Designing Computer-Based Training
Artifacts from this course:
Designing Computer-Based Training (767) was a course dedicated to designing and developing a reusable learning object (RLO) derived from a designed course. In this course I designed an RLO based on the "Navigating Diverse Beliefs" course I designed and aligned in EDUC 765 and 766. To review that course, check the coursework link at the top of the page. This page contains commentary and samples of my work on RLOs.
PRIMARY RLO: A CONVERSATION SIMULATOR
This RLO, "Building and Maintaining Rapport," is the premier artifact of EDUC 767. The design and development of this computer-based training spanned the entirety of the course. First, I planned a design document to generate a reusable and modular piece of the course developed in EDUC 765 and 766, "Navigating Diverse Beliefs," to develop into a CBT. Next, I brainstormed some instructional strategies on the training I envisioned. Since the "Navigating Diverse Beliefs" course is based upon respectfully engaging in conversation, I decided on a scenario/ simulation hybrid strategy: learners would be able to practice maintaining rapport, or interpersonal goodwill, in a conversation simulator. I chose the objectives related to rapport because it is an essential and surprisingly complex part of the method taught in the primary course.
Next, I planned to incorporate accessibility and universal design principles into this CBT. I incorporated these choices based upon the scenario/ simulation hybrid and synthesized them with the accessibility checklist found at webaim.org. Then began the plotting phase where I built several diagrams: a CBT wireframe, a simulator wireframe, a navigation flowchart, and a branching conversation flowchart. Taking these flowcharts and some slide sketches, I storyboarded the training.
In the final weeks I programmed the storyboard into Adobe Captivate, conducting usability tests with my peers. After reviewing and incorporating the changes, I did a final check on accessibility to ensure buttons and images had alternative text, audio was implemented, hotkeys worked and were clear, and branching or redirecting was smooth. I updated the design document to reflect changes. The resulting prototype nearly meets my expectations and was an unrivaled learning experience. Click this link to take the RLO: "Building and Maintaining Rapport."
OTHER RLOS: SCORM AND LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Below, find a a video tour of my first RLO designed with Adobe Captivate. The content, a brief training on SCORM, was provided by the instructor. It served as an incredibly useful first-time CBT exercise. Alternatively, click here to take the module itself.
COURSE REFLECTION
INTRODUCTION
In this course I aimed to develop existing instructional design competencies, those already in my bailiwick, and also to try my hand at new ones. I have been teaching for many years and have strived in my work and professional development to engage more deeply with technology. This course, EDUC 767, represents that opportunity to engage with the intersection of instruction, technology, and design. To that end, in my RLO I resolved to improve my proficiency with complex logical branching, responsive design, accessible/ universal design choices, and at least one eLearning authoring tool.
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
For my RLO I chose to focus on helping learners build rapport with a scenario/ simulation. The scenario came about simply enough. Learners for the course upon which the RLO is based are matriculating college freshman, destined to encounter new ideas and the people who espouse them. The RLO scenario, then, illustrates this dynamic with a conversation partner who is interested in sharing his or her ideas. Placing the scenario inside a conversation simulator helps the targeted learner iterate the complexity of a single conversation. The content in the sim, building rapport in conversation, is quite complex. Learners get to consider many aspects of conversation maintenance through this iteration, and as a corollary are passively reviewing the learned steps taught in the primary course. As a designer, I noted, too, how the sim could be improved to better replicate real-live conversations.
DESIGN DECISIONS
The design changed in subtle ways through the design-development cycle. The biggest changes came from diagnosing my own limitations in understanding the eLearning authoring software, Adobe Captivate. Spending time learning about branching and component behavior in this software severely limited my scope. The biggest unforced error, though, was not planning more for the intended responsive design. My design and development cycle neglected fitting responsive divs into the project until the end, when it was too late to effectively make it work. Thus, while the RLO is intended to be taken on a laptop, the fact that graphics tend to cluster on smartphones make this prototype nondeployable in that context. In future projects, responsive design is something for me to master. For this project, that would take the form of more screens and a rearrangement of both text and the fluid boxes that contain it.
ACCESS, UNIVERSALITY, AND INTERFACE DESIGN
One success I do count is the incorporation of accessibility and universal design choices in the interface and visuals. This aim included a survey of accessibility standards, such as alternative text, multiple methods of navigation, and consistency in visual design. Solid planning here paid off as, once implemented in master slides, such elements were easy to edit and include across the project. Relatedly, early on I adopted the stance that learners should have a lot of control in order to establish flexibility in use. In navigation this meant the ability to skip review or tutorial content, to move between major sections at will, and to review feedback or information in media res then jump back into the program flow.
ASSESSMENT CONSIDERATIONS
In contrast to allowing full user control, the program reasserts some intentional controls within the sim itself. In the sim learners have to make six decisions, choosing responses that ideally do not damage rapport with their interlocutor. The program limits learner ability to jump between decisions to give their initial choices the impression of permanence. The program also requires learners to abandon conversation progress if they decided to leave the sim. For alignment purposes, learners should experience the conversation holistically, even while they are able to pick it apart analytically through provided feedback tools and a "best response" score at the end. Since the sim is the assessment, I judged it to be the desired mix of learner and program control.
USABILITY AND CONCLUSION
In the final weeks I wrote a usability test and a peer provided excellent feedback. In terms of instructional content, her comments revealed to me that my sim was only scratching the surface of conversational complexity. She also pointed out how some knowledge check formats may frustrate users without redirection--despite review content being just a few clicks away. She also confirmed that the responsive design I was experimenting with lost stability at very narrow widths. Here at the end of this course, armed with these insights and more, I understand the importance of being an instructional designer who is systematic, technologically savvy, and attentive; furthermore, I am pleased to have achieved many of my goals. Not perfection, of course, but progress in better identifying where instruction, technology, and technology meet.