Low-Fidelity Prototype

Description/Overview
The low-fidelity prototype serves as a layout illustration to share
with University stakeholders the Online Course Planning Outline
training course within a learning management system. This
prototype provides insight into the layout of the four module
online training course and how content will be presented in
sequential order to learners. Each module is separated into
different webpage/sections to cover the training components that
need to be addressed to assist Subject Matter Experts understand the online course development process.
The modules follow a consistent format and clearly demonstrate a progression of learning resources,
activities, and interactive components. The online training course allows learners the freedom and
accessibility to navigate through different parts of the course.

Skills Gained
The creation of the low-fidelity prototype allowed me to apply instructional design methodologies and
needs analysis data to create an outline of the learning experience that is best suited for Subject Matter
Experts. The creation of the low-fidelity prototype demonstrates the effective implementation of
educational technology tools and application of instructional design pedagogy into the design of the
course, thus achieving AECT Standard #2. Based on the needs of the organization, educational
technology was leveraged and scaffolded in a way that is easily digestible for working professionals
embarking on online course development. Careful management of the training course was implemented
by including a variety of learning activities, resources, and course flexibility. AECT Standard #4 is also
covered in this assignment due to the formative usability evaluation/peer review, in which I received
feedback from my peers on the usability and design of my course which allowed for collaborative practice
to occur. Based on peer feedback I was able to further reflect on the design of my training course and
implement more formative assessments (i.e. journals, discussions) to enhance the learners growth.

Lessons Learned
This assignment taught me how to choose meaningful and specific educational tools and technology
based on sound pedagogy, specifically focusing on instructional design methodologies that enable
students to use critical thinking skills. I found that the instructional design method was imperative to
determine prior to creating the low-fidelity prototype. Based on this knowledge I decided on task-centered
learning due to the fact that learners must complete a specific task by the end of the training.
Task-centered learning also helped me effectively manage and decide the technological components (i.e.
interactive activities, self-reflection, videos) to provide and support learners in the training.

Impact/Importance
The low-fidelity prototype allows the application of the needs assessment data from University
stakeholders to develop and produce an online training program that is in alignment with goals.
The prototype also enables stakeholders to view the layout of the course and the types of
resources and activities that will help SMEs through the course development process and stay
within scope to achieve organizational goals.
 Menu

This menu slide will serve as the entry slide of the training and serve as an overview of the
training and list the training learning objectives to the learners. Learners will be able to enter in their name
prior to starting the training to make it more personalized in nature. An “exit course” button is clearly
labeled on the menu slide and will remain on all remaining slides to ensure consistency and user control
and freedom.

Module 1
 Module 1 slide will cover project management and the team involved in the course development
process. The yellow callout sections provide additional information about each team member and their
role and responsibility in the development process. A sample course development timeline visual will
illustrate the development process over the course of 17-weeks and how each module has its specific time
period for iterative design, but anything that runs after may interfere with the quality of another part of the
course. An emphasis will be made on project management and staying within scope to reduce overlap and
ensure course design is robust in nature and ensure students have a great academic experience.

Module 2

Module 2 will include a brief video of how to write effective learning objectives to create sound
and robust courses, as well as Bloom’s taxonomy resource document for learners that are already
accustomed to writing learning objectives. The module will also dive into cumulative/final assessment
ideas and why certain assessments would be suitable for adult online learners. The learner will then be
able to complete an activity to engage them in the newly learned knowledge.

Module 3
 Module 3 will feature an interactive graphic of the Online Course Planning Outline and will give
the learner a view into their document deliverable and allow the ability to click on the areas of the
document to learn more about the specific topic. There will also be examples of Online Course Planning
Outlines done from previous SMEs in different departments/subjects.

Module 4
 Module 4 will allow learners to engage in the assignment by entering information about their
Online Course Planning Outline within the textboxes on screen. After the learner submits their response
they will receive immediate feedback addressing important concepts to include and address certain
aspects to include, and/or to return to the specific module to review.

Formative Usability Evaluation Questions

1. Is the interface, specifically the “exit” button confusing and/or error-prone?
2. To allow for user control and freedom I am allowing users to click at various module steps in the
training, however, the first welcome slide will be required to enter your name. Then the user will
be directed to the first module. Given this information, do find these actions too controlling?
3. What mistakes do you think users would make when navigating this online course?
4. Is the course design prototype flexible and efficient for users? Any recommendations if not?
5. Does a progress bar ruin the aesthetic of the course?
6. Does this prototype comply with most of Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics?