Context & Conditions
This artifact was developed during Summer 2025 in EDET 780: Research Seminar in Educational Technology at the University of South Carolina. The assignment required students to summarize and critique a recent empirical study in learning design and technologies and propose a methodologically sound follow-up investigation. The project emphasized scholarly analysis, research design, and evaluation practices central to instructional design decision-making.
At the time of creation, I applied developing knowledge in educational research methods, online learning environments, and evaluation of technology-supported instruction. Skills brought to this artifact included literature synthesis, methodological critique, survey and interview design, and interpretation of quantitative and qualitative research approaches. The work drew on mixed-methods research design, thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), and principles of learner-centered online learning. Tools included Google Docs, academic databases, and APA scholarly communication practices. The artifact reflects early integration of research theory with instructional design thinking.
Scope
The purpose of this artifact was to demonstrate the ability to critically evaluate educational technology research and design an improved study addressing methodological limitations. The work was produced for graduate coursework but reflects authentic practices used in instructional design evaluation and learning analytics contexts. For example, this artifact analyzes limitations in sampling (a single institution of medical students) and data collection (exclusive reliance on self-report survey data) and proposes a revised mixed-methods study incorporating stratified sampling across five universities and semi-structured interviews to deepen understanding of student experience.
Within the broader program curriculum, the artifact represents analysis and evaluation competencies. It contributes to understanding how digital learning systems influence learner satisfaction and instructional effectiveness. For instance, the proposed study specifically examines how technical service quality—such as platform usability, connectivity, and responsiveness of support systems—impacts student satisfaction across disciplines, linking research findings to actionable improvements in online learning design.
Role
I served as the sole author, researchers, and instructional designer-in-training for this artifact. My responsibilities included selecting an empirical study, conducting critical analysis, synthesizing supporting literature, identifying methodological gaps, and designing a follow-up mixed-methods study. All researching planning, writing, and methodological decisions were completed independently, demonstrating my individual competency in research-informed instructional design.
Instructional Design
This artifact reflects components of both the ADDIE instructional design model and the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model, particularly within analysis and design activities. From an ADDIE perspective, the artifact primarily represents the Analysis and Design phases (Molenda, 2015). During Analysis, I identified instructional problems and learner needs by critiquing methodological limitations in the original study, including restricted sampling and reliance on self-report data. This functioned similarly to a needs assessment in instructional design. During Design, I developed aligned research questions, participant sampling strategies, data collection instruments, and procedures. Since no instructional product was created, Development activities were not represented in this artifact.
Within the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model, the artifact demonstrates identification of felt needs, clarification of instructional aims and goals, analysis of learner characteristics, and attention to message design through construction of survey items and interview protocols (Morrison et al., 2013). Planning for instrument validation and mixed-methods triangulation reflects formative evaluation processes. The iterative nature of critique and redesign mirrors the Kemp model’s non-linear systems approach. Constructivist perspectives also influenced the study’s focus on learner experience within technology-mediated environments.
Related Performance Indicators
AECT Standard 5: Research
-
5.1 Theoretical foundations
-
5.2 Research methodologies
-
5.3 Research to improve practice
Reflection
This artifact represents an important transition point in my development as an instructional designer. At the time, my understanding of research was primarily interpretive, meaning I was more comfortable summarizing and explaining research findings than critically evaluating methodology or designing original studies. This project required me to critique methodology and design a study capable of generating actionable evidence. The work demonstrates emerging proficiency in connecting research analysis with instructional improvement, particularly within online learning environments. For example, I moved beyond identifying that technical service quality was important and instead designed a study to investigate how and why factors like platform usability and support responsiveness influence student satisfaction across contexts.
From my current perspective near the end of the program, this artifact reflects intermediate rather than expert knowledge. While the proposed study shows logical alignment between research questions and methods, I would now strengthen theoretical integration by incorporating motivational frameworks such as the ARCS model (Keller, 1987) and cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988). For example, the study could examine how technical service quality supports learner attention and confidence (ARCS), or how poorly designed platforms increase extraneous cognitive load, negatively impacting satisfaction and learning outcomes. Integrating these frameworks would strengthen the connection between system design and learner experience beyond surface-level satisfaction measures. I would also integrate usability testing and learning analytics approaches that I have since learned through later coursework.
This artifact aligns strongly with AECT Standard 5 because it demonstrates application of research methods to improve technology-supported learning environments. Since completing this project, I have developed stronger skills in instructional alignment, accessibility, and learner-centered evaluation. The artifact marks a shift toward viewing research as a design tool rather than solely an academic exercise, such as using data to inform decisions about platform design, support systems, and instructional delivery methods that directly impact student experience and engagement, illustrating my growth into a practitioner-scholar who uses evidence to guide instructional decisions.
References
Molenda, M. (2015). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 54(2), 40–42.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2013). Designing effective instruction (7th ed.). Wiley.