Exploring The Crossovers Between Curriculum Development And L&D With Jackie Pelegrin

How did you begin your journey in learning and development and how did it lead you to what you do now?

I was originally planning to go into business and marketing, but at a certain point I decided to pivot. At the time, I was working in customer service across different areas within the financial industry. I worked at Discover Card, and during that period I decided to pursue my undergraduate degree in business with an emphasis in marketing. After that, I went on to complete my master’s while working at the University of Phoenix.

That was really my first exposure to higher education, and I absolutely fell in love with it. I initially thought I would continue down the business route, but then I took a role at Walden University, which is an online-only institution. At that time, they were just launching a master’s programme in instructional design, along with certificate programmes. 

As I started looking more closely at the courses, I found myself increasingly drawn to them. The more I explored, the more I realised that this was what I wanted to do. So I took the plunge and enrolled in the master’s programme.

About halfway through, an opportunity opened up in the L&D department within admissions. The role focused on training admissions staff, and since I was already working in admissions, it felt like a natural fit. My manager told me that if I completed my master’s, the role would be mine. I agreed immediately.

That’s how I started my first instructional design role back in 2012, and I haven’t looked back. Since then, I’ve continued working in higher education, which I really enjoy. I now focus on curriculum development, but I still carry that strong L&D foundation with me. I continue to work on training and professional development within my department, and more recently I’ve also started teaching.

Teaching has really changed my perspective. Being in the trenches every day, seeing what students are facing in the real world, has made me a better instructional designer. It keeps my skills sharp and up to date, and I often feel like I’m learning just as much from my students as they are from me. It’s very much a win-win, and I genuinely love it.

With your experience in both curriculum and L&D, what are the key distinctions between the two, and what have you brought from curriculum into your L&D work?

When I was working in L&D, there were definitely some distinct elements to that role. I had to learn how to manage a learning management system, upload training content, analyse data, and evaluate how effective the training was.

I also delivered train-the-trainer sessions, which is something I don’t do as much now. As an instructional designer in that environment, I worked through the full ADDIE process of analyse, design, develop, implement and evaluate, which I enjoyed a lot. I loved starting with the analysis phase and talking to stakeholders and learners early on, understanding their pain points, and identifying the problems they’re trying to solve.

From there, I would design and develop the training, collaborate with subject matter experts, refine content, and then test it with learners. That entire process was incredibly engaging and rewarding.

When I transitioned into curriculum development, it was quite a shift. One of the first things I noticed was that I wasn’t using the same tools anymore. In L&D, I used software like Captivate, but in curriculum development, there was a separate media team responsible for that work, using entirely different tools.

That was a bit of a shock. I remember thinking, “Wait, what do you mean I don’t get to use the software anymore?” There were also differences in approaches. For example, the way learning objectives were structured. Some of the frameworks I had learned, like ABCD objectives, weren’t used in the same way.

So it required a real paradigm shift. I had to adjust my thinking and learn new approaches. But what’s been really valuable is being able to take best practices from L&D and apply them to curriculum development. That crossover has been incredibly beneficial. It’s allowed me to strengthen curriculum design using what I know works from a training perspective, and that blend has really shaped how I approach my work today.

You mentioned your journey included some challenges. Talk about those pivotal moments.

Yes, definitely. One example that really stands out is when I tried to move into a role with PetSmart.

I’ve always loved animals and grew up with pets, so working for PetSmart was something I really wanted. They have stores across the United States, offering everything from grooming to retail, and I applied for an instructional designer role there twice.

Both times, I couldn’t get past the second interview. I didn’t understand why, so I asked the recruiter directly. He told me I didn’t have enough banking experience, which was surprising because I had worked at Discover Card and Vanguard. But apparently, that wasn’t considered sufficient.

I decided to move on and ended up working with a creative agency through Robert Half’s Creative Group. They had a relationship with PetSmart, which helped me get a contract role there. I was excited because I thought it might lead to something permanent, but the contract ended after six months.

That was disappointing. At the time, I thought it was my opportunity to get in long-term. But not long after, I learned that when the company was sold, they let go of almost the entire L&D team. People who had been there for years, including someone who had been there for 17 years.

Looking back, I realised that not getting that role was actually a blessing in disguise. Around that same time, I started working at Grand Canyon University, and that turned out to be a defining moment in my career. It opened the door to teaching, podcasting, and everything I’m doing now.

At the time, it felt like a setback. But going through that storm helped me see, in hindsight, that it all led me to where I was meant to be. It really shaped who I am professionally.

That’s really inspiring to hear. What are your thoughts on the debate between learning styles and learning preferences?

That’s a great question, and there’s definitely ongoing debate around that. Personally, I’ve always leaned toward using Universal Design for Learning principles. The idea is to meet learners where they are, regardless of whether you call them styles or preferences.

We often hear about auditory, visual, and kinesthetic learning styles, and I’ve always heard them described that way. For me, I’d say I lean toward a combination. I like both visual and auditory elements working together. For example, when I watch a video, I don’t want to just hear it. I want to see what’s happening as well. That combination helps reinforce understanding.

I also rely heavily on Mayer’s multimedia principles, which are grounded in research. These principles show, for example, that words and images together are more effective than either alone, and that they should be placed close together to avoid cognitive overload.

I try to focus on these evidence-based approaches rather than getting caught up in trends or hype. It’s easy to get pulled into what’s popular, but grounding your work in research is what really makes a difference.

One challenge I’ve noticed, especially in curriculum development, is that subject matter experts often know their content deeply but struggle to translate it into effective learning experiences. They tend to overload students with too much information.

That’s been a real pain point: helping faculty break content down, chunk it properly, and avoid overwhelming learners.

One of the biggest challenges that seems to be apparent in L&D is demonstrating behaviour change. How do you think L&D professionals ensure learning leads to real behavioural change?

One model I like to use is Kirkpatrick’s model, which has four levels of evaluation. The first level is reaction i.e. how learners initially respond. The second is behaviour change, which is where we start to see whether learning is actually being applied. Levels three and four focus on longer-term impact, which often takes months to fully assess.

One of the biggest mistakes I see is treating training as a one-time event. You deliver it, roll it out, and then move on. But real impact comes from creating a continuous feedback loop.

That means involving learners throughout the process, not just during development, but after implementation as well. You need to keep evaluating what’s working and what isn’t.

It’s also important to involve stakeholders, but ultimately the learner should be at the centre of everything. We talk a lot about learner-centred design, but the question is whether we’re actually practising it. If behaviour change isn’t happening, that’s okay. But it means you need to go back, reassess, and iterate. That’s what makes training better over time.

How can trainers avoid cognitive biases, like assuming learning has taken place when it hasn’t?

That’s such an important point. One key thing is making sure trainers aren’t working in isolation. Instructional designers, trainers, and other stakeholders need to collaborate closely and support each other.

Early in my career, I struggled with train-the-trainer sessions. I would provide all the information, but I wasn’t effectively simulating how the training should actually be delivered. That wasn’t my natural strength. 

But I worked with a trainer who complemented my skills. He wanted to learn the tools I was using, and I wanted to improve my training delivery. By working together, we were able to bridge those gaps. That collaboration made the training stronger overall. It ensured that what was designed aligned with how it was delivered.

It’s also important to prepare trainers to adapt. Not everything will go according to plan, so they need to be able to pivot and respond in the moment. One model I really like for this is the ARCS model: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction.

You start by capturing attention, then show relevance, build confidence so learners feel capable, and ensure satisfaction so they actually apply what they’ve learned and continue using it. That structure helps create more meaningful and lasting learning experiences.

When it comes to showing the impact of training and L&D programmes, I believe showing data like completion rates are important. But I’m much more interested in the qualitative data side involving human emotion and storytelling.

How do you think companies can balance qualitative and quantitative data in evaluating training?

I think qualitative data is just as important as quantitative data. Numbers can tell part of the story, but they don’t give you the full picture. To really understand what’s happening, you need that human element of the emotions, the experiences, the stories behind the data.

I like to use a combination of methods. Surveys are useful because they can include both quantitative scales and open-ended questions. But I also value interviews, focus groups, and observations.

Focus groups, in particular, are incredibly powerful. Bringing learners together to discuss their experiences allows you to uncover insights you wouldn’t get from data alone. Observations are another great tool, just sitting in a session and watching what’s happening, both verbally and nonverbally. Using a mix of these approaches gives you a much richer understanding of the learning experience.

Focus groups seem like a really powerful way to capture deep human insights here. Can you share an example of a focus group you’ve run and what the results were?

Yes, absolutely. It’s something I’ve had a lot of experience with, particularly in my first L&D role when I was working at Walden University.

At the time, we built a structured follow-up process around our training programmes, typically using a 30-60-90 day model. The idea behind that was not just to deliver training and move on, but to really understand what impact it was having over time. As part of that process, focus groups became a really valuable tool for us.

Before the training was rolled out more broadly, I would first select a group of learners, usually between five and ten people, depending on the size and scope of the training. These individuals would go through the training in advance as part of a pre-implementation phase. To encourage participation, I would let them know that they’d receive credit for completing the training early, so they wouldn’t need to take it again later. That incentive worked really well and helped us get thoughtful, engaged participants.

Then, after the training had been fully rolled out, I would go back to those same learners and invite them to be part of a post-training focus group. I’d usually ask them upfront, when they first participated, if they’d be willing to join that follow-up session as well. Most of them were happy to do so, especially since they’d already been involved from the beginning.

We would then bring everyone together in a room, often providing lunch to create a relaxed and open environment, and facilitate a discussion around their experiences. I would ask questions about what worked well, what didn’t, what challenges they were still facing, and whether there were any ongoing pain points. It was also important to explore how well the knowledge had transferred into their day-to-day work.

I would also bring the trainer into those sessions, which added another layer of insight. It allowed us to hear both the learner and trainer perspectives in the same space, which often revealed gaps or opportunities that wouldn’t have been obvious otherwise.

One of the most valuable aspects of these focus groups was the ability to dig deeper into survey data. For example, if we saw that 85% of respondents answered a question in a certain way, I could use the focus group to explore the why behind that response. That deeper level of understanding was incredibly powerful.

Overall, the process gave me rich, actionable insights. Not just for improving that specific training, but for shaping future programmes as well. It really reinforced the importance of going beyond surface-level data and truly understanding the learner experience.

What excites you about AI in L&D and curriculum development?

What excites me most about AI is the way I see it acting as a collaborative partner rather than a replacement. In my day-to-day work, whether that’s teaching, working in L&D, or developing curriculum, I’m already seeing AI come alongside me and enhance what I do. It’s helping me identify things I might not have noticed before, whether that’s gaps in content, opportunities for improvement, or areas where training can be made more effective. In that sense, it’s strengthening both the training and the curriculum I work on.

I think one of its biggest advantages is how it can handle those lower-level or more time-consuming tasks, such as analysing data or identifying patterns. That allows me to spend more time focusing on deeper, more strategic work. Of course, it’s not perfect, and it’s important to apply a human lens to anything it produces, because it’s not always going to be completely accurate. But it gives you a really strong starting point.

What’s particularly interesting is how we’re now using AI within curriculum development itself. In some cases, we’re actually using AI to improve the curriculum in ways that make it more authentic and reduce the likelihood of students relying on AI inappropriately. There’s a bit of irony in that, using AI to help ensure students don’t over-rely on it. But it’s been effective.

At Grand Canyon University, we use something called the AI stoplight method, which I think is a really practical way of guiding students. It uses a red, yellow, and green system. Red means AI cannot be used at all. It has to be entirely the student’s original work. Yellow allows limited use, such as for brainstorming or outlining, but the final output still needs to be their own. Green allows broader use of AI, but with the expectation that students use it ethically and properly cite it.

I think that framework is important because it’s not about guiding students, not policing them. AI is already part of the workforce, and students are going to encounter it in their careers. So it’s about helping them understand how to use it responsibly and ethically, rather than avoiding it altogether.

This is a new space for everyone: faculty, curriculum developers, L&D professionals, and learners. We’re all navigating it together. I think as long as we approach it with openness and a willingness to learn, AI can be an incredibly valuable tool in the learning space.

It feels like learners have more choice than ever now with courses, e-learning modules and paths to choose. I think that is a double edged sword because it can potentially lead to learning fatigue and leave people feeling paralysed and unable to make a decision. 

What are your thoughts on learning fatigue and do you recommend any best practices for recognising it?

Learning fatigue is very real, and it’s something I’ve been seeing more frequently, particularly with the rise of adaptive learning and the push to offer learners more choice.

In theory, giving learners multiple pathways or options sounds like a great idea. It aligns with the idea of personalisation and flexibility. But in practice, too many choices can actually become overwhelming. I’ve seen this happen in curriculum design, where instructors might offer ten or even fifteen different options for completing an assignment.

At that point, it stops being empowering and starts becoming paralysing. Learners can feel unsure about which option to choose, and that uncertainty can slow them down or even discourage them from engaging fully.

I’ve come across examples recently where discussion questions included an excessive number of options, and my immediate reaction was to scale that back. Reducing those options to something more manageable, say five instead of ten, can make a huge difference. It doesn’t limit learners; it actually helps them focus and make decisions more confidently.

Another important aspect is making sure that whatever learning path you design is actually workable. It’s not just about offering options, but about ensuring those options are meaningful, achievable, and lead to successful outcomes. That’s where testing becomes really important. You need to test with learners, gather feedback, and evaluate whether the design is truly effective.

I often come back to the ARCS model of attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. If learners don’t feel confident in the choices they’re making, or if they don’t feel satisfied with the outcome, then the design needs to be revisited.

So for me, it’s about being strategic. Offer choice, but not so much that it overwhelms. Structure learning in a way that supports decision-making rather than complicating it. That’s how you avoid fatigue and keep learners engaged.

How do you continue evolving as a professional in this field?

For me, evolving as a professional is about staying actively engaged in multiple ways and continuously looking for opportunities to grow.

One of the things I already do is attend conferences, particularly virtual ones. But I’d like to attend more in-person conferences in the future, because there’s something different about being in the same room as others in your field. The level of connection, the conversations you have, and the insights you gain can be much deeper.

I’m also interested in doing more presenting. I’ve had the opportunity to present before. For example, I presented at one of Connie Malamed’s events through her instructional design programme, and that experience was incredibly valuable. It pushed me not only to prepare strong content but also to think about how to deliver it in a way that truly resonates and sticks with learners.

Another key part of my development is my podcast Designing With Love. Interviewing other professionals allows me to learn from a wide range of perspectives and stay connected to what’s happening across the industry. It’s been a powerful way to keep expanding my understanding.

I also make a conscious effort to stay up to date with new tools, especially as many of them now incorporate AI. Learning how to use these tools effectively is becoming increasingly important, and I see that as a critical part of staying relevant in this field.

Finally, one of the most valuable ways I continue to grow is through my students. Being in the classroom and seeing what they’re experiencing in real-world environments gives me direct insight into current challenges and trends. I can then take that learning and feed it back into my curriculum design and training work.