From Design to Development

In this course, I worked through the final stages of the instructional design process and took my course project through the development process to create a reusable learning object (RLO) for computer-based training (CBT). This enabled me to experience the systematic approach for transitioning from design into development, and the various steps that can be taken along the way to aid in this process.

In determining the instructional strategies that would be used in this RLO, I referenced back to decisions made in the previous course (EDUC 766: Instructional Strategies and Assessment Methods) and followed Horton’s (2012) framework of instructional design by including ABSORB, DO, and CONNECT activities as follows:

• ABSORB: Learners watch a quick tutorial that compares how real-life money transactions are reflected in YNAB’s software based on their money-management philosophy. They then watch a demonstration that walks them through the process of recording cashback awards and statement credits in YNAB.

• DO: Learners complete simulations based on a variety of real-life scenarios. The simulations provide both guidance and response-sensitive feedback to help guide learners through the procedure.

• CONNECT: Learners are provided with a variety of hypermedia (external resources) to visit in order to help resolve any remaining questions they may have with the YNAB community.

These instructional strategies encapsulate Horton’s framework for sound instructional design and are considered the best options for supporting the learner as they learn a new software program.

Learner Control

Learner control was a key element I wanted to incorporate in this RLO. YNAB users represent a widely diverse target audience, and so I wanted to ensure learners could move at their own pace and either skip ahead or get the extra support they need throughout the lesson. Some key aspects of learner control that were incorporated include:

• Clear navigation is provided throughout the lesson to prevent confusion.

• Control over the pacing of the course through custom button navigation.

• Very little audio narration is used (only in videos) so learners are not limited in how quickly they complete the slides.

• Videos feature media controls to allow learners full control of media playback.

• Multiple branching scenarios that allow learners who complete the knowledge check and simulations correctly to decide if they’d like to skip to the end of the lesson.

• Use of mouse-overs allows learners to refer to helpful tips and previously learned information while completing the simulations.

Simulation Design
The biggest challenge I had coming in to the development of this CBT was how to create a simulation of YNAB that would be as authentic in its operation as possible without being able to embed the program itself. Earlier in this course as we were exploring different authoring tools, I had thought to use Adobe Captivate due to its advanced simulation features; however, upon completing my tool research comparison I was underwhelmed by Adobe’s offerings compared to Articulate. I was still unsure how to create the simulation, but trusted that I would eventually figure it out. This didn’t happen until midway through Module 6 as I was actively building the prototype, when I realized that I could leverage Storyline’s hotspots to create triggers that would either provide response-sensitive feedback or advance the learner to the next step of the procedure. Although not exactly the same as YNAB since there is no ability to enter text, I am extremely proud of my solution for recreating the software program within Storyline’s framework.

Tool Selection
Beyond the eLearning authoring tool, another development decisions that had to be made included the creation of both embedded videos. I had a clear vision in my head as to their final appearance and had to find the tools to make it come to life. I recorded the audio for both videos in Audacity and exported them into a trial version of Camtasia in order to optimize their audio quality. I then transferred them into a trial of Audiate (another Tech Smith product) to correct audio mistakes in a visual manner. For the tutorial, I taught myself how to create videos in Vyond. This simple animated video demonstrates several confusing financial concepts with simple visual representations. Unfortunately, upon preparing to download the video created with the trial account, I came across another obstacle and had to use a separate screen casting program (Quicktime) to record the watermarked video. I created the demonstration video by screen casting it through Camtasia, and then used that program to layer the respective audios and videos together. While successful, it unfortunately left both videos with unsightly watermarks. Once I acquire a new computer (my current one is too old and I had to borrow someone else’s to complete these tasks) then I plan to purchase Camtasia, re-export the videos sans watermarks, and re-publish the RLO for my ePortfolio.

Accessibility
I strove to comply with Section 508 and WCAG as much as feasibly possible in this CBT. In terms of visual design, I ensured all color pairs (foreground and background) met or exceeded WCAG AA and AAA standards for contrast ratios using webaim.org. I also added alternative text for the images that

carried meaning, like the primary character (Ana), but chose not for those that were purely decorative. In choosing how to embed the videos, I decided to embed them as YouTube videos to take advantage of their strong auto-generated closed captioning, which could be added for various languages. I did not have the opportunity to explore customizing the focus order in order to improve keyboard navigation for screen readers and would like to add this accessibility feature in the future.

Visual Design

In combination with accessibility concerns, I wanted to ensure the visual design of the CBT reflects YNAB's branding. I did this by acquiring the hex codes for the colors used on their website for fonts, backgrounds, and graphics and used a font website to identify their primary and secondary fonts, then found free, open-source versions that match (Lato) or closely duplicate (Gilroy Extra Bold) them. I also observed their web page layout and use of buttons; however, their color combinations did not meet WCAG contrast ratios and relied solely on color to indicate when someone is hovering over a button, so I adjusted the button colors and added a drop shadow. I also tried to align with YNAB’s branding by replicating their style of written language. Their casual tone is littered with contractions, exclamation marks, ellipses, and questions—sometimes rhetorical. I also chose to use a wide variety of diverse illustrated characters to represent real YNAB employees and customers. This creates a more personal tone, and the usability test results indicated that this was an appreciated gesture.

Assessment Design
Since this CBT is not related to job performance and is an optional educational resource for the target audience, the assessment process is more subtle. An idea I took from EDUC-766 was to combine the practice and assessment into one. In this manner, once the learner completes the practice on their own—thereby achieving the course objectives—they are not required to practice any further. This also ties back to giving the learner more control over their learning experience. Since the target audience would have a wide range of previous experience with YNAB software, I wanted to ensure they get exactly the amount of training they need and no more.

The practice/assessments in this CBT are the simulations, where learners complete the full procedure and understand why it is performed as such. If learners make an incorrect move, they are provided with response-sensitive feedback that guide them in the right direction. If any errors are made during a simulation, they will be prompted to complete another one to reinforce the correct steps, and once they are able to complete the entire procedure without assistance, they can choose to finish up the lesson. Since this RLO and its overall course are not graded, the learners do not receive scores or see any mention of grades. However, they are informed that completing the simulation without help will let them complete the course more quickly as a subtle encouragement.

For learners that complete the procedure without assistance and arrive at the lesson summary, clicking “Finish Lesson” will mark the course as “Passed” in SCORM. However, if learners are unable to complete the three simulations without help, they will be sent to the “Additional Resources” slide, where they will exit the course and it will be reported as “Completed” (but not passed).

My usability testing partner provided great insight for improving this CBT. The main points are highlighted below, followed by a quick reference to the feedback that I intentionally choose not to incorporate and my rationale for those decisions.

Image Quality
I struggled with image quality throughout the CBT development as I was working on an older PC with poor screen resolution, so I was not able to see any graphics clearly until I published the RLO. While the quality did improved after publication, there was still a legibility issue when the RLO was viewed on the PC. However, it was crystal clear when viewed on my MacBook with Retina display. Since image quality was a significant concern, I asked my partner to review this specific issue. Both my partner and instructor suggested the legibility could be improved, so I decided to retake all screenshots with a higher-quality program (Snagit) and embed them at full resolution in accordance with Articulate’s best practices for imported images. This also allowed me to expand the size of the screen for the simulations (another suggestion from the usability test), which greatly improved the legibility and ease of use for clicking in the appropriate locations to activate the hotspots.

Simulation Design
The primary feedback I received was focused on the design of the simulations. Beyond being too small to be fully legible, there were multiple opportunities to improve their overall design and flow. Firstly, I added a page to introduce the simulations and inform learners that completing the simulation without assistance would enable them to complete the lesson more quickly. When receiving response-sensitive feedback, she suggested not blurring out the simulation screen and allowing the learner to complete the step while still viewing the feedback. This change required a change to the layout, and allowed me to set a new parameter that keeps the learner on the same page until they can successfully complete the step. I find this solution much more effective than continuously looping back and forth between the step and feedback layers. While the redesign did remove the steps that had previously been shown (which she found distracting due to the scroll bar), I did add a link to a printable job aid that includes the steps on the Additional Resources slide.

Other Suggestions
My partner made several other suggestions that I decided not to incorporate after thorough consideration. Here are several examples and my rational for not applying her suggestions:

• Suggested embedding the videos directly in the CBT rather than using a YouTube video.

  • I made this decision for multiple reasons: to provide automated closed captioning and easier future translation/subtitling without the need for editing the course itself. It also provided media controls that most learners are accustomed to while not requiring a seekbar on every slide within the RLO. Additionally, it allows the videos to serve as their own reusable learning objects that can be viewed outside of the context of the course, which is in alignment with YNAB’s current educational offerings. I did, however, go into YouTube Studio to manually overwrite the automated captions when she pointed out that they were not reliable.

• Suggested splitting the demonstration video in two.

  • I believe this would have created more confusion by removing the rationale of why YNAB works as it does from how it works. It also would confuse learners expecting to see certain results immediately after completing the procedure. This is also that part of the process that is the most confusing to YNAB users, so I did not want to remove it from its immediate context.

• Suggested making each of the three assessments slightly different with lessening amount of support in each.

  • Although a great idea for scaffolding the content, it went against my plan for maximizing learner control since it would require learners to go through all assessments rather than being able to finish early once they complete the simulation without assistance.

• Suggested adding a feature that highlights the correct area to click in the simulation of they are struggling.

  • This is another great idea; however, I did not have the time or technological knowledge to incorporate it in this CBT.

Course Takeaways

As with the previous courses, the most valuable takeaway for me is understanding how systematic the entire instructional design/development process is. From the design document to the screen layouts, to a flowchart, and then to a storyboard, I learned how to break down the process into distinct chunks that help naturally guide the project’s development. In my case, this made the development of the RLO incredibly easy since all decisions had already been made. If a separate developer had been involved, I believe the level of detail provided in each of these documents would have ensured a smooth transition.

In terms of course activities, I really enjoyed the tool research comparison we conducted. Beyond its real-world application, I helped change my decision for the software I utilized for my RLO. At this point, I do not have any remaining questions or concerns about CBTs. In the future, I plan to leverage online resources such as YouTube, LinkedIn Learning, and Udemy, along with the resources provided by the manufacturer of the software being used.

New ID Competencies
This course helped me identify several other competencies that are beneficial for those in instructional design and eLearning development. Both groups must be able to think quickly and make adjustments to things not working as planned, especially in terms of technology. This ability to quickly shift gears often goes hand in hand with their ability to learn new software quickly. In the course of less than two weeks, I learned how to use six different multimedia programs (Tech Smith’s Camtasia, Audiate, and Snag-It, along with Vyond, Quicktime, and Audacity). I also had to research issues and questions constantly, so being resourceful and able to troubleshoot one’s own problems is an extremely important competency to have.

Current Applications
Within my current role as a technical writer, I collaborate closely with the Instructional Designers and Developers and sometimes review their work. During this course, I have been able to review their current CBT practices and question how things could be taught more effectively. For example, a Rise course currently in development features nearly 50 written steps in a single procedure. I have discussed with the ID about the potential for other, more effective approaches of covering the procedure within the confines of working with Rise. I’ve also spoken with my manager regarding opportunities when CBTs may not be the best solution and a job aid or on-the-job training would be more appropriate. While these conversations were just thought explorations, both commented on my willingness to question the standard practices and look for more effective, innovative approaches.

Future Implications
This course will impact my future as an Instructional Designer as I have learned how to strategically transition from design into development through the strategic use of design documents, flowcharts, screen layouts, and storyboards. These products not only provide opportunities for clarification or feedback from stakeholders, it also allows for a learner “agile” approach to the project, as the various stages can be cycled through in an iterative manner to stay on track with timelines, budgets, and resource allocation. I think this will have a great impact on my ability to be an effective and efficient Instructional Designer.