LEARNING ALIGNMENT WORKSHOP MODULE
Multi-Modal, Multi-Site & Partner Alignment
Does the learning hold together across different ways of delivering it? Examine shared expectations, local variation, support, and review across instructors, modalities, campuses, employers, and delivery partners.
Does this sound familiar?
The same course carries different expectations
Learners encounter different requirements, levels of challenge, or interpretations of success depending on the instructor or location.
A change in modality removes an important learning opportunity
An online, hybrid, or in-person version covers the same topics but provides different opportunities to practice or demonstrate an essential capability.
Learners receive different levels of support
Access to feedback, resources, advising, or specialist help depends on where or when the learning takes place.
Partner responsibilities are understood differently
The institution, employer, or delivery partner assumes someone else is providing an activity, reviewing evidence, or supporting the learner.
Local improvements never become shared learning
One instructor, campus, or partner develops a useful approach, but others have no clear way to understand or adapt it.
Changes reach some delivery teams and miss others
Outcomes, assessments, requirements, or guidance are updated without a reliable way to confirm which versions different teams are using.
What are multi-modal, multi-site, and partner alignment?
Multi-modal alignment examines how the intended learning is supported across delivery formats such as in-person, online, hybrid, synchronous, and asynchronous learning.
Multi-site alignment examines the relationship across campuses, locations, sections, or other delivery settings.
Partner alignment examines how institutions, employers, and other delivery organizations coordinate their contributions to the learning experience.
These arrangements may share outcomes or requirements while using different activities, resources, schedules, and forms of support.
A useful review identifies what needs to remain coherent, where variation is appropriate, and how each arrangement supports the relevant learning.
The goal is a clear shared educational purpose with enough visibility to understand meaningful differences and respond when they affect learners.
A shared course title does not establish a shared learning experience.
A program may use the same catalog description, syllabus template, or credential across several delivery arrangements.
Those common documents do not necessarily show whether learners encounter the intended activities, receive needed support, or demonstrate learning against comparable expectations.
To examine the relationship, your team may need to connect:
- The shared educational purpose
- Outcomes and capabilities expected across arrangements
- The scope and level of those expectations
- Essential learning opportunities
- Activities and resources available locally
- Delivery format and scheduling conditions
- Preparation and access requirements
- Feedback and learner-support arrangements
- Assessment tasks and review criteria
- The evidence available for comparison
- Instructor, site, and partner responsibilities
- Transitions between delivery arrangements
- Approved adaptations and unresolved differences
- Version, change, and review responsibilities
These connections help participants distinguish useful adaptation from a difference that undermines the intended learning experience.
Connect shared expectations to local delivery.
Shared Purpose
Program and course outcomes
Expected scope and level
Essential learning opportunities
Common review expectations
Learner-facing commitments
Delivery Arrangements
Instructors and sections
Online and in-person formats
Campuses and locations
Employers and partners
Schedules and resources
Local Learning Experience
Activities and examples
Practice opportunities
Feedback and interaction
Available support
Preparation and access
Evidence and Interpretation
Assessment tasks
Review criteria
Examples of learner work
Learner and staff observations
Meaningful differences
Coordination and Review
Decision responsibilities
Approved adaptations
Partner handoffs
Version and change records
Improvement follow-up
Coherence becomes easier to maintain when people can explain the shared expectations, how each arrangement supports them, and who responds when a consequential difference appears.
How delivery arrangements drift apart
STAGE 1 — A shared offering is established
A course or program is designed around common outcomes, requirements, and expectations.
STAGE 2 — Delivery adapts to local conditions
Instructors, campuses, modalities, and partners adjust activities, schedules, resources, or support to fit their circumstances.
STAGE 3 — The relationships become difficult to see
Some changes are documented locally, others remain informal, and the shared description no longer explains how each version works.
STAGE 4 — Learners encounter consequential differences
Preparation, practice, support, assessment, or progression expectations vary in ways that the organization cannot readily explain or address.
“We use the same curriculum” needs a closer look at delivery.
A common curriculum provides a useful foundation.
Understanding coherence requires examining how its expectations are translated into actual opportunities, support, assessment, and coordination.
The review should clarify:
Identify the outcomes, scope, level, essential opportunities, and review expectations that define the offering. Clarify which commitments apply across every arrangement being compared.
Identify activities, examples, schedules, resources, and teaching approaches that can vary while supporting the intended learning. Make the purpose and limits of adaptation understandable.
Examine whether learners can meaningfully practice and demonstrate the relevant learning. Look beyond topic coverage to the work learners actually undertake.
Review how learners obtain feedback, resources, interaction, and necessary assistance. Different delivery conditions may require different support arrangements to serve the same educational purpose.
Examine assessment tasks, criteria, examples of work, and reviewer interpretations. Identify where a difference in evidence or judgment needs further discussion before drawing conclusions.
Clarify who approves changes, coordinates partners, communicates expectations, and reviews consequential differences. Record which versions and delivery arrangements the review covers.
Examine coherence across six dimensions.
Purpose and Outcomes
Clarify the learning expectations shared across the arrangements and any intentional differences in scope.
Opportunity and Activity
Examine whether learners undertake work that supports the relevant outcomes, even where activities differ.
Support and Access
Review whether resources, interaction, feedback, and assistance fit the conditions in which learners participate.
Assessment and Judgment
Compare what learners must demonstrate and how reviewers interpret the relevant criteria.
Coordination and Handoffs
Clarify responsibilities where instructors, sites, services, or partners contribute different parts of the experience.
Change and Review
Preserve which arrangements were reviewed, what adaptations were agreed, and when changes require reconsideration.
Variation that can strengthen the experience
Local adaptation may add value through:
- Examples relevant to a particular community or industry
- Teaching approaches suited to the delivery format
- Different schedules supporting learner participation
- Activities using available local resources
- Partner projects connected to authentic work
- Different ways to practice a shared capability
- Support adapted to learner circumstances
- Locally developed improvements others can learn from
The review examines how the adaptation supports the common educational purpose.
Differences that deserve closer review
Attention is needed when:
- An essential outcome is omitted or interpreted differently
- Learners lack an opportunity to practice a required capability
- A delivery format changes the level of performance expected
- Feedback or support is unavailable when it is needed
- Assessment criteria carry different meanings across reviewers
- Partner responsibilities leave a gap in the experience
- Learners receive conflicting guidance at a transition
- Different versions operate without a clear record of the change
These signals identify a need to investigate the relationship and its consequences for learners.
The same outcome may need different activities across modalities.
Imagine a course offered in person and asynchronously online, with a shared outcome requiring learners to evaluate competing explanations and respond to questions about their reasoning.
The in-person version includes discussion and follow-up questions. The online version asks learners to submit a recorded presentation.
Both address the same topic, but the presentation alone may provide limited evidence of how the learner responds to challenge.
The review examines what the outcome requires and how each format can provide an appropriate opportunity to practice and demonstrate it.
The online arrangement might introduce a structured exchange, follow-up questions, or another suitable activity. The in-person arrangement may also need clearer criteria or a better record of individual contribution.
The shared expectation remains understandable while the activities are designed for the conditions in which learning occurs.
Partner alignment depends on the work between organizations.
An institution and a delivery partner may each perform their own responsibilities well while leaving an important connection unresolved.
The partner may provide authentic activities while assuming the institution prepares learners for them. The institution may assess submitted work while assuming the partner provides feedback during the experience.
Participants examine those connections explicitly: what each organization provides, what information moves between them, when action is needed, and who follows up.
The review should also identify what happens when an expected activity, resource, or support becomes unavailable.
A useful arrangement explains the learner’s route through the shared experience, including where they go with a question and who is responsible for resolving it.
Coherence should be visible from the learner’s side.
Learners need understandable expectations, a credible opportunity to meet them, and a clear route to support.
They also need to know what changes when they move between an instructor, modality, campus, or partner—and which expectations continue to apply.
Reviewing the experience from that perspective can reveal gaps that shared documents and organizational charts do not show.
THE MATCHING WORKSHOP MODULE
Module 10: Multi-Modal, Multi-Site & Partner Alignment
This practical minicourse helps academic leaders, faculty, instructional-design teams, campus colleagues, and delivery partners examine coherence across different learning arrangements.
Participants learn a repeatable comparison method and apply it to one selected course, program component, or partner relationship. They identify shared expectations, examine local delivery, and distinguish useful adaptation from a consequential gap.
The exercise also defines the shared profiles, delivery variants, responsibilities, evidence relationships, and review triggers that a subsequent Gobekli configuration would need to maintain.
This module helps your team:
- Define which expectations must remain shared
- Identify where local adaptation supports the purpose
- Compare essential learning opportunities
- Examine differences across delivery formats
- Review feedback, resources, and support
- Clarify assessment and reviewer expectations
- Identify gaps between institutional and partner roles
- Examine learner transitions across arrangements
- Record approved variations and unresolved questions
- Clarify version and change responsibilities
- Develop a focused coherence improvement brief
- Outline a connected delivery and partner configuration
What should happen when delivery arrangements differ?
Participants examine how the difference affects the shared educational purpose before proposing a response. A useful response may preserve an adaptation, strengthen a local arrangement, or clarify the common expectation.
Confirm the Adaptation
Document how a different approach supports the shared learning purpose and where its use is appropriate.
Clarify Shared Expectations
Make the required outcomes, level, essential opportunities, or review criteria easier to interpret consistently.
Strengthen Local Delivery
Address a missing activity, resource, feedback opportunity, or form of support within a particular arrangement.
Coordinate Responsibilities
Resolve unclear ownership or a gap between instructors, sites, services, or partners.
Align Review Practices
Compare evidence and interpretations so reviewers can address consequential differences in judgment.
Investigate the Difference
Gather additional information where the cause, significance, or appropriate response remains uncertain.
Several responses may apply to the same comparison. Record the proposed action, responsible people, local implications, and any institutional or partner approval needed.
What should a delivery and partner alignment review examine?
The common commitment
Which educational expectations apply across the arrangements being compared?
The local translation
How does each instructor, modality, site, or partner turn those expectations into a learning experience?
The opportunity and support
Can learners meaningfully engage in the required work and obtain the resources and feedback they need?
The evidence and interpretation
What information supports the comparison, and how are assessment expectations understood?
The coordination
Where do responsibilities meet, and what happens when a learner or delivery team needs action from another party?
The maintenance
Who records adaptations, communicates changes, and reviews the relationship as delivery evolves?
Learn the method. Compare one offering across two delivery arrangements.
Bring one course, program component, or shared learning expectation delivered in two different ways. The comparison might involve two instructors, modalities, campuses, employers, or partners.
STEP 1
Define the shared purpose
Identify the outcomes, scope, level, and essential expectations the selected arrangements are meant to support.
STEP 2
Describe each arrangement
Document activities, schedules, resources, assessment, support, and the people responsible for delivery.
STEP 3
Compare opportunity and experience
Examine what learners actually encounter, practice, and demonstrate. Identify meaningful differences in access, feedback, or support.
STEP 4
Review evidence and interpretation
Compare relevant assessment tasks, criteria, examples, and observations. Record what the information supports and what remains uncertain.
STEP 5
Distinguish adaptation from a gap
Explain which differences preserve the purpose and which require clarification, improvement, or further investigation.
STEP 6
Plan coordination and configuration
Record the response, responsible people, communication needs, review point, and relationships a future implementation would need to maintain.
Participants leave with a documented comparison, a proposed improvement, and a starting configuration brief. A review of two arrangements provides a method and a bounded finding; wider conclusions require appropriate additional comparison.
- Begin with a defined shared educational purpose
- Compare actual learning opportunities and support
- Preserve relevant context about each arrangement
- Explain the significance of the differences
- Clarify responsibilities and change communication
- Record what needs further evidence or broader review
FUTURE PRODUCT CONNECTION
Keep shared expectations connected to each delivery arrangement.
The workshop identifies the information and relationships needed to understand coherence across instructors, formats, sites, and partners.
A potential TalentSync EDU configuration could connect shared course and program profiles to local delivery arrangements, activities, support, assessment expectations, and coordination responsibilities.
The proposed configuration could connect:
- Shared learning profiles: the course, program component, outcomes, scope, and level being maintained
- Delivery arrangement profiles: the instructors, modalities, campuses, employers, or partners involved
- Local activity relationships: how each arrangement provides the learning opportunities supporting shared expectations
- Resource and support relationships: the feedback, interaction, tools, services, and assistance available to learners
- Assessment expectations: what learners demonstrate and which criteria guide review
- Comparison evidence: relevant materials, examples, observations, and the limits of the available information
- Adaptation records: which differences are intentional, why they are appropriate, and where they apply
- Responsibility relationships: who delivers, supports, reviews, approves, and coordinates each part of the experience
- Transition and handoff relationships: how learners and information move between arrangements or organizations
- Version and review records: which expectations apply, what changed, and what should trigger reconsideration
- Learner connections: relevant experiences and context a learner chooses to organize or share through TalentPass
For example, the workshop might identify that two partner sites interpret a shared project requirement differently. An implementation brief could specify the common outcome, each local activity, expected learner contribution, review criteria, responsible contacts, agreed adaptation, and next comparison point.
With the learner’s participation, TalentPass could help preserve relevant context about where and how their learning occurred, the activities they undertook, and the evidence they choose to share. This context could support conversations about transitions, further learning, or the interpretation of an experience.
The next step is a scoped implementation conversation: select the initial offering and delivery arrangements, confirm available capabilities, identify integration or development needs, and agree on responsibilities and success criteria.
PRODUCT AND DECISION BOUNDARIES
Keep shared expectations and local judgment understandable.
A connected configuration should help people see how different arrangements support the educational purpose and where a response is needed.
Its design should preserve the distinction between:
- Shared outcomes and identical teaching methods
- Comparable expectations and identical assignments
- Different support arrangements and insufficient support
- An intentional adaptation and an unexamined omission
- A difference in results and an established explanation for that difference
- Shared documentation and confirmed local practice
- A partner contribution and an institutional academic judgment
- Learner participation in a setting and permission to share all associated information
Academic leaders and authorized reviewers retain responsibility for curricular and assessment decisions. Instructors, sites, and partners retain their agreed responsibilities for delivery and support.
The product connection described here includes capabilities envisioned for TalentSync EDU and potential TalentPass connections. Availability, configuration needs, integrations, and required development would be confirmed during scoping.
The workshop produces a useful delivery comparison and improvement brief independently of product adoption.
What to bring into the conversation
Start with one offering delivered through two arrangements where a consequential difference is known, suspected, or difficult to interpret.
A useful starting question is: “What should remain coherent for learners, where can delivery differ, and how will we know the difference is appropriate?”
Useful inputs may include:
- The selected course or program component
- Shared learning outcomes
- Expected scope and level
- Descriptions of the delivery arrangements
- Current syllabi or learning guides
- Activity and assignment examples
- Assessment criteria or rubrics
- Relevant examples of learner work
- Feedback arrangements
- Available resources and support
- Instructor or delivery-team guidance
- Campus or site-specific arrangements
- Relevant partner responsibilities
- Learner-facing information
- Transition or handoff procedures
- Approved local adaptations
- Recent changes or different versions
- Learner, instructor, and partner observations
- Review and decision responsibilities
- The decision the comparison should support
The required Learning Alignment Direction module establishes the scope and decision this work should support. Related modules can help clarify uncertain outcomes, assessment relationships, or the contribution of a partner-based experience.
The depth of the exercise depends on the available information, representation from the selected arrangements, and time allocated within the workshop.
What this module can help your team produce
A shared-expectations brief
A clear account of the outcomes, level, essential opportunities, and review expectations that should remain coherent across the selected arrangements.
A delivery comparison
A documented view of how each arrangement supports those expectations, including useful adaptations, consequential gaps, and unresolved questions.
A practical coordination plan
A proposed improvement with responsible people, communication needs, partner dependencies, and a review point.
A starting configuration brief
An outline of the shared profiles, delivery arrangements, local activities, support relationships, adaptation records, and review responsibilities a subsequent Gobekli implementation would need.
These outputs begin with the arrangements reviewed during the module. Final scope depends on the modules selected, available inputs, and the alignment decision established through Learning Alignment Direction.
Where might the work lead next?
A delivery comparison may reveal an expectation that needs clearer meaning, an assessment difference that needs examination, or an authentic experience whose curricular contribution is uncertain.
Outcome & Capability Clarity
Define the knowledge, actions, context, and level that different delivery arrangements need to support.
Learning Activities & Assessment Alignment
Examine how different activities and assessments develop and reveal the intended learning.
Experiential & Curricular Alignment
Connect employer, placement, project, and other authentic experiences to curricular purpose and reviewed evidence.
Questions institutions ask before beginning.
It examines how shared educational expectations are supported across different delivery formats, locations, instructors, and organizations. The review identifies appropriate variation, consequential gaps, and coordination needs.
No. Different teaching approaches can support a shared purpose. The review clarifies which learning expectations should remain common and how different approaches provide meaningful opportunities to meet them.
Yes. Activities can be designed for their respective formats. The comparison examines whether they support the relevant outcomes, practice, and demonstration at the intended level.
Not necessarily. Different assessments may address comparable expectations. Reviewers need enough information about the tasks, criteria, and evidence to understand whether the relevant learning is being examined.
Use a structured account of shared expectations, activities, support, evidence, and meaningful differences. The purpose is to explain the relationship and identify a useful response.
No. Results may reflect several influences. They can prompt a review, but the comparison needs appropriate context and evidence before attributing the difference to a particular instructor, modality, site, or partner.
Record the adaptation, its purpose, and how it supports the shared expectations. Identify any limits on its use and the circumstances in which it should be reviewed.
Examine the educational function of the resource and how its absence affects learners. Participants can consider another way to provide that function, additional support, or a change requiring broader review.
Examine whether learners can obtain the feedback, interaction, resources, and assistance needed within their delivery conditions. Appropriate support may take different forms across arrangements.
Clarify the partner’s contribution, the institution’s responsibilities, shared expectations, information handoffs, and how gaps are addressed. The review focuses on the learner’s complete experience across those contributions.
Review which expectations continue, what changes, and how the learner is prepared for the transition. Conflicting guidance, missing records, or different assumptions about readiness may need attention.
Identify who maintains the shared expectations, records local adaptations, communicates changes, and reviews their effect. Preserve which versions and arrangements were included in previous decisions.
A session should begin with a bounded comparison that participants can examine meaningfully. Its method and findings can inform a broader review, but one example does not establish coherence across every partner or location.
Include people who understand the shared curriculum and the selected delivery arrangements. This may involve faculty, instructional designers, academic leaders, campus colleagues, learner-support teams, partner representatives, and learners.
The comparison identifies shared learning profiles, delivery arrangements, local activities, support, assessment expectations, adaptations, and coordination roles that need to remain connected. These become the starting point for scoping a potential TalentSync EDU configuration and appropriate TalentPass connections.
No. The comparison method and improvement brief are useful independently. A subsequent implementation can be considered if your organization wants help maintaining relationships across delivery arrangements or organizing appropriate learner context. Product availability and implementation requirements are confirmed during scoping.
KEEP THE LEARNING COHERENT ACROSS DELIVERY
Different settings. A clear shared learning purpose.
Clarify what should remain shared, understand where adaptation adds value, and address the differences that affect learners. Leave with a focused comparison and a starting configuration brief.
This module is part of Gobekli’s configurable Learning Alignment Workshop. Begin with Learning Alignment Direction, then select the modules that address your organization’s particular challenges.