- This topic has 9 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 9 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
Hi Christy! I wanted to submit what I have so far. I’d really appreciate your help as I feel a bit stuck at the moment.
– For the first decision point (“Pick a suitable topic”), I’m making learners go back if they don’t pick the right one so I’m forcing them to take the right path for that one.
– For the second decision point, I don’t want to do that again. The way I have it now, I’m making them choose a different option if they don’t pick the perfect one but I’m planning on changing that. I think I should probably let them go through the not so perfect paths (“Draft branching scenario” and “Start prototyping”) for a while but I’d love to discuss options with you, if possible. This is getting quite complex and I’ve realized that I need some help.
– For the third decision point (“Draft questions for SMEs”), I will also let them continue in the not-so-good paths but I’d like to find a way to create some bottlenecks and/or let them go back after a while to correct their mistake.
– For the fourth one (“Plan the branching scenario”), it’ll probably be best to let learners go down each of the paths and I haven’t figured out if it would be best to just let them take the three options down the road, just in a different order depending on what they pick first. Not sure if I’m making sense.Finally, I’d like to hear from you on how to proceed with the rest of the scenario. It’s getting long and kind of procedural, which is not ideal 🙁 Would love to know your thoughts!
By the way, I’m planning on executing this branching scenario using Vyond combined with Storyline. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks again!
-
This is a great start! I think you probably do need to step back and plan out just the structure before you do any more writing within the passages, because that’s where you’re getting stuck.
If your goal is to use Vyond to have some animated videos, I think it’s reasonable to keep yourself to a gauntlet structure. If you want to make it feel a little deeper while still returning to the bottleneck each time, you could show a short-term consequence and a long-term consequence. So, for example, jumping to prototyping first might have a short-term consequence of “This would be such a great color scheme…” Then, 2 days later, you show a scene with “Oh wait! I have a big problem with the structure.” You have that as a single passage right now, but I think a time jump forward makes sense there. It will feel more like a choice, without actually complicating it too much. Then, that would be a little deeper than your first bottleneck, but not too far. I think realistically that either of the not-ideal choices in the second decision probably have to get back to the bottleneck eventually, or they have to lead to a failure and restart.
Where I think you could go less procedural would be in drafting questions for the SMEs and interviewing them. Your 3rd decision point about what kinds of questions to ask is a great jumping off point. Focus on your structure here next. If someone picks “A mix of questions about what managers need to know and to do,” then maybe the next decision is about what questions about what to know. Let them get 1-2 choices down that wrong path, and then back to doing things. Give them a choice to get back to the right questions about what they need to do and potentially even to what mistakes and consequences are important. Don’t worry about scripting it all yet–just write the outline and structure before moving forward. Get a few ideas down, even if they aren’t complete sentences or paragraphs.
Depending on how complicated you want to go, you could have the interview and only have available questions to ask based on what questions the learner identified in the previous branch about writing questions. You’d have to capture variables to note which questions they wrote. That would also give you the opportunity to create a decision point or two around what follow up questions people ask during the interview.
Can you draft some more structure with a little deeper branching specifically around the 3rd decision point? Then we can proceed from there.
-
-
-
Thanks so much for the feedback and suggestions, Christy! I do have a problem with the structure, which I think comes mostly from the fact that I’m learning how to create a branching scenario while trying to “teach” it at the same time 😉 – I’ll go over everything that you recommended and will try to draft some more structure (3rd decision point and beyond) using the gauntlet structure. Hope to share an improved version at some point this week!
-
Just to clarify–I think you can use a gauntlet structure for the 1st and 2nd decisions and just return back to the main path right away. For the 3rd decision in your current path, I think it should branch out a little more. You will probably have some overlap in the options; the mix of questions should include some good behavior questions and weak knowledge questions. It could start out like this.
If you want to just build out that specific section and then upload it again for feedback, I can review it before you try to extend that any further or connect it to your ending.
-
-
-
Hi Christy,
I’m submitting a revised copy in which I tried to fix the first three decision points. Thanks for your willingness to take another look before I continue moving forward!-
This is looking much better! I think the “Start prototyping” with the follow-up consequence before getting an opportunity to correct the mistake makes sense. It’s good ID too–you get the feedback, and then you can make a better choice.
The question structure is coming along too. Now that I’m rereading again, I think the notes about Rob and Cynthia’s qualifications in “Reach out to SMEs” feel a little stiff and not realistic. You could create a separate passage or two with a link to [[Learn about Rob and Cynthia’s qualifications]] and just not pretend it’s in Amanda’s voice. Alternatively, maybe you leave those details out of the story. Those character backgrounds are helpful to you in writing about them, but do the learners need that information?
I know your original goal was to create a full branching scenario showing the whole planning process from start to finish, but what if you narrowed your goal here? What if the learning objectives are just to pick a topic and ask good questions? You could probably end where you have the “Plan the branching scenario” choice right now if you wanted. Instead of fleshing out those choices, you could just show the ideal path as a positive consequence in a cut scene.
It’s not that you can’t continue on with the scenario from your current point, but it’s a matter of being able to get something done. Would you be happier at this point building what you have written so far and just treating it as a complete scenario, or would you rather keep building the structure out after the “Plan the branching scenario” bottleneck and adding more complexity?
-
-
Hi Christy,
Thanks so much for your feedback. Glad to hear you think I’m on the right track here. I didn’t want to develop more until you saw the changes I made based on your previous feedback. I agree with what you said regarding the description of the SMEs. I will streamline that section so that it looks more realistic and leave out some of those unnecessary details.
Regarding narrowing the scope of my scenario, I’ll think about your recommendations. My intention is still to take IDs through the entire process and I know that will make my scenario more complex but it’d feel strange to me to cut it short at this point just to get it done. I’ll work on it some more as soon as I have a chance and re-evaluate then.
Thanks again for everything!
-
- The forum ‘Build Your Branching Scenario Cohort 2 Forum’ is closed to new topics and replies.