Second, there's the opportunity to allow flexibility on the part of the learner, or even to support intelligent processing. If the objects are small enough, and instructional experiences are composed of these objects, then different learners can have different instructional experiences. While developing an online course, I was trying to move beyond traditional instructional design to consider principles that might support people's choices in sequencing. Introduction is material that motivates, activates relevant knowledge, and lists objectives. Concept is a presentation of the relevant abstraction.
Examples are applications of the concept to problems.
Practice is opportunity for the learner to practice the skill, including feedback. This includes reviewing concepts, pointing to further directions for exploration, suggesting ways to practice and keep the knowledge active, and a graceful segue from the learning experience. The smaller granularity provided greater opportunities for learner control. Here, I am suggesting that granularity at the collection level is the one in which instructionally different individual choices would be made. Although this is not an easy goal, I argue for a robust fixed vocabulary instead of the alternative, a lack of interoperability.