1. Introduction
  2. General technical educational scenario in India
  3. What are the Problems
  4. availability of teachers
  5. access to technology
  6. any other...?
  7. eLearning is a solution
  8. How?
  9. LOs are useful in elearning
  10. What are LOs
  11. Different definitions of LOs with Examples
  12. How are LOs made
  13. Different processes: Examples
  14. OSCAR process: One sample
  15. Problems with existing LO creation processes
  16. Need for methodology to
  17. make the LO creation process scalable
  18. reduce the requirement of face-to-face communication between the stakeholders of the LO creation process.
  19. Solution approach
  20. Design research
  21. Organization of the report
  1. Literature survey:
  2. Advantages of eLearning
  3. Production process of LOs
  4. Principles from the domains, which can contribute to enhance the quality of LO.

2.3.1 Animation 2.3.2. Graphic design 2.3.3. Multimedia 2.3.4. Interaction design

2.4.Principles from Instructional Design domain

  1. Problem statement:

This research proposes to

3.1.evolve a methodology to make the LO creation process scalable

3.2.reduce the requirement of face-to-face interaction between the stakeholders of the LO creation process.

  1. Research from Communication angle
  2. Stakeholders in the LO creation process
  3. SME4.1.2. ID4.1.3. Animator
  4. Message sent from SME to the users
  5. SME TO ID 4.2.2. ID To animator 4.2.3. Animator to the user
  6. Feedback from User to SME.
  7. ID to SME4.3.2. Animator to ID4.3.3. User to Animator

4.3.4. Animator to ID

  1. Research methodology
  2. Types of research
  3. Generic list with some details
  4. Which type of methodology is suitable for this research?
  5. Design based research: definition and more details with examples
  6. Comparison with other methods
  7. Example: Predictive versus Design based
  8. Rationale for selection of Design research
  9. Iterative process
  10. ---
  11. Adaptation of my research problem to the generic design research model

Generic model for design based research:

5.5.1.Analysis: Basic template having primary principles of ID

5.5.2.Development of solutions by referring principles from other (related) domains: Animation, Graphic design, Multimedia and Interaction design

5.5.2.1.Creating a product: IDD template

5.5.3.Iterative cycles of testing:

5.5.3.1.Implementation of the product: LO creation using template

5.5.3.2.Getting feedback about the product: SUS+Interviews

5.5.3.3.Iterations of the product: IDD template versions

5.5.4.Reflection of the feedback from users: Students of the particular domain who will use the LO

  1. Solution plan:
  2. Use of templates in the LO creation process
  3. Advantages and disadvantages of templates

6.2.Selecting IDDs created using Template 1:

IDDs were selected from the available pool of uploaded IDDs. Care was taken to choose IDDs from different subjects deliberately, to get a feedback for various subject domains. Template Ver. 1.0 was used for creating these IDDs.

Availability of IDDs in this stage was a problem, as most of the IDDs were converted to LOs, with some help from IDD, but considerable help from the SMEs interaction with the animators. Therefore the IDDs uploaded on the site were few in numbers, and also the choice of the subject was limited.

6.2.1.Salient features of Template Ver. 1.0:

This was the very first template [A1] created for Project OSCAR. It had the following sections:

1. Information: Domain area, Course name, Definitions of keywords

2. Aim/Learning objectives: What is the aim of creating this LO, OR what will the users be able to do by using this LO.

3. Procedure: Details of the animation. This didn’t have a template regarding text/visuals to be inserted.

4. Interactivity: Details of what the SME would like to have so that the users can interact with the LO

5. Assessment questions: MCQ questions to test whether the users have understood the concept

6. Further reading: Mainly references section

This template was used by the SMEs and their research students to create the IDD documents. For this study 10 IDDs have been selected. A sample IDD is given in Appendix [A2]

6.3.Getting feedback about template 1 from the major stakeholders

6.3.1.Animators

6 animators working for the project were chosen as sample. All the animators have more than a year’s experience of working on LO creation. They have acquired basic education in one or more animation software’s.

6.3.2.Tool:

The tool used for the study was a System Usability Survey (SUS) form [1]. SUS is used widely by researchers for testing usability for various advantages it has over other data collection tools [2]. Important distinguishing factors are

0i)Technology independent: SUS can be used online as well as offline

0ii)Easy to modify: Original SUS form contains 10 questions, in a specific format. It also allows modification of questions, based on the context in which it is being used. This modification is fairly easy in SUS. The modification done for this study is presented below

0iii) It is relatively quick and easy to use by both study participants and administrators: SUS has 10 questions in it. 5 point Likert scale is used for the options to be filled by the participants. Calculating the score also becomes easy for the administrators.

0iv)SUS provides a single score on a scale: This feature helps in easy creation of the graphs to present the results.

0v)It is nonproprietary: It is free to use

Based on these factors, SUS was selected as the tool for data collection. The modification done for the study is given below:

Question Number / Original Question in SUS [1] / Modified question for this study
1 / I think that I would like to use this system frequently / I think that I am able to use this IDD to animate.
2 / I found the system unnecessarily complex / I found this IDD unnecessarily complex
3 / I thought the system was easy to use / I thought this IDD was easy to use
4 / I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this system / I think that I would need to support of a technical person to be able to use this IDD
5 / I found the various functions in this system were well integrated / I found the various functions in this IDD well integrated
6 / I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system / I thought there was too much inconsistency
in this IDD
7 / I would imagine that most people would learn to use this system very quickly / I would imagine that most animators would be able to understand this IDD very quickly
8 / I found the system very cumbersome to use / I found this IDD very cumbersome to use
9 / I felt very confident using the system / I felt very confident using this IDD
10 / I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system / I needed to learn a lot of things before I could
get going with this IDD

The respondents are supposed to give a degree of agreement or disagreement for the questions above through a Likert scale having 5 degrees. They range from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (5). The scale was used as it is in the original SUS form.

6.3.3.Interpreting SUS scores: The SUS score of 68 is considered as an average score [3, OR reference needed from Gargi]. Score which is less than 68 is considered below average, and more than 68 is considered above average

6.3.4.Process:

The softcopy versions of the IDDs selected for the first study were given to the animators. They studied each IDD for 30 minutes approximately. Later they were given blank SUS forms to be filled up. Apart from indicating their choice on the likert scale, they were requested to write a one line reason for the choice they were making. Some animators were requested to evaluate two/more IDDs based on the availability of time.

6.3.5.Results:

The results showed that the mean SUS score for these 10 IDDs was 36.75 [A4]. Based on the recommended ‘good’ score of SUS, this is way behind. This score can be translated to: the template version 1.0 is non usable for the animators.

SUS scores of the animators for the IDDs created using template 1
Sr No / Title of the IDD / Domain / Animator / Q1 / Q2 / Q3 / Q4 / Q5 / Q6 / Q7 / Q8 / Q9 / Q 10 / Total / SUS score
1 / D-V isotherm / Chemistry / Bhanu / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 1 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 0 / 25 / 62.5
2 / Longest common subsequence / Comp Science / Monisha / 1 / 2 / 2 / 1 / 3 / 3 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 3 / 19 / 47.5
3 / Rotor machines / Comp Science / Monisha / 1 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 3 / 13 / 32.5
4 / Visual Memory / Comp Science / Bhairav / 3 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 14 / 35
5 / Lattice Boltzmann method / Mechanical engg / Bhairav / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 4 / 10
6 / Huffman coding / Comp Science / Sneha / 2 / 2 / 1 / 0 / 2 / 3 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 0 / 14 / 35
7 / Stacks / Comp Science / Sneha / 3 / 3 / 3 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 25 / 62.5
8 / DFA to regular expressions / Comp Science / Shruti / 2 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 3 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 11 / 27.5
9 / kLa expression / Chemical engg / Shruti / 2 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 10 / 25
10 / Switched Mode Power Supply / Electrical engg / Pratik / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 3 / 12 / 30
18 / 16 / 12 / 7 / 13 / 18 / 14 / 13 / 12 / 15 / 147 / 367.5
Mean: / 1.8 / 1.6 / 1.2 / 0.7 / 1.3 / 1.8 / 1.4 / 1.3 / 1.2 / 0.7 / 14.7 / 36.75
Median: / 2 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 3 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 2
Mode: / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 3 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 0

6.3.6.Analysis of the results:

SUS scores indicate that the IDD is not usable for the animators. In order to make it usable, the reasons given by the animators were studied and the following inferences were drawn.

6.3.7.Changes to be made in the IDD template 1

Based on the analysis of the SUS scores and the reasons mentioned by animators it was decided to make changes to the IDD template version 1.0. The changes in the sections of the template and the rationale behind the change are mentioned in a separate spread sheet in [A5].

The important modifications to the new template are given below. The number in the bracket after the modification denotes the points from the SUS form which are considered for making the change. The line/paragraph in blue after the modification explains the principles which have been considered for making the addition/modification to the template.

6.3.7.1.Better chunking of the information in the sections to reorganize the sections: (4, 8)

The ‘information’ section and the ‘aim / learning objectives’ were two separate sections in 1.0, now they would be clubbed to make one section titled ‘information’.

This modification is based on the principle of similarity from the graphic design domain, and chunking principle from the interaction design domain.

6.3.7.2.Further detailing of the subsections:

The ‘information’ section in 2.0 will have the following subsections:

  • Title of the LO
  • Domain (Subject area of the LO): This would be useful at a later stage, when the users will search the repository
  • Short write up about the LO: This is mainly based on the feedback of the animators for the point numbers 4 and 9 in the SUS forms. First one was about the requirement of a technical person to be able to animate the IDD, and the second one was about the confidence of animating the IDD.
  • This write up should give the animator and the users a general overview of the concept.
  • Definitions of the important keywords in the LO
  • Addition of new sections which will provide more visual information:

In the version 2.0, a new section is proposed titled ‘master layout’. This section expects the SME/ID writer to create an image of the elements present in that LO, placed on their respective positions. It also expects the proposed scale of these elements to be depicted, so that the relative proportions and the distance between the elements are clear to the animator. In addition to this the master layout should also depict the extreme positions in the animation, so that the animator gets to know the area to be covered.

This addition is based on the principles of animation layout and staging in the classical animation.

6.3.7.4.Creating a format for the SMEs/ID writers so that they can write the steps of the animation in a way that it is usable for the animator:

The SMEs and ID writers are well versed with the concept, and also are able to visualize the motion of the same. The version 1.0 of the IDD template had few pointers to the writers to explain the motion of the concept in detail. In such conditions, wherever the writers failed/missed to write the exact details, the animators were left to assume things on their own. The animators, who are not the content experts, stand a chance to make a mistake in the visualization/movement of the unexplained portions.

Based on this feedback, two sub sections were created in the ‘explain the concept’ section. One was of explaining the concept using an analogy, and the other one was a step wise description. The analogy was expected to be used only for the benefit of the animator and not as a part of the final LO. Using a day to day example to explain the concept was planned to be included so that the animator and the user is completely aware of the concept [reference for how analogy helps in better understanding of a concept from Anura], prior to see the animation of the concept.

The step wise description sub section was created with detailed guidelines for the writers. It strongly recommended using images for each and every step. The format for writing the instructions was designed with an empty box for inserting an image in every step. This was planned to provide a prompt to the writers to add an image at every step if possible. It was also strongly recommended that the writers should use a new slide for each step. This was to avoiding the confusion the animators had (with version 1.0 format) about the flow of action.

Separate columns were made in the table to segregate the onscreen action/ onscreen text and the audio to be added as narration. This was to avoid the confusion of what is to be shown on screen and more importantly what is NOT to be shown onscreen.

6.3.7.5.New section introduced titled ‘animation design’ (8, 9)

A default animation design template is provided in a separate section. This is a suggestive layout which shows default sections in an LO. There is an option to add/delete sections. Writers are expected to create a mapping with of the slide numbers with the sections on the animation design where the information should be displayed.

This addition is based on the principles of animation layout and staging in the classical animation.

6.3.7.6.Reorganization of the section ‘interactivity and boundary limits’

The interactivity section is one of the most important sections in an LO. It is clear that the usability of this section depends heavily on the clarity of instructions given to the animator. Since the SMEs and the ID writers are not (expected) to be well versed with the amount of details required by the animators in order to animate it, a format is proposed in the template version 2.0. This is a comprehensive table which has columns for the data required.

Sample interactivity types were mentioned in the instructions slide, and were expected to be chosen by the writers. The next column expected the writers to write specific instructions to be displayed/conveyed (through audio) to the learners. Ex: select any one of the metal from the options given below. Third column expected the writers to write about the boundary limits of the interactivity option. Ex: the temperature should only allow numerical entries and the number should not exceed 16. Decimal points are also not allowed in this box. The fourth box had the instructions to the animator. The final column was for writing the results to be displayed for the various scenarios possible for the interactivity options.

6.3.7.7.Reorganization of the section ‘questionnaire’ and ‘references’

The section about the assessment of the users had few instructions for the writers in the version 1.0. In the new version, pointers were provided for creating questions which the user would be answering after interacting with the LO.

This addition is based on the pedagogy principles

The final section of references was also reorganized in the new version 2.0. It now had pointers for the writers to club their information in various types like websites, research papers or books.

This addition is based on the pedagogy principles and chunking principle from the interaction design domain.

Section Name / Details / New section name / Details / Rationale
  1. Information
/ Domain area, Course name, Definitions of keywords /
  • Short information of the LO,
  • Learning objectives,
  • Definitions of the keywords

  1. Aim / Learning objectives
/ What is the aim of creating this LO, OR what will the users be able to do by using this LO
  1. Procedure
/ Details of the animation. This didn’t have a template regarding text/visuals to be inserted
  1. Interactivity
/ Details of what the SME would like to have so that the users can interact with the LO
  1. Assessment questions
/ MCQ questions to test whether the users have understood the concept
  1. Further reading
/ Mainly references section

6.4.Analysis of the feedback (A1)

6.5.Study of principles:

6.5.1.Graphic design: Here the analysis of the 7 graphic design principles will be provided in a few paragraphs.

6.5.1.1.Set of principles considered in this research are based on the taxonomy of Gestalts principles. (Reasons for selecting them: Most researched)

6.5.1.2.What are the principles (in brief)

a) Figure and ground: Principle of figure and ground is to be able to distinguish between the foreground and background in a visual field. Definitions of the keywords mentioned above are as follows:

Foreground: In parlance of the graphic design, foreground is the area in the overall visual which has the objects nearer to the viewer in terms of the visual depth. This will have the components/objects which are the ones the designer feels that the viewers should see at first.

Background: Background is the area which has objects which the designer feels that user should see AFTER they have seen the foreground. Objects in the background are placed in such a way that they appear far away to the viewer in terms of the visual depth.

Use of figure and ground principle helps in achieving correct communication. As in the example 1, the message to be communicated is the image of the buildings. It is made ‘figure’, (by using the dark most colour, making it bigger than other objects, and placing it at the centre of the ‘ground’) and demands the attention of the viewer. The ‘ground’ is a pattern of horizontal lines, and a circle. Even if this image is used full screen, the low contrast of the colours used for the two objects makes it seem away, or in the background. The vertical rectangles denoting the buildings thus become the nearest graphic and therefore become the figure.