I saw the storyboard, but I didn’t realize that was what you meant.” How often have you heard these words? As an instructional designer, clear communication with the client is essential. Yet, though I may believe a storyboard is very clear, the client may misinterpret the planned interactivity. Clients really “get the idea” when they see a prototype. However, that is often later in the process.
What if we combined the storyboard and prototype into one? That’s just what my current team has done by streamlining the development process, through the employment of an online content creation tool. We can now show the client an “e-Storyboard,” and perhaps as importantly, the process has allowed us to significantly compress the development lifecycle. You can create similar shortcuts in your processes. The advantages are amazing: saving time, confusion, and money.
It seems to me that
it has always taken too long to develop a Web-based course. I work as an
instructional designer, building online training primarily for government
agencies in the
What I want to share with you is an approach to rapid development that we have implemented in our team. I’ll call it the Rapid Content Development Model (RCDM) for lack of a better term. It involves the substitution of an e-Storyboard for the common storyboard and prototype we have delivered in the past, along with other features that have cut our development time. I’ll walk through our new development process and talk a bit about a proprietary Content Creation Tool (CCT) designed by the programmer in our group. That tool facilitates the e-Storyboard concept.
How do we accomplish rapid development?
Rapid development requires a new look at what we’ve always done in instructional design. Our group had been using a modified ADDIE model for course development. (“ADDIE” is an acronym for the steps in the classic course development model: Assessment (or Analysis), Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation.) Although the same steps exist in the Rapid Content Development Model, we approach them a bit differently. I’ll use the example of repurposing a classroom course for online training. This course supported a process improvement initiative in a corporation. The course was an introduction to the topic and was therefore general, yet concept heavy. In this project, we were not involved with the Assessment portion of the ADDIE model. The corporate Instructional Systems Designers (ISDs) who had developed the course had (1) determined that the need for the course existed, (2) determined what the content needed to be, and (3) prepared and directed content toward that need. In fact, the content had been presented as a classroom course. The need to provide the course to a large workforce in a short period of time encouraged the transfer to Web based courseware.
The programmer in our team came up with an innovative approach to content creation. He developed a content creation tool we call a CCT. The tool is designed to streamline the design and development process, eliminate redundant processes, and automate whatever can be automated. The current version of the tool was built using SQL Server and Active Server Pages (ASP), primarily because that is what we know. However, we have identified some security issues with ASP and may move to a ColdFusion or ASP.net platform.
When we decided to use the tool in support of rapid development, we had several questions about its suitability for the project:
- Will the proprietary CCT developed by the team produce time and cost savings?
- Will clients be willing and able to apply an online review process and accept not seeing a separate storyboard and prototype?
- Will we still be able to develop sound instruction as fast as we would like? We jumped into the project, not quite knowing how it would turn out.
Translating the design for online
The first step was to prepare the content for use online. As the Instructional System Designer (ISD), I needed to understand what existed, and how it had been and could be used. I considered the objectives of the instruction and what needed to be covered in the online learning.
Design step 1: Break it down
I read the facilitator’s guide and the student workbook looking for elements that could be eliminated. There were some. Cutting the classroom orientation information (timing, breaks, bathroom locations, etc.) reduced the overall content. We also cut some redundant items in the student workbook and the facilitator’s guide. We were still looking at three to four hours of seat time for the online version. Fortunately, the content made sense and was well presented, which facilitated rapid development.
Design step 2: Break it up and rearrange it
Next, I looked for a way to break up the long units of instruction used in the classroom. Classroom units of learning may be larger than is reasonable in a module of online learning. I looked for natural breaks in the content and identified subunits of instruction that I could place in modules. I attempted to maintain the flow of the original course while “chunking” the content into smaller pieces for the learners. Not a lot of rearranging of content was needed since attention had been paid to this when the course was developed.
This was the point at which I made basic decisions about how to use audio. My decision was to keep the on-screen text as close to the original workbook as possible, and to provide voice-over audio using content from the facilitator’s guide. This insured that the audio was not merely a repeat of the student text but an enhancement.
Design step 3: Lay it out and link it up
Taken together the Design 1 and Design 2 steps might be called “prework.” The third design task involved creating a complete outline of the pages of the course. This is where the CCT came in handy. This task included incorporating “learning check” interactions, introductions, and summaries for each module. No pre- or post-assessment was included in this course. I could create the page outline in the CCT. (See Figure 1.) Entry of a page title and description allowed me to lay out the structure of the entire course in advance. At this point our tool provides for simple sequencing, but not complex departures. I created each module (called “topic” in our tool) and the pages needed for that module based upon my review of the course. By creating the outline within the tool, I had now linked the content outline and the tool and could begin to insert content.
FIGURE 1 The structure of the course is clearer in a page outline.
In a situation where we were creating content from scratch the Design steps would certainly take longer. However, I believe the steps would be much the same.
Course assembly: Two development steps
Assembly of the course content was remarkably easy. Realize that I was now building screens in the CCT. I did not have to deliver them to a developer to assemble and return them. That saved time. However, I didn’t see myself so much as a developer since, unlike using an authoring tool, such as Dreamweaver or Authorware, I could structure my content much as I have done in writing scripts (also called treatments) in the past. Entering the information into the CCT is much more like creating a script than it is like putting all the pieces together, including navigation in an authoring tool. I didn’t feel I was learning a new tool so much as finding the correct slots, if you will, for the data I usually typed as a Word document. Because the “slots” were there, I did not need to type page numbers, codes, or titles. I also enjoyed the ability to modify screens as I went along. When I found I did not like the flow, I inserted another screen, split content from one screen into two screens, or reordered screens.
Development step 1: Assemble the pieces
Entry was done in a format like the one shown in Figure 2. This is the content entry page. The CCT provides for entry of text, audio, graphic descriptions, and pop-ups for a screen on one entry page. This also is different from typing into a word processing application. Everything for one screen is available on the same entry page in CCT. This feature let me design, develop, and check each screen as I went. I didn’t have to worry about going back a page to check what I said. Using the screens I had outlined (called pages in the CCT), I completed one module at a time. I completed them in the outlined sequence, although I could have jumped back and forth to complete modules out of sequence since the course structure was already in place. Because the course was provided to me from the client in Microsoft PowerPoint and Word, I was able to copy text from the student manual and paste it into the CCT.
FIGURE 2 The content entry page streamlines screen creation.
Entered text goes to a database. The data is generated dynamically to populate the HTML pages for the Web. Because of that, tags for formatting can be added to the text on the entry screen so that, for example, text may be bolded, underlined, or indented with bullets. I didn’t have to learn HTML. Buttons in the tool allowed me to merely select a segment of text and press a button to apply the appropriate tags. It was a time saver.
The audio specialist, using the audio text I had provided for each screen, could perform his work at nearly the same time I did mine. More time saved!
Audio
Audio length was a concern and at times I chose to add pop-up text to a page in order to decrease audio length. I submitted audio text on the content page in the appropriate field. As I entered the audio, the tool captured it and displayed it for use by our audio specialist in a summary form for all screens of a module. My audio text would show up on a media page like the one in Figure 3. The audio specialist was then able to print an audio list, record each audio to a file, and select the specific files related to each page of a module through the CCT. The text used for the audio scripts is also pulled into the program shell for an onscreen transcript to aid in 508 compliance.
FIGURE 3 The media page contains the script for the audio.
FIGURE 4 The special Media — Graphics page holds still images, Flash images, and
animations.
Graphics
Basic templates were built in the CCT to handle 80 percent of the text and graphic placement needs. Using these page templates, I specified the location of text and graphics on each screen and I described the graphic needs on the content page. Still graphic images, Flash images, or animations were created by one of our graphic artists using my descriptions. These showed up on a special Media — Graphics page in the CCT. (See Figure 4.) When the artist completed an image he selected the graphic’s file name on the appropriate page within the CCT. He could upload files directly to the CCT without going through a developer. This made the graphics available to the appropriate content screen. Although the templates covered most options, they could not cover all.
Flash graphic screens
When a full page graphic or animation was needed I chose a template titled “Full Flash.” The artists could then create a Flash movie with whatever action and text placement was needed without being bound by template restrictions. This was one way the team provided for optional and unpredictable needs without having to design multiple templates.
Pop text
Some interactivity was added to pages via pop text. As the ISD, I was able to enter the pop text and link it to the hypertext source on the content page through just a few clicks. Rather than scripting text once and supplying it to a developer, I could write, alter, and correct pop text myself. (See Figure 5.)
FIGURE 5 The Instructional System Designer (ISD) enters pop text directly.
Development step 2: Tighten the bolts
A useful feature of the CCT was “Preview.” This allowed me to look at each page to see the graphics that had been added as well as hear the audio, read the audio text (by means of a transcript button), and generally check out the function of the page. Since I am a predominantly visual learner, this feature was great. In past ISD efforts I have waited up to two months to see the final production of my work. Any inaccuracies or better ideas at that point created MAJOR problems. But using the RCDM and the CCT, such changes or reorientation could be made easily and early in the project. The Preview allowed me to perform a complete quality check of my work prior to sending it to our internal quality assurance professional. Graphic problems could also be caught before being duplicated across other modules in instances where graphics could be re-used. I believe this feature would be especially helpful to new designers.
Implementation
One of the most difficult tasks in creating Web-based learning is putting all of the text and media pieces together mentally as the ISD moves from concept to implementation. This transition is well-supported in the RCD Model and in the CCT.
Implementation step 1: Show it off
The first step is to represent the content of each module as an e-Storyboard, and then to show this to the client for review.
e-Storyboard
When a module is ready for complete review, the e-Storyboard (called QA function in CCT) allows the internal quality assurance expert to go through it to completely check functionality prior to making it available for the client reviewers. Then clients are given special IDs and passwords to allow them to review the course online. The module is fully functional at that time. The CCT provides areas for specifying corrections for each page. (See Figure 6.) The client can insert comments related to the text, graphic or audio of each screen.
FIGURE 6 The CCT provides areas for specifying comments for each page.
This is significant because after our completion of one module, the client can review the storyboard and template functionality at once. If a course is off track, it can be corrected immediately. We were able to show the client a module about two weeks into the project. This provided the opportunity to check the content as well as the interactivity of each page. The overall look and feel of the course was available for review as well.
Evaluate: Make it better
Client comments on a module are associated with each screen of the module. Once the review was completed (and sometimes while it was in progress) I returned to the module content pages in CCT to analyze the comments, determine needed corrections, and complete or assign them, as appropriate. In Figure 2, these appear below each box on the content screen. (i.e., comments about the audio appear below the audio box on the page.) All suggestions can be summarized and printed on a task list also. Since making the changes was rapid, I could make changes to a reviewed module as I continued building another module. The fact that client review and our development could happen concurrently again cut time in the process.
Implementation step 2: Use it
When all reviews of modules were completed and the course had been corrected, it was released for pilot. The developer assigned specific IDs and passwords to individuals who were piloting from the client company. They were able to take the course online. A survey, accompanying the course, allowed the client to gather information on the course usability, perception of objectives met, and other comments from the pilot group. See Table 1.
| Pilot learners were asked to rate each of these statements from 5 to 1, with 5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree. | |
| Statements A | Average rating |
| The information in this course was presented clearly. | 4.05 |
| Online training was an effective way to learn the material covered. | 4.13 |
| The illustrations/graphics/animations in this course helped me understand the content. | 3.95 |
| I completed this course more rapidly than I had anticipated. | 3.58 |
| I was able to easily navigate through this course. | 4.53 |
| I would like to receive more training online. | 3.82 |
| I would have preferred to take this training via classroom learning with an instructor. | 2.45 |
| I feel the time I spent taking this course was well used. | 3.55 |
| The flexibility of online learning worked better with my work schedule than classroom learning. | 4.26 |
| After completing this course, I feel I have a solid understanding of Process Improvement. | 3.87 |
A number of issues came up in the pilot, and modifications were made to the course based upon this authentic input. We saw from the survey comments and results that the pilot group of learners was inclined to take an online course again. This was not what had been expected. The client had felt it might be difficult to switch learners to an online approach from classroom training. The survey results had potential to be used by the client to promote use of online courseware, when appropriate.
Benefits of rapid development and the CCT
We found that there are a number of significant benefits to this rapid development process and to use of the content creation tool that our programmer devised. The benefits included not only savings in cost and time, but also improvements to the creative process, better compliance with the SCORM standards, improved life cycle maintenance, and a more efficient review process.
Ease of use of CCT
The learning curve for the CCT was short. Within a day I was able to begin using the tool for content creation. The tool is very intuitive and it was not like learning a new application, particularly an authoring tool. This provided confidence and incentive to use it. The tool also separates content from delivery. Because content is stored in a database, it can be easily repurposed, put into another shell, used with different templates, or easily reordered in sequence.
Using the tool freed up time of all team members to focus on creative approaches instead of mundane tasks. Because the tool is online, it allows team members who may be at a distance from each other to work closely together.
Cost and time savings
One of the great benefits we achieved using this process was a significant cost savings realized on this project as compared to our earlier development process. This cost savings resulted primarily from the reduction in ISD time due to the ease of entry of the content and the reduction in Developer time. Developer involvement was minimal since upfront programming had been completed in the CCT. The tool did most of the work. Developer time can now be spent on tasks such as synching audio to flash pieces, building special interactions, and problem solving. We also saved time by cutting the review process from two separate reviews to one comprehensive review for each module with the e-Storyboard. The rapid turn-around and the cost savings met the client needs.
SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference Model)
Another benefit is that because the ISD provides the metadata information for each screen while developing the content, the information necessary for SCORM compliance is already built in. The programming has already been applied — therefore, when the course is implemented, it is SCORM conformant. This saves time and dollars because it is incorporated in the programming. There is no extra programming task at the end of development to provide for this requirement. SCORM conformance is necessary for our courseware, which must be adaptable to various learning management systems within the federal government.
Life cycle maintenance
A major advantage to the rapid development is that the first module completed can serve as the combined storyboard and rapid prototype for client review. Client feedback, whether positive or negative, can then be used to adapt the remaining modules. Course revision, maintenance, and republishing are simple with CCT since text can be changed, added, or deleted immediately by the instructional designer. Complete screens can be inserted, or the order of existing screens can be changed, in only a few minutes. Future changes in course content can be implemented easily by adding or deleting pages or altering the content of a page or pages. Republishing then is a matter of clicking a few buttons and the course is ready to go again. There need not be complex maneuvering for republishing the course, such as there is with some authoring tools.
I believe it is preferable in online learning to provide the client with a completely operating course or module, rather than a script and a storyboard for review. The client is able to immediately see what is distracting, not-user-friendly, or a misinterpretation of the content. It is also easier for the client to provide specific feedback since it can be typed next to the screen in CCT. In the long run I believe this netted fewer changes and less aggravation for our client. The client can see in a completed product that the ISD and others have done their jobs to produce a unified course. It is not always possible to see this when the product is viewed piecemeal and the final assembly is at the end of a long process. Clients can in fact become disillusioned, as they do not see their vision unfolding. However, if viewed in a completed form the client can see the instructional designer’s vision and compare it to their original mental picture. They may be pleasantly surprised.
Client and designer concurrent use
A major benefit is that the instructional designer can be making changes at the same time that the client is reviewing the document. Simultaneous use and immediate follow-on for changes allows turn-around after review to be shortened significantly. This is the case even when pages need to be repositioned. Throughout the project I was able to work on the next module as well as complete changes on a previous one so that the team was continuously supplying the client with modules for review.
What about the problems?
It would be unfair to use so many superlatives without also recounting some of the problems associated with rapid content development. Miscommunication can always rear up and bite us. Some misunderstandings about how the course would be used in the client LMS did prove to require some rework of the course shell after the modules were completed. Fortunately the programmer could invest his time in that rather than having to be involved in the course construction.
Thorough analysis
As in any development project, upfront assessment, not only of content but also of the complete client need set, is required.
In an instance where multiple ISDs might be working on the same project we would need to establish clear guidelines and structure for the course prior to our individual work. This would ensure that we were not going in different directions during the design and input of content. In addition to close personal coordination, the CCT provides a means to view each team member’s work in progress.
Poor materials supplied
We were fortunate to have received excellent materials to begin this project. Inadequate materials would slow down the development process regardless of tool set being employed. We benefited from working with very “clean” well designed materials. I am currently working on a “start from scratch” project. The RCDM approach seems to be working well there also, though the time expenditure will be greater.
Sequencing/branching
Another disadvantage at this point is limited sequencing ability. This prevents using branching sequences within the tool. Instead we must use Flash to build branching. This can be time consuming and will not conform to new SCORM standards. The new standards require opportunities for varied sequencing. Our programmer is now working on how to build this alternate sequencing into the CCT. This will expand the capability we now have.
What are the results of the great experiment?
Our team is excited about the results of our first endeavors with the Rapid Content Development Model. We have now completed two standard-length and one brief project using RCDM. The Content Creation Tool has proved a great enhancement to our process. The concept has been proved. In answer to our three questions, we found:
- Yes, the CCT developed by our programmer does produce time and cost savings. (See Figure 7.)
- Clients were willing and able to use an online review process and did not seem to miss seeing a separate storyboard.
- We were able to develop sound instruction despite the rapid pace.
FIGURE 7 How the rapid development process stacks up against the traditional ADDIE process.
Based upon our experience, we are identifying additional ways to enhance the CCT to provide even greater time and cost savings and effectiveness. Some of these ideas include:
- ISD being able to duplicate pages and change only some content.
- Media specialists being able to sort requests by type of media. Types might include: Still graphics, photos, simple Flash graphics, and complex Flash interactions. This would allow them to prioritize their work. For example they might complete time-consuming tasks, such as developing a complex Flash interaction, before completing still graphics.
- An ISD and media specialist being able to communicate what has been completed and what is in process without leaving the CCT.
Implications for you!
You can do this too. By looking critically at your current process you can identify ways to cut time. This might be by creating a tool that helps you perform work faster and ties together all the pieces of the development process.
If you are interested in developing a tool similar to the CCT, here are some things you need to consider. Your programmer should be familiar with the work of an ISD. The more the programmer knows about how the work is performed, the better she’ll be at creating a sound solution. It helps if the person understands the courses you routinely create for your business and has been involved in creating one.
The plan of attack in building a content creation tool is to think of things like the following:
- How do we want to update the tool and how often?
- How can we make the components of the tool reuseable?
- How can we create it with scalability features to enhance the tool through time?
- What kind of storage will we need for all the data, and how will we retrieve it easily?
- On what platform will the tool be built? (HTML, Flash, etc.)
If your courses are developed for a particular LMS it is also important to be sure that your content-creation tool allows integration of your content with that LMS. This may involve SCORM or AICC conformance requirements.
If your programmer is not well versed in ISD, you may need to work closely with that person or team to develop a vision of uniting all the parts of the ISD process in as seamless a way as possible. You may also work with the programmer to develop templates that reflect the most common ways you set up your screens in terms of location and quantity of text, graphics, pop-ups, and audio or other media.
A key to creating a helpful content creation solution is to automate as much as possible. Eliminating steps for the ISD makes that job easier. The technology exists to make our ISD work much faster and more interesting. This will allow you to satisfy your internal or external client’s needs more easily and rapidly.
