There is a great deal of analysis that goes into selecting a technology for developing, designing, or distributing instruction. Instructional designers consider things like platform limitations, ease of use, accessibility, comfort, efficiency, etc. In the class EDCI 588 – Motivation and Instructional Design, a group Alternate Reality Game (ARG) project required my groupmates and me to analyze technologies before we developed our game artifacts. My individual contribution to the larger ARG plan is evidence of my competence in the challenge area of “Analyze the characteristics of existing and emerging technologies and their potential use.”

There are a wide variety of technologies available to instructional designers. Our ability to determine the appropriate tool is critical in delivering effective training programs on time and on budget. The parameters of the ARG project required us to present a realistic situation that centered around a particular theory (or family of theories) of motivation in learning. My group was presenting social cognitive theories. Throughout the week, we posted daily in our classroom discussion boards with new clues and activities for our classmates to work through and solve, with the goal of increasing a student’s self-efficacy (a key concept within social cognitive theory). For my component, I created a seating chart interaction in which the user investigates and explores a classroom and uses the clues within to rearrange the seating chart, all with the goal of increasing the self-efficacy of students, in keeping with ideas about peer modeling. Because the design and development of the game was taking place within just a few short weeks, I knew that the technological tool I chose to complete my component needed to meeting some key criteria:

• Familiarity with the tool: Because of the aggressive timeline, exploring a new tech tool would not have been an efficient or resourceful solution. I made the decision to narrow my options to tools with which I already had at least a basic working knowledge.

• Customization options: Because I needed a lot of moving parts (quite literally, the ability for the user to move many parts of the interaction), I knew that I needed to select a tool that gave me the ability to create a completely custom layout and interaction.

• Grading: Because there was a target answer, I needed a grading function in the tool. Because feedback can be a powerful motivator, I also determined the need for the tool to develop customized feedback.

  
  

With all of these factors, I selected Articulate Storyline as my authoring tool. I have been using Articulate products for approximately a decade, so I was familiar with the capabilities of the product. Additionally, Storyline’s expansive customization options allowed me to design an interaction that was purposeful and specific to our ARG plan. Finally, because I used a graded interaction, I was able to develop the whole component to deliver supportive and informative feedback after submitting the new seating chart layout.

Although the interaction was successful, due in large part to how I analyzed the possible tech tools, if I were to do it again, I would make some changes to the classroom layout and clues. There were some clues that users felt were slightly ambiguous. Although this did not appear to diminish the activity’s impact, I believe that modifying the clues would be beneficial. Lastly, although the custom development needs of this interaction were met by Storyline, in the future, I would like to push the boundaries of what Storyline can do. By using triggers and conditions, I am confident I could turn this interaction into an even more robust learning experience. Expanding the customization would also allow me to create more sophisticated clues, also leading to a more robust learning experience.