Summary
This scenario-based eLearning concept project allows Articulate Storyline users to practice not only how to solve trigger related bugs, but to find the most efficient way to do so in a risk-free environment. After this targeted practice, Storyline users can then apply these skills to their own projects, which will eventually have a compounding effect on the quality of the overall eLearning industry.
Overview
The Problem
Learning a new authoring tool like Articulate Storyline is one of the best ways to upskill. However, both new and seasoned users find that triggers, the part of Articulate Storyline that powers interactivity, can be especially tricky. This is because becoming adept at using triggers requires more than the basic knowledge of what triggers are and how to create them. Like learning any new skill, it requires making mistakes.
The Solution - or at least part of it
The result is an eLearning experience designed under the expectation that mistakes with triggers will inevitably happen when building out projects and learning experiences in Storyline. Learning how to identify common mistakes and then fix them, rather than avoiding them, is what will help one become a more confident and agile software user.
By the end of the experience, the user will have successfully identified and fixed a total of three common trigger bugs: deleting leftover and unused triggers, fixing careless copy and paste errors, and rearranging trigger order. Users can then apply these strategies and insights into their own projects.
Design Theory
For this project, I combined the application of Cathy Moore’s Action Mapping and the helpful parameters of Richard Mayer’s Multimedia Learning Theory within the structured stages of ADDIE. Below is an outline of what those frameworks looked like:
Further influence of the mentioned design theories can be seen throughout the project overview.
The Process
Action Map
I used Mindmeister to create an action map that revealed four high priority actions and helped narrow down which Storyline skills to focus on.
After determining the three trigger bugs that were the most common and actionable, I wrote text-based and visual storyboards that detailed the introductory scenario, the questions and answer choices, tailored meaningful feedback, and programming notes.
As I wrote the questions and answer choices, I was cognizant in making the incorrect answer choices as tempting as I could to closely reflect the decisions one would make in an actual Storyline project. Finally, since the learner already discovers whether their change fixed the bug or not after watching the preview, it was important that the feedback included clear reasons behind the importance of learning to recognize these bugs.
While I polished up the text-based storyboard and moved to the visual storyboard, I used Adobe XD and images from FreePik and Storyset to design the visual layout of each section of the course.
For example, I used the eyedropper feature to create imitations of common communication based ecosystems, such as Slack and Gmail.
In addition, I also took this time to design the facets of the vertical toolbar and made decisions such as the positioning of the trigger panel screenshots with relation to the question box.
Finally, I had a lot of fun incorporating the aesthetic elements of Storyline, such as using Articulate Storyline purple for the hover states of the answer choices.
Design and Development
This project was designed and developed using the Articulate Storyline authoring tool. I utilized layers, hot spots, drag and drops, and over 30 variables to power course advancement, animations, and user choice.
Takeaways: The importance of trade-offs and learner centered design
This project was well received by other instructional designers, which motivated me to show more initiative and consistent involvement in various instructional design communities. It also demonstrates my ability to complete a project from start to finish. Most importantly, this project taught me a lot about trade-offs in the context of instructional design.
Early on in the project, I found that my time and energy was disproportionately distributed to the overall impact that section of the course would have on learner outcome. It seems silly looking back, but earlier iterations of the introduction section included embellishments such as multiple responses users could choose in the Slack imitation and a timer to reflect the environment of time-sensitive messages in a work environment. What does that have to do with helping users troubleshoot triggers? NOTHING!
At the same time, I was not spending enough time on the learning portion of the course. At first, the thought of making the trigger panel interactive seemed unnecessary. As a result, the original project design was limited to screenshots and pre-recorded videos of editing the trigger panel. As long as the learner gets to see the result of their action, they’ll get the gist right? NOPE! As I put myself back in the shoes of the learner, which also required me to talk directly to other learners, it quickly became clear that users would benefit more if they were able to act out the scenarios and experience the consequences for themselves.
Another example of a trade-off was in deciding the scope of the course, which was ultimately to present triggers in isolation. The advantage of this is that it allows the user to hone in on a singular skill, but the drawback is that it does not reflect the nuances of multiple solutions. A potential solution to this could be developing future courses with a similar format that presents users with many more sample projects to de-bug.
Taken together, this project taught me that time, energy, and resources are most efficiently allocated when trade-offs are made with a clearly defined learning goal and the learner at the center of the decision making process.
