# Course Design Document: [Course title]

> Course design document (CDD) template for an instructor-led, online or
> blended course, organised by the five ADDIE phases: Analysis, Design,
> Development, Implementation and Evaluation. It covers needs and learner
> analysis, learning objectives by Bloom's levels, assessment strategy,
> module outline, instructional strategies, media, accessibility, the
> development plan, pilot and rollout, evaluation at the four Kirkpatrick
> levels, and maintenance. Replace every `[bracketed]` value and every row
> marked *Example*.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Get sign-off on the Analysis phase (section 1) before designing. Most
  failed courses solve the wrong problem or ignore learner constraints.
- Write objectives (section 2.1) before assessments, and assessments before
  content. Check alignment in the matrix in 2.3.
- Treat the document as living: update it after the pilot and record
  changes in the revision history.
- The worked examples describe a blended course on data privacy for customer
  support staff; replace them with your own context.
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: Identify the course and who approves the design. Status moves Draft -> In review -> Approved -> In development -> Live. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Document ID | [CDD-2026-014] |
| Course title | [Course title] |
| Course code | [Internal code] |
| Sponsor / client | [Department or business unit] |
| Instructional designer | [@designer] |
| Subject matter expert(s) | [@sme] |
| Delivery mode | [Online self-paced / Virtual instructor-led / Blended / Classroom] |
| Version | [0.1] |
| Status | [Draft / In review / Approved / In development / Live] |
| Classification | [Internal] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |

### Approvals

| Role | Name | Decision | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsor | [@name] | [Approved / Changes requested] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Subject matter expert | [@name] | [Content accuracy confirmed] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| L&D lead / programme director | [@name] | [Approved] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Accessibility reviewer | [@name] | [Approved] | YYYY-MM-DD |

## Revision history

<!-- Guidance: Record design decisions and post-pilot changes, not only wording. -->

| Version | Date | Author | Change summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@designer] | Analysis phase draft |
| 0.2 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@designer] | *Example:* Design phase added; objectives reduced from 14 to 9 after SME review |
| 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@designer] | *Example:* Approved for development |
| 1.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@designer] | *Example:* Module 3 scenario replaced after pilot feedback |

## Contents

<!-- Guidance: Keep aligned with the headings. -->

1. [Analysis](#1-analysis)
2. [Design](#2-design)
3. [Development](#3-development)
4. [Implementation](#4-implementation)
5. [Evaluation](#5-evaluation)
6. [Maintenance and review](#6-maintenance-and-review)
7. [Appendices](#7-appendices)

## 1. Analysis

<!-- Guidance: Establish the problem, the audience, the constraints and what success looks like. Ask: is training the right solution? Some performance gaps come from tools, processes or incentives, which training cannot fix. -->

### 1.1 Needs analysis and business goal

[Describe the performance problem or opportunity, its evidence and its cost,
and the measurable goal the course supports.]

| Item | Description |
|---|---|
| Problem | *Example:* Support agents disclose customer data to callers who fail identity checks |
| Evidence | *Example:* 38 privacy incidents logged in 2025; audit found identity checks skipped in 11% of sampled calls |
| Root causes | *Example:* Unclear verification steps (knowledge); pressure to resolve calls fast (environment) |
| Is training the right solution? | *Example:* Partly. Training for knowledge and skills; a CRM prompt and revised call-time targets for the environment |
| Business goal | *Example:* Reduce privacy incidents by 50% within 12 months |

### 1.2 Learner analysis

| Attribute | Description |
|---|---|
| Audience | *Example:* 420 customer support agents in 3 centres |
| Roles and experience | *Example:* 60% under 2 years' tenure; all handle phone and chat |
| Prior knowledge | *Example:* Annual compliance e-learning; low recall in pre-assessment (mean 54%) |
| Motivation | *Example:* High concern about incidents; low patience for long e-learning |
| Languages | [English; Spanish] |
| Access and technology | *Example:* Desktop at work; headsets; no access during peak hours |
| Accessibility needs | [Screen reader users, captions required, colour-vision differences] |
| Time available | *Example:* 3 hours total, in blocks of 30 minutes or less |

### 1.3 Task and content analysis

[List the tasks learners must perform on the job, with the knowledge and
skills each requires. This becomes the basis for objectives.]

| Task | Knowledge needed | Skills needed | Frequency | Criticality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| *Example:* Verify caller identity | Verification policy; acceptable evidence | Ask verification questions without sounding hostile | Every call | High |
| *Example:* Handle a failed verification | Escalation paths | De-escalate and refuse disclosure politely | Weekly | High |
| [Task] | [Knowledge] | [Skills] | [Frequency] | [Criticality] |

### 1.4 Constraints and assumptions

[Budget, deadlines, tools (authoring software, learning management system),
policies, and assumptions that, if wrong, would change the design.]

## 2. Design

<!-- Guidance: Turn the analysis into a blueprint: objectives, assessments, structure and strategies. Design should be complete enough that developers can build without guessing. -->

### 2.1 Learning objectives

Write objectives with an observable verb, a condition and a criterion.
Classify each by the cognitive process level of the revised Bloom's taxonomy
(remember, understand, apply, analyse, evaluate, create).

| ID | Objective | Bloom's level | Task link |
|---|---|---|---|
| LO-01 | *Example:* Given a customer call, verify identity using the three-factor procedure with no steps skipped | Apply | Verify caller identity |
| LO-02 | *Example:* Explain which data items may be disclosed after partial verification | Understand | Verify caller identity |
| LO-03 | *Example:* Distinguish social engineering attempts from genuine requests in call transcripts with at least 80% accuracy | Analyse | Handle a failed verification |
| LO-04 | *Example:* Choose the correct escalation path for five non-standard scenarios | Evaluate | Handle a failed verification |
| LO-05 | [Objective] | [Level] | [Task] |

### 2.2 Assessment strategy

| Assessment | Type | Objectives | Format | Pass criterion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| *Example:* Pre-assessment | Diagnostic | All | 15-question quiz | Not graded; used to personalise path |
| *Example:* Knowledge checks | Formative | LO-02 | 3 questions per module with feedback | None |
| *Example:* Call simulation | Summative | LO-01, LO-04 | Branching scenario, 6 calls | No critical errors; 5 of 6 correct |
| *Example:* Transcript analysis | Summative | LO-03 | Classify 10 transcripts | 8 of 10 correct |
| [Assessment] | [Type] | [Objectives] | [Format] | [Criterion] |

### 2.3 Alignment matrix

| Objective | Content (module) | Activity | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| LO-01 | M2 | Guided practice with call recordings | Call simulation |
| LO-02 | M1 | Sorting exercise: disclosable or not | Knowledge checks |
| LO-03 | M3 | Group analysis of real (anonymised) attempts | Transcript analysis |
| LO-04 | M4 | Role play in virtual session | Call simulation |

### 2.4 Content outline and modules

The diagram shows the learner path through the course.

```mermaid
flowchart LR
  P["Pre-assessment"] --> M1["M1 Privacy basics (20 min)"]
  M1 --> M2["M2 Verifying identity (30 min)"]
  M2 --> M3["M3 Spotting social engineering (30 min)"]
  M3 --> V["Virtual workshop: role plays (60 min)"]
  V --> M4["M4 Escalation and edge cases (20 min)"]
  M4 --> S["Summative assessments"]
```

| Module | Topics | Duration | Delivery | Objectives |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 Privacy basics | What counts as personal data; why it matters; disclosure rules | 20 min | Self-paced e-learning | LO-02 |
| M2 Verifying identity | Three-factor procedure; phrasing; common mistakes | 30 min | Self-paced with video | LO-01 |
| M3 Spotting social engineering | Pretexting tactics; red flags; transcript examples | 30 min | Self-paced, scenario-based | LO-03 |
| Workshop | Role plays in pairs with coach feedback | 60 min | Virtual instructor-led | LO-01, LO-04 |
| M4 Escalation | Escalation paths; documentation; supervisor support | 20 min | Self-paced | LO-04 |
| **Total** | | **160 min** | | |

### 2.5 Instructional strategies

[Describe the approach and why it fits the learners and objectives. Name the
model you use to structure lessons, for example Gagne's nine events of
instruction or Merrill's first principles.]

| Strategy | Where used | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| *Example:* Scenario-based learning | M2, M3, simulation | Objectives are applied decisions under time pressure |
| *Example:* Worked examples then faded practice | M2 | Novice agents need a model before practice |
| *Example:* Spaced retrieval | Weekly 3-question follow-ups for 6 weeks | Supports retention after the course |
| [Strategy] | [Where] | [Rationale] |

### 2.6 Media and technology

| Element | Tool / format | Specification |
|---|---|---|
| E-learning modules | [Authoring tool] | SCORM 1.2 or xAPI; responsive; under 25 MB per module |
| Video | MP4, H.264 | 1080p; under 3 minutes per clip; captions and transcripts |
| Virtual workshop | [Video platform] | Breakout rooms; max 16 participants per session |
| Hosting and tracking | [Learning management system] | Completion, score and time recorded |

### 2.7 Accessibility and inclusion

[State the target conformance level, for example WCAG 2.2 Level AA, and how
it will be checked.]

- Captions and transcripts for all audio and video
- Full keyboard operation of interactions; no drag-and-drop without an alternative
- Text contrast of at least 4.5:1; colour never the only cue
- Plain language at a reading level suitable for the audience
- Diverse, respectful names and scenarios in examples
- Testing with a screen reader before release

## 3. Development

<!-- Guidance: Plan production: who builds what, review cycles and the schedule. Build a prototype of one module early and test it with learners before producing the rest. -->

### 3.1 Development plan

| Deliverable | Owner | Reviewer | Draft due | Final due |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| *Example:* Storyboards M1-M4 | [@designer] | [@sme] | YYYY-MM-DD | YYYY-MM-DD |
| *Example:* Prototype of M2 | [@developer] | [@designer], 5 learners | YYYY-MM-DD | YYYY-MM-DD |
| *Example:* Video scripts and recording | [@media] | [@sme] | YYYY-MM-DD | YYYY-MM-DD |
| *Example:* Facilitator guide for workshop | [@designer] | [@facilitator] | YYYY-MM-DD | YYYY-MM-DD |
| *Example:* Assessments and item bank | [@designer] | [@sme] | YYYY-MM-DD | YYYY-MM-DD |
| [Deliverable] | [Owner] | [Reviewer] | YYYY-MM-DD | YYYY-MM-DD |

### 3.2 Timeline

The chart shows a *sample* 16-week schedule from analysis to rollout.

```mermaid
gantt
  title Course development timeline
  dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
  section Analysis and design
  Analysis              :a1, 2026-01-05, 15d
  Design document       :a2, after a1, 15d
  section Development
  Prototype and test    :d1, after a2, 15d
  Full development      :d2, after d1, 35d
  Reviews and QA        :d3, after d2, 10d
  section Implementation
  Pilot                 :i1, after d3, 10d
  Revisions             :i2, after i1, 7d
  Rollout               :milestone, after i2, 0d
```

### 3.3 Quality assurance

[Review rounds (SME accuracy, editorial, functional testing on target devices
and browsers, accessibility audit, learning management system tracking test)
and the criteria for release.]

## 4. Implementation

<!-- Guidance: Plan the pilot, the rollout, communications and support. A pilot with real learners is the cheapest way to find problems. -->

### 4.1 Pilot

| Item | Plan |
|---|---|
| Participants | *Example:* 24 agents from one centre, mixed tenure |
| Duration | *Example:* 2 weeks |
| Data collected | Completion time, assessment results, survey, 2 focus groups |
| Success criteria | *Example:* 90% completion; 80% pass simulation first time; average satisfaction 4 of 5 |
| Decision | Proceed / revise and re-pilot / stop |

### 4.2 Rollout plan

[Waves, enrolment method, deadlines, manager briefings, facilitator
preparation, and how learners get technical and content support.]

| Wave | Audience | Dates | Facilitators | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | *Example:* Centre A, 140 agents | YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD | 3 | Avoid month-end peak |
| 2 | *Example:* Centres B and C, 280 agents | YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD | 5 | Spanish-language sessions |

### 4.3 Communication and support

[Announcement messages, manager talking points, help-desk arrangements and
FAQ location.]

## 5. Evaluation

<!-- Guidance: Plan evaluation before launch so the data are collected. The Kirkpatrick model's four levels (reaction, learning, behaviour, results) are widely used; also review the design formatively during development. -->

### 5.1 Formative evaluation

[Expert reviews, prototype tests and the pilot, and how findings feed back
into the design.]

### 5.2 Summative evaluation (Kirkpatrick levels)

| Level | Question | Measure | Source | Timing | Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Reaction | Did learners find it relevant and engaging? | Post-course survey | LMS survey | End of course | Mean >= 4.0 of 5 |
| 2 Learning | Did they acquire the knowledge and skills? | Pre/post score; simulation pass rate | LMS | End of course | Gain >= 25 points; pass >= 85% |
| 3 Behaviour | Do they apply it on the job? | Call audits of verification steps | Quality team | 30 and 90 days | Steps skipped < 3% of calls |
| 4 Results | Did the business goal improve? | Privacy incidents | Incident log | 6 and 12 months | 50% reduction from baseline |

Learning gain can be expressed as the normalised gain:

$$
g = \frac{\text{post} - \text{pre}}{100 - \text{pre}}
$$

*Example:* pre 54%, post 86% gives $g = 32 / 46 \approx 0.70$.

### 5.3 Reporting

[Who receives evaluation reports, when, and what decisions they inform.
*Example:* "A one-page summary of Levels 1 and 2 goes to the sponsor two
weeks after each wave. The 90-day Level 3 audit and the 6-month Level 4
incident comparison are presented at the quarterly compliance review, which
decides whether to revise, extend or retire the course."]

## 6. Maintenance and review

<!-- Guidance: Content goes stale. Name an owner, a review cycle and the triggers that force an early update. -->

| Item | Plan |
|---|---|
| Content owner | [@name] |
| Scheduled review | *Example:* Every 12 months |
| Update triggers | *Example:* Policy change; new incident pattern; CRM interface change; evaluation targets missed |
| Source files location | [Repository or shared drive path] |
| Retirement criteria | [When the course will be withdrawn or replaced] |

## 7. Appendices

<!-- Guidance: Supporting material referenced in the document. -->

| Appendix | Content |
|---|---|
| A | [Needs analysis data and interview notes] |
| B | [Storyboards and scripts] |
| C | [Assessment item bank and answer keys] |
| D | [Facilitator guide] |
| E | [Accessibility audit report] |

### Glossary

| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| ADDIE | Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation: a generic instructional design process |
| SME | Subject matter expert |
| SCORM / xAPI | Standards for packaging e-learning and tracking learner activity |
| [Term] | [Meaning] |

## Standard and licence note

Based on the ADDIE instructional design model, a widely used generic process
with no single owner. Objectives use the cognitive process levels
of the revised Bloom's taxonomy (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001), and
evaluation follows the four levels described by Donald Kirkpatrick; both are
cited as references. Accessibility targets refer to W3C WCAG 2.2. This
template is original text written for this collection; example data are
illustrative. Template licence: MIT.