Content Review

Discovering Your Narrative Voice

Auditing and revising an existing course for a secure, closed-platform learning environment serving justice-involved learners.

Role/Instructional DesignerFocus/Content Audit & RevisionPhases/Analysis, Design, Development, Evaluation
The Challenge

Course content on a secure learning platform assumes the learner can already operate the device it's delivered on. For a meaningful portion of this population, that assumption doesn't hold. Some learners are encountering a touchscreen for the first time as adults, with no internet access, no IT support on demand, and real consequences for visible failure in front of peers or staff.

No Internet Access
Shared Device Time
No IT Support
High Stakes for Failure
Process
01
Analysis
Needs & Task Analysis
02
Design
Objectives & Storyboard
03
Development
Style Guide & Accessibility
04
Evaluation
Rubric & Measurement Plan
What the Audit FoundFive screens
Screenshot: locked video screen
01
Issue
Forced video gate, no skip option
Fix
Learner-controlled skip, reworded prompt
Screenshot: outbound links screen
02
Issue
Standalone screen of outbound links
Fix
Embedded original content, no outbound dependency
Screenshot: second video gate
03
Issue
Second forced video gate
Fix
Same fix applied consistently
Screenshot: 'Voice Switch' activity
04
Issue
Activity depends on an external website
Fix
Source material embedded directly in the activity
Screenshot: character-profile prompt
05
Issue
Stigmatizing character-profile prompt
Fix
Reworded to focus on interiority, not biography
Proof

Built, Not Just Proposed

Before
Screenshot: original locked video screen
After — Implemented in the Live LMS
Screenshot: revised screen in the live LMS

Play on demand, Auto play, and Auto progress all off; skip button enabled; prompt reworded. Learner now controls when the video plays and whether they continue watching or move on.

Scoring the Original
WeakStrong
No external links required
1
No forced-wait gates
1
No stigmatizing language
1
Instructions as invitations, not commands
2
Icon + text label pairing
3
Content chunked for cognitive load
3

Average score: 1.8 of 4.Reflecting real strengths in a few categories alongside specific, fixable failures. The rubric doesn't just confirm what was found; it shows the original module wasn't uniformly weak.

A learner's sense of safety, trust, and willingness to make a visible mistake is shaped by what a screen looks and feels like before they read a single word of content on it. That makes aesthetic and interaction choices instructional decisions, not cosmetic ones layered on top.

On why this project treats visual design as instructional design, not decoration.
Measuring What Actually Worked
Not measurable, by design

Not every outcome is measurable on a platform built around learner privacy. Activities are written on paper by design, so the deepest measures of whether the skill actually landed aren't visible to the platform, and that's treated as the design working as intended, not a data gap to route around.

What is measurable

Completion rates, where learners drop off, and whether they actually use the new skip controls. Each tied to a specific hypothesis from the original audit, checked after the first cohort and quarterly after that.