It is easy to make Articulate do easy things, but I am not yet convinced of its usefulness to achieve higher ed or vocational ed learning outcomes.
Articulate has put out some gorgeous samples of making Articulate do fancy things, but it would make my life easier if I could put together a library of Articulate "coding" to achieve the various types of learning activity suggested in appendix 3 of the recommended text above or something similar - I am talking a tagging taxonomy here.
I am looking at how to develop vocational ed courses for on-line delivery. In Australia these courses are centrally designed and come with not only specified performance criteria but also specified skills. It can be difficult to keep both cross sections of a total course in mind while designing and developing the course. Performance criteria are relatively easy to teach to and to demonstrate that the competency has been achieved. However, qualitative skills outcomes are much more difficult to demonstrate. This is an example of the skills outcomes for a level 4 course I am looking at.
- communication skills to provide effective support and motivation to a team and overcome communication barriers
- literacy skills to:
- ◦ read and interpret a wide range of operational workplace information
- ◦ write clear and articulate team plans
- planning and organising skills to ensure activities and initiatives important to team development are integrated into own work planning
- problem-solving skills to identify skill deficiencies and provide opportunities for individual development
- self-management skills to take responsibility for team outcomes
- teamwork skills to represent team interests in the wider organisation environment.
One simple way to manage both cross sections (performance criteria and skills) is to cover content according to performance criteria and then include activities that are pitched to the appropriate skill level.
To manage course development on a large scale we need to be able to library anything slick we develop, for future re-use, so we would tag "objects" in groups that demonstrate performance criteria but also as single activities tagged according to the skill demonstrated by the activity. That list of activities above is a good start towards achieving a taxonomy for tagging and re-usability, although the one we work with in the Australian VET sector is more complex.
From an IDs point of view it would be so nice to be able to say, oh, I should do a "something or other" activity, and then just pick up a slick really well designed set of slides already sitting in the library that have done just that for another course, and re-use them.
So has anyone tagged all those examples of really slick "coding" put out by Articulate according to a stated taxonomy so that we can search for and find relevant examples. At the moment I find myself cruising through examples and seeing how I can show off by using them, rather than finding what I need to solve a given problem - it's fun but it is not going to "sell" Articulate as a serious course development tool.