You are here:

Different Storyboarding Methods in Multimedia Courseware Design
PROCEEDINGS

, Towson University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, ISBN 978-1-880094-37-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

When we use multimedia-authoring tools, such as ToolBook, or Hyperstudio, to develop
courseware or course segment, we usually go through the major phases of systems development.
One of the phases is systems design, in which output, inputs, and navigation are determined and
blueprinted, which, technically, are detailed in storyboards. Traditionally, storyboards can be 5 by 7
index cards, or certain paper forms. The current paper will present another means of
storyboarding—using PowerPoint as a storyboarding tool. The components and procedures of
storyboarding will be introduced. In six undergraduate and four graduate teacher-education
technology classes, students designed multimedia courseware using HyperStudio/ToolBook with
three different storyboarding methods—index cards, paper forms, and PowerPoint. The evaluation
scores on four criteria—screen display, interaction possibilities, orientation and navigation—were
compared. Repeated measures were used for data analysis. Differences were found among the
groups with different storyboarding methods.

Citation

Liu, L. (2000). Different Storyboarding Methods in Multimedia Courseware Design. In D. Willis, J. Price & J. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2000--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 784-789). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 19, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Burch, J.G. (1992). Systems analysis, design, and implementation. Boston, MA: Boyd& Fraser Publishing.
  2. Fankhauser, R., & Lopaczuk, H. (1996). Exploring the multimedia landscape from a training and professional development perspective. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 396 726.
  3. Ivers, K.S., & Barron, A.E. (1998). Multimedia projects in education: Designing, producing, and assessing. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
  4. Liu, L. (1999). Different approaches of system analysis in multimedia courseware design. In W. Jerry, etc. (Eds) Technology and Teacher Education Annual 1999, pp. 830-835. Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
  5. McDaniel, K., & Liu, M. (1996). A study of project management techniques for developing interactive multimedia programs: A practitioner™s perspective. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 396 712.
  6. Reed, W.M., Ayersman, D.J., & Liu, M. (1995). The effect of hypermedia instruction on stages of concern of students with varying authoring language and hypermedia prior experience. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(3), 324-342.
  7. Vrasidas, C., & Harris B.R. (1995). The development of an interactive multimedia CD-ROM; Lessons learned. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 391 496.
  8. Yourdon, E. (1988). Managing the system life cycle. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Yourdon Press.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.