Rethinking Combustible Dust Training: A New Approach to Effective Learning

In our journey to build the world’s largest training company specializing in combustible dust safety, one of our key goals has been to ensure that our training programs are not only comprehensive but also impactful.?

Today, I want to introduce a novel teaching and learning technique that we’ve been implementing in our combustible dust safety training, based on a framework outlined in the book Understanding by Design by Grant Wiggins.?

This technique is called the Backward Design Model, and it’s transforming the way we develop and deliver our training.

Forward vs. Backward Design in Training

Instructors often approach course design in a "forward design" manner, where they focus on the content to teach first, the learning activities, and then develop assessments around those activities, and finally attempt to link the content back to the learning goals of the course. While this method is widely used, it can often leave learners overwhelmed and disconnected from the core objectives.

In contrast, Backward Design flips this process. It starts by identifying the learning goals—what the students should know or be able to do by the end of the course. Once these goals are clear, instructors can work backward to create assessments that measure those objectives and develop learning activities that help students achieve the desired outcomes.

Why This Matters for Combustible Dust Training

Technical professionals, particularly engineers, often design training that is delivered in a compartmentalized manner. They break down the content into silos or pillars, organizing topics like dust testing, hazard assessment, and hazard management into separate categories. This approach, while logical for organizing technical material, is not always effective for learning retention or practical application.

Using the Backward Design model, we start by asking: What do we want our learners to be able to do at the end of the training??

In our case, it’s essential that participants leave our training programs with practical skills—such as being able to identify and manage combustible dust hazards at their facility—rather than just memorizing information.

Designing with the End in Mind

The first step in this approach is identifying the desired learning outcomes. For example, by the end of a combustible dust hazard training, we might want attendees to understand how to choose which isolation method to use, depending on the application being analyzed.

Once we establish this outcome, we can design the course backward from this point. What would a quiz or exam look like to prove that learners have mastered this topic? It could be as simple as listing all the different options, and then picking out relevant options that can be used for different real-world scenarios. The key is to create an assessment that truly measures whether they can apply what they’ve learned.

Next, we build the training content that leads learners to this goal. Each module or segment should contribute directly to the learning objective, with no unnecessary information that muddies the waters. For example, in a module focused on explosion isolation, we should cover essential points like pressure piling, flame acceleration, passive protection, and active protection. However, we should avoid extraneous details like fire response, explosion venting, combustible dust testing, and unrelated management systems.

This approach is rarely used in combustible dust, and instead, each training “covers everything” but does not cover anything well.

Keeping It Simple and Focused

One of the challenges we face, especially with technical audiences, is the desire to over-complicate the training. Engineers, in particular, may want to add layers of complexity, diving deep into topics and covering every possible scenario. While this information is valuable, it’s critical to remember that the goal of the training is to build foundational skills.

By focusing on the simplest, most direct path to achieving the learning outcomes, we ensure that participants leave the course with a clear understanding of the material. Additional layers of complexity can be introduced in advanced training sessions or supplemental resources.

Bringing It All Together

To summarize, the Backward Design approach is about starting with the end in mind. We identify the core objectives we want learners to achieve, design assessments that measure those objectives, and then create the content that leads to success.?

This method ensures that our training is learner-centered, goal-oriented, and practically applicable.

In the case of combustible dust safety, this means that participants can walk into a facility and confidently assess different areas without being confused without having to understand everything all at once. They leave our training with practical, usable skills that they can apply immediately—rather than just a list of technical concepts.

If you’d like to learn more about our training programs or how we apply this backward design approach to combustible dust safety, feel free to send me a direct message with the word “training” to get more details.?

We are actively creating ‘short courses’ today, covering very specific topics so if you have any specific learning outcomes you’d like to achieve, just let me know!

Until next week, stay safe and keep pushing forward!

Chris Cloney

Managing Director, DustEx Research Ltd.

DustSafetyScience.com