on September 23, 2026 by Rowell Mariano

In the previous episode of The Backstage: Beyond the Classroom, we talked about the relationship between Proof and Presence using the 2P Matrix. We explored why expertise alone is not always enough and why credible professionals also need to make their work visible to the people who need it. This time, I want to return to Learning Excellence and ask another question that sounds simple at first but becomes more complicated once we start looking at what really happens before, during, and after a learning program: What makes a learning program high quality?

When we think about quality training, it is easy to look at what learners immediately see. We look at the facilitator, the materials, the activities, the venue, the learning platform, or perhaps the evaluation scores at the end of the session. All of these are important. Good facilitation matters. Good design matters. The learner experience matters. The question is whether these things, on their own, are enough for us to say that we have created high-quality learning.

I have seen learning programs that were well facilitated, professionally designed, highly interactive, and enjoyable for the learners. The materials looked good, and the participants gave very good evaluation scores. Those are all positive indicators of quality, but there are still important questions that need to be asked after the session. Did the learning stick? Could the learners recall what they learned? More importantly, were they able to use it when they needed it?

We Already Have Many Learning Models and Standards

There is no shortage of instructional design models available to learning professionals. We have ADDIE, the Successive Approximation Model or SAM, agile approaches to learning design, and many other methodologies that organisations can use depending on their requirements. In my own work, I introduced the FIT Wheel in Will It FIT?, which looks at the learning process through FORM, IMPLEMENT, and TEST (Mariano, 2022).

There are also recognised standards that address learning and development from different perspectives. Some ISO standards, for example, look at competence management and people development, educational organisations, learning services, and workplace learning and development. Different standards serve different purposes, and organisations may look at them depending on the nature of the learning they provide and the type of quality system they are trying to establish.

Then there is the IACET Standard for Continuing Education and Training, which is particularly relevant to organisations providing continuing education and professional training. The Standard looks at areas such as organisational responsibility, learner support, instructional personnel, needs analysis, learning outcomes, instructional requirements, assessment, learner records, and evaluation. What I find particularly useful about the IACET approach is that it does not focus only on what happens during the learning event. It looks at the systems and processes behind the program as well.

With all these models and standards available, I do not think we need another process model telling learning professionals how to build a training program from beginning to end. Instead, it may be more useful to look at the common elements that help us determine whether the learning we create can genuinely be considered high quality. From the different approaches, quality standards, research, and practical experience we have discussed, four areas stand out: Alignment, Architecture, Application, and Assurance.

4As of High-Quality Learning

Alignment: Are We Addressing the Right Need?

For me, quality starts before anyone begins developing the program. If a training provider speaks with an organisation and immediately recommends an existing course without first understanding the need, I already have questions. What is the direction of the organisation? What is happening in the business today? What capabilities do people currently have? What capabilities will they need in the future? Somewhere between what people can do today and what the organisation will need them to do is the gap that learning may need to address.

The same principle applies when the program is developed internally. Before asking what training we should conduct, I would first ask why we need the training and what we are trying to achieve because of it. Once we understand the gap, we can identify the learning outcomes and determine what the learners should know or be able to do differently. From there, decisions about the content, methodology, modality, activities, and assessment become much easier to justify because they are connected to an actual need.

This is why I become cautious when a provider hears an initial requirement and immediately says that they already have a program available for it. There are legitimate situations where a program follows an established structure because it is connected to a particular methodology, certification, or standard. However, when the organisation has a specific capability need, simply taking an existing deck and changing the client name or logo is not customisation. The program should fit the need, and the need should never be forced to fit the program.

Architecture: Was the Learning Intentionally Built?

Once the need and the intended outcomes are clear, we can start looking at how the learning is built. This is where the content, methodology, activities, modality, materials, assessment, facilitation, pacing, examples, and learning environment come together. Every one of these decisions should have a reason behind it because a learning method should not be selected simply because it is popular, entertaining, or convenient for the facilitator. It should help the learner achieve the intended outcome.

The learner experience is also an important part of this architecture. If the learning is delivered face to face, the environment should support the kind of experience we want to create. If it is online, we need to recognise that putting people in a virtual room and delivering a long lecture is not automatically good online learning. The examples should feel relevant to the learners, the materials should be appropriate, and the facilitator should be able to connect what is being discussed with the situation where the learner will eventually use it.

I also believe that internally developed learning should not automatically feel less professional simply because it was created inside the organisation. Learners should experience the same care in the design, materials, facilitation, and overall journey that they would expect from a strong external provider. This does not mean every program needs expensive production or sophisticated technology. It means the program was properly thought through and that the choices made around the learning experience support what we are actually trying to achieve.

I was reminded of this when a training provider once reached out to me about a learner who felt that the program being delivered was no longer appropriate to the person’s level. The learner was finding it difficult to relate to the material because some of what was being discussed was already too basic for what the person needed. Instead of immediately recommending another course, I spoke with the learner first to understand the person’s current capability, existing skills, and the areas the learner genuinely wanted to improve. From there, we developed something that was much more closely connected to the actual need.

What mattered to me was what happened afterwards. The learner appreciated the experience, but more importantly, the person was able to recall the techniques and strategies we discussed and use them even after the sessions were over. That experience reinforced something important about learning quality. We do not need to create an entirely different program for every individual learner, especially when working with larger groups, but we do need to understand the learners well enough to make intelligent decisions about what we teach, how we teach it, and what they should eventually be able to do with it.

Application: Did the Learning Stick?

Good architecture and good delivery matter, but quality learning should not end there. A program can have an excellent facilitator, beautifully designed materials, engaging activities, and an enjoyable learner experience, yet we still need to ask what happened to the learning after the event. Could learners recall what they learned when they needed it? Could they demonstrate it? Could they actually use it in the context where that capability matters?

Research on learning transfer continues to reinforce this point. Ardondi et al. (2026) describe training transfer as the extent to which the knowledge, skills, and attitudes acquired during training are effectively applied in the workplace. Their review also found that organisations use different approaches to determine whether transfer has actually happened, which is important because there is no single measure that will work for every type of learning.

Hamzah et al. (2025) reached a related conclusion in their review of soft skills transfer. They found that whether learning eventually translates into behaviour is influenced not only by the training itself but also by factors such as the learner’s capability, motivation, opportunity to apply the skill, and the environment surrounding the learner. This reminds us that when we talk about quality, we cannot look only at what happened during the learning event.

Application also does not mean that every program needs to demonstrate a financial return on investment before we can consider it high quality. There are interventions where ROI can reasonably be calculated. In other situations, return on expectations may be more appropriate. Sometimes the evidence may be improved performance, better quality, fewer mistakes, stronger communication, greater confidence in performing a particular task, or an observable change in behaviour. In some cases, we may need to return after 60 or 90 days to see whether the learning is actually being used rather than assuming that a successful assessment at the end of the session automatically means the learning has transferred.

This principle is not limited to corporate training. If someone learns a new vocal technique, the question is whether the singer can use it while performing. If an actor develops a particular skill, the person should be able to apply it while portraying a role. If a manager learns coaching, that learning should eventually become visible in an actual coaching conversation. The situations are different, but the principle remains the same: the learning should become usable when the learner needs it.

Assurance: Can Quality Be Repeated?

The fourth A is Assurance, and this is where much of the work learners may never see becomes important. A high-quality learning program should not depend only on having one excellent facilitator, one committed project team, or one successful batch. There should be policies, processes, responsibilities, criteria for instructional personnel, appropriate resources, learner records, assessment procedures, evaluation methods, documentation, and continuous improvement practices that help an organisation produce quality consistently.

This is one of the reasons the IACET Standard for Continuing Education and Training is particularly relevant when we talk about quality. The Standard looks at the entire system surrounding learning, from organisational responsibility and learner support to needs analysis, learning outcomes, instruction, assessment, records, and evaluation. It asks organisations not only to describe what they do but also to demonstrate that the necessary policies, processes, and practices are actually in place.

After reviewing many accreditation applications over the years, one thing I have repeatedly noticed is that many requirements associated with quality are not necessarily complicated. In many cases, they are fundamentals that good learning organisations should already be doing. The challenge is whether those practices are clearly defined, documented, consistently implemented, evaluated, and improved.

An organisation may say that it evaluates its programs, but quality assurance asks how the evaluation is done, who reviews the results, what decisions are made from the evidence, and what actually changes afterwards. An organisation may say that it has qualified facilitators, but the next questions are about the criteria used to select them and how their performance is evaluated. An organisation may also say that it continuously improves its programs, but the important question is whether it can demonstrate what was reviewed, what was learned, and what changed as a result.

That is where assurance becomes important. One successful learning program can show that an organisation is capable of producing quality. A strong quality system helps that organisation produce quality more consistently. External standards and accreditation can provide another level of assurance by giving organisations an established benchmark against which their learning systems and practices can be reviewed.

The 4As of High-Quality Learning

The 4As give us a simple way of looking at quality without trying to create another instructional design process. Alignment asks whether we are addressing the right need for the right learners and within the right context. Architecture looks at whether the learning has been intentionally designed and delivered in a way that supports the intended outcomes and creates a quality learning experience. Application asks whether the learning sticks and can be used where it matters, while Assurance looks at whether there are systems, standards, evidence, and continuous improvement practices supporting the learning behind the scenes.

These areas also help explain why one strong element does not automatically make an entire program high quality. Strong Architecture without Alignment can result in a beautifully designed solution to the wrong problem. Alignment without Architecture means we understand the need but may still fail to build the right experience. Architecture without Application can produce a memorable session that learners struggle to use afterwards, while Application without Assurance may give us good results that an organisation cannot reliably reproduce. Looking at all four gives us a more complete picture of learning quality.

How We Approach Learning at Talent Academy International

This thinking also reflects how we approach program development at Talent Academy International. We do not begin with a deck and then look for a client that might fit it. We begin by understanding the organisation, the learners, the nature of their work, their current capability, and the outcome the client is trying to achieve. We then research the subject and build or adapt the learning around that context so that the program connects with the environment where people are expected to use what they have learned.

Customisation does not mean everything must be developed from zero every time. There are concepts, methodologies, activities, and learning assets that can be adapted when they are appropriate. What matters is that the decisions are driven by the client need rather than by what already happens to be available. When learners can clearly see how the program connects with their work and their capability needs, there is a much better chance that the learning will remain relevant after the session itself.

Taking Quality Further Through IACET Accreditation

For organisations that provide continuing education and training and want to strengthen the systems behind their programs, IACET accreditation provides a structured way of benchmarking their practices against an internationally recognised standard for continuing education and training. The accreditation process looks at the policies, processes, documentation, assessment practices, evaluation mechanisms, learner records, and other systems that support the organisation’s learning programs.

For me, the value of accreditation is not simply having a mark that an organisation can place on its website or marketing materials. The process can force an organisation to look more closely at practices that may have existed informally for years and ask whether those practices are clearly defined, consistently implemented, supported by evidence, and continuously improved.

I also work with organisations that want to strengthen their learning systems and prepare for IACET accreditation. The objective is not simply to create documents because an application requires them. It is to help organisations establish policies and processes that make sense in actual operations, identify quality gaps that need to be addressed, and build practices that can continue after accreditation has been achieved.

High Quality Does Not Happen by Accident

A high-quality learning program is not defined only by what learners see when a facilitator enters the room or when participants log into a learning platform. It begins with Alignment, becomes visible through the Architecture of the learning experience, proves itself through Application, and is sustained through Assurance. Good facilitation, relevant content, appropriate methodology, learner experience, assessment, application, documentation, and continuous improvement all matter because quality learning comes from these elements working together.

Perhaps that is also why so much of learning quality is easy to overlook. Learners see the program, but they may never see the analysis, research, design decisions, policies, processes, documentation, evaluation, and improvement work that made the learning possible. Yet these are often the things that determine whether an organisation simply conducts training or consistently creates learning that people can remember and use.

That is the work that continues in the backstage, beyond the classroom.

References

Ardondi, M., Fortunato, E., Ruozi, C., Di Fronzo, P., Saffioti, A., Ferrari, I., Bassi, M. C., Ghirotto, L., & Pedroni, C. (2026). Workplace training transfer: A systematic scoping review of evaluation tools for adult learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 38(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-03-2025-0068

Hamzah, H. A., Marcinko, A. J., Stephens, B., & Weick, M. (2025). Making soft skills ‘stick’: A systematic scoping review and integrated training transfer framework grounded in behavioural science. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 34(2), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2024.2376909

International Accreditors for Continuing Education and Training. (n.d.). IACET Standard for Continuing Education and Training. https://www.iacet.org/standards/ansi-iacet-2018-1-standard-for-continuing-education-and-training/

International Organization for Standardization. (2022). ISO 30422:2022 Human resource management: Learning and development. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:30422:ed-1:v1:en

Mariano, R. V. (2022). Will It FIT? A guide for training professionals and enthusiasts. Rex Printing Company, Inc.