At the outset of this course, I was excited to be able to learn new course-authoring software to expand my skill-set and abilities as an instructional designer. But first, we had to lay the groundwork before going to the technology. The design document became the roadmap for the final goal, a RLO that would be SCORM compliant. The design document provided the framework for seeing where this RLO would fit into the overall course design.
The first step was to flowchart the course. This task was second-nature to me as I spent more than 25 years working in quality management where process flowcharts were integral to performance improvement initiatives. The flowchart allows the designer to visually review the lesson flow and linkage between each topic. The flowchart also directed to points where assessments would fit in smoothly. I chose to use multiple-choice questions and reflective questions, with a branching option for clinical/non-clinical assessment questions.
Moving on from the flowchart, I designed the basic screens for the RLO. At the same time, the discussion and simulated proposal for acquisition of a course authoring software provided information on the options available to instructional designers for building SCORM compliant modules. The biggest inhibiting factor that drove following decisions in this course was the cost of software. In my view, the cost of products like Articulate and Captivate, which seem to be somewhat of the industry standard, are a bit out of the budget for someone starting to work independently as an instructional designer.
The next assignment, translating a design request into a working RLO in Udutu was interesting as it gave me the ability to preview the course. The learning curve was steeper than expected. Udutu navigation did not feel intuitive and required moving from tab to tab to do simple things such as changing font size for text, and no ability to move objects on the screen. However, because I had already invested so much time into learning Udutu and the cost factor of other software, I decided to use it for the final authoring of my RLO. In retrospect, I would have trialled a different software if I had not already been so heavily invested in Udutu. This parallels what we face in the “real world” where organizations and individuals become locked into certain software as the path of least resistance.
At times, I was extremely frustrated with Udutu. I feel my course design is not as sharp as it could be if I had used another software. Additionally, Udutu does not (at least I couldn’t find any answers to) the ability to closed caption or provide audio transcription. Udutu also does not support MP4 files so that limited my ability to use Zoom as the audio portion of the RLO. In short, I would never recommend using Udutu to any client. It would also be my recommendation for the University to consider revising this course to use another more robust software if possible for the first course-building assignment.
The limitations of the software, and the frustration, as well as time constraints, did not allow for full usability testing of the RLO. Taking the same material and design and putting into PowerPoint would have been more robust if PowerPoint were SCORM compliant. I would like to thank my partner, Lisa Lanting, for working with me and providing feedback. Her feedback gave me insights as to what was working on the branching assessment screen, and what could be improved. The only recommendation I was not able to include, again, was the ability to increase accessibility by captioning the audio.
To me, this course was the culmination of my purpose for seeking the certificate in instructional design. I realize that the next course is based on project management ,a critical attribute for successful instructional designers. I feel that I did achieve the overarching objective of building a just-in-time computer-based training module that is SCORM compliant and usable in other contexts. The eight-weeks has been a valuable learning experience and I look forward to applying the knowledge gained in contracting work as an instructional designer.
The first step was to flowchart the course. This task was second-nature to me as I spent more than 25 years working in quality management where process flowcharts were integral to performance improvement initiatives. The flowchart allows the designer to visually review the lesson flow and linkage between each topic. The flowchart also directed to points where assessments would fit in smoothly. I chose to use multiple-choice questions and reflective questions, with a branching option for clinical/non-clinical assessment questions.
Moving on from the flowchart, I designed the basic screens for the RLO. At the same time, the discussion and simulated proposal for acquisition of a course authoring software provided information on the options available to instructional designers for building SCORM compliant modules. The biggest inhibiting factor that drove following decisions in this course was the cost of software. In my view, the cost of products like Articulate and Captivate, which seem to be somewhat of the industry standard, are a bit out of the budget for someone starting to work independently as an instructional designer.
The next assignment, translating a design request into a working RLO in Udutu was interesting as it gave me the ability to preview the course. The learning curve was steeper than expected. Udutu navigation did not feel intuitive and required moving from tab to tab to do simple things such as changing font size for text, and no ability to move objects on the screen. However, because I had already invested so much time into learning Udutu and the cost factor of other software, I decided to use it for the final authoring of my RLO. In retrospect, I would have trialled a different software if I had not already been so heavily invested in Udutu. This parallels what we face in the “real world” where organizations and individuals become locked into certain software as the path of least resistance.
At times, I was extremely frustrated with Udutu. I feel my course design is not as sharp as it could be if I had used another software. Additionally, Udutu does not (at least I couldn’t find any answers to) the ability to closed caption or provide audio transcription. Udutu also does not support MP4 files so that limited my ability to use Zoom as the audio portion of the RLO. In short, I would never recommend using Udutu to any client. It would also be my recommendation for the University to consider revising this course to use another more robust software if possible for the first course-building assignment.
The limitations of the software, and the frustration, as well as time constraints, did not allow for full usability testing of the RLO. Taking the same material and design and putting into PowerPoint would have been more robust if PowerPoint were SCORM compliant. I would like to thank my partner, Lisa Lanting, for working with me and providing feedback. Her feedback gave me insights as to what was working on the branching assessment screen, and what could be improved. The only recommendation I was not able to include, again, was the ability to increase accessibility by captioning the audio.
To me, this course was the culmination of my purpose for seeking the certificate in instructional design. I realize that the next course is based on project management ,a critical attribute for successful instructional designers. I feel that I did achieve the overarching objective of building a just-in-time computer-based training module that is SCORM compliant and usable in other contexts. The eight-weeks has been a valuable learning experience and I look forward to applying the knowledge gained in contracting work as an instructional designer.