Free template · Education
Performance review template for an instructional designer / trainer
A ready-to-use, section-by-section template with the competencies that matter for an instructional designer / trainer, role-specific example phrases, and a guard against the stock filler that makes most reviews read as generic. Copy the structure, fill in your evidence, or skip the writing entirely with Crestento.
The template
Four sections, in this order. Length should match the evidence you have — a thin section is honest; an invented paragraph is not.
Summary
One or two paragraphs setting the context: what was expected of instructional designer / trainer this period, and your overall verdict. Lead with the headline.
Example phrasing
“Designed and shipped the new-product-knowledge curriculum (six modules, 280 learner completions, 19-point post-program assessment improvement), ran 14 SME interviews to source the content, redesigned the LMS module structure that lifted completion rates from 64% to 87%, and ran two effectiveness studies that re-prioritised next year's investments.”
Strengths
The behaviours and outcomes that made the work happen. Anchor in evidence: programs / courses delivered, completion rates, pre / post assessment improvement.
- Evidence for: curriculum design (corporate L&D or academic).
- Evidence for: learner-needs analysis and persona development.
- Evidence for: instructional craft (ADDIE, SAM, backward design).
- Evidence for: facilitation and delivery (live or async).
Areas for Growth
Forward-looking development edges. Frame as opportunities, not deficiencies. Specific behaviours to develop, not generic instructional designer / trainer criticism.
- One pattern observed across the period.
- One specific behaviour to develop.
- One concrete next step.
Goals for the Next Period
Two or three concrete goals. Each should name a specific behaviour change, a measurable target, and a deadline. Avoid vague aspirations.
Competencies to evaluate
The 7 competencies a strong instructional designer / trainer review structures around, in priority order. Use these as the spine of the Strengths and Areas for Growth sections.
- curriculum design (corporate L&D or academic)
- learner-needs analysis and persona development
- instructional craft (ADDIE, SAM, backward design)
- facilitation and delivery (live or async)
- LMS authoring and asynchronous content design
- learning effectiveness measurement
- SME interviewing and content synthesis
Before you write
Instructional designers are judged on whether learners can DO something differently after the program — not on whether the content was beautifully produced. Strong IDs design backward from the behaviour change, instrument the effectiveness signal, and iterate based on learner data. Weak IDs ship handsome but ineffective content.
Evidence to gather
Strong reviews for an instructional designer / trainer cite evidence of these shapes. Only use a specific value (a percentage, a count, a dollar amount) if you actually have it — don’t invent a number to sound concrete.
- programs / courses delivered
- completion rates
- pre / post assessment improvement
- behaviour-change measurement at 30 / 60 / 90 days
- learner NPS
- SME engagement count
- downstream business-metric movement attributable to training
Where to find the evidence
Work products an instructional designer / trainer produces. Reference these by name in the review when they’re relevant — it signals you know the work.
- course-design documents (learning objectives, assessment plans)
- facilitation guides for instructors
- LMS modules and assessments
- learner-needs analysis reports
- effectiveness study writeups
- SME interview notes
- post-program survey reports
Phrasing that lands vs phrasing that doesn’t
Strong — specific, evidenced, role-appropriate
“Designed and shipped the new-product-knowledge curriculum (six modules, 280 learner completions, 19-point post-program assessment improvement), ran 14 SME interviews to source the content, redesigned the LMS module structure that lifted completion rates from 64% to 87%, and ran two effectiveness studies that re-prioritised next year's investments.”
Weak — vague, unevidenced, generic
“Strong instructional designer with great content.”
Phrases to never use
Stock filler that AI-written instructional designer / trainer reviews slip into. Managers spot it instantly. Rewrite to name a specific behaviour instead.
- “strong instructional designer”
- “passionate about learning”
- “great content creator”
- “trusted L&D partner”
- “raises the learning bar”
- “consistently delivers programs”
- “engaging facilitator”
Don’t invent these specifics
The details an AI tends to fabricate for instructional designer / trainerreviews. If you don’t have the specific number, name, or date in your notes, leave it out — generic-but-honest beats specific-but- invented every time.
- specific completion or assessment-improvement percentages not in input
- named programs or courses when not mentioned
- specific LMS platforms (Articulate, Cornerstone) not in input
- particular SME counts not provided
- named methodology adoption (ADDIE, SAM) not in input
Skip the template, generate the review
Drop your bullet points into Crestento and it produces the polished draft using this exact template structure, tuned for an instructional designer / trainer. Two reviews free, no card.
Try Crestento free