Context & Conditions
This artifact was created during Fall 2024 in EDET 722: Instructional Design and Assessment at the University of South Carolina. The assignment required the development of a comprehensive Front-End Analysis Report, including both a Needs Assessment and Analysis Report, to inform the design of an instructional module. The focus of this project was to design a pre-reading instructional unit on the Civil Rights Movement to support students before engaging with Claudette Colvin: Twice Toward Justice.
At the time of creation, I brought strong content knowledge as an eighth grade English Language Arts teacher, particularly in teaching historical texts and facilitating discussions around social justice topics. However, I was still developing my ability to systematically apply instructional design models to guide decision-making. This artifact required me to move beyond intuitive lesson planning and instead ground my instructional decisions in data and structured analysis. I applied principles from the ADDIE model (Molenda, 2015), particularly the Analysis phase, by designing and administrating a needs assessment survey to gather data on students’ prior knowledge, interests, and perceived gaps. Additionally, I applied components of the Morrrison, Ross, and Kemp (MRK) model (Morrision, et al., 2019), including identifying learner characteristics, analyzing instructional problems, and defining instructional goals. Tools used included Google Forms for survey data collection and Google Docs for organizing and presenting the report. This artifact reflects my early ability to integrate content knowledge, learner data, and instructional design frameworks into a cohesive planning process.
Scope
The purpose of this artifact was to analyze learner needs and instructional context in order to design a targeted instructional module on the Civil Rights Movement. This project was created for graduate coursework but is directly applicable to my professional classroom, as it informs how I build background knowledge before a complex text. Within a broader curriculum context, this artifact represents the front-end analysis phase of a larger instructional unit, rather than a complete instructional product. Specifically, it serves as the foundation for a 15-20 minute instructional module designed to prepare students for a novel study.
To complete this work, I drew on both my knowledge of curriculum sequencing and my understanding of student learning gaps. For example, I recognized that while students often have surface-level familiarity with key figures, they lack deeper understanding of systemic concepts such as Jim Crow laws, which are essential for comprehending Claudette Colvin’s story. This required me to not only analyze data, but also interpret how content knowledge connects to literacy instruction and student comprehension.
Role
I served as the sole instructional designer and researcher for this artifact. I independently designed the needs assessment survey, collected and analyzed data from student participants, and developed the full Front-End Analysis Report. My role required me to make decisions about what data to collect, how to categorize needs (e.g., felt, expressed, anticipated), and how to translate findings into instructional recommendations.
For example, I determined which survey questions would provide insight into students’ prior knowledge, comfort levels, and engagement preferences. I then analyzed the results to identify patterns, such as students’ strong familiarity with key figures but limited understanding of systemic structure like Jim Crow laws. This process reflects my ability to independently apply instructional design thinking to inform content and instructional decisions.
Instructional Design
This artifact reflects key components of both the ADDIE model and the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (MRK) model, with a strong emphasis on Analysis and Design phases. From an ADDIE perspective, this work primarily represents the Analysis phase (Molenda, 2015), as I systematically gathered and interpreted data to define the instructional problem. For example, I identified a gap between students’ surface-level knowledge (e.g., recognizing key figures) and their deeper conceptual understanding (e.g., legal systems and societal structures). This directly informed the Design phase, where I established instructional goals such as an understanding of key events, analyzing historical context, and exploring Civil Rights legislation.
Within the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model, this artifact demonstrated several essential components, including identification of felt and expressed needs, learner characteristics, instructional problems, and goal analysis (Morrison et al., 2019). For instance, the needs assessment captured expressed needs (student-reported interest in learning about the impact on today’s society) and anticipated needs (lack of knowledge about Jim Crow laws). The goal analysis process, moving from initial goals to refined and ranked goals, reflects systematic instructional planning. Additionally, elements of message dean are evident in how the content was prioritized and structured to fit within a short instructional module. This work is also informed by constructivist principles, as the design emphasizes connecting historical content to present-day contexts, supporting meaningful learning and transfer.
Related Performance Indicators
AECT Standard 1: Content Knowledge
-
1.1 Creating, using, and managing technological processes and resources
Reflection
This artifact represents an important transition in my development from a classroom teacher to an instructional designer. At the time, I was beginning to understand the importance of grounding instructional decisions in data rather than intuition. While I had strong content knowledge of the Civil Rights Movement, this project pushed me to think more critically about how students experience that content and what gaps exist in their understanding. For example, I had previously assumed that students understood foundational concepts like Jim Crow laws, but the data revealed that only 20% of students were familiar with this topic. This realization significantly shifted how I approach content planning.
Now, I recognize that this artifact reflects an early-to-intermediate level of instructional design expertise. While the analysis is thorough, I would strengthen it by incorporating additional data sources, such as teacher input or assessment data, to triangulated findings. I would also more explicitly connect needs assessment results to measurable learning objectives and incorporate considerations for accessibility and differentiation earlier in the process. Additionally, I would integrate tools such as data visualization platforms or learning analytics to more clearly represent trends and support decision-making.
This artifact strongly reflects AECT Standard 1 because it demonstrates my ability to integrate content knowledge with instructional processes and tools to support learning. I used technology (Google Forms) to collect and analyze data and applied that information to design instruction that is both relevant and meaningful for students. Compared to earlier work, this artifact shows growth in my ability to connect content, learners, and instructional design frameworks. It represents a foundational step in my development as an instructional designer who not only understands content deeply, but can also design intentional, data-driven learning experiences that support student understanding and engagement.
References
Molenda, M. (2015). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 54(2), 40–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21461
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2019). Designing effective instruction (8th ed.). Wiley.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.