Context & Conditions
This artifact was created during Spring 2025 in EDET 705: The Learning Experience at the University of South Carolina. The assignment required me to analyze a real-world lesson plan through the lens of learning science, connecting specific instructional moves to cognitive, developmental, and motivational theories. The structure of the assignment emphasized identifying key lesson components (e.g., Engage, Explore, Explain) and explicitly linking them to course concepts such as neuroplasticity, attention, memory, and motivation.
​
At the time of creation, I brought foundational knowledge of classroom instruction as an 8th grade ELA teacher, but I was still developing my ability to connect practice to theory. This artifact reflects my early attempts to apply concepts such as neuroplasticity, cognitive load theory, and Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) to instructional design decisions. For instance, I analyzed how hands-on stations support memory encoding and how partner work fosters motivation through relatedness. I also applied Lev Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development and Albert Bandura’s social learning theory to explain how modeling and peer interaction support learning. The artifact was created using a structured two-column format in Google Docs, allowing me to directly align lesson components with theoretical explanations. This work reflects my early integration of interdisciplinary learning science concepts into instructional analysis.
​
Scope
The purpose of this artifact was to evaluate the effectiveness of a 4th grade science lesson (“Making Waves”) by applying research-based learning theories to specific instructional strategies. This work was created for graduate coursework but mirrors authentic practices in instructional design, particularly in evaluating and improving curriculum. Within a broader curriculum context, this artifact represents instructional analysis and evaluation rather than lesson creation, focusing on how well a lesson supports learning processes.
​
For instance, I analyzed how the “Explore” phase uses hands-on stations (jump ropes, water, slinkys) to support experiential learning and reduce cognitive load by grounding abstract concepts in physical experiences. I also evaluated how the “Evaluate” phase incorporates retrieval practice through notebook responses and reflection, strengthening long-term memory. To complete this work, I had to develop knowledge of multiple learning theories simultaneously and determine how they intersect within a single lesson, which expanded my understanding of how theory informs instructional decision-making.
​
Role
I served as the sole analyst and instructional designer for this artifact. I independently selected and evaluated the lesson, identified key instructional components, and connected them to relevant learning science theories. My role required me to interpret both the lesson design and theoretical frameworks, then synthesize them into clear, evidence-based explanations. For example, I analyzed how the lesson’s use of partner work aligned with Vygotsky’s ZPD and how teacher questioning during stations functioned as scaffolding. I also evaluated how emotional engagement during the “Engage” phase (e.g., discussing real-world waves and videos) supports attention and memory formation. This demonstrates my ability to apply theory to practice, a key component of instructional design and research-based evaluation.
Instructional Design
This artifact reflects the ADDIE model and Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (MRK) model through its emphasis on analysis and evaluation of instruction.
​
In regards to an ADDIE perspective, this artifact primarily represents the Analysis phase and aspects of the Evaluation phase (Molenda, 2015). During Analysis, I examined how the lesson addressed learner needs, prior knowledge, and engagement. For example, I identified that the “Engage” phase activates prior knowledge by asking students about their experiences with waves, which supports schema activation and learning transfer. During Evaluation, I analyzed how instructional strategies supported or hindered learning outcomes, such as how interactive notebooks promote retrieval practice and memory consolidation. This artifact does not include Development, as no instructional materials were created, but instead focuses on evaluating existing instruction through a research lens.
​
Through the lens of the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model, this artifact demonstrates identification of instructional problems, learner characteristics, and evaluation strategies (Morrison et al., 2019). For instance, I analyzed how the lesson supports diverse learners through multimodal instruction (visual, kinesthetic, social), which aligns with learner characteristics and needs. The artifact also reflects message design, particularly in how content is sequenced from concrete (hands-on exploration) to abstract (vocabulary and concepts), supporting effective knowledge construction. Additionally, this work incorporates formative evaluation, as I identified strengths and potential improvements in instructional strategies based on research. The analysis is grounded in multiple theories, including cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988), constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978), and motivation theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), demonstrating how research informs instructional design decisions.
​
Related Performance Indicators
Standard 5: Research
-
5.1 Theoretical foundations.
-
5.3 Research to improve practice.
Reflection
This artifact represents one of my earliest attempts to explicitly connect learning theory to instructional practice, and it highlights both my growth and initial limitations as an instructional designer. At the time, I was able to identify relevant theories and explain them accurately, but my analysis sometimes remained at surface level. For example, I noted that hands-on learning supports memory, but I did not fully explain how this reduces cognitive load or strengthens encoding pathways in the brain. This shows that I was beginning to understand theory, but I had not yet developed the depth of application I now possess.
​
Since completing this artifact, I have developed a much stronger ability to use research as a design tool rather than just an explanatory lens. If I were to revise this artifact, I would incorporate more precise applications of theory. For instance, I would explicitly redesign parts of the lesson using cognitive load theory by reducing extraneous information in the reading phase and incorporating guided note-taking to support working memory. I would also apply Self-Determination Theory more intentionally by embedding student choice in the “Elaborate” phase, such as allowing students to choose how they demonstrate understanding (e.g., CER writing, visual models, or verbal explanation). These changes would move the artifact from analysis to actionable instructional improvement.
​
This artifact strongly reflects AECT Standard 5 because it demonstrates my ability to apply theoretical foundations to evaluate and improve instructional practice. For example, I used theories such as neuroplasticity and social learning to explain why specific strategies (e.g., partner work, repetition, reflection) are effective. Now, I go beyond explanation and design with these principles in mind from the start. This shift represents my growth into a practitioner who not only understands research, but uses it intentionally to create more effective, engaging, and cognitively aligned learning experiences.
​
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
​
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer.
​
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
​
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.