Articulate Storyline Challenge #83

1) When the client asks if we can go back to the original way I created it.

lq4ei

2) When I try to copy something I just saw Tom do in a post.

lr16c

3) When an interactive slide with variables works the way I imagined it would.

lq6lb

4) When eLearning hero’s posts a blog about the exact issue I’m dealing with.

lq551

Advertisements

Scope Document

I had originally met with my SME for this project, Gary Flynn, about 1 month ago to discuss it. He and I had just fininshed the bulk of our work on the IsItReal phishing training for JMU and I explained my upcoming project and asked if he had anything in mind that he needed training on. We talked about a particular project that he was needing help with and I began doing some storyboards and working on some mock-ups. Last Thursday we met again and discovered that there was another much more pressing need that he would like training created for. So…we have tabled the initial idea and have decided instead to focus on a training for a new Identity Finder system.

The system will be used to self-search selected individuals computers for SSN’s and Credit Card numbers. There are certain individuals on campus who are required to gather and store secure information and the system will make sure that it is being stored in a secure location. It will be an interactive training that will include an awareness portion describing why we need the system and then a how-to portion on how to run the program and what to do with the results.

I will work with the JMU IT Security team on this project.

My non-linear PPT project.

I have created my rough draft of my non-linear powerpoint. I went in a slightly different direction with it. I decided to create a game where you had to investigate different rooms in an office building to find clues. Then I added a little twist at the end which brings it back from being a game to a training. Here is a link to it if you wanted to take a look prior to our class presentation.  Game of Shadows Training

ISD Model Activity

I think that for my project I am going to take a scavenger hunt type of a game and use it to train the end user to look beyond the surface level. Quite a few years ago I worked for a drug rehab facility for teenage boys. Many of them would put on masks and try to become someone that they were not. I think this game would be an engaging way to get new staff thinking about looking for the deeper meaning behind actions that other take.

 

Module II What similarities and differences do you notice in the various models? Which model seems to make the most sense to you? Why?

I felt that all 3 of the models had room for improvement but the one that I was most engaged with was the final Connect Model (http://www.horton.com/portfolio/yellowstone/index.htm) it combined much of what the other two models included.

The absorb model just gave me content, albeit with no introduction, but I had not chance to put what I knew into practice or to test myself.

The do model solved the problem of keeping me engaged by allowing me to interact with the training but it did so at the expense of including any content. I had no knowledge in which to participate in the activities.

The connect model was my favorite of the three. It provided me with an introduction of sorts and included content that I could absorb as well as an interactive section. I would have liked to see a different layout order though. The questions came prior to the research tab which did not make sense to me. I also would have liked it to be a little more engaging by perhaps putting the material in a narrative “choose your own adventure” type story.

Introduction and learning theory

My name is Rob Morgan and I am an IT Trainer at James Madison University. I have been involved in training for the past 8 years. I previously worked at Rosetta Stone where I was both an internal trainer for the customer care team as well as an external trainer for K-12 schools that purchased the program. I have been at JMU since November of 2012 and recently completed a new etraining that will be rolling out to the Faculty/Staff/Students in September called IsItReal. The new training will focus on providing guidance to users in an attempt to limit the amount of successful phishing attempts we experience on campus.

I am currently in the elearning certificate program and I am planning on transferring to the Graduate school within the next year where I will pursue my Master’s In Educational Technology. I am hoping that this class solidifies my understanding of elearning practices and procedures and provides me with some tips and tricks that I can use in my job.

There are two learning theories that I feel I closely subscribe to. Although, one derives many of its points from the other. The first would be Carl Rogers’s theory of Experiential Learning. The theory centers on the learner and their desire. If a learner is interested in a particular subject and they see a positive outcome from gaining knowledge of said topic they are more likely to engage in and retain the knowledge. Many trainers today may refer to this as the “What’s in it for me?” question. An adult learner needs to know that there is benefit to them if they learn the material and if you can get them to desire the material themselves they are much more likely to retain it. He also held strongly to the belief that the learner needed to have control over their learning (Smith, 2004).

The other theory, which is based in part on Rogers theory, is that of Malcolm Knowles referred to as Andragogy. Andragogy is similar to Experiential Learning in that it relies heavily on the learner to be actively involved in what/how they learn. Knowles’s theory also relies heavily on the learner experiencing rather than memorizing or watching. Learning should be an experimental process where mistakes are allowed and used as a learning tool. The instructor is there to guide more than direct the process (Smith, 2002). In an elearning course this might be seen in a branched course with multiple paths as opposed to a linear path that is pre-selected for the learner.

Some of the criticism surrounding Knowles theory is whether or not this is a theory or simply assumptions made about learning (Hartree, 1984). Hartree argues that the theory is more of descriptions of learners rather than a theory.

Sources Cited:

Smith, M. K. (1997, 2004) ‘Carl Rogers and informal education’, the encyclopaedia of informal education. [www.infed.org/thinkers/et-rogers.htm. Last update: May 29, 2012]

Smith, M. K. (2002) ‘Malcolm Knowles, informal adult education, self-direction and andragogy’, the encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/thinkers/et-knowl.htm.

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://infed.org/mobi/andragogy-what-is-it-and-does-it-help-thinking-about-adult-learning/