The art of clinical nursing practice is underpinned by an understanding of biological sciences. Traditionally, nursing students have found learning biological sciences problematic in foundation years (McKee, 2002; Maniasa and Bullock, 2002) and, despite work in this area, the problem continues (Meechan et al, 2011; Craft et al, 2013).
Being a discipline that easily lends to graphic representation, biological sciences are well suited to technology-enhanced learning (TEL). Because of the discipline's visual nature and the increasing availability of digital resources such as X-rays and MRIs, TEL has been used extensively in anatomy education (Saltarelli et al, 2014; Trelease, 2016). It has also been used in physiology (De Lazzari et al, 2014) and pharmacy/pharmacology (Lymn et al, 2008; Evans et al, 2016). TEL has the ability to bring biological processes alive to enhance and facilitate learning.
It has been suggested that current students prefer using online technologies because the students of Generation X and beyond have developed learning characteristics aligned to online education, such as computer literacy, and are acclimatised to rapid feedback (Arhin and Cormier, 2007). Reusable learning objects (RLOs), are a favoured method of online learning (Lymn et al, 2008; Clay 2011; Williams et al, 2015), with nurses having a particular affinity to these resources (Blake, 2010).
A learning object may be defined as ‘a digital self-contained and reusable entity, with a clear educational purpose, with at least three internal and editable components: content, learning activities and elements of context. The learning objects must have an external structure of information to facilitate their identification, storage and retrieval: the metadata’ (Wiley, 2000). Central to the definition of an RLO is the concept of reusability (Laverde et al, 2007). This principle suggests that the learning object may be used multiple times in various locations. An RLO emphasises and extends this aspect of design by ensuring it can be dismantled, modified and repurposed (Çinici and Altun, 2018).
The development of such TEL tools is challenging (Kopp and Smith, 2011; Sipiyaruk and Khan, 2014; Trelease 2016). Online learning material development can be resource intensive in relation to both materials and software needed, as well as with regards to the time and expertise required to complete production (Guler and Altun, 2010). Several instructional design frameworks are available to help academics implement online technologies in the curriculum (Wang, 2008). However, the understanding of the educational value of RLOs lags behind their use (Morales, 2011). These issues may have contributed to the reluctance in adoption of this apparently preferred method of online content delivery (Oblinger, 2003; Guler and Altun, 2010).
It is, however, imperative that academics do not ignore the changes that TEL is bringing about in learning and teaching processes (Espejo-Trung et al, 2015). It is important that they engage with this medium and gain skills to help master this evolving form of pedagogy.
To help understand the design process, the authors developed a project that examined the design and construction of a specific biological sciences RLO. The project explored ways of working within a mixed academic–technologist–end user (student) team. This article presents these experiences of developing online materials, and the discussion and analysis focus on hurdles and solutions that promote efficiency and streamline learning object/RLO production.
Aim
This study aimed to determine factors influencing RLO development and to help generate recommendations and ways of working which help streamline and optimise the production process.
Method
A triangulated, iterative approach was adopted to the development of the RLO. It was important to ensure that all stakeholders in the process—the content expert, developer and students or end users—were available for advice and feedback during the development process (Beaudrie and Boschmans, 2013). Satisfaction and perceived utility value of an e-learning system or resource is improved if the end users are satisfied with the content and interface design (Hong et al, 2017). Therefore, including students as members of the project team was deemed necessary so that they could provide timely feedback to ensure content or navigation was optimised for end users and reduce the need for time-consuming, complicated adjustments to the final product. Our triangulated approach (Figure 1) therefore ensured that the project was driven and assessed by students from its inception.
As the focus of the project was to assess the design process rather than evaluate the resource, ethical approval was not required. The authors did, however, ensure that it was ethical to involve students in the manner they had proposed.
Two processes were used to manage the project—scrumming and AGILE.
Scrumming is a framework that facilitates collaborative goal setting and helps manage unpredictability and minimise risk during development (Schwaber, 1996). Scrum theory has been used in academia for some years to assist in teaching software development (Pope-Ruark, 2012; Opt and Sims, 2015) because it helps to divide the project into small chunks of activity of a short duration (Pope-Ruark, 2012). The theory is based on the concepts of: transparency, which ensures everyone is on the same page in regards to terminology and final outcomes; inspection, whereby developed content is inspected for artefacts and variability from agreed outcomes; and adaptation, which is linked to inspection and is the process by which deviations that may render the product unacceptable are adapted to bring the product back to withing the agreed parameters (Schwaber and Sutherland, 2016).
Coupled with these basic principles of scrumming, an iterative AGILE approach was applied to the project. (AGILE is an iterative project management process that works well when the detail of the project is not entirely defined, because it allows flexibility while sustaining accountability (Naybour, 2015).) This meant that each meeting was designed to demonstrate or present a tangible, deliverable component of the resource. This approach is useful because it demonstrates the look and feel of the resource to the content provider and end user.
Together, these enable intra-production testing of different visual formats and interactivity. This allows adjustments to be made during development, minimising alterations required on the completed the RLO. Depending on stakeholder availability and project size, it is useful to have meetings every 2–3 weeks to maintain momentum. Each meeting is divided into three aspects: a review of work completed; an analysis of that; and future direction. To facilitate this, regular communication between group members helps to keep everyone updated regarding developments and delays.
Documentation is important when undertaking a large project. The authors found two areas of significance regarding this while developing their RLO—version identification and development logs. Version control, which is a well-understood process in software development, involves managing documentation associated with the software so that versions can be identified. Development logs are closely associated with version control and are linked to documentation regarding developer activity, including details of design approaches taken, back-up of source files and raw materials used in the project. These elements are essential because they provide a record of all aspects of the project. Workforces are mobile, and these details allow a project to be continued with minimal disruption if a developer leaves mid project. They may also contribute towards job specification criteria to ensure that new employees have the requisite skills to complete the project efficiently.
Ways of working were finalised within the group before development started (Figure 2). These included needs analysis, resource identification, deliverables, workflow and continuity. The needs analysis involved an assessment of content, including feedback from end users. Resource identification ensured that enough resources were available to deliver the final product.
Focusing on deliverables ensured that the final resource met the results of the needs analysis. It was important to consider workflow and continuity to ensure the project was effectively managed.
Project development
The project was originally projected to run for 8 months, but was extended to 12 months because e-learning technologists were not always available. Regular meetings were organised to conduct the project; frequency and attendance of these varied depending on the task undertaken.
Needs analysis
The authors selected a respiratory physiology lecture as the desired content. Using the content specialists' input and the end users' feedback, they determined core content for the resource. Using lecture slides as a basis, the resource was storyboarded. End user guidance at this stage was useful because it helped plug gaps in the detail required, which would have normally been communicated by the subject specialist in class.
Analysis by the end-user involved discussion on how an online resource could be used to enhance the learning experience for today's students. Interaction or the involvement of students as active participants in their learning is an understood paradigm (Astin, 1986). Kennedy (2006) suggested that students learn 90% of what is presented when it is said and done in combination. However, facilitating hands-on student involvement in today's large student cohorts is constrained by a lack of resources such as time, expertise and passion for the subject (Fitzpatrick, 2009). Online strategies provide an opportunity for students to learn by doing individually or in groups, and therefore promote student engagement (Burgess, 2009). Good RLO design should include an activity-based resource that promotes practice and reflection, together with provision for some individualised activity (Watson, 2010).
With these theoretical principles in mind, the primary delivery approach used for the RLO was based on bite-sized chunks of single-concept segments produced using an animated format with a voiceover. This foundation material was interspersed with interactions such as textual multiple choice questions and graphic quizzes such as drag-and-drop exercises to help reinforce the concepts presented. Replaying the concepts by returning to them in a quiz helps to develop of long-term memorisation of the concept (Stahl et al, 2010; Roediger and Butler, 2011).
Feedback is an important aspect of RLO design. Feedback to quiz responses included in the RLO gives students an opportunity to assess their understanding (Clinton, 2018) and review their progress; it may motivate the learner to continue with the resource or provide them with a natural point at which they can pause or stop to return to the RLO when desired. These are important pedagogical features that assist in learning and retention of information (Stahl et al, 2010; Watson, 2010).
Bespoke, standalone RLOs can be tailored to academic requirements. One driver for this project was the ability to produce online content that faithfully related to and therefore complemented materials used in face-to-face lectures. This focused material provides a seamless transition from lecture content to online content and vice versa (Delagran et al, 2015). In addition, the greater flexibility provided by bespoke standalone packages allow good kinesthetic engagement in an online environment, enabling a good mix of audiovisual content delivery coupled with aligned interactions that allow students to learn by undertaking different tasks within the package (Delagran et al, 2015). With appropriate planning, generated content can form the basis of a spiral curriculum, where core scenarios and themes are further developed at each level of study. These scenarios may be included in formative and summative assessments.
Once the initial content had been drafted, all three stakeholders were involved in constructing the story around the content. This involved further sequencing of content and the pace at which new concepts were introduced. The user interface was discussed, which helped to make navigation more intuitive.
Deliverables
Once the content had been drafted, decisions had to be made on the format the output would take. This helped determine the kinds of tools needed to develop the resource, and took into consideration whether this resource would be part of a larger suite of materials, or be dismantled at a later date to be used as a standalone single concept on other platforms, such as being embedded in presentation slides or as a standalone interaction on a virtual learning environment (VLE). The choice of platform compatibility was also explored.
Output format varies according to the availability of VLE type, instructional designer/e-learning technologist skills and software for development.
A number of VLEs are available. The most commonly used today are probably Blackboard Learn (formerly WebCT Vista) and Moodle which, although different, share similar characteristics and facilities (Reece, 2016). The two main delivery formats, regardless of VLE used, are having the RLO constructed within the VLE itself or producing a self-contained interaction that can be uploaded to the VLE.
Producing an RLO to be housed within the VLE framework means small audiovisual bites of content have to be acquired or developed. These may be created in-house or procured online. These resources are then sequentially introduced. The optimal length for these segments is not well understood. However, research from massive open online courses suggests the length of video for educational purposes should not exceed 6 minutes, regardless of the length of the parent lecture (Guo, 2016).
Regarding video content, animation, cartoons and music have been demonstrated to enhance learning more than voiceover alone (Brecht, 2012). To boost learning, the interactive component that promotes revisiting the content via reflection or a quiz should be interspersed between audiovisual content (Stahl, 2010). This can be achieved within the RLO. These episodes of interaction may also be taken out of the RLO using VLE-based quizzes and other interactions, such as discussion boards, blogs and wikis. To further improve this aspect of design, there is an increasing interest in using competitiveness (gamification) as a strategy to increase engagement (Codish and Ravid, 2014). Most VLEs allow a form of gamification by using badges or the selective release of content pending completion of a previous step. These motivators may be used in RLOs to maximise engagement and task completion (Khan et al, 2017).
Producing the RLO as an uploadable package requires authoring the resource separately then packaging it for import into the VLE. A number of commercial and free authoring tools to do this are available. A basic combination of text/voice and video with some form of interactive quiz is possible with most basic systems. More expensive software provides more flexibility and the capability to generate a wider range of interactions.
File formats for interactions, videos and standalone deliverables are dictated by the VLE receiving the resource, as well as the types of operating systems and browsers used to access the materials. There is an increased move towards catering for mobile platforms when developing online content. Research regarding use and student expectations when using this platform for pedagogical interactions is still limited (Hyman et al, 2014). However, rapid improvements in mobile technologies over recent years have established this platform is a mode of pedagogical interaction. The mobile environment presents a unique set of considerations, such as scalability of image content and plug-ins to run different file types on different platforms.
One of the most significant changes of recent years, impacting all platforms, has been the uptake of HTML5 over other programming languages. One of the main drivers for this was an adoption of HTML5 by Apple and a subsequent drop of support for Flash. This shifted production of internet playable animation towards HTML5, rendering resources constructed using Flash largely redundant. Although there are third party plugins and browsers that do enable Flash content to run on Apple OS platforms, their setup, compatibility and reliability are not trustworthy. Therefore, to achieve cross-platform compatibility, outputs using HTML5 for animations are desirable.
While discussing outputs, it is useful to address interoperability of standalone resources with VLEs. It is important to ensure that a VLE or learning management system, which is employed to centrally manage online learning content, and the RLO being produced can communicate with each other (Ramanathan et al, 2011). The TEL industry has used previously available standards and protocols to produce a reference with which e-learning materials need to comply to ensure widespread compatibility.
This approach resulted in the production of the Shared Content Object Reference Model (SCORM). SCORM-conforming RLOs have the advantage of being compatible with most major VLEs (Reece, 2016). SCORM compliance enables data transmission between the RLO and VLE, simplifying the scoring and grading of quizzes and tracking student progress. SCORM is now more than 10 years old, during which time the manner in which people learn has changed. Enabled by online and mobile technologies, learning is now continuous and content is readily available.
To keep up with this freedom of learning, a new standard has now been established, known as the experience application program interface (xAPI). The new specification allows the now-multitude avenues of learning such as simulation, real world experiences, virtual worlds, serious games (which can be used in education and training), social media and learning to recognise each other and communicate (xAPI.com, 2016).
It is possible that this or similar standards will overtake the current SCORM standard and enable us to capture and track the plethora of learning opportunities now available to students. Ultimately, the choice of output format is determined by requirements and the availability of resources.
Creating interactive content
Following the needs analysis and identification of deliverables for the project, the authors wanted to ensure that the content was as interactive as possible. They therefore opted for a standalone, bespoke deliverable. Together with the e-learning technologist, two content experts and a student adviser, they divided lecture slides into concepts.
The e-learning technologist advised on which interactions to use, given the aims provided by the content experts. The authors endeavoured to use interactions such as image-based drag and drop quizzes as learning tools, rather than just as a way to assess the student's learning. This approach enables students to learn kinaesthetically and promotes critically analysis of concepts (Clinton, 2018); it can then be verified and, if need be, corrected by delivery of audio/visual content within the RLO.
One benefit the authors found from using a bespoke deliverable was that we could layer information. This approach allows the concept expert to present information in a more detailed form by presenting increasing details in each layer (Polsani, 2003). This approach allows a large volume of information to be delivered at the learner's own pace. With this approach, a landing screen for the general concept provided links to further detail that the student can access when they desire. This has the advantage over the audio/video recording of a lecture because there is no urgency to assimilate entire concepts all at once. Detailed information can be provided on subsequent layers, which breaks down information into compartments of subconcepts.
These approaches allowed single instances of the audio/video content to be limited to durations of 2.5–3 minutes, thus maximising student engagement and attention (Guo, 2016). This also allowed concepts to be addressed in more detail than would have been otherwise possible in a time-limited face-to face-lecture or single video.
Apart from content, user experience and interface design can influence the success and adoption of an online resource (Sipiyaruk and Khan, 2014). User experience is concerned with how straightforward/accessible a resource is to use while the interface design deals with how the content and navigation are laid out. The management style adopted enabled the authors to address some of these issues during development. These were worked through while storyboarding the resource and reviewed at intervals using the AGILE approach.
Resource identification
Resource identification included considering developer expertise, as well as the tools and raw materials used to create the resource. Early inclusion of the developer was imperative to ensure early identification of the tools needed to achieve the desired result. In some instances, more than one developer may be needed if one person does not have all the skills needed. This activity frequently requires the expertise of an instructional designer. Many instructional designers have expertise in resource construction but, in some cases, specialist developers such as video producers and editors or 3D animators may also be needed to bring the project to fruition. It is therefore important to scope what is desired for the RLO and match that with skills within the project that are available or can be acquired.
Another important facet of resource identification is the acquisition of royalty-free or copyright-free imagery for use in the RLO. There is a large number of image libraries, such as Shutterstock and Getty Images, which provide royalty-free images for a fee. There are also commercially available vector-based images that can be modified and scaled. The production of own content, be it video or imagery, will require written consent and in many cases payment (eg to actors). It is important to note that actors may have different rates for production of online resources than for acting face to face, such as in objective structured clinical examinations. Detailed information regarding copyright compliance may reside in different departments in institutions; given the nature of their work, library services tend to be a good starting point when investigating institute policies and processes regarding copyright issues.
When identifying resources for voiceovers, it is important to consider issues regarding continuity. The authors' unpublished evaluation data from a previous project suggests that, while some students like multiple voices as long as they are clear, the majority prefer a single voice throughout the RLO. If actors are to be used for producing voiceovers, then continual availability of an actor throughout development needs to be considered.
When producing bespoke voiceover narrations, some simple rules will help you to produce engaging voiceovers (Pappas, 2015). These include:
Map out or script your voiceover: this may be done with the use of the storyboards. Scripting is useful to help maintain flow and minimises the need for editing the audio afterwards. The text script will eventually be needed to ensure the resource complies with accessibility requirements.
Keep the script natural and conversational: keeping the narrative conversational and natural helps engage the listener. Ensure that you keep to a first, second or third person narrative. Be informative and authentic so your audience gets a sense that you know your topic.
Watch your time: 100 words normally equates to 1 minute of recording and reading time. If you are recording a video, this measure will help you to calculate how many words to include in your script and how long you need to keep that particular slide visible for those who will be reading the text.
Always do a test run: although it is simple to edit audio files, this takes time, so do a test run. This will enable you to assess your narrative against the content you are presenting and help you decide about timing and the logical flow of what is being said.
Silence is golden: when doing voiceovers, there is an urge to speak at a continuous pace. However, just as orators use a pause to emphasise a point, silence on voiceovers can be used to allow the audience to pause and assimilate a point and allows them to absorb visual content.
Do not let the voiceover steal the show: the voiceover is there to assist understanding of content being presented. A distracting tone, heavy accent or superfluous sound effects can be distracting and can reduce the audience's attention as well as their understanding of what is being said. Use voiceovers liberally but intelligently to aid understanding of a complex image or process or to draw the audience to a particular point.
Ambient noise distracts: your voiceovers should be free of background noise. Although some departments may invest in a sound booth, these can be expensive and too hot to work in over extended periods of time in summer. A good-quality microphone with a muffler will help to cancel out much of the ambient sound in an otherwise quiet room. It may be useful to consider recording sound away from desktop computers as their fans can cause troublesome background noise.
A number of editing tools are available to help remove ambient noise, although they may reduce the richness of a voice and render it a little dull. Today's mobile phones often have good audio recording capabilities. Using appropriate apps, audio that has been recorded on mobile phones can be uploaded to a computer. Uploaded audio can be edited within many RLO authoring tools or be edited using dedicated audio software before it is imported into the RLO authoring tool.
Workflow and continuity
The management of workflow and continuity was important to maintain the project's momentum. Iterative development meetings were the best way to lead the process. Using an AGILE approach provided a framework and focus for each meeting where a deliverable component of the resource was reviewed. This was useful because it demonstrated the look and feel of the resource to the content provider and end user, as well as enable intraproduction testing of different visual formats and interactivity. To maintain project momentum, meetings were arranged every 2–3 weeks. Each meeting was divided into three aspects: a review of work completed; analysis of that work; and future direction. To facilitate this, regular communication between the group members helped keep everyone updated regarding developments and delays.
Continuity was an important and the most challenging factor in the development of the RLO. Several developers were involved in the project over time. This highlighted the need to ensure detailed documentation was kept to assist in the transfer of work from one developer to another. This issue had not been anticipated at the start of the project, which resulted in significant delays in the development and delivery of the final RLO. Factoring in sufficient time to document progress must be considered when setting the project timescale as well as, linked to this issue, version control and overall tagging or linking of content within the final product.
Discussion
Student involvement from the outset ensured that the end product was adapted to their existing knowledge, which is essential to the success of an online educational interaction (Huwendiek et al, 2013).
Given the disparate backgrounds of those involved, particularly of the content expert and developer, significant hurdles were initially experienced. These included differences in the understanding of pedagogical and technical terms. There was also significant misunderstanding regarding how long it takes to develop an RLO, regarding not just production but also the quality review phase. Using scrum principles (Pope-Ruark, 2012), we were able to address these issues.
Developing these resources is time consuming, and engagement in the project was aided by adopting an AGILE approach. Time taken can be minimised by including staged reviews of development.
It is imperative that the content expert is motivated and passionate about their subject to help push the project through (Fitzpatrick, 2009).
The RLO itself should accommodate common learning styles and provide an appropriate balance of textual audio/video and kinesthetic interactions to aid in learning (Boctor, 2013). This was achieved in this project by using an e-learning authoring tool that integrated the production of visual animation, sound recording and quiz development in a standalone RLO or deliverable.
Storyboarding was the most intense period of activity of the project, where all three stakeholders were involved in discussion. Initial storyboarding was translated into resource identification, including imagery, video and voiceover, then into the final product. A subset of slides were produced, tested and presented at each meeting.
Resourcing in terms of software and imagery (including copyright considerations) needs to be addressed. This area is problematic because the law regarding copyright depends on the permissions granted by the authors. The Joint Information Systems Committee provides some in detailed guides regarding copyright. Secker and Morrison (2015) have produced a quick guide that examines issues for consideration regarding copyright. Resources such as creative commons and tools in web browsers such as the reuse filter tool within Google images provide potential sources of free, usable images. However, this is not always 100% accurate, so you will need to check each result with the owner/source. The authors addressed copyright compliance in this project by producing some imagery in-house, as well as purchasing a selection of biology vector graphics that could be used royalty free.
The project experienced a number of developer changes; this reiterated the importance of keeping clear documentation. This ensures that all decisions and specifications are documented and version control is properly managed.
Importantly, the quality of voice content featured strongly in feedback from the student group who used the finalised resource; sound recording capability needs to be suitable and, ideally, a single voice should be used for all voice recordings.
To ensure engagement and understanding, the length of each learning episode or concept was kept short and the majority of our slides were 2–2.5 minutes long. This complied well with recommendations regarding video (Guo, 2016) and voiceover length (Pappas, 2015). Where the detail required would significantly extend the video time, content was layered to break it down into subconcepts. Although users vary significantly in their ability to navigate and interact with online materials, the inclusion of an end user—a student—helped the project team to steer development and design with the end user experience in mind.
We did not explore the costing of the project as an outcome. However, upfront expenditure of RLO development included production as well as running costs. These included costings for the three stakeholders' time, graphics and interface design, copyright clearance and costing associated with faculty approval. Added to these were server costs, tutoring costs, administration costs and the cost of printed materials, if any, once the RLO has been implemented (Downes, 2001).
Using the described resource and others, the authors have developed a blended learning strategy that caters for large cohorts of 200-300 students. Following the use of the RLO, online polling systems help assess student understanding of face-to-face lectures, and identified weaknesses can then be addressed. This has been enhanced by production of the bespoke RLO because the core content and the materials used in face-to-face lectures are similar. Integrating quizzes to facilitate learning and retention of concepts is a significant benefit of RLOs. The quiz strategy may be extended to large cohort summative assessments because they have been shown to work just as well as reflection in student learning (Clinton, 2018).
Challenges and recommendations
Misaligned vocabulary and variances in understanding of terminology. This needs to be reconciled early on in the project.
Academics' lack of understanding of the time taken to develop resources. This requires transparent discussion and acknowledgement from all strata of faculty, so that the time used on the project is appropriately accounted for, such as ensuring that the time required for resourced development is factored into module and programme development plans, together with a recognition of the workload this activity imparts on the academic and end user (student) collaborators.
Understanding the potential possibilities of development. A detailed dialogue between what the developer can provide and what the content expert desires needs to be take place early on. This ensures that the best possible format and interactions can be implemented in the RLO.
Importance of including students in the design process rather than just evaluating final product. This ensures that the detail and granularity of content is appropriately laid out and that the RLO interface and user experience is efficiently optimised.
Availability of copyright-free/royalty-free imagery to include in the resource. This has implications for costings if resources are to be procured or produced in-house.
Record-keeping of versions and agreed specifications of the design and tools to be used to develop the RLO. Appropriate record-keeping ensures that the project's integrity is maintained and the project is completed efficiently.
Problems with production logic if developers move to other projects. Developers may change during the project, so it is important to ensure that the developer documents specific code or design logic that may be required after they depart.
Conclusion
E-learning development is time consuming and potentially expensive. It remains poorly understood by academics and, for this reason, may generate anxiety. However, students now expect these resources to be part of the pedagogical repertoire of a higher learning establishment.
Developing reusable learning objects requires collaboration between the content expert, developer and end user. Bursts of iterative activity can help progress the project. With each iteration, the provision of a tangible product to review and build on helps deal with the unpredictability and fluidity of resource development in academia.
Resource identification and acquisition need to be addressed in general terms at the beginning of a project. These aspects need to be included in robust documentation to ensure that disruptions are minimised if team member leaves. Compliance with standards and laws such as those on copyright need to be given consideration to ensure trouble-free operation of the finalised resource.