Thoughts on ID Documentation and Storyboarding...

Having a background in graphic design and illustration, I have come across many opportunities to use document templates. One wouldn't always think that graphic design is a field that lends itself to templates, with art being an open-ended medium. But the more professional work I did, I found myself creating my own templates to work from, be it for animations, brand style guides, or laying out print pieces. Creating templates was essential for my work because it would maintain the quality of my deliverables while saving me time on each new project.

Storyboarding during the animation process begins once the concept and characters are developed and a script is decided upon. The script then informs the development of a storyboard. You can think of the storyboard as capturing the movement of the characters through a scene, and when each frame is connected, it'll bring the scene to life. As an artist, my job was to describe this movement in each scene with rough sketches of the characters, scenery, and perspectives.

My animation background easily translated to developing assets from eLearning storyboards. Like animation, the storyboards described the on-screen visuals, actions, and audience perspective. Whether for in-person, virtual, or hybrid learning experiences, storyboards gave structure, consistency, and depth to the deliverables.

Having worked with many different companies, each with its own version of a storyboard, I have begun to create my own storyboard template using what I've learned. I will share the template in a future blog post but wanted to touch on my early experience with creating design document templates. I believe the best templates come from experience. And when your own is lacking, I trust the experience of those around me. I love looking at examples of what has worked for other IDs in the past so I can learn from them and work their expertise into my own designs. I also believe that the best templates are adaptable, saleable, and easily understood. An ideal template contains enough detail and direction that both a novice and an expert can use it.

With my current experience, I have had the opportunity to write and document data for numerous training deliverables. I have some best practices when it comes to project documentation that I would like to share:

  • Consider your audience: It does not matter that you present information, it only matters that information is communicated. Therefore, consider your readers and meet them where they are. Use their jargon. Position yourself within their contexts and their needs. Make it as easy as possible for them to interpret.

  • Be concise: In that same vein, don't waste readers’ time. Explain what they need to know and nothing more. A wonderful book I read in grade school told the story of the author learning to write by going to his dad to edit his papers. His dad would say, "Well done, but make it three pages instead of five." And then during the next round of feedback, "Well done, but make it one page instead of three." This way the author learned to be direct and concise and attributes his success as a writer in being able to do so.

  • Ask yourself if a novice reader could understand: Indeed it is easy to become overly verbose when writing about something you are passionate and knowledgeable about. It is also easy to make assumptions about your audience and skim over background information you think is unworthy. And while this is the hardest practice to do, I think it is the most worthwhile. Assume the position of a reader who knows nothing of your process or project. Ask the questions you think are obvious. "Why did you do it this way?" "How did you get from point A to point B?" "What assumptions did you make here?" This was you can be sure that your client, coworker, or future self can be clued in to the thought processes and contexts you were operating in. And when in doubt, provide enough references for readers to find out answers for themselves.

Going beyond ADDIE: My introduction to LeaPS

My first job in eLearning revolved around the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) model. At this job, we built custom training for pharmaceutical sales reps. Being on the development side of these training modules, I worked with instructional designers to create assets based on their storyboards. At the time, this was the only exposure I had to IDs and (embarrassingly) thought instructional design was synonymous with designing eLearning modules. After all, the company’s purpose was to develop eLearning training, and it achieved that purpose very well.

Image depicts a round shape divided into five sections, each with its own heading. The sections are A: Analyze, D: Design, D: develop, I: Implement, and E: Evaluate.

A version of the ADDIE model approach to training used by my current organization.

This brings me back to ADDIE. In that environment, ADDIE (at least how we used it) served us very well. A client would come to us with a training request, my team would ask a few questions (the Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How?), we would design a storyboard, develop the training, send it off to the client, and update as necessary based on the client’s feedback and the learners’ reception. Simple, right? …and that was the extent of my relationship to ADDIE.

I think the beauty of ADDIE lies in its simplicity. You can explain it easily to clients. It can be used as a linear step-by-step. When I was onboarding at that job, a one-page pdf document was all I needed to learn the model. Looking back, I can recognize that my experience in an ADDIE-driven environment, while maybe not unique, was certainly not all that it could be. I don’t think I ever appreciated what ADDIE was capable of.

As I would come to learn, ADDIE is not a single model in and of itself, but a family of models with a common structure. It makes sense then that without embracing a more customized and detailed version of an ADDIE model, we did not understand how our deliverables could benefit from the process. After all, looking at the general ADDIE model gives users no indication of what to focus on, what questions to ask, what data points to collect, what deliverables each step should yield, how those deliverables add to the process…while it’s a nice model to reference, it does little to inspire action. No wonder I didn’t appreciate the power of models when I entered my master’s program.

During my OPWL master’s program, I was shocked and overwhelmed by how many models existed to help HPT practitioners accomplish their goals. I had always considered models to be a pretty summary or a way of presenting information rather than a systematic process to be followed. Suddenly I was inundated with dozens of models at my disposal, to help me work through issues. I’m lucky that I built a better relationship with models before I was introduced to OPWL’s very own LeaPS ID model.

LeaPS ID Model, introduced by the OPWL Masters Program at Boise State

Through the mastery of a group of professors at Boise State and their willingness to share their expertise, the LeaPS ID model offers a new approach to instructional design. Building upon and adding to many proven instructional design models, LeaPS gives more detail, insight, direction, and suggestions to beginner instructional designers. Admittedly the model is overwhelming at first glance. The graphic designer in me wants to take a stab at making the information more digestible and fluid (maybe a future post?). But the usefulness of the model itself is undeniable. I already have ideas about its application to my current organization and what it could mean for the future of our deliverables.

If you’re curious, check out the YouTube videos below for more information on the LeaPS ID Model:


What’s next:

  • How my current organization could benefit from the LeaPS approach