Comparing Productivity Tools for Faculty Training: Articulate Rise 360 vs. an AI-Assisted GitHub Page
Saturday, August 8, 2026
Purpose
This post is the third in a series of blog post assignments. The following is the goal: compare completing the same task in a plain Word document (simulating a no/low tech solution), with no dedicated authoring tool, against completing it with a purpose-built authoring tool and with an AI-assisted, code-based alternative, then recommend one option to a general audience based on the results.
The Task
Based on a task I have had to conduct often, I selected the creation of a self-paced faculty training on an administrative task educators are responsible for completing. This kind of training is a recurring need in my role, and it doubles as a resource for our developing Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL).
The Tools
- Articulate Rise 360, a purpose-built, block-based e-learning authoring tool designed specifically for creating responsive training modules.
- An AI chatbot paired with GitHub Pages, a free, code-based approach where the chatbot helps draft both the training content and the HTML needed to publish it as a static site.
Both tools were tested against a baseline of building the same training as a plain Word document, the kind of file most people would reach for by default with no dedicated authoring platform.
Running the Trials
Each trial targeted the same deliverable: roughly 15 to 20 minutes of self-paced content, including written explanation, one embedded piece of media, a short interactive knowledge check, and a finished, shareable module. Time was not assumed to differ dramatically across trials; a capable writer can draft explanatory content about as quickly in Word as in Rise 360 or with AI assistance. The meaningful difference shows up in what each format can actually do once it is built, particularly around interactivity and built-in features.
Trial 1: Plain Word Document (Baseline)
The baseline trial involves building the training as a single Word document: writing out the explanatory content, formatting headings by hand, and adding alt text, contrast-checked colors, and image descriptions directly in the file. Writing the content itself is not necessarily slower than in the other two tools. The real limitation is structural: there is no way to add a quiz a learner can actually answer, no branching, no click-to-reveal, and no way to embed a video that plays inline rather than linking out.
- Projected time: 4 to 6 hours
- Projected effort: high, all formatting and accessibility checks done manually with no reusable template
- Projected quality: low, a well-structured document but with no interactivity and a hard ceiling on what features are possible
Trial 2: Articulate Rise 360
The second trial involves building the same training in Articulate Rise 360, using its block-based editor and pre-built responsive templates to add text, media, and an interactive knowledge check.
- Projected time: 3 to 4 hours
- Projected effort: low, drag-and-drop blocks and built-in interactivity
- Projected quality: high, responsive design with accessibility-conscious templates and genuine interactive features
Trial 3: AI Chatbot + GitHub Pages
The third trial involves prompting an AI chatbot to help draft both the training content and the HTML and CSS needed to present it, then publishing the result as a static site through GitHub Pages.
- Projected time: 4 to 5 hours
- Projected effort: medium, less manual formatting than the baseline, but requires iterative prompting, code review, and manual fixes
- Projected quality: medium to high, capable of real interactivity if coded carefully, but more variable and dependent on review
Here is the code provided by Gemini...
<!doctype html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8" />
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0" />
<title>Final Class Roster Certification Guide</title>
<!-- Shoelace Theme and Autoloader -->
<link
rel="stylesheet"
href="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@shoelace-style/shoelace@2.15.0/cdn/themes/light.css"
/>
<script
type="module"
src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@shoelace-style/shoelace@2.15.0/cdn/shoelace-autoloader.js"
></script>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="styles.css" />
</head>
<body>
<header class="app-header">
<div class="container">
<h1>Final Class Roster Certification</h1>
<p class="lead">
A step-by-step guide for faculty to certify class rosters
via Institution Connect.
</p>
</div>
</header>
<main class="container">
<section class="policy-card" aria-labelledby="policy-heading">
<h2 id="policy-heading">Overview & Deadlines</h2>
<p>
Final Class Rosters for your courses based on the official
registration of each student through the end of the
registration period will be available to you online through
Institution Connect > Self Service. Faculty must certify
their class rosters(s) and submit them through Self Service
no later than the
<strong>3rd day after the term census</strong>.
</p>
</section>
<section aria-labelledby="steps-heading">
<h2 id="steps-heading">Step-by-Step Instructions</h2>
<sl-details-group>
<sl-details
summary="Step 1: Access the Faculty Portal"
open
>
<p>
Log in to Institution Connect. Click the
<strong>+ icon</strong> next to “Employee
Self-Service”. Then select “Faculty Portal” from the
expanded list.
</p>
<img
src="assets/images/01-faculty-portal-link.png"
alt="Screenshot showing the Faculty Portal link under Employee Self-Service"
class="step-image"
/>
</sl-details>
<sl-details summary="Step 2: Select Your Course Section">
<p>
Activate the correct section from the list to
certify the Final Class Roster.
</p>
<img
src="assets/images/02-section-selection.png"
alt="Screenshot showing the Section Name and Title selection area"
class="step-image"
/>
</sl-details>
<sl-details summary="Step 3: Navigate to the Census Date">
<p>
Select “Final Class Roster” and then select
“Census”. The date of the census will be listed as
<strong class="dynamic-census-date"></strong>.
</p>
<img
src="assets/images/03-census-tab.png"
alt="Screenshot highlighting the Final Class Roster tab and the Census date"
class="step-image"
/>
</sl-details>
<sl-details summary="Step 4: Mark Non-Attending Students">
<p>
Select which students “NEVER ATTENDED” by checking
the box under “Never Attended”. Check the box for
any student who was not marked present by census.
</p>
<img
src="assets/images/04-never-attended-checkbox.png"
alt="Screenshot pointing to the checkboxes for students who did not attend"
class="step-image"
/>
</sl-details>
<sl-details summary="Step 5: Certify the Roster">
<p>
Once you have selected every student who Never
Attended, click “Certify.”
</p>
<img
src="assets/images/05-certify-button.png"
alt="Screenshot highlighting the blue Certify button"
class="step-image"
/>
</sl-details>
<sl-details summary="Step 6: Submit and Confirm">
<p>
If you are ready to submit, select “Continue.” This
will submit your final class roster.
<em
>Please note, there is no email
confirmation.</em
>
</p>
<img
src="assets/images/06-continue-modal.png"
alt="Screenshot showing the Complete Final Class Roster modal and Continue button"
class="step-image"
/>
</sl-details>
<sl-details summary="Step 7: Verify Submission">
<p>
To verify that your roster was submitted, the “Final
Class Roster” tab will indicate that “There is no
census to certify for the section.”
</p>
<img
src="assets/images/07-success-verification.png"
alt="Screenshot of the verification message stating there is no census to certify"
class="step-image"
/>
</sl-details>
</sl-details-group>
</section>
<section
class="policy-card mt-4"
aria-labelledby="important-notes-heading"
>
<h2 id="important-notes-heading">
Important Administrative Policies
</h2>
<ul>
<li>
If a student has not attended, they will
<strong>not</strong> be withdrawn for having “never
attended.” Students who wish to withdraw must follow the
official Course Withdrawals procedure.
</li>
<li>
Any student not on the class roster at this point has
neither registered nor paid for the class.
</li>
<li>
If there are students enrolled in your class who do not
appear on this roster and would like to be
dual-enrolled, they must register immediately or contact
support.
</li>
</ul>
</section>
</main>
<footer class="app-footer">
<div class="container">
<p>
<strong>Questions or Technical Assistance?</strong><br />
Email
<a href="mailto:help@yourinstitution.edu"
>help@yourinstitution.edu</a
>
</p>
</div>
</footer>
<script src="script.js"></script>
</body>
</html>
:root {
/* WCAG AA Compliant Color Overrides for Shoelace */
--sl-color-primary-50: #f0f9ff;
--sl-color-primary-100: #e0f2fe;
--sl-color-primary-200: #bae6fd;
--sl-color-primary-300: #7dd3fc;
--sl-color-primary-400: #38bdf8;
--sl-color-primary-500: #0ea5e9;
--sl-color-primary-600: #0284c7;
--sl-color-primary-700: #0369a1; /* Main interactive color */
--sl-color-primary-800: #075985;
--sl-color-primary-900: #0c4a6e;
/* Focus rings for keyboard navigation */
--sl-focus-ring-color: var(--sl-color-primary-600);
--sl-focus-ring-width: 3px;
/* Base styling vars */
--bg-color: #f8fafc;
--text-main: #1e293b;
--container-width: 800px;
}
body {
font-family: var(--sl-font-sans);
background-color: var(--bg-color);
color: var(--text-main);
line-height: 1.6;
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
padding-bottom: 4rem;
}
.container {
max-width: var(--container-width);
margin: 0 auto;
padding: 0 1.5rem;
}
.app-header {
background-color: white;
padding: 2rem 0;
margin-bottom: 2rem;
border-bottom: 1px solid #e2e8f0;
box-shadow: 0 1px 3px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.05);
}
.app-header h1 {
margin: 0 0 0.5rem 0;
font-size: 2rem;
color: var(--sl-color-primary-900);
}
.lead {
font-size: 1.125rem;
color: #475569;
margin: 0;
}
h2 {
font-size: 1.5rem;
margin-bottom: 1rem;
color: var(--sl-color-primary-900);
}
.policy-card {
background-color: white;
border: 1px solid #e2e8f0;
border-radius: var(--sl-border-radius-medium);
padding: 1.5rem;
margin-bottom: 2rem;
box-shadow: 0 1px 3px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.05);
}
.mt-4 {
margin-top: 2rem;
}
ul {
padding-left: 1.5rem;
}
li {
margin-bottom: 0.75rem;
}
.step-image {
max-width: 100%;
height: auto;
border: 1px solid #cbd5e1;
border-radius: var(--sl-border-radius-small);
margin-top: 1rem;
box-shadow: 0 4px 6px -1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1);
}
.app-footer {
margin-top: 3rem;
text-align: center;
padding-top: 2rem;
border-top: 1px solid #e2e8f0;
}
.app-footer a {
color: var(--sl-color-primary-700);
font-weight: bold;
text-decoration: underline;
text-underline-offset: 4px;
}
.app-footer a:hover,
.app-footer a:focus {
color: var(--sl-color-primary-900);
}
document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", () => {
// Determine a dynamic, realistic census date
const today = new Date();
// Format the date (e.g., "August 8, 2026")
const options = { year: "numeric", month: "long", day: "numeric" };
const formattedDate = today.toLocaleDateString("en-US", options);
// Find all elements requiring the dynamic date and update them
const datePlaceholders = document.querySelectorAll(".dynamic-census-date");
datePlaceholders.forEach((el) => {
el.innerText = formattedDate;
});
});
And the product of the AI prompts scored well on Lighthouse's accessibility audit.
Analyzing the Results
The Baseline
Building the training as a plain Word document is not necessarily slower than authoring in a dedicated tool; a capable writer can draft the same explanatory content about as quickly. The real downside is the ceiling on what the format can do once it is finished. Word has no way to add a quiz a learner can actually answer, no branching, no click-to-reveal, and no way to embed a video that plays inline rather than linking out.
Ismail (2024) situates this at the lowest rung of eLearning interactivity, calling it “passive interactivity”: static, non-interactive content such as text-based documents, where learners are recipients of information with no control over the learning experience. That review reports that passive content is consistently associated with lower engagement, weaker knowledge retention, and less transfer of learning compared with even modestly interactive formats (Ismail, 2024). This mirrors Kipps and Jones’s (2020) broader observation that familiar office tools remain reliable but structurally limited compared with tools built for a specific kind of work.
That said, the research is not unanimous. A randomized controlled trial by Schnieders et al. (2022) compared an interactive e-learning module with a noninteractive one and found no significant difference in learner satisfaction or knowledge gain. That result is a useful check on overclaiming: interactivity's benefits depend on how well the interactive version is built and how easily learners can access it, not on interactivity as a feature checkbox.
Articulate Rise 360
Rise 360 is projected to be the strongest performer on interactivity and built-in feature set, since it is purpose-built for exactly this kind of task. Murrell (2022) frames good technology choices around two criteria: whether a tool performs an essential function, and whether it is cost-effective relative to that function. Rise 360 clearly satisfies the first criterion, but its subscription cost is a real consideration for a solo or small instructional design operation, which is the kind of tradeoff Murrell (2022) says should factor directly into a tool recommendation rather than being treated as a side issue.
AI Chatbot + GitHub Pages
The AI-assisted, code-based approach is projected to fall in the middle: capable of genuine interactivity, close to free, but more variable in execution, since results depend heavily on prompting skill and manual review. Pathak (2022) offers a useful caution here, warning against what he terms the mirage of data reductionism, the assumption that packaging content into a polished digital format guarantees that learning actually happens. A feature-rich, AI-generated page is not automatically effective training if the underlying instructional design was not carefully considered.
Recommendation
For a general audience building faculty training, the recommendation is not a single universal winner but a use-case-based choice, and it should not rest on the assumption that a plain document is the slow option. The real question is how much interactivity the content needs. Simple reference material with little need for practice or feedback may not benefit much from a dedicated authoring tool at all. Content that depends on learners actually doing something — answering, deciding, exploring — is where the gap Ismail (2024) describes between passive and interactive formats becomes consequential.
Murrell (2022) recommends mixing and matching tools rather than assuming one must serve every purpose, pairing a robust, paid tool for core, high-stakes work with lower-cost alternatives for lighter or occasional needs. Applied here: for training that depends on practice and feedback and will be reused across multiple semesters or scaled institution-wide, Articulate Rise 360 is worth its cost, since its built-in interactivity compounds with reuse in a way a static document cannot. For a lighter, one-time training need where a plain document would genuinely suffice, an AI chatbot paired with GitHub Pages is a reasonable middle ground, capable of real interactivity when the builder reviews the output carefully rather than treating a polished appearance as a substitute for sound instructional design (Pathak, 2022).
Whichever tool is chosen, Schnieders et al. (2022) is a useful reminder that interactivity alone does not guarantee a better outcome; a poorly executed or hard-to-access interactive module can perform no better than a static one. And Pathak's (2022) closing point is worth keeping in view regardless of format: technology should aid the instructor, not replace the human elements of teaching. Pairing any self-paced module with a short human touchpoint, such as an introductory video or an offer of office hours, helps preserve that balance.
References
Kipps, K. L., & Jones, A. K. (2020). Things are looking up: Using cloud-based technology tools in collection management workflows. Serials Review, 46(3), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2020.1806646
Murrell, M. (2022). Essential technology to launch a solo or small law firm: Part 2. GPSolo, 39(4).
Pathak, T. (2022). Innovative technology in higher education: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management & Public Policy, 13(2), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.47914/jmpp.2022.v13i2.001
Ismail, A. M. A. (2024). Exploring the levels of eLearning interactivity: A review of research literature. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(7), 2997–3024. https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i7.4693
Schnieders, E., Röhr, F., Mbewe, M., Shanzi, A., Berner-Rodoreda, A., Barteit, S., Louis, V. R., Andreadis, P., Syakantu, G., & Neuhann, F. (2022). Real-life evaluation of an interactive versus noninteractive e-learning module on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for medical licentiate students in Zambia: Web-based, mixed methods randomized controlled trial. JMIR Medical Education, 8(1), e34751. https://doi.org/10.2196/34751