Context & Conditions
This artifact was created during Fall 2025 in EDET 703: Design and Development Tools II at the University of South Carolina. The assignment required the design and development of a fully functional scenario-based eLearning module using the 3Cs model (Challenge, Choices, Consequences). The project included both planning components (treatment report, storyboard, site map, and style guide) and a fully developed interactive product built using Adobe Captivate. The goal was to create an authentic, learner-centered experience that integrates instructional design theory with professional multimedia development practices.
​
At the time of creation, I brought strong foundational knowledge of instructional design and learning theory from previous coursework, along with developing technical skills in eLearning authoring tools. This artifact required me to apply principles from scenario-based learning, multimedia design, and cognitive processing in a much more sophisticated way than prior projects. For example, I applied the 3Cs Model (Kuhlmann) to structure the module around real-world digital dilemmas, such as evaluating online sources or composing professional emails. I also incorporated Merrill’s (2002) First Principles of Instruction , ensuring that learners engaged with authentic tasks, received immediate feedback, and practiced skills repeatedly. The design decisions were grounded in reducing cognitive load and supporting learner engagement through clear navigation, chunked content, and consistent visual design, as described in the treatment report.
Scope
The purpose of this artifact was to design and develop a 10-15 minute interactive eLearning module titled Digital Fluency 101: Create, Communicate, Collaborate, targeting middle school learners. The module focused on building digital literacy skills, including evaluating sources, detecting bias, composing professional communication, and understanding plagiarism. Within a broader instructional context, this artifact represents a complete instructional product, moving beyond planning into full development and implementation. For example, the module included multiple challenge points where learners had to make decisions (e.g., identifying whether a source is credible), followed by consequences and feedback that required them to revisit content before progressing. The site map visually shows how the module is structured into two main sections — Analyzing Sources and Digital Creation — with embedded challenge loops, reinforcing skill development through repetition and feedback. This demonstrates how the artifact functions as a standalone learning experience that could be used in a classroom or online learning environment.
​
Role
This was a collaborative project completed with one partner. I contributed to both the instructional design and development of the module, including the treatment reports, storyboard planning, and construction of interactive elements in Adobe Captivate. Specifically, I contributed to designing the instructional flow using the 3Cs model, ensuring that each challenge required meaningful decision-making and led to appropriate consequences. For instance, I helped design feedback loops where incorrect responses triggered review screens and required learners to reattempt tasks, rather than simply moving forward. I also contributed to visual and message design decisions, such as maintaining consistency in layout, color scheme, and navigation elements (e.g., progress bar, “Try Again” buttons), which supported usability and learner experience. My role reflects both conceptual design and hands-on development within a professional eLearning tool.
Instructional Design
This artifact reflects all phases of the ADDIE model, with a strong emphasis on Design and Development, as well as detailed alignment with the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (MRK) model.
From an ADDIE viewpoint, the project included Analysis, Design, Development, and Evaluation phases (Molenda, 2015). During Analysis, we identified the need for digital literacy instruction for middle school learners and examined authentic tasks related to online behavior. During Design, we created detailed planning documents, including a storyboard, site map, and treatment report outlining instructional strategies and interface design. During Development, we built the interactive module in Adobe Captivate, incorporating branching navigation, feedback loops, and multimedia elements. For instance, learners encountered challenge screens where they selected responses, received immediate feedback, and were redirected to review content if needed. Evaluation was embedded through formative feedback within the module, as learners continuously assessed their understanding through repeated attempts.
​
Within the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model, this artifact demonstrates learner analysis, instructional strategies, message design, delivery systems, and formative evaluation (Morrison et al., 2019). Learner characteristics were considered by designing for middle school students, using age-appropriate language, visuals, and scenarios. Message design is evident in the consistent layout described in the treatment report, where each screen includes clear headings, minimal text, and aligned visuals to reduce cognitive load. The delivery system, an interactive eLearning module, was intentionally selected to allow for branching, feedback, and learner control. Formative evaluation is embedded through the “Incorrect → Review → Reattempt” sequence, which supports mastery learning and self-regulation. Furthermore, the design reflects Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988) and Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer, 2009), particularly through chunked content, signaling, and dual-channel processing.
​
Related Performance Indicators
Standard 4: Professional Knowledge and Skills
-
4.1 Collaborative practice.
-
4.3 Assessing and evaluating processes and resources.
Reflection
This artifact represents one of the most advanced demonstrations of my instructional design skills in the program. At the time, I was beginning to feel confident not only in designing instruction, but in fully developing interactive learning experience using professional tools. For example, I was able to design branching scenarios where learners made decisions and received meaningful consequences, rather than simply progressing linearly through content. This reflects a shift from static lesson design to dynamic, learner-centered experiences.
​
However, from my current perspective, I can identify areas for growth. While the module effectively incorporates feedback and interactivity, I would now strengthen accessibility and user experience. I would do this by including audio narration with captions consistently, alternative text for visuals, and more flexible navigation options to support a fluidity for diverse learners. I would also incorporate more explicit data collection or analytics (e.g., tracking learner choices) to evaluate effectiveness beyond embedded feedback.
​
This artifact strongly aligns with AECT Standard 4 because it demonstrates my ability to apply professional knowledge and skills in a collaborative, real- world design context. For example, I worked with a partner to design, build, and refine a fully functional eLearning module, integrating instructional theory, technical tools, and user-centered design principles. Compared to earlier artifacts, this work shows significant growth in my ability to move from theoretical understanding to professional-level execution, positing me as a capable instructional designer ready to develop complex, technology-supported learning environments.
References
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
​
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.
​
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024
​
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4