AECT Standard 4
AECT Standard 4 (Professional Knowledge and Skills): Candidates design, develop, implement, and evaluate technology-rich learning environments within a supportive community of practice.
Read below to explore my artifacts.
Artifact 1: “States of Matter” e-learning project
Context & Conditions
The e-learning product “States of Matter” was a requirement for EDET 703 Design and Development Tools II, which was completed during my second semester of the M.Ed. Learning Design and Technologies program. The final e-learning product was developed after thoughtful design planning which is located within this portfolio. The design stages of this product included an instructional strategy plan (explanation of components and rationale for model), a treatment report, a style guide, a site map, a storyboard, and wireframes for the product.
This product was designed for students within a third-grade classroom learning about states of matter in the subject of science. The product’s instructional strategy utilized Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction Model. Gagne’s nine events include: gain attention, inform learners of objectives, stimulate recall of prior learning, present stimulus, provide learner guidance, elicit performance, provide feedback, assess performance, and enhance retention/transfer (Miner et al., 2016). Due to following this instructional strategy, the module includes: a video to introduce the topic and engage learners, objectives presented to show what knowledge will be gained, activation of prior knowledge, presentation of new content, presentation of examples and images, learner knowledge checks throughout the module, immediate specific feedback on knowledge checks, an end of module assessment and additional videos and content to support further retention and exploration of material. The product was designed for learners to interact with the module through a school provided technology device with teacher access for clarification and support. Due to this, linear navigation was included as well as visual tracking for students to see how much they had completed and how much was left to view.
The development of this e-learning product was conducted through the Articulate Rise platform. The module follows the style guides colors/fonts, the site maps required pages and the storyboards required content.
Scope
The purpose of this e-learning product was to have first-hand experience designing and developing an online course via the Articulate Rise platform. This product was developed for any third-grade teacher searching for a new and engaging way to instruct third-grade students on states of matter. This product does not cover an entire instructional unit but would be considered a lesson within a larger science unit.
Role
The design, planning and development of this e-learning product was not an individual assignment. I worked alongside my partner, where we shared equal effort in the design, planning, and development stages of this product.
Instructional Design
The e-learning module “States of Matter” relates to the development of the instruction element of Morrison, Ross, and Kemp’s Model for Instructional Design (MRK). The development of instruction takes place after analysis and design have been completed. The development stage focuses on collecting all instructional materials and developing how they will be presented to learners (Morrison et al., 2019). The e-learning module would fall under the development phase of the ADDIE Instructional Design Model (ADDIE). When conducting the development phase of ADDIE, the instructional designer focuses on the production of the learning materials and learning deliverable (Peterson, 2003).
Related Performance Indicator
AECT Standard 4 (Professional Knowledge and Skills): Candidates design, develop, implement, and evaluate technology-rich learning environments within a supportive community of practice.
Indicators:
-Collaborative Practice – Candidates collaborate with their peers and subject matter experts to analyze learners, develop and design instruction, and evaluate its impact on learners.
-Leadership – Candidates lead their peers in designing and implementing technology-supported learning.
-Reflection on Practice – Candidates analyze and interpret data and artifacts and reflect on the effectiveness of the design, development and implementation of technology-supported instruction and learning to enhance their professional growth.
-Assessing/Evaluating – Candidates design and implement assessment and evaluation plans that align with learning goals and instructional activities.
-Ethics – Candidates demonstrate ethical behavior within the applicable cultural context during all aspects of their work and with respect for the diversity of learners in each setting.
Reflection
During this project I learned the basic steps for: designing/planning e-learning module content, utilizing instructional strategy models, how to create a style guide/site map/storyboard/wireframe and how to create an e-learning module in Articulate Rise. This project was completed when I was first learning not only how to create these deliverables but what purpose they served. When reviewing the design and development of this e-learning module there are several aspects I find to still be appropriate along with some aspects I would do differently.
The style guide, instructional strategy, objectives, and content chosen was appropriate and suits the module well. The changes I would make regard the chunking of content and layout of the e-learning product. All material is presented on one page which poses a few issues. The first issue is that students are not able to tell which section of the material they are learning since the table of contents (TOC) has only one section “States of Matter”. The TOC should have five sections, overview, matter, solid, liquid, gas, and assessment. The second issue is that the knowledge checks are at the end of the content and prior to the end of module assessment. Instead, they should be built into the content sections throughout the module. The next issue is when students are completing the module, they have 0% of the course completed until finishing the course when they then have 100% completed. This does not properly allow for students to track their progress when working through the module. In addition, the title page of the module does not give a proper in-depth explanation of the module content and purpose. Instead, it is a simple sentence which does not give the learner or an evaluator enough information.
Throughout the M.Ed. Learning Design and Technologies program, I have learned the importance of these changes for the purposes of student success, proper navigation, proper chunking of content and accessibility for individuals with disabilities. This e-learning product was a solid beginning but if created now would be changed to improve the final module.
Artifact 2: “Fundamentals of Multi-Digit Addition”
Formative Evaluation Plan
Context & Conditions
This formative evaluation plan deliverable was a requirement of EDET 722 Instructional Design and Assessment, which was completed during my first semester of the M.Ed. Learning Design and Technologies program. The formative evaluation plan is the final section of a much larger document which includes a needs assessment, front-end analysis, performance objectives/assessment items, and an instructional strategy plan. All design documentation was conducted for the purpose of creating an e-learning module for “The Fundamentals of Multi-Digit Addition”. The formative evaluation plan was created to evaluate the effectiveness and value of the interactive module for the purpose of improving the content and presentation of the module.
The first step in creating the formative evaluation plan was to determine the purpose, audience, and possible issues to focus on. Due to the nature of the module, the audience is the instructional designer, the school’s curriculum coach and the school’s administration. The possible issues identified focus on module achievement of objectives, appropriateness of instructional content, and student duration to complete tasks/student misconceptions. The next step in creating the formative evaluation plan was to determine which data collection instruments would be utilized, who would participate in the instruments and how the results would be analyzed. For this plan, an SME notes form, observation notes form, interview, and attitude survey were chosen. The third step in creating the formative evaluation plan was to determine how the results/analysis would be reported to the audience. It was chosen for all data to be compiled into a report for appropriate staff members to view. An evaluation schedule was also created to specify when certain data collection instruments would be used and when data would be collected. At the end of the formative evaluation plan, an appendix was included with examples of blank data collection instruments. All information provided would be needed in order to properly carry out a formative evaluation on this module. Completing the formative evaluation was not a requirement of this assignment.
This formative evaluation was created using the Canva platform. The document was designed with a title page, a TOC, appropriate headings, headers/footers, and page numbers.
Scope
The purpose of the formative evaluation plan section of this artifact was to gain experience designing a thorough evaluation plan, experience creating appropriate data collection instruments and a further understanding of the purposes and need of formative evaluation plans. This artifact was created as part of a larger document that impacted the improvement of instruction for K-2 students within my school building. This artifact is the final section of a fully created design documentation report.
Role
This formative evaluation plan was completed as an individual project. I acted as the sole designer of the instructional design documentation, formative evaluation plan as well as the sole developer for the end e-learning module. Throughout the creation of the design documentation report my professor, reviewed information, gave suggestions for edits and assisted with improvements of material. However, with the formative evaluation plan being the final piece of this project, revisions/improvements were not made.
Instructional Design
The formative evaluation plan would fall under the evaluation instruments and formative evaluation stages of Morrison, Ross, and Kemp’s Model for Instructional Design (MRK). The formative evaluation section of MRK includes purpose, audience, issues, resources, evidence, data-gathering, analysis, and reporting (Morrison et al., 2019). Creation of evaluation instruments serve the purpose of assessing a student’s mastery of the module’s objectives (Morrison et al., 2019). The formative evaluation plan would fall under the evaluation phase of the ADDIE Instructional Design Model (ADDIE). When conducting a formative evaluation in the evaluation phase of ADDIE, the instructional designer must use instruments to decide if the objectives have been achieved and/or if any changes need to be made to improve the product (Peterson, 2003).
Related Performance Indicator
AECT Standard 4 (Professional Knowledge and Skills): Candidates design, develop, implement, and evaluate technology-rich learning environments within a supportive community of practice.
Indicators:
-Collaborative Practice – Candidates collaborate with their peers and subject matter experts to analyze learners, develop and design instruction, and evaluate its impact on learners.
-Leadership – Candidates lead their peers in designing and implementing technology-supported learning.
-Reflection on Practice – Candidates analyze and interpret data and artifacts and reflect on the effectiveness of the design, development and implementation of technology-supported instruction and learning to enhance their professional growth.
-Assessing/Evaluating – Candidates design and implement assessment and evaluation plans that align with learning goals and instructional activities.
-Ethics – Candidates demonstrate ethical behavior within the applicable cultural context during all aspects of their work and with respect for the diversity of learners in each setting.
Reflection
During this project I learned the components of a formative evaluation plan based on the MRK model, how to design a targeted evaluation plan, and how to develop data collection instruments. This artifact was created during my first semester of the program, and it was my first experience designing a formative evaluation plan. When reviewing the artifact there are several aspects I find to still be appropriate along with some aspects I would do differently.
When reviewing the formative evaluation plan, the purpose, audience, type of data collection instruments, and reporting remain appropriate per the document’s nature. The possible issues identified for the formative evaluation’s data collection instruments to target could be improved. The first issue identified was “How well did the learning module appropriately achieve the objectives?” Although this question is on track, it is too broad and unclear as to what information the evaluator is seeking. In addition, when reviewing the data collection instruments, questions targeted to answer this issue were not provided, meaning information from the instruments would not provide details in order to answer this posed question. Adjustments would need to be made to the SME notes form to ensure proper information is collected. A second concern with the identified issues is the question “On average, how many times did students use the “I need a break” option?”. At the time this was created, the purpose of this question was to identify if the module was too difficult for the student base and to identify if students taking breaks would impact the effectiveness and efficiency of implementing the module. However, the question is irrelevant to the modules objectives, and the data collection instruments do not provide proper structure to answer this question properly. The remainder of the issues identified continue to be considered appropriate and supported by the developed data collection instruments.
Throughout the M.Ed. Learning Design and Technologies program, I have learned how various pieces of design documentation reports and formative evaluation plans guide each other and build upon the previous section. I have also learned how the objectives of an evaluation guide and connect to the data collection instruments and the importance this holds in the results/recommendations section of a formative evaluation. This formative evaluation plan artifact was a solid beginning but if created now would be changed to improve the information gathered by the data collection instruments to ensure proper recommendations and adjustments to the end module could be provided.