6.2 Challenge Identification

This topic covers the Challenge phase of the learning engineering process focusing on defining a problem to solve or opportunity to pursue to support learners and their development. It establishes a clear understanding of the issue that the learning solution should address.

¶ Subsections:

• 6.2.1 Problem Framing and Contextual Understanding

• 6.2.2 Stakeholder Engagement and Input

  ---

From the Learning Engineering Toolkit

In the learning engineering process, work always starts with a challenge or problem connected to learners and learning [LET-01]. What brings a challenge to light can come from many directions: data from an earlier turn of the process, a shifted environment or business process that calls for new learning, newcomers joining a community with different needs, or a topic already recognized as hard within a field or domain [LET-01]. However a challenge comes into view, understanding it means understanding the learning objectives, the learner or learners, and the conditions that will hinder or help learners reach the targeted goal [LET-01].

A hallmark of this phase is restraint: as in other branches of engineering, learning engineering avoids arriving with a solution already in hand and searching for a problem to fit it; the point is to understand the challenge thoroughly before pursuing solutions [LET-01]. Challenges are also rarely fixed or self-contained. Addressing one challenge often means addressing a set of sub-challenges, and new ones surface as the process unfolds [LET-01].

To reach that depth of understanding, learning engineers turn to dedicated analysis tools. As Rossett and Sheldon express it, analysis is essentially the investigation we carry out in order to determine our course of action [LET-08]. Fully understanding a learning engineering challenge means understanding what has to be learned, the conditions that may need attention, and the intricacies of that learning [LET-08]. Four complementary tools support this work: task analysis, the five whys technique, cause-and-effect (fishbone) analysis, and failure mode and effects analysis [LET-08]. The five whys helps locate the underlying reason learning falls short, which then becomes the team's next challenge to solve [LET-08], while failure mode and effects analysis helps rank which challenge to take on first [LET-08]. Because a challenge is never isolated, these tools are frequently paired with tools from other chapters to make sense of conditions and constraints [LET-08].

Further Reading

Source: wrgr/lecommons — curated by the learning engineering community. Confidence: medium — lecommons-curated; not yet independently expert-validated in this context. To validate or challenge any item: use the Edit button on this page. Upgrading confidence from medium → high requires expert sign-off.

Landmark Academic Papers

• Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning — John Sweller (1988). Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 · ~4,000 citations · tier: foundational

  The founding paper of Cognitive Load Theory. Established that working memory limitations impose hard constraints on instruction design. CLT-derived principles (worked examples, split-attention, redundancy) are among the most widely replicated findings in educational psychology and are standard design rules in learning engineering. Source: lecommons/landscape/data/papers.json · ID: LE-LS-AP-008 · confidence: medium · expert-validated: false

• Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings — Ann L. Brown (1992). Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2 · ~2,800 citations · tier: foundational

  The most-cited paper in JLS history. Established design-based research as the canonical methodology for testing engineered learning interventions in authentic classroom settings. Defined the epistemological standards that learning engineering uses when validating systems in the wild. Source: lecommons/landscape/data/papers.json · ID: LE-LS-AP-003 · confidence: medium · expert-validated: false

• Abstract planning and perceptual chunks: Elements of expertise in geometry — Kenneth R. Koedinger, John R. Anderson (1990). Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1404_2 · ~650 citations · tier: foundational

  Foundational paper mapping human cognitive processes into computational production rules. Established the methodology for encoding domain expertise into ITS knowledge components — the direct basis for Cognitive Tutor and all subsequent production-rule ITS. Source: lecommons/landscape/data/papers.json · ID: LE-LS-AP-001 · confidence: medium · expert-validated: false

• Improving students' help-seeking skills using metacognitive feedback in an intelligent tutoring system — Ido Roll, Vincent Aleven, Bruce M. McLaren et al. (2011). Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.07.004 · ~600 citations · tier: highly_cited

  Demonstrated that LE methods can be applied beyond domain knowledge to model and improve learner metacognition and self-regulation. Proved that intelligent tutors can engineer help-seeking behavior, not just subject-matter proficiency — broadening the scope of what LE can target. Source: lecommons/landscape/data/papers.json · ID: LE-LS-AP-007 · confidence: medium · expert-validated: false

• The doer effect at scale: Investigating correlation and causation across seven courses — Rachel Van Campenhout, Bill Jerome, Benny G. Johnson (2023). Proceedings of LAK23: 13th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference · doi:10.1145/3576050.3576088 · ~80 citations · tier: contemporary

  Leveraged telemetry from large-scale online platforms to isolate the causal effect of active practice (doing) vs. passive reading on learning outcomes across seven courses. Provides large-sample empirical validation of one of learning engineering's core design principles at scale. Source: lecommons/landscape/data/papers.json · ID: LE-LS-AP-012 · confidence: medium · expert-validated: false

• Generalizable Learning Engineering Adoption Maturity Model — Shawn Blake-Plock, Scotty D. Craig, Emily Czerwinski et al. (2025). Journal of Learning Engineering (preprint/proceedings) · tier: contemporary

  Defines a multi-level organizational capability model for assessing and advancing an institution's LE practice. Provides a structured framework for moving from ad-hoc instructional design toward systematic, data-driven learning engineering — the field's primary tool for organizational self-assessment. Source: lecommons/landscape/data/papers.json · ID: LE-LS-AP-013 · confidence: medium · expert-validated: false

Policy, Reports & Grey Literature

• The Job of a College President — Herbert A. Simon (1967). Educational Record (American Council on Education) · link

  The founding document of learning engineering. Simon coined the term 'learning engineer' and made the case that teaching effectiveness is a distinct, learnable expertise grounded in cognitive science — not a byproduct of subject-matter expertise. The philosophical foundation for everything that followed. Source: lecommons/landscape/data/grey_literature.json · ID: LE-LS-GL-001 · confidence: low · expert-validated: false

• Online Education: A Catalyst for Higher Education Reforms — Karen Willcox, Sanjay Sarma, Philip Lippel (2016). MIT Online Education Policy Initiative (MIT OEPI) · link

  Re-injected 'learning engineer' into higher education discourse at the moment MOOCs reached 58M+ global students. Recommended universities create dedicated learning engineering roles. Catalyzed institutional adoption of LE language and practices across US higher education. Widely cited as the document that triggered the modern LE movement. Source: lecommons/landscape/data/grey_literature.json · ID: LE-LS-GL-002 · confidence: low · expert-validated: false

• Learning Engineering Toolkit: Evidence-Based Practices from the Learning Sciences, Instructional Design, and Beyond — Jim Goodell, Janet Kolodner (2023). Taylor & Francis / Routledge · link

  The field's primary practitioner handbook. Frames LE as a verb — an iterative, evidence-based problem-solving process — not a technology set or a job title. Covers lean-agile methods, HCI design, data instrumentation, motivation modeling, and predictive analytics. Explicitly technology-agnostic: the principles apply equally to AI-driven software and low-tech interventions. Source: lecommons/landscape/data/grey_literature.json · ID: LE-LS-GL-007 · confidence: low · expert-validated: false

• Learning Engineering for Online Education: Theoretical Contexts and Design-Based Examples — Chris Dede, John Richards, Bror Saxberg (2019). Routledge · link

  First book-length treatment of learning engineering applied to digital and distributed contexts. Saxberg's formulation — LE as applying learning science at 'massive, affordable, data-rich scale' — became widely adopted. Documents how online architectures enable continuous telemetry that peer-reviewed journals document years later. Source: lecommons/landscape/data/grey_literature.json · ID: LE-LS-GL-008 · confidence: low · expert-validated: false

• Learning Engineering Adoption Maturity Model (LEAMM) — Shawn Blake-Plock, Scotty D. Craig, Emily Czerwinski et al. (2025). IEEE ICICLE · link

  Organizational capability matrix allowing enterprises to measure fidelity of their LE adoption across human-centered design, learning science integration, and data-driven iteration dimensions. Provides a structured pathway from ad-hoc instructional design to mature learning engineering practice. The field's primary organizational self-assessment tool. Source: lecommons/landscape/data/grey_literature.json · ID: LE-LS-GL-009 · confidence: low · expert-validated: false

Key People

• John Sweller (profile), University of New South Wales (1946–present) — Developer of Cognitive Load Theory

  Formalized Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) distinguishing intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load Source: lecommons/landscape/data/people.json · ID: LE-LS-PP-004 · confidence: medium · expert-validated: false

• Ann L. Brown (profile), University of California, Berkeley (1943–1999) — Pioneer of design-based research and collaborative learning

  Established design-based research (DBR) as the canonical methodology for testing learning interventions in authentic contexts Source: lecommons/landscape/data/people.json · ID: LE-LS-PP-006 · confidence: medium · expert-validated: false

• Bror Saxberg (profile), Formerly Chan Zuckerberg Initiative / Kaplan; founder of LearningForge (active 2000s–present) — Learning science practitioner; LE thought leader; industry-academic bridge

  Led learning science at Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, framing LE as 'precision education' analogous to precision medicine Source: lecommons/landscape/data/people.json · ID: LE-LS-PP-009 · confidence: medium · expert-validated: false

• Jim Goodell (profile), Quality Information Partners (QIP); IEEE ICICLE (active 2010s–present) — LE standards architect; Learning Engineering Toolkit co-editor; ICICLE community builder

  Co-edited the Learning Engineering Toolkit (Taylor & Francis, 2023), the field's primary practitioner handbook Source: lecommons/landscape/data/people.json · ID: LE-LS-PP-012 · confidence: medium · expert-validated: false

• Karen Willcox (profile), University of Texas at Austin, Oden Institute (active 2000s–present) — MIT OEPI lead; LE in higher education advocate

  Led MIT's Online Education Policy Initiative (OEPI), producing the 2016 catalyst report that re-introduced 'learning engineer' to higher education discourse Source: lecommons/landscape/data/people.json · ID: LE-LS-PP-013 · confidence: medium · expert-validated: false

Organizations, Conferences & Journals

• IEEE ICICLE — Industry Consortium on Learning Engineering (consortium) · link

  Source: lecommons/landscape/data/organizations.json · ID: LE-LS-CO-001 · confidence: medium · expert-validated: false

• HCII — Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon (research_center) · link

  Source: lecommons/landscape/data/organizations.json · ID: LE-LS-CO-005 · confidence: medium · expert-validated: false

• International Society of the Learning Sciences Annual Meeting (conference) · link

  Source: lecommons/landscape/data/organizations.json · ID: LE-LS-CE-005 · confidence: medium · expert-validated: false

• Journal of the Learning Sciences (journal) · link

  Source: lecommons/landscape/data/organizations.json · ID: LE-LS-JO-001 · confidence: medium · expert-validated: false

• Journal of Learning Engineering (journal) · link

  Source: lecommons/landscape/data/organizations.json · ID: LE-LS-JO-006 · confidence: medium · expert-validated: false

Programs & Initiatives

• Stanford GSE — M.S. Learning Design and Technology (LDT) (PC) · link

  Residential master’s focused on designing and evaluating technology-enhanced learning environments using learning sciences, design methods, and empirical study—one of the clearest Stanford pathways aligned with learning engineering practice (even when the degree title says LDT, not LE). Source: lecommons/site/src/data/programs_people_registry.json · ID: LE-PP-085 · confidence: medium · expert-validated: false

• Naturalistic Decision Making Association (CO) · link

  Research community studying expert decision-making in real-world conditions. NDM methods (critical decision method, cognitive task analysis) are the primary toolkit for eliciting expert knowledge in high-stakes training domains: military, healthcare, aviation, firefighting. Source: lecommons/site/src/data/programs_people_registry.json · ID: LE-PP-139 · confidence: medium · expert-validated: false

Lecommons enrichment applied 2026-04-17. All items pending expert validation. See wrgr/lecommons for source data and curation methodology.