Storyboard, Screens and Scripts: Evaluating Technologies and Developing the Branching Scenario at the Center of a Supported Conversation Module
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
NSG/534: Facilitating Engaged Learning
Week 4 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The school, its systems and the module are a composite written for a model paper.
In Week 3, I designed the activities for the aphasia communication module, including a branching scenario in which the student cares for Mr. Alvarez, a man with nonfluent aphasia after stroke. This paper evaluates the technologies available to build that scenario and develops its storyboard.
Criteria for Choosing Technology
Five criteria, drawn from the analysis and design phases, guide the choice: it must support branching choices with video consequences, since objective 2 depends on seeing the results of decisions; it must meet accessibility standards, including captions and keyboard navigation; it must integrate with the school's learning management system so completion is recorded automatically; it must cost little or nothing beyond existing licenses; and it must be maintainable by faculty without a professional developer, since the scenario will need updates.
Three Options
Option 1: the learning management system's built-in branching tool. It is free, integrated and simple to maintain, supports embedded video and records completion. Its limits are a plain appearance and limited feedback formatting.
Option 2: a commercial authoring tool licensed by the university's online learning office. It produces polished interactive content with strong accessibility features, but licenses are limited to the online learning staff, so faculty would depend on them for every change.
Option 3: a virtual patient platform used by the medical school. It offers realistic avatars and speech recognition, but costs a per-student fee, does not include aphasia cases and would require a vendor to build one.
The Choice
The learning management system's branching tool meets all five criteria, and its plain appearance matters less than the ability to update the scenario quickly and record completion automatically. Branch (2009) cautions that development should be guided by what the design requires rather than by what the most advanced tool can do. The deciding factor was maintenance: a scenario that only a vendor can edit will be out of date the first time a technique or a video needs changing. Video for the scenario will be recorded in the simulation center with the standardized patient who will later portray Mr. Alvarez, which also gives students continuity between the online scenario and the simulation.
Content Accuracy
Every technique shown in the scenario follows the supported conversation methods described by Kagan (1998): acknowledging the person's competence, keeping sentences short, using gesture and written key words, checking understanding and allowing time. The speech-language pathologist will review each screen against these methods before recording, so that students do not learn a technique incorrectly from the product meant to teach it.
Storyboard: Opening Screens
Screen 1, title and purpose. Visual: a photograph of a hospital room doorway. On-screen text: "Morning care for Mr. Alvarez. About 15 minutes." Narration: "In this scenario you are Mr. Alvarez's nurse. You will make five decisions. Some will help him communicate, some will not. Choose what you would really do." Button: Begin.
Screen 2, background. Visual: a short chart summary. On-screen text: "Mr. Alvarez, 68. Left-hemisphere ischemic stroke three weeks ago. Nonfluent aphasia: understands short sentences, has great difficulty finding words, can point and nod. Right arm weakness." Narration is not used on this screen, so students can read at their own pace. Button: Enter the room.
Storyboard: Decision Point 1
Video, 15 seconds: Mr. Alvarez sits in a chair; his wife is at the bedside. He looks up as the nurse enters.
Question: "What do you do first?"
Choice A: "Greet his wife and ask her how he slept." Feedback video: Mr. Alvarez looks away; his wife answers for him. Feedback text: "Speaking to family first tells the patient he is not part of the conversation. Start with him."
Choice B: "Sit at his eye level, say 'Good morning, Mr. Alvarez. I'm Sam, your nurse,' and wait." Feedback video: he smiles and says "Good... good." Feedback text: "Eye level, a short greeting and time to respond. This acknowledges his competence."
Choice C: "Say 'Good morning, I'm here to give your meds and check your pain and blood pressure, okay?'" Feedback video: he looks confused and nods. Feedback text: "Several ideas in one sentence are hard to process. His nod may not mean he understood."
Correct path: B continues the scenario; A and C show feedback, then return the student to the decision.
Storyboard: Decision Point 2
Video, 10 seconds: the nurse holds his medication cup.
Question: "How do you ask about his pain?"
Choice A: "'Are you having any pain today, and if you are, where is it and how bad on a scale of zero to ten?'" Feedback: "A long, multi-part question. He cannot answer all of it."
Choice B: "Point to your own shoulder and say 'Pain?' then show the pictorial pain scale." Feedback video: he points to his right shoulder and then to the face showing moderate pain. Feedback text: "One idea, a gesture and a visual scale let him answer accurately."
Choice C: "Ask his wife whether he has complained of pain." Feedback: "His wife may know, but he can tell you himself if you give him a way to."
The remaining three decision points follow the same structure, covering explaining a procedure, finding out a preference and checking understanding before leaving.
Design Rules Applied
Each screen presents one idea, narration is used with visuals rather than duplicating text, videos are short and every video is captioned, following principles for reducing cognitive load in multimedia learning (Mayer & Moreno, 2003). Feedback explains why, not just whether, a choice was right. Choices are written to be plausible; the poor choices reflect what students were actually observed doing in Week 1.
Storyboard: Closing Screen
Screen 8, summary. Visual: a still of Mr. Alvarez smiling with the pain scale on his tray. On-screen text lists the five techniques used in the best path. Narration: "You spoke to Mr. Alvarez, not about him. You kept each question to one idea, used gesture and pictures and waited. Next week you will practice these with a partner and then with Mr. Alvarez in the simulation center." Button: Continue to the quiz. A printable card with the techniques is linked from this screen.
Development Timeline and Review
Weeks 1 and 2: write and review the full script with the speech-language pathologist, who will confirm that Mr. Alvarez's responses are realistic for nonfluent aphasia. Week 3: record video in the simulation center. Week 4: build the scenario in the learning management system and add captions. Week 5: alpha test with two faculty for errors and navigation, then beta test with four students from last semester, who will complete the scenario and give feedback on clarity, length and realism. Fixes will be made before implementation.
Conclusion
The learning management system's branching tool was chosen because it meets the design's needs and can be maintained by faculty. The storyboard for the opening screens and first two decision points shows how each choice, video and feedback message serves the objectives and follows design rules for manageable cognitive load. Week 5 will plan implementation.
References
Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6
Kagan, A. (1998). Supported conversation for adults with aphasia: Methods and resources for training conversation partners. Aphasiology, 12(9), 816-830. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687039808249575
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
How this NSG 534 Week 4 example is structured
The NSG/534 description stresses using current technologies to create instructional products and solutions. This paper first evaluates technology options with defined criteria, then shows development rather than describing it: a storyboard with screen content, narration, choices and feedback that a developer could build, followed by the review steps that check it before implementation. Students search this week as NSG 534 Week 4, NSG534 Wk 4 or NSG/534 Wk 4; all three are the same assignment.
NSG/534 Week 4 questions, answered
What does NSG/534 Week 4 usually ask for?
Many sections ask students to evaluate technologies for their instructional product and begin the development phase, often by producing a storyboard or prototype.
What is a storyboard in instructional design?
A screen-by-screen plan showing what learners will see, hear and do, including text, images, narration, choices and feedback, used to build and review the product before production.
How should technology be chosen for instruction?
By criteria tied to the objectives and learners: whether it supports the needed interaction, is accessible, fits existing systems, is affordable and can be maintained by the people who will use it.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.