Master of Fine Arts (Terminal Degree)
University of South Dakota; Interdisciplinary
Bachelor of Arts
Souhwest State University; Studio Art,
Anthropology Minor, summa cum laude
VARK Learning Styles Research and development (Center for Statewide E-learning; Northern State University); ICL Paper
Our process focuses on user sucess. This is how we do that:
We begin by first speaking with Clients and Stakeholders. We list the specific needs of each set of stakeholders to ascertain client expectations and user needs at each level
We research available and expected delivery technology (a critical step often overlooked by large firms). We list any potential technology bottlenecks and develop delivery-side solutions. Together we decide what type or types of delivery* will be most effective for your end users
We then formulate our Initial Production Plan, Interface design, visual "style" and get client approval
Only then do we begin Interface Development, and begin the Asset Development / Aquisition
We will test early and often for client usability of interface and asset types and styles
We continue production of assets, assessments, and other content. Use Iterative Deployment if at all possible
We developm Tutorials and "Help" content (Glossaries, Master Menus, etc.) and test these for usability and clarity
Roll Out Product (if unable to use Iterative Deplyment) with Deep Client Support* Web Delivery Options would include Online Asynchronous at Work (known technology; Online Asynchrouous at Home (unknown technology)
Typical Services Might Include:
Simple is good. Simple is effective. Simple works.
Simple does not, however, mean boring or ugly. Simple means straight forward, easy to figure out, easy to understand, and most importantly: easy to use.
"But what," you say, "could possibly go wrong?"
In my experience the stakeholders usually charged with making elearning decisions are often not well equipped to address technological infrastructure issues. This is though no fault of their own, we each have our individual responsibilities and fields of expertise, elearning is mine, and if elearning was theirs I would not have a job.
High pressure salesmen will show you the Latest and Greatest software with all the bells and whistles, after all, you want the best, right? They will promise you the moon, but their job is to get you to sign the contract, not to solve your elearning needs. They hand this responsibility off to others in the company. Some vendors have decent training, many do not.
What could go wrong ... Your end users might have older equipment. They might have dial-up Internet at home. They might appear to be more tech savvy than they really are (aftter all, there is a help desk at work). They might do their work on the kid's homework machine which is old, slow, and chock full of music downloads (and viruses). They might not have the Lastest and Greatest players, plug-ins and Updates. They might not know how to get these. They ight not be motivated enough to ask, or too embarassed. In my own experience, people tend to know how to do a few things well on computers, but with offering elearning we are often asking them to do something new. I don't want to start the elearning experience by frustrating or frightening the client.
The simpler the experience the more effective the contnet learning.
Voicemail: (507) 591-3567
Snail mail: McKinney Elearning Development
16315 140th Street
Walnut Grove, MN 56180
Email me: firstname.lastname@example.org
Because of my unusual schedule email is often the most reliable way to contact me without an appointment.
I was hired as founding faculty responsible for the entire media strand of the new graduate elearning program for the new Center for Statewide E-learning at Northern State University. Over the four years I was there our team built one of the first Masters in E-learning programs in the nation.
Courses I developed and taught included: Multimedia Development; Interface Theory and Design; Simulations, Digital Imaging, Vector Graphics; Digital Video, Digital Audio, and more.
At HTI we often created our own software training as we found that vendor supplied training was usualy less than adequate.
While faculty at NSU I did research into learning styles and did research utilising the VARK Learning Styles Assessment. VARK presumes that learners have tendencies to be better able to retain material presented in their own preferential learning style. Learners are assessed and given scores for their preferences as Visual, Aural (listening), Read-Write, and/or Kinesthetic (hands on) content delivery.
My role in this research project was in project design and then the development of all of the media delivered for each of the four learning styles, and running the content on the university's LMS (WebCT).
One thing that came from this research was a the surprising percentage of students who benefited from kinesthetic materails.
See the additional page for deeper information on this project.
While faculy at the Center for Statewide E-learning I was NSU's liason with the Academic Co-Lab of the Advanced Distributed Learning Initiaive (DoD) at UW Madison. Developing and defining the SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference Model) was the Co-Lab's primary project at that time.
In my research I found a number of problems with the apparently mutually exclusive requirements for effective delvery while meeting the Department of Defense wish list. I developed a legal envelope layer concept that solved nearly al of the inherent problems, and then a course as a proof of concept.
See the additional page for deeper information on this project.
The Petroglyph Simulation was an interesting and unusual challenge. There were several concepts that needed to be shown. One was the investment of time it took to create pecked rock art, another was the ability to relatively date glyphs by the level of "desert varnish."
This simulation was designed to be placed on a kiosk and projected onto a large wall. The basic concept was to allow casual visitors to learn a little about how petroglyphs, rock carvings, were made. There were a few salient points I wanted to make. First, creating a pecked petroglyph is a lot of work and takes a significant amount of time. Second, chipping stone with another stone is not a finely controlled venture; the rocks have a tendency to chip and spall, it is easy to "miss" slightly (the mouse, as a hand tool, worked out well in this case). Third, there is a common phenomenon called desert varnish where exposed rocks darken over time. Petroglyphs can be dated relative to each other by this gradual darkening.
The user has a rock hammer for a cursor icon, which "swings" on each screen tap (orleft-click). Each click adds a small spot of light stone color at that specific point; however, there is a random (about 1 in 10) chance that the point will be a slightly larger spall. To make a pecked design the user must click the mouse at least a few dozen times. To "fill" an area takes quite an investment of time.
The entire image darkens very slowly (about an hour between resets) so as glyphs sit they also darken. Newer glyphs are lighter in color than older ones and can easily be seen as newer.
Testing showed this to be a very effective simulation that helped users understand the difficulty of producing pecked petroglyphs.
The presentation needed to be simple to navigate for casual viewers but had to have additional layers of deeper content for those interested.