Drega Abdi

When I first started to develop e-learning courses during my MA programme in Technical Communication and eLearning, I underestimated the importance of structured planning and adopted a “jump-straight-in” approach. I had already been using a similar strategy in my work as a health informaticist when developing e-learning courses, assuming it would translate easily to my academic projects. My initial assumption—that starting development early on would save time—quickly led me to recognise the pitfalls of working without a clear plan. Having to reflect on this process for the course made me realise how vital structured planning is, not only for academic assignments but also for professional practice. This blog entry recounts how I discovered the benefits of planning, the challenges I faced in translating ideas to stakeholders, and the lessons that are ultimately shaping my approach to instructional design.

Background: The impulse to skip planning

I took on the development of a specimen collection eLearning course last academic year. At the outset, I was keen to delve into creating the course in the chosen authoring tool (Articulate Storyline), believing that active creation would speed up the entire process. As I was keen to progress, it quickly led me to bypass detailed storyboarding, thinking I could create a storyboard easily at the end of the project to fulfil my academic requirements. It seemed reasonable at first, as I could rapidly produce slides in Articulate Storyline, experimenting with layouts and basic interactivity. However, significant inconsistencies started to emerge. Some sections contradicted the clinical guidelines that the course aimed to uphold. Others lacked cohesive transitions or a clear visual identity. It became evident that I was repeatedly revising content—a direct consequence of insufficient planning.

Challenges in communicating with stakeholders

My next obstacle appeared during stakeholder reviews. Clinical staff and educators struggled to visualise how the final course would function, as the course planning content I created for these meetings consisted mainly of Word documents dense with tables and text. The absence of visuals made it difficult for them to offer constructive feedback. This realisation highlighted the disconnect between my process and the stakeholders’ need for a tangible representation of the end product. While it may have been clear in my mind, my approach did not effectively convey the structure, flow, or interactive nature of the training.
The level of engagement displayed by stakeholders was telling. Their uncertainty about the final design was illustrated by repeated questions, which meant that revisions were delayed, leading to time-intensive alterations to align the course with their expectations. These setbacks confirmed that text-centric outlines were not sufficient for complex eLearning development.

A turning point in planning

As I started to recognise the positive impact of visual aids, I decided to shift from Word-based course plans to PowerPoint-based storyboards. This shift allowed me to present each screen as it would appear in the final course, incorporating placeholder images, navigation buttons, and outlines of content. Providing this closer approximation of the learner’s experience encouraged more meaningful dialogue during meetings and email exchanges. Stakeholders could now see the interplay between text, images, and interactions. Their feedback sessions became more productive, with specific discussions about aligning visual components with clinical guidelines and refining navigation to suit learner needs.
Additionally, I adopted an action-mapping framework to ensure that every slide and segment served a relevant, real-world task. By pairing course objectives with practical actions, my planning became more purposeful. Each aspect of the module was tested against the question: “How does this help learners perform their duties more effectively?” This perspective not only enhanced the course’s focus but also reinforced stakeholder confidence in the project’s alignment with organisational goals.

Lessons and future practice

In reflecting on these experiences, I came to appreciate how vital structured planning is to the instructional design process. Had I introduced visual mapping tools such as PowerPoint or Visio at the very beginning, I might have reduced much of the back-and-forth in later stages. A combination of well-defined timelines, stakeholder checkpoints, and visually oriented prototypes emerged as the best way to keep design and development on track. Although diving into an authoring tool gave me valuable hands-on experience, it was ultimately more beneficial to balance that enthusiasm with a strong, adaptable framework.
I plan to integrate these lessons into my future projects by beginning with a high-level overview of objectives and essential content, followed by a visual outline that simulates the final eLearning experience. Regular communication with stakeholders will be scheduled from the earliest phases to ensure that feedback is timely and adjustments are manageable. By taking this approach, I want to create courses that are not only engaging and visually cohesive but also rooted in authentic tasks that support learning outcomes.

Reading list

• Allen, M.W. (2016) Michael Allen’s Guide to e-Learning: Building Interactive, Fun, and Effective Learning Programs for Any Company. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• Branch, R.M. and Varank, I. (2009) Instructional Design: The ADDIE Approach. Boston, MA: Springer-Verlag US.
• Clark, R.C. and Mayer, R.E. (2016) e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• Moore, C. (2017) Map It: The Hands-On Guide to Strategic Training Design. Cathy Moore Publishing.