The Blueberry Muffin Principle: Going Back-to-Basics for Inclusive Volunteer Training Design with Yemilo Audu

Headshot of Yemilo smiling against a white background. Her hair is styled in locs. She is wearing clear-framed glasses, geometric wooden earrings, and a black turtleneck.

I first came across Yemilo's work when I attended her session on volunteer training with Volunteer Management Professionals of Canada. It was really, really good. 

Yemilo Audu is the founder of Tukoda Productions, an experience design company based in Winnipeg, Manitoba. I invited her for a one-on-one chat to dig into what makes volunteer training work, and what makes it fall flat. 

Today I'm sharing a condensed version of our conversation with you. Enjoy!

JPP: Can you start by telling me a little bit about Tukoda Productions and why you chose to focus on designing experiences?

YA: At Tukoda Productions, I support team leaders, facilitators, and folks responsible for trainings to work with more clarity. I take a people-centred approach to design the structure behind sessions, trainings, and programs so they are clear, usable, and easier to deliver.

I made this shift because of what I saw in my earlier work in technical production (audio-visual and virtual training support), where I was usually brought in at the final stage, so I got to see how sessions actually played out. A lot of them were well-intentioned, but they fell apart in practice because they relied too much on the facilitator to hold everything together in real time. The issue wasn’t effort or skill; it was a lack of structure to support them.

So now, I focus on designing that structure. The flow, the timing, the transitions, the engagement elements, so the session can deliver with clarity every time, not just when your facilitator is having a good day.

JPP: Since we’re focusing on volunteer training design today. Could you tell me about the best volunteer training session you’ve been part of?

YA: It was with the Winnipeg Fringe Festival, many years ago. The festival engaged a couple hundred volunteers because it was a very large, multi-day event. 

I appreciated it because it was realistic with where people were at. I was working a couple of jobs at that time and because the training gave me the tools to succeed, I felt like I was ready during event days to do what I was there for.

They had someone to go to if you had questions, and resources you could reach out to if you were a little bit more introverted. It was inclusive in the sense that it accommodated the different ways that people were willing to absorb the information or to learn. It was also clear that training was updated to reflect feedback from past years’ volunteers. 

JPP: It sounds like being well-prepared made you enjoy volunteering more. And part of that was because the training was comprehensive, inclusive, and helped you understand why you were doing what you were doing.

You mentioned feedback, and leaders of volunteers often ask for feedback on training. I have a mantra that I’ve used during workshops on designing volunteer surveys: “don't ask for feedback if you're not going to do anything with it”. 

In your opinion, what are some questions people should ask to better understand any context gaps that are present in their training?

YA: Great question. To better understand context gaps, you can ask questions like:

• What part of this felt unclear or hard to apply? As a designer, this question tangibly helps me improve the training. 

• Where do you feel unsure about what to do? Sometimes folks will finish a training, and they're feeling ready to go. But when you ask them more detailed questions, they may not be as confident.

• What situation do you expect to face that we didn't cover? I find this one helpful when you're training employees or volunteers who are coming back. They're the best gauge, because they're the ones who experience what's happening on-site. As a designer, it helps me understand what might be unrealistic on our part and what might have been missed in my design work. 

Some other questions you can ask repeat volunteers include: 

• What steps do you actually take in your role that might be different from what was shown in training? Sometimes as designers we plan out so many steps to complete a task. But someone who has real experience can tell you: we don't need steps three, four, or five. You save time and resources by just asking this question. 

• What in the training felt different from what actually happens in your role? I like to ask about the role specifically because there are some trainings where you have people of different roles attending. It helps to get a little more specific, or to be able to customize parts of the training to show that this is an overview and maybe this is a section only relevant to some of you. 

JPP: Are surveys the best way to collect this feedback? What other feedback collection methods do you use?

YA: I prefer open-ended questions because I have a focus on inclusivity, and that means I'm interested in the person's experience. 

A lot of open-ended questions can be turned into a scale, like, "on a scale of one to ten, do you think this training is applicable to your role?" This makes the questions quicker to get through.

If I'm doing a session, I will create time to collect feedback. I'll share a link and say, “I'll give you five or ten minutes, right now. I’ll put on some café music in the background so you can give me this valuable information.” 

So, I'm not asking people to create the time to give feedback. It’s just part of the presentation. 

I also think people underestimate the power of just having a conversation. Going around after a session and talking to people, it’s really useful and can provide perspectives that won’t always be written down. Of course, you would need to document those conversations and analyze them for insights to make real changes. 

JPP: Thanks for mentioning inclusivity. I’m wondering what is something that training designers usually overlook when it comes to making learning accessible?

YA: Something I see often is: designing for attention instead of designing for use. We focus a lot about keeping people interested in engaged through overloaded slides, and activities stacked on activities

But, what training designers need to come back to is asking themselves: Who am I designing for this time? And, what kind of instructions do they need? 

There are groups where you can use acronyms and jargon and they love it, and other groups where that shuts people down.

When you've done a number of training sessions, you can fall into defaults. So you have to check with yourself and ask: Am I still checking in with what this group needs? Or am I assuming their comfort level based on other groups I've worked with?

I’ll use this analogy: you’re making blueberry muffins. You’ve mixed the batter and started baking, but forgot to put in the blueberries. If you try to stuff in the blueberries after baking, are they still blueberry muffins?

So if you try to stuff in accessibility after you’re done designing a training, is it still accessible training? I would rather ask too many questions to ensure that the group I’m designing for is accommodated upfront, than create a training and have to undo the work later. 

Finally, remember that accommodations aren't limited to closed captioning and large font size. Accommodating for knowledge level and pacing of the room is just as important. 

JPP: Tell me more about designing for use. Is that related to follow-up?

YA: Yes, but it goes beyond that. All training requires some kind of action. 

People don’t return from training into neutral environments. They return to systems, expectations, and constraints that shape what they can actually do. That feeds into why I see usability in learning design as a form of support. Are you designing for real conditions, or expecting people to adjust to the learning instead?

Training designers need to know exactly what participants should be doing after they leave. You can't just leave people to figure it out on their own. We have learning objectives at the beginning of most sessions, and those are promises to the participants. 

If people are prepared for action, if they're leaving thinking, “this is what I need to do, this is the next step”, then your training has done something.

It’s also where retention comes in. The training is really tested when the person has to actually do the thing. 

I’ll also share that you need to consider both action and retention in the training invitation. If training is mandatory, some experienced folks might believe that they could have read an email instead. So make the training worth their while. When they leave, you want them to think, “I can actually use this.” 

JPP: That is such a good point. Learning objectives are supposed to do that work but they can start to feel like a template we fill in without really thinking about them.

YA: But by the end of a session, participants should actually know and believe that they can do the things you promised they could do.

JPP: That’s great advice and key to keeping promises and building trust! 

My next question relates to the fact that leaders of volunteers are often asked to both design and deliver training, with timelines that aren't always realistic. What are some of your tips for creating meaningful training without burning yourself out?

YA: My biggest tip: you don't need to build everything now. When you have a lot on your desk and you're supposed to present and design at the same time, recognize that these things take two different sets of skills. 

Don’t assume that the training you are creating has to be at the level of every other training that you've ever seen. 

You want to start with usability:

• What do people need from this training? 

• What is essential for them to remember?

• What do they actually need to do?

I'd also advise not to underestimate the power of a dress rehearsal, it helps to check that what you've done is actually working. During dress rehearsals is where a lot of "I didn't expect this" moments happen. 

Finally, build for reuse. Create templates. Create guides for the person coming next, so they're not starting from scratch. When there's a system and everyone understands the system, then there are things you can go back to and say, “Oh, that's why we thought to do this.” You're not reinventing the wheel whenever the event or time of year comes up again.

JPP: I love having reusable tools and I’m so thankful when a colleague shares them with me. 

So, related to the last question, I’ve noticed that there's sometimes a gap between well-designed training and well-facilitated training. What actions would you recommend to someone who has amazing content but struggles to hold the room?

YA: People have different personalities. I can't expect one facilitator to facilitate the same way as another would. And there are some people who are just great facilitators!

What makes the difference in great facilitation is structure. Things fall apart if you don't have clear timing, clear pacing, clear transitions, or if you can't anticipate the questions people are going to ask. No one wants a session where they feel talked at.

When I look at training content, I ask “Who are the real human beings you’re talking to?” Having an external person look at content and give you a perspective you're not surrounded by every day is really valuable.

Once we've worked on the structure, you need to practice. Not all of us are born with charisma, and that's okay. And when I say practice, content sharing can be practiced in different ways.

Maybe you're writing a post about it on LinkedIn. Maybe you're talking about it at a conference, or having a conversation over coffee. Your content is a part of your field, your life, and you. Using it through different forms builds that muscle of being able to apply that information in different contexts, and in real time.

JPP: Before we wrap up, I want to ask about technology. What advice would you give to someone trying to find the right technology to enhance clarity, applicability, and retention in their training content?

YA: This is going to go against what I used to focus on, but I'll say: start without the technology. When we get caught up in what’s trending, we forget that technology is a tool. It can enhance clarity, but when clarity isn’t there, it highlights that too, and adding more tech won’t fix it. We want to build something clear and usable first, then choose tools that fit and support it.

Technology has its place. If I'm offering virtual training, using tools like Mentimeter is a wonderful way to connect with people. But first, I make sure that my content is clear. Then, I ask: what technology do I need to translate this information appropriately? 

With technology: the simpler, the better.  It takes time for people to learn how to use tech tools. When you have a short amount of training time, it also creates pressure. 

So, if training can be done in a simpler way, start with that, then only add the tools you need. You're saving time and money if you don't have to add a tool that isn't necessary.

When people come to me and they're like, "I want you to use this, that, and the other," I say: “Let's draw the strings back. What do you need done?” Most times, it will be that they need people to learn something specific, and that’s what matters most.

JPP: My biggest takeaway from our chat is to go back to basics and really consider the goals of training before jumping in with complex tools or worrying about delivering with a certain pizzazz or style that might not even suit you. 

Thank you, Yemilo! I learned a ton and am rethinking how to gather training feedback in ways that don’t involve a survey. Where can people find you online?

YA: I’m on LinkedIn and at www.tukodaproductions.ca 

Thanks for reading! Like this post and want to buy Jessica a coffee? Please visit https://buymeacoffee.com/learnwithjpp