Context & Conditions
This artifact was created during Summer 2025 in EDET 735: Technological Applications for Diverse Populations at the University of South Carolina. The assignment required me to analyze a previously developed lesson plan and proactively identify potential barriers to learning using a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework. Rather than reacting to student needs after challenges arise the task emphasized anticipating variability in learners and embedding supports directly into instructional design.
​
At the time of creation, I brought both my professional experience as an 8th grade ELA teacher and developing knowledge of inclusive instructional design. Specifically, I drew on my classroom experience facilitating Socratic seminars and noticing common student challenges, such as difficulty generating written responses, anxiety during discussions, and inconsistent access to complex text. I applied the Universal Design for Learning framework (CAST, 2018), particularly its principles of multiple means of engagement, representation, and action/expression. For example, I use my understanding of scaffolding and language support to design sentence stems and discussion frames, and I incorporated executive functioning support such as checklists and visual schedules. Tools used to create the artifact included Google Docs (table formatting) and my original lesson plan, which served as the foundation for aligning barriers and solutions. This artifact reflects an intentional shift from reactive teaching to proactive instructional design grounded in accessibility theory.
​
Scope
The purpose of this artifact was to redesign an existing 8th grade ELA lesson - focused on Claudette Colvin Twice Toward Justice - to ensure equitable access for all learners by identifying barriers and embedding UDL-aligned supports. This work was created for graduate coursework but directly applies to my professional classroom practice. Within the broader curriculum, this artifact represents a lesson-level instructional design refinement rather than full unit, specifically targeting a two-day Socratic seminar sequence.
​
For instance, within the scope of the lesson, I identified that the seminar format could create barriers for students with expressive language difficulties or social anxiety. In response, I embedded supports such as pre-writing opportunities, sentence stems, and alternative participation methods (e.g., written responses or small group discussion roles). Furthermore, I recognized that the complex historical text could present comprehension challenges, so I included chunked readings, audio options, and guided annotations. This demonstrates how the artifact fits within a larger curriculum by strengthening accessibility at a critical discussion-based assessment point.
​
Role
I served as the sole instructional designer and developer of this artifact. I independently analyzed my original lesson, identified potential barriers based on learner variability, and designed aligned UDL solutions. My role required both pedagogical decision-making and application of instructional design theory. For example, I determined which barriers were most likely to impact student success (e.g., difficulty processing auditory information during discussion) and designed specific supports such as written transcripts, anchor charts, and pre-teaching vocabulary. This process reflects my ability to translate theory into practical, classroom-based design decisions.
​
Instructional Design
This artifact reflects both the ADDIE model and the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (MRK) model through targeted analysis and design decisions.
From an ADDIE perspective, this artifact primarily represents the Analysis and Design phases (Molenda, 2015). During Analysis, I identified learner needs and barriers by examining how students might struggle with specific components of the lesson, such as annotation, discussion, and comprehension of complex text. For instance, I recognized that students with executive functioning challenges might struggle to manage seminar roles and expectations, leading me to include visual schedules and role reminder cards. During the Design phase, I developed aligned instructional supports, such as sentences frames, audio text options, and structured discussion protocols. These decisions reflect intentional instructional planning but do not yet represent Development, as no digital tools or platforms were implemented at this stage.
​
Within the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model, this artifact demonstrates several key components, including identification of felt needs, learner characteristics, instructional problems, and message design (Morrision et al., 2019). For one, I identified a felt need for increased accessibility in discussion-based learning and analyzed learner characteristics such as language proficiency, confidence levels, and reading ability. Message design is reflected in how supports were structured. For instance, using sentence stems to guide student discourse and chunked text to reduce cognitive overload. Moreover, this artifact reflects formative evaluation, as it functions as a design revision process to improve the effectiveness of the lesson before implementation. The work is also informed by cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988), as seen in reducing extraneous load through chunking and scaffolding, and constructivist learning theory, as students engage in meaning-making through discussion.
​
Related Performance Indicators
Standard 2: Content Pedagogy
-
2.2 Using appropriate pedagogical strategies to support diverse learners.
Reflection
This artifact represented a meaningful shift in my understanding of pedagogy because I went from designing for the “average” student to designing for variability from the start. At the time, I was begging to understand UDL conceptually, but this artifact pushed me to apply it concretely. For example, instead of simply acknowledging that some students struggle with discussion, I designed specific supports such as sentence stems, alternative participation options, and pre-writing structures to ensure all students could engage meaningfully. This directly reflects AECT Standard 2.2 because I used pedagogical strategies to support diverse learners within a specific instructional context.
​
Now at the end of my program, I recognized that while this artifact demonstrated strong design thinking, it represented an intermediate level of expertise. If I were to revise this artifact, I would deepen integration of technology to further remove barriers. For instance, I would incorporate tools such as text-to-speech software for reading support, collaborative platforms like Google Docs for real-time discussion contributions, and discussion apps that allow anonymous or asynchronous participation. Furthermore, I would more explicitly align each support to UDL checkpoints and include student choice in how they demonstrate understanding, strengthening both engagement and ownership.
​
This artifact also reflects my growth in anticipating learner needs rather than reacting to them. Earlier in my teaching, I might have addressed barriers only after students struggled. I would have possibly given help during the seminar instead of designing supports beforehand. Now, I approach instruction with a proactive, systems-level mindset rooted in instructional design. This shift demonstrates my development as an instructional designer who integrates pedagogy, accessibility, and theory to create more inclusive learning environments. Ultimately, this artifact shows my progression toward designing instruction that is not only effective, but equitable and responsive to all learners.
​
References
CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org
​
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.
​
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
​