A Step-by-Step Guide to Custom eLearning Development with Instructional Design and Cognitive Science

Strategic Foundation and Needs Analysis for Custom eLearning Development (The ‘Why’ and ‘What’)

The successful implementation of custom eLearning development begins not with content creation, but with rigorous strategic alignment and the selection of an appropriate instructional design framework. This initial phase, often referred to as Analysis, dictates the entire trajectory of the project, ensuring resources are focused on high-priority organizational challenges and yielding measurable returns on learning (ROL).

Defining Custom eLearning Development and Strategic Alignment

Custom eLearning development initiatives represent a decisive investment in targeted workforce capability. Unlike pre-packaged, off-the-shelf solutions, custom eLearning development involves designing and building online training that is uniquely tailored to the specific context, culture, and operational demands of the organization and its learners. Every constituent element, ranging from the instructional design structure to the intricate multimedia components, is specifically crafted to align with the company’s distinct goals and cultural requirements.

The mandate for custom eLearning development is inherently driven by the need to address specific performance gaps that generic training solutions cannot adequately resolve. Therefore, the core purpose of commissioning custom eLearning is to create content that is perfectly aligned with company-specific processes, developing skills critical to the industry, and directly applicable to unique organizational challenges. This strategic alignment requires that the learning initiative is perpetually calibrated against internal and external organizational drivers to ensure the training remains relevant.

The essential groundwork for this phase is the Learning Needs Analysis (LNA). This analysis is distinguished from a traditional Training Needs Analysis (TNA) by its ongoing, systematic nature, functioning as a comprehensive health check on the organization’s current and future capability needs. The LNA methodology systematically gathers data and insights about employees’ existing levels of skills, attitudes, and knowledge, then assesses these capabilities against future demands. The resulting identification of gaps must be carefully interpreted and prioritized within the context of the broader organizational strategy, providing the crucial baseline necessary for justifying the project and, ultimately, measuring its highest level of impact. The success of the entire custom eLearning development endeavor, including the calculation of Return on Learning (ROL), is directly dependent on the rigor and accuracy of this foundational needs analysis.

Selecting the Instructional Design Framework for Custom eLearning Development: ADDIE vs. SAM

The choice of Instructional Design (ID) model for custom eLearning development is not merely a project management decision; it represents a commitment to a specific workflow, risk profile, and, most critically, a pedagogical style. For custom, high-stakes eLearning development, which is characterized by complexity and constantly evolving requirements, the traditional, linear models must be carefully weighed against agile, iterative approaches.  

Comparative Analysis of Foundational Models

The ADDIE Model (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) is systematic and repeatable, tracing its origins to a military system translated for technological application. While its structured nature ensures thoroughness, the primary drawback of ADDIE is its strict linearity, as the model “doesn’t allow backtracking” once a phase is complete. This rigidity makes it highly susceptible to large-scale failure if requirements shift late in the cycle, a frequent occurrence in complex custom development environments. 

The Successive Approximation Model (SAM), in contrast, was consciously created as an agile counter to ADDIE, leveraging an IT-based solution centered on rapid prototyping and continuous evaluation. SAM integrates five key phases—Preparation, Iterative Design, Iterative Development, Implementation, and Evaluation—with the design and development phases being cyclical and iterative. This structure is inherently superior for custom content creation because it builds quality assurance and stakeholder feedback directly into the workflow.

Strategic Recommendation: The Agile SAM Framework

Custom development demands adaptability and frequent integration of Subject Matter Expert (SME) feedback. The strategic preference is the Agile SAM framework, which mitigates the risk of catastrophic project failure by spreading risk across multiple iterations and prototypes. The modern iteration of SAM upgrades to AGILE principles: Align, Get set, Iterate & Implement, Leverage, and Evaluate, thereby linking iterative design directly to organizational impact assessment.  

Adopting SAM represents a pedagogical mandate, not just a procedural one. The framework promotes an atmosphere of problem-solving rather than simply following instructions, offering more autonomy to both developers and online learners. The structure of the course ultimately affects what and how individuals learn from it. A traditional, rigid ADDIE process tends to yield instruction that favors rote knowledge transfer, aligning with its military roots. Conversely, the emphasis on problem-solving inherent in SAM naturally drives the instructional design team toward approaches focused on application, critical thinking, and authentic challenges, which are prerequisites for achieving higher-order learning goals such as observable behavior change and organizational results. 

A fundamental requirement for demonstrating organizational impact is the alignment of the initial analysis with the outcome. The success of the entire program, measured at the highest level (Kirkpatrick Level 4, organizational results) , is inextricably tied to the rigor of the Learning Needs Analysis (LNA). If the LNA fails to define the baseline organizational capability needs accurately and targets the wrong performance gap, the subsequent custom eLearning solution, no matter how expertly executed, will not deliver measurable Level 4 results. The LNA effectively defines the organizational baseline against which the value of the custom eLearning development initiative is ultimately measured.   

• Cognitivism: Viewing learning as a mental activity and the mind as an information-processing tool , Cognitivism stresses efficient processing strategies. The instructional focus is on structuring, organizing, and sequencing information optimally to facilitate assimilation. Practical applications include the use of cognitive strategies such as outlining, concept mapping, framing, and mnemonics. Furthermore, the use of analogies and metaphors—such as comparing instructional design to the architect’s profession—aids the novice learner in conceptualizing and retaining major duties and functions.  

• Constructivism: Distinguished from traditional Cognitivism, Constructivism posits that learners do not simply transfer knowledge from the external world but actively build personal, unique interpretations based on individual experiences and interactions. Knowledge, therefore, emerges in the contexts within which it is relevant. This framework mandates designing instruction around authentic, real-world problems (the Task-centered approach). Constructivism is necessary for custom solutions because company-specific challenges (e.g., leadership, process management) are often complex and ambiguous, requiring the ability to apply knowledge and make decisions in novel ways.  

Establishing Measurable Learning Objectives for Custom eLearning Development(Bloom’s Taxonomy)

Learning objectives must be established using criterion-referenced verbs aligned with the cognitive demands necessary to close the identified performance gap. Bloom’s Taxonomy provides the definitive structure for ensuring objectives progress logically from lower-order thinking (LOT) to higher-order thinking (HOT). 

The design sequencing must explicitly guide the learner through the six hierarchical levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy: 

1. Remember/Understand (LOT): Basic recall and explaining concepts.

2. Apply/Analyze: Using knowledge in practical problems and breaking down information (e.g., sorting jumbled terms, comparing/contrasting lists). 

3. Evaluate/Create (HOT): Critically assessing the topic, stating evidence-based opinions, and generating new solutions or hypothetical assignments. 

By structuring content and assessment activities to mirror this progression, instructional designers ensure that lower-order questions are addressed at the beginning of a unit, leading toward higher-order application nearer the end. This structure facilitates the proactive identification and resolution of knowledge roadblocks for struggling learners before attempting mastery.

Applying Core Principles of Instruction for Custom eLearning Development (Gagne and Merrill)

The operational flow of the custom module is governed by established instructional principles that dictate the sequence and quality of the learning steps.

Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction (MPI) for Custom eLearning Development (The Task Focus)

MPI is recognized for its focus on maximizing knowledge transfer by creating meaningful, engaging, and transferable learning experiences. It emphasizes five key principles:  

• Task-centered approach: Instruction is structured around authentic, real-world problems that learners are likely to encounter in their jobs.  
• Activation: Learners’ prior knowledge and experiences are explicitly engaged to create a foundation for new learning.
• Demonstration: Clear models or examples that illustrate the desired learning outcomes are provided.
• Application: Learners are given opportunities to practice knowledge and skills in authentic contexts, requiring them to actively apply what they have learned, solve problems, and make realistic decisions.  
• Integration: This principle promotes the transfer of knowledge and skills to new situations, demanding that learners connect their learning to real-world contexts and apply it in novel ways, often through complex scenarios.  

The Integration principle is strategically vital as it functions as the direct bridge to demonstrating post-training behavior change. Kirkpatrick Level 3 measures the degree to which participants apply what they learned back in their environment. By intentionally incorporating activities that fulfill Merrill’s Integration requirement—such as complex branching scenarios or realistic simulations—the instructional design guarantees that the structure is optimized for transferring skills from the simulated environment into the actual workplace, significantly increasing the likelihood of observable Level 3 behavior change.

Furthermore, custom eLearning targets explicitly the company’s nuanced and often ambiguous challenges. This reality necessitates reliance on a Constructivist framework, implemented via Merrill’s Task-centered design. When dealing with complex decision-making, a purely Cognitivist approach focused solely on facts and procedures proves insufficient. A Constructivist design equips learners to handle ambiguity and adapt their knowledge based on context, accepting that individual interpretation is constantly open to change. 

Content Development for Custom eLearning and Cognitive Load Management (The ‘Crafting’)

The Development phase, often iterative under the SAM framework, focuses on the technical execution of the design blueprint. Success in this phase hinges on rigorous cognitive load control, seamless Subject Matter Expert integration, and adherence to technical and accessibility standards.  

1. Content Structuring and SME Integration

Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) are indispensable, providing the domain-specific content and critical knowledge necessary to create practical and relevant custom training. Successful custom development requires integrating SMEs early and effectively into the Iterative Design Phase, ensuring their highly specialized knowledge is accurately translated into instructional materials. Proactive strategies for empowering SMEs are necessary to ensure a smooth production process and the scalable delivery of effective learning.  

The structure of the content must rigorously adhere to the principles of Cognitive Load Theory, specifically the limited-capacity assumption ,which recognizes that the ability of individuals to absorb information at any one time is constrained. Therefore, content chunking is an imperative. This involves reducing the overall amount of information supplied to learners (“less is more”), structuring instructional content into clear levels of importance to maintain a logical flow, and breaking long media, such as videos or lectures, into short, manageable segments. This systematic organization is proven to promote learner retention. 

Technical Tool Selection and Standards Alignment

The selection of authoring tools and underlying technical standards dictates the flexibility, integration capabilities, and longevity of the custom solution. Tool selection must be based on a comprehensive assessment of content needs, the technical expertise of the team, and required LMS compatibility. 

Accessibility Mandate (WCAG 2.1)

A crucial standard for custom eLearning development is adherence to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA. Accessibility is not merely a compliance issue; it is a foundational requirement for maximizing the addressable audience and ensuring successful information processing. If content is inaccessible, learners cannot effectively interact with the material, thereby inhibiting Gagne’s ‘Gain Attention’ and ‘Present Content’ events. Inaccessibility results in poor learner reaction (Kirkpatrick Level 1) and prevents learning (Level 2). WCAG guidelines are structured around four core principles (POUR) :   

• Perceivable: Provide text alternatives for all non-text content (images, multimedia) and offer captions and transcripts for time-based media. Content must be distinguishable, using sufficient contrast and allowing for text resizing.   
• Operable: Ensure all functionality is available via keyboard and provide users with enough time to read and interact with content (e.g., options to pause or extend time limits). Navigation must be clear, predictable, and consistent.   
• Understandable: Information and the user interface must be comprehensible. This involves using clear language and ensuring web pages operate in predictable ways.
• Robust: Content must be compatible with a wide array of user agents, including assistive technologies.

Implementation and Deployment (The ‘Launch’)

The Implementation phase ensures technical readiness, quality assurance, and, most critically, establishes the robust data collection infrastructure necessary for meaningful evaluation and the calculation of ROL.

1. Technical Integration and Tracking Standards (LMS/LRS)

The tracking standard chosen during implementation is the primary factor determining the scope and granularity of performance measurement possible in the Evaluation phase.

• SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference Model): This is the most widely recognized, albeit legacy, standard.²⁰ SCORM packages and delivers content within a Learning Management System (LMS), tracking basic metrics such as completion status, scores, and time spent.²⁰ Its major limitation is that it is restricted entirely to the LMS environment, making it incapable of tracking complex learning that occurs outside its digital walls.
• xAPI (Experience API): Explicitly developed to overcome SCORM’s limitations, xAPI enables the tracking of learning experiences beyond the traditional LMS.²⁰ xAPI records detailed data about any learning activity, formal or informal, and stores this information in a dedicated Learning Record Store (LRS).²⁰ For custom eLearning development programs aimed at high-stakes organizational change (Level 4), specifying xAPI/LRS compatibility is a mandatory technical requirement, as it allows for the advanced tracking of behavior and performance metrics that occur post-training.¹⁸ Failure to adopt xAPI fundamentally limits the evaluation ceiling to Level 2 (Learning).
• LTI (Learning Tools Interoperability): LTI streamlines the integration of third-party tools (e.g., specialized simulators, unique collaboration platforms) seamlessly with the LMS, reducing the need for costly custom development for integration purposes.

Quality Assurance (QA) and Testing

Due to the agile nature of SAM, QA is not a single end-phase gate but is embedded throughout the Iterative Development cycles. Rigorous testing must encompass technical fidelity, instructional effectiveness, and full accessibility compliance.   

Deployment protocol typically includes Alpha testing (internal technical checks), Beta testing (limited subset of target learners), and a comprehensive Pilot test. The Pilot phase is crucial for utilizing formative assessment strategies. Formative assessment involves the continuous process of collecting evidence of learning over time to check for understanding. This process allows the design team to capture in-the-moment feedback, identify instructional roadblocks, and immediately adjust the instruction before mass deployment. Formative checks act as necessary instructional risk mitigation, allowing for real-time refinement that aligns perfectly with the iterative evaluation philosophy of SAM.

Internal Marketing and Product Launch Strategy

The technical deployment must be supported by a strategic launch plan to ensure learner adoption and organizational momentum.  

• Facilitator Training: If human facilitators are involved, their training must be comprehensive, covering the entire curriculum, learning outcomes, methods of delivery, and testing procedures.   

• Learner Motivation: Procedures must be developed to properly introduce the lesson and motivate students, ensuring that the initial interaction supports Gagne’s ‘Gain Attention’ requirement and sets a positive tone for the custom solution.  

 Comprehensive Evaluation and ROL (The ‘Impact’)

The Evaluation phase is the definitive step for justifying the investment in custom development. It must provide a verifiable “Chain of Evidence” that connects the learner’s experience directly to measured organizational outcomes.

Achieving Level 4 results is predicated on success at Levels 1, 2, and 3. If organizational results are suboptimal, the designer must systematically backtrack through the Chain of Evidence to diagnose the point of failure: Was the behavior applied (L3)? Was the knowledge mastered (L2)? Was the training favorably received (L1)? This diagnostic discipline is crucial for budget justification and targeted revisions. 

Formative and Summative Assessment Strategies

Assessment instruments must be meticulously aligned with the corresponding learning objectives across all levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

• Formative Assessment: This continuous, low-stakes process is used to check for understanding and adjust instruction dynamically throughout the course or during the pilot. Examples include embedded short checks, reflection prompts, and synchronous Q&A sessions.   
• Summative Assessment: Used to gauge final achievement (Level 2). To validate mastery and the ability to transfer skills, summative tests must target Bloom’s higher-order thinking (Analyze, Evaluate, Create). This involves using complex instruments such as open-ended thesis statements requiring supporting evidence, problem-solving scenarios, or asking the learner to create a hypothetical assignment to test someone else’s understanding.   

The successful transition of skills from the learning environment to the workplace (Kirkpatrick Level 3) is dependent upon the confluence of instructional principles. Gagne’s final event, “Enhance Retention and Transfer” , and Merrill’s final principle, “Integration”, are structurally focused on achieving this critical step. Therefore, the instructional designer must ensure that Gagne’s final events (performance elicitation, feedback, and transfer) are explicitly built around Merrill’s application and integration activities, ensuring the course is fully optimized for real-world application.  

Establishing Revision Cycles and Continuous Improvement

The final phase of evaluation under the SAM model is designed to feed directly back into the Analysis/Preparation phase for the next content version. A formalized Revision Cycle must be established. Data derived from Kirkpatrick Levels 3 and 4 provide the definitive justification for content overhaul, resource allocation, and technological upgrades. This final feedback loop ensures the learning program remains adaptable and aligned with shifting organizational needs, technical standards (e.g., cmi5, HTML5), and measurable business impact.  

Real-World Impact: Check N Click Custom eLearning Outsourcing Case Studies

Consider a global technology company facing the daunting task of enabling over 500 international channel partners on a newly launched platform—all within a tight deadline. Lacking the internal bandwidth to create compelling, interactive learning, they turned to an outsourcing partner specializing in eLearning development.

Working alongside certified instructional designers and multimedia experts, the company was able to roll out a comprehensive digital training course in less than three months. The results spoke for themselves: support tickets from partners dropped significantly, and certification completion jumped by 40%. By bringing in an external team, they not only accelerated readiness but also delivered a polished, scalable learning experience that left a measurable mark on business outcomes.

Here is a summary of some of our notable Case Studies:

Here is a summary of how our eLearning Outsourcing model has delivered high-impact results for clients with critical, time-sensitive needs:

Conclusions and Recommendations

Custom eLearning development, particularly for strategic corporate objectives, is an integrated process requiring the synergistic application of project management discipline, cognitive science, and technical foresight.

The analysis confirms that the successful execution of custom development requires a strategic departure from traditional linear models. The Agile SAM framework is recommended as the required project management methodology, as its iterative nature minimizes risk and maximizes responsiveness to critical SME feedback and organizational requirement shifts.  

From a pedagogical standpoint, the instructional blueprint must be grounded in Constructivist principles and centered on Merrill’s Task-centered approach. This ensures the content targets complex, authentic challenges necessary for skills transfer. The transition from knowledge acquisition (Kirkpatrick Level 2) to on-the-job performance (Level 3) must be explicitly engineered by integrating Merrill’s Integration principle and Gagne’s final events, thereby optimizing the training for behavior change.  

Technologically, the organization must adopt xAPI and a Learning Record Store (LRS) as mandatory tracking standards. Relying solely on SCORM will prevent the tracking of Level 3 behavior and Level 4 organizational results, thereby undermining the ability to calculate Return on Learning definitively. Furthermore, mandatory adherence to WCAG 2.1 Level AA is essential, as accessibility determines the fundamental capacity of the target audience to perceive and process the information, serving as a non-negotiable prerequisite for instructional success.  

Ultimately, the validity of the entire custom development endeavor rests upon the strength of the Learning Needs Analysis (LNA) conducted in Phase I, as it establishes the precise baseline against which Level 4 results are measured. Only by maintaining this unbroken Chain of Evidence—from the identified capability gap through design principles and robust xAPI tracking—can the organization realize and justify its investment in bespoke learning solutions.