Linear Chain Structure
✗ POOR
100% of concepts in single path
0 cross-concept connections
No flexibility, single learning route
Network Structure
✓ GOOD
40% linear pathways
60% networked connections
Multiple paths, cross-concept integration
Why Network Structure is Better
Linear chains are problematic because they:
- Force a single rigid learning path with no flexibility
- Assume all students learn concepts in exact same order
- Prevent parallel exploration of independent concepts
- Create bottlenecks where one concept blocks all downstream learning
- Miss opportunities for cross-concept reinforcement
Network structures are superior because they:
- Allow multiple valid learning pathways through the content
- Enable parallel study of independent concepts at the same level
- Reinforce concepts through multiple connections and applications
- Support different learning styles and paces
- Create natural checkpoints where concepts integrate
| Aspect |
Linear Chain |
Network Structure |
| Learning Paths |
1 fixed path |
Multiple valid paths |
| Flexibility |
None |
High - choose your route |
| Concept Integration |
Sequential only |
Cross-connections |
| Prerequisites |
1 per concept (max) |
2-4 per concept (avg) |
| Student Pacing |
Must follow exact order |
Can explore at own pace |
Recommendation: Aim for 40-60% linear dependencies (clear progression) balanced with 40-60% networked connections (concept integration). This provides structure while maintaining flexibility.