Often training follows the process of receiving a topic/task list, writing learning objectives, developing lessons by copying in doctrine or regulation as content, writing test questions, and voila, the course is ready for implementation. What’s wrong with this process? If you think about taking a boat ride, first we need to make a plan, launch the boat, map points of interest, refuel, stock supplies, and have experienced personnel steer the boat. Our training development processes need to be very similar to preparing for a boat ride.  Following the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) model is one way. We cannot stop at getting the boat in the water. What’s the learning outcome? Did we design waypoints for learners to practice and get effective feedback? Did we apply scaffolding and chunking? Did we design it for how we learn and how we retrieve learning to transfer to the performance environment? Or in our rush to get the boat in the water did we ignore the learning science that supports designing effective learning? When we skip design, we miss opportunities to create learning experiences that are effective, efficient, and encourage the deep learning required to meet mission readiness. So why do we skip or gloss over the design phase? Sometimes the illusion of knowing creeps into the decision making of inexperienced training developers or senior leadership. We make judgments about what good learning is by instinct and our own personal experience. Often these judgments have very little to do with how the brain learns or how learning theory is applied. Sometimes it is the result of the “that’s the way we’ve always done it” syndrome. This can severely burden the unit level when we make poor design decisions. The goal of the tutorial is to help training developers, their supervisors, and anyone involved in the training development and decision-making process, design effective learning based on evidence from the learning sciences. This introductory tutorial will focus on the psychological and cognitive activities required for effective learning, present common learning myths that prevent us from creating efficient learning products, and provide design strategies that improve the relevance and rigor of the learning experience regardless of delivery method. When we do not use learning science, we only get the boat in the water; it never truly arrives at its destination, steering off course, and burdening another resource to rescue it when it is lost at sea.