Tools:
An RLO co-design toolkit was specially designed for RLO development as part of the ACoRD capacity building project and include the following tools:
- Open-source storyboard graphic template which was provided to PCU partners and outputted by commercial printers in Malaysia
- Bespoke specification tool (access rights for all PCU colleagues provided by Helm)
- HTML 5 – RLO template (available via creative commons licencing on GitHub)
- Peer Review forms 1 & 2 (Currently available as word documents)
- Evaluation toolkit (Open source and adapted from 2005 RLO-CETL project version)
The tools listed above support the ASPIRE development framework which was used by all our PCU teams to produce their RLOs.
ASPIRE and the RLO workflow:
The following section looks at how RLO workflow links into the ASPIRE development framework and provides an overview of the tools required at each stage.
It is important to note that the ACoRD project used a more traditional approach towards RLO development, where large parts of the workflow took place in classroom-based settings and face to face meetings.
The outbreak of the Covid pandemic and the need to isolate created a necessity for all RLO workflow practices to be adapted for online delivery.
A – Aims – The focus of the project can be decided during a meeting prior to development work. Usually, this a meeting involves the content author, RLO mentor and member of development team. The content author will outline the RLOs learning objective and is guided by the mentor and developer on how best to deliver their ideas to other project stakeholders in the next storyboarding step.
Meeting in person: Quiet room to discuss ideas.
Tools: Pen and paper for note taking.
Online delivery: Team collaboration/communication software such as Microsoft teams.
Tools: Computer with online access and communication software installed – Pen and paper for note taking.
S – Storyboarding – relevant stakeholders are invited to attend a storyboarding session where they learn about RLOs via a presentation provided at the start of the session by the project mentor and developer. They are then split up into small groups no larger than 6 people and record their ideas on a storyboard. The session can last from one hour to a whole working day. At the end of the session each group are invited to feedback on their ideas.The aim and learning objective for the RLO is often altered during this step, after further ideas and opinions discussed.
Meeting in person: Classroom with desks that can join together and large enough to cater for the number of stakeholders invited.
Tools: Computer and projector, pens, wipes A0 storyboard for each working group, Camera.
Online delivery:
Tools: Online storyboarding software such a Mural or Google Jam Board, pens and paper.
P – Populate – This is probably one of the hardest steps, as the content author is required to collate all suggestions raised in the previous storyboarding session and write a development specification complete with guidance on any multi-media elements they wish to include. They are supported by project mentor in this task.
Meeting in person:
Tools: Computer/laptop, pen and paper
Online delivery:
Tools: Online specification tool
I – implementation – this is the development stage which only starts after the first review on the content is completed (referenced in the next step). The assigned developer works with the guidance provided by the project specification and regular contact with content author to produce a multimedia rich RLO.
Tools: Powerful computer with suitable graphics card. Production equipment and accessories to create multimedia content. Content creation software used to produce and edit audio, video, animations etc. Pens and paper. Suitable IDE for coding and testing environment to ensure the RLO meets accessibility standards and runs correctly on all platforms and operating systems.
R- Review – A two-step peer review is employed to ensure quality and standards are met. A content review is generally carried out by a subject expert who is currently not involved in the project. This allows for a ‘fresh pair of eyes’ to look over the content to make certain all topics and relevant points are included in the RLO. Points raised in this review are sent back to the content author and are not always required to be acted upon. Widening involvement in this way helps to promote a community of practice around the resource which leads to much greater take-up after the RLO is released.
A second peer review is conducted after development. This is solely a technical review which is once again carried out by someone outside of the project, it should test that the RLO runs correctly across all systems and that all multimedia and interactive content works correctly. Any faults are reported back to the developer.
Tools: Both Peer reviewsare currently set up as Microsoft Word documents and sent via email to reviewers to complete feedback.
E – Evaluate – A special evaluation toolkit was developed as part of an earlier project by Helm at the University of Nottingham. It is freely available to download and use via the Helm Open website. The RLOs developed as part of the ACoRD project use Google analytics to provide useful tracking for their resources. Each RLO comes with a feedback form that users can complete and questions are tailored for RLO evaluation purposes.
Tools: The ACoRD project has used Google forms and the evaluation toolkit to evaluate the data produced.
ACoRD Project 