Sequencing and structuring learning modules in instructional design
Sequencing and Structuring
Learning Modules in
The last step in the design phase is to determine program sequence and
structure to ensure the learning objectives are met. A proper sequence
provides the learners with a pattern of relationship so that each activity will
have a definite purpose. The more meaningful the content, the easier it is
to learn and, consequently, the more effective the instruction.
Proper sequencing also helps to avoid inconsistencies in the content of the
instruction. When material is carefully sequenced, duplication is far less
likely. Indeed, the presence of duplication often indicates that the program
has not been properly sequenced.
Some of the techniques and considerations used in sequencing are:
Job Performance Order: The learning sequence is the same as
the job sequence
From Simple to Complex: Objectives may be sequenced in terms
of increasing complexity
Critical Sequence: Objects are ordered in terms of their relative
Known to Unknown: Familiar topics are considered before
Dependent Relationship: Mastery of one objective requires prior
mastery of another
Supportive relationship: Transfer of learning takes place from
one objective to another, usually because common elements are
included in each objective. These should be placed as close together
as possible so that the maximum transfer of learning can take
Cause to Effect: Objectives are sequenced from cause to effect
If there are a lot of objectives, then they should be organized into clusters
which are conductive to learning. The sequencing performed earlier is the
basis for breaking the objectives down into clusters based on the class
relationship between them.
If the training program is long, then reinforcement also has to be accounted
for. One of the behavioral characteristics of learners indicates that not only
the rate of which people learn must be accounted for, but also the rate of
decay that takes place after an objective is mastered must also be
accounted for. To account for this decay factor, reinforcement loops must
be built into the instructional process. The decay factor also has to be
considered once the learner graduates from the program. If a task is taught
in the instructional program and then is not used for some time after the
learners return to their duties, then some decay is likely to take place. The
remedy for this is to coordinate with the learner's supervisor to ensure the
learners perform their newly acquired skills as soon as possible upon
returning to the job.
In any instructional program, there is usually a wide variety of abilities
among the learners. Some will have extensive experience, while others are
somewhat limited. The educational background may extend from high
school dropout to college graduate. Many other variables will affect the
progression and productivity of the learners. Provisions must be made to
compensate for these differences. In a self-paced course, extra modules
can help the learners that are having difficulties. In a lock-step course,
additional instruction, reading assignments, or study halls may be required
to keep the slower learners on pace with the other learners.
The product of the sequencing step should be a learning map which shows
the proposed layout of the objectives. An example is shown below.
This last step, Sequence and Structure, concludes the Design Phase. You
can click any of the sections in the model below to review any of the steps.
Go to the next section: Learning Activity - crossword puzzle
Return to the Table of Contents
U.S. Army Field Artillery School (1984). A System Approach To Training
(Course Student textbook). ST - 5K061FD92
U.S. Department of Defense Training Document (1975). Pamphlet 350-30.
What is Instructional Design?
Instructional Design is the process of using our knowledge of how
people learn, to guide our choices of instructional sequences and
strategies and to meet the needs of the learners and desired learning
Research has shown that particular ways of delivering instructions are
more effective than others. Different kinds of learning goals require
different approaches to instruction. The instructional designer can
determine the best instructional conditions or methods to deliver learning
outcomes. The Instructional designer develops instructional strategies
that are tailored to the learning objectives and the needs of the learners.
The aim of instructional design is to make the instructions effective,
efficient, appealing and cost-effective. The instructional designer uses a
variety of interactive media to improve learning and address learning
objectives. Traditional face-to-face teaching methods can be enhanced
by, or even replaced by innovative e-learning methods. The instructional
designer is the expert in finding the right technology to
support good pedagogy.
The Information Age is making new demands on us all. Education must
find ways to face these new challenges. We can no longer see learners
as empty vessels that can be filled with information. The information now
resides out there, distributed across a vast network and shared between
all people. The challenge now is to help people to use this information
safely, wisely and productively as they adapt to a rapidly changing world.
We need to prepare "students to learn, work and live successfully in a
knowledge-based, global society" (Newhouse, 2002). The Instructional
Designer is there to facilitate learning in this new epoch, The Knowledge
The terms Instructional Design, Educational Design and Learning
Design can be used interchangeably.
Learning Science was heralded by the book "How People Learn" edited
by Bransford, Brown and Cocking 2000, published by the United States
National Research Council. It outlined the following basic facts about
The importance of deeper conceptual understanding: focus
the student on understanding rather than memorisation and
routine procedures to follow.
Focusing on learning in addition to teaching: engage students
in active participation in their own learning.
Creating learning environments: learning scientists have
identified the key features of learning environments which help
students learn deeper conceptual understanding.
The importance of building on a learner's prior
knowledge: provide an environment that engages the students
prior knowledge then builds upon this.
The importance of reflection: engage students in activities that
help them to reflect on their own learning and understanding.
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, edited by R.K.
Sawyer was published in 2006. This book describes just how these
principles can be applied to the design of learning environments
particularly taking advantage of new computer technology.
First Principles of Instruction
1. Learning is promoted when learners are engaged in solving realworld problems.
2. Learning is promoted when existing knowledge is activated as a
foundation for new knowledge.
3. Learning is promoted when new knowledge is demonstrated to
4. Learning is promoted when new knowledge is applied by the
5. Learning is promoted when new knowledge is integrated into the
(M. David Merrill, 2002)
The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) gives an
excellent account of Constructivism.
The American Psychological Association has developed the Learnercentered Principles. The most important principle is to create a positive
climate and positive relationships.
What do Instructional Designers do?
An instructional designer:
Analyses learning needs and then systematically develops
Studies instructional theories, tools and resources to develop
methods to facilitate learning.
Relies on current research in educational psychology,
educational theory and systems analysis to ensure the most
suitable teaching methods are used.
Bases their decisions on proven instructional design methods.
Uses pedagogically sound teaching methods and the latest
technology to design effective learning products.
Has a deep knowledge of the various strategies and technologies
that can be applied to course design.
Works with the Subject Matter Expert (SME) or "content
specialist" to plan the structure of a course to achieve educational
online and distributed learning courses,
computer-based training programs
Plans and implements the most effective training strategies.
Integrates feedback, student support, assessment and course
evaluation into the training program.
Works with the multimedia designers and programmers to ensure
a course will facilitate learning and deliver the objectives in the
most effective way.
Evaluates the effectiveness of the learning product.
Don Clarke presents a review of 5 theories of Instructional
Developing the Ideas of Ocean Literacy Using Conceptual Flow Diagrams
By Craig Strang, Kathy DiRanna, Jo Topps
Upon publication of Ocean Literacy: the Essential Principles of Ocean Sciences K12, there was broad recognition of the potential power of a consensus document
describing what every person should know about the ocean to be considered
science literate. There was also recognition of the limitations of such a document
that describes the ideal end state, yet provides no road map for how to get there.
We knew that ultimately we would need to craft a road map to provide an answer
to the question, “If students are to understand the Ocean Literacy Principles by the
end of grade 12, what would we need to teach them in grades K-2, in grades 3-5, in
grades 6-8, and in grades 9-12 to help them reach that goal?” The answer to that
question—a scope and sequence—would be of great interest to teachers and
informal science educators, but also to national and state standards committees,
curriculum developers, textbook writers and assessment specialists. But what
would be an effective way to represent this complex information so that it would
be comprehensive, understandable and accessible for these different end users? For
this answer, we turned to literature in learning, teaching and teacher professional
Research in the learning sciences (Bransford et al, 1999) reveal that to develop
competence in an area of inquiry, students must: (a) have a deep foundation of
factual knowledge, (b) understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual
framework, and (c) organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and
application. Thus to facilitate the development of students’ conceptual
understanding and organization of ocean sciences ideas, the scope and sequence
should have a logical and coherent approach to building the complex ideas of the
Ocean Literacy Principles from one grade band to the next. Conceptual flow
diagrams (as shown on pages X-XX) offer a way to present and organize such a
progression of ideas, and can be a versatile tool for several reasons: they describe
the developmentally appropriate concepts at each grade band, as well as the
relationships among the concepts, in a graphical format; they provide a researchbased example of a sequence in which the concepts can be taught, beginning at the
earliest grades; and the diagrams balance the need for accessibility and utility with
fidelity to learning theory and cognitive science.
Concept Maps versus Conceptual Flows
Conceptual flow diagrams are a specialized and distinct form of concept maps.
Concept maps are graphical tools for organizing and representing knowledge that
were developed in 1972 in the course of Joseph Novak’s research program at
Cornell University where he sought to follow and understand changes in children’s
knowledge and understanding of science (Novak & Musonda, 1991). The data
from Novak’s study indicated “the lasting impact of early instruction in science
and the value of concept maps as a representational tool for cognitive
developmental changes." Novak’s concept maps include concepts, usually
enclosed in circles or boxes, and relationships between concepts indicated by a
connecting line linking two concepts. Text on the connecting line, referred to as
linking words or linking phrases, specify the relationship between the two
concepts. Concepts are generally represented in a hierarchical fashion with the
most inclusive, most general concepts at the top of the map, and more specific
concepts arranged below. The hierarchical structure for a domain of knowledge
may be somewhat relative as it often depends on the context in which that
knowledge is being applied or considered (Novak & Cañas, 2008; Novak &
Gowin, 1984). The use of concept maps generally represents a constructivist
approach to learning and teaching, as it assists the learner in developing and
displaying the trajectory of their understanding of new concepts and ideas.
Conceptual flow diagrams were developed by the K-12 Alliance/WestEd in
California in 1989, for use with teachers during professional development institutes
conducted for an NSF-funded statewide systemic initiative. In that setting and
dozens of others since, teachers developed conceptual flow diagrams to improve
their content knowledge, their curriculum planning and their instruction of
complex science concepts. As a product, a conceptual flow diagram resembles a
map of nested concepts. The biggest ideas are supported by small ideas, and those
small ideas are maintained by even smaller ideas that become learning sequence
concepts (see Figure 1). The conceptual flow diagram differs from a concept map
in that it addresses concepts in a unit of instruction, and has both a hierarchy of
ideas (indicating the relationship between and among the ideas) and a direction,
i.e., the sequence for instruction of the unit. Conceptual flow diagrams are intended
to be read and taught from top to bottom and from left to right. Concepts nested
beneath other concepts serve to elucidate and support the concepts above.
Concepts to the right build on those to the left, and often move in a developmental
sequence, especially in the early grades, from more concrete to more abstract.
--Insert Figure 1 about here -The process of guiding teachers through the development of conceptual flow
diagrams is described at length in the book, Assessment Centered Teaching: A
Reflective Practice (DiRanna et al, 2008). The process of making conceptual flow
diagrams has also been adapted for a variety of purposes, including planning for
classroom instruction and assessment simultaneously, assisting in school district
analysis, selection and adoption of instructional materials, and helping curriculum
developers to design instructional materials. Given these versatile uses of
conceptual flow diagrams to display and organize big ideas and concepts in a wellthought-out progression of learning and teaching for different educational
purposes, we decided to use conceptual flow diagrams to represent the scope and
Purpose of Conceptual Flow Diagrams
The conceptual flow diagram is a “backward-planning” tool. Starting with the end
in mindand planning backwards (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) is a means for setting
comprehensible goals and designing better instruction. Teachers can array the big
ideas that are important for students to know, the standards they are responsible for
teaching, and the content presented in the instructional materials into one
comprehensive, sequential chart. As teachers identify and integrate these three
elements, the process of constructing a conceptual flow diagram enables teachers
to clearly identify specific goals for student learning and progress. The conceptual
flow diagram assists learners by making them aware of the links in the concepts
they are addressing. Too often it is a mystery to students why they are learning
what they are learning. As one teacher put it,
The conceptual flow diagram is a determination of where you are going in your
teaching and what you’re going to reflect on. You have to know what concepts are
important and the order in which they go to conceptualize the whole learning. I put
my conceptual flow on the wall for the kids so they learn where they’re going, too.
—Teacher Leader 1, NSF Center for Assessment & Evaluation of Student
Developing conceptual flow diagrams helps teachers build foundational knowledge
about the importance of helping students to construct conceptual frameworks
rather than “learn” factual information. When a conceptual flow is displayed in the
classroom, it allows both teachers and students to connect new ideas and
information, providing opportunities to learn with deeper understanding.
A completed conceptual flow diagram serves the following four purposes:
1. Details the important concepts and linkages to other ideas;
2. Identifies an instructional sequence for which resources (e.g., textbooks,
instructional materials) can be used to support teaching;
3. Identifies important concepts for assessment of student understanding; and
4. Eventually serves as the foundation of an assessment plan for the unit of
Construction of Conceptual Flow Diagrams
Conceptual flow diagrams are designed by a team, often led by a facilitator
knowledgeable of the process. The process for a team of 2-5 people to build a
conceptual flow diagram for a unit of instruction includes these five steps:
1. Individuals write a narrative response to the question, “What should students
know about (blank) by the time they leave grade (blank)?
2. Individuals re-write and transfer each concept statement in complete
sentences from their narrative responses onto separate post-it notes of three
different sizes using the larger size for the larger, more important concepts.
3. Team members share their concepts on post-it notes with one another. They
arrange the notes into a collaborative draft conceptual flow diagram with
larger concepts at the top, and smaller, nested, supporting concepts below.
This step can take several hours.
4. Team members match their collaborative, draft conceptual flow diagram to
the concepts addressed in the instructional materials and to the science
content standards used by team members.
5. Team members review the progression of concept clusters (each cluster is
comprised of a large concept and the nested, smaller concepts below it) and
place them in an instructional sequence that provides strong links for student
understanding (see Figure 2)
--Insert Figure 2 about here --
Conceptual Flow and Teacher Change
In addition to aiding teachers in curriculum development, conceptual flow
diagrams have been used as a foundational process for developing classroom
assessment plans. A research study of teachers who received professional
development on the building of conceptual flow diagrams found that most grade
level teams shifted over time toward a greater focus on big ideas by removing,
adding or reorganizing learning goals to focus on what was most important for
students to learn. Another common shift was toward more coordinated
relationships among big ideas and smaller supporting concepts. Most teams
increasingly represented conceptual relationships among unit goals rather than as a
list of sequential lesson topics. Paralleling organizational shifts in the conceptual
flow diagrams, all of the teachers’ assessment plans were more coherently
organized in later portfolios. Assessment plans shifted from long lists of possible
assessments toward judicious selection of a few key assessments for tracking
student progress. Teachers indicated generally strong understandings of how to use
conceptual flow diagrams to guide assessment decisions and to select their
“juncture” assessments (Gearhart & Osmundson, 2009).
I think teachers need to understand the conceptual flow of their curriculum…what
concepts they want students to learn; what concepts to assess with their
students...then they can plan for teaching.
[Developing the Conceptual Flow] moved us from a list of topics to…nesting of
important ideas. Identifying what really matters for student understanding drives
decisions about…questions in the assessment. —Teacher Leader 2, NSF Center for
Assessment & Evaluation of Student Learning
In a political climate that stresses coverage of material in preparation for state
testing, teachers appreciate that building conceptual flow diagrams provides them
with a process to think beyond standards checklists and pacing guides, and focus
on conceptual understanding. One teacher explained,
My district is into curriculum mapping and…I'm trying to cover the standards, but
(by using conceptual flow diagrams) you have to go deeper into the standards to
assess the concepts that are actually behind the understanding, instead of just
checking off standards. —Teacher Leader 3, NSF Center for Assessment &
Evaluation of Student Learning
Based on the findings of Gearhart and Osmundson, the benefits of conceptual flow
diagrams appear to go beyond assessment planning: teachers take ownership of
their instruction by becoming better consumers of instructional materials. As they
grapple with important concepts and how they should be arranged in a meaningful
sequence, teachers gain insight into how instructional materials are organized,
which materials are designed to support students’ understanding of the big ideas,
and which lessons, resources, and assessments need to be revised. Teachers can
then modify their instruction and assessment practice to address any gaps or
With a new focus on the concepts in the conceptual flow diagram, I was able to
really see my instructional materials. I mean, I knew that our instructional
materials were not often perfect, but this really brought out where the holes are,
where I need to revise and what I need to put in there to make sure the students
understand the concept that I'm trying to teach. —Teacher Leader 4, NSF Center
for Assessment & Evaluation of Student Learning
I always look at a unit now and make sure that it does flow conceptually. If not,
then I rearrange to make sure I include ideas that build upon one another. I always
make that a part of my science teaching and I want to incorporate conceptual flow
diagrams into other content areas. —Teacher Leader 5, NSF Center for Assessment
& Evaluation of Student Learning
--Insert Figure 3 about here -While collaborative development of working versions of conceptual flow diagrams
has been demonstrated as an effective teacher professional development activity,
involving hundreds of people in the development of a set of 28 completed
conceptual flow diagrams has, to say the least, never been accomplished
before. The Ocean Literacy Scope and Sequence for Grades K-12 represents a new
use of conceptual flow diagrams. In 2006, the authors and several other colleagues
led a group of 46 ocean scientists and educators through the development of the
first Ocean Literacy conceptual flow diagrams. The process was uplifting and
invaluable. Achieving a final product, however, took considerable revision,
iteration and review before consensus was reached on all 28 diagrams. Now
published, we hope that the Scope and Sequence will become a catalyst for future
research about how students form and revise their understandings of complex
ocean sciences concepts. Further, we anticipate that the Scope and Sequence will
become a driving force in defining the content that students will encounter in
future standards, textbooks, curriculum materials and assessments.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., Cocking, R.R. (1999). How People Learn: Brain,
Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC, National Research Council,
National Academies Press.
DiRanna, K., Osmundson, E., Topps, J., Barakos, L., Gearhart, M., Cerwin, K.,
Carnahan, D., Strang, C. (2008). Assessment Centered Teaching: A Reflective
Practice. Thousand Oaks, California; Corwin Press.
Gearhart, M., & Osmundson, E. (2009). Assessment Portfolios as Opportunities for
Teacher Learning. Educational Assessment. 14:1-24.
Novak, J.D., & Cañas, A.J. (2008). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and
How to Construct and Use Them, Technical Report Institute for Human and
Machine Cognition CmapTools.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY:
Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science
concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 117-153.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design, Expanded 2nd
Edition. Alexandria, VA; Merrill Education/ASCD College Textbook Series.
Figure 1: Shows the generic layout of conceptual flow diagrams developed by
teachers to describe an instructional sequence.
nstructional Design Models and Strategies
There are numerous models of the Instructional Design Process. Gustafson (1981) concluded
differences between models although they often used different terminology to describe the sam
where the model was to be applied
whether the outcome was to be a product for distribution and use by people other than it's desig
whether design and development were to be an individual or a team effort
whether the emphasis was primarily on designing new materials or selecting from among those t
In general, however, the models all specified:
analysing what was to be learned
specifying who was to learn
describing in detail how the learning was to occur
conducting formative evaluation
conducting summative evaluation
The literature indicates a general belief that, the use of systematic design procedures can mak
than it has been using more traditional methods. This means that objectives, instructional strat
evaluation procedures are all congruent and complement each other. Briggs, Gustafson & Tillm
The systematic design process provides a framework within which analysis can be performed
the many instructional delivery strategies. A generalised model of the process is shown overle
reconfigured to meet the needs of a specific project.
Figure 1.1 The instructional design sequence (Gustafson, T
The instructional design model shown above implies a sequential process. It is important to note, ho
iterative and some decisions made in the later parts may well affect decisions made earlier. For exa
content analysis and then sequence the instruction. Leishin, Pollock and Reigluth, (1992) point out
required for different situations, and each sequencing strategy is based on different types of relation
there is a learning prerequisite relationship among skills and this suggests a hierarchical sequencin
based on the order relationship among steps of a procedure. The chronological sequence is based
events. Because each type of sequence is based on a different type of relationship within the task o
required in order to design each sequence.
The model of the Instructional Systems Development (ISD) process shown at Figure 1.2 below
expands initially into seven steps and includes the design step necessary for inte
Figure 1.2 Overview of the instructional systems development (ISD) proce
In both of the above models scant attention is paid to the analysis of the learner. In order to develo
eLearning it is essential to have a thorough understanding of the target learners. In the past, many
influence their ability to learn from instruction. Some theorists advocated that instruction be tailored
genders, socio-economic backgrounds, ages etc. Clark, (1991) contends that there are two predom
influence their ability to learn from instruction.
These are; intellectual capacity (made up of intelligence and prior knowledge of the subject) and
Motivation and the intellectual capacity that is characterised as prior knowledge, are both critical pre
Learning in general and particularly computer based eLearning must be designed to promote both m
knowledge to a learner's existing store of knowledge. In this respect, I am frequently reminded of
Ability + Motivation = Performance.
Many people have the ability to learn new skills and knowledge in many domains. However, when a
focused on learning something new, and place a high value on acquiring that knowledge, attention
enthusiastically engaged in the learning process. Clark, (1991) calls this the "Engagement Princip
personal value placed on the task at hand increases beyond the value placed on any other distracti
engaged in the task and not be distracted".
Figure 1.3 Engagement Principle ( Clark 1991 )
Once we know how much prior knowledge the learners have and how motivated they are likely to b
depth of the task analysis and how much support will have to be built into the eLearning at the lesso
The other side of learner analysis relates to what Clark calls the Effort Principle. To invest effort in
application for a sufficient amount of time to succeed.
This principle implies that, as the amount of self confidence increases from very low to very high the
the task follows an inverted U curve. If learners are either under or over confident about succeedin
Figure 1.4 The Effort Principle
( Clark 1991
Confidence in this situation is defined as " the learners perception of how capable they will be in rel
trained and in relation to the training they will undergo".
Because of these factors Learner Analysis is an essential part of the design process. It is closely re
step in the sequence. It is essential to gather information about the level of prior knowledge and mo
Figure 1.5 overleaf shows some of the consequences of this information for the design process. Th
learner the larger the chunks of new information s/he can acquire at one time. This means that the
the eLearning can be less detailed. Also the greater the relevant prior knowledge, the less support
practice, feedback ) must be built into the eLearning at the lesson design stage.
Figure 1.5 Design implications from learner characteristics ( Cl
This leads us to the instructional design model defined by Richard E. Clark. This model has its focus on
hypothesises that the eventual media selection is a matter which affects the efficiency of course delivery
function of careful attention to the first four stages of the process.
Clark defines Effectiveness as "the extent to which the learners are able to apply the learning content a
performance" and Efficiency as " relating to the cost in money, organisational resources and learner ti
effectiveness chosen by the client".
There are critically important cost advantages or disadvantages to choosing certain media or combinatio
courses, eLearning may not be economically feasible without the availability of certain media. It is impo
very important technologies that are applied to eLearning; instructional technology and delivery technol
Instructional Technology is "a set of eLearning procedures which can be embedded in instruction
and transfer" ( that is to make eLearning more effective). Delivery Technology is "a set of facilities
instruction to solve problems of cost, speed, access, reliability and utilisation of resources".Therefor
delivery technology that will achieve the desired level of effectiveness with the least cost in terms of
Figure 1.6 Model for the design of effective eLearning. Clark (1
All of the models discussed so far have their focus on the design of eLearning materials with a varie
we are particularly concerned with the design of eLearning for delivery using interactive multimedia
lessons from the previous pages in mind we have to consider those aspects of the design process w
effective eLearning materials but also the additional steps and procedures necessary to produce int
Research indicates that multimedia based eLearning projects require that about 60% of the project
the remaining 40% being used for production and authoring activities. Because the design stages a
must develop a model which recognises the additional steps in the process. One such model, which
systems development steps of analysis, design, development and evaluation and at the same time
multimedia development aspects is proposed by Allen Communications.
Figure 1.7 Model for the development of interactive multimedia eLearning materia
The Allen Communication model looks at the production of eLearning materials from the point of view
suite of software tools, which enable the design process according to this model. However, yet another v
view from the desk of the Project Manager. This view has a more commercial bias and while recognisin
the pedagogic imperative, has a focus very much on the bottom line. This model looks at design from th
to list the steps in the process, define who is responsible for each component, examine the resources nee
at the cyclical nature and dependencies of the various parts of each step.
Figure 1.8 Project managers view of the production of multimedia based eLearning mate
The next part of this guide looks at the design and development model in more depth and seeks to comb
models. It takes account of the iterative nature of the process particularly when producing a multi-modu
We must be clear at this point to declare the case to be taken for the purposes of this paper. At one end o
generic eLearning product for general use and sale to the public. In this situation there is a perceived ne
a particular topic.
The production company will make a decision whether or not to proceed paying special attention to the
essential step for all eLearning materials and will, in the case of a generic product, be less specific than
known or can be defined. For the generic product then, certain assumptions have to be made with regard
knowledge and motivation of the potential users. This profile will then become part of the material used
activities and by the marketing department in the design of packaging, instructions for use and the devel
Somewhere in the middle of the spectrum is a case where a client will approach a production company w
this material to be converted into a CD or DVD product or a product for delivery using the Internet. In t
other items usually gathered in the analysis and design stages will be known. The process of production
and proceed through selection of an authoring tool, making the functions list, into storyboarding and thr
At the far end of the spectrum is the situation where a client approaches the production company with a
solved by eLearning. It is the first task of the company to check this hypothesis and confirm that the per
and can in fact be solved by eLearning. At this time, the client will enter into discussion with the design